If coming from a woman, repeated requests are deemed as nagging, but if coming from a man, these same requests are simply viewed as talking. At least this is what a recent article, “Meet the Marriage Killer” by Elizabeth Bernstein, would like readers to believe. With the subhead “It’s More Common Than Adultery and Potentially as Toxic, So Why Is It So Hard To Stop Nagging?” readers are introduced to the main topic of the article by way of shock and potential disbelief. As immediate questions could be raised in regards to the actual power of nagging within a relationship, the first red flag is the author’s use of an anecdotal story in the first paragraphs.

The story begins with a woman who packs a lunch for her husband and leaves a Post-It note in the sandwich in order to remind him of a place he was supposed to be later that night. But whatever humor or creative appreciation that could be dragged from this story disappears as the anecdote ends with the husband bluntly stating “I don’t need a reminder in the middle of my sandwich.” Not only does this story depict a woman who gets rejected after going out of her way to make food for her husband, the reasons provided for this attempt at a creative reminder prove to be even more disturbing. Towards the end of the article, the author reveals that the woman began writing her husband Post-It notes with “little smiley faces or hearts” so as not to “speak in a way that is not threatening or offensive.” The husband commends this approach most of the time as he says “The notes distract me from the face-to-face interaction…There’s no annoying tone of voice or body posture.”

This display of forced passivity and the imminent power struggle within this relationship is not only distressing, but completely mind-boggling. While the author normalizes this kind of interaction, nothing about the situation is questioned and the “understanding” between the couple is made out to be the “solution” to the wife’s “constant badgering.” When viewed through a lense that is not clouded by the dominant ideals of men in positions of authority and women as complacent and accommodating, nothing about this situation should be considered normal.

The author goes on to present a second example of a “solution” to nagging, as a wife says “I don’t take it personally when he doesn’t respond.” Through this example, the discrepancy between what the wife comes expect and what the husband simply receives is even more stark and pitiful. Throughout this article, women are presented as learning to tame their tongue, to shut up, sit quiet, and hope for the best. As nagging is a word that cannot be separated from gender, the article supports the idea that women will forever be at a loss when trying to get a point across.

This article not only forced me to try and understand how women can be indirectly labeled as “marriage killers” but why this author would weakly try to stage the issue of nagging as something that both men and women do. Although she hides behind such phrases as “the couple’s issue” or “their nagging problem,” the only examples she presents revolve around a woman protagonist who annoys her husband to no end. Even at the close of the article, where she tries to offer solutions to the “death by a thousand reminders,” her advice centers around women “naggers” as she says, “Let him tell you when it works best for him” and “Tell her honestly if you can do what she asks and when. Then follow through. Do what you say you will do.”

Not only is nagging a word that is used to keep women nonthreatening to some convoluted and illegitimate power of a man or a husband, the common depiction of women as naggers is prevalent and mostly unquestioned in society. The real headline of this article should read “Women Nag: How to Keep Them Silent and How You Should Convince Them They Deserve To Stay That Way.”

Suddenly, I stopped mid-brush.

What was that? I was shocked at myself. Me, a long-standing feminist who believes in equality, just made a basic sexist assumption. Of course girls fart! It’s a natural biological function that is definitely not limited to the male sex. Then why did I just think otherwise?

Slowly, it dawned on me. Sometimes sexism is the stereotypical frat boy whose machismo and superiority oozes out of every pore. It can be as obvious as a friend saying, “That’s women’s work,” in response to a request to help clean up. Sexism is the fact that women make two-thirds the salary of most men.

But sexism isn’t always this obvious.

I think the worst kind of sexism, or at least the most difficult to combat, is the sexism we find in ourselves. Were you told as a child that it’s not ladylike to swear, burp, fart, eat as much as you want, or even cut your hair short? These are the sorts of hidden mini-assumptions that guide our lives and are incredibly difficult to notice. So how can we fight sexism if we ourselves are subject to sexist mindsets? It seems impossible.

It’s important to remember that no one is perfect; these hypocrisies aren’t intentional. How we think in these subconscious moments doesn’t reveal our “true” opinions of gender equality; it’s simply a mirror that reflects what society has told us. Don’t be afraid to confront your assumptions. Equality can only start when you recognize these little injustices and say, “Wait, that’s not fair!” Sometimes the most feminist thing you can do is realize that you’re not a feminist all the time.

