Books: not for guys, apparently

Flashback: It is the first week of 11th Grade. Having gone to the same school since kindergarten, I have no need for first day back-jitters or thinking what to wear to impress my peers. I wear what I like and that usually ends up being some lurid mod dress I bought at a thrift store because I enjoy wearing happy clothes when I seem endlessly angsty.

There is a new kid in our grade. Let’s call him Andrew. I do not make any effort to talk to him because, honestly, I generally don’t talk to people outside of the small set of friends that I already have. Perhaps this is due to my aspirations as a fashion journalist or the fact that growing up an only child has made me this way, but I have always had a highly anthropological take on my peers. Either way, I won’t sugarcoat it: I make observations about people based on their appearances and the behaviors I observe. This makes me sound super creepy and possibly even shallow, but I like to think of myself more as The Harriet The Spy type character. The kind that sits with her notebook, takes notes on the people in her class and then writes about it.

Anyways, judging by “Andrew’s” appearance we don’t seem to have anything in common. He wears extra-small t-shirts to show off his muscles and I’ve noticed that he rarely eats which I’m told is so he can make it into a lower weight class for wrestling. Oh, what the hell, I figure, he’s new and sitting alone, I’ll give him a chance! He’s not so bad.

A week or so later, I check back in on him in a free period. He’s in the midst of a conversation with my friend and I decide to eavesdrop. I overhear them talking about books. I like books so this seems to be something we all have in common. Maybe he isn’t so bad after all. But then he opens his mouth again.

“What do you mean you are reading Pride and Prejudice?” he says to my (guy) friend. “Guys don’t read books.”

I can’t help myself. I burst out laughing. It’s one of those bizarre statements where you’re not sure if the person just has an unusual sense of humor or if they actually just said the most stupid thing that you’ve ever heard. Apparently it is the latter. It is not my conversation but I cut-in anyway.

“Wait, what? What do you mean guys don’t read books?” I say.

“I mean that girls actually read books. Guys shouldn’t have to. They should just SparkNote them.”

I think this is such an eschewed, sexist perception of reality that in no way makes sense to me. Hobbies don’t have genders…especially something as basic and necessary as reading.

One of my favorite quotes of all time was said by Daria, a cartoon character from 1990s MTV: “People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” You see, it’s as if my parents prophesized that at the ripe old age of 16 I would proudly call myself one. Being a feminist has nothing to do with what you wear or your sexual orientation, it simply means that you believe men and women should be treated equally. Period. The boy, “Andrew” that I was telling you about and I get into a verbal match that escalates, until finally he walks away. Whether or not he acknowledges the rhetoric I’ve just spat at him, I nonetheless feel triumphant like I have suddenly overcome something big. I don’t know what then but I will soon enough.

Emma also has her own blog, The Emma Edition

male bisexuality = unicorn? I don't think so.

I know a lot of people – gay and straight – who believe that bisexuality, specifically bisexual men, exist about as much as they believe that unicorns exist. It seems that there are people who believe that only women can be bisexual and that women are more fluid than men when it comes to sexuality. They believe men can’t be bisexual, but are either gay or straight. Hell, a few years ago I didn’t even believe bisexuality was real and now I identify as bi.

I have big problem with this, and I mean a BIG problem. You might ask, “Why? You’re a woman, why should you care about bisexual men?” I care because I think the gender stereotypes and gender roles that trap men are wrong.

Men are expected to show that they are real men by getting as much ass as possible. They are expected to be promiscuous, sleeping around with as many women as possible. If a man even thinks about not adhering to this stereotype/gender role, then he’s considered gay by others around him, which in our society is still not considered a good thing.

I know tons of men who are secretly bi and are only out to their partners. I know some who are bisexual but don’t want to come out because they’re afraid that no woman would ever want them and worry women will only see them as interested in men. They’re also afraid of gay men not believing them and telling them that they’re gay but are afraid to come out.

Women and gay men who do this don’t realize that their harsh judgments are what keep men (and women, too) from fully realizing their bisexual identity. If we had an open society, where everybody no matter what was welcomed and not ostracized for being “half gay” as one person told me, if we stop telling people how to be or who to fall in love with, and just let them be themselves, I’m sure that we could stop bigotry in its tracks.

