I recently read an article in Time Magazine about women and men in modern society.  The article is online here, but I read it in the physical copy of the magazine.  Here are some reactions to things that I read.

• In the physical copy, but not the online copy, it started off with Paglia saying that feminists believe that women can survive without men. Which isn't something I've learned in my experiences with feminism.  Feminism doesn't say that men are unimportant, so I wonder (a) where this came from and (b) why it is different in the print and online versions.  
• Paglia claims that second- and third- wave feminism unfairly scrutinize "men's faults, failings, and foibles." I agree that feminism calls men out for things that many people find irrelevant - but the actions of both men and women have huge effects on inequality in modern society.  It's not always comfortable if someone calls you out for rape jokes or for criticizing someones appearance, but that doesn't mean it's an attack on men.  
• I'm troubled by Paglia saying it's okay for women to hold power in a working environment as long as they also have "sexual allure and glamour." Firstly, being glamorous is not what makes a woman a woman, and secondly, men don't have to be alluring to hold a job.  If it's not inherently part of being a woman and it doesn't help other people do the job, listing it as a hiring requirement doesn't make sense to me. 
• An assumption that Paglia makes is that feminists blame gender roles on men hating women.  I think this is a common misconception, but feminists don't think it.  Academic feminism recognizes that gender roles arose from a "natural division of labor," just as Paglia says gender roles came from.  
• Paglia says that there is an "implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture" by feminist journalists.  I don't know if this should be attributed to feminists.  Much of academia does this.   As does much of society - would you encourage your kid to be a brick layer or to be a lawyer?  

The main point of Paglia's article, as I can tell, is to assert that men who do the "absolutely indispensable" hard labor and so they should get all the credit for the modern economy.  Paglia seems to imply that feminism is denying men credit for the physical, back-breaking work that they do.  She says that "the modern economy . . . is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role - but women were not its author." I have a couple reactions to this:

1. Paglia makes a big deal out of gender roles that have arisen from a natural division of labor in earlier paragraphs.  If we're assigning an "author" to the modern economy, great.  Let's assign an "author" to these men as well - if we're discussing gender roles, keep in mind that women have a role, too.  Also, men do most of the hard labor, but the work women do isn't negligible.  (And if we're going to talk about the physical work involved, think about the physical work involved in childbirth.)
2. Obviously men do a lot of work supporting the modern economy.  And, as Paglia asserts, when the modern economy collapses men will be responsible for a lot of things that most women aren't strong enough for.  I don't understand why Paglia thinks feminists will have a problem with appreciating the "dirty, dangerous work" that is done by an "overwhelmingly male" workforce.  And I don't understand why that would change the work that feminists do.  Women are treated unfairly in modern society, and feminists work to change that.  Just because that doesn't have a primary focus on laboring men doesn't mean these men are "invisible" or that feminists don't appreciate them.  

If Paglia wants to draw attention to men who do difficult jobs and are largely ignored by modern society, why doesn't she say that?  Instead, she commits a few straw man fallacies and spends time blaming feminists for ignoring the hard work done to support the modern economy.  

No Make-up vs. "No Make-up"

I don't wear make-up.

When I was younger, I remember my mother putting make-up on my face because she didn't want me to go to school with acne.  And every time she did that, it would come off on my hands during the day and it would smell funny and I just didn't like it.  As I got older, I began to own some of my own make-up and to use it whenever I felt self-conscious about my acne or whenever I wanted to look grown-up or special.  But I didn't like it.

I can feel it on my face.  My mother says I can't, but I can - in the same way I can feel contact lenses on my eyes.  It's a layer of something that sits on top of my face, very unlike an acne cream or lotion that my face absorbs.  Although I know it's not good for my acne, I touch my face a lot, and make-up comes off.  It smells weird.  And I don't like taking extra time in the morning to do something I don't like - I'd rather stretch or eat more breakfast or sleep for ten minutes.

Which is why this article in the Huffington Post stood out to me.  It talks about what people expect when they say "no make-up" and what no make-up really means.  I haven't worn make-up in a year and a half.  When I went to China to teach English, I didn't take any with me, and I haven't worn any since then.  My mother and grandmother both think I need to be wearing make-up as I search for a job.  I still have acne, so I look like a teenager, and wearing make-up will make me look like an adult who should have a job.

This idea - of society expecting me to look a certain way - raises some questions.  Will this actually keep me from getting a job?  Am I doomed to wear make-up for the rest of my life?  If someone hires me while I wear make-up, are they expecting me to wear make-up to work every day?  Do I have to go out and buy make-up to be competitive in the job market?