“22″

Believe it or not, I was not too crazy about this song when I was sixteen. However, the song’s lyrics are evocative of the many conversations, fixations and fears that I now hear from my friends in college. I can now really relate to this song as my friends and I grow older and realize that we haven’t met some of our goals and are seized by “the fear” that we won’t do so in time. In the song, Allen expresses a clear understanding of how women are treated like commodities with an expiration date. “22” is the age of youth, beauty, fearlessness and desirability. At twenty-two, Allen, in a tone of resignation, artfully implies that a woman is desired for her youth and fresh looks and is highly “marketable.” As a result, the world is at her feet and she has much to look forward to: “the future looked bright.” Now, she is thirty and “is out every night” in search of something fulfilling. The video even features a contrast between a young, polished and glamorous Allen who applies make-up in the bathroom of a club and an older, haggard and tired woman who struggles to put on mascara in a sea of younger woman. I absolutely love the music video — it’s my favorite from Allen. Although the video lacks drama and merely shows the two Allens looking in a mirror, it is an apt manifestation of society’s seemingly timeless and permanent view of women. We are prized for beauty and once our looks fade, we lose our value. The song also carries a Bridget Jones theme: there is a desire for romance and a fear of spinsterhood and being thirty; you can literally hear the biological clock tick in the song’s lyrics.

“It’s sad but it’s true how society says her life is already over There’s nothing to do and there’s nothing to say ‘Til the man of her dreams comes along Picks her up and puts her over his shoulder It seems so unlikely in this day and age”

“The Fear”

This is the song that made me realize that Allen is truly something special. “The Fear” castigates the media’s portrayal of women and its role as an educator to young girls. The media does not only teach women to be merely vacuous, beautiful decorative objects, but also espouses an excessive materialism and a damaging superficiality. She satirizes these superficial desires and aspirations by singing with an ironic, sarcastic tone. Additionally, the song and video addresses the problems with our fame and celebrity obsessed culture. In the age of Kardashian, this song is especially relevant. The line “life’s about film stars and less about mothers” sums up the notion that young girls lack good role models. Girls are instead obsessed with mindless consumerism and their image. Girls could care less about the world around them “as long as they are getting thinner.” She recognizes an egregious disregard for intellect, morals, values, ethics and personality. The visually lush video features Allen leaving a humble motor home for a grand mansion replete with pastel colored gift boxes and dapper, stylish dancing butlers.

“I want to be rich and I want lots of money I don’t care about clever I don’t care about funny I want loads of clothes and fuck loads of diamonds I heard people die while they are trying to find them And I’ll take my clothes off and it will be shameless Cause everyone knows that’s how you get famous”

“Not Fair”

“Not Fair” is my favorite song off the album not only because I think it’s irresistibly cute, but because I believe it dares to address a topic rarely touched upon in pop music (or anywhere, for that matter!). I applaud Allen for addressing the issue of the importance of a woman achieving sexual satisfaction in a relationship. The song discusses a dilemma that perhaps many women face: a man who seems to be a perfect and sweet boyfriend but fails to satisfy in the bedroom. The song basically tells the tragic story of the selfish lover. She thus debates whether or not she should dump him. I love the song’s endearingly simply lyrics and its rather juvenile tone. Allen humorously adopts the role of a petulant, whiny child who instead of pining for a cookie before dinner, simply just wants to get an orgasm from her mate and “scream.” For example, the lyrics “It’s not fair/ And I think you’re really mean/ I think you’re really mean!..and it’s really not okay!” sounds like a young school girl begging for playground justice. I believe this tactic is not only funny and cute, but is also helpful in conveying the fact that Allen’s desire is simple and natural. Also, she is truly being treated with an injustice. After all, all her boyfriend “does is take” and it truly is “not fair.” She audaciously illuminates a problem that plagues many couples. She also shows that women love and want sex; they are not merely instruments of pleasure to be used. More importantly, she demands that men return the favor!

And then I came across the meme above.

This image is a version of the “sheltered college freshman” meme, which typically combines this image of a youthful girl with a caption making fun of her naivety. The memes are humorous as they lightly make fun of the tendency for those new to college to say incredibly naïve things, and they also have just enough realism to make them hit home. For example, other versions of the meme feature the text “So your parents don’t pay for everything? Wow!” and “‘You girls wanna go to a party?’ Aww that’s so thoughtful of you to invite us.” Sure, they’re silly, but you can also easily imagine someone actually saying that.

While the other two examples are largely harmless, I was stunned by the implication of the meme on the Facebook page. What should have been an innocent, I’ve-totally-heard-someone-say-that-before joke became a huge, public display of disregard for a recent sexual assault on campus.

