Gender Equality -- Why Can't Boys Have Dolls?

We've come a long way in this country when it comes to sexism. 200 years ago, women couldn't own property. Now we've come much closer to equality. Now, don't get me wrong, there is a ton of sexism out there still and it's not acceptable, but in this post I want to talk about the other side of sexism. Women can wear any color they want and society is fine with girls playing with what are considered "boys' toys", however if a boy touches the color pink, society freaks out. Girls can wear pants but boys can't wear skirts. That doesn't sound like equality to me.

There is this weird idea society has that boys somehow stop being boys if they wear, do or play with something that society associates with girls. If a boy is seen playing with a baby doll people don't think "Oh, isn't that sweet? He's going to be a great dad someday." Instead they totally freak out and take the doll away because it's "not for boys". Sure, we're not used to seeing boys wear skirts or pink and it seems kind of odd, but only because it's not what's been acceptable in the past. Remember, society used to think it was weird and unsightly if a woman wore pants. Now, I know many boys would rather have toy cars than dolls, but a boy should be able to play with whatever toys he wants without being criticized.

I thought this illustrated my point about colors.
(note: I do not own this image and I am not the author)

Another area where this is prominent is in color choices for boys' and girls' toys, clothing, etcetera. Our society has assigned different colors to genders. Girls can have pink or purple, and sure you can wear blue if you want, but boys can only wear red, black, blue and green. Maybe orange if society's feeling generous. I find this really weird. Why the heck does it matter? It's just a color. Why are specific colors limited to genders? How is it that if a girl wears a blue shirt to school nobody cares, but if a boy wears pink he gets beat up? How does that make sense? It's literally just different wavelengths of light. What makes it for girls or boys only?

In the past women's careers have been limited to domestic roles like raising children and doing housework. Today women aren't limited to that anymore, thankfully, so women and men can split up those duties. But society is still out of touch with logic here. In the media when a man is shown taking care of children, or cleaning houses, and it's treated like an odd and humorous thing. There's the idea that men can't sew, cook, or clean for a living, that some professions would make them less masculine. But I think that children should grow up thinking that they can do what they want, be who they want and that gender doesn't matter. Girls can be race car drivers, boys can open sewing stores. Gender should not determine what you can do, who you can be, or what colors you can like.

-- Captain Sarah Jane

On Representation and Sexism in the Media

So I'm sure I can't be the only one who's noticed that in interviews with celebrities, whether on the red carpet or on a talk show, there's an extreme amount of sexism that is obvious from the questions asked by the reporters. Men tend to get the interesting questions- about their career and their experience, their inspirations and motivations, or deep questions about the character they're portraying. Turn the camera on an equally talented female, and half the interview is spent gushing over her outfit- "Where'd you buy your dress?" "How many pairs of shoes did you choose from?" -and if they have time at the end, they ask about their friends, hair, pregnancies, and other things equally irrelevant to the reason she's there on that red carpet. Not that asking them about their personal lives is a bad thing, but I'm sure they're just as eager to share their career experiences with the entire world as the men are. And honestly? All the clothing talk needs to go. If they want to share where they got that disgustingly expensive dress, then by all means, ask them, but it's beyond unfair that women aren't taken seriously as far as slightly deeper questions go.
This is something that really infuriates me. Time and time again, men and women's roles are painted in our media- the men are the talented ones, the trailblazers and innovators, the ones to watch for years to come. The women? Oh, you can watch for that fashion line she's bound to release based off of that gorgeous cerulean ensemble she's wearing. Forget that she's talented and well-thought of enough to be at the Emmys or the Grammys or whatever it is. Apparently the only people interesting enough to talk about their careers and deeper thoughts and experiences are males. Over half of the world's population is female, and there's no reason that it's fair or right to depict women as the airheads whose only valuable contribution to society is whatever they're wearing today. That's not just a wrong perspective, that's destructive and I'd go so far as to call it evil. Cause honestly, I don't think that's too much of an exaggeration. The idea that women are unimportant and uninteresting and only appreciated for their appearances and similar things is an absurd message that is harmful to everybody.

After all, Melissa McCarthy wasn't invited to the Emmys because of that purple dress she wore. And Hayden Panettiere wasn't called in to the red carpet to talk about her pregnancy. Both of these women(and the many others who have faced sexist questions on a very public scale throughout the years) are fabulous actresses, hard workers, and modern innovators, and that is why they were there. Though you couldn't tell that by listening to their interviews. I'm sure they're frustrated by that. I mean, wouldn't you be? They've accomplished great things and worked hard to get this far and the first thing the interviewer asks them to tell the whole world is where they got their shoes.