I sometimes get very disappointed in the LGBT community. I feel that we often judge each other and accuse each other of “not doing it right.” We are all human beings. We are all unique in our own little way. We need to stop throwing stones at each other, and passing horrible judgments. We need to stop excluding people that aren’t “gay enough” or who are really afraid to come out as gay and don’t want to admit it. This includes people who are trans as well, who I know often feel as left out as bisexual people do.

I’ve said it once and I will say it once more: united we stand, divided we fall! So let’s all please stop this horrible gender role stereotyping that bisexual men are really just gay but afraid to admit it. We need to instead view people who are bi as the missing link in sexuality. We prove that being gay is just as normal and natural to everybody as being straight is: that one isn’t better or more important than the other. At least that’s the way I see it.

So if a guy you like comes out as bi, don’t shun him or say, “Gross, no thanks.” Just go for it. You may be surprised!

Tonight I spoke with the grandfather of a friend of mine after a basketball game. The game had just ended, and we were standing around, waiting for the team to emerge from the locker room, making the usual sort of losing team whiny small talk that one might expect, when a cheerleader walked by. We had seen her all night, selling raffle tickets, flirting with the guys’ team, doing her cheer thing, but mostly, we saw her wearing that uniform.

Now at the end of the game, she’s walking to her locker room, minding her own business, and this sweet little old man looks at me and comments, “I guess she likes that uniform.” “Uh I guess so” was all I could say, not really feeling like having a conversation, and feeling uncomfortable already. I looked at the floor, crossed my arms, leaned away, sent all of the antisocial nonverbal cues I could muster, and yet still he continued – “I’m glad my granddaughter doesn’t dress like that.” He’s staring me down, wants a response of some kind. “Umm well I’m pretty sure it’s a uniform” I respond, trying not to be rude, just trying to get out of this awkward conversation. Of course he keeps talking. “Seems to me that if a girl wears basically nothing, like that one is, She’s just asking for some boy to knock her down and rape her. Wouldn’t even be his fault, walking around dressed like that.”

This is the part where I wish I was Inga Muscio, I wish I was Andrea Gibson, or Gloria Steinem, or bell hooks, or any other of the gutsy gumption filled women I look up to, but in this moment I am not, in this moment I look at the floor and feel the tips of my ears turn red. “No comment huh?” I look at him, and he’s smiling. I manage to make my mouth move, and squeak out “I think that’s a bit harsh.” Without looking at him, I scuffle away.

As I leave I am shaking with anger, with frustration, with compassion for the cheerleader, but mostly I’m filled with shame. I’m ashamed that a comment like that can shake me and fill me with fear. I’m ashamed that I let myself be silenced. I’m ashamed that I, the loudmouthed self avowed, in your face, Capital F Feminist, couldn’t find my voice. I’m the child of a pastor and a lawyer. I was born to be opinionated, and yet in the face of blatant sexism, I swallowed my voice.

I can’t get it out of my head – I can’t stop thinking of that girl, God’s beautiful creation, spilling out of her cheerleading uniform. I can’t stop thinking that this grandfather has a son, and a grandson, and from his example, they are learning that when a girl dresses “like that” she loses her right to say no. They learn that a girl’s body is an object, to be casually picked apart in conversation, they learn that there is nothing deeper, nothing pure or true or good about this girl because she’s ” just a slut”. She’s asking for it, dressed like that.

It filled me with fear because I have been that girl.  If I put on that cheerleading uniform, I would look “indecent” to this man. Because nearly every girl and every woman has felt that at one time or another. It filled me with fear because this man was justifying rape while looking right at me, and what separated her from me was that for all appearances sake, I am a “good girl”- and her badness, her blatant sexuality made her inhuman, made her unworthy of respect, or of feelings, or emotion.

Feminists call this slut shaming, teaching that society views women who do not fear their bodies, and their sexuality, as inherently worthless, dumb and dirty. That they are “bad girls” and therefore deserving of rape and violence, because after all “they asked for it.”

