Ditching "Happily Ever After"

Addie, a three year-old girl that I babysit, recently feel in love with the movie Enchanted: a Disney fairy-tail about a princess who escapes her cartoon form, enters the 'real world', falls in love, and ends up living happily ever after. The movie opens with the main character, Giselle, singing as her bird friends fly to her window. One day, after Addie had watched Enchanted continuously for a week, she ran down from her room, hysterical. When her mom asked what was wrong, Addie, through tears, answered, "I sang and the birds didn't come flying to my window!"

Although as we age, we don't respond as dramatically as Addie did when "fairy-tails" don't come true in our lives, we still experience disappointment. We live in a culture where we are constantly bombarded with the notion that fantasies, grown-up fairy-tails, are realistic. But unfortunately, these fantasies are what they are: unattainable lives of perfection. Fantasies are not destructive when they are viewed as such; in many cases they can be stress relievers and vacations from the real world. It is when we start to see fantasies as normal and realistic that we set ourselves up for discontent and unhappiness.

For instance, many of the women of Jennifer Maher's article, "What Do Women Watch?," revel in the pleasure of watching "reality TV" on TLC because of the content they feel when they see that "perfect love and happiness" is possible. And then, when these women discover that the "real romantic life is not as exciting as the televised narrative," they begin the painful and destructive cycle of watching fantasies that evoke the same romantic emotions and continually becoming discontent with the lack of perfection in their lives (Maher 90).

These fantasies we are bombarded with not only inevitably lead us to dissatisfaction and unhappiness if we understand them as realistic. They also serve to cause us to objectify other people of this world. In his article, "Picture Perfect," Douglas Rushkoff shares that after relving in the fantasies that the American media had overwhelmed him with, he looked for a partner of perfection. But he recognized the problem with this: human's aren't perfect. He wasen't relating to these potential partners as real people; he was relating to them as objects...potential trophy wives. He reflects that, "Looking at a potential romantic partner through a lens like this (one that demanded perfection) was doomed to failure."

So what are we to do in a world that falsely brainwashes us into thinking that "happily ever after" is a reachable ideal? Rushkoff writes that he has "found 'the one.' precisely because she's the one who's forced [him] to realize there's no such thing." He ditched the scripts that demanded that he find perfection. In other words, to be truly HAPPY, we must grow up and ironically realize that "HAPPILY ever after" is truly a fantasy: it doesn't exist in our world.

Eyeing New Worlds

This week's readings focused on very modern dilemmas of family. To begin a discussion on family, we must recognize some very important changes that have occurred within our own lifetime regarding the dynamics of American families. Not even as little as ten years ago would our culture have been as open as it has become to adding gay couples and their children to the definition of family, or allowing room for "stay at home dads" to be accepted. Our generation has truly been one of the first that has gotten to witness how a world can begin to alter its perception of things as ingrained into society as family. With that being said, however, there are still battles to face before the definition and dynamics of family become truly all-inclusive. And one of the most vital areas of change needs to focus around the accepted roles of fatherhood.

I grew up in what I would consider a feminist household; and that included my dad. Actually, my dad is one of the biggest activists I know when it comes to fighting for things on the feminist agenda. There is no question, in my mind, that female athletes in Minnesota would have less amazing opportunities, such as playing in the State Tournament at the Xcel Energy Center, had he not fought battles with the Minnesota State High School League regarding the inequality of treatment of male vs female athletes; and that is just one example. None-the-less, even with my dad's feminist influence, we are not a household completely free of the gender-dynamic influence of our society. When my sister and I were young, my mom was a stay at home mom. I guess I never really asked why it was her who chose to stay home versus my dad, but it would not be out of the question that my dad, like the men in Gerson's article, "felt too 'demoralized' to consider staying home." This more than likely wasn't because he felt as if my mom was incapable to work. It was instead because he felt it was his job to be the Alpha male: the one protecting and providing. It is my assumption that it is for this reason that he has to be the one who drives when the whole family is in the car together. He often reasons, "I don't want anyone else to have to take the responsibility of making sure this family is safe." My dad may be one in a million to me, but in reality his feelings aren't uncommon of fathers in our society.

So what are we to do in a nation where women are coming closer and closer to making up the majority of the workplace? To have a stay-at-home world that is all inclusive, as Gerson suggested, we need to "...prompt wider social acceptance of egalitarian households, bolstering the option to make such choices." This movement towards domestic equality demands an ability to overcome the obstacles to change social constraints (Gerson 328). Our culture must eventually come to recognize that fathers have a tremendous ability to be great role models for their sons and daughters, and for society in general, by taking up the mammoth job of stay-at-home dad. Not only do children benefit from their unique perception of alternate gender dynamics in this instance, but they also "develop a flexible approach to building their own lives." (Gerson 327) This is perhaps the greatest gift we can give the children of this nation...the idea that they can truly become what ever and who ever they want to be.

