Women Know a Lot of Things

"Women know a lot of things they don't read in the newspapers. It's pretty funny sometimes, how women know a lot of things and nobody can figure out how they know them. I know a Polish woman who works in the stockyards here, and she has been working there for a good many years. She came from Poland when she was a child, cam across the vast spaces of America, with blinders on, you might say, and yet she knows more than anybody I know, because she knows what suffering is and she knows that everyone is like herself, throughout the whole world. . . .

That's the way it is with women. They don't read about the news. They very often make it. They pick it up at its source, in the human body, in the making of the human body, and the feeding and nurturing of it day in and day out. They know how much a body weighs and how much blood and toil goes into the making of even a poor body. Did you ever go into a public clinic to weigh your child? And you feel of him anxiously when you put his clothes on in the morning. You pick him up trying to gauge the weight of his bones and the tiny flesh and you wait for the public nurses to put him on the scales, and you look, you watch her face like an aviator watches the sky, watches an instrument register a number that will mean life and death.

In that body under your hands every day there resides the economy of the world; it tells you of ruthless exploitation, of a mad, vicious class that now cares for nothing in the world but to maintain its stupid life with violence and destruction; it tells you the prices of oranges and cod liver oil, of spring lamb, of butter, eggs and milk. You know everything that is happening on the stock exchange. You know what happened to last year's wheat in the drouth, the terrible misuse and destruction of land and crops and human life plowed under. You don't have to read the stock reports in Mr. Hearst's paper. You have the news at its terrible source.

Or what kind of news is it when you see the long, drawn face of your husband coming home from the belt line and feel his ribs coming to the surface day after day like the hulk of a ship when the tide is going down?

Or, what price freedom and the American Way so coyly pictured on billboards, when you go up the dark and secret and dirty stairs to a doctor's office and get a cheap abortion because you can't afford another baby and wait for the fever that takes so many American women, and thank heaven if you come through alive, barely crawling around for months?

. . . Hunger and want and terror are a Braille that hands used to labor, used to tools, and close to sources, can read in any language."

Meridel Le Sueur
Ripening: Selected Work, 1927

Gender and Sexual Equality in the DSM

In regards to the impending revision of the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the concern over the expansion of the Section dedicated to Paraphilia and Sexual Disorders (presentation on this expansion can be found here).

This is a long post, and I definitely encourage you to supplement by reading Jessica's post - written by Julia Serano - at Feministing. This is choc-full of information more specific to this topic, more links, and broader discussion.

I know a lot about psychology. I studied it for the entirety of my undergraduate education, and while I chose not to complete the final semester for the Bachelor's degree I can confidently say I have a wealth of knowledge on the subject:
Psychology 101, 102
Research Methods in Psychology, 207, 208
Learning (and Lab), 304, 304L
Health Psychology, 313
Psychology of Women, 214
Developmental Psychology, 212
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 314
Child Abuse, 256
Abnormal Psychology, 302

It's not a complete list, but that gives you an idea of some of the courses I've taken.

Now, the idea of the DSM is to provide psychologists and psychiatrists - those who may be making a diagnosis for the purpose of treatment and counseling - with a textual resource for the general guidelines of the known disorders. Now, "general" means that just like with physical illness or any other aspect of everyday life, people experience things differently and that disorders may not (I dare say often do not) present in exactly textbook fashion. The DSM is a guideline for diagnosis.

It is NOT a reference book of theorems, hypotheses and psychological concepts. It is not a place to list "things I think should be a disorder" or "behavior that seems abnormal to me and i might want to diagnose as a disorder because i don't understand it". It is not a place for proselytizing or exploitation of any group of people, be it a group of conservative psychologists who would like to promote a more rigid and comprehensive list of behaviors they deem as disordered, based on their morals/ethics/religion/social structure, nor is it a place to target specific groups of people who deviate from society's concepts of what is normal on the basis of "we can't explain it so it must be a problem."

