January Stitch Fix Review

I hate shopping and I need new clothes, so I signed up for Stitch Fix.

For those of you who have never heard of it, Stitch Fix is an online subscription personal shopping service. Basically, you fill out a style profile, and a personal stylist sends you a package with clothes, shoes, jewelry, and accessories once a month (or however often you schedule to get a “fix” delivered). You’re charged a $20 stylist fee when the fix is put together, which is applied to your purchase if you decide to keep any of the items. If you keep everything, you get a 25% discount. Anything you don’t want can be returned in the prepaid envelope they provide, along with comment cards detailing what you did or didn’t like about the different pieces, which helps the stylists for future fixes.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect. My mom has had a lot of trouble getting clothes that she likes in her fixes, and all of the reviews I’ve read say you need to be really specific about what you like/what you want. Knowing this, I made sure to describe my general style preferences as best as I could, plus linked a Pinterest board that reflected my fashion inclinations.

In the special instructions for my fix, I relayed that I’m incredibly pale and try to avoid colors that wash me out, as well as the fact that it’s January in Minnesota so I’d love to see some sweaters.

Then my fix arrived – three days earlier than scheduled, which was awesome – and I excitedly opened the package to see what was waiting for me. Standard of all fixes, there were five items and style cards with suggestions on how to style each piece, as well as a note from my stylist, Ines.

For a first fix, she did a pretty good job.

Liverpool Anita Skinny Pant

Black, $78.00


Pros: I actually need a new pair of black skinny pants, and was planning on requesting some in my next fix. These fit really nicely, despite looking tiny, and they have the potential to be very versatile and get a lot of use.


Cons: They’re more jeggings than actual pants, and are too tight to really be appropriate to wear to work, which makes the $78 price tag hard to justify. Additionally, the front pockets are fake, which I take great offense to on principle. Seriously, why with the fake pockets? Why would you do that, Anita?!


Verdict: Sent back, with a more specific request for what I’m looking for in a pair of black skinny pants, and instructions to never send me anything with fake pockets ever again.


Pixley Greenich Striped Knit Top

Burgundy, $48.00


Pros: There was so much that could have gone wrong with this shirt. Horizontal stripes can be unflattering. As a ginger, I tend to stay away from reds in my clothing. I have freakishly long arms and can almost never find sleeves that are long enough for me. I also have a long torso so t-shirts tend to ride up on my midriff.

However, there is nothing wrong with this shirt. I love it.

I really like the pattern, and the red is deep enough (it’s described as “burgundy”) that it doesn’t clash, and it’s something different for my wardrobe. The fit is fantastic, actually long enough in all the right places, plus the jersey material isn’t the cheap or flimsy stuff I’m used to from Target or Old Navy. The faux leather trim is a fun feature, and I adore the elbow pads.


Cons: It’s white so I’ll probably spill something all over it, and it’s cotton so I’ll probably accidentally shrink it, but those are both on me.


Verdict: Keeping it. I’m actually wearing it right now with skinny jeans and a black blazer as I type up this review.


Skies are Blue Brilla Open Cardigan

Black, $58.00


Pros: I asked for sweaters. The color of this is a nice salt-and-pepper gray that could be worn with almost anything else. The length of the sleeves are good, and I like the general silhouette. Plus, it has pockets (take note, Anita).


Cons: I asked for sweaters because it’s January in Minnesota. As I write this, it is twelve degrees below zero with a wind chill of -45. This sweater is beautiful, but it’s not particularly functional. I need sweaters that will actually be warm, not sweaters that have an open weave to show off the clothes underneath. It will be great for spring and fall, and even summer in my intensely air-conditioned office, but it really doesn’t cut it for the winter.


Verdict: Keeping it because I know I’ll get a lot of use out of it, but I’m also sending more explicit instructions of what I need to survive the winter.


Market & Spruce Annabeth Faux Leather Trim Sweater Tunic

Dark Green, $68.00


Pros: I asked for sweaters. I really like the emerald color of the sweater, the keyhole feature was interesting, and the faux leather trim is right up my alley.


Cons: Hate is a strong word, but this came close. Again, I asked for sweaters because it’s January in Minnesota. This one didn’t have an open weave like the cardigan, but when I took it out of the box and held it up, I could see right through the fabric. Tip for success, if the fabric is thin enough to be transparent, it isn’t thick enough to be called a sweater.

I don’t really like boat necklines, and the trim on this one made it stiff and uncomfortable. Additionally, while I’m a huge fan of the oversized-sweater-with-leggings-look, the silhouette on this piece was horrendous. It was too long, far too baggy, had absolutely no shape, and the sleeves were too short.


Verdict: Sent back with notes to avoid sheer shapeless sacks in the future.


Romolo Genevieve Stacked Chevron Pendant Necklace

Gold, $28.00


Pros: It’s an interesting statement piece that wouldn’t be annoying to wear, like I imagine those chandelier/bauble statement necklaces are.

Cons: I’m not really sure if it’s my style. I’m kind of weird about jewelry, and I’m not always sure what I would like/consistently wear, so it’s hard for me to make a $28 commitment to a necklace that may never see the light of day. Also, I was wearing it around the house while I was taking pictures for this, and that sucker is heavy.


Verdict: Sent back.


All in all, not terrible for a first fix. I feel like Ines has a pretty good handle on my style and color palette, it was just the little details that were off. The sweaters were probably the most disappointing part of the fix simply because neither of them are functional for Minnesota winters, but when the stylists are located in California, I can see where there might be some disconnect.

Feedback can only help, so I’m looking forward to February.

If you’re interested in Stitch Fix, check it out! It’s free to sign up, and filling out the style profile is actually really helpful for thinking about what you do and don’t love for your wardrobe.

(Plus, between friends, if you sign up with my referral link, I earn credit with the site. Win-win, right?)

#FeministFriday No. 34

Attention all Disney Darlings, we have a new princess.


Meet Moana Waialiki, the Polynesian princess and heroine of the upcoming movie Moana, set for release in November 2016.

The animated musical will tell the story of Moana’s epic journey to meet demi-gods, and will be directed by the creators of The Princess and the FrogAladdin, and The Little Mermaid. Dwayne Johnson has signed on as the voice of Maui, Moana’s father, and rumors for the voice of the titular character include Hawaii-native Makamae Kailani Auwae, as well as Dinah Jane Hansen of Fifth Harmony.

Fans are beside themselves, particularly with the design of the character.


Another user, clubhousemouse, commented, “Moana’s design is: not a straight copy and paste clone of Rapunzel, Elsa, and Anna; not tiny waisted; a woman of color; different and somewhat new; hella cute; that is all.”

This may seem like an odd reaction to an animated character, but they have a point. Disney faced a lot of scrutiny after the huge success of Frozen, with many people pointing out the lack of diversity in their female characters.

Particularly in the facial region.

Particularly in the facial region.

The Disney Princess brand is one of the biggest media franchises aimed specifically at young girls, so many parents have been glad to see more forward-thinking characters like Merida, the tomboyish heroine of Brave to balance out the passivity of the more traditional princesses like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. In fact, when Merida was given a more feminine makeover as part of her official induction into the Disney Princess pantheon, there was public outcry to return her to her original design.

The relative feminism of recent Disney princess movies is not the only thing modern viewers are concerned about. Most notably is racial representation — or rather, the glaring white nature of most of Disney’s animated output.

Because they’re directly marketed to be role models for young girls, the Disney Princesses come under a lot more scrutiny than other cartoons. The last three movies have featured four white princesses, and failed to include any POC in even secondary or background roles — including Frozen which included indigenous Scandinavian clothing and music from the Sami culture, but no actual Sami characters. This has led many fans and parents to accuse Disney of failing to represent people of color.

