A Call for Primary Prevention of Violence Against Women // Madeline Brodt

Photo from http.//populationgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/stopviolenceagainstwomen.jpg

In popular culture a new spotlight has come to men’s violence against women through the recent accusations against various celebrities and athletes. Many men have been accused of intimate partner violence and/or sexual assault in the past but the dialogue about domestic violence has never been so present in our culture. It is saddening to think that for this to happen women had to be victimized but as feminists, we should embrace this opportunity to decrease the occurrence of violence against women. This is especially true given the high incidence of violence against women where in America every nine seconds a woman is beaten (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995) and one out of five women have been sexually assaulted sometime during their life (Black et al., 2011). Ideologically as feminists we are against violence towards a person simply because of their gender. As psychologists we also believe in the possibility of prevention through interventions that can change behavior and attitudes. However, the majority of psychology tends to focus on treating women negatively impacted by domestic violence and sexual assault rather than the men who perpetrate these crimes. It is important to not diminish the stories of those who have been abused by people who are not men but the majority of perpetrators are heterosexual males who are abusing heterosexual females (Black et al., 2011) and thus may be the place to begin intervening. Why has feminist psychology largely ignored the area of primary prevention? The CDC views violence as a public health problem and promotes primary prevention as the way to intervene (2014). The lack of current feminist involvement is especially puzzling when recognizes that most perpetrators abuse multiple partners (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004).

There are possibilities for why this may be including a discomfort with a topic that causes a very visceral reaction, dearth of research, and a feminist tradition of centered on devoting resources to those impacted such as the creation of domestic violence shelters or rape crisis center. There are some training programs aimed at adolescents and young adults, which attempt to change the cultural understandings that women are lesser which have shown some success (http://www.datesafeproject.org/). However, these programs are not necessarily based on psychological research and their effects may not be seen for years. What as feminist psychologists are we supposed to do about the men who are abusing women now and are not the target demographic for these programs? I argue that it is our duty as feminist psychologists to begin acting as the driving force behind primary prevention of domestic violence.

I came to this conclusion though a winding series of events that led me to become trained as a group facilitator for a batterer’s program intervention. As a person who is interested in assisting survivors of sexual assault it was an odd choice but my gut kept saying to keep going, keep doing. I trusted my gut and after much processing identified that in my conception of social justice I should be doing more than simply working on one side of the equation, conducting psychotherapy with survivors of violence against women. In order for true social justice action to occur I need to work on the other side as well, the perpetrator. I co-lead one group for perpetrators of domestic violence a week. Afterwards I leave feeling like I have truly done something.

This is not just a question of needing more to practice with perpetrators but also to conduct more research. Research on everything from what the beliefs of men who perpetrate are to how best to intervene to how to best advocate for program implementation. Few researchers are conducting this type of work, though Christopher Eckhardt has been conducting very exciting work. In writing this, I performed a literature search so I could see if I was incorrect in my assessment of the status of this topic in our field. Sadly I was not and I was only able to find a couple relevant articles that adopted a feminist perspective and only one that was published in a feminist journal (Lecouteur & Oxlad, 2010). Let us then change this sad state of affairs. We should start conducting research and put it in action, even if it is unpleasant and uncomfortable to work with perpetrators.

References

Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L. (1995). National Crime Victimization Survey: Violence against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.

Babcock, J., Green, C., & Robie, C. (2004). Does Batterers' Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review Of Domestic Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053.

Center for Disease Control. Violence Prevention Basics: Primary Prevention. (2014, October 5). Retrieved from http://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/index.php/violence-prevention-basics-primary-prevention/

Lecouteur, A., & Oxlad, M. (2010). Managing accountability for domestic violence: Identities, membership categories and morality in perpetrators' talk. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 5-28.

Written by Madeline Brodt

(Southern) Wedding Bells // Anna Vandevender

Photo Credit: Anna Vandevender

I am a West Virginia native who recently transplanted to Virginia; I have been counted among the Southern population for as long as I can recall and identify deeply with several of the traditions my heritage offers while simultaneously combatting some traditions and worldviews that do not embody who I am as a person and who I want to be as a psychologist. In my heart of hearts and on a good day when I am 5’3” rather than 5’2 ¾”, I am a “strong, independent Appalachian woman” as my sister would say. However, there is something about life transitions that can unsettle a person and can change the way he or she looks at everything they know.

I recently married my partner of seven years and would like to share with you what my journey as this “strong, independent Appalachian woman” from singlehood to engagement and finally to marriage has been like, as it has made me quite aware of how important feminism is to me personally and professionally. I grew up in a small, rural town watching Disney movies with my sisters, dreaming of who my Prince Charming would be and what he would look like. I met my now husband in college and we dated throughout the following years. During this time I wondered whether or not he was this idyllic embodiment of the white knight who would rescue me from all of the troubles and frustrations in my life, as our culture at large teaches girls and women that we need rescued rather than relying on our own independence. I was shocked to learn that this man who had stumbled into my life was not a white knight at all, instead he was a human being, with flaws and imperfections - just. like. me. No woodland animals singing, no birds carrying articles of clothing through the air to dress me. Instead there were conversations, some calm and collected, others heated and voices raised as we tried to understand what it was that each of us wanted from the other.

