pop culture

Girl with Pen is extremely pleased to bring you the inaugural post from Allison Kimmich, Executive Director of the National Women’s Studies Association. Allison will be posting her column, Girl Talk, which explores truths and fictions about girls, the third Wednesday of every month. -Kristen

As a feminist, and as a professional advocate for feminist education in my work at the National Women’s Studies Association, I felt faint one day three years ago when my then-five-year-old daughter told me that “girls don’t do math.”

Well, it turns out that my daughter was right. Last week the New York Times reported on a study that points to U.S. failures in math education. The article notes that the United States does a poor job of educating both boys and girls in math, but that we especially miss opportunities to encourage girls who could be excellent mathematicians unless they are immigrants or daughters of immigrants from countries where math is valued.

Or as one of the study’s lead author Janet E. Mertz puts it, “We’re living in a culture that is telling girls you can’t do math—that is telling everybody that only Asians and nerds do math.” Neither the study nor the article explores in detail what it is about American culture that undervalues math education, but the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls produced a report last year that offers some insights. The report notes that self-objectification (buying sexy clothes or asking parents to do so, and identifying with sexy celebrities) can “detract from the ability to concentrate and focus one’s attention, thus leading to impaired performance on mental activities such as mathematical computations or logical reasoning.”

more...

Sex and Sensibility: Quick Takes
by Kristen Loveland

Hi to all from your Sex and Sensibility lady here. Here are a few things that caught my eye this past week:

1. The Truth About Teen Girls: Belinda Luscombe has an awesome article in Time Magazine talking about how, despite the proliferation of sexual imagery in the teenage world, maybe we shouldn’t be twisting our knickers in such a knot over their alleged sexual promiscuity. To wit:

“With the pornucopia of media at teens’ disposal in the past decade and a half, on cell phones and computers as well as TVs, early-adolescent sex should be having a growth spurt. But the figures don’t necessarily support one. Despite a minor increase in 2006, the rate of pregnancies among teen girls has been on a downward trend since 1991. Another indicator, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, is alarmingly high: nearly 1 in 4 girls ages 14 to 19 and nearly 1 in 2 African-American girls, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But this is the first year such a study has been completed, and the study doesn’t separate 14-to-16-year-olds from 17-to-19-year-olds, so it’s still unclear which way that trend is heading.”

Keep reading this fantastic article here and thanks to Deborah for sending this to me!

2. I Am Charlotte: The Series: While on the one hand it appears that there are finally a number of voices asking us to put on the breaks for a second and contemplate what the actual sexual experiences of teenage girls are, it looks like Tom Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simmons is going to be made into an HBO series. Charlotte Simmons the book has often been noted as over-stated and over-bearing in its condemnation of college sexuality. As the New York Magazine Book Review put it at the time:

“Wolfe’s vision of eroticism is ultimately too dark. When, in Charlotte Simmons, an older man has sex with a younger woman, it is, of course, cynical. But when a younger man has sex with a younger woman, it is equally cynical. Indeed, all the sex in Wolfe’s imagined university is rotten. All intimacy is rotten. At the end of the novel, Charlotte falls in with a new man. He comes from a very different walk of life than Charlotte does, and to all appearances he adores her. One might reasonably see this turn of events as a triumph—love conquering differences, love opening doors. But Wolfe intends for us to see it as a defeat: The man is not suited for his clever country heroine; she has forgotten, he suggests, that “she is Charlotte Simmons”; she has lost her identity.”

To put it mildly, I’m not overly-optimistic about the way the series will portray yet another young woman who has lost her character to the hedonistic offerings of that Gomorrah now known as the American university.

3. The Old is New Again: And finally, on a slightly different note, Ann over at Feministing recently wrote about John LaBruzzo, a state legislator from Louisiana, who wants to pay low-income women to be sterilized. Something that is consistently overlooked in mainstream’s take on what it means to be Pro-Choice is that it is just that: the choice to have or not to have a child. As a political position, it is both concerned with those woman who, for x, y, and z reason, choose not to have a child, and with those from whom the right to have a child is coercively taken away. There have been a number of studies and histories done on sterilization abuse which, particularly in 1970s America, targeted poor and minority women, and included everything from outright nonconsensual sterilizations, to unclear statements signed on the hospital bed before an abortion, to, well, something like LaBruzzo’s brilliant idea. The government has no place in coercing a targeted group of women into permanent reproductive decisions.

