Feminine Genius

Whenever I've hear the term "feminine genius" in a Catholic setting, I've always felt like I'd heard it before but couldn't remember where. Finally, after hanging out with a bunch of Catholic menopausal women, it clicked.

My Catholic all-women's college library had a wealth of books about midwifery, menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, birth, and "feminine" bodily experiences altogether. Most of these had been written and self-published from the 70's through the mid-90's with a strong emphasis on herbal remedies. "Our Bodies, Ourselves" was perhaps the most groundbreaking as it was the first medical book that explained, among many other things (red flags of domestic abuse & how to survive it, for example), the realities of female bodies without telling said female bodies what they should do to fill a certain agenda. A few of these books used the term "feminine genius" to mean the treatment of "feminine" bodily changes - it's foolish to claim, these books argued, that any & all actions done by a mind within a "feminine" body would automatically be "feminine" acts. Obviously, this made an impression!
"Feminine genius" involved the wisdom of midwives & doulas, the easing of hot flashes, and methods to soothe the aching breast growth of pubescent, pregnant, and transgender women. "Feminine genius" didn't assume that someone who menstruates, miscarries, or goes through menopause will just automatically comprehend what's happening and deal with it in a vacuum. What I took away from these studies was primarily the knowledge of reusable menstrual products, although apparently much more has stayed with me.

I guess I had so thoroughly absorbed this understanding of "feminine genius" that I'd forgotten where I had first heard it. Discovering that the alternative use of the term, put forth by celibate men, excludes the "feminine genius" that I learned in college is sometimes like walking on an alien planet. Where are the cushioned seats for women going through menopause? Where is the outcry against disposable menstrual products that don't biodegrade? Where is the protection of preteen girls, not protection of their "purity," as their bodies change beyond their control?

Anything that proclaims "feminine genius" as a presumption of how all feminine people should be, rather than the realities lived by diverse feminine people, is not something I want a part of.

More Thoughts on Catholicism's Matriarchy

This podcast is a fascinating presentation on "Mary as Icon and the Feminine Genius."  Although I don't necessarily agree with all of it, it's vital for conversation on the Feminine in Catholicism to continue.  I've been working on this idea for a long time that the Catholic community is more matriarchal than most people anticipate: all the Marian shrines in yards, decals on cars, prayer cards, bedside statues, pendants, flowers, candles and rosaries evidence a feminine prominence.  Future archaeologists will likely look back on Catholics and determine their practice as matriarchal, based solely on these common items. 
Mary, in this podcast, is referred to as both the Tabernacle (Even the picture of the Tabernacle in the image above, which is referenced in the podcast, is vaginal) and as the Mother of the New Covenant.  It's very important to put words to these concepts, which are often vaguely accepted in the background without much thought.  Not only do these ideas about Mary reinforce Catholicism's connections with Pagan folklore and spirituality, but also empower women in the Church more than the patriarchal hierarchy has for centuries.  As women are the most active laypeople, at least in America, a communal understanding of being more than fundraisers, Sunday School teachers and secretaries (read: assistants) could be a valuable foothold in the Catholic community.

Also, I just had no idea how profound Eastern Orthodox iconography is.  Here I just thought it was a way of saying "look at all our money!"

Marylike Standards for: Modesty in Dress

I found a pamphlet today, at Church of Gesu in Milwaukee, entitled "The Marylike Standards for: Modesty in Dress."  Printed by The Fatima Center, fatima.org is their site.  Inside, The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI is quoted on women's clothing - words from 100 YEARS AGO!!  Then there's a checklist of 7 points regarding measurements and material of women's clothing.  Very precise.

There is the statement "Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress."  Christian womanhood in terms of apparel?  Don't different Christian women find solace and support in different models for different reasons?  Allowing quarter-length sleeves sure is accommodating, but I'd be more concerned about protecting ALL women from sexual assault.  Which brings me to my next point -

"A girl who follows these...she will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others."  A person can't be an occasion of anything because a person is a person.  I don't know what The Fatima Center meant by "occasion of sin" but I do know that clothing is not responsible for sexual assault or rape, the rapist is.  And if anyone should be ashamed, it's the person who chooses to be embarrassed by another person's appearance.  The Fatima Center seems to have forgotten much of the Gospels, particularly Luke 7:36-50.  Church of Gesu had no similar pamphlets regarding men's garb or behavior, nor does Fatima.org mention any such modesty in dress for men.