It turns out that we are both from the same cultural background, we are both from Appalachia and on a larger geographic scale we are from the South. We both had a working understanding of “the ways things worked” between a man and a woman who lived in the South; the only problem was it didn’t fit with the way that I work and subsequently the way that we as a couple work. I am stubbornly independent and don’t mind to argue when necessary in order to maintain this quality. My husband hails from a background where women are submissive, if not entirely subservient to men, typically there are no conversations in pursuit of shared understanding in this culture. Taking all of this into consideration as we prepared to make the ultimate commitment to one another, I was quite panicked and uncomfortable with how all of this was going to go. Would I be expected by my partner and his family to give up the work that I am doing as a graduate student and future psychologist in order to tend to his needs only? Would my husband understand if I kept my name as a professional; would it hurt his pride if I didn’t carry his last name in everything I do? And of course, the inevitable question when a woman begins talking about marriage, when are you going to have children?

Fortunately none of my fears for my marriage have become reality, I am still a graduate student, I am still known professionally by my maiden name, and we have no plans to have children in the near future. However, as I faced my fears through the months leading up to the wedding, I realized that so many of my peers from childhood and college face similar concerns without having the support of feminist women and men who encourage them to become all they can be. In fact, many of my peers are wives and mothers now, and describe themselves proudly as stay-at-home mothers. Although I share in their happiness if their situation does bring them joy, I also wonder if they were ever told there was more to being a woman, that we are capable of great things too. I find myself getting very angry when I encounter someone who views marriage as a business contract to provide a man with a housemaid and produce children, preferably males to carry on the family name. I want to tell these people that I am more than my uterus and my cleaning and cooking abilities. And to think of what a shame it would be if I never have children, what will I have done with my life? How do you politely flip-off tradition and educate someone in the same gesture? I haven’t mastered that gesture yet, but my hope is that through talking about who I am as a woman and teaching through example, men and women in my culture and differing backgrounds can learn the real value of a woman, as a person, rather than a baby-factory and servant.

So what is it that I want to tell women and girls, Southern and otherwise? Within you lives a strong, independent woman who deserves the opportunity to have conversations with your partner about what you want from your relationship with them. You deserve to have the power to make your own decisions, you deserve to say no, to say yes, to say not now. You are more than your uterus and your hands that can scrub dishes and fold laundry. Marriage does not have to be a business transaction, it can be a union of two souls who respect each other and value the other’s opinion and most importantly share a love that binds them against all odds. Marriage can be equality rather than patriarchy. Most of all, marriage does not have to be the loss of your freedom that is mourned for the remainder of your natural life. It can be accompanied by wedding bells that ring joyously as your adventures begin anew, hand in hand with your partner. This strong, independent Appalachian woman has learned to ask for what she wants and to put her foot down and she hopes that you will too as you seek out your own adventures.

           

Written by Anna Vandevender

I Am (Still) More Than a Distraction // Natalie Raymond, B.A.

Photo from http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/from-texas-to-london-girls-protest-sexist-dress-codes/

The enforcement of school dress codes aimed largely at girls and young women have been making headlines recently. Female students – or their justifiably irate parents – have lately taken en masse to social media, posting photos of the outfits that got them sent home, often accompanied by the hashtag #IAmMoreThanADistraction.

The outrage stems from the realization that we are teaching our young women that their learning and freedom are less important than that of their male counterparts, and reinforcing the long-standing myth that it is up to women to conceal themselves so that men won’t have to control themselves. And it is, indeed, outrageous. My research centers on sexual assault prevention, so I can say with certainty that these myths do not go away. They start early, they are continually reinforced, and they support rape culture, victim-blaming, and slut-shaming throughout the lifespan and our society.

I remember dress codes when I was in middle and high school. I remember applying the “fingertip test” to my skirts, and the “two finger” test to my tank top straps. I remember fuming in the counselor’s office, and thinking, as I often did while waiting to leave for college, One day none of this will matter.

Unfortunately, now I am the counselor, and that day has yet to arrive. Just this month, I was sent home from my first practicum site because my dress was too short. My supervisor, herself an intern, pulled me aside and said that other staff not comfortable with addressing me personally had told her that I had to go home and change. No matter that I was in meetings all morning and leaving at noon, without a client in sight. No chance for discussion. No choice but to leave and return, humiliated, an hour later…wearing pants.

I have obsessed about the details of the situation. The dress I was wearing passed every arbitrary test of length. On the whole, I thought the outfit was appropriate and professional. I wasn’t even seeing clients!, I cried. So and so’s dress is shorter! None of this is the point.

The point is not what I was wearing but how I was treated because of it. I was informed of its inappropriateness by a third party and given no choice in the matter. Given the circumstances, the punishment was excessive and shaming. Because of the way it was handled, I now feel self-conscious and fearful when I get dressed for work. I don’t know which of my coworkers raised the original objection, so I view them all with suspicion. In short, it was disrespectful, hurtful, and not how I am used to being treated.

