Why Feminism Empowers Men

A while ago, my boyfriend's brother posted this image on his tumblr:

I love it. I think it's spot-on. I just want to talk about this concept for a moment. And I want to start by posing the question: What even is feminism?

I think that, from a very young age, we receive subtle cues that tell us what our place is in society. By which I mean, it is implied that girls cannot achieve, while boys learn they have value simply because they are boys. In modern culture, there are growing pockets where this is less and less true, and I think that's wonderful, but overall this attitude persists.

Obviously it's damaging to women, but let's look for a brief moment at what this accomplishes in men. When you tell a young girl that she is not capable, what you are simultaneously and tacitly telling the boy sitting next to her is "This is how you achieve." And by telling boys that in order to excel, they must first put girls down, it communicates that they have no implicit value.

Feminism is the belief that people are equal, regardless of gender. That everyone can achieve and excel. Feminism rejects sexism in all forms, whether it puts down men OR women, and it encourages all people to fulfill their greatest potential and reject the notion that they must or are only capable of behaving in certain ways, which are defined by their gender.

Why, then, is it not called "equalism" or "genderism?" Because across human cultures, women are historically the oppressed sex. I honestly don't know why this is. Perhaps because women are overall physically weaker, or because pregnancy makes you vulnerable? But either way, if you told me there was a culture where a class of people that represented 50% of the population was put down and treated as second-class citizens, I would bet very, very safe money that that class is women.

Because of this, the biggest and most obvious step toward achieving gender equality is to first empower women. Once equality for women in all things has been achieved, then the other minor details should naturally fall into place, since they emerged from the patriarchy to begin with.

On a practical level, this also ends up being empowering for men. It means not victim-blaming in cases of rape, but also not telling men they are merely animals and not in control of their instincts. It means not pressuring men to be simultaneously rugged and clean, and women to be "sexy and chaste." It means not shoe-horning men into a dominant role in every relationship. It means telling men they are capable of being compassionate parents.

In the end, when you tell men that they are capable of treating women equally, in short, you're telling men that they are capable, period.

On Rape Apologetics

Okay, Mr. Obama. I get it. Every time you say "Rape is rape," the vote fairy smiles down on you and sprinkles votes in your morning breakfast cereal. And the Republicans really handed you a free-bee this week, so you just couldn't pass it up.


Golf clap.

But can we please slow down for a second? Disgusting apologetics like "rape-rape" and "legitimate rape" have been around for a while and will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. So can we focus instead on the horrific lies and fake "science" being touted by Mr. Akin in his recent comments?

Can anyone with a microphone on cable TV please take the time this week to point out that women who are raped actually have a HIGHER chance of pregnancy?


Anyone?


Please?

Catching Up

I apologize for the inappropriately lengthy hiatus. I submitted, presented and got accepted my thesis proposal, so I am now officially a master's candidate in my program. And then many other fun and awesome personal things happened that kept me busy and away from the blogosphere. But now I'm here to catch up and tell you about all the interesting articles I've been reading lately.

Firstly, I did an interview with Courtney Hilden at Under the Microscope, a blog by the Feminist Press about women in science. It was a fun experience, and Courtney drew my attention to something I hadn't really given a lot of thought: although I meant this to be primarily a science blog, I end up writing about gender issues quite a bit. It just happens to be a topic that interests me, and was in no way intentional. But anyway, cool! Check out the interview if you want to learn a little more about my Masters research.

Speaking of mitochondrial research, there was also an exciting article about the possible applications of cybridization in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) techniques, as a therapy for mitochondrially inherited diseases. This technology is much further along than I had originally realized, and it's a very exciting prospect for IVF technologies. The snag is that it creates a potential for babies with three parents, which is a major ethical issue. It's not as severe as it sounds, and if there's an interest, I can go deeper into the specifics of this topic in another post. But in any case it's a fascinating article and definitely worth a read.

As for gender issues, my attention was brought to an article written by Dr. Ben Barres, a prof at Stanford with whom I've had some limited contact. Dr. Barres studies glial cells, and when I originally got my bachelor's degree, I contacted him about joining his lab, should I be accepted to Stanford. His research is fascinating, but the article is more about his professional presence in the field. You see, Dr. Barres used to be a woman. And as a transgendered individual, he's had a chance to see the sciences from both sides of the gender fence. As such, he's been able to shed a lot of light on gender discrimination in the sciences. It's a super cool article and I highly recommend it, especially if you work in the sciences.

I'm still reading up on women's issues quite a bit, and as contraception has been kind of a big deal in politics lately, I've been trying to keep up on any new and interesting news in that area. I found out from this fascinating article on the history of the IUD that I had fallen victim to some very common misconceptions about how IUDs work, and under what circumstances they're used in the United States (as opposed to the circumstances under which they would be the most impactful). As it turns out, the IUD is mainly recommended for women who already have children only in the United States, but it is honestly a better first choice for teenagers and young women who: 1) plan on not having children for years at a time and 2) are more likely to forget their pills or otherwise not use conventional birth control correctly. But this technology is not marketed toward that group in the US at all, for purely circumstantial reasons.

And this one's just for funsies. Turns out, in a stroke of pure poetry on the part of the universe, Barack Obama might be descended from the first American slave. It's not 100%, but the people who did the research used solid techniques and the study seems to check out with professional genealogists. If it's true, it makes a tidy and beautiful story about the perseverance of the African American community.

Alright, that's it for now. I've got a few blog posts brewing in my brain. I'll try to check back regularly. Thanks for your patience. ^_^