And lastly, The Fatima Center holds no respect for women's decisions regarding their own bodies.  Slacks, jeans and shorts are banned - how is a woman supposed to run or jump or climb or bike?  Shouldn't this be an individual's decision?

gurl.com

In the late 90's, gurl.com was an internet haven.  Modeled after riot grrrl zines with strong emphasis on DIY and self-love, it was a gritty alternative to other teen girl sites.  Celebrities were rarely mentioned and diets were considered personal decisions based on medical advice.  Political awareness was prioritized over designer labels, but nothing was more important than supporting one another through self-care and exploration.  The discussion forums were remarkable with intelligent conversation.

Miserable in my unstable environment and barely grasping feminism, I adored gurl.com.  At 13 I'd been put on Prozac against my will and it only made things spiral even further; my research and discussion on gurl.com convinced me to fake-swallow the pill - the advisers and peers on there listened to me more than my mother and her shrink!!  On top of all that, talking to others in my position made me realize I wasn't so alone: other girls had depression, preferred music from the 60's, weren't allowed outside of their houses, had crushes on girls, admired goth kids just for dressing goth, experimented with religion, etc.  Although a few years went by before I got into riot grrrl music and feminist comics and zines, gurl.com at least provided me with the awareness that such things existed.

There were fantastic by-girls-for-girls comics.  They illustrated what other teen girl media either ignored or poorly parodied: school cliques, the destructive and addictive inner voice of self-doubt, being torn between passion over something nerdy and wanting popularity, eating disorders and anti-depressants.  One comic that I remember very vividly was about an outcast girl who glamorized her depression, convincing herself that she was really an outcast because of her cynicism rather than because of her shyness and extremely neglectful parents.  Until seeing that, I'd had no idea that's what I'd been doing.

gurl.com also released this book, which I adored but wasn't allowed to buy.  At least this is still available for teen girls today.

The site has changed a LOT.  About 12 years ago, it began to actively compete with other teen girl sites with the strategy of emulating them.  Having switched from desperate preteen to counseling young adult, I was very disappointed in the shift.  User contribution had less influence and, besides, I was socializing more in real life finally.  Today, gurl.com is closer to its original mission with realistic dating advice, comics, sex-positive and factual sex ed, and self-love.  However, celebrity gossip and trendy fashion still hold sway.  Nevertheless, gurl.com was very helpful for awkward girls in the late 90's and early 00's and I hope it can still do the same today.

Sexual Objectification

http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html

A friend posted this on her facebook.  She and her peers are religious, involved mothers and they all commented about how relieved they are that being religious, involved mothers combats early sexualization.
I pointed out that I was under the impression as a child that I would marry by 16.  My mother and the mothers who volunteered at my Catholic school (which, I discovered much later on, was an extremist parish) all emphasized that little girls should prepare for marriage constantly until they're at the altar - sexualization was encouraged, though in manners less obvious than skimpy clothing.  Religious, involved mothers can do more damage than good - another lady commented about how her mother actually pushed her in the opposite direction and hated sexuality.
Nobody in this discussion on the article replied to my point, but eventually one of them commented "It's as though the women's movement created more objectification than less of it."

At first glance, that line of thinking isn't illogical.  Magazines, commercials, billboards, etc. show highly sexualized women, which didn't exist before the women's movement.  Women in advertising back then were still objectified and portrayed as stupid, only they were fully clothed.
However, women in general were more objectified, to the point of being considered property of father/husband.   Higher education was discouraged for women because it made her a less serene servant - and nobody saw the problem in proclaiming this conundrum bluntly.  Women themselves chose to abandon education in order to objectify themselves.
So I replied to this lady " the women's movement made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife...so no."  What more obvious example is there that the women's movement gave women human status?
She replied "that's a law, this article is about culture."

......WHAT?!?!?!?  Don't laws come about through cultural shifts??!?  
The women's movement is incomplete, it isn't finished.  It gave women choices, that's what feminism is.  Because women are still valued most highly as sex objects, many women still CHOOSE to fulfill that.  Feminism is still working to elevate women's minds to equal societal value.  I hate to say it, but the women who choose to be sex objects are perhaps the biggest obstacle to feminism.

