Oh Good, More Shoulds for Women

Have you already seen this article telling women what they should have and know by the time they're 30? It was originally published in Glamour in 1997, then reprinted by the HuffPo in April 2012. Because in the last 15 years things have not gotten any less heterosexist and materialistic (see my previous post on why we still need feminism today).

What made me mad, too, is that for about a second I actually bought into that original list. You know, as I began reading it, I thought, "Oh, I totally have one of those ex-boyfriends... and I have a bank account... and an awesome resume. I win at being almost-30!" Luckily, I quickly snapped out of it and realized that, holy shit, for that moment I again was forced to define myself through how many men I've had and how much money I'd spent on purses, high heels, and hair appointments (see my previous post on the comment that patriarchy has no gender). Then I sat down and wrote my own little list.

Also luckily, there have been some excellent feminist critiques on that original article, with women and men showing others that it is, in fact, ok to define ourselves through our characters, our strengths, and our connections with others.

Apparently

Women can be assertive and competitive, as long as they are young and sexy (and White)...

La Femme Fatale

Women can be athletic and determined, as long as they are young and sexy (and White)...

Anna Kournikova

Women can be seekers of justice, as long as they are young and sexy (and White)...

Alias

.

.
.

Women won't be so popular when they are groundbreaking political leaders, but not young and sexy (still White though) {don't worry, Hillary, I still think you're sexy}...

Hillary Clinton

(Seriously, google-image the key words "hillary clinton" and see for yourself what type of pictures come up. Also, notice the related searches: "young hillary clinton", "hillary clinton old", "hillary clinton portrait", and "hillary clinton pantsuit". All focused on her appearance and none focused on her skill.)

I mean, yes, I'm exaggerating a little. Athletic or a$$-kicking men can also be objectified, but I would argue that it still isn't nearly as detrimental or even as common.

This morning, while commuting to work, I happened to listen in on an NPR segment discussing a new police-based TV show in Afghanistan. All was fine and well, until I heard this:

There's Kamran, the hardened veteran, Baktash, the handsome but impulsive rookie, Ludmilla, the beautiful young officer with the tough exterior, and Summayah, whose computer skills can track seemingly anyone, anywhere.

Did you see it? Let me direct you:

There's Kamran, the hardened veteran, Baktash, the handsome but impulsive rookie, Ludmilla, the beautiful young officer with the tough exterior, and Summayah, whose computer skills can track seemingly anyone, anywhere.

Yup, the two men ahead (ha!) of Ludmilla are described for their personality characteristics, while Ludmilla is 1) sexy beautiful, 2) young, and 3) has a tough exterior... which begs the question, what does she have inside? (Sure, there's also Summayah, but she's the last kid on the playground to get picked (computers aren't very popular associations with women?), and my mind didn't even get to her because I was so overwhelmed with fury (or sexy images of Ludmilla, if I were a heterosexual male listener).)

You might notice that Baktash was also described by his looks, but I would say that a handsome man has a much different quality in our minds than a beautiful&young woman. A handsome man can lead a country, head a business, and save the planet. Beautiful&young women usually stand on the sidelines of handsome men like eye candy. Yes, we are an appearance-focused society in general, but we still tend to expect something of substance from handsome men, but beautiful&young women exist for our pleasure only. Respect the calm authority of the handsome man and do as you wish with the beautiful&young sidekick.

Similarly, I'd say that "veteran" and "rookie" are skill-based age adjectives, whereas "young" has more to do with appearance. Describing someone as young tells us nothing about how good they are at their job, and it actually doesn't tell us much at all, but the veteran and the rookie in our minds begin collaborating in some professional apprenticeship.

(And I'm sure the writers/radio host who presented this description didn't mean anything by it. It's way too common to seem abnormal. And I bet many people went right on listening and didn't even notice anything out of the ordinary... because it isn't. It's now part of who we are and how we define ourselves.)

So just google-image "woman" (how many young, sexy, White, blonde, otherwise appearance-based pictures do you see?) vs. "man" (in contrast to some appearance-based, but then also bold, courageous, fighting, musically talented, working... and sometimes dominating the aforementioned sexy women pictures here).