Needless to say, posts about dress codes and the slut-shaming of young women suddenly gained a lot of immediacy in my newsfeed. I thought about all the other projects I’m engaged in this fall; leading seminars for undergraduates on empowerment and assertiveness; heading a research team whose mission is creating positive understandings of sexuality; guiding multiple young, female clients through recovery from trauma, assault, and fear. How can I do any of that when I can still get sent home from work without even the dignity of a direct conversation? How can I help others to become strong women, when I was so quickly reduced to a level of powerlessness and humiliation that I haven’t felt since I was a child?

Or rather, how can I not? Once the hurt had faded, I realized: this is exactly why my line of research is needed. Indignation, once sparked, began to steadily burn away my shame, and I was left more eager than ever to get back to my work, especially that which focuses on empowering other women.

In considering this work, and work generally, I want to make clear that I understand why dress codes exist, and why as a future psychologist, conducting myself within the boundaries of professionalism is so crucial. Training from a Feminist perspective, I am constantly aware of how I impact my clients. When I worked at a residential facility for adolescents with eating disorders, did I refrain from wearing the kinds of form-fitting clothing they were denied? Certainly. Not to do so would have been cruel. When I had a client whose religion forbade women from wearing makeup, did I stop wearing lipstick to sessions? Absolutely not. We processed the crap out of it, but absolutely not.

In short, I dress for myself, but I also dress for work with my clients’ best interests in mind. I would not wear anything that I thought would be triggering, distracting, or harmful to their progress. But I also don’t leave my identity at the door. My orientation won’t allow it and my values wouldn’t want to. I don’t aim to be a blank slate, and addressing the interplay of our respective identities has proved to be a powerful tool in strengthening the therapeutic alliance, as with the above example of the lipstick.

I am who I am, I care about my work, and I don’t need an Indiana mole woman gown to prove it. I deserve respect, compassion, and courteous treatment every bit as much as my clients: and so do the younger women who experience the same consequences (and worse) every day for their attire. As a Feminist psychologist-in-training, I work to embody the ideals that I espouse via my research and my practice. I want to be the things I help other women be: empowered, assertive, and strong.

I want to tell younger women that dress codes, and other gender-biased rules, aren’t just something you have to put up with until you graduate: they follow you everywhere. The fight that young women and their families are beginning, school by school, district by district, is not just inspirational. It’s essential. Sexism starts young, and so empowerment must start young, too.

So young women, please, keep fighting. You are so much more than a distraction: and so am I. 

Written by Natalie Raymond, B.A.

What would girls play with if there were no princesses? // Alyssa Benedict

Imagine a world where the story of Cinderella doesn’t  exist; a world where there are no toy store aisles adorned with pink and filled with princess dress up clothes and the latest Disney princess paraphernalia. Imagine a birthday party without tiaras and endless comments about “how pretty she looks.” If we didn’t have these things, what would our girls choose to play with? More importantly, what would we choose to bring into our homes?  What images and objects would we offer to the girls in our lives?

Girls’ apparent obsession with princesses is largely a reflection of the choices that the adults around them are making. In American culture, parents and other adults are facing a “princess problem.” The “princess problem” is the process by which girls are continually exposed to antiquated princess or princess-like images, objects and messages that overemphasize physical beauty and the importance of having a man and fail to offer a broader sense of what girls and women can be. These images, objects and messages are transmitted through movies, books, toys and the media and perpetuate traditional images of girlhood. Their newer, more “modern” counterparts often represent old messages in disguise or miss opportunities to celebrate new, exciting, diverse and expansive images of girls and women.

Continuing to expose girls to princess images and paraphernalia introduces the proverbial glass ceiling into their lives at an extremely impressionable time in their development. Carrying assumptions that these images are harmless and part of being a girl, many don’t realize that they actually interrupt girls’ creative process and efforts to construct a healthy, inclusive sense of self. This interruption happens insidiously, and is often unseen. For example, every time we offer girls princess objects and activities and hand our boys something different (e.g., action figures) we are sending a silent message that these are the things they ought to like. 

The reality is, girls get the message that princesses are important - something to be liked - from the minute they are born. We adorn them in pink and flood them with princess books and movies. These messages come continually throughout their early development and from multiple sources such as parents, family, peers, and the media. I marvel at the powerlessness with which parents and others speak about their daughter’s “choices.”  I hear them say, “She’s a girly girl” or “My daughter has always liked the girly stuff. She just gravitates to it.” Girls are not born liking princess images and paraphernalia. Their environment shapes their options.  Research in psychology - including social psychology and cultural psychology - has shown very clearly that the environment exerts a tremendous influence on human behavior. If our girls grew up in a culture where princesses did not exist, they would find something else to do. Perhaps even better, they would create images and objects all on their own and free from the confines of their socialization.