From my education, moving from a normal event to an abnormal (disordered) event occurs when an everyday behavior/thought/action/belief occurs or is carried out in such excess that it becomes disruptive to an individual's daily life. An example - with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder individuals become so consumed with counting their steps, washing their hands, doing their activities so precisely in such a particular order that they do them over and over again. This disrupts their lives because they may be so focused on doing the routine in just a specific way that they repeat the process continually and never make it out of the house. That isn't the most eloquent explanation, but you get the idea. Disorder occurs when an individual can no longer function in their environment due to a particular tendency, behavior, belief, thought, fear, obsession, or other mental (or mental/physiological combination) feature.

The field of psychology is about studying why people do the things they do, the way they do them, and what the brain/mind/body connection is in the process. Psychology as it relates to diagnoses and treatment is about helping people. It is valuable because it deals with the less tangible aspects of human beings - our thoughts, our concepts of self, our beliefs, our emotions, our conscious and conscience, and our minds (not to be confused with our brains, which are obviously tangible).

If the new revision of the DSM adopts these expanded classifications of paraphilias, who is it helping? By classifying more people as being disordered we not only put more work on psychologists, but we also put the great burden of societal stigma and personal struggle on perfectly functioning individuals and, most importantly we detract time and attention away from those individuals who truly need help the most.

My post is prompted not only by genuine interest and concern for this situation, but by the recognition of the need for feminists to circulate this story and increase our response. Any situation which perpetuates the societal dominance hierarchy, leading to depression or oppression of any group(s) of people, is relevant to feminism.

When it comes to issues of gender, gender non-conformity, transgender and transsexuality, cisgender, pansexuality, and any other non-heterosexual-man-woman-male-female spectrum sexual action or identification, the psychological community has a responsibility to provide a structure for our society to differentiate between true disorder and diversity. They should be acting to break down the barriers of society's dominance hierarchy, which leads us to stigmatize those behaviors or ideologies we don't understand and which teaches us that there must always be one group superior and one group lesser in every relationship. They should seek to educate the greater academic community about the diversity of people and their mindsets and behaviors, and about the value of embracing these differences in research and practice. They more than any others realize how destructive social stigma and intolerance can be on individuals, groups and communities. This proposed expansion would serve as an inevitable point for provocation of violence, abuse and exploitation of those who don't fit into the most specific and exclusive definition of 'normal' and would offer a free pass (nee a twinkie defense) for those who execute such abuses.

In the same regard, those psychologists, both practicing and academic, who cannot commit themselves wholly to the ethical and compassionate treatment of their fellow humans - through objective and unbiased research and diagnoses, and consistent focus on edifying their science - should not be granted the privilege of holding influence and authority over distinguishing such crucial structures within the field.

From the post at Feministing-
What you can do to help:

1) raise awareness about this issue in feminist circles.

2) contact the American Psychiatric Association and share your concern with them.

3) if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, please come out to the protest of the upcoming American Psychiatric Association conference on Monday, May 18th between 6:00pm to 7:30pm in front of the Moscone Center. This protest will focus primarily on the removal of the trans-focused DSM diagnoses Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and Transvestic Disorder. While the GID diagnosis is of great concern to trans activists (including me), I did not discuss it here because it is not listed as a Paraphilia, and because (to the best of my knowledge) no information has been released regarding proposed revisions to GID in the next DSM.

Feminism and Social Structure

"Women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women's liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share common social status. Concurrently, they know that many males in their social groups are exploited and oppressed. Knowing that men in their social groups do not have social, political, and economic power, they would not deem it liberatory[sic] to share their social status. While they are aware that sexism enables men in their respective groups to have privileges that are denied them, they are more likely to see exaggerated expressions of male chauvinism among their peers as stemming from the male's sense of himself as powerless, rather than an expression of overall privileged status."

"The lack of any emphasis on domination is consistent with the liberal feminist belief that women can achieve equality with men of their class without challenging and changing the cultural basis of group oppression. It is this belief that negates the likelihood that the potential radicalism of liberal feminism will ever be realized."
-Feminist Theory


I'm reading bell hooks. Someone should have given me this book when I was 15.

Marilyn French, 1929-2009

(photo via Andersen Photographic)

"Anyone determined to find another person or group inferior can always find whole lists of grounds that demonstrate inferiority because we are all inferior to the ideals of humanness we have erected."

We should all be so fortunate to have such audacity in our feminism.
We'll miss you, Marilyn.

