Seriously, Hicks? You’ve got to be kidding!

Today in the Washington Times, Marybeth Hicks has a piece on how Obama’s new White House Council on Women and Girls is sexist. She begins with cynicism and wonders why feminists are so happy about the establishment of this new council since it’s probably not going to do much good for women and girls anyway. Besides, she says, it’s sexist to have a council devoted only to one gender while completely omitting the other. She writes, “If Mr. Obama wanted to actually do something significant for America’s women and girls, he would have created instead a White House Council on Men and Boys.”

A Council on Men and Boys instead? According to her, this will solve women’s issues better than a Council on Women and Girls would. How? Well, “the best thing anyone can do for American women and girls is to encourage men and boys to ‘man up’”.

Manning up, huh? Meaning encourage men and boys to embrace traditional norms of masculinity, which is predominantly violent masculinity, which also happens to significantly contribute to women’s (and men’s) oppression? Embracing traditional gender roles and gender norms does not equal liberation.

And then she goes on:

A council on men and boys would promote stable marriage as the best avenue to improve the lives and living conditions of America’s women and families. A council on men and boys would address the crisis in American manhood that results in the scourge of infidelity, divorce, lack of commitment and fatherhood with multiple partners.

What is this manhood crisis that is threatening our women and families? Besides, women cheat as well, not just men! Women are the ones who initiate divorce sometimes too, not just men! Men aren’t the only ones who don’t commit, women are capable of having commitment issues too!

And way to reinforce the nuclear family, which happens to be a strong arm of patriarchy. And how exactly is marriage the best way to improve the lives of American women and their families? I suppose it’s because women need men and therefore need to get married. We can’t possibly survive on our owns.

Marriage feeds into a lot of neoliberal discourse that promotes capitalism and consumerism and privileges the nuclear family as the site where individuals should seek and receive social services, like health care or elderly care. Neoliberalism justifies the state privatization of social services that everyone should be entitled to. So, if you’re poor, if you’re sick, if you’re too old to take care of yourself, the state doesn’t care. Go home to your family and they’re supposed to take care of you.

She goes on to write:

A council on men and boys would seek to eliminate the objectification of women in the media. It would battle our hypersexual culture by fighting against the “hook-up” mentality that defines the way in which young men view young women. And most importantly, it would stamp out the violence against women that emanates from men’s widespread exposure and growing addiction to pornography.

This assumes that women do not participate in or enjoy hooking up, which is not true for all women. Furthermore, while the pervasiveness of pornography does influence the way men view women, it also influences the way men view men, the way women view women, and the way women view men. It isn’t the root of violence against women, but it does contribute to it.  Objectification of women and our hypersexual culture are legitimate problems. But having a council on men and boys is the way to combat it? I’m also curious, how exactly would this hypothetical council “stamp out” violence against women?

Then, she again returns to emphasize the need to return to the nuclear family because apparently “women’s issues” stem from the “collapse of the American family”:

A council on men and boys also would address the underlying problems that create “women’s issues” such as child care, inadequate pay and domestic violence. These aren’t “women’s issues,” but issues related to the systemic collapse of the American family.

By the “American family” she means the 1950′s prototypical model of the nuclear family where Mommy just stayed home and baked cookies, cooked and cleaned, and waited for the kids to come home from school and for Daddy to come home from work. Gosh, why did women ever start or get involved with the women’s lib movement when we already had everything we ever wanted or need back then?

And then her conclusion:

Believe me, I’m not man-bashing. Rather, I think the feminist agenda is a false promise. A council on women and girls that seeks to infuse feminism across the government propels us further from real solutions. Our government just isn’t man enough to fix what’s wrong.

“The feminist agenda is a false promise?” And what a sexist and contradictory last sentence, to go from being all “I’m not man-bashing” to “Our government just isn’t man enough to fix what’s wrong”. So Hicks thinks that only “real” men can find all the solutions, and women should just sit back and not get involved at all.

What is also confusing about Hicks’ article is that she frames her argument and her claims as opposing “the feminist agenda” but mentions legitimate feminist concerns like the objectification and hypersexualization of women in the media as well as violence against women. She also says:

Such a council would work to train a new generation of boys to become real men, who honor and uphold women as equals in the workplace, the community and the home – not because the government regulates such an attitude, but because it’s right.

And is it just me or is “honoring and upholding women as equals in the workplace, the community and the home” a part of what feminism has been pushing for? But then she idiotically says that instead of having a sexist Council on Women and Girls to have a Council on Men and Boys. Because having a council devoted to a historically (and presently still) marginalized group and actually acknowledging and including them for once is sexist.

eMANcipate yourselves men, and wear mantyhose!

eMANcipate “is a project trying to accelerate the acceptance of male pantyhose as a regular clothing item.”