You may have heard that the Bush administration’s latest attempt to infringe on women’s reproductive rights could give health-care workers the right to refuse contraception to their patients. Yes, it all sounds a bit pre-Griswoldian. I’d like to say I’m shocked. But I’m not. After all, we live in a world of abstinence-only sex ed and, for a time, Eric Keroack. More especially, we live in a cultural climate intent on pathologizing and condemning young people’s sexual practices, and governmental encroachment on the sexual habits of legal adults seems like the obvious next step. But let’s be honest, they’re really concerned with the sexual habits of young women, and are we surprised?

In 2007 when I first opened the Atlantic Monthly to discover Caitlin Flanagan’s take on Laura Sessions Stepp’s Unhooked, which chronicles “the semi-anonymous ‘hooking up’ that is now the norm,” I was floored. After noting Stepp’s conclusion that the “girls” were “exhausted physically, emotionally and spiritually” by the practice, Flanagan carried on her own paternalistic diatribe on “girls” who change “in some ugly ways when left on their own.” I was shocked. They were talking about me. Or, at least, they thought they were talking about me. After all, I was a 23-year-old woman who had hooked up with men I was not nearly in love with throughout college. Did this make me an “ugly-wayed” girl?

With other things on my mind (a grad school thesis, job search, friends and flings), I promptly forgot about it. However, soon I realized that this trend wasn’t going away. What has followed, from both the religious right and so-called cultural studies of my generation such as Unhooked and Girls Gone Mild by Wendy Shalit, has been an attempt to convince young women that by engaging in pre-marital, or more broadly “pre-love,” sexual activity, they risk their emotional and psychological well-being. With women no longer prohibited by fear of pregnancy or STDs, purity propagators are now on a mission to tell women that, like smoking and fatty foods, sex is bad for their health.

The recent publication by the The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute of Sense and Sexuality, subtitled: “The college girl’s guide to real protection in a hooked-up world” highlights this fact.
According to Sense and Sexuality, girls should avoid hookups because oxytocin, released during sex, will cause a girl to “develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you.” Further, it scientifically observes that “as the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women.” In sum, once you have sex with a guy, you’re a goner. You fall in love, you get attached, you’re bound to become love-sick and depressed when it doesn’t work– all because you had intercourse.

Don’t you find it odd that such arbiters of high culture and higher religion center their definition of “love” on sexual intercourse? While troubadours once spun tales of romantic despair and literal illness caused by love unrequited, today’s story-tellers have pared that soulful feeling down to a simple physical act. As my generation would say, how ironic. As I would say, how wrong. In a recent Vanity Fair article, British bon vivant Nicky Haslam, now 68 and with many lovers come and gone, says, “The truth is I’m not that interested in sex… I’m about love. It’s wonderful once or something. The quickest way to fall out of love is to sleep with somebody. Don’t shatter the crystal.” Go ahead. Call me a romantic. But my greatest heartache was not caused by the guy who hopped in and out of my bed and got away, but by the guy who seemed to fulfill my ideal of what I want in a partner, and got away.

Let’s talk about agency and subjectivity, because I think it’s about time the media published more first-hand accounts from the “hookup” generation itself. Tracy Clark-Flory, my own age (24), wrote a great article at Salon about her “hookup” experience–she’s had about three times as many hookups as relationships, and concludes, “like innumerable 20-somethings before me, I’ve found that casual sex can be healthy and normal and lead to better adult relationships.” Like many my age, who will wait to marry until they are well into their late twenties and thirties, she has found hookups to be a way to romantically vet men. I whole-heartedly agree.

And about that term “hookup”–so amorphous, so undefined. To be clear, if I tell a friend that I “hooked up” with so-and-so last night, her first reaction will be “So how far’d you go?” A “hookup” can range anywhere from making out to a full romp in bed. It might include slinking out at midnight or staying over, cuddling in the morning, going out for brunch. It is one of the most ill-defined terms of my generation, which makes it surprising that so many adults have such firm opinions on it. And while a hookup may be “semi-anonymous” as Flanagan says, it often involves a classmate or an acquaintance or friend you’ve known for years. It can last a night, a month, or three years on and off.