We create our children’s environment and, whether we realize it or not, we are socializing them to like and dislike various things every single day. We send subtle messages through our purchases, our expressions, and the words we use.  The research is out (and has been for a long time) - we tend to do different, often stereotypical, things with our daughters and sons based on our own conditioning. The good news is, we have to the power to reflect on our choices and chart a new, more intentional course. I see parents doing this with their food choices all the time as they abandon old ways of eating and intentionally take the time to adopt a healthy diet for themselves and their families based on new information and understandings. Parents also update their technology regularly to keep pace with the demands of a complex world. We have a right - if not a responsibility - to update centuries-old images and definitions of girlhood.

It’s time to put the stereotypes aside and open up a larger world for and with our girls. It’s time to abandon assumptions that our daughters’ affection for princess images, objects and activities is instinctual or inevitable. It’s also time to abandon the assumption that princess toys and playthings allows girls to be creative and expressive. There are literally hundreds of other options for girls to express their creativity without resorting to outmoded princess paraphernalia. When we give girls and boys creative materials (e.g., play silks, cardboard boxes) they become creators.

In a world where girls and women continue to struggle for justice and equality, it is our job to create environments where our girls can realize their potential and learn skills that will help them to share their diverse gifts and talents with their families and communities. The stakes are high. A report of the American Psychological Association (2010) notes, “There is no question that girls…grow up in a cultural milieu saturated with sexualizing messages.” These and other research reports have found that the proliferation of sexualized and limiting images of girls and women in advertising, merchandizing, and media is harmful to girls’ self-image and healthy development (2010).  We have the power to expose girls to new ideas about what makes them valuable and who they can be. Our daughters are our future - they’re going to be navigating a deeply complex world. They need new, diverse images that will inspire them to create their own paths …images that will inspire leadership, creativity, advocacy, invention and a sense of deep value.

Everything we do today provides a lesson for tomorrow. Anthropologists have described how important play is for children - how the activities children engage in as part of play prepare them for adulthood. What are we preparing our girls for? We have the right to choose new images and objects that do a better job of supporting girls’ healthy development. We can chart our own course as adults versus letting the norms of a highly confusing culture dictate our choices. 

And so I revisit my original question: What would girls play with if there were no princesses? Take the time to find out.  Create princess-free zones for and with girls and let them astound you. Relish in their ingenuity as they create their own toys and activities, free from confining images that limit their options and ideas. Don’t fall prey to the princess-industrial-complex, a huge profit-seeking machine that is making billions at the expense of our daughters. Think deeply about the choices you are making and why, and dare to chart a new path. You just might inspire a girl to do the same.

Pictures from:

http://bravegirlsclub.com/archives/4566

http://www.costumecraze.com/category/princess-costumes/girls

http://www.rockbrookcamp.com/blog/girls-adventure-camp/

APA Report citation:

American Psychological Association,Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2010).

Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf

Written by Alyssa Benedict

What's a White Feminist (and am I one)??? // Holly Brown

What is White Feminism?

Lately, the internet has been exploding with conversation about White Feminism—but what is it? White Feminism is a non-intersectional brand of feminism, which generally limits itself to the experiences and oppression of white, middle class, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied women. Basically, White Feminism works against some gender-based oppression, but turns a blind eye to many issues that are primarily salient to women who inhabit other oppressed identities.

There are examples of White Feminism in action all over the place. Patricia Arquette’s comments about the wage gap that ignored the impacts of race and sexual orientation received a lot of attention earlier in the year. So did Hillary Clinton’s statement, “all lives matter,” during a recent speech in a black church near Ferguson, Missouri. It’s also frequently seen in cultural appropriating behaviors among some white feminists.

Sometimes White Feminism is more evident in what is not said, such as the substantial amount of silence in feminist circles regarding the death of Sandra Bland and countless other women of color who have died in police custody. The same can be said for the lack of feminist conversation focusing on violence against transgender women of color.

I’m white and a feminist. Does that make me a White Feminist?

Maybe, but it’s not guaranteed. White individuals who are also feminists can avoid being White Feminists by taking an intersectional approach to feminism that includes discussion of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, health, and other social locations. There are plenty of white feminists who generally do an okay job of keeping their feminism intersectional. However, there are substantial amounts of societal privilege that come with being white, and there are many things that I as a white person don’t have to think about on a daily basis because I don’t experience race-based oppression. With those givens, it’s that much easier for white feminists to overlook intersectional issues. Though not all white feminist individuals are White Feminists, most White Feminists are white.

I’m a person of color and a feminist. So I’m good, right?

Maybe, but it’s not guaranteed. The term White Feminist is most commonly used when referring to non-intersectional, white feminists, but people have multiple identities, and experiencing oppression in one area of life doesn’t mean you’re not blind to your privilege in other areas. Feminists of color, queer feminists, low-income feminists, feminists with disabilities, and feminists with any combination of these and other oppressed identities likely still have privilege in some area of life. And where privilege exists, usually there are blind spots. Part of intersectional feminism is keeping us all accountable to being inclusive.

What is Intersectional Feminism?