Because this meme is a clear reference to what is known not as the Saxon Steps but as the “rape trail.” For those who currently live or have ever lived on campus, you probably haven’t ever called the pathway by its real name. In fact, the “rape trail” is such a universal UCLA-ism that I don’t think I have ever heard someone call the staircase the “Saxon Trail” except as an explanation of what the rape trail is. It literally wasn’t until I was walking down the trail a few weeks into fall quarters that I read its identifying sign and learned the trail’s official name.

So while we’ve all probably used “rape trail” to refer to what is technically the Saxon Trail, I don’t think we consider the weight of what we are saying. I know I certainly haven’t. And it’s when we forget the implication of what we are saying that we veer into dangerous territory—in this case, going so far as to make light of sexual assault.

Additionally, this meme is a clear example of victim blaming. Although what I hope was intended to be a simple joke about naïve freshmen girls (which is a whole other issue of stereotyping unto itself), the meme ends up referencing an incident of sexual assault on campus, as well as the assumption of others occurring in the same location, implying that the woman brought the incident upon herself. Through her naivety, the girl in the meme is setting herself up for an assault—and we’re expected to find it humorous.

But not everyone found it humorous, as seen in the comments of the picture. The first comment reads, “This is really, really insensitive and not funny at all.” At last count, forty-two people had liked this comment. Another UCLA student wrote “How is it possible that 11 people liked this? Whether it happened at 2am or 2m, nobody deserves to be made fun of for something like that.” A third student succinctly expressed his disapproval with one appropriate word: “Dislike.”

I will give the creator of this meme a little credit: the image does point to the necessity of always being aware of your surroundings and making rational judgments so you don’t end up in potentially dangerous situations. No, it probably isn’t a good idea to use Saxon Trail by yourself late at night, but we also can’t simply assume that a woman was assaulted out of her own naivety regarding the trail’s reputation. We can, however, continue to raise awareness about rape and sexual assault, and we can dislike—sometimes by actually writing the word down—tactless jokes like this meme that just go too far.

Fem Valentine’s Day

Fem Valentine’s Day 2

Photo credit: Theresa Thompson/Creative Commons

I know my friend did not mean the comment in a malicious way but, looking back, I wonder how much my gender did play a role in his audacity. I doubt that he would’ve said that comment to any of our male friends (and if he had, it would not have been in such a condescending tone). This comment is just another example of the distinctions between male and female body image and perceptions. Women are expected to eat small, healthier portions while men enjoy the liberties of eating nearly any food.

Even in advertisements, food commercials depict men guzzling beers, grilling steaks and sinking their teeth into juicy burgers. Women, on the contrary, typically eat yogurt or soup, and these products brag about being great dietary supplements. With these marketing devices, gendering certain foods leads to stigmas warning women away from high-calorie foods and creates an inequality. No wonder the cliché of women ordering salads still holds true.

Looking still at how the media dictates our eating habits, diet commercials narrate how men and women should go about losing weight. Supplements for men target muscle gain and bulking up while ads geared toward women primarily focus on losing weight with a miracle pill. And if fitness is involved, the point is to get toned while still focusing on being skinny. Ads for weight loss programs lean more toward women as well. Major ad campaigns such as Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers and Nutrisystem each feature a female celebrity while a male celebrity represents just one program, creating a 3 to 1 ratio.

Granted, eating well and attaining the right amount of exercise is important to balanced living but the idea of diets and counting calories definitely becomes more of a “women’s issue.” On a recent television talk show, a married couple was discussing their overweight children’s tendency toward unhealthy foods. The talk show host looked at the mother and asked, “Well, who buys the food?” The mother wide-eyed replied, “I do.” “Who cooks the food?” The host asked again. More ashamed, the mother replied, “I do.” During that conversation, blame and guilt were placed on the mother while the father got away on national television virtually unscathed.

These preconceived notions trickle down even into the college setting where females are expected to opt out of dessert (let alone all of the other entrées in the buffet style dining halls). Highlighting this inequality is not about permitting women just as much freedom to eat a whole pizza without judgment or calling men gluttons. This takes a more introspective approach about how we view ourselves in regards to food and not being afraid to deviate from expectations.

Photo credit: Lotus Head/Creative Commons

Samantha began the teach-out by defining feminism as an ideology acknowledging the intersections between gender, sexuality, race and class in our society. She explained that it aims to create a world in which none of those characteristics make one individual less equal than another. She went on to discuss that first-wave feminists empowered themselves and broke patriarchal boundaries by becoming educated, an opportunity that rising tuition is taking away from today’s students, especially those coming from working class communities.