This trope appears just about everywhere in our media. Almost any interview with an actress or other female celebrity will involve questions about their clothes, hair, workout tips, etcetera. Take this interview with Scarlett Jonhansson and Robert Downey Jr.- he gets asked the really interesting, deep question about his character, and she gets asked about how she got in shape. This just goes to show how unfair and ridiculous all of this is, because I mean, not only is this sexist in the extreme, but it's a missed opportunity- both for her to share some of her insights gained from portraying this character and to spice up the interview. The Black Widow is an endlessly interesting and complex
character and the reporter could've asked her an equally intriguing question. And I mean, if you want to focus on the actors' physical traits, why not ask RDJ how he gets his hair to look so fabulous?

What it comes down to, I guess, is that our society needs to stop this ridiculous gender discrimination. People should be judged for their actions, the things they accomplish, and the way they present themselves, not for something they were born with. I hope someday we can get over this and start treating both men and women with equality and not assuming that an individual's potential is diminished or determined by something like gender.
--Oswin

The Pocket Crisis and a Vomiting Glitter Isle

Whenever I look in the girls' section at a department store, I always feel a sense of disappointment. What I see is an assault of color and glitter, so that it looks like a glitter isle vomited on that section of the store. A few things are actually cute, even if they do have bright colors and glitter, but there aren't just a few things like that, it's everything. There is nothing wrong with a sparkly shirt in bright colors, but if you want a more toned down shirt, then your options are pretty much athletic gear or school uniforms. The store Justice is a perfect example. Everything has glitter, ruffles, lace, blinding colors, or all of the above. Some of those things do look nice, but when I see the boys' section, I feel a bit jealous.

The store Justice, where everything is
in blinding colors.

Boys have shirts with planets, math, dinosaurs, or even just nice colors. I would like a shirt with the solar system or some other science- related thing on it, but there aren't any shirts like that in Target or other stores where I shop often. Lands' End recently came out with some space themed shirts for girls, and I was really excited. When I looked, however, I was disappointed. It seemed that they had decided to compromise between the other girls' shirts and space shirts by ramping up the glitter. Apparently, they hadn't figured out that (gasp) not every girl likes glitter. Astonishing, I know. Some of the shirts did look nice with glitter, but I don't really like the glitter, and I would have liked the shirts if they didn't have glitter. When I searched Amazon for “space” in the girls' section, I found a few costumes for little kids, not gender specific, and a few other space shirts for little girls. When I searched for space in the boys' section, I found shirts, coats, pajamas, and a whole lot of other cool stuff. This post wasn't supposed to be about how I like space, but I don't think that people should have to settle for wearing stuff that they sort of like because they can't find anything else. I, personally, would like a shirt that has a nice pattern but still doesn't scream glitter, and that's really hard to find in the kids' sizes.

Another thing that really bothers me about women's and girl's clothing is the lack of pockets. It's true that some jeans are too fitted to have good pockets and still look nice, but even on pants that aren't very fitted, there are hardly ever good pockets. Once I had a pair of black pants from Target, and they were labeled “essential pants”. Of course there were a lot of jokes about that, especially since there weren't any pockets. If you look in the boys' section you could fit a small book in those pockets, and here are girls without any pockets at all. It's annoying that girls apparently can't like science or carry anything that isn't in a bag, especially since men who carry bags are made fun of.

--Luna

Girl Gets Boy Gets Girl Gets Boy...and Vice Versa

No matter what time era it is, we're all still waiting for the typical high school girl to finally take action and ask her crush out. We're in the same time period for independent female movement, from famous female political figures, to women taking on male-dominated fields, yet we recoil in horror as your average teenage girl decides she's done waiting, and goes and asks him out instead. Why is that? And isn't speaking your mind all about what being a women is about?

It used to be that typically, men are supposed to make the first move when dating, yet over the years it has become acceptable for a woman to casually ask a guy out to a date, prom, etc, without being ridiculed. Even with a cheesy pick-up line, a male can still get a girl interested somewhat, yet us females are restricted to casual flirting and eye batting, in order to not scare the person away. It's nerve wrecking on either side to make the first move in dating, but somehow it's seems as though it's easier for a man to go up and ask a girl out, because that's the way we've been following for centuries. We've made so much progress over the years with female society evolution, that you would think we would be as aggressive in relationships as we are in our work environment. 

Women like to put men up to the challenge of how they will approach them, as if they have to face their fears, man up, and use a state of the art  pick-up line to get our attention. Sure, everyone can be a little insecure and hold back for a while, and we all have the fear of being rejected. But when it comes to women, one might say it comes off as desperate, or needy. Men may also be fine with being asked by the opposite gender, it makes them feel wanted, and probably takes the load of their shoulders too. Then again, it may not be insecurity at all, it's possible, like I said before, that it's just plain tradition. As a shy guy/girl, the other person asking first is probably an instant confidence boost.

