new wave feminism

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

A quasi-academic look at Feminism, politics & race relations through the lens of a 20-something year old Nigerian American who was born & raised up in the (still) segregated south but has relocated to the "liberal" yet historic & traditional north.
This blog is my space for an interdisciplinary examination of race, gender, class, sexuality - all things intersectional & multi-dimensional.
Feminism the way I see it...



----------------------------------------------
Tip The Blogger?
----------------------------------------------


If you like what you see, and want to support the blog & keep me writing, throw in whatever change you like in the online tip cup. Or send me an ask & tip me in your kind words!
Donations aren't required, but greatly appreciated
Recent Tweets @
Posts tagged "body policing"

transient-dreamer submitted: 

I think this would definitely be worth your time to look at.  “Social effects” being a euphemism for behaviors perceived to be opposed to traditional conservative sensibilities.

The original opinion piece:

http://www.hawksherald.com/news/when-you-wear-yoga-pants-i-can-see-your-vagina-1.2704026#.TtkpsHrW5kg

The female studens’ response:

http://www.hawksherald.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-it-s-not-about-yoga-pants-1.2720578#.TtknMHrW5kh

That is ridiculous… yoga pants and leggings all the time and its NOT even that serious. I can garuntee no one can see my VAGINA when I wear yoga PANTS this ignorant asshole is just trying to get a pass for staring at people’s vaginas…

My favorite line of his:

 Yoga pants make butts look good, and I can’t truly blame you yoga-pant wearers for wanting to flaunt. Part of me is, at heart, a yoga pants fan.

But the rest of me stubbornly objects. I can’t help but feel that women who wear yoga pants have a false modesty that says, “I want to show off my body, but I am too embarrassed to be overtly sexual, so I will just wear skin-tight, curve-revealing clothing to satisfy my exhibitionist desires in socially acceptable means.”

I get the sense that women wear yoga pants to feel sexy without getting judged as a slut, yet I see something demeaning in women wear­ing yoga pants and parading around their half-silhouetted vaginas all day.

That’s funny, because I get the sense that this is a thinly veild “I was staring at someone’s body who happened to be wearing Yoga pants and i’m angry that their body turned me on but i’m not ENTITLED to have sex with you on demand. How dare you wear comfortable clothing that turns me on but then you wont allow me to actually treat you like a sex object. ITS NOT FAIR, if you’re not going to sleep with me you’re NOT allowed to wear something that I find attractive!” And then he argues that it affects social culture? umm obviously the culture is fine because everyone fucking wears Yoga pants/leggings - your perverted ass is just hot and bothered and wants to make a big fucking deal about it.

NOT BUYING IT. College dudes have the most disgusting case of sexual entitlement I’ve ever fucking seen. And college publications have the most ridiculous wanna-be controversial opinion pieces written in them JUST for fucks sake.

and the response was great - an exerpt:

It’s not about yoga pants. It’s about the implications you, the author, don’t even know you made. Even something as simple as the construction of your article is offensive. You begin with the notion that Roger Williams University has less than rigorous academics. You then cite a specific example of a woman who you believe embodies that notion. Finally, you make an assumption about how these women, who are apparently dumb and get easy grades, think and feel. You imply that we should dress differently because it’s in your best interest. You tell us that we “don’t know how to express our sexuality” and you criticize us for the fact that your own eyes wander. Here’s a thought: Maybe women don’t dress the way they do to please men. Maybe they do it to feel comfortable, or sexy, or pretty. But, we are not going to make that assumption because we don’t know why individual women dress the way they do and neither do you.

in a slightly related note: I’ve recently decided to stop buying jeans altogether and ONLY buy leggings/yoga pants. Shits cheaper, more comfortable, and don’t tear when my thighs rub together :| #thickgirlproblems

So this morning I see that professional fat-hater Jamie Oliver has posted a petition which he’s asking people to sign in support of his “Food Revolution,” and in which he’s included the bullshit stat that “obesity in the US costs $10,273,973 per hour” (sure) and notes, in all-caps, “OBESITY IS PREVENTABLE.”

Celebrities who have signed the petition are posted in rotation: Jennifer Aniston, Eva Longoria, P. Diddy, Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, Ellen Degeneres.

It’s always nice to see wealthy people with access to the best food, comprehensive healthcare, personal trainers, private chefs, and individual nutritional plans put their names to a petition admonishing the fatties that OBESITY IS PREVENTABLE.

When there are people for whom that is not true, people for whom obesity is not preventable, for myriad reasons, to bray about how their bodies (our bodies; ourselves) are “preventable” is to engage in eliminationist rhetoric.

I will never not be fat.

Melissa McEwan at Shakesville: On Fat Hatred and Eliminationism (via finebyyou)

Take note, remember the names. These are the celebrities who have just said that you don’t count if you’re “obese”. These are the celebrities who have just decided that their wealth, fame, and privilege give them the right to act as the professional body and weight police. 