Simply put, intersectional feminism is a form of feminism that takes other oppressed social locations into account. It acknowledges that not all women have the same experiences (and that not all individuals experiencing gender-based oppression are women!). Intersectional feminism doesn’t limit its advocacy to people who are only oppressed in terms of their gender—it considers how sexism impacts individuals differently depending on all the social locations they inhabit.

How can I be an Intersectional Feminist?

At its core, being an intersectional feminist is all about working to be an ally as well as a feminist. It’s acknowledging that individuals may experience sexism differently based on their other social locations. It’s acknowledging that your privilege may leave you with some blind spots, working to educate yourself to reduce those blind spots, and promoting a more inclusive version of feminism. Need some inspiration on how to make your feminism more intersectional? Start by looking here, here, here, and here for some ideas.

But wait—isn’t talking about White Feminism divisive?

No, no, no, a thousand times no. Feminism will never be all it can be until we hold each other accountable to take intersectional perspectives. As #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen has pointed out, glossing over White Feminism in order to avoid being ‘divisive’ really only maintains the status quo for feminists who already benefit from the most societal privilege and power. Calling attention to instances of White Feminism is a way to educate relatively privileged feminists, while empowering feminists who have oppressed identities other than their gender. When privileged feminists are open to being checked and working on their growth areas, we make progress toward a more meaningful version of feminism that benefits everyone and builds genuine solidarity.

How can I call people in, instead of calling people out?

Calling attention to moments of White Feminism doesn’t have to be hostile. Almost everyone inhabits some privileged social locations, so chances are we all have blind spots and will all make mistakes at times. The more privileged identities we have, the truer this is. Consequently, we (especially feminists with many privileged identities, myself included) need to recognize our own vulnerability to blind spots, and keep that in mind when we notice a slip from someone else. Intersectional feminism isn’t a competition where the morally superior winner is the one who makes the least public mistakes. And just because I notice a slip from my peer today doesn’t mean I won’t make one myself tomorrow. That’s why it’s important to lovingly point out blind spots to our feminist peers, and to listen when we’re called out ourselves. 

So, what now?

This post barely scratches the surface of White Feminism as an issue, but I hope you’ll take the conversation from here. Please, take it up in the comments, in classes, in research, with your colleagues, and especially in feminist spaces. We’re all going to slip up from time to time, and that’s okay as long as we acknowledge our mistakes and learn from them. White Feminism needs to be addressed wherever it rears its ugly head, because it undermines the core values of feminism and prevents our movement from meaningfully affecting all but a narrow, privileged range of women. So please, go forth, and remember the inspired words of Flavia Dzodan: “my feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit!”

Related links:

http://www.elonpendulum.com/article/2015/07/taylor-swift-lets-talk-about-white-feminism

http://groupthink.kinja.com/this-is-what-i-mean-when-i-say-white-feminism-1498799007

https://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6TigjhjdmE

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/23/fight_for_us_now_what_patricia_arquette_got_right_and_wrong_about_equal_pay/

http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/06/hillary_clinton_at_black_church_in_missouri_all_lives_matter.html

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/08/white-feminist-with-dreadlocks/

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/24/how_were_failing_sandra_bland_mainstream_feminists_need_to_do_more_to_fight_for_women_of_color/

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/01/violence_against_black_transgender_women_goes_largely_ignored.html

http://intersectionalfeminism101.tumblr.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dg86g-QlM0

http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-10-06/10-things-white-feminists-should-know-to-better-understand-intersectionality/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/navigating-whiteness-feminism/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/your-internalized-dominance-is-showing/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/why-our-feminism-must-be-intersectional/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=z-nmxnmt_XU

https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%23solidarityisforwhitewomen

http://www.upworthy.com/what-white-feminism-is-and-why-calling-it-out-isnt-the-end-of-the-world

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/10/10/my-feminism-will-be-intersectional-or-it-will-be-bullshit/

Written by Holly Brown

I HATE WEDDINGS! // Jean-Arellia Tolentino

I hate weddings. I really do.  I loathe the contrived and patriarchal traditions. In a nutshell, my sentiments on weddings were beautifully articulately in Frida:

"I don't believe in marriage. No, I really don't. Let me be clear about that. I think at worst it's a hostile political act, a way for small-minded men to keep women in the house and out of the way, wrapped up in the guise of tradition and conservative religious nonsense. At best, it's a happy delusion - these two people who truly love each other and have no idea how truly miserable they're about to make each other. But, but, when two people know that, and they decide with eyes wide open to face each other and get married anyway, then I don't think it's conservative or delusional. I think it's radical and courageous and very romantic. To Diego and Frida."

I just got fiancée’d last May.  I do want a wedding.  I don’t believe in being “given away”, or “taking the man’s last name”.  As a Filipina-American who comes from a big Catholic Filipino family, I developed wedding fantasies and values at an early age. I even imagined myself in the white wedding dress with the bridesmaids and the over-the-top decorative elements. I was raised under the expectation that I would be married in the Catholic church, with a white dress, the bridal entourage, and of course to a man under the witness of God.  My parents had enough foresight/expectations that I would have a priest, so they baptized me with a priest who was also doubled as my Godfather. This came into light when the suggestion that my wedding might be officiated by him.