The Official Disney Princesses (according to the Official Disney Princess Wiki) are:

  • Snow White (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937)
  • Cinderella (Cinderella, 1950)
  • Aurora (Sleeping Beauty, 1959)
  • Ariel (The Little Mermaid, 1989)
  • Belle (Beauty and the Beast, 1991)
  • Jasmine (Aladdin, 1992)
  • Pocahontas (Pocahontas, 1995)
  • Mulan (Mulan, 1998)
  • Tiana (The Princess and the Frog, 2009)
  • Rapunzel (Tangled, 2010)
  • Merida (Brave, 2012)
  • Elsa* (Frozen, 2013)
  • Anna* (Frozen, 2013)

* Technically Elsa and Anna are Princesses-in-Waiting as they have not yet been crowned in an official ceremony at Walt Disney World. I’m told this is a big deal. 

Other female Disney characters like Lilo, Esmeralda, and Meg are not considered official princesses because they don’t meet qualifications set by Disney. There are very specific rules for this, which I’m told are also a big deal.

Here’s where it gets dicey, though. The following graph is the population of the United States by race, according the the 2010 U.S. Census:

US Population by Race

Here are the same demographics of the Disney Princesses:

Disney Princess Race

The lack of representation is disgraceful (“Other” in this case refers to Princess Jasmine, whose Middle Eastern descent does not currently have its own designation on census forms). Our second largest (and fastest growing) racial group doesn’t have their own princess, and while the debut of Tiana as the first black princess drew excitement, the character spent 80% of her screen time as a frog, and the movie contained some pretty unflattering racial stereotypes. Furthermore, while Mulan is arguably one of the better princesses in terms of independence and badassery, the Asian demographic includes 20 subgroups — the six largest of which are Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese. As a Chinese war hero, Mulan technically only represents about 23% of all Asian Americans.

The lack of diversity seems even more ridiculous upon further breakdown. For instance, despite making up approximately 2% of the United States, red heads account for almost a quarter of all Disney Princesses.

Disney Princess Hair


Here’s my wishlist of Princesses that should be added to the Disney lexicon:

  • Hispanic Princess
  • Latina Princess
  • Black Princess that stays human for the entire movie
  • Indian/South Asian Princess
  • Muslim Princess
  • Mixed Race Princess
  • Physically Disabled Princess
  • Mentally Disabled Princess
  • Little Person Princess
  • Overweight Princess
  • Transgender Princess
  • Non-heteronormative Princess
  • Alto Princess
  • Any combination of above the above traits would also be acceptable

Obviously it’s a little unreasonable to expect Disney to create a feature length movie dedicated to every single diversity in existence. However, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to be more inclusive to their audience.

As tumblr user everything-is-broadway wrote, “As a person of Polynesian descent, I got extremely excited when Disney’s Moana was announced, and didn’t really know why…and then I realized, THIS is what representation feels like.”

Everybody deserves to feel that magic.

Leave any questions or comments below, and see you next week!

#FeministFriday No. 33

In the news this week, Target has announced that they will eliminate “boys” and “girls” on their signs in the toy and bedding departments.


“We know that shopping in some departments like Toys, Home, or Entertainment, suggesting products by gender is unnecessary,” says a statement on the Target website. In recent years, more and more parents and corporations have started to understand that gendered toy segregation can make children feel needlessly ashamed of their desire for toys that don’t fit their gender stereotypes, such as chemistry sets and monster trucks for girls, or play kitchens and dolls for boys.

Toys are toys. They’re a source for entertainment and joy, and companies like Target that are encouraging children to pick a plaything that will bring them joy — even if it may not enforce traditional gender roles — should be the norm, not the source of controversy.

Because of course there’s controversy over removing obsolete and meaningless signage in a retail store.

Notably, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the famous Rev. Billy Graham, and president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Graham is calling for a boycott, and like many conservatives has grounded his complaint in his evangelical Christian beliefs, marveling, “They won’t be using pink and blue colors to identify sexes. What’s next? Are they going to try to make people believe that pink or blue baby showers are politically incorrect? I have news for them and for everyone else — God created two different genders.”

Except no, He didn’t. I’m not starting a “where did we come from?” debate, settle down, but the fact is there are more than two genders. Like, a lot more. Gender itself is a social construct, and relatively new in terms of recognition, but to assume it can just be simplified into a binary is wrong and kind of ridiculous. Gender, much like sexuality, is a spectrum, and not everyone falls into neat categories.


Additionally, Graham’s remark of color coding is kind of strange when you put it in context. Everyone knows that “pink=girl” and “blue=boy” because marketing and society are super effective at ingraining these constructs into our brains from a young age. However, it’s a fairly modern phenomenon with absolutely no biblical roots. In fact, historically, the reverse was always true: many religiously devout parents felt blue was feminine due to a long history of association with the Virgin Mary, and pink was considered virile and masculine. Baby boys were dressed in pink until the 1940s, at which point a certain German leader started using little pink triangles to identify gay people (in the same way he used yellow Star of Davids to identify Jewish people). After World War II, pink was considered an effeminate color and designated for girls.

That’s right, the whole of western society decided that pink was girly because Adolf Hitler associated the color with homosexuality.

Infuriatingly bigoted history aside, Graham complaints continued, stating that “gender-neutral people out there” haven’t made Target strong. Others — like Tom Kersting, an actual psychotherapist — expressed concern that the lack of boy-girl labels would lead children to “question what their gender is.”

Contrary to many conservative’s beliefs, gender-neutral marketing doesn’t mean an attempt to make males and females exactly the same, or that Target is going to ban traditionally gendered toys like Barbie and G.I. Joe. It simply means organizing products that children already love according to interest or theme, rather than by boy or by girl. This isn’t exactly radical; gender-based marketing only really became popular in the 1990s when companies realized they could get parents to buy twice as much stuff by introducing products with gender segmentation.

Furthermore, wild accusations of gender confusion don’t square up to the science. Developmental psychologist Christia Brown, a professor at the University of Kentucky and author of Parenting Beyond Pink and Blue, has about 30 years of social science on children and gender-labeled toys to back her up.

consider the following

“We know kids know their gender really early — they know it by about two years old,” said Brown. “The gender-confusion thing is not something parents need to worry about.” She goes on to agree that the decision to remove gender labeling on toys is, in all likelihood, a very good idea. Most research suggests this, as well.

“Social scientists really agree pretty wholeheartedly on the effect of these kinds of gender labels on kids’ choices,” Brown said. “What they find is that the girls don’t want to touch it if it’s labeled a boy’s toy. When the exact same toy is labeled as a girl’s toy, however, the girls are interested.” Similar patterns have been observed in boys, including a study that involved purposely confusing visual cues — for example, when handed a monster truck that had been painted pink, boys were interested as long as it was labeled “for boys”.

Carol Lynn Martin of Arizona State University studied the effects of labels on preschool-aged children. Two sets of children were presented with a variety of gender-neutral toys, like flip-books or magnets, and asked to rate how much they enjoyed the toys. For one set of children, half of the toys were taken from a box labeled “Boys” and the other half from a box labeled “Girls” — all of the boys were more interested in the boys’ toys, and the girls in the girls’ toys. However, the other set of children were presented the exact same toys without labels, and no clear trend emerged concerning the toys the boys liked versus the ones preferred by the girls.

Further research found that not only does gender labeling impact the toys that children like, it impacts the way they play with the toys, as well. In one study, American children were presented with a Canadian toy they’d never seen before, which involved throwing discs into a target. Half the children were told the game was meant for boys, while the other half were told it was intended for girls. The result was boys scoring better at the game when they believed the toy was for boys, and the girls doing better when they thought it was a game meant for them.

Where this becomes an issue is when the toys labeled for specific genders are toys that mimic traditional gender roles and are deemed the only appropriate or acceptable toys for children of that gender. Another study completed last year by Dr. Maria do Mar Pareira of the University of Warwick found that raising children to adhere to rigid gender roles can be detrimental to their physical and mental health.

Pereira drew her conclusions after spending three months observing a class of teenagers in Lisbon, Portugal. The teens knew they were being observed by Pereira in all aspects of their everyday lives — attending classes, eating lunch in the cafeteria, playing on the playground, and joining them on trips to the mall after school — but they didn’t know her specific area of focus.

In addition to one-on-one interviews with each teen, her observations allowed her to track the ways they interacted with their ideas about masculinity and femininity, and noted that both boys and girls were regulating their behavior in potentially harmful ways in order to adhere to gender norms. For instance, even girls who enjoyed sports often avoided physical activity at school because they assumed it wouldn’t be a feminine thing to do, they worried they might look unattractive while running, or they were mocked by their male peers for not being good enough.