 One of my favorite comic series are the Archie Comics. They are based off a teenage boy and his fun adventures and situations in his high school life. His two friends/girlfriends, Betty and Veronica are always competing for his attention and he can't seem to chose between them. Anyway, oddly enough, Betty and Veronica are also best friends, but are very different. Veronica is rich, seductive, and sometimes selfish, while Betty is sweet, smart, and athletic, but extremely fond of Archie. Both girls are constantly after him, but Betty would always try her hardest to get his attention without luring him away with material goods. No matter how hard they try to get his attention, they set an oddly both good and bad standard for girls. They are constantly in a love triangle and can't seem to move on or find a way out, and they are persistent, and that gets his attention. They are always looking for possibilities, both good and bad. Even when in love, they still act as strong independent women.

Despite being pushy, Betty chased what she wanted, and stands up for herself, and as you can probably tell, this post is chalk-full of maybe's and maybe nots, but that's what love is about isn't it? Sometimes it's really about the comfort zone that we're in, and that you have to make sure you show your real persona, and don't come off as cheesy. We are all plagued with the task of being ourselves, but not bordering on fake. From the Sadie Hawkins dance, to the (hopefully), soon to be female president, being straightforward is beautiful in it's own way, and there's nothing wrong with a girl who's a little bit confident. 

Thank you for reading this post, this is only my opinion and you are always entitled to your own. I'm not here to offend anyone, and these views are just my own. :)

~ Governess Bob

Strong Is Beautiful

As we know, gender equality for sports has been a tough issue over the years, weather it's male cheerleading, or women's basketball, I think media has taken its toll, and so has the production behind it. 

Everyday, male and female athletes go about their same routines, getting up early, watching what they eat, and committing to their sports and training, they both have the same amounts of dedication to their sports, regardless of their gender. So why is it that we have so much more respect for male dominant sports rather than we have for women's? It seems as if females are seen as non-violent, emotional figures while men are seen as tough and aggressive.

It always seems that women get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to athletics. The Men's Olympic soccer team flies business class to their games, whereas the women fly coach. Apparently we don't play as well, sell enough, or overall look as good as men do in sports. We're 45 years into the title IX bill, and us women are still judged on how we look when we play rather than how we play. I feel like too many sports companies try to make women's sports more appealing. Companies are always looking for a way to feminize gear and make it more appealing to men. I play volleyball, and I want to feel good about how I look when I play, but not judged on how short my spandex is.

Clara Hughes, an olympic speed skater
participating in a mostly male-dominated sport

Even aside from the required wear there's the actual playing. Some sports require less contact and strength between women in the sports whereas the men are encouraged to push and shove and get aggressive. Many of these rules apply to baseball/softball, hockey, and lacrosse. Overall even more people are upset over the money male athletes make over female athletes. It is shown that men make a considerate amount more than their female counterparts when it comes to athletics, and that even male teams are more prone to having a larger budget increase than female teams. We have made great strides in the 21st century on showing more and more women athletes  on TV, yet we still see more male sports coverage on TV   than woman's.

It has also come to be that we have pushed certain sports into the specific men's/women's sports category, like labeling volleyball, tennis, track, gymnastics, and cheer, as being female sports, and basketball, wrestling, football, soccer, and baseball as male sports. Even though it seems that some of these sports appeal to a certain type of gender, it still doesn't mean we have to discourage kids from participating in the sport they love, just because of some silly stereotypes. On TV it bothers me that when portraying female cheerleaders, volleyball players, etc, it shows them as sexy, catty girls who are bullies, and have no faith in their sports. Whereas the males are dedicated, and ready to face whatever comes in their way. When the media focuses on female sports, it is usually on ones that society identifies as feminine. We stereotype the female gender in traditional female sports. Why are us women compared against each other in appearance, and not in performance, skill, and dedication? Masculinity comes in all shapes and sizes, and you can still be a pretty face while being a hard-working athlete.

WTA's "Strong is Beautiful" campaign

This is just my opinion, and I can only hope that in the future, us women won't be cheering on the sidelines, or sewing the team uniforms, but actually playing the game, like we are now.

~ Governess Bob

Hens in Pens and What Humane Should Mean

 Whenever I see something like eggs or meat advertised in the grocery store “humanely treated” it, like most people, makes me happy. But it also makes me mad that so many animals we farm are treated terribly to the point that we think it's an exception when they're not treated badly. Yes, it's a whole lot cheaper to cram as many animals as will physically fit into one space, but it would also be cheaper if people only walked places and never went on vacation. If we spend money to make ourselves comfortable, then can't we afford just a little to make animals healthier and more comfortable? When animals are penned and caged too closely together, they spread diseases more easily, and it's more likely to make the people who eat them sick. Many people say that you can taste the difference between an egg laid by a well treated hen and one from a badly treated hen. If people can taste when animals are unhappy, I think that it's really time to change things.