In my (30+ years of) life, I’ve participated not only as a guest, but also as a flower girl, bridesmaid, and even an engagement-wedding photographer. I am by no means an “expert” on weddings. I started to take notice and wonder why weddings were greeted with tears of joy/excitement and love when we find out friends are engaged, yet the same levels of elation are not given to a friend who passes their bar exams or licensure, gets accepted into a graduate/doctoral program, or completes their dissertation. One may be a commitment to another person, and the others are a commitment to one’s career or heart’s work; yet all are moments that take a deep commitment of time, energy, and even financial investment in order to achieve. 

Not mincing words, the traditional wedding is psychologically oppressing women.  Anything outside of the heteronormative and western framework (e.g., queer, non-secular, non-Pinterest, non-white, non-United States) are considered “non-traditional/modern/unique/off-beat” weddings. Let’s not forget that until this year, same-sex marriage was not legalized in California.  From the wedding rings to the last name, the “traditional western wedding” is seeped with patriarchal and capitalistic values. 

Weddings are practices to keep women oppressed financially, emotionally, and psychologically.  While pre-wedding activities are focused on a “last hurrah”, there is a differentiation of purpose.  The man’s “bachelor party” is defined by his “sacrifice” of no longer sleeping with other people, whereas the woman’s sacrifice literally involves the loss of identity, and those bachelorette activities seem to focus on the like via conformity (…and to worship the penis).  Other components of the wedding are seemingly bride-centered: bridal magazines and television shows focus on bridal attire and wedding fantasies; brides are more likely to diet and exercise in preparation for their wedding dresses; brides (or bridesmaids/maids-of-honor) usually take lead to create wedding festivities/events; there is the quintessential “bridezilla”; wedding showers are for the brides; and the cliché that “the weddings are all about the brides”.  Yet, the bride is traditionally obligated to relinquish her last name for her husband’s.  Women are continuously choosing to engage in, and ostracize others who do not conform to these gendered norms.  Statements like: “Why aren’t you taking his name/changing your last name?”, “Don’t you want to stand out and wear a white dress?”, “We should get into shape for that wedding dress!”, or “Oh, you’re such a “modern” bride!”  All of which reinforce the obligation to conform to strict gender roles and values. 

CNN released an article that highlighted the financial cost for women just to participate in weddings.  Bridesmaids are now calculated to have an average cost of $2,000 JUST to be a bridesmaid. Why do we consciously put our closest friends and family (mainly women) into positions as bridesmaids/maids of honor and impose monetary responsibilities, obligations, and even debt?  Or, as close friends and family of the bride, why do we willingly accept and/or desire to be in that (bridal party) position?  Yes, one may have the choice to opt out, and can decide to keep costs inexpensive.  Yet, I encourage us to honestly understand why we have bridesmaids, and willingly choose to navigate the politics of negotiating friendships/relationships, having to decide/distress over which relationships and the potential fallout resulting from decisions, and be ok with the financial weight our closest family/friends will have to hold.

If you do pick a bridal party, perhaps there should be a contract for signing up that reads:

“If you are in my bridal party, you are expected to pay an average of $2,000 (give or take) for someone else’s wedding.  The expenses may include, but are not limited to: an engagement party, a gym membership, time away from family/friends, bachelorette/bachelor party weekends out of town, round-trip plane tickets to said weekends events, matching bachelorette party attire and/or gifts, round-trip plane tickets for the wedding, bridal party attire, hair and makeup (because, coming as you are is unacceptable), bridal shower, wedding rehearsal dinner, additional transportation, accommodations … and anything else the capitalistic billion-dollar wedding industry makes us think is important…”

It is wonderful that the bride has many friends who would love to support the wedding, and gift the couple with festivities or gifts. Yes, we may be #blessed and honored that our friends want to spend money on us.  This begs the question:  why is there a correlation between the more money we spend and the emotional value of connectedness/intimacy/care/love we feel?

Knowing all of this, and understanding that I am now fiancée’d, how do we address this? At the core, I LOVE ROMANCE. I love “love”. I truly believe in the healing power, and transformative nature of “love”.  Above all wedding-ness practices, I believe in everlasting marriages. Changing traditional weddings are beyond rebellion, for rebellion-sake.  It is an opportunity to evolve practices of “partnership”, redefine identity in relationship in an equitable manner and within a context of others, and encouraging financial costs in a socially responsible manner. 

Given the complexities of the wedding world, cultural values, and in re-imagining a wedding closer to practicing “partnership” between the couple, I pose these questions to you:

-          Could we, as wedding hosts (potential brides and grooms) still love and enjoy weddings without the glitz and glam, the $20-30k wedding budget, or the bridal shower & wedding gifts? 

-          How can we support ourselves in the wedding process, and not have a bridal party?

-          Do we really need to have over 150 people at our wedding?

-          Would we (self-identified women) still feel fulfilled if we kept our last names, changed the partner’s last name, and/or changed both (bride & groom) last names?

-          Would we be content with having a wedding without the rings? 