The girls also put themselves on diets because they believed desirable women have to be skinny. “All of the girls were within very healthy weights, but they were all restricting their intake of food in some way,” said Pereira. “What we’re really talking about here is 14-year-old girls, whose bodies are changing and developing, depriving themselves at every meal. In the extreme, that can lead to things like eating disorders, but even for the women who don’t reach the extreme, it can be very unhealthy for them.”

Meanwhile, the male participants in the study all faced intense pressure to demonstrate the extent of their manliness which led to everyday low-level violence and destructive behaviors: slapping and hitting each other, inflicting pain on other boys’ genitals, encouragement to physically fight each other if they were ever mocked or offended, and feeling like they had to drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol because that’s “what a man would do”. Additionally, they were under certain mental health strains. Many were struggling with anxiety about proving themselves and suppressing their feelings, all while lacking a strong emotional support system.

Pereira ultimately concluded that, “this constant effort to manage one’s everyday life in line with gender norms produces significant anxiety, insecurity, stress, and low self-esteem for both boys and girls, and both for ‘popular’ young people and those who have lower status in school.”


Although Pereria’s observations took place at a school in Lisbon, she believes her results have widespread implications for Western nations that are subject to similar cultural messages about gender. In fact, previous research in British and American schools has reached many of the same conclusions as her study.

Sociologists agree that children “learn gender” from being subjected to society’s expectation, despite the fact that pressuring children to conform to rigid gender roles can result in serious mental health consequences for the children whose parents try to “correct” their behavior. Additionally, there are countless examples of schools being environments where gender stereotypes are strongly enforced and strictly policed, and children can be sent home for wearing the “wrong” type of clothing.

The findings of these studies could serve as hope about the possibility of creating a different kind of approach to these issues. Children and teenagers are still shaping their attitudes about what it means to be a man or a woman, and while some adults may think it’s impossible to change gender norms, it’s important to remember that such norms are much more entrenched in adults than they are in young people.

Change is slow, however. Cultural shifts happen in stages, which is why there’s been such backlash towards Target. In the future, gender stereotyping could be eradicated in other areas, such as clothing departments, which are currently starkly divided into “boys vs. girls” colors, themes, and styles — sending the same limited messages as toy labels about what boys and girls are supposed to like and who they are supposed to be.

I look forward to writing about the blowback from a clothing department that contains both sparkly dresses and football jersey.

Bottom line: if your child is happy and healthy, does it really matter what their favorite toy is?

Leave any questions or comments below, and see you next week!

#FeministFriday No. 32

The Teenage Girl is possibly the absolute stupidest, most materialistic, and shallow kind of human there is, and by definition the easiest to make money off of.

The Average Teenage Girl wears a general uniform that included leggings, Uggs, NorthFace fleece jackets in winter; extremely whorish costumes (police, nurse, cheerleader, school girl, etc.) on Halloween; and in summer, extremely tiny shorts and skirts with sunglasses wide enough to hide her entire face. Of course, all of these outfits must come from a wide variety of different brands which also provide a wide variety of accessories that she clearly doesn’t need.

Teenage Girls tend to travel in herds of 5 or 6 as they have nothing resembling independent thought or character and are totally subservient to the herd mentality, which decides who they can date, what they eat, where they go, what they wear, and what they do.

In her free time, The Average Teenage Girl likes to listen to mass produced idiotic music by the likes of One Direction or Five Seconds of Summer. Within the herds, this is usually accompanied by screaming the lyrics very obnoxiously to make sure everybody knows what idiots they are.

The Average Teenage Girl is of very low intelligence. She talks in a very high pitched voice and if she is literate, her favorite book is Twilight. Movie preferences include the “rom-com” or “chick flick” genre, which any idiot with basic writing skills could make.

The Average Teenage Girl is an idiot and will probably amount to nothing more than trophy wives, models, or actresses in really bad movies, assuming they remember how to breathe.

The above, vomit-inducing description is the definition of “teenage girl” provided by Urban Dictionary. Incidentally, it’s the second thing that comes up if you Google “teenage girl”; other search results included diet and exercise pages, and blogs dedicated to making fun of things like leggings. By comparison, Googling “teenage boy” brings up links for parental advice columns, news stories about academic and athletic excellence, and medical research about the effects of (cis) male puberty.

Teenage girls (and even preteen girls to a large extent) have long been the punchline of society. They are reduced to simplistic, stereotypical beings whose thoughts, interests, habits, and emotions are endlessly and needlessly mocked. We trivialize their mental health, laugh at their pain, and minimize their behaviors as illegitimate angst, ridiculous overreactions, or PMS.

teenage girls1

It’s not easy, being teens. Nearly all teenage girls suffer from poor body image, or think they need to lose weight. It’s estimated that one in every 200 girls aged 13-19 regularly cut themselves, but estimated that one in twelve will self-harm in some way before they turn 18. Suicides among U.S. females between 10 and 24 years old have nearly quadrupled since 1994, but it’s socially acceptable to belittle them because, why? They’re wearing riding boots and scarves, and drinking pumpkin spice lattes?

Grow the hell up.

It seems like every other week there’s some news story or breaking article that revolves around the “fact” that teenage girls lack self-esteem: “As their teen years approach, many confident girls turn into sullen shells.”

It’s almost like it’s stressful to have all of society constantly telling them exactly what perfect mold they need to fit into, and are then told they’re unacceptable if they don’t fit, but told they’re shallow if they do. Everything that teenage girls do is meticulously criticized, from the way they speak, to the way they style their hair, to they way they act in groups of their peers. Regardless of what it is, there is always someone, somewhere commenting that they should do it differently.

All the while, teenage boys are just sort of expected to behave the way that they do. Teenage boys eat a lot, they think about sex a lot, they wear basketball shorts and flat billed baseball caps, and make homophobic comments on Xbox Live. That’s just teenage boys, that’s just what they do. Nothing they do is ever really addressed as an issue, and I’ve never read an article anywhere detailing how consuming endless Pizza Rolls and Mountain Dew makes a guy “basic”. Granted, these are broad generalizations that in no way represent every 13-19 year old male in the country; there have even been recent studies that suggest popular stereotypes of males are, on the whole, inaccurate.

Meanwhile, let’s keep assuming that all teenage girls are vapid and are more interested in selfies than current events.

That's their reaction to Donald

They’re watching the latest Donald Trump press conference.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, teenagers are considered a “golden goose” of sorts by marketers in terms of disposable income. They’re at the age where they’re old enough to work part-time, but young enough to still receive birthday money and allowances. According to a Harris Poll, the 42 million teenagers in the United States have over $100 billion at their disposal. Furthermore, teenagers typically have less financial responsibility than adults, and are less likely to respond to economic factors as much as older consumers.

If only there was a target market with such disposable income that could be easily convinced by companies to buy their products on account of the target market’s perennially low self-esteem and need to be seen as “good enough” by society.

Marketers thrive on society’s treatment of teenage girls because it allows them to capitalize on the fallout. They manipulate girls through advertising to believe that these exact jeans, or this exact shampoo will enable them to overcome any insecurities and be accepted, all while feeding into the bigger picture of perfection that undermines their confidence in the first place.

Immoral? Absolutely. It’s modern capitalism at its finest. The best example of this is Dove, which launched the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty in 2004. Their website states, “The Dove brand is rooted in listening to women…The campaign started a global conversation about the need for a wider definition of beauty after the study proved the hypothesis that the definition of beauty had become limiting and unattainable…In 2010, Dove evolved the campaign and launched an unprecedented effort to make beauty a source of confidence, not anxiety, with the Dove Movement for Self-Esteem.”

This all sounds amazingly positive and female friendly, until you realize that Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also owns Axe. While Unilever has promoted one brand by pointing out how terrible women feel about their bodies and trying to convince them otherwise, they’ve been promoting the other with sexist and objectifying portrayals of women, telling men they should be focused only on the appearance of women — which, of course, is represented by the limited and unattainable standard of beauty Dove is trying so hard to abolish.