This is a lot of rambling, about a 45 second conversation, but I thought you should know, that this is why I fight. This is why I don’t laugh at rape jokes, this is why I read feminist literature and refuse to back down.

Because 1 in 3 women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime (to get personal, pick 3 women in your life and try to pick one.)

Because men who initially seemed sweet instill in their sons and grandsons (intentionally or unintentionally) that a woman in a short skirt is no longer a person, but instead a sexual object.

Because a 45 second conversation can make me feel afraid and ashamed when I have done nothing wrong.

Zach graciously agreed to answer some questions for the FBomb, and, believe me, if you don’t already have a crush on him, you’re about to.

You have been called the new “poster-child for straight allies who support marriage equality.” How do you feel about this title?

To be honest, I really don’t like being thought of as a “straight ally,” so to speak, because it implies that I’m somehow separate from the community, which is simply not the case. Gay rights are my rights as well, insofar as they directly affect my family and me. If my biological mom had died when I was seven, I wouldn’t have been able to live with my other mom, I would have been shipped off to live with one of my uncles. Jackie probably wouldn’t have even had visitation rights.

And ultimately, the fact is that so long as society views this struggle as one for “gay” rights, we’re not going to get a whole lot of traction. It’s a question of *civil* rights, just like we weren’t fighting for “black” rights during the 60s: we were fighting for equality. And we’re still doing that today.

That being said, I see I’ve got this awesome opportunity to speak out on behalf of my family and advocate for our rights, so I’m doing my best to have a positive impact and move this conversation in a healthy direction.

Why don’t you think that more children of same sex parents have spoken out in defense of gay rights / in support of gay marriage?

Well, first off, there aren’t actually that many of us that are as old as me. I’m not the oldest by any means. I actually know some people in their late 20’s/early 30’s who were raised by gay couples. They grew up during a time, however, where it really wasn’t acceptable to talk about their families or gay marriage generally. I mean, it really hasn’t been until the last few years where the support for marriage equality on a national level has really climbed, and recently reached a majority, which is phenomenal. So I’m at the age where gay marriage is increasingly accepted, but I’m still a “kid” insofar as my parents have clearly been the single largest influence on me, but I’m a kid who’s hold enough to have an independent opinion, and I happen to be a kid with a strong speech and debate background and the ability to articulate that opinion in a coherent, persuasive manner.

And while we’re at it, personally, I don’t even like the phrase “gay marriage,” because there’s really no such thing. It’s just marriage, and a question of whether or not the institution is discriminating against people who wish to marry someone of the same sex or not. This kind of ties into my answer to the first question.

Some critics have claimed that you – nor anybody else – have yet to offer a “logical” defense of gay marriage. How do you respond to this / what do you think is the ultimate defense for gay marriage?

Hahaha, yikes. That’s funny, because I have yet to hear a logical argument against marriage equality. If you accept the separation of church and state in this country, there really is no logical argument against marriage equality. If you don’t accept the separation of church and state in this country, I’d recommend re-reading the bill of rights, specifically the part about the state not establishing a religion.
But it comes down to this:

The US Supreme Court has ruled thirteen times that marriage is a fundamental civil right. As articulated in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, we all have equal protection under the law. The state recognizes marriage for two reasons: 1) to recognize the relationship between two loving people and to cede to them specifically the legal rights, privileges and protections that people in such a relationship deserve. (The right to execute each other’s will, hospital visitation rights, insurance rights, etc.) And 2) to encourage procreation, and thus the perpetuation of society. Because it has been scientifically demonstrated that gays are no worse at raising kids than heterosexual couples and that the kids are not damaged by having gay parents, and because it’s pretty clear that love is love regardless of the sex of the people involved, it is unconstitutional to take from gays their right to civil marriage. Period, the end.

Now, my mind can be changed on this. Seriously. If opponents of marriage equality can demonstrate that 1) Marriage is not a civil right (and overturn 13 US Supreme Court decisions) OR 2a) kids raised by homosexuals/bisexuals are somehow deficient or inferior to kids raised by heterosexuals AND 2b) that the love between people of the same sex is somehow less legitimate than people of different sexes, I wouldn’t necessarily support marriage equality. Seems unlikely that those points will ever be proved, though.