-          Why do we raise questions/ridicule/“find it odd” when grooms want to plan the wedding, wanting engagement rings (yes, my partner has his own engagement ring), or other traditions (e.g., something other than strippers at the bachelor party, standing on the right-side…opposed to left-side of the aisle during ceremony, or take on the bride’s/or combination of both last names)?

Are there feelings of control and release of control that are required in encouraging co-creation of the wedding?  Absolutely!  There is also ways in which the co-creation of weddings is uncomfortable because it requires both individuals to have a voice and, be empowered to be present during the planning process. 

I have found it useful to consult resources such as friends and family who understand the social justice values of gender equality in marriages, websites like theFeministBride.com, or Catalyst wedding magazine.  I do believe it IS a special day. One of which that can be done, and intentionally expressive of the couple’s love with being socially responsible, financially equitable, and honor the identity of both individuals. Ultimately, weddings can be a beautiful transition honoring the beginning the two individuals into a partnership and a loving marriage.  In evolving components of the wedding, we have the opportunity cultivate gender equality by means of equitable practices. 

For other wedding reads that were funny/interesting/poignant, check these out:

Wedding History:

-          dowry’s: http://offbeatbride.com/2010/12/the-dowry-tradition

-          Wedding rituals & traditions: http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/cultural-traditions/10-wedding-traditions-with-surprising-origins.htm

-          Funny & honest YouTube video on the “wedding ring” scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU 

Hilarious Jim Gaffigan comedy on weddings: (link at: 1:35) http://www.cc.com/video-clips/l1inw6/stand-up-jim-gaffigan--weddings-are-incredibly-weird)

Ways women are psychological conditioned to love weddings in an unstable and unhealthy way:

-          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-almasy/5-lies-the-wedding-indust_b_4624581.html

-          http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-the-wedding-industry-wont-tell-you-2013-04-19?page=2

Wedding industry profits: 

-          Ultimately, Who profits:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/wedding-industry_n_3002354.html

-          It’s an industry, don’t give into it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/learnvest/wedding-cost_b_1698059.html)

-          Wedding debt (http://www.oprah.com/money/Our-Wedding-Put-Us-in-Debt)

Bridesmaid Debt & Politics:

-          CNN:  http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/06/30/bridesmaids.cost/)

-          Off-Beat Bride: http://offbeatbride.com/2015/06/do-i-need-bridesmaids

-          US News.com:  http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2014/11/07/the-high-cost-of-being-in-a-wedding-party

-          The Politics of Choosing a Bridesmaid:  http://www.thefrisky.com/2008-05-08/the_politics_of_choosing_a_bridesmaid/

-          “Bridesmaid Protest” http://www.elle.com/culture/news/a15338/bridesmaid-protest/

What’s in a name? When Feminists marry:

-          http://fempopculture.blogspot.com/2015/02/when-feminists-marry-whats-in-name.html

Pinterst is Bad for your heath: http://fempopculture.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-pinterest-is-bad-for-your-health.html

“The wedding is about the bride”:  http://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-forums/why-is-it-always-about-the-bride/400ec9c9e500842c.html

propaganda of the “me, me, me” culture in weddings: http://www.newsweek.com/2013/06/19/bridezillas-and-rise-me-me-me-weddings-237570.html

Gender roles within weddings: https://feministtalk.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/hello-my-name-is-bride-an-analysis-of-weddings-gender-roles-and-marriage/

Written by Jean-Arellia Tolentino

Pretty in Pink? American Girlhood on the Color Spectrum // Angelica Puzio

The ubiquity of pink – American girlhood’s iconic color – is old news.  But what it says about the messages we send girls? For parents and marketers, that part isn’t as easy to confront.

Defining American girlhood is complex - it changes for every girl, as different as she is diverse, within the racial and economic landscape of her lived experience (not to mention, an endless array of other contributing factors like ability, religion, etc.). Despite how girlhoods may differ, some cultural icons remain the same. ‘Pink-culture’ stands out as an ever-relevant demarcation of what it means to be a girl in a modern America. Exploring pink provides only one way to unpack the multidimensional narrative of girlhood, however, it speaks volumes about the culture that it simultaneously mirrors and rigidly dictates. Looking closer, it’s clear to see which identities that the color celebrates – and perhaps more importantly, those that it does not. 

Understanding the dangerous ubiquity of pink begins with the realization that the possessions we surround ourselves with shape our experience of the world. Peggy Orenstein, author of “Cinderella Ate My Daughter,” argues that the sheer volume of pink, and the ways that it is presented, acts as a pillar of girls’ cultural, developmental, and commercial existence in the United States. In keeping with this notion, she asks parents, consumers, and all those who come in contact with girls to ask, “What do the toys we give our girls, the pinkness in which they are steeped, tell us about what we are telling them? What do they say about what we think they are and ought to be?”