Egalitarian Catholic Spirituality

The Virgin Mary is worshipped throughout Catholicism almost as much as, if not more than, Jesus. A few years ago, a large group of Catholics actually petitioned the Vatican to elevate Mary to Jesus' level - they were turned down because that's not how theology works.

The hierarchy and doctrine of the Church have a long history of misogyny, heterosexism, and mistreatment of women. Women must be subservient, silent, obedient, and serene breeders (if not chaste virgins for life).

In practice, however, particularly among the lower classes, the spirituality of Catholics is more woman-centric. Check how many shrines to Mary are in your neighborhood, how many rosaries hang from rearview mirrors (or that people wear, which a good Catholic isn't technically supposed to do), how many Mary/rosary tattoos you see. Then all the Catholic woman saints and leaders: St. Joan of Arc, Dorothy Day, St. Barbara, Mother Theresa, St. Ursula, Princess Diana (I'm aware that she was Anglican, but that didn't stop my childhood parish from praying to her), etc. In spiritual practice, Catholicism gets rather egalitarian.

The hierarchy may topple from the scandals in a largely secular world, but people will continue the rituals, symbols, traditions, etc. of Catholicism. Which means the worship of a female icon isn't going away anytime soon.

The Vagina Monologues

The V Day Campaign, the season in which The Vagina Monologues performs, is upon us again. Formed 14 years ago and still going strong, The Vagina Monologues (the play, the book, the movement) balances validating activism, unity, good humor, and welcoming. Through story-telling, awareness is awakened: the personal is still political.

I first read The Vagina Monologues in spring '04, right around the time I graduated high school. Until reading it, I thought that I was malformed and diseased - too mortified and ashamed to talk to anyone about it. The controversy around The Vagina Monologues, years after it began, had sparked my interest in my budding feminism. Oddly enough, I was working as a receptionist in a Catholic parish office when I first read it! (I also read Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix at that job!) Before reading Eve Ensler's magnum opus (opa?), I was honestly not aware that anything between my knees and my neck existed. My physical self-awareness was sparked by The Vagina Monologues, and by no means am I alone in that.
From there came The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, CUNT by Inga Muscio, The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, flannel menstrual pads, menstrual sponges, menstrual cups, vibrators, sex positivity, trans advocacy, and everything I have going on today.

Spring '09 was the first time I actually saw The Vagina Monologues play, which I co-assistant managed at my internship at The Milwaukee Gay Arts Center. My all-women college, Alverno, also hosted a student-run performance as well - it was ridiculously difficult to get a performance approved there!! You'd think that an all-women college would have been among the first places to advocate anything that supports women's awareness, but they were so afraid of being pegged as a "lesbian school".
Before seeing the play, The Vagina Monologues really felt like a private, personal, secret thing of my own. It was MY experience, shared with others who didn't seem real. Sitting in FOUR sold-out shows, though, opened up the doors to this community. Matrons, young girls, transwomen, lesbians, sex workers, rape survivors, virgins, allies - all these people seeking validation and finding community. It was a powerful thing, which made The Vagina Monologues more real as a social force powered by shared experience.

Socialized Men and Woman, Service Professions

Among the major differences between socialized men and women, at least in America, is between our options. For men, many career options are presented, including service professions (more specifically, the military and clergy). They have an array of informed choices at their disposal*. For women, though, the only career option is service. A woman must make her own alternative options, fighting her way down that path the whole way.



* though certain career/life professions, such as homemaker and nurse, are considered emasculating for a man. After all, why would a man knowingly choose a woman's role when it's clearly subservient?

Full, Free Documentary: Miss Representation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SGlSkdKzolo

The thing is, and I thought this when I interned at Project Girl, it isn't entirely "the media's" fault that depression and eating disorders are so prevalent - a strong support system in an individual's life can help overcome that influence. But altering mainstream standards is easier than providing personal support to millions of people.

Women Dumbing Down

I've been out of school for two and a half years now and my post-Alverno College, post-women's college, outlook keeps shifting. I see women behaving in the same ways, but with drastically different outcomes between the feminine cloister and the outside world.