Do you think that your feelings about/perceptions of masculinity and what it means to be a man were in any way impacted by being raised by two women? Similarly, do you think your perceptions of gender or sexual norms were influenced?

Not particularly. Like most people of our generation, my perceptions of both masculinity and femininity were largely shaped by society, my peers and other socializing forces. Parents, in my experience, play a relatively small role in how we perceive masculinity and femininity. As far as sexual norms go, though, yeah, my parents probably had a measurable impact there, just to the point that I never thought homosexuality was *not* not-normal.

Do you consider yourself a feminist?

Unequivocally.

The gay marriage ban that set the stage for your testimony (House Joint Resolution 6) was ultimately passed, despite your moving words. How do you feel about this? Any future political activism planned?

Well the ban didn’t actually pass. House Joint Resolution 6 was a proposed constitutional amendment. For a constitutional amendment to pass, it must pass both houses of the Iowa General Assembly in two back-to-back sessions, each of which lasts two years. Those votes require only a simple majority. After that point, it then goes to the Iowa voters on the ballot, which also requires a simple majority of voters to approve it. HJR6 passed the Iowa House 62-37, but has not even come up for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and in all likelihood will not pass during this session, meaning that it couldn’t possibly reach the ballot box until late 2015. By that point, it seems likely that a majority of Iowans would not support redefining marriage in an exclusionary way. And I’ve got faith that even if it did come to pass, Perry v. Schwarzenegger will result in the striking down of all anti-gay marriage bans and amendments in the country.

Are you hopeful for our generation? Do you think the political landscape will change as we start voting in larger numbers and enter politics, and if so, how?

Very much so. For our generation, marriage equality isn’t an issue. Women’s rights and other minority rights are not an issue. An 18 year old in Alabama is more likely to support gay marriage than a 65 year old in Massachusetts. ‘Nuff said.

I think when it comes to social issues, the members of our generation are pretty much on the same page. Economic and foreign policy issues? Not so much. But, socially, I think we’re all pretty much in the same place and the policies implemented over the next few years will definitely reflect that.

Mehran Rafaat (in white) is a bacha posh

Afghanistan has had a rough time in recent history. The sudden transformation from fashionable escape for the West to war-torn warlord-ruled landscape to complete Taliban control (and now it seems that the whole place is more or less up for grabs as the current government’s complicity with the Taliban has been revealed) has been something shocking to look at independently of any time period before or after a given moment, or in a historical panorama of the past century.

Kabul was once named the “Paris of the Middle East.” The high society women were very well integrated into European society and many took on French as a second language in an aristocratic gesture to their high-brow city’s namesake.

But the times have changed considerably since then. Anyone who kept up with the news of the Taliban takeover at the beginning of the millenium are familiar with the plight of women in Afghanistan, a percieved problem for Western observers that Sharia law sanctioned. Women were no longer allowed to sport Western haircuts or fashions, and they had to retreat into the billowing black folds of burqas. Though I don’t wish to discuss the legitimacy of this (because I think that, in general, if a woman chooses to wear a hijab or a whole burqa, that is her prerogative in every regard) the loss of feminine freedoms is unmistakable. Now no longer able to leave the house without a male relative, or have any interaction with men unless it is a family member, women are put back in the house in a move that tore the Middle East from the magnetic grasp of the Western world.

The gender barrier is not entirely impenetrable. In fact, there are moments when it can prove to be quite porous. This region’s infatuation with male-dominance has lead to an interesting loophole for women.

Young girls are often dressed up as boys in the absence of a son.

At some point in a young girl’s childhood, the parents, desperately needing a son to legitmize their family, tell the girl that she is no longer going to wear girls’ clothes anymore. The young girl does not really have an understanding of the implications of this external change until years later. She abides her parents wishes and she has her hair cut like a boy, and exchanges her clothes for that of her prodigal brother.

A superstition had somehow woven itself inextricably into the folklore of the larger Afghan community, and it was believed that dressing up a daughter as a son would increase a woman’s chances of giving birth to a son at some point.