In college and beyond, the line between hooking up and dating has become increasingly blurred. I’ve known couples now engaged who began with an orientation-week hookup. I’ve known wine-and-dine daters who have dropped out of the picture with nary an explanation. Do I worry about girls who engage in hookups because they think the only thing they have to give are their bodies? Of course. And as Shira Tarrant recently noted in Bitch, “the modesty movement makes some good points about the effect a hypersexual culture can have on women’s well-being and sense of self.”

Yet why are our moral watchdogs so quick to condemn women’s sex-positive behavior as primary culprit? As Tarrant goes on to argue, such an analysis leaves women with only two choices: to be either virgin or whore. And personally, I’d like to think of myself as neither. Writes Tarrant, “If we refuse to acknowledge that judgments about women and modesty come from an extremely narrow-minded, controlling view that has more to do with punishing female sexual agency than with modesty itself, all we’re doing is restating that good girls don’t, bad girls do, and each gets what’s coming to her. 
” By targeting immodesty and hookups, in fact, such commentators only undermine their mission, ignoring the complex social influences that actually do lead some women to value their bodies over their selves. Self-destructive sex is a symptom of a greater social pathology–not the cause.

But haven’t I ever felt “exhausted physically, emotionally and spiritually” from “hooking up”? Yes, sometimes, just as I’ve felt exhausted by tested friendships and challenged beliefs. Show me a Bildungsroman protagonist, or an average American college student, who doesn’t need to go through emotionally and physically trying times to develop a better understanding of what he or she wants in a career, a friendship, a partner, in him- or herself.

At the end of her Atlantic article, Flanagan writes: “The bitter pill for many parents sending their daughters to college is that there is no possible way to protect them from what they will encounter once they have been dropped off at the freshman dorm.” As a woman who is very different today from the tremendously introverted and scared 18-year-old her parents dropped off at her freshman dorm, all I can say is: thank goodness for that.

-Kristen Loveland

Shira Tarrant, editor of the fabulous Men Speak Out, is at it again with a call for essays for a new academic anthology, this time on feminism and fashion, tentatively titled Feminism, Fashion and Flair: Confronting Hegemony with Style. Here’s the description:

Fashion is a powerful way we express our politics, personalities, and preferences for who and how we love. Yet fashion can also repress freedom and sexual expression. Fashion encourages profound creativity, rebellion, and defiant self-definition while simultaneously controlling and disciplining the body. Fashion signals resistance to sexual morés and it can also promote a problematic consumer culture. Fashion creates collective identity, but also constrains individual voice. In other words, fashion contains the paradoxical potential for pleasure and subjugation, expression and conformity.

This book explores the productive tensions generated by fashion and style. We are interested in essays that take up questions of gender with special attention to race, class, sexuality, age, and ethnicity. This collection blends theory and pop culture analysis in exciting ways, focusing on contemporary trends and controversies.

Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:
Theories of agency, style, and the presentation of self
Performing identity: race, class, gender and sexuality through style
Consumerist pleasure and anxiety
Fashion production in the context of global capital and trade
Bois, grrls, trannies and styles of queerness
Hardcore, metro, punk, and khakis: constructing masculinities through fashion
Body art and ethnic appropriations
Debates in plastic surgery and re-fashioning the body
Class identity and decorating domestic space
Feminist fashion: debates over style and politics
The ethics of green production and marketing
Everyday pornography and fashion fetish
Virtual style and online identities
Material culture and craft in a postmodern world
Slumming and radical chic: tensions of authenticity and irony
Vintage and thrift fashion: nostalgia and class signifiers
DIY Style: fashion off the corporate grid

Deadline for abstracts is August 15, 2008.

Format for abstracts: Word document, double-spaced, between 300 and 500 words. Include contact information and short bio.