At Alverno, there were plenty of students who dumbed themselves down. Normally, they feared insulting someone who might not be as intelligent, which is a twisted kind of empathy that I have yet to see in men. Yes, there have been plenty of women who have complained "so-and-so thinks she's so smart, blah blah blah she's so stuck up." That's even been said of me, when I thought that I was just doing a favor by providing information.
More understandably, these students just didn't want an extra workload!!

In the normal world, there are women who dumb themselves down because they think that they won't be liked otherwise. In private, they might be extraordinarily intelligent; publicly, they feign stupidity. A friend of mine does this and I found out, through one-on-one conversation, that she's very interested in feminist theory (ironic, huh?). Whenever we meet up in a group, I jump in before she has a chance to say something stupid, "hey tell me about the book you're reading!" With others, attempts to get to know them are blockaded by "teehee, look at this cute pic in my phone!"

I'll admit that I sometimes dilute my intelligence, though not to such a degree. Rather than blathering "theory theory theory blah blah blah," I'll see how the conversation goes while asking questions; then I'll point out "what you're saying is similar to blah blah blah theory." I do this because pouring out all I know isn't a conversation, it's a monologue and nobody will learn anything from that. It's more effective and more enjoyable to back off for a little while.

Women Protagonists

I prefer women protagonists in novels. However androgynous I identify, the way I'm usually perceived in the world, is as a woman. Protagonists who are treated as women in their worlds are more appealing, interesting, validating and relate-able to me.
Not all women protagonists in general. Although they are among my favorite authors, Lois L'Amour, Isaac Asimov and John Green (he may be removed from this list come January!) have rather one-dimensional, sometimes sloppy women characters. Asimov's Susan Calvin, to use the most famous example, is a feminist's heroine for being a strong-willed, intelligent woman of science; he managed to touch a few chords with her, but it isn't her cold demeanor that makes her so distant from the reader.
Clearly, making a general character, however strong, female isn't enough. However powerful or weak, pleasant or hostile, the way a woman character moves in her world can make the novel invaluable.

- "She's Come Undone" by Wally Lamb
- anything ever written by Toni Morrison
- "Their Eyes Were Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston
- "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak
- "The Color Purple" by Alice Walker
- anything ever written by Virginia Woolf
- "The Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath
- "Fear of Flying" by Erica Jong
- "A Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood
- "Clan of the Cave Bear" by Jean Auel
- "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" by Milan Kundera
- "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins
- "Valley of the Dolls" by Jacqueline Susann

Feminine Domesticity

Wanderlust, the antithesis of domesticity, is a masculine characteristic. And, likewise, domesticity is feminine. I have a very high wanderlust and, frankly, I don't want this to be a gendered quality. For a few years, I've been exploring masculinity and experimenting with masculine traits. The implication, though, that feminine women stay at home precisely because of their femininity concerns me. I don't mean housewifery specifically, also settling down sooner/younger than men and not exploring beforehand.

Many feminine women, particularly from college, say that they admire my "bravery" in traveling disconnected from domestic obligations. That's great, though it isn't exactly "bravery" to follow your dreams and it would be more of a compliment for these women to live their own lives. These women also fear for me. What does this accomplish?!

Perhaps feminine women are more domestic because home is a safehaven from misogyny. Which isn't to say that misogyny doesn't happen in the home, but the facade of control can be held up there more than out in the world. And for all their masculinity, butch lesbians get very domestic and eager to settle down. They tend to get twice the bullshit: misogyny + homophobia. With the understanding that home is a safehaven from these social forces, butches would be even more driven to build and maintain one. This certainly helps explain why lesbians jump into relationships so quickly: to feel safe together from shared bullshit.

And I may be exempt from gender-related domesticity because home wasn't a safehaven for me. The road is my safehaven.

Decreasing Marriage Rates in Asia

According to an article in The Economist, marriage rates in Asia are decreasing dramatically - partl because there are just more men (by 2050, there will be 60m more men of marriageable age than women) and partly because it is more advantageous for women to remain single. Education, business, health care and urbanization all improve the lives of single women, while the lives of marriage women stay the same in traditionally family-oriented cultures.

In Asian cultures, women with the least education are more likely to marry. In the West, however, women with degrees are more likely to marry. I theorize that this is because of a woman's role in a poor family. Among poor Asians, a daughter is another mouth to feed: send her away to take care of her (potentially wealthier) in-laws. Among poor Westerners, a daughter is another contributer to her family's funds: why send her away to fund another family?