With the transformation complete, the young girl discovers that she is able to circumvent the strick stipulations enforced against her sex. Though it is common knowledge that she is merely a stand-in son until the real one comes along, she is treated as a boy by the community at large. She is able to explore the streets outside of her dusty home without a male chaperone. At school, she plays sports with the boys and does not hang out with the girls anymore. She bonds with her father.

The “bacha posh” (literally “dressed up as a boy” in Dari) grows accustomed to her new assumed gender. But then she grows up and the requisite physical changes begin to take place. Her disguise begins to fail her, and her mother and father tell her that it is time to turn back into dutiful daughter once again.

“For me, it would have been better to grow up as a girl since I had to become a woman in the end,” commented a former bacha posh.

She has to grow accustomed to a burqa that drags on the floor and bunches around her legs, she must grow out her hair and keep it from falling into her face. She can no longer play soccer with the boys and she grows closer to her mother who may have had a son in the years that the daughter played the part.

“When you change back, it’s like you are born again.”

Some women choose to stay as a bacha posh indefinitely because they grow so accustomed to it. Despite their parents’ wishes. Other change back, but fail to fall into the confines of perfect domicility. In the article, one woman speaks of her husband who hit her. Her reaction was to hit him back. That settled the couple’s dynamic quickly.

I think what is most curious about this social phenomenon is the ability of women to access the world of men in a completely acceptable way. It is completely acceptable for a women to become a man in a hyper-masculine society. Of course, the catch is that she’ll go back once her time is up, but I still think it is remarkable that this can happen in a place where gender roles are so stringently policed. I feel like this sort of cross-dressing would be seen as utterly unacceptable in the United States. Though that’s because men and women are much more equal in their importance to society (though sexism still runs rampant), it would seem that Americans are still completely uncomfortable by obfuscating our set gender roles because, perhaps, that is something reserved for a subversise transvestite community found in drag clubs.

Social norms are terribly inconsistent and prove contrary to other tenets of a society beliefs. The fact that gender-bending is acceptable in Afghanistan and still taboo in America is somewhat mystifying in some ways, though sensible in a pragmatic way for those in desperate want of a son. This alternate road also demands the question: why don’t women gain more rights if they are already granted such freedoms if they dress as men? It seems over-complicated to be even worth the difficult transition between genders that could later inhibit a woman’s future formation of an identity. Also, it seems odd that men, who so zealousy guard their birthright, allow women to assume their role. I would feel emasculated in that position, but perhaps that’s only an American standpoint. Though perhaps it’s utterly useless to try and compare these two regions that have such different ethos governing how we view gender identity and sex. But it would be interesting to look at it further because I think it would help me as an American point out how men percieve themselves in relation to each other and to women.

In Afghanistan, it seems like the idea of a man so far as fulfilling the position of head of the household is largely a symbolic position that coincides with said individual having a penis. But this physical attribute, given the bacha posh tradition, is only secondary to the need of a strong hand to govern the household. Having a son ensures the protection of the household in the future, but at that age the differences between a girl and a boy honestly are not that significant. Symbolically, a girl can stand in place of a boy until puberty hits, when the actual mark of manhood becomes apparent. Then the man must take on the role of ruler of the house, as well as adventurer who crosses the threshold and enters the wide open world in order to secure the needs of his family unit.

Perhaps I’m looking at this entire phenomenon in archaic terms, but the transferability of masculinity in children is significant. In America, girls are girls and boys are boys. Gender identity is seen as set in stone. In Afghanistan, the role in the household and the face you present to the outside world is much more ritualized, and in fact offers great evidence that perhaps gender roles – especially when instituted at a young age – are more flexible than Americans may think.

Alec also blogs at the BAM blog, where this article was originally posted

Michael Kimmel's Guyland

It pains me a little bit to say this, but I have to admit it. I’m kind of a hypocrite. I’ve spent over a year on this blog exploring most every facet of being a teen girl in this culture through a feminist lens. I’ve bitched (and rightfully so) about how there’s still a shit ton of sexism out there and how we still need to fight for equality, but I never really mentioned the guys.