Send to: FashionBook1@yahoo.com

Shira Tarrant
Assistant Professor
Women’s Studies Department
California State University, Long Beach

and

Marjorie Jolles
Assistant Professor
Women’s & Gender Studies Program
Roosevelt University

Here today is Adina Nack with a fantastic guest post on how STD stereotypes have led to the mismarketing of the HPV vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine. An associate professor of sociology, who has directed California Lutheran University’s Center for Equality and Justice and their Gender and Women’s Studies Program, and author of Damaged Goods?, Adina asks some provocative questions about the consequences this gendered mislabeling will have for public health awareness. –Kristen

The “Cervical Cancer” Vaccine, STD Stigma & the Truth about HPVby Adina Nack

You’ve probably seen one of Merck‘s ads which promote GARDASIL as the first cervical cancer vaccine. Last year, their commercials featured teenage girls telling us they want to be “one less” woman with cervical cancer. GARDASIL’s website features new TV spots which say the vaccine helps prevent “other HPV diseases,” too, and end with, “You have the power to choose,” but do you, the viewer, know what you are choosing?

A clue that this is a STD vaccine appears briefly at the bottom of the screen: “HPV is Human Papillomavirus.” Merck’s goal may have been to appeal to parents who are squeamish about vaccinating their daughters against 4 types of virus which are almost always sexually transmitted. This marketing strategy means that the U.S. public, currently undereducated about HPV, is none the wiser about this family of viruses which infect millions in the U.S. and worldwide each year. When the ads briefly mention “other HPV diseases,” how many realize they’re talking about genital/anal warts and that recent studies link HPV with oral/throat cancers? [You don’t need to have a cervix (or even a vagina) to contract any of these “other” HPV diseases.] Why don’t they want us to know the whole truth about the vaccine?

Branding GARDASIL as a cervical cancer vaccine was aimed at winning public support. But, what are the consequences of a campaign built on half-truths? Today, only females, ages 9-26, can be protected against strains of a virus that may have serious consequences for boys/men and women past their mid-20s. If public health is the goal, then let’s question how our STD attitudes shaped a marketing plan which has, in turn, influenced drug policy.

Marketing a “cervical cancer” vaccine may have appeased some social conservatives who don’t want their daughters vaccinated against any STD, fearing it might promote premarital sex. But, the vaccine will likely soon be available to males, and their anatomy does not include a cervix — will girls get a “cervical cancer” vaccine and boys get a HPV vaccine? The current gender-biased policy supports a centuries old double-standard of sexual morality. Most view STD infections as more damaging to women than to men. Many believe that STDs result from promiscuity — girls/women deserve what they get. So, are we ready to embrace any STD vaccine (including a future HIV vaccine) as a preventive health measure?

Having studied women with HPV, I know that a person can contract the virus from nonconsensual sex or from their first sexual partner — you could still be a ‘technical’ virgin since skin-to-skin contact, not penetration, is the route of transmission. In my new book, Damaged Goods?, I take readers inside the lives of 43 women who have struggled to negotiate the stigma of having a chronic STD. One chapter delves into stereotypes about the types of people who get STDs: these beliefs not only skew our perceptions of STD risk (bad things only happen to bad people) but also can psychologically scar us if we contract one of those diseases. Merck’s branding of GARDASIL makes sense: a typical U.S. teenage girl or young woman has good reason to fear others’ judgments of her — thinking her to be promiscuous, dirty, naïve, and irresponsible — if they knew she’d sought out a STD vaccine. Whereas, getting a “cervical cancer” vaccine feels more like something that a responsible girl/woman would do.

Unfortunately, with GARDASIL taking the easy way out, the U.S. public misses a prime opportunity to learn about this prevalent, easily transmitted disease that is unfortunately difficult to test for. We’ve also lost a chance to take on STD stigma and challenge the population to view sexually transmitted infections as medical problems rather than as blemishes of moral character.

No vaccine is 100% effective and neither are the treatment options for HPV infections. STD stereotypes (particularly negative about infected women) come back to haunt those of us who become infected with diseases like HPV and herpes, which are treatable but not curable. Until there’s a ‘magic bullet’ cure, we should educate ourselves not only about medical facts but also about STD stigma — the anxiety, fear, shame and guilt — that often proves more damaging to the lives of those infected than the viruses, themselves.