I could probably write a separate post about everything wrong with this ad.

I could probably write a separate post about everything wrong with this ad.

I digress. Let’s look at a revised version of that definition from earlier:

A teenage girl is a female between 13-19 years of age, and is very likely to be targeted by marketers, as well as people who have nothing better to do than make fun of young girls because they feel bad about themselves on the inside.

Teenage girls have a wide variety of styles that express their unique personalities. Many choose to wear clothing like yoga pants and leggings because they’re awesome and hella comfortable. Some stick to basics like jeans and t-shirts because those are awesome and what they like. Others choose to follow current trends, such as shorts and and crop tops in the summer months, which are awesome and adorable on anyone who chooses to wear them. If you disagree and think they should wear something else, you should take a long, hard think as to why you care so much what teenage girls are wearing.

Some teenage girls like to travel in groups of friends because it’s nice to spend time with friends. Additionally, there is safety in numbers and females who travel alone are often blamed for any misfortunes that may befall them.

Many teenage girls enjoy listening to music by groups like One Direction. Incidentally, the individual members of One Direction each have a net worth of £15 million, which is much more than what anyone making fun of these girls will ever be worth. This “fangirl” behavior towards One Direction is also reminiscent of another British boy band, which almost certainly would have never enjoyed commercial success in America were it not for the support of screaming teenage girls. You may have heard of them, they were a group from Liverpool called The Beatles.

The average teenage girl has a GPA of 3.1 and composite ACT score of 21. In their free time, many teenage girls tend to favor books and movies with more than one speaking female character, which often fall under the romantic comedy category. Despite a lack of female representation, teenage girls also show a strong interest in the science fiction, fantasy, and action-adventure genres, making up a sizable portion of the fanbase for popular franchises like Marvel, Star Wars, and DC.

Teenage girls are amazing and many will grow up to do incredible things. Anyone who tries to limit them is an idiot and will probably amount to nothing more than a bitter Redditor, assuming they remember how to breathe.

Much better.

Leave any questions or comments below, and see you next week!

#FeministFriday No. 31

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the War on Women.

This Monday, the Senate will take a procedural vote to move forward with legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. The vote will determine whether or not to end debate on a motion to proceed to a bill that would cut off funding for the organization. Republicans are pushing for the bill in the wake of a string of controversial videos about fetal tissue donations.

It needs 60 votes to pass, which is unlikely to happen — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would have to get every Republican and at least six Democrats to back the idea — but that doesn’t mean this will be the end of the defunding battle.

First, some history. I see anti-choice activists around the Internet, as well as people in my comments section often going on about Planned Parenthood being an agency of the devil; how the murderers who work there do nothing but kill innocent children with no regard to the physical or emotional effects on the pregnant person, then turn a profit by illegally selling body parts to shady black market facilities. Nothing about Planned Parenthood is beneficial to our society, unless you think the murdering of innocent children is a good thing.

I must say, the world you assume you live in sounds like a scary place.

Planned Parenthood was founded in Brooklyn in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell, and was the first birth control clinic in the United States. All three women were immediately arrested and jailed for violating provisions of the Comstock Act, and were accused of distributing “obscene materials” at the clinic. Their trials garnered national attention and support to their cause, and led to major changes in the laws governing birth control and sex education in the United States. In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, but the title was considered offensive and “anti-family”, so in 1942 the League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. By this time, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served over 49,000 clients.

Today, PPFA is a federation of 85 independent Planned Parenthood affiliates around the United States. Together, these affiliates operate more than 820 health centers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. They are the largest family planning services provider in the United States, staffed by 27,000 employees and volunteers. PPFA serves over five million clients a year, 26% of whom are teenagers under the age of 19. 75% of their clients have incomes at or below the federal poverty level.

Services provided at PPFA locations include contraceptives; long-acting reversible contraception; emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical, and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing, and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education; menopause treatments; vasectomies and tubal ligations; and abortion.

In 2009, PPFA provided 11,383,900 services to their patients in the United States, which had the following break down:

  • 4,009,549 contraceptive services (35% of total services)
  • 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services (35%)
  • 1,830,811 cancer related services (16%)
  • 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services (10%)
  • 332,278 abortion services (3%)
  • 76,977 other miscellaneous services (1%)

The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct one million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams.

All that being said, some people reading this will only focus on the number that makes up 3% of all services provided by Planned Parenthood, so I think that it is particularly important to note that due to easily available contraceptives and comprehensive sex education provided by PPFA, abortion rates have actually dropped to an all-time low.


Despite what the anti-choice movement would have you believe, no one at Planned Parenthood responds to a regular unintended pregnancy with, “you should get an abortion.” Abortion is typically given as a viable option to unintended pregnancies, but it is not the only option provided, and there is never pressure placed on the pregnant person by Planned Parenthood to choose abortion. Their goal is actually to have as little need for abortions as possible by providing effective preventative measures and education — something that Republicans also want to block for reasons that are still unclear to me. Because there will never not be a need for them, the PPFA and the pro-choice movement also support keeping abortions legal to keep them safe (legal abortion is currently fourteen times safer than childbirth).

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Nixon signed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act into law. The law had bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families’ control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information, which Nixon described as the premise that “no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.”

In 2011, total consolidated revenue for PPFA was $201 million, 35% of which was received in government grants and contracts, and another 25% from their membership base of over 700,000 active donors. Approximately 65% of the revenue was put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 16%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for most of the rest of their costs.

By law, no money received by federal funding can be allocated for abortions, and many private donors, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are specifically marked to avoid funding abortions.

However, opponents of abortion have argued that allocating any money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services allows the organization to re-allocate other funds for abortion. Several coalitions of national and local “pro-life” groups have lobbied state and federal governments to stop funding PPFA. Legislation has been proposed to reduce funding, and six states have gone ahead with such proposals. In some cases, the federal executive branch has provided funding in lieu of the states. In other cases, courts have overturned such actions citing conflict with other state laws. In a few cases, complete or partial defunding of Planned Parenthood has gone through successfully, which has had disastrous consequences.

Most recently, the allegations that Planned Parenthood is illegally selling fetal tissue for profit has been the springboard for advocating defunding, and was the conception of Monday’s procedural vote.

Unfortunately for anti-choicers, those allegations are false. As the entire, unedited version of the now infamous video clearly shows, there isn’t any illegal activity happening. PPFA isn’t selling fetal tissue, they donate tissue to research organizations and charge $30 – $100 for storage and transportation — which is completely standard and reasonable within the medical community. The tissue is only donated with the written consent of the patient, and due to its ability to create stem cells, can be used to find cures and treatments for many different illnesses.

Furthermore, even if everything I just said wasn’t true, this is what most “babies” look like at the time of abortion:


Magnified view of a five week old embryo, originally published in Life magazine in 1965 by Lennart Nilsson

That five-week-old embryo is about 1/4″ long. It does not have viable organs, it doesn’t even have a face. To make claims that PPFA is illegally selling human organs on the Black Market shows a remarkable lack of knowledge on the part of the anti-choice movement. Fetuses that are older than 40 weeks have viable organs that could be harvested, but the only times abortions are given at that stage of gestation are in extreme circumstances — usually if the mother and/or fetus will not survive through the end of the pregnancy.

With all these facts and figures and statistics, it doesn’t make logical sense to defund Planned Parenthood, but it also doesn’t necessarily make logical sense to listen to me about any of this. I can spew facts and figures and statistics at you until my laptop battery runs low, but to what end? I’m a software consultant, not a healthcare worker. I’m a third party provider of information, and though I consider myself better educated about these issues than the average person on the street, I’m also arguably biased. While my biases of being a non-practicing Catholic, left-leaning female with an interest in remaining reproductively healthy may be considered advantageous to the issue at hand, wouldn’t it make more sense to listen to someone with actual experience being in the middle of all of this controversy?

Meet Lois.

Or as I know her, Grandma Lois.

Or as I know her, Grandma Lois.

Born and raised in Fonda, Iowa, Lois is a lifelong devout Catholic. As a wife and mother of two children, she was able to help support her family and pursue her passion of science by teaching high school earth and environmental science for 17 years, before enrolling in medical school at the University of Iowa. She graduated as a Physician Assistant in 1985, and in 1986 began working as a contraceptive clinician at several different Planned Parenthood clinics.

“I couldn’t get a job anyplace else,” she recalled, laughing. “In the Phoenix area I covered clinics in Gelbert, Mesa, and Tempe. Then when they moved me to Maui, I covered the clinics in Maui and they would fly me to Big Island, and I worked at clinics there… After I’d worked there for a while I thought it was really important to provide good care and information for…that segment of our society.”

As a contraceptive clinician, “I wasn’t ever trained to do abortions. I probably could have been, but I was really more interested in the education aspect for the girls who didn’t really have anybody else.” None of the clinics that Lois worked at provided abortions as a service, instead providing thousands of patients with access to “contraceptive information, counseling…clinical exams, and prescriptions for the contraceptives… I gave OB-GYN information, I did breast exams, medical exams for gynecological infections and tests for STDs, which I performed for males as well as females.”

Lois also noted the marked difference between the clientele and community support of the Arizona clinics and the Hawaii clinics.

“[The patients I saw] in Arizona, they were still in high school. Those were kids that lived at home, didn’t have a parent they thought would be understanding to what they wanted to know…they had health insurance, but they didn’t want Mom and Dad to know that they were already sexually active, so they would come to us for a prescription and not have to go through their family doctor. In Phoenix…they aren’t [supportive]. They’re more conservative, Midwest almost…we really kept a low profile. Hawaii was of a much different mentality, much more accepting of people’s rights to make choices… In Hawaii [the patients] were all kids that were on their own…mostly high school graduates, maybe had some college, but sort of runaways, drop outs…none of them had insurance… They came mostly for STD testing and exams. There was a pretty open attitude towards sex there, and with the background I grew up with, which was really, really pretty conservative, it was difficult. The whole relationship with the patient in that type of environment, they had to trust you. And they did…I was kind of strict with them, but evidently it worked because I would get a lot of referrals back from their friends.”

The areas Lois worked in did not have other reproductive health care options available for the patients she saw, and due to the strong Latter Day Saints influence in the Phoenix area, sex education was not widely available for teenagers.

“It seems ridiculous that everyone is so concentrated on abortion when if they would allow those kids to get decent contraceptive information in the first place, nobody would have to worry about abortions…Kids aren’t given information on contraceptives, they have no alternatives whatsoever, and even a lot of schools now aren’t allowed to give information…the girls and women I have worked with, many times…knew if they got pregnant they would be disowned, but they didn’t know how to keep from getting pregnant. Ergo, abortion… It’s such a ridiculous cycle.”

As to whether her own religious beliefs make it difficult to hold the views she does on reproductive rights, Lois simply shook her head.

“The Catholic Church has their heads buried in the sand. They refuse to look at the ramifications the things that they’re forcing to happen when they do this. I still consider myself Catholic, but there’s no way I can sit there and say that people should be forced to do something against their own best judgment. It’s simply not up to the Church, it’s not up to the Pope, it’s not up to a priest, and it’s not up to a bunch of people who try to limit the choices and try to force their opinions onto other people.”

She wasn’t shy about her thoughts on the proposed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood, either.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous, and it’s against the law. If they take away the provisions of healthcare and available contraceptive information and medication for that segment of our society, who’s going to take care of the babies that they don’t want? Sure they say they’ll help them, but are they going to be there at three o’clock in the morning when that mother is ready to tear her hair out because the baby won’t stop screaming? No, and I don’t think it’s up to other people, I don’t think it’s up to the law to decide how a person should live their life…they shouldn’t be required to carry a child because the law says they have to, they also shouldn’t be required to get rid of it… we provide good medication for everything else, we should provide good medication and good information for contraceptive care. We’re a rich country, we don’t have to force [anyone] to not have the information they need to make life choices.”

Planned Parenthood is a fundamentally vital organization when it comes to providing reproductive healthcare — particularly to low-income women. It’s time to stop pretending that trying to defund and shut down clinics that provide such important services is pro-life, and it’s time to realize that the legislation attempting to be passed by our lawmakers is an open declaration of war on women.

Leave any questions or comments below, and see you next week.

HUGE thanks to my Grandma Lois. Read the whole interview here.

Correction: an earlier version said Lois taught high school chemistry.

#FeministFriday No. 30

Some of you may remember this picture that went viral last year, and caused girls and women everywhere to denounce the feminist movement on social media:


This is Lauren Southern, proud anti-feminist. She recently released a video for Rebel Media, which was promoted by Facebook pages drowning in toxic masculinity, boasting that she completely destroys feminism in just three minutes.

Except that she doesn’t. Like, at all.

She makes several points that seem like interesting, thoughtful critiques of the feminist movement and includes official sounding statistics as back up.

Unfortunately, most of these “critiques” are based on long-standing misconceptions of feminism that could be easily disproved with a quick Google search, not to mention most of her statistics are either veiled misinformation, or complete bullshit.

The heart of Southern’s assertion that she is not a feminist is that she believes “both genders should be treated equally.” Setting aside the false assumption that gender can be reduced to a simple male/female binary, that is literally the definition of feminism. If you believe people should be treated equally regardless of their gender, congratulations! You’re a feminist!

You can’t claim to support the main goal of a social justice movement, but refuse the label because you don’t like the connotations; that’s not how words work. To paraphrase Aziz Ansari, it would be like a physician who primarily focuses on the epidermis, but rejects the term “dermatologist” for being too harsh of a word. It doesn’t work that way.

However, Southern is adamant that she is not a feminist, so let’s break down why.


“Why don’t we see equal representation [by feminists] of both gender’s issues?”

I had to pause the video at this because my eyes rolled so far back into my head I could actually see my own brain cells dying.

Once again side stepping her ignorance when it comes to the number of genders that exist, is she really asking this question? Feminism was born from the women’s rights movements – the ones that gave us the right to vote and own property (rather than be property) – so the roots of feminist activism come from a challenge to the inequality of women.

Modern feminism exists as a conglomerate of past and present efforts to address forms of inequality and inequity facing women, including:

  • The inability of women to be recognized as full citizens
  • Women’s lack of protection from violence in their homes and on the streets
  • Women’s lack of rights over their own bodies
  • Women’s unique experiences of violence in times of war
  • The restriction of women to pursue the same opportunities as men
  • The gendered norms that constrain women from freely expressing their genders, personalities, and bodies
  • The lack of attention and respect given to women’s voices and experiences
  • The devaluation of women’s labor
  • The assumption of female heterosexuality
  • The absence of women in arenas of power that make decisions about the lives of women
  • The pervasive inequalities shaped by race, ethnicity, colonialism, citizenship, gender identity, sexuality, ability, language, religion, body type, etc., that work alongside gender
  • The fact that it is 2015 and there is an actual need for me to write this article

I could go on. These issues remain persistent sources of inequality for women; therefore, addressing how they operate in the lives of women remains at the center of the feminist movement.

None of this means that feminists hate men, or that we don’t care when men are harmed, or that we’re somehow sexist towards men (which, again, isn’t actually possible). There are serious inequalities that women continue to face, and it isn’t unreasonable for a movement for gender equality to focus on those problems.

For perspective, would you go to a charity event for Alzheimer’s and be upset they weren’t raising money for diabetes research? They’re both important issues that need attention, but a venue that’s specific to one of them doesn’t take away from the importance of the other.

That being said, feminists actually focus quite a bit on issues that impact men. Gender regimes that create adversity for women also negatively affect men, and feminism offers a variety of tools to challenge them together.

However, this doesn’t mean that feminism is only important and legitimate when it is also useful to men. There are very serious issues of security, freedom, and equality that uniquely affect women, and if you are only willing to support these movements when they also benefit men, you’re completely missing the point.


“There are more men raped in prison than women, but feminists remain silent on the issue.”

Sorry, false. Actually, not sorry, do your research.

First of all, feminists fought at the forefront to change the federal definition of rape to include male victims (as well as other forms of rape like statutory and marital). The Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine launched the Rape is Rape campaign that culminated in changes to the old definition (which completely excluded men).

Second, feminists led the broad coalition advocating for the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which works to protect all prisoners from sexual assault – the majority of whom are men. On a related note, women and feminists have also fought front and center to challenge rape in the military, which also affects many men.

Prison rape remains a serious issue that affects thousands of people, and deserves more attention than it receives, including from feminists. However, among those who are fighting the issue, feminists are there and we are not silent.


“Almost half of all domestic violence victims in the U.S. and Canada are men.”

Southern didn’t cite her source for this one, so I’m not entirely sure where she came up with that statistic. That being said, depending on where you look, the numbers may differ dramatically. Some studies show what Southern describes, a near symmetry between men and women. Others show that it is largely women experiencing intimate partner violence.

The reason behind the different numbers is based largely on the samples and measures used to collect the data, as well as the recognition that different types of intimate partner violence exist in our society and are reflected in these samples. Based on hundreds of different studies, it is apparent that both men and women are violent in intimate partner relationships, but the type of violence perpetuated by men and women differs greatly.

There are a few important, but different, types of intimate partner violence:

  • Coercive Controlling Violence:
    This is what most people envision when they think of domestic abuse. CCV is used to control the partner through multiple forms of coercion (economic threats, leveraging children, blaming, isolation, sexual violence, emotional abuse, intimidation, and physical violence).
    This type of violence is more likely to result in serious physical injury or death, and while men can be victims of this type of violence, it is overwhelmingly perpetrated by heterosexual men against their female partners.
  • Violent Resistance:
    This type of intimate partner violence accounts for some people responding to CCV with violent resistance (akin to “self-defense”, but different in legal context). The vast majority of violent resistance is done by women against male coercive controlling partners, but charges are sometimes filed in these cases and contribute to the patterns in the statistics. Unlike the coercive controlling partner, violent resistance is reactive and the intention is not to control.
  • Situational Couple Violence:
    This is by far the most common type of intimate partner violence, and is perpetrated by men and women nearly equally, though male perpetration is still slightly higher. SCV generally results from the escalation of an argument between partners, but is not representative of chronic violence, intimidation, stalking, or other symptoms of CCV. While SCV is serious and can be lethal, it tends to involve more minor forms of violence (pushing, grabbing), and is less likely to result in serious injury.

So, yes, Southern was right that men are also victims of intimate partner violence. Men and women commit violence in heterosexual and same sex relationships (and any variation thereupon). All of this violence matters, but in the context of systematic violence rooted in fear and control that results in serious injury, the vast majority of assailants are men and the vast majority of victims are women.

At least one third of all female homicide victims in the United States are killed by male intimate partners, compared to just 2.5% for men.

Gender symmetry in intimate partner violence tends to be at lower levels of violence, and Southern’s statistics don’t distinguish severity, frequency, whether an attack was in self-defense, or if it was part of a pattern of fear and coercive behavior. It should also be noted that men are more likely to call the police on their partner, more likely to press charges, and less likely to drop charges.

It’s not that feminists don’t care when intimate partner violence happens to men, or that we don’t want men to be protected – we do. That being said, given the realities taking place when you examine the numbers closely, it shouldn’t be surprising that most feminist energy aimed at intimate partner violence is focused on women facing controlling coercive violence.

Additionally, consider the ways that intimate partner violence is still shaped by systematic, legally-enshrined patriarchy in this country. It wasn’t long ago that men had the legal right to beat their wives, and as recently as the 1980s police would delay responding to domestic violence calls. Wives often had no legal recourse to demand protection from the state, as well.

It is also important to add that Southern’s claim of men not having access to victim services is incorrect. The Violence Against Women Act, which was championed by feminists in 1994, legally protects women and men (in heterosexual and same sex relationships) who are victims of domestic violence, and offers male victims all of the same services and protections that are available to women.


“Feminists remain silent on the issues of male suicide, male workplace deaths, male combat deaths, and male homicide deaths.”

Ah, actually, nope, nope, nope, and nope.

Feminism has a long history of gender analysis, which gives us some pretty profound insight into a lot of these male deaths. Particularly, feminists demonstrate how norms of femininity and masculinity enforce ideas about appropriate male and female behavior, which deeply shapes the condition of these male deaths.

Take combat deaths, for example. There are extensive feminist writings about gender and war pointing to how norms of masculinity are deeply implicated in producing a society in which men are expected to embody sacrificial stoicism, physical strength, and masculine virility. Women, meanwhile, are expected to be weak, passive, and in need of (male!) protection.

One feminist author, Iris Marion Young, called this “the logic of masculine protection,” writing, “In this patriarchal logic, the role of the masculine protector puts those protected, paradigmatically women and children, in a subordinate position of dependence and obedience.” Feminists have long challenged this logic of protection in multiple contexts, point both to how this robs women of independence, as well as how it shapes male participation in war, and their subsequent injuries and deaths. Another feminist author, Cynthia Daniel, wrote extensively about the way male soldiers handle injury — specifically injury of their reproductive health — and shows how ideas of masculinity contribute to the lack of medical help men seek for such injuries.

A final note on Southern’s comment toward male combat deaths: part of the reason combat deaths are disproportionately male is due to the sexist policies of the United States military; women soldiers have historically been barred from combat roles. Equality in the military has been debated and written about in great detail by feminists like Megan MacKenzie and Carol Cohn (among others), who dismiss the myth that women can’t fight and challenge the exclusion of women from combat positions.

As for Southern’s other examples of male death — workplace death, suicide, murder — feminists are talking about those, too.

A graduate student at Penn State, has examined masculinity’s effect on worker safety in the (mainly male) natural gas workforce of Pennsylvania, illuminating how notions of masculinity shape labor forces and the willingness of workers to use safety equipment and follow procedures.

Miles Groth describes in his book, Boys to Men: The Science of Masculinity and Manhood, how stereotypes about what it means to “be a man” impacts high suicide rates among young men. Groth argues that feminist efforts to abolish restrictive gender norms offer vital pathways to address this problem, and several other studies agree.

Stereotypes of masculinity also lend themselves to gang culture and crime rates. Dr. Melissa Wright wrote about gang murders of both men and women in Mexico while illustrating ways feminism is helpful in understanding male murder statistics.


“Feminists place a blanket statement on all men that they are privileged, and that all women are oppressed.”

Yeah, if you read feminist doctrine through a fun house mirror; this is a completely warped characterization of what feminists argue.

Feminists do argue that being a male in a male-dominated society has certain privileges — whether it’s being paid more, having greater representation in seats of power, having your voice privileged in many spaces, etc. — but feminists do not assume that all men equally benefit from these systems of privilege, nor do they assume that all women are equally marginalized.

The complexity of privilege and oppression is exactly why feminists use the notion of intersectionality. Most feminists realize and understand that not all women are marginalized in the same ways, and the privileges that come with being white or wealthy can play a huge part in how or whether someone might feel oppressed due to their gender.

The assertion that all women are oppressed is one of the very issues that galvanized postcolonial feminists and feminists of color in their critique of second wave feminism. There has always been a tendency by white feminists to characterize women of color and Third World Women as universally oppressed by their cultures and men, and were therefore in need of white feminists to rescue them or to speak out for them. Obviously this is not, nor ever has been the case. Having insights into that now is a cornerstone of what is generally considered Third Wave Feminism, which Southern claims is only about universal oppression.

Yes, feminists talk about the way that patriarchy and sexism overlap with other structures of race, class, sexuality, and nationality to produce unique challenges in women’s lives, but it’s far from Southern’s characterization that we believe all men are natural aggressors and all women are natural victims — a view that is inherently anti-feminist by nature.

ben wyatt


“As a woman, I will almost always win custody in a divorce case.”

Well, yeah.

Except you can’t claim this is oppressive towards men without recognizing that the reason for this is the gender norms enforced by our society that assume women (not men) are natural caregivers and naturally nurturing. The issue of women being more likely to be granted custody is the same issue that asserts women’s primary and most important role is motherhood. By contrast, men in our society have historically been thought of as the breadwinners and the productive citizens.