While I’ve always supported men in the feminist movement, and believe they need to be a part of it, I’ve always viewed the way masculinity standards shape and effect men as something completely separate from women in this culture and a marginal part of feminism. It wasn’t until I read Michael Kimmel’s book Guyland that I began to realize that masculinity actually plays a huge role in feminism, and has completely shaped how we see equality.

Somewhere along the lines, feminism’s fight for “equality” became the fight to be “guys” without anybody really noticing. In many ways, what we consider “equality” in our country today is really just girls conforming to the standards guys have set for themselves, and guys allowing us into their world. For example, women in the workplace often note that in order to keep up with their male bosses, or to obtain and thrive in a position that was once solely a male  privilege, they have to act like “bitches” – an attitude that when enacted by men is only seen as taking control and is respected. In this situation, maybe it seems like we have achieved “equality” – and in a sense being able to have that job at all is a victory – but aren’t we just conforming to male behavior? Why don’t male CEOs try a more traditionally “feminine” approach, like conflict management?

A more age appropriate example is probably hooking up. Now, hooking up is a phenomenon of our generation that deserves its own post and even its own book (and there have been books). It’s complicated and it’s an individual experience (that is to say it works for some and doesn’t work for others). The argument can even be made that engaging in sexual behavior with various partners and without commitment is an empowering experience for girls. We get to choose who we hook up with, and it’s even indicative of the fact that we are so busy now and are doing so many other important things that our lives don’t revolve around relationships. And that’s a legitimate argument. But, on the other hand, hooking up is kind of a male-controlled practice. Most of the girls I know who do hook up (and I admit this is just my experience and who I know – this isn’t the rule) do it because they hope that eventually a relationship will emerge from it -that the guy will suddenly realize he really does care about them. For girls, hooking up is a means to an end while for guys…it’s just hooking up. They set the standard, and if girls want to be in the game at all, then they have to play by guy rules.

My point is this: the feminist movement has come a long way and has achieved amazing things, including many situations of legitimate equality. But at the same time, there is still this weird undercurrent of girls merely conforming to the standards men have set. Equality should go both ways: BOTH genders should be moving towards a happy median. Feminism really should effect everybody, and such a goal is actually in everybody’s best interest.

There may be unfair cultural pressures on girls – like unattainable body standards, for example – but men have to face some seriously shitty standards too. In our society, we barely let men realize their full humanity. If they cry or get scared, or even if they get too excited or happy, for god’s sake, we question their masculinity and therefore their validity in our culture. We force them to prove their masculinity at every available opportunity, which often leads to dumbass stuff like hazing. Essentially, we live in a culture that pushes guys to be aggressive and violent, then lament the fact that they are.

So there it is. I may not know a lot about masculinity, personally, but it seems that guys are having about as much fun trying to be Bear Grylls as girls are trying to be Gisele Bundchen. Can we please, for the love of God, just meet in the middle?

what does it mean to be a soldier

Not a single female was to be found in my first semester history course.

Our class discussed this curious state of affairs extensively, and it was decided after much deliberation that another history course offered during the same block – Gender, Culture, and Power – had absorbed any females interested in learning about current affairs in the Middle East and Central Asia course. Do women find hardcore politics unappealing? I think that would be a gross generalization, but the better question is: Do men find gender studies emasculating?

In any case, one morning, my favorite history teacher who taught the class, started a conversation about the military. As was her style, she often began the day with some relaxing banter before pulling out the academic big-guns. She was extremely quirky, and wore Navajo inspired prints paired with plaid shorts. At Christmas, she put antlers on the side-mirrors of her decades-old van, and a big red pompom on the front grill.

A jock sitting in the back corner of the room, his shoulders hunched and his elbows plying against one of several old wooden tables in the room, said that he had applied to West Point.

“Who do you think would be the least likely candidate for West Point in our class?” My teacher had a way of impulsively saying things  without realizing the socio-political under-workings that she had set in gear.

Everyone either said my name, or another boy’s name (who, incidentally, came out to me a couple of weeks ago).

I thought that my jaw was going to shatter as tendons began to sprout from my neck. “I’d kick ass at West Point,” I said loudly, only to have my affirmations chuckled away by my classmates as they gave me knowing glances and smirked at buddies across the room. “Oh, really?” The jock leered at me, his eyes lit up by my comedy.