It’s interesting that they are trying to de-gender pantyhose and make it acceptable for men to wear pantyhose as well but exactly how does this emancipate men? Or what does it emancipate them from? Plus some of the language on the website is problematic especially the way it keeps reiterating that men who wear pantyhose are not feminine, that it’s still mannish. It still plays into ideas about masculinity and what defines masculinity.

The website (which is based in the UK) says:

“Men who wear pantyhose do it to improve athletic performance, energize and revitalize tired, aching leg muscles, and to stimulate circulation if they sit all day. In addition, compression can help reduce swelling and decrease the dangers of circulatory problems. And of course there are many men who simply like the soft material and the comfort that sheer pantyhose provides.”

Ahh, so this is supposed to help male athletes. Or to help the average (or better than average) male worker who has a desk job where he just sits all day. And of course there are men who find the softness of pantyhose to be comfortable. That’s justifiable enough. Who doesn’t like soft and comfortable clothing? But just a reminder, you are not sacrificing your manhood if you wear panty- I mean, mantyhose.

But then if you click on Why do men wear pantyhose? you will read, “So the first time wearing – it just happens. Maybe she makes him try it on a cold, wet autumn day…” This is so heteronormative and assumes a romantic couple has to be a male and a female.

Later on it says:

We’ve been experimenting – and still experimenting – with different styles of hose, making our models try them on and ‘forcing’ the stylist to fit it together, but it’s been a great surprise that even hosiery that is thought to be very femmy could go together with an average outfit without making the whole outfit femmy at all.

So it seems like a priority for eMANcipate and for all men who wear pantyhose is to not wear a “femmy” outfit. Now, what exactly makes a man’s outfit “femmy”? The site asks “Is pink too femmy for men?” And the verdict? Apparently pink pantyhose is too boring on men and “white pantyhose with floral patterns makes you look like a man.”

Oh, you manly man with white floral patterned pantyhose!

Why is this so? Well, because:

It was not metrosexual by the terms of the sexless-unisex definition; it wasn’t the beauty of some nice boys dressed up in female garments – it was powerful and male! More like a renaissance painting with an elegant gentleman wearing fine clothes with fine patterns on it.

It also bears some resemblance to tattoos men may have on their legs, which is powerful and manly too! So fear not men, white floral pantyhose will just bear witness to and prove your masculinity! The explanation on the site sort of sounded like it was fetishizing men’s legs, which was slightly creepy.

My main problem with eMANcipate is that it doesn’t do a good job articulating the reappropriation of or de-gendering of gendered clothing items. It seems to instead play off and reinforce ideas about femininity and masculinity. What makes pantyhose so femmy? And what makes it so manly? Does/can eMANcipate emancipate men from standards of masculinity as seen in fashion?

Also, personally, I dislike wearing pantyhose. I don’t find it very comfortable. So I’m not sure why women or men would want to wear it.

Here she is! The new Dora!

Dora The Explorer’s new look has been released!  As feminist2 said in a previous post, “Her sexier silhouette reflects a lot of ideals of femininity: long hair, extreme thinness, and wearing miniskirts to show off more leg. Dora is also supposed to be Latina but sexed up Dora embodies a very western, white standard of beauty.”

Well, the image is finally out, so decide for yourselves.

Besides the fact that they have the same color scheme in their clothing, it is difficult to tell that this is the same loveable curious character that we once knew.  Nickelodeon and Mattel are attempting to assure parents that Dora still possesses the same sense of wonder, curiosity, and adventure as before.  They say that she “will expand into the world of solving mysteries that have overt and relatable pro-social themes — like volunteerism, water conservation, or planting trees to help the environment.”

I must admit that the new Dora isn’t as bad as I was expecting.  But why on earth does the new Dora have to be dripping in pink and purple and hyper-feminine accessories?  We liked her the way she was!

Also, the new Dora will be computerized, and one of the options will be to change her eye color.  As Veronica at Viva La Feminista writes:

As the #1 Latina role model for girls, I think that it’s inappropriate for the doll to be able to change its eye color.  The dominant standard for beauty is still blond with blue eyes.

What’s more, as Veronica points out, Dora’s old friends have been swapped for a crew of girls.  And Dora’s shoes?  Just not practical for going on adventures!

I liked Dora in her backpack and shorts.  Tween-izing Dora is just unnecessary.  I doubt that it will increase her appeal to children, so what exactly is the makeover getting at?  In my opinion, the switch just reinforces ideals of feminine beauty on young girls.

What are your opinions on the new Dora?