Also, cohabitation rates have risen in the West while marriage has fallen. This reflects on the poor image we have of marriage: it's expensive to begin and to end (and there's a 50% chance it'll end). The habits of cohabitating couples aren't different from those of married couples. In Asia, though, the extremely low rate of cohabitation hasn't changed. The low rate of marrying women doesn't reflect on marriage, but on a traditional woman's role when she isn't single. They don't want their mothers' lives: they don't want to take care of anyone other than themselves.

Ther are also far fewer options in Asia for working mothers than in the West.

Come the 2050 sex divide, perhaps there will be an influx in clergy. People have used religious vocation to solve social/economic problems before. This article suggests that the 60m unmarriable men will topple the concept of universal marriage. I wonder if an honorable role for these men will be formed - clergy has been the common way to do that in previous times.

Fulfilling Stereotypes

Having attended an all-women college, living in the dorms the entire time, I realize that those were five years spent away from normal men. Aside from standard social divisions such as race, age, sexuality, etc., the main split between us students was between nursing majors and everybody else. By no means were all nursing majors vapid, shallow and dependent - just like not all non-nursing majors were deep, analytical and independent. When someone who didn't major in nursing was referred to as a "nursing major," the reference of her mind was understood.
And, aside from a few faculty members, security guards, and boyfriends of friends, men were not a social group in my mind. Because I only knew them as individuals, I thought of them as individuals rather than as representatives of a gender.

So when I graduated and came back to reality, I was extremely hesitant in thinking along the lines of "men this" and "men that." When I'd read/hear women complain that men take up too much space, I didn't want to believe it. The main division, in my mind, was still between nursing majors and everybody else, devoid of gender...alright not entirely. It's saddening to see a woman fulfill the "nursing major" stereotype because she can't imagine her own independence and value.

And now, after two years of almost daily public transportation, it's much more difficult to question women who claim that men take up too much space. About two-thirds of the people who cram me against the bus/train wall, rub up against me unnecessarily or push me into the aisle are men - all of the people who intentionally do these things are men (how do I know it's intentional? They look right at me while doing it and the women apologize).
This is probably not a natural, biologically-based behavior - at least not any more than the vapidity of many women is based in biology. Granted, I don't know the backgrounds of most of the people who act along these stereotypes, but I'd like to believe that these behaviors are nurtured socially.

In essence, a lot of people make it rather difficult to not categorize them along stereotypes.

A New Trend

Firstly: http://thoughtsonblank.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/i-am-trans-i-just-dont-try-very-hard/

And then my real post:

Either I've struck gold or there's a new trend - I'm choosing to believe it's a new trend - since masculine/androgynous chicks are a hot commodity.

When I was in middle school, high school and college (an all-women college!!), there were many many girls who felt like they had to choose between male attention and their own "masculine" interests. "I love math, but I want to get a boyfriend," or "I always wanted to learn woodworking, but I got married." AAAAHHH SO STUPID!!! And now, particularly when I'm at work, those kinds of women can't have simple conversations with their boyfriends/fiances/husbands.

Clearly, I didn't give up my interests in order to snag a man, even before I came out of the closet. And that makes me really attractive to a lot of straight men now, which I NEVER expected. Knowing sci-fi, carrying a pocketknife, and having welding experience are not only things I enjoy but they also are apparently pretty sexy. This means that, at least at work, I converse with straight guys while their women get very jealous of me. But because they abandoned their interests in order to get a man, all they can contribute is "look, honey, Bristol Palin is on the cover of People magazine!"

At first I thought that I'm just really lucky, but then I talked with a flaming friend who said that most straight guys, regardless of social group, are into "bi girls" now. Whether it's Jersey Shore types into girls making out with each other or nerds into masculine/androgynous women, we're where it's at now!

My point is...
fuck it
READ A BOOK, PEOPLE!!!! ....NOT ROMANCE!!

Women Leaders of the World

Countries that have had women prime ministers: Sri Lanka, India, Israel, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the Caribbean, Norway, Poland, Netherlands Antilles, Pakistan, France, Bangladesh, Turkey, Burundi, Rwanda, South Korea.

Countries that have had women presidents: Argentina, Bolivia, Iceland, the Philippines, Ireland, Haiti, Guyana, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Chile, Liberia.