This was extremely upsetting for me to endure. I’m by no means the strongest boy in my grade – I’m probably one of the weakest, skinniest ones – but that doesn’t mean that I lack all of the qualities of a good soldier. I don’t have plans to join the military any time soon, but I’ve always felt that there was so much more to being a soldier than just brawn. At least, the recruitment commercials that are broadcasted on television seem to espouse this message. They talk about building character and learning life lessons in the battlefield and brotherhood; there is no mention of how much of a man you have to be to ‘belong’ in the military. I have discipline, I am brave, I am resourceful and intelligent and I feel like I have proved this time and time again in ways that none of my classmates have. Why is it, then, that I seem to be the least soldierly of the bunch?

The military is romanticized. We say that the military is about so much more than the visible muscle mass of our troops. Soldiers are good people as well. Soldiers are the cream of the masculine crop. They are supposed to both firm and gentle, defenders of the peace. I think that the fact that people laugh me out is proof enough that this is a myth. The military is a harsh place where, until recently, gay and lesbian soldiers were unable to serve openly. Female soldiers are raped, and our troops sometimes kill innocent people. During their free time, captains spend their time producing offensive videos for the supposed enjoyment of their morally upright troops. Our soldiers are the clean-up crew of democracy.

Granted, I think that soldiers should be respected for the fact that they do go and put themselves in danger on a regular basis because I sure wouldn’t like to do that for a living. But I also think that many of the men who we respect are a lot more than the time they serve in the military. I think that they are great people in spite of their service, and the fact that they would enlist is proof of that. I don’t think that their character is directly related to participation in the military, or the values of the military itself.

By the same token, I think that it is inconsistent that people who believe in moralizing militaristic ideals think that people like me are completely incapable of serving in the military. It goes to show that they are hypocrites who use a myth to obscure their own bigotry as they see fit. If soldiers are made by their exercise regiment, then the cut of a man and the military are two entirely separate entities.

Originally posted on the BAM blog

Does EVERY kiss begin with Kay? At least not from me...

Ah, the holidays. The time of year when houses are lit up, the streets are crowded with shoppers, and the whole family spends quality time together watching specials on television.

It’s all well and good, until little gems like these pop up.

I’m sure you’ve all seen this lovely commercial from Kay Jewelers. Where a couple is watching the storm outside, and suddenly the thunder scares the poor little girlfriend into her man’s arms. Then he gives her a sparkly necklace and everyone’s happy!

…Wait, what.

You know, I was actually thinking the last fifty-or-so years of the women’s movement actually had some impact on the way women were portrayed in the media.  When I watched this commercial, my mouth literally dropped in shock.

Because along with enticing me to buy an overpriced hunk of metal, it also taught me two things I didn’t know about my own gender.

1. Women need a big tough man to protect them from scary things like thunderstorms.

Really? Just, really? If this were true, then all the single ladies out there would probably cease to function and instead huddle in a corner with a teddy bear for the rest of our pathetic lives, waiting for Superman to come to our rescue. Not only does it present women as infantile and timid little creatures, it has the audacity to suggest that…

2. If a woman is anxious, all you need is a small shiny object to make her happy.

Forget talking about things and being rational, that’s for men. Ladies, the panacea for all your problems, whether it be mean ol’ Mother Nature out to get you, or the fact that you’re just too weak to handle a man’s world, is small, glittery, and you need a boyfriend or a husband to give it to you. Once you have that, then you’re set! (but note: it must, absolutely must, be expensive or else he doesn’t really care for you like he says he does)

And don’t forget th—ooooh, shiny!

My apologies. I was distracted.

It’s not just cheesy. It’s in poor taste. And frankly, it’s insulting. I can’t believe this is happening in the 21^st century. Yes, it’s just a commercial. But if this is what companies think is appealing to the American public, then something is very wrong here.

Thank you, Kay Jewelers. I can’t wait for my next lesson in sexism. And I will be sure to demand that my boyfriend head on over there and get me a friggin’ symbol of our love, or else I’m going to throw a temper tantrum.