We are coming to a point where we are at least considering what this world could look like with all-inclusive parenthoods; meaning that society allows room for "stay-at-home dads" to be accepted and valued. But, we are not there yet. So today, it is still a vision we look to and consider, while some battle society's expectations and try to enter.

Screw you society. I am a REAL athlete. DEAL WITH IT.

Before writing this blog, I thought of this past week's subject, embodiment, like it was a cloud floating above my head; I knew it was there and it existed, but I felt unable to fully grasp it. The notion that society constructs gendered bodies in unhealthy, unrealistic, and disempowering ways was built by a wide variety of texts; from the one about Magic Johnson to the one about a dying anorexic young woman. And yet, I was stubborn and did not allow myself to see my reflection in any of them. You see, I thought of myself as a girl who had skipped the whole attempting to conform to society's expectations thing. And therefore I felt unable to relate and fully understand it. Unlike what seems to be 99% of young women my age, I really have never felt a need to eat less, lose weight, or go on some sort of diet. I mean, I would prefer any day to have the bulging biceps of a gymnast versus the upper arms of a runway model that are as tiny as my wrists. And I happen to love the quote, "Real girl's have six packs; other girls just drink them." (Even though I have a lot of ab exercises to do before I can claim owning a six pack!) But as I reflected on this truth, I came to realize that although I personally did not care about conforming to society, I did find myself becoming self conscious as a female athlete and wondering how me and my body could fit peacefully in this society.

Since the passage of Title IX in 1972, girl's participation in sports has increased tremendously. Today, female athletes make up only a little less than 50% of all athletes in the United States. And with this trend, you would think society (as it worships it male athletes) would at least modify itself to fit these females who are working to empower themselves through athletics. But sadly this is far from the case. Look no further than the fashion industry. Male models= athletic build. Female models= sticks with virtually no muscle (actually I would like to hypothesize that they have negative muscle mass. No joke, I think by their example this is possible).

By high school, it was clear that the fashion sector of our society hated me: I could not for the life of me find a pair of jeans that were the right waist, hip, thigh, and length all in one. Jeans apparently aren't made for the 3 million female high school athletes that live in America. Wait...no...I take that back. They ARE made for female athletes- but only the ones who fit society's definition of "female athleticism": having no fat and no muscle. But excuse me...what kind of real athlete has no fat and no muscle?! I think a female like this would break in half if a ball accidently hit her or she attempted to swing a tennis racket. Never-the-less, this is the expectation constructed by society for female athletes. Therefore, I, as a female athlete, am encouraged by society to hold a glass ceiling over my head. It is acceptable for me to work to become a "beautiful athlete" by slimming up; not a "good athlete" by bulking up. Society expects us to look good; not play good. Girls like myself must never believe in the opportunity to reach our best potential because God forbid we gain a little healthy fat or work hard for some muscle. Thus, it is acceptable for female athletes to be entirely unmotivated to increase their muscle mass and muscular endurance; and therefore we are encouraged to slam the door to the world filled with true female athletes: one's who refuse to give up on a dream just because society craves something else.

But when we refuse to slam the door, we as female athletes do not find ourselves alone. As a high schooler, I became self conscious about being an athlete with an athletic build. Why did I have to give up fashion (aka skinny jeans and the like) in order to be an athlete? Why did I enjoy EATING at lunch instead of sitting and gossiping about boys and make-up while pretending to nibble at my salad and obsessing over trying to get my body to become skin and bones? Why was I one of the only girls in the weight room after school? However, just in time, a couple role models of mine gave me the below ads from Nike. These images from a Nike Women's campaign ad can be both inspirational and empowering for young female athletes. They have the ability to teach girls that athleticism is a part of them that they should not let go of, and instead work hard with; no matter what society thinks or says about how their bodies should look. Every one of the ads speak to motivate female athletes to stand up and say, "Screw you society...I am a REAL athlete...deal with it."

green leaves and snow

Ok weird week, right? The leaves are still green. And it snowed. Doesn't seem right, does it? But maybe, against all odds, green leaves and snow can exist together. I will get to that later.