A Week of Links

Some of the week's best from my blogroll...

Nate Silver is a genius, and America is finally loving the gays! [Link]

Rush hour in Portland, OR = Lots of bikes! Hooray! [Link]

In case you needed a self-confidence crasher, the environment is also in a recession... [Link]

The Danes win again: their cops not only give away bike helmets, but they do it with LOVE! [Link]

(GOP stripped pandemic flu preparation provisions from the budget) BURN. [Link]

I really wanted Hillary to be the President, but damn, she does this job well. [Link]

At the meeting point of Modern Technology, Free Speech, and Necessary Evils is Facebook. [Link]

File Under Lessons In Feminism: 101 - Social Construction of Gender. [Link]

Girls Are Strong!

I've identified as a feminist for a very long time. When I was in the bookstore recently I picked up a copy of Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism, because I am a regular visitor to her website and a loyal follower of the philosophy that feminism is for everyone. Reading the book (which is choc-full of information I'm mostly familiar with, but organized in an incredibly eloquent and informative fashion) I began thinking about the aspects of my life that led me to be a very strong advocate for feminism.

I always thought I was a pretty normal kid. I had two parents who loved me very much, and who have great respect for each other and their children. But when I think back to my "childhood" now I realize more and more that there were specific moments that ultimately helped me define the person I am and continue to become.

I identify myself as a radical feminist - I support all the standard feminist causes and beliefs, but I also believe that the double-standards and obstacles women face are inherent to the structure of our society. Everything from the basis of many mainstream religions to the format of government is built from a starting point of patriarchy. The Bible, the book I was raised to follow, even depicts God as a male supremacist - God is a male, God created man first, God created woman to serve man, God tells man that woman is to be joyous in her servitude and subordination. We've been through 43 presidents in our country and all have been men; now we're having to jump through hoops just to show that a woman can be a legitimate candidate. The government is giving schools and ultimatum to teach abstainance-only sex education, many programs of which are rought with misinformation and literal untruths, and most of which pen teenage girls as the ones responsible for not provoking boys to be sexual. Think about it - a poor school in an area that has low income families, high crime, and high rates of highschool dropouts and teenage pregnancy is given an ultimatum: they can teach abstainance-only sexed and receive government funding, or they can teach comprehensive sexed that informs teens about safe sex, stds and contraception but be even more financially disadvantaged. Finally, it's got to say something about our society when men and women equally qualified doing exactly the same job get paid different salaries, often times within the same company (and men are the ones getting paid more - last I checked women still get paid an average of $.73 for every $1 a man makes).

I'm not a man-hater. That's not what this belief means - I don't think that men are the enemy. I simply think that it is going to take a lot more than just legislation to bust this bad habit. We've been at this as a species for a really long time, and we clearly can't just snap our fingers and be done with it.

Like I said before, I've been a feminist for a long time. I was pushing boys down on the playground when I was in nursery school. I never let them get away with thinking they were better than me. But my first real memory of feeling like a feminist was in first grade, when this boy in my class called me a feminazi. I think it had something to do with some playground discussion about how girls should be able to play baseball too. As much as I want to believe that perhaps I was beyond precocious, I'm much more bothered by the fact that this boy in my class new the word "feminazi" and, at age 7, new how to use it.

The same boy, now grown, tormented me with that word - FEMINAZI - all through highschool. In fact, he wrote it on several occasions in my yearbook at the end of the schoolyear. The older I got, the less the actual phrase really bothered me, and the more his passionate use and disdain for the idea did. Why should I be equated with Hitler just because I want to be respected, just because I speak my mind and don't intend to spend the rest of my life serving a man? Why should I be stuck with a label concurrent with murder and supremacy when in fact the person calling me a "feminazi" is telling me I'm out of place, and that he as a male is my superior.
He wasn't the only male I've run into who has taken that attitude toward me; in fact I'd have to say that the majority of men/boys I've encountered in my life have taken that attitude toward me. One guy a friend of mine was dating looked at me the moment I met him and said "You're very pretty, but boy are you abrasive. Shame."