And where does this come from?  I'm totally okay with people wearing make-up, but when did this create the standard that I have to wear it too?  When did a woman's face alone become something that needs to be changed to be acceptable?

Luggage

It has been a long time since I last posted - but I've been reading interesting things on the interwebs, and the world needs my unique view on everything.  So I am going to attempt to blog more often!  Let's see how it goes . . . 

Travel blogs are the best form of procrastination - I know, I've had 4 years of university experience to figure this out.  It's a helpful combination of daydreaming and I-can-use-this-in-the-future knowledge.  Her Packing List is focused on travel gear for women - and it's often my starting point to find new travel bloggers to read.  Luckily, the writing and content of Her Packing List are fun and well-written as well, so I find myself reading every new article that comes out.  

This week, Her Packing List started off with a DIY Luggage Tag post, giving instructions for making a few neat-o luggage tags that can help luggage stand out at the airport.  I've found it important to be able to identify luggage easily, so here are some things I've learned in my travels abroad that can help you keep track of your luggage on a trip!

1.  Pick less boring luggage.  Before I studied abroad, my grandmother bought me a blue hard-sided suitcase.  While blue is not the most original of luggage colors, it is a lighter blue than most.  And, as a hard-sided case, it is differently shaped than other peoples luggage.  It stands out a little, but doesn't stand out too much.  I also have a small floral suitcase that I bought while abroad.  It is floral print, which means it stands out, too.  If you are specifically choosing your luggage for a trip, think about a different shape or color.

2.  Accessorize with luggage straps.  The Her Packing List post talks about luggage tags, but they are small and hard to see in baggage claim.  My family has good luck with luggage straps.  They're long "belts" than fit around your suitcase.  I remember my parents fixing a rainbow luggage strap around their big suitcase when we've gone on family vacations - that one stands out a lot.  My sister and I both used bright green luggage straps recently - we made our luggage match, even though we have completely different suitcases!  Look for a strap that you like - it is, personality-wise, like putting jewelry on your luggage.  And make sure that luggage strap goes under at least one handle - otherwise it is likely to fall off!

3. Get creative!  You can try ribbons, stickers, or sharpie to make your suitcase stand out more.  I read a story about a suitcase labeled "If you read this, please yell Sarah very loudly," so that Sarah would have an easier time locating her luggage.  Just make sure anything hanging off of your luggage is something you're not afraid to lose - this is the time to use your gift wrap ribbon, not your favorite hair bows!

Art on Pinterest

          Let me be honest.  I spend a lot of time in Pinterest.  Apparently, it's fun to look at things.  I try to make it a little more interesting by looking at different categories of things, and today I took the cultured approach and checked out the "Art" category.  One of my favorite things I saw was a set of photographs of people recreating past family photos.  I have seen this kind of thing on tumblr before, but I had never really thought about how much it is an art. 

          There’s always a before and after shot of these – the first an old, faded family photo, usually of children.  Sometimes posed, sometimes ridiculous, always looking like a nineties photo.  You know that quality I’m talking about – the way you can tell some photos weren’t made by digital cameras.  They just look unedited and awesome the way they are, because nobody looked at it immediately after and announced how terrible their face is.  And the second shot is the same people, maybe ten years later so the children aren’t super tiny, and they pull the same ridiculous faces they pulled before and it’s just hilarious because they usually don’t fit that role.  Like, crying three year old was cute, but thirteen year old is super funny. 

          I like the idea of people recreating the past – it’s the idea of nostalgia as a type of homesickness, and the past is a destination we try to reach.  In my life right now, I’ve been trying to think of ways to move forward – much like a favorite winning presidential candidate – and these photos are a reminder that the past is also a nice place to go.  There are things that shouldn’t work like they did in the past but there are things that definitely should.  

My own viewpoint, Michigan Daily reaction

Today, I came across an article on the online version of the Michigan Daily that I disagree with. 