Ok, to recap, this weeks readings and discussion revolved around the discourses of privilege and patriarchy. There is no doubt that our society is a quintessence of a patriarchal society. Allan Johnson describes our system as one that "...[values] masculinity and maleness and [devalues] femininity and femaleness." We have standards of "...feminine beauty, masculine toughness...images of older men coupled with young women..." and call it "natural" when men are full of "aggression, competition, and dominance," and females of "cooperation and subordination." And if we as a class had any doubts about whether a strong patriarchal system was still in place in the United States, they came crashing down as 50 magazines were placed in front of us and not one stood out as un-patriarchal. Headlines that screamed to females "Hey you! We know how to make you look skinner, younger, and therefore more beautiful!" Pictures of men that couldn't have been less obvious in their idea of the fulfillment of ideal manhood: dominance, six packs, and independence.

Clearly, when it comes to the feminist agenda, we ideally would like to fight against the patriarchal system that is strongly in place in our society. And this week, we started formulating ideas of how we can go about fighting the system. One such idea, as discussed in class, was to not follow the path of least resistance. In other words, take the path less traveled or forge a new one. But, I am sitting here confused. LeAnn Womack sings, "Never settle for the path of resistance," but what if I like the path of least resistance? What I mean to say is that there are some things in our Patriarchal society that I might actually prefer to a non-patriarchal one. I mean, what if I like how guys sometimes find personal satisfaction in opening a door for me? Certainly, there were days of the past where I would find it rude and degrading if a guy opened a car door for me. I mean, honestly, I can open my own door. It took me awhile for me to realize that boys are fully aware that I am physically and mentally capable of opening a car door, but enjoy to open it for me anyway because they feel it is a way to show that they care. And besides self-sacrificing my ability to open a car door, what if I also sometimes find comfort in the fact that I have guys around me of whom I feel protected by? What if I take ease in the fact that I am not the one expected to fight-off the bad guys? What if I like being labeled a tom-boy and find it pretty amazing e that the females of my generation can get away with not fitting into the boundaries of femininity most of the time? Lastly, what if I find it pretty convenient that there isn't much, if any, pressure on me to become a specific something or live up to a legacy I was born into? What if I find it pretty awesome that I have the freedom to create my own legacy without it being compared to a relative of the past? Does this make me anti-feminist?

I know I would probably be answered with a resounding yes by many feminists for my question and ideas posed above, but for one second I needed to brutally honest. And here is why. I think I can exist as someone who both likes some things of patriarchal rule AND as a feminist. In fact, I am going to be cocky and say that I have the potential to be a stronger activist because of it. My ideas, interests, and thoughts do not exist in a black and white winter. Instead, they exist in this weird season that allows for green leaves and snow to dwell together. And maybe, just maybe, this season is part of the answer I was looking for earlier: perhaps it can help to explain how I can fit with all sorts of different ideas, beliefs, and viewpoints under the one umbrella of feminism.

"Green Leaves and Snowflakes" by Lindsey Weaver

getting out of a comfortlicious bubble

You know that annoying kid back from high school that would always, after getting back a text, go and argue with the teacher about a question that they thought they should have gotten more points on? Yea...hate to break it to you, but that was me. It may have not been worth it all of the time; I did cause myself some trouble as I destabilized some relationships with even my favorite teachers, but my arguments were always legit and I was always fighting for something I believed in. And because of that, I have ultimately never truly regretted being that kid; being an advocate for myself. Each teacher, in response to my challenge, handled their reaction differently. Some loved the game with me, and found it amusing when I would relentlessly try and find holes in their logic time and time again, and were eager to give me credit for at least trying. However, more often than not, teachers became immediately defensive and knew that they were the only ones that were right. They refused to open their minds to a different perspective and an alternate understanding. They were unwilling to recognize the possibility that there was not just one right answer. And, as was reinforced this week, this type of character does not just fit into my own personal stories and contexts. It is these type of people who, unfortunately, make up a large portion of American society- and humanity for that matter. It is these people, in the discussion of feminism, who narrow the ideas and goals of women's movements into an ideology that is one-size-fits-all; a one-size-fits-all that might as well be a size 0 women's skinny jeans that is expected to fit all of humanity.

The Women's Movement, historically, on a public level, has focused dominantly on fighting for the rights and attention to issues important to white, high to middle class women: issues such as equal pay for equal work, academic opportunities, and rights to make their own decisions for their own bodies. And, although issues like these are often important to the feminist circle that exists outside of the white upper and middle class realm, other issues important to minority women and even men have more than often been ignored or shoved to the side. Kate Shanley, a woman writing on the feminism experience of Indian women, works to expose the fact that feminism in not a "single, well-defined organization." Instead, in order to be successful, we must open our minds to the struggles of other women in the world, and what gender fairness means in contexts outside our own lens. As Shanley puts it, "...rather than seeing differences...we must practice a politics that allows for diversity in cultural identity...Feminism becomes an incredible powerful term when it incorporates diversity."