Hens in a commercial cage free farm

I'm really grateful that some places are actually treating the animals well, but doing the right thing should not be something special. Humans are not the only thing that matters, and everyone needs to realize that. Just because humans are the smartest animals does not mean by far that we are the most important. Everything else can feel to, and if we're breeding animals just to eat them, the least we can do is to make them happy. It's the same thing with products that are advertised as being made by people who were paid well and not mistreated. How can money matter more than health and happiness? It's not like the big commercial farms are going to go out of business if they let the animals out of their barns and cages. They would still have a lot of money. I can't see how someone can go to bed after working on a commercial farm and not feel terrible. Worst of all, usually eggs that are labeled cage free, if they're commercial, come from hens packed so tightly in barns that you can't see the floor, and the eggs cost more. If you do buy from farms that actually treat all of the animals humanely, everyone thinks it's great, but hardly anyone thinks it's bad when you buy from places that don't treat animals well. Packaging should stop trying to say that their animals are treated nicely when they're not. Humane should mean that the animals can go wherever they like, eat the food that they're meant to eat, and be happy. Inhumane should not be the standard. Cruelty should not be what everyone is used to.

--Luna

"We're Such Nerds"- How It's No Longer "In" to Be Smart

Hey guys!
So today I'm going to deviate slightly from my usual theme and write something that is nothing like my other posts. As much as I love ranting about female representation in the media and dissing sexism and that sort of thing, I felt like this was a post that really needed to be written. And, well, here I am.

The idea for this post came a couple months ago when I was texting one of my close friends. We were in deep discussion about one of the things that consumes the majority of our time- homework. It wasn't one big pity party in which we complained about how much homework we had to do (I say that because that has happened plenty of times), but a rather animated conversation about new things we had learned. My friend got particularly excited to tell me about a new concept she had come across in math and I was telling her about an essay I had read in my American History course. After a good half-hour of carrying on in this manner, we agreed that we were total nerds.
That happened again a few weeks later. I spent hours with the same friend trying to identify a tree together via Facebook and we were thrilled a few days after when we finally figured it out. And again- "we're such nerds."
But that kinda got me thinking. Sure, we kind of are nerds, but why do we have to use that term in a self-deriding manner? What's wrong with being excited about new insights into common events in history? Is it a problem to be intrigued by a new concept that should be somewhat helpful in the future? Absolutely not. However, I think the main reason that we felt that we had to "apologize" for our enthusiasm for learning with a derogatory word like "nerd" is because I doubt society would agree with my above statements.

In a world of "can't even" and "lol" and "idk", could it be more obvious that we, as a society, have decided that it's not cool to be smart anymore? We feel the need to bring down our level of intelligence in a very public way with text talk and hashtags, and we pin labels like "nerd" on anyone who shows a genuine interest in being something more than that. I'm not saying you're an uneducated animal if you're into that stuff- I, for one, admit to being guilty to the more-than-occasional abbreviation and intentionally horrid grammar while on the internet -but it seems pretty ridiculous to me that we've adopted this tragically unintelligent way of communication as the norm. It's alright as a way of communication if it feels more convenient, but I see no reason why we feel like we have to paint ourselves as less intelligent to be "cool".

There's a spoken-word poem I really love written by Taylor Mali, a high-school English teacher who also decided to write really awesome poems like this one. It really conveys what I'm trying to say (probably more adequately than I can myself).
It describes the way we've fallen into this awful way of speaking, about how it's no longer the cool thing to sound like you know what you're saying. The whole poem mimics the infamous internet tone, making statements sound like questions and inserting unnecessary fillers such as "like" and "y'know".

The end of the poem challenges its listeners to speak with conviction- to "say what you believe in a manner which bespeaks the determination with which you believe it". We have all this ridiculous little abbreviations and slang words that we use to do the exact opposite of that (however inadvertently). If we happen to be some of those whose sense of wonder and enthusiasm for learning still remains through this universe filled with an overwhelming sense of unintelligence, then why shouldn't we wear that proudly? Why does "nerd" have to be a bad thing? Why do we have to apologize for what we know when our own knowledge only adds to the positive things we can contribute to the world?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that creating a culture where feel pressure and pressure others to act(and sometimes, consequently become) unintelligent seems counter-productive to creating a more enlightened society. And that starts with being proud of our nerdiness- not apologizing when we're so excited about FINALLY identifying that stupid tree, or getting a difficult math problem right. We shouldn't be embarrassed to be dedicated to our education, and shouldn't be ashamed of a precious love for learning. Why does nerd have to be an insult, anyway?
--Oswin