Hopefully it's obvious how these perpetual and not-so-subtle depictions and expectations of women affect our body image, self-esteem, relationships, etc. And then men roll their eyes when their girlfriends spend all this time in front of the mirror or ordering salads when they just want take-out pizza. But we all know the stats: non-emergency cosmetic surgeries (breasts, face, labia) are on the rise, eating disorders are out of control, violence against women is maybe more incriminated but not disappearing. So actually, this might be a very pertinent public health issue.

And in any case, this is something we should all be trying to change, men and women alike. We will all benefit from valuing each other for who we really are, which hopefully relates to something inside of our souls, with no "young" and "sexy" attached to it. But then again, this could be my hardened exterior speaking.

Apron or Tie?

Of course this may just be my own bias and faulty perception (although, this perception comes from somewhere, so I would think it's still in some way valid), but I often find myself feelings that I should somehow be like this:

Pearls - Apron - Cookies

Where in actuality I'm more like this:

Tie - Typewriter - Tea
I would say this is especially true in America and with my American family. Don't get me wrong, in Russia women are still completely expected to be "in the family", and I often get asked by various Russians whether or not I take good care of my husband (as if he is a helpless child incapable of pouring himself his own bowl of cereal). But it seems that in America especially, women tend to congregate in the kitchen with conversation revolving around recipes and culinary tricks, and sometimes interspersed with narrow joking comments about the escapist effects of alcohol... as if this is the only path to a more welcoming and all-encompassing reality?

At least this has been my experience. Maybe the women in my Russian family, my mom and both my grandmothers, are atypical of Russian women. They hold PhD degrees and have contributed to cutting-edge scientific and philosophical debates. When I am with them, they ask about my research and are genuinely interested in how I am committed to changing the world. Whereas during American family gatherings, I have noticed that conversations about household issues are directed at me and things relating to world events are directed at my husband. Sometimes I feel that people think it's "cute", albeit probably a waste of time, for me to be in graduate school. Sometimes I feel utterly inappropriate, in the most personal and social sense, for failing to be interested in the different ways to baste a turkey. Maybe something about the meaning, the expectations and purposes, of being a woman is lost in translation?

Of course, neither woman in those pictures above is more right or more womanly. But it's about the values we place on women's roles, expressions, activities, and the limitations women feel because of those set values.

Mother's Day is not for the weak

"Mother and Child" by Gustav Klimt

Today is Mother's Day, which is also known as the day on which I wrestle with the meanings of motherhood and daughterhood. I guess these issues for me stem not so much from my actual experiences as the daughter of my mom, but from the values and expectations we assign to each. They are just so obvious, overbearing, and annoying on this day.

Today is filled with pink, softness, and sexism. Pink "feminine" cards, pastel flower arrangements, and (often men-written) ads for diamonds and kitchen appliances are everywhere. But is this really all that motherhood, and womanhood, amounts to now? Sparkly things that embellish women's appearances and cooking gadgets that profit all in the family? We are bombarded with and encouraged to perpetuate these images that only seem to show a narrow view of motherhood, a view that seems convenient for patriarchy. And so, I wonder, are pink flowers, shiny jewelry, and extra KitchenAids really what our mothers want to be recognized for in their accomplishments as mothers?

Now, I'm not a mother, but I know some, and I think these women would share that motherhood is about strength, courage and perseverance. Mothers are the warriors, fighting on the front lines for our children. Mothers are the life-giving force in the history of our generations. It even seems incongruous equating mothers with warriors or forces on a "soft" day like Mother's Day, and how ironic is that.

So let us appreciate the full meaning of motherhood: the strength, the patience, the nurture, the forgiveness, the protectiveness, and whatever else truly describes your mothers. Whether you do it with flowers, jewelry, a book, a bike or even simply a phone call or a hug.

And now I will leave you with a slightly creepy but still somewhat appropriate unknown image (meaning I simply yanked it from "Google Images") of Mother Earth: