Guest Blogger: A Mormon Feminist’s Perspective on Prop 8

A few weeks ago, I read this post on Feministing and thought of my Mormon feminist friend, Chris. I asked him what he thought about the Mormon church’s involvement in proposition 8, which led to a long discussion over the internet. I asked if I could post some of his thoughts on the issue to our blog, so he wrote this guest post:


There are a lot of factors that play into this issue, not all of which I feel qualified to fully discuss, so I’ll link where I can to more knowledgeable sources.

Personally, I think a lot of it is just misunderstandings and different ways of viewing the world, what definitions of gender, etc. really mean. Here is a good discussion of this from a Mormon perspective. I also think on some level it comes down to the fact that the Church has outwardly stated it supports traditional ideas of gender/family (there's a famous thing called The Proclamation on the Family-- I understand if you don't agree with it, but it has become official doctrine of the Church and should help you understand a little better why this is an issue for us) and feels like it should back that up when it's directly challenged, as with Prop 8. I've heard so many arguments on both sides and I don't like how they're playing out on either side (the anti-Mormon talk or the anti-gay sentiment some people strike up in order to explain to themselves why the church would speak directly against this), that I'm quite torn, precisely because this is such a hard issue.

Personally, I support giving full partnership rights for everyone who wants them, but marriage I think is a religious institution and should be defined individually by each religion. I think we should adopt the European model, where everyone goes and gets a civil union from the state and then goes and does whatever religious marriage they might want, and then individual churches can decide to perform or not perform gay marriages. Those who still want “marriage” without the religious context could maybe have separate ceremonies of their own, but marriage would be individually or institutionally based and recognized. But we're a long ways from that. One reason I was a little against Prop 8, though, is because I think any state definition of marriage, whether for or against gay marriage, is abuseable and dangerous. But I think I'm a little in the minority there.

One small clarification which I'm not sure is true but might clarify why so many Mormons were scared: on the objection that many had that the issue doesn’t directly affect Mormons, there was a lot of buzz going around that if gay marriage were legally sanctioned then it would be legally required to accept/perform gay marriages and institutions which refused to perform such would no longer be licensed for marriage, i.e. the Church might lose the ability to performs marriages and they might even shut down our temples in California, which is scary beyond all reason to Mormons. That immediately reminds us of burning temples, being driven from homes/cities/states, massacres, and other really nasty things that happened to us during the early days of the Church, when it was made legal by the "Extermination Order" from Governor Boggs to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri, etc. (Funny thing, the Extermination Order was only officially repealed in 1976.)

The really ironic part of this whole thing to me is that the gay and lesbian community thinks the Church is trying to stamp out their rights but on some level the Church is afraid of the exact reverse: losing their rights again. It's two completely opposite but similarly marginalized groups fighting each other instead of getting mad at the greater society.

I'm not saying this paranoia is warranted (because I really don't know if they could shut the Church down like that, though the idea scares even me a bit) but it's one of the reasons why Mormons really went in on this one.

It’s obvious there are a lot of views that differ about the nature of what gender, orientation and relationship mean, and how we should react to those on a societal level. I consider myself a feminist because I do believe in gender equality and in the freedom of choice, but I definitely think anywhere where the law gets involved is messy, because the law is there to limit freedom for the greater good (we don’t have the freedom to kill people so that others don’t have to worry about being killed). How that greater good is defined is up to the majority. So freedom of choice is a complicated issue, as is gender equality. On some level I do believe that men and women are inherently different, but I believe that makes both more valuable rather than less, because both are unique. I don’t understand everything, or even very much, about to what degree we are the same and to what degree different, but learning more is one of the main quests of my life. Mostly, with this post, I hope you see that Mormons are 1) not all of the same mindset, 2) still people, even if you very heavily disagree with them, 3) trying to do their best to stand up for things that are important to them, even if they might do it in ways that do more harm than good.

-Chris Straubhaar

Why You, Too, Can Love American Apparel.