But what does "incorporating diversity" mean in terms of feminism? Easier said than done, right? In her article about Third World feminists, Uma Narayan, suggests that we must become aware of "the boundaries of [our] vision." In other words, I myself, as a human who grew up in a community of people who shared the same values, ideas, and experiences must recognize that I am extremely limited in my perspective. This self-account of myself allows me, as Narayan put it, "to see, with humility, and gratitude, and pain, how much one has been shaped by one's context".

But what happens next? I think this, for me, is something I have been struggling with as a sophomore Luther student. How can the context in which I am living make room for influences that live outside of it? How can I escape the power of the American media, the monopoly of people at Luther who grew up in my culture, and the influence in shaping my ideas ran by the demographically un-diversified group of people that exist in my day to day life? I don't know the full answer of that question yet. But through time I have come to recognize that I am not helpless: there are things that exist in my bubble that allow me to work on popping it. Things such as keeping an extremely open mind to all ideas and knowing that my ideas and values are not everyone's. And with this, we must be careful to recognize that there are people out there who have, not without difficulty, learned to become advocates for themselves, but there are also others who are not ready to move against the flow. Above all this, I have learned to seize opportunities, no matter how big or small, as they come to get out of my cultural "comfortlicious" bubble, such as signing up for a J-Term class in South Africa.

Although I don't have all the answers, I do know this: I have the desire to work to not become one of those teachers that I referred to in the beginning. I never want to be someone who refuses to open their mind to a different perspective and an alternate understanding; someone who is unwilling to recognize the possibility that there is not just one right answer.

Equality vs Fairness

Feminist. The F word. Somehow, no matter how much women have accomplished, feminist ideals seem to be an elephant in the room. An elephant whose head, after both the 1st and 2nd wave of the on going women's movement, keeps getting closer and closer to that glass ceiling right above it. But really, what is there not to celebrate about the struggles and accomplishments for the fight for feminist ideals? After all, at its most basic level, feminism is simply the act of striving for justice both as a woman individually and for women as a whole; big acts or small.

As we covered the broad topic of the history of feminism and the Women's Movement in the United States this week, I couldn't help but wander back to an important lesson that came out of the 2nd wave of the Women's Movement: there is no right or clear definition of women's justice. Feminism and women's justice means array of different things to an array to different people. Take the sports realm for example: you might have one girl who defines justice in her world as the opportunity to play on the football team. But, then you have another girl who doesn't think this is right because it would mean that she would have to compete with boys who wanted to come out for the volleyball team. Therefore, by this, we can see that it is possible to articulate at least two definitions of justice when it comes to the Women's Movement: equality and fairness.

On the surface, equality and fairness may hold the same connotations. I mean, when you were five what did you whine when your mom gave your brother more M&Ms than you (as in unequal amounts)? "But Mommmmm! That's Not Fair!" Am I right? But, in terms of feminism, we can come to understand that fairness and equality are far from one in the same. Feminists who push for equality can be defined as people who are in the mind-set that women's justice is possible only when differences between men and women are erased by laws and societal expectations that allow men and women to be treated differently. On the plus side, these feminists can be a powerful force when it comes to creating a world without a gender disparity in pay. However, with full equality in mind, it is hard to argue on the woman's side for some of the ideal's of feminism. For instance, post-birth rights in terms time allowed and paid for away from the office is not an equality issue. And, like the girl imagined above, wanting the opportunity to try out for the football team cannot be turned into an equality issue or else there is the possibility of all sports being dominated by boys/men and losing female participation.

In contrast to the feminist ideal of equality, feminists who push for fairness recognize that there, inborn to partly our biological make-up and partly to our society, differences between men and women. These feminists argue that the gendered world will only reach justice when women are somehow compensated for these differences. These feminists, especially powerful in the 2nd wave movement, helped to strengthen the argument for rights for pregnant women, the need for childcare centers, and the right to control their own bodies. Also, people who idealize this concept of feminism were most likely behind the formulation of scholarships for women pursuing a higher education that still persist today for areas of study that remain to be somewhat male-dominated such as engineering and physics.