My mom and dad always told me that I could be anything I wanted to be. When I was little I had books and blocks and crayons. No one ever told me there was a problem with girls playing baseball or knowing where the engine, fan, batter, etc. is under the hood of their cars, or wanting to build things or write or do public speaking or politics. My home life was full of "yes you can."
Thanks Mom and Dad.

Now I've got this unease, this awkward feeling because I'm really proud to be a woman and I tend to think that women are more capable, more deserving and much stronger than they or anyone else allow themselves to be. Part of this comes from spending four years at a woman's college. When everyone around you is female you lose that habituation to men opening doors for you or expecting to earn your time just because they've bought you a drink. At my college we were all women, and mostly all friends, but also fierce competitors and even more fierce challengers. We always said "if you can survive Macon, you can do anything" and it's the truth. That all female environment was tougher than any situation I've ever faced with a member of the opposite sex. But the unease comes from seeing women disregard the fact that they can be more - walking around talking only about clothes and shoes, saying oh they aren't going to worry about that because their boyfriends will take care of it. Or even facing this double-standard in my own life, at work, on the street, in the grocery store.. wherever.

Anyway, I'm making it a point to get to know the women who, in the last century or two, have used their time and energy to make change so that I can be here today writing a blog, reading a book, or walking down the street freely and independently.

There are a lot of different 'types' of feminists (goes back to that whole labeling movement) but ultimately being a feminist is about being proud to be a woman, and taking responsibility and action for your own well being. You can't expect men to know what is best for you, because they've never been you. So stand up for yourself.

I highly recommend Valenti's book, especially if you aren't as familiar with "right now" feminism and the issues to be addressed, but even if you are it is worth the read.
Additionally, there are other names you can look for if you happen to wander into the Women/Gender Studies section at the book store -
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Susan Faludi, Simone deBeauvoir, and Betty Friedan have all written feminist cult-classics that are must reads.
You might also check out material about Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, or hell even the wikipedia page on feminism gives a pretty decent run down.
If you're the visual type, check out Iron-Jawed Angels, about the suffragettes.
and of course, DO go to Feministing.com and make it a regular stop on your daily web surf.
Go get educated.

Happy International Women's Day, and Happy Women's History Month!

because women's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or
repetitious and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important than
what we do and if we get raped it's our fault
and if we get beaten we must have provoked it
and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches
and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't
we're frigid and if we love women it's because
we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our
doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or
pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish
and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive
and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical
weak females and if we want to get married we're
out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural
and because we still can't get an adequate safe
contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if
we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made
to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots and
lots of other reasons we are part of the
women's liberation movement

I'm In Love With Ellen Page

So, I was super psyched about Ellen Page hosting SNL.
Ask anyone - I promoted that episode like I had written it myself.

When I tuned in, and saw Hillary Clinton in the opening, I thought "it doesn't get any better than this!"

I was wrong. It got better. WAY better.
Thank you Ellen Page, for being brilliant, unabashed, proud, intelligent, articulate, funny, and so many other things. Thank you for having conviction and being deliberate in the roles you choose and in your honesty. Thank you for being beautiful and still wearing converse and skinny jeans and flannel shirts.

Finally, thank you for this:

It's Asshole Day!

Douchebag #1 - Dick Marple of the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire
His article (seen here) online and I suppose in actual print is boastfully titled "Legally, a Woman Can't Be Elected President." You know where this is going.

Douchebag #2 - Lesley Douglas , head of Popular Music at the BBC
masterpiece theater begins here. When was the last time you saw any popular music video produced by a 'man' that contained something intellectual? No, Beck doesn't count.

Douchebag #3 - Tim Gunn, of Bravo TV fame
I knew there was a reason I can't stand Project Runway... insulting my presidential candidate is not exactly the way to win viewers. Special video evidence.

Douchebag #4 - Bill O'Reilly, Political Media Personality (that's the best I could come up with) and veteran douchebag.
I know I'm not the only one who had a problem with this statement by Michelle Obama; even Cindy McCain made a not-so-vague reference to it. But I simply dislike her choice of words, and I come from a "concern for her wording and actual intent" point of view. Bill O'Reilly, however, speaking to...a lot...of people on the air expressed his hatred from a racist point of view. Free speech when it's racism, but not when it's common sense?