Feminists have challenged these ideas for decades, as they profoundly restrict the options available to women. These views also make contributions towards stigmatizing women who don’t want or cannot have children, the devaluation of work inside the home such that it need not be treated as productive, lower pay for women working outside the home (since their income is simply supplemental to their husbands’), and the characterization of women who don’t embody the “norms” of caretaking as “pushy”, “overly assertive”, or “bitchy”.

Men who are invested in reshaping ideas about their male parental rights may be surprised to find that gendered assumptions about women’s inherent nurturing also translate into how society perceives men as parents. In terms of changing gendered expectations about child rearing, feminist goals include advocating for many policy changes that benefit men, including the Family and Medical Leave Act and paternal leave policies.


“As a woman, I will actually have my rape and assault claims taken seriously.”

So not only does Southern not know how to Google simple things, she’s also apparently never seen how rape cases are treated in this country.

Women are consistently blamed for their own rapes.

What were you wearing?

You shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

You drank too much, you should have been more responsible.

You led him on, what did you expect?

Are you sure you’re not just being dramatic?

This is particularly true for women of color, who are even less likely to be taken seriously, and often face the risk of being accused of prostitution by police.

There is such an incredible amount of documentation of women’s rape allegations not being believed that Southern’s claim here goes well beyond ignorant and lands smack in the middle of super disturbing.

As is the fact that she has another video titled “The Falsely Accused are the real Victims” which, no. Okay? No. The odds of a man being falsely accused of rape is 2.7 million to 1. Because 1 in 33 men will be raped in his lifetime, an American man is 82,000 times more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape. Stop derailing the conversation with your victim blaming bullshit.

In the United States, feminists have fought for Title IX legislation on college campuses, which offers protection from sexual harassment and assault for all students, including men.


“As a woman, I won’t be laughed at for not being manly enough.”

This begs the question of whether or not Southern is actually too naive to think that she wouldn’t, as a woman, be laughed at for not being feminine enough, or for being too feminine.

Crossing borders of acceptable gender behavior can be difficult for both men and women, and there are a ton of feminist resources that will help with the language, strategies, and support needed to confront and challenge the harms experienced by both men and women due to gender norms.

Additionally, there’s the glaring fact that while it’s acceptable for women to adopt some masculine characteristics, such as clothing (flannels, hoodies, etc.), a man wearing a dress in public is seen as a joke or disgrace. It’s almost like femininity is considered shameful and beneath men.


As a parting note to Southern, though I can’t really understand why, if she truly believes she doesn’t need feminism, that’s fine. But before you go, here’s what I think she and any other anti-feminist woman need to know:

You’re insulting every woman who was forcibly restrained in a jail cell with a feeding tube down her throat for your right to vote, less than 100 years ago.

You’re degrading every woman who has accessed a rape crisis center, which wouldn’t exist without the feminist movement.

You’re undermining every woman who fought to make marital rape a crime (it was legal until 1993).

You’re spitting on the legacy of every woman who fought to be allowed to own property (1848). For the abolition of slavery and the rise of the labor union. For the right to divorce. For women to be allowed to have access to birth control (Comstock laws). For middle and upper class women to be allowed to work outside the home (poor women have always worked outside the home). To make domestic violence a crime in the US (it is very much legal in many parts of the world). To make workplace sexual harassment a crime.

In short, you know not what you speak of. You reap the reward of these women’s sacrifices every day of your life. When you grin with your cutesy sign about how you’re not a feminist, you ignorantly spit on the sacred struggle of the past 200 years. You bite the hand that has fed you freedom, safety, and a voice.

In short, kiss my ass, you ignorant little jerks.

Libby Anne Bruce

Sorry it took me more than three minutes.

Leave any questions or comments below, and see you next week!

#FeministFriday No. 29

As a feminist and purveyor of social justice issues, it is important to recognize that I am not an authority or expert on many of the topics I write about. I have many privileges — I’m white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, and neurotypical. I was raised by two college-educated parents, in a supportive family environment, practice a sect of Christianity, and have always lived comfortably within the middle class. I have known for a long time that all of these privileges have played a role in my life, and have — sometimes unfairly — given me advantages. I try my best to keep all of that in mind while understanding that other people have not and do not come from the same experiences, and that I often cannot hold others in society to my own standards.

There’s one other privilege that I have, that I didn’t really recognize as a privilege until fairly recently. This may be due to my own ignorance, but the attitude of normalcy given by society to the mistreatment of those who don’t have this privilege is also a probable factor.

I’m talking about thin privilege.

I have always been skinny — I was a short, scrawny kid with knobby knees and bony elbows that grew into a teenager comprised mostly of sharp angles and pants that never fit right. At 16, I hit 5’6″ and was 100 lbs. soaking wet. I remember the distinct horror of putting on my strapless dress for my senior winter formal and watching it fall straight down onto my bedroom floor because I’d had my period when I tried the dress on in the store, and the three lbs. of water weight were enough for me to fluctuate an entire size. In college, people constantly teased me for being skinny, telling me to eat a burger if I had chosen salad that day, or marveling that I was able to eat a whole Chipotle burrito in one sitting. Jokes that I would blow away in a strong wind, or get snapped in half by the weight of my backpack were common, despite the fact that I never found them funny.

I’m sure at least some of you were rolling your eyes during that last paragraph, thinking something along the lines of, “poor little skinny girl, life must be so hard for you,” or something equally as sarcastic. Honestly, you should have been. Being thin in our society is not a difficult way to live. Sure, I occasionally had a concerned guidance counselor gently question me about my eating habits, and I’ll encounter people who think it’s hilarious to insist that I need to eat more, but I also have acquaintances and even complete strangers compliment my figure on a semi-regular basis (which, side note, I find a bit weird and have yet to think of an appropriate response that isn’t an awkward smile and noncommittal humming noise). I’ve never had strangers at grocery stores feel the need to comment on the food in my shopping cart, or been openly laughed at or mocked by strangers in public. I’ve never been avoided or gawked at by retail workers in stores that never carry my size, and no one has ever made it known that they were displeased to be sitting next to me on an airplane or a bus.

My point is, even with whatever handful of negative experiences I’ve encountered, having thin privilege is incredibly advantageous in a society that is so completely and utterly fatphobic.

Fox News, keeping it classy.

Fox News, keeping it classy.

Body shaming in general is wrong and can be harmful, but I’ve seen a lot of people claiming that skinny-shaming is just as bad as fat-shaming.

Fun fact, it isn’t.

Just like racism towards white people and sexism against men aren’t real things, the difference between someone’s feelings being hurt and actual discrimination, dehumanization, and denial of rights is found in systemic prejudices that are ingrained in our society.

Body shaming fat people is openly practiced in central institutions of our society — schools, the workplace, hospitals, and even the legal system.

Various studies have found that overweight people face discrimination at work; they’re more likely to be fired or suspended, tend to earn smaller salaries in comparable positions, receive fewer promotions for comparable performance, and are less likely to be hired in the first place.

Another study reported that 54% of doctors believed physicians should have the right to withhold treatment from overweight or obese patients. That’s right, over half of the professionals who have taken an oath to heal think it’s fine to deny healthcare to people who are seeking healthcare.

Virgie Tovar, a nurse who developed a workshop for fat patient care, created a survey for people to anonymously share their fatphobic experiences with healthcare professionals. Many of them are horrifying, and some turned out to be life-threatening.

“At the time, I was a size 8, hovering around 150 pounds at 5’5”. I had recently spent the past year losing 50 pounds. I was also a vegetarian. When I went in for an annual checkup, my insulin, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were high, which didn’t match my diet and exercise regime (I exercised at least 4 times per week), Instead of looking into the problem further, my doctor simply told me “to stop eating so much meat and work out more,” even though I didn’t eat meat and worked out a great deal! A few years later, one doctor put all of the “clues” together to discover that the reason for my abnormal lab results was Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) and an extremely elevated level of DHEA-S in my system. The first doctor simply refused to believe me because (a) I still wasn’t within BMI standards of “health” and (b) I had been fat before.”

“I was told that my runny nose and scratchy throat was due to my being overweight, and could be prevented if I lost weight.”