American Apparel is a hipster mega mart managed by a sleaze ball chauvinist who exploits sexuality to sell outrageously overpriced clothing. And I support it. As the two Austin stores near their one-year anniversary, give thanks back to this shamelessly honest company by dropping your paycheck on something with a high waist.

Dov Charney, the 39-year-old CEO and founder of AA, runs a proudly sexualized business. Charney himself has faced five charges of sexual harassment from his employees, not including fondling himself in front of a Jane magazine reporter or dropping his pants for a reporter of BussinessWeek. His free-love mentality is filters in to his raunchy advertising campaign—I’m so hot and bothered after browsing their website I often have to take a cold shower. AA’s ads that appear in The Austin Chronicle and on Facebook feature buxom, doe-eyed men and women wearing barely any clothes at all in lurid positions.

Even though Charney and his ads are of questionable character, the ads are a much-needed break from popular culture. Most of his models are amateurs and employees. They’re short, chubby, freckled, oily, unshaven, uncut, and untouched. Their legs haven’t been digitally stretched and they don’t need fat airbrushed to their ribs. Models have razor burn and thigh dimples.

AA is wildly successful not simply because its ads drip sexy, but because they are so accessible to the audience they’re trying to reach. Middle class 20-somethings looking at a BCBG Maxaria ad might have a hard time imaging themselves as an oily Greco-Roman wrestler with their peacoats blowing in the wind. If you can let go of your qualms with their eroticized nature, you’ll find AA’s ads (ironically) unpretentious.

Their supersexed advertising approach isn’t anything new in the world of marketing. Some feminist websites, including Feministing.com, accuse AA for having near-pornographic marketing and refuse to host their ads. Let’s think about Abercrombie and Fitch’s approach to selling clothes: plaster posters of naked teenagers in your store. Armani shows naked women crawling through water with men standing over them. Since the 80s, sex and trendy clothes have been the peanut butter and jelly of America.

Blaming AA for exploiting its models sexually is a poor way to attack an ethical company. Charney pledged to never outsource labor to attain cheaper production, and he treats his workers with the utmost respect. AA employees earn, on average, $12 an hour with unparalleled health care benefits—this includes factory workers, whom are 75% lower-class Hispanic. He hires massage therapists to give free neck and hand massages to on-the-clock workers. He mandates synchronized stretching breaks. And AA still reaps over 200 million dollars in profit annually, according to National Public Radio.

But does paying your workers fair wages simply give you an avenue to exploit them through your advertising, or in Charney’s case, for your personal pleasure? If Charney’s models, both male and female, were coerced or forced into posing for the photos, there may be some argument against the campaign. But his workers are vying for the opportunity. "The fact that some people chose to project 'victim' onto [the ads]…is only an indication of their own distorted perceptions about women and sexuality," said AA photographer/model Kyung Chung during an interview with Newsweek magazine.

So I may have to take more cold showers after shopping at AA this holiday season, because a girl still needs legwarmers in every color of the rainbow. While I’m not comfortable with the avenues marketing has chosen to take in the last 10 years, Charney and his managerial ethics remain ever-sexy to me.

Anybody out there?

Rachel and I were talking about this earlier, and I just wanted to bring it up.
How many people are actually reading this? I'm seriously curious!
So if you read this blog, leave a comment!

Things I've Noticed

Hello all!

As an introductory blog post, I thought I'd catch y'all up on some things I've noticed.

Firstly, "emasculate." As in, "Germany was emasculated after WWI." It irks me that the word people use to express a forceful loss of power has to do with losing ones masculinity. It really irks me that this word is all over the academic world.

Also, "you guys." You can check out bitchmagazine.org's archives to find an article about how awesome "y'all" actually is! It is gender neutral, unlike the popular "you guys," is easy to say, and just rolls off the tongue. Imagine my surprise when something so Texan turned out to be so feminist!