Even though both equality and fairness ideals have helped feminists of Women's Movements to push towards gendered justice, it is important to recognize that neither of these two approaches are entirely satisfactory. Neither can answer fully what lies behind women’s successes and failures in striving for women’s justice. But besides their failures, the fairness and equality ideals in the realm of women's justice do have some important and powerful commonalities. For instance, both, in essence, strive to remove patriarchy, or the rule of men over social, economic, and political power in society. It is in this that they both confront the privileges of men and hold the belief that women’s justice can only be reached when women are viewed as independent beings instead of “simply derivatives of their relationships to men," as feminist Lynne Ford puts it. For, to end, this fight is the BIG one- it was this one that sparked the momentum for the Women's Movement that continues on to this day.

The words of my reflection this week are simple: equality does not equal fairness. However, the image that I am using to represent that idea is far from strait forward in its meaning. And, with that I think I will have a little fun this Thursday night and leave it open for interruption :)

Freedom and Others

This weeks readings focused on a 21st century controversy: the meanings and perceived symbolism of the female veil or body covering. Before reading the works picked for this week, I had not consciously thought much about the feelings and thoughts that the veil stirred in me as a person emerged in American culture. But, after having time to consciously reflect on my previous knowledge and feelings of and for the veil, I have realized that I was very much consumed and blindsided by the Western's perception of it. However, after the readings and discussions of this weeks class, I have come to understand that the ideas and discussion surrounding the veil, contrary to what our society may suggest, is not monolithic. Instead, there is a much broader and much more fairer thinking and focus in terms of what the veil means and symbolizes. To access this, we must put the people in which the veil is part of personal daily life ahead of the brainwashing and stereotypical construction the media does a good job of doing.

Perhaps the most powerful image in terms of what Westerners think of the veil involves it's connection to Islam. As author Martha Wand pointed out, "Many Westerners believe that, Islam is a monolithic, omnipresent force whose purpose is to lock up women" (Islamic Middle East: Veiled Separations 149). However, when we close our own cultural lens and open our ears to the people who experience female covering day in and day out, we come to understand that this is not the case. Instead, women have immense differences and motivations for wearing the veil, few of which include a feeling of submission. For instance, for some women, the burqua enhances: "...the burqua beautifies in a spiritual sense...Like a jewel, [the burqua] adds to what is already there. No matter how beautiful the woman, it cannot fail to make her even more so." Other women feel that covering themselves is a form of self expression in the sense it shows the importance of their faith and religion. As Gabriel Arkles put it, "Walking in [a] community as an out Muslim was an act of defiance...I loved making that statement" (The Scarf 249). These two reasonings are only two of many motivations of women to wear a body covering. Never the less, by these two examples it is clear that it is quite ignorant to think that a female body covering is an object of submissiveness and oppression, no matter what American culture may push us to believe.

This leads to the question of how American culture, and especially the American media have led us to believe what we do about both the veil, and Middle Eastern people in general. First, we must recognize the role of the public realm. Well respected public leaders of aided to creating the idea that Muslim men and women are "other," or un-normal. For example, Cherie Bush (Former Prime Minister Tony Blair's wife) more than once spoke of the need of the "we" (the west) to help "them" (the women of the Middle East) free a female spirit and give women a voice. In other words, "'We' women in the West are defined in contrast to the oppression that Afghan women suffer," says the book Muslim Women in America.

In addition to public actors, the American media mainly, has especially been powerful in separation Arab and Muslims for the norm. The media loves showing images of women going to the polling stations covered from head to foot in their niquab. By showing these, they, from what I perceive, aim to ask, "Isn't it odd that these female objects are allowed to actually vote?" Another example of the media's influence over our perception of Middle Eastern peoples is their choosing of photographs to represent their Middle Eastern stories. According to Muslim Women in America, conflict in the Middle East stories almost always feature a picture of an Arab males (31). In addition, studys say that when images of Muslim women are featured in news print, the women are almost always in a niquab and are commonly unnamed. This, according to the author, reinforces "the anonymity (and invisibility) attributed by the veil" (31).

For my reflection this week, I chose to make an art piece that related to the controversy to answer the question, "What is freedom?" in the context in which we studied it. On the left hand side is the Afghanistan Miss Universe contender in her bikini who was praised by Westerners for her "free-spirit" and for representing the "new Middle Eastern woman." Also, there is a quote from Mattel, manufacturer and creator of Barbie that, with out saying it, condemns Iraq for their 'active reinforcement in the submissiveness of women'. On the other side, I have reflected on the inside perspective to the Muslim veil that I have gained this week by my spotlighting my favorite quote of the week that was in response to Miss Afghanistan's choice to step out in her bikini, and with this I will leave you with. Have a good weekend! I'll try and bring back some sunshine from California when I come back Sunday!

Habiba Sorabi's quote in case you can't read it from my artwork:

"Appearing naked before a camera or television is not women's freedom but in my opinion is to entertain men."