We then explained that liberatory education is the type of learning that aims to empower women and ethnic minorities, meaning classes that focus on social conditions and the injustice produced by those conditions. Some UCLA departments representative of liberatory education are Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies (such as Chicano/a Studies and African American Studies). However, it is these departments that are often the first hurt by California’s education budget cuts. This is in part due to the corporate influence hovering over the UC system. Our regents are appointed by the governor, rather than democratically elected by the people. Instead of those appointed having experience in education, they are CEO’s, real estate developers, and bankers with business interests and rising salaries. Ethnic and gender studies do not fit into education when it is treated as a business because those courses do not create workers in the capitalistic sense of the word. Occupy UCLA is protesting that universities be used to educate, not to provide corporations with profits.

L to R: Laura Sermeño, Rachel Sanoff and Samantha Blanco. Photo credit: Marcos Perez.

As feminist protestors, we felt compelled to discuss the feminists who came before us. Laura taught the crowd about Gloria Anzaldúa, one of the preeminent Chicana theorists and feminists. Laura also spoke of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, a 1600s self-taught Mexican writer who joined a convent, as that was the only way a woman could become educated and not have to get married. Sor Juana’s poetry even attacked slutshaming!

I discussed Jackie Goldberg, who fought for students’ rights to advocate political causes on campus as part of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Goldberg became a strong voice in the movement even when men tried to force women into secondary roles like providing food and drink during meetings.

The teach-out also addressed the feminist principles present in Occupy UCLA’s methods. It is non-hierarchical, meaning that no one has more privilege than another. We aim to function as a participatory democracy, meaning that each individual is directly involved in the decision-making process, rather than having representatives make decisions for us. This ideology makes it so that women’s voices are represented. America’s representative democracy has failed to do this, as demonstrated by the lack of a strong female presence in government. Only 16% of Congress is women, most of whom are white. And a fact that would surprise many proud Americans is that Afghanistan, Uganda and China all have more women in government than we do.

Through protests and teach-outs such as this, we have been able to raise our voices and defend our right to an affordable education. Our feminism inspires us to not only fight for a democratic society, but for a democratic university, too.

Interested in becoming part of Occupy UCLA?  Join the Facebook group for updates on protests and general assemblies!

I no longer trust Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

This week’s “Komen-tastrophe” first angered me, then elated me and has now confused me. On Friday, it seemed that Komen had decided to continue funding Planned Parenthood after all. Now, it’s not so clear.

Their statement announcing the reversal contained two things that were puzzling. First, it did not say that the foundation would continue funding Planned Parenthood, as many people seem to think. All it says is that Planned Parenthood’s current grant is still valid, and that the group would be “eligible” for future grants.

Second, the statement explained that Komen’s revised policy would only exclude funding for groups facing criminal investigation. This criterion leaves Planned Parenthood eligible, but disqualifies Penn State’s cancer research institute—which Komen is also funding.

This is all very fishy.

Before Friday’s reversal, Komen gave two reasons for cutting Planned Parenthood’s funds. The first was their new policy concerning government investigation. The second was that Planned Parenthood does not perform many mammograms, but instead issues referrals to women who need them—so Komen concluded that they’d do better to fund groups that actually give mammograms and eliminate the intermediary step.

Komen’s latest statement addressed the first reason, but not the second. If Komen decides not to continue Planned Parenthood’s grant when it expires next year, the mammogram referral issue would be an easy excuse.

Komen officials maintain that none of this week’s actions were politically motivated. Considering that Karen Handel, their vice president who resigned on Tuesday after only 10 months with the organization, is staunchly against Planned Parenthood, that sounds unlikely.

I suspect Komen won’t renew Planned Parenthood’s grant, especially if they think no one will notice. As MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pointed out on Thursday, Planned Parenthood has been under sustained attack for the past 18 months, yet this is the first instance of widely-reported outrage by Planned Parenthood supporters. If Komen thinks they can sidestep the angry mobs, Planned Parenthood won’t get funded.

My original, unpublished blog post on this topic, which I wrote during the elation stage of this weekend, concluded that Komen understands that women’s healthcare is not a political issue. How ironic that the longer this controversy continues, the louder Komen shouts that it isn’t about ideology, and the clearer it becomes that actually, it is.

FemCast Ep 3 Part 1

FemCast Ep 3 Part 2