These are the people who will sign petitions, but won’t do shit when people need health care, who burn more money just showing off how rich they are than most people will see in a year or maybe a decade of working shit jobs and eating whatever food they can afford. These are the people who will jump on a bandwagon, but won’t think about how it encourages hate and hateful acts against obese people.

How many people could afford to see a doctor or pay for the medicine they need with what these folks spend on cars, clothes, big ass houses, and other things? 

For that matter, how many hungry people could’ve gotten food (at all) for what it cost to make and produce Jamie Oliver’s fat hating, obesity-stigma promoting bullshit show? How many kids in other schools in that area went home and knew that their school lunch, however healthy or unhealthy, was all they were getting because there wasn’t going to be any dinner that night?

But hey, better they starve and only get one or two meals a day than to get enough food. At least if they starve they’ll stay thin, right? Right? I mean, who cares if a kid is hungry, miserable, and not feeling well, as long as they aren’t a big fat fatty, right?

So remember these names. These are the hypocrites. These are the ones who didn’t just go along with a fucked up system, but went out of their way to help hold us down. 

(via madamethursday)

(via strugglingtobeheard)

slaterwashere:

Why do we so often think small dick jokes are funny? They aren’t. Dicks come in all different sizes. Think I am making a big deal out of nothing? Imagine if this shirt said “Life’s phat [as in good] but you are just fat”. [that is very similar to what the shirt says already] Does anyone else see how making fun of anyone’s body or specific body parts just isn’t cool or funny? Ever. Everyone’s body is different. I am fucking sick of small penis lines. They affect trans* people too. I am scared of when someone sees the growth I have gotten from T that they will laugh because I am small. That’s how widespread the “small dicks are worthless” notion is that it affects someone’s feelings of their genitals who doesn’t even identify as male. These jokes can make people with penises of all sizes feel uncomfortable and inadequate. And then there’s the question of what is small? Some people have ‘small’ dicks, others don’t. Some people like small dicks, others don’t. Body parts should never be used as a punchline.

(via feniceargento)

mizjenkins:

porknachos:

This is pretty unbelievable. I’m really glad you wrote this, Michelle! Those women’s studies minors of ours are incredibly useful, aren’t they? <3

cheetahstripes:

while watching nickelodeon this afternoon (shh) I saw a commercial for Skechers Shape-Ups….For Girls. For. Girls. I went to their web site, and they don’t make these shoes for boys. Just girls. I became enraged and wrote them a letter. here it is.

To whomever it may concern (which is hopefully everyone),

While watching television this morning, I saw a commercial for Skechers shoes. Thinking it was a standard children’s shoe commercial, I almost didn’t pay any mind to it—until I realized what product was being endorsed. Your product, Shape-Up Sneakers for Girls, is entirely too troubling for me to remain silent about it. Targeting these shoes specifically to young girls is not only sexist, but extremely detrimental. Young girls are faced with stereotypes in the media everyday regarding their body and shape—these images of perfection are drilled into their psyche, while most are still developing and have not even reached puberty yet. By only targeting these shoes to just girls (I checked your website and found no Shape-Up sneakers for boys), Skechers is promoting the beauty standard to girls at very young ages. This commercial wasn’t being shown at a time when it’s mostly teenagers viewing—it was a Saturday morning, a prime time for children to watch programming. This commercial was also shown on a children’s network.

I understand that child obesity is a national concern. I agree that kids aren’t exercising as much or eating as healthy as they should. Notice, however, that this is CHILD obesity—not just “girl obesity”. If Skechers is going to launch a product to promote healthy lifestyles, why would it just be targeted to young girls? Not just girls, or parents of girls, are concerned about weight gain or child obesity. By just launching these shoes for girls, Skechers is sending out a message that only females should be concerned about their weight, and should start working on this issue at a very young age. I also noticed that these shoes start at sizes for pre-schoolers…how many pre-schoolers need to be worrying about shaping up their legs and butts? Furthermore, by just selling this product to girls, it is sending a message to young boys that judging girls because of their body is acceptable. The standards of beauty are implemented at a young age.

This product is sending a negative message to young girls while they are still developing. Bodies change with age and time, and there is no need for girls to wear shoes to help tone their physique, when most of them don’t even have one yet. Eating disorders are beginning to develop within children at younger ages than it has ever been seen before. Skechers is an influential brand and very popular with school age children—shouldn’t they be apart of the solution, not contributing to the problem of negative body image? Young girls should be taught that they are important because of their intelligence and talents, not because they have great calves at the age of 7. I urge you to greatly reconsider this product and the message it is sending out to young girls. Thank you for your time.

Big ups to the woman who caught this and pointed it out. It is rare that I write a letter to the editor/manufacturer but I co-sign this ALL. THE. WAY. and I will be letting them know.

Here is their contact info if you want to as well:

Mail: Skechers.com
Customer Service
228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(800) 746-3111
E-mail: info@skechers.com
Fax: (888) 566-5746

That is some utter bullshit.