Jeffrey McMahon begins by sharing his personal experiences with hook-up culture.  I think it’s really brave of him to share such personal experiences and perspectives via school-wide, internet-searchable newspaper. I think it’s wonderful that he shares his story, but that makes the next part of the article hurt more – he says “I know how it feels.”  He assumes that everybody else’s experiences are just like his.  He says it hurts him that women are “resigning to that lifestyle,” and he dismisses men who participate in hook-up culture as not “real men.”    He asks people to try to understand his experiences and then takes a 180 degree turn to let me as a reader know that he doesn't try to understand experiences that are different from his own.  Firstly, I don’t like it when people judge other women’s choices with regards to sexual choices.  If you can’t respect a woman who chooses to have sex, why would you respect my choice not to have sex?  I don’t want people to respect my choice because they agree with it, I want them to respect my choice because I am a human being and making choices about my sexuality is my right. Secondly, as a woman, I am very troubled when people try to define what makes someone a “real woman.”  I am a woman, and I don’t need you to tell me whether or not I’m real.  So his judgment on what a makes a "real man" irks me.  I think McMahon’s intention is to question people who use others and who dismiss commitment because they want instant gratification.  I don’t like the assumptions he uses to make that point.  Women should be able to wear what they want – even if it is “barely more than a bathing suit” – and behave how they want, without people thinking there’s something wrong with them.  Men should be able to make choices about their sex lives without being told they think women should be “possessed and used.”

Where I think McMahon really pushes his luck is when he says that women are “away from their homes and families and are now in our care,” implying that men on campus must take care of the women on campus.  I think this is an odd way of looking at it.   I backpacked Europe alone.  I flew to China alone.  I'm not saying nobody helped me.  But nobody was over my shoulder taking care of me the whole time, just as nobody is doing that now.  Men I have never met are not responsible for "taking care of me."      

McMahon’s following slippery slope assumes that men who participate in hook-up culture don’t respect or value women and that women who participate in hook-up culture do so because they have been abused or neglected by the male figures in their lives.  These assumptions sound like over-generalizations of the author’s personal experiences.  There are men who value women and have sex with them outside of committed relationships.  There are women who have sex outside of committed relationships whose parents were active and wonderful in their lives. 

McMahon then implies that if I don’t find “security, support, and comfort” in a man, I must search for it “here and there” and that I will be “ultimately left objectified and used.”  Well.  I guess he doesn't think I’m capable of holding down a secure job or getting support from my friends and family or finding comfort in my accomplishments.  Who doesn't value women now?

McMahon tells me I am “amazing and worthwhile” after that.  It’s nice of him to notice, but after what he just said, I don’t know if he really means it.  Especially because he calls me a “girl,” and follows it by telling what to do.  He tells me what to look for in a romantic partner, and what to wear.  I have never met McMahon before, but he assumes he knows what I want out of life AND that every woman on campus wants the same thing I do.  If McMahon actually cares about me, he can comment below and we can grab lunch and talk.  But if he isn't willing to get to know every woman on campus, his is in no position to give advice to them.  

Locke

“ Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others; become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.”
 – John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

 My awesome econ class this semester just read Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, and we talked a lot about this passage – the turfs passage – because it’s been a heavily studied thing in economic history.  The big deal about it is the phrase “the turfs my servant has cut.”  Locke’s general idea of property is that, if you put work into something, and anybody else could have done it, than it is your property.  So if you plant an apple tree, it’s your apple tree, because anybody else could have planted an apple tree just as you did.  

So the turf’s passage causes many people to give an intellectual double take – it is easy to get that my horse’s grazing land is mine, and that if I dig ore it is mine – but I did not cut the turfs.  My servant cut the turfs.  So why is it my property and not my servants? Like I said, this causes many people to give an involuntary intellectual double take.  A little “what the hell” moment, if you will.  Locke’s point is that a person’s work creates his own property, so why is he saying that the fruits of one man’s labor are another man’s property?  This didn’t cause me to do an intellectual double take.  Look at language in which Locke writes – you can tell from the passage he likes to use personal pronouns.  He also likes to talk about “we” – he is including himself and his reader, although he may mean all of man when he says “we.”  Because he also likes to talk about man – man this and man that – to talk about the nature of . . . man.  And given when he was writing this, I am certain he was not using “man” as an all-inclusive and gender non-specific, as it is often used today.  His language and the time period in which he is writing make it clear to me that the fruits of my labor would not be counted in my property.  Just like the grass the servant cuts, the things that I create or achieve are the property of another.  The turf passage does not stand out to me because I do not stand out to Locke – it makes sense to me that he might consider the fruits of some people’s labor as a different person’s property because Locke has been telling me that this is the case the whole time.  

This is something I totally expect out of this class – these are not modern writings, and I do happen to know that history is not all hunky dory when it comes to the rights of women.  I’m actually really excited because my professor managed to get a female economist onto the reading list.   My point is just that all these feminist perspectives on things pop into my head and it’s totally awesome.  

Graffiti

Here's a bitty video of my favorite bit of graffiti in Københavns Hovedbanegård, the central train station. Once I moved in with my host family, I took a train from this platform almost everyday.

10,000 points to whoever comments the song I'm singing! :)