“Someone asked me repeatedly if I was “sure” that I didn’t have diabetes, despite the fact that 1) they had my medical record open in front of them, which listed the (normal) results of my most recent blood tests, and that 2) I probably eat more healthfully and exercise more than the average person in the US…I just happen to be fat…”

“I had a gastroenterologist who actually yelled at me when I tried repeatedly to tell him ‘no’ on a severe weight loss regime… a couple of weeks later I almost died of sepsis from un-diagnosed appendicitis because he was more concerned with my weight than abdominal pain.”

“After ages of severe pain and issues with my period, I finally broke down and went to a gynecologist. The first one I saw was very clearly uncomfortable with me the minute I walked in the door… She was in such a hurry to get through our visit in fact, that she neglected to take a sample during her exam to biopsy and check for abnormalities… A year later after continued issues I finally got up the courage to seek out another gynecologist and discovered I had Stage 3 Uterine Cancer.”

These injustices stem from conscious and unconscious biases against fat people. Thinness has long been the standard of beauty, but it has somehow evolved into a false gauge of health, wellness, energy, cleanliness, ambition, intelligence, and morality.

This is especially true for overweight women. Studies have shown that girls as young as four are affected by beauty standards and show symptoms of poor body image. Thin women are disproportionately shown as the norm in the media, and if you’ve been anywhere near the Internet, you probably already know that the consensus for the worst, most disgusting thing a woman can be is fat.

I’ve had more trolls try to void my arguments by saying, “whatever, you’re probably just fat and bitter” than I have any other type of comment — positive or negative — combined. As if someone’s weight could in any possible way invalidate their opinions.

The Internet has never been shy about opinions, but the media has to be more careful. Television networks are so against showing fat women, I can only think of five television shows that have prominent female characters that are overweight (Roseanne, The Drew Carey Show, Mike & Molly, The Office, and Parks & Recreation), and of those only one character (Donna Meagle, Parks & Recreation) isn’t constantly the butt of fat jokes.

True, another overweight character from Parks & Recreation, Jerry/Larry/Terry/Gary (depending on the season) Gergich, is constantly the butt of fat jokes, but he also lends himself to one of the most common tropes in television and movies: the fat, dopey guy married to the smoking hot thin woman.

See also The Simpsons, Family Guy, King of Queens, etc.

See also The Simpsons, Family Guy, King of Queens, How I Met Your MotherModern Family, Arrested DevelopmentLouieHitchAs Good As It GetsKnocked Up, literally every Adam Sandler movie ever, etc.

The issue with the “Man with varying features/body/face” + “Woman with slender figure and above-average attractiveness” formula found so often in the media is that we allow variation in the male character body types, facial features, heights, balding patterns, beer bellies, and more — but we still expect the women to be virtually flawless and fit the conventional standards of beauty and thinness.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about diversity and varying body types in the media, but keeping it one-sided for the men and dismissing women’s variations tells society a couple of things:

  • Men of all wonderful sizes, shapes, heights, and features should expect to get an unbelievably attractive woman
  • In order to be desired by any man, regardless of his body type or looks, a woman must conform to a very small set of acceptable standards
  • Women who are sizes or possess features that do not fit these acceptable standards will never get “the hot guy” and it would be silly for them to even try

And yes, these are examples and messages sent to us from fictional mediums, but this has clearly bled into real life because Dad Bod is a thing. The Dad Bod is heralded by the media as the latest trend for the male physique. It’s described as “a nice balance between beer gut and working out…it says, ‘I go to the gym occasionally, but I also drink heavily on the weekends and enjoy eating eight slices of pizza at a time.’ It’s not an overweight guy, but it isn’t one with washboard abs, either.” The physique is argued to be a hit with women because it’s non-threatening, comfortable to cuddle up with, and honest in the sense that it probably won’t undergo any drastic transformations within the next 20 years.

I have two main issues with the Dad Bod. First, as someone who literally never lets a pun get away unnoticed, whoever coined the phrase missed an absolutely golden opportunity to call it the Father Figure.

Second, and more importantly, everyone is applauding the Dad Bod as a positive way to appreciate curvy men, and an achievable look for the guy who maybe put on some sympathy weight while his wife was pregnant, and is too busy chasing his kids around to really stick to a workout routine. I don’t draw issue with that specifically, but I do draw issue with that being acceptable for dads, while this is apparently the only acceptable standard for moms:

mom bod

So what can we do? Like anyone who benefits from a privilege, you can be an ally to those who don’t have that luxury. In this case, being an ally means finding effective ways to help fight fatphobia.

1. Educate Yourself About Health

Modern classifications of “overweight” and “obese” are derived from the Body Mass Index (BMI) Scale.

Except the BMI scale is inaccurate, misleading, and contains a lot of limitations and shortcomings.

Studies by The British Medical Journal have found that “the determination of the categories of normal, overweight, and obese is entirely arbitrary and at odds with the underlying evidence about the association between body mass index and mortality, a fact that destroys the index’s scientific pretensions and diagnostic value.”

While physical activity and nutrition positively affect good health, body weight does not. You cannot tell how much someone exercises or how nutritiously someone eats by their body size. Furthermore, most people (including doctors!) are woefully uneducated about nutrition, to the point that it’s commonplace for medical professionals to promote crash diet books that do nothing but mess up your metabolism and leave you in danger of gaining more weight than you had to begin with.

2. Reassess Your Intentions

So you can’t make assumptions about people. The question remains, though, even if someone were unhealthy, why is it any of your business in the first place?

The media likes to use buzzwords like “epidemic” when they talk about obesity, but just like weight is not an indicator of health, obesity is not in desperate need of a cure; even if it did, fat people still deserve to be treated like human beings.

People who fat-shame typically defend themselves by saying they have good intentions, and they just want to help. They care about healthy lifestyles and the well-being of others.

Think about it for a minute, if you truly wanted to help someone make a healthy lifestyle choice, do you really think that shaming and dehumanizing them will work?

It is someone else’s body and someone else’s health, so it’s really none of your concern and you have no right to shame them. You never get to define the value of another human being.


3. Call Out Concern Trolling

Briefly mentioned above, concern trolling is fat-shaming commentary poorly disguised as good intentions:

  • “I’m just concerned about your health!”
  • “You would be so pretty if you just lost a few pounds.”
  • “Obesity is a huge issue in our community, and I think it’s important to address it.”
  • “For your own good!”
  • “I don’t hate fat people, but…”
  • “I’m with you, but…”
  • Actually, pretty much any comment that hinges on a “but…”

These comments are unhelpful, harmful, and just plain rude.

If you hear someone concern trolling, intervene where you can. Throw out some health facts that complicate the picture. Let them know, especially if they’re close to you, that what they’re saying is oppressive and harmful. Ask them why it’s any of their business.

If all else fails, concern troll their concern trolling:

  • “I’m just concerned about your manners!”
  • “You would be so pretty if you weren’t so narrow-minded.”
  • “Rudeness is a huge issue in our community, and I think it’s important to address it.”
  • “For literally no one’s good!”
  • “I don’t hate fat people, but you clearly do.”
  • “I’m not with you.”
  • “…but you’re being an asshole.”

4. Understand the Intersections

I’ve been talking about privilege, and privileges and their consequences apply just as much in the fat community as they do anywhere else.

A white cis heterosexual man who is fat has a very different life experience than a fat black trans bisexual woman. Fatness is stigmatized on all bodies, but on certain bodies it adds a greater burden.

Furthermore, people who struggle with eating disorders may feel that the words “thin privilege” are upsetting because it is not a privilege to experience marginalization and ableism from an eating disorder.

It is so important to remember that oppressions are intersectional; privilege in one form does not cancel out oppression in another form, nor does oppression in one form cancel out privilege in another.

5. Humanize

How do you think we, as human beings, should treat one another?

Do you really think that arbitrary definitions of health or misconceptions about where our tax dollars go are more important than someone’s humanity?

Do you think your experiences and biases as a privileged person are more important than a marginalized human being’s dignity?

Seriously…do you?

Leave any questions or comments below, and see you next week!