I recently learned about GoLeft.org, a web-based project designed to assist small, local, progressive groups around the country by attracting volunteers and other resources to their work. What piqued my interest was their approach–they videos as their primary means of linking progressive non-profit organizations to similar and likeminded people across the country, and they’re also into the politics of pop culture. And ok ok, I admit, they got my attention because they just released a guide to help steer conversations after viewing “Sex and the City” later this month.

The discussion guide is available for download at GoLeft.org, where visitors also find blog posts tackling the day’s progressive issues and how they relate to current goings-on in the world of pop culture. I like the flavor of their news page and wonder if it’s possible to get it yet as a feed. Hmm.

Cougars, move over. Here comes Alpha Kitty.

I’ve been a fan of the White House Project’s partnership with CosmoGirl over the years. I’m all for mixing politics and pop culture, and meeting teens where they are. (And do check out the latest poll from this partnership, on whether the next generation is ready for a female president, and whether they’d be more likely to vote if a woman was on the presidential ballot,via Women’s e-News. The answers, not suprisingly, are yes and yes.)

So I just learned that CosmoGirl’s founding editor-in-chief, Atoosa Rubenstein, who I met once at a Barnard function (and was impressed by, in spite of being underwhelmed by the magazine) has now left Seventeen to pursue other ventures–and is currently circulating a proposal for a book called Alpha Kitty: I Made My Dreams Come True, Despite What the Haters Say, So Can You. Says the New York Times, “Ms. Rubenstein’s alpha-kitty philosophy is the electronic version of the girl-power gospel that Ms. Rubenstein’s mentor, Helen Gurley Brown, advocated at Cosmopolitan.” Rubenstein describes an alpha kitty as a fearless, fashion-conscious woman, who pursue what she wants. Go girl. I just hope that Atoosa keeps the politics somewhere in her prowl.

(Thanks, Mom, for the heads up.)

Since I know my boy’s gonna post somewhere on Blade Runner at the Ziegfield soon, I thought I’d beat him to the punch (left)–hehe. I’m home vege-ing out over Big Shots, which btw has got to be the stupidest new show of fall. Though the guys do throw out some superintelligent zingers. Like this:

“Quick! Someone talk about baseball so they don’t kick us out of the men’s steam room!”

I’ll take Harrison Ford over these caricatures any day. Happy birthday, Blade.

Congrats to Women in Media and News (and Jen Pozner) on their successful action to correct history in the Tampa Tribune. The Tribune ran a follow-up article (“No Bras Burned, But They Did Revolt”) to correct the myth they were perpetuating in an earlier piece. The correction begins:

It’s a myth so pervasive, most of us believe it’s true.

I know I did.

So when information about ‘feminist bra burning rallies’ turned up in a timeline Maidenform provided for a Sept. 27 story on the history of the bra, I didn’t think twice about using it.

Bra-burning women’s libbers have become an important part of 1960s lore. I’ve heard stories about them. I’ve read about them in books and magazines.

The problem is, things didn’t go down quite the way those stories tell it.

That’s not to say bra-burning never happened as a public protest anywhere during the turbulent ’60s. But feminists didn’t set their bras ablaze in the spectacular way that has become legend….

In the groovy pic above, an unidentified member of the Women’s Liberation Party drops a bra in the trash barrel in protest of the Miss America pageant in Atlantic City, N.J., on Sept. 7, 1968.

And speaking of getting history straight, if you’re in or around NYC, don’t forget to come to the Feminist New York panel I’m moderating at the Tenement Museum tonight! Details here.

It’s breast cancer awareness month, and everyone is seeing pink. Check out what PunditMom has to say about it all here. Tara Parker Pope weighs in at the New York Times blog, Well. And definitely don’t miss the Think Before You Pink website.

On a related note, the Feminist Law Professors weigh in on pink guns.

All in all, pink sure is a loaded color. When a boy recently wore a pink shirt to his new school, he got made fun of and called gay. But check out the solidarity of his male classmates, who showed up the next day, along with all the other boys they could rally, in pink tank tops, showing their support of the boy who was bullied. Gives a whole ‘nother meaning to pink solidarity, huh.