What's keeping us behind?

The Second Sex Part 1

I tried to read The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir a few years ago but couldn't make it past the first 20-some pages. Crazy stuff was going down with my dad at the time and everything that I was reading seemed to refute his arguments (why didn't I just send him a copy? Because I didn't want to participate in the destructive conversation he attempted to initiate). Now that I'm in a much better place, I'm picking up The Second Sex again and can fully concentrate on it.

In the book, British poet and novelist Steve Smith is quoted as saying of de Beauvoir “She has written an enormous book about women and it was soon clear that she does not like them, nor does she like being a woman.” Granted, I haven't made it far enough in the book to have an opinion on that but it strikes me as odd that this is considered critique. In A Room of One's Own by Virginia Woolf and The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, the authors clearly don't like most women. Had I been a straight nursing major rather than a queer art major, I would have loathed women too! Some women aren't aware of their option to live autonomously or they're afraid to take that risk. If anything, de Beauvoir's alleged opinion on women would have supported her cause: why would you want to help people who you think are doing just fine? And sometimes, more often than not if you don't have a good network or haven, it really sucks being a woman.

De Beauvoir states “In truth, to go for a walk with one's eyes open is enough to demonstrate that humanity is divided into two classes of individuals whose clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, gaits, interests, and occupations are manifestly different.” And when the second class uses these signifiers to entice the first class, you get heterosexism. When a member of the first class chooses a member of the second class to be his, he transfers some benefits of his class unto her. And there is intense competition within the second class (see next paragraph). Walking in certain areas will reveal a third class of individuals who combine and/or reject those binary signifiers and are just fine with autonomy.

From there is the idea that most minorities (and majorities...) refer to their class as “we” but that women don't consider themselves as such. Women say “women” rather than “we” except for a few strident feminist situations. I believe that the root of our lack of solidarity is this competition. I've been there, I feared what would happen should my future husband get stolen from me; it's very scary to think that you could lose both a loved one and your elevator out of spinsterhood if a woman better than you comes along. And second-classhood is so ingrained that many women, as stated above, aren't aware of or fear the autonomy of spinsterhood (or a marriage that involves autonomy).

In some circles, women are uncomfortable with my use of “we” in reference to womanhood*. Because I've rejected heterosexism, I'm the Other's Other. It's fully understandable why queer people – including straight couples with “reversed sex roles” - are considered a third gender. If both ends of the gender binary comprise the two classes, then those who don't fit on the binary form a third class. Socially, we queer people don't fit in to their game. We can't relate to the woman who drops out of school to marry young, before she's old enough to lose her man to someone younger, and has kids to entrap him. We can't relate to the woman who picks Danielle Steele over Stephen Hawking because she fears intimidating her man, whose credit card she uses to buy the book in the first place.

What's really sad is how little has changed since 1952 when this was originally published. More posts to come as I progress through the book!


* - my gender is fluid, there are times that I identify as a woman and times that I don't. I am usually perceived as a woman by men and as something else by women, who often end up surprised how much I can relate to them as far as womanhood goes.

Women's Place: Kitchen, Boardroom and D-cup

I apologize for having been gone, my computer and my internet have been fussy for the past many weeks.

The Atlantic Magazine, Bloomburg Businesweek and Newsweek have all had major articles about Western women in the past couple weeks. The first that I read was Newsweek and it was about Sarah Palin *VOMIT*, mostly that she's gaining a huge following of upper-middle class, Christian, straight, white women. These women are a formidable political, religious and economic force. The second I read was Bloomburg Businessweek's article on La Barbe, France's political Guerrilla Girls. Finally, The Atlantic has a looooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggg article about women outperforming men in school, workplace, and the changing economy.

These three major magazines claim that Western women are gaining more power than we ever have before.

In Enlightened Sexism by Susan J. Douglas, American women's current status as a media audience, social group, etc. is mulled over. Plastic surgery is at an all-time high, reality shows and the general media depict women as catty bimboes, and the sex double standard is both more powerful and reaching younger girls.

According to all of this, women are a force to be reckoned with...as long as we're white, at least middle class, heterosexist, able-bodied, Christian, and hot.

As women become more powerful, the only way we can battle these ridiculous standards is through sisterhood. For those of you who don't like such a lovey-dovey word, think of SOLIDARITY