Recent figures report – with resounding agreement – that what pink ‘says’ to girls certainly isn’t pretty. Developmental psychologists Sharon Lamb and Lyn Mikel Brown weigh in on the problem with pink, stating that, as Orenstein warns, pink has become an ironic attempt to celebrate girls while clearly defining their limitations. This happens through the careful execution of marketing strategies that provide young consumers and parents with an illusion of choice. One glaring instance is ‘pinkification’ of toys that celebrate children’s innovating, creating, and building skills. Toy companies selling building sets, blocks, or hands-on science kits are color dividing their inventories at increasing rates, sending the loud-and-clear message that being girly, cute, and feminine champions the inventing skills that these toys claim to foster. It’s no coincidence that this type of messaging is socially and professionally threatening for girls: research repeatedly finds that the chasm between girls and boys interest in math and science fields is strongly related to childhood activities and surroundings (Jacobs, Davis-Kean, Bleeker, Eccles, & Malanchuk, 2005). This is one example, but the list goes on.

 The price that girls may pay at the hands of their monochromatic world is a pre-prescribed understanding of their social roles as only those that correspond with the values that the color sensationalizes. Perhaps equally or more detrimental, however, is not what pink promotes, but what it fails to: a robust sense of identity, agency, holistic skillsets, or non risk-inducing norms. Although exciting news about Target’s gender signage has many parents feeling hopeful, the collective cultural attitude remains unconcerned with Orenstein’s idea that pink-culture equates “identity with image, self-expression with appearance, femininity with performance, pleasure with pleasing, and sexuality with sexualization” (Orenstein, 2011, p. 28).

It’s important to note that pink is just one factor out of many – in addition, it’s certainly not just girls that color and gender typing our world affects – but that’s a post for another day. If girls are to find true, agency driven, ‘happily-ever-afters,’ their cultural must represent them with a reinvented spectrum -- literally. Why not celebrate them with a palette exactly as powerful, and as diverse, as girls themselves?

References

Jacobs, J. E., Davis-Kean, P., Bleeker, M., Eccles, J. S., & Malanchuk, O. (2005). " I can, but I don't want to": The Impact of Parents, Interests, and Activities on Gender Differences in Math. Cambridge University Press.

Orenstein, P. (2011). Cinderella ate my daughter. New York: Harper Collins.

Written by Angelica Puzio

C’mon Hillary // Crystal F. Nichols

I’m just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain. –Hillary Clinton from the video Stand for Reality released by her campaign in July 2015

I felt my eyes bug out and my mouth fall open cartoonishly as I heard Hillary Rodham Clinton utter those words. I felt betrayed. I felt annoyed. Most of all, I felt disappointed. Here’s why:

1.       Women should be free to be strong and have confidence in that strength. I was in elementary school when Hillary Clinton became the First Lady and I have always looked up to her since. She was not born into a famous family of politicians, but her hard work at Wellesley College and then Yale Law School set her on a track to achieve many great things. Looking at the lists of her accomplishments makes it easy to see that she is one of the most powerful and successful women in our country and the world. Many of these accomplishments are preceded by “the first female” and as such, she is a trailblazer for women everywhere. She has worked to better education, healthcare, and life for families in our country. All of this has been done with constant scrutiny from the media, sometimes against a backdrop of scandal. The thing about Hillary that is most inspiring is that she never gives up. She is strong. She is a strong women, she is a strong politician, and she is a strong mother and wife. It hurts us all as women when she is not honest about her strength and accomplishments on the campaign trail. If one of the most powerful women in the world is going around diminishing her success and pretending to be just like the rest of us, what kind of message does that send? Women have fought for so long to prove that they are equal and capable, all while having to balance family and career. Every time one of us has a victory, we all benefit. Please, do us all a favor and do not pretend to be just average when you are extraordinary. We the woman of the United States of America are under attack and we need a strong woman to lead us into battle. We need a leader who will not be pushed around and who is proud of everything she is, not one who pretends to be less than she is. We need the Hillary from the Senate Committee hearing on Benghazi. That Hillary was smart, resolute, and would not lie down and let others plow her down in the name of partisan politics. She was not just one of us, she was the best of us and she is the one who could lead this country.

2.       By saying you are just a grandmother, you are alienating the people you are trying to gain the support of. I do not think it was purposeful, but this line really rubbed me the wrong way for all the mothers and grandmothers. For all the hard work she has done in this campaign to talk about her mother and the influence she has had on her, I have to wonder if her mother might have been a little hurt by these words if she were alive. On one hand she is trying to cover up her successful career and assert that even a grandmother can figure out that climate change is real and dangerous. On the other hand, she sounds as if that role means you are not enough. A better (and smarter) choice would be to lift up the women who are wives, mothers, and grandmothers, lift up the women who have focused on their careers, and lift up the women who have balanced the two. I am not just anything. You are not just anything. Hillary Rodham Clinton is most certainly not just anything. We are complex beings who do the best we can with what we have. We have fought hard to get where we are and this kind of language puts us into arbitrary groups in a time when our solidarity or lack thereof will change the history of this country.

So I would like to say this to you, Hillary: Just be who you are. That person is flawed and beautiful and resilient, just like the rest of us. We all have that in common. You are already more like us than you know. 

Written by Crystal F. Nichols