Also, today during a self-education meeting we were reading some articles (aka blogs, but who am I to discredit this incredible art form?) that were considerably less feminist than this. Actually, you could, and they did, call them antifeminist. Of course, this got me a little riled up. The worst part was when one of them was actually upset about the "hug your vagina" movement. Until women can compare hairiness and labia length the way men compare their penises I will maintain that it is imperative to stress cunt love. Vaginas aren't pretty, or at least that's what I was taught to believe. I can't tell you who told me this, it was just something I knew. When a guy first started to head down there my first thought was, "how close do you have to get to do that, exactly?" and I almost refused. Who decided that our genitals are less attractive than the penis? And, how did they get so deep inside of the heads of so many women? For these reasons, for the testimonies of all of my friends and my personal experience, I believe that conversations about cunt love are necessary.

And now, a question. What do you believe about women who want to get married young, follow their husband, and have lots of kids? I don't want this question to seem biased in my asking of it, because I want an honest answer. As feminists, I feel like this is one of the big questions of our generation. Do we, can we, support all informed choices that our friends make, even if they choose to live a traditional life, seemingly unaffected by feminism?

Lastly, as you noticed, I use the word "cunt." Let me stress that more.
cunt!
If you find that offensive, or are confused, I recommend that you pick up "Cunt" by Inga Muscio and youtube Eve Ensler's monologue called "Reclaiming Cunt" from the Vagina Monologues.

"A sheath for a sword? Ain't got no vagina."

Peace, Love, and Solidarity,
feministish

Hump Day SexFact #4: That wouldn't fit in my top drawer.

When exactly the very first vibrator was invented remains somewhat unclear, but the first so-called mainstream, steam-powered vibrator was invented in 1869 by Dr. George Taylor. The purpose of the device was not to give pleasure (although, it did exactly that) but to cure an common ailment referred to as "female hysteria". Victorian-era physicians treated hysteria, which included symptoms such as sexual fantasies and "excessive" vaginal lubrication, by essentially pushin' patients' love buttons. Not surprisingly, treatment often brought immediate relief from all "symptoms". Imagine that. 

WomEMPOWERment meeting and Discussion 6:30 PM WED. Nov. 19th after Leadership Tracks Event from 5-6:30!

The next meeting will be Wednesday at 6:30 PM WEDNESDAY Nov. 19th in the lobby on the bottom floor of Ragsdale and we will be organizing WomEMPOWERment events for the remainder of this semester and into spring 2009. We will be making plans about where we want to take this organization and the direction WomEMPOWERment needs to move to make the most impact. Open discussion following the agenda! We welcome comments/critiques/suggestions/questions!

If you are going to be at school before the meeting from 5-6:30, Alya Vasquez, the Assistant Director of Leading E.D.G.E, has invited all of us to attend the "upcoming Leadership Tracks event. It is this Wedesday, TOMORROW, the 19th of November. It is in Fleck 315 from 5- 6:30 p.m. Leslie Sans will be leading an interactive workshop dealing with ethical leadership. Its shaping up to be a lot of fun and an amazing way to pick up a couple of skills or tips on how to become an ethical leader. Come and join Leading E.D.G.E. in making this a success! Bring friends!" Join us if you can!

If you cannot make the meeting, I will be creating a thread detailing the meeting and we want your input! Write down your ideas and bring them to the meeting Wednesday at 6:30 PM! Let's collaborate our ideas!

*******************************************
SEU Feminist Blog - Message Rmerrim@stedwards.edu to become a contributor!
http://www.seu-feminist.blogspot.com
*******************************************

Counting down til Dec. 3rd for news about the AAUW grant proposal, keep thinking happy thoughts! Yoga will commence again soon, keep posted for new info.


~Inspired by Martha Grimes ~
~"We don't know who we are until we can see what we can do"~

See y'all tomorrow,
Lucinda
http://lucindian.blogspot.com/

Call in gay and take the day off.

In the same vein as A Day Without a Mexican, Join the Impact has organized a nation-wide boycott for International Human Rights Day on December 10, 2008 entitled A Day Without A Gay. 

"LGBT workers, business owners, consumers, and taxpayers contribute over $700 billion to the U.S. economy each year and should not be treated as second-class citizens" - A Day Without A Gay Facebook event page

"Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success. A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love." - A Day Without A Gay Website

This is probably the best excuse for calling in sick (er, well, you know what I mean) to work you'll ever have!