Feminism and Inverse Evolution

To anyone who didn’t grow up in a comically-traditional household (did your Italian parents spank you w/ a wooden spoon?), word on the street is that men want a chase, while women need possession.  Also, ladies?  No one will buy the cow if you give away milk for free.

In some ways gender roles are set deeper than culture.  It’s not of habit that men hunt while women gather; men are physically more capable of throwing a spear and chasing game.  Women, with our vision more attuned to detail, with our ability to scatter focus, should spend our time collecting foods that don’t fight back or flee.

Feminism turns that instinct on its head.  As a community evolves we tend to lose our single-minded drive for efficiency, and begin delving into innovation.  It doesn’t matter that males traditionally hunt mastodons better; perhaps if some women join the hunt we’ll revolutionize the method.

Indeed, as a community evolves its members demand ever-higher needs on Maslow’s hierarchy.  Where 200 years ago it was enough to feel protected from the elements, now we want equal pay for equal work.

This par-raising instinct — like the drive to venture into art, to divide into social castes, etc. — represents a sort of cultural apex.  Here individuals have the best opportunity to experiment as individuals.  But abandoning efficiency as primary social drive arguably becomes a sort of harbinger for a community’s first move towards decline.

Three blog posts this week explored the sort of boundaries to this “inverse evolution” theory:

Remember that “go ahead and settle” article The Atlantic published last year?  Julia Baird rails back in Newsweek:

“I know this is an unpopular thing to say,” [Gottlieb, author of “Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough“] writes, “but feminism has completely f–ked up my love life.” Um, I know why it’s unpopular: because it’s completely unfair. Feminism is a centuries-old social movement, not a self-help book—we can’t blame it for bad decisions we make about men. The problem, as Gottlieb sees it, is that women were told they could have it all, which meant not compromising in any aspect of life, including dating (which is odd because people who can’t compromise aren’t feminists, they are just generally unpleasant people). Then women got so fussy that they “empowered themselves out of a mate.”

Baird does not go so far as to argue that feminism has helped daters (not like Christine Whelan’s “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women”).  But she defends feminism from accusations that deviating from traditional mores make traditional relationship models impossible.  Our parents’ generation taught us how to date, after all, and when we start rejecting some of their values it’s hard to know where to stop.

So feminism, while unnatural, doesn’t hurt potential partnerships.  From that defensive baseline, today’s blogosphere offers perspective on how beauty differentials affect an established relationship:

[I]n contrast to the importance of matched attractiveness to new relationships, similarity in attractiveness was unrelated to spouses’ satisfaction and behavior. Instead, the relative difference between partners’ levels of attractiveness appeared to be most important in predicting marital behavior, such that both spouses behaved more positively in relationships in which wives were more attractive than their husbands, but they behaved more negatively in relationships in which husbands were more attractive than their wives.

Doesn’t this remind you of that advice from my Italian father, that men prefer the chase?  When wives are more attractive — more desirable to their spouse as well as to other people — everyone is happier.  On its face this suggests that men are in fact happier when there remains an element of competition in their established relationship.

On the flip side, perhaps women simply need more physical reassurance than men.  Three years in a sorority house taught me a lot about feminine insecurity.  More attractive women need perhaps more active reassurance re their sustained beauty than the average gal.

Remember that classic Craigslist ad comparing the declining and appreciating aspects of men and women’s respective assets?  Women know men are visual, competitive creatures.  The “traditional” — as opposed to feminist, or “inverse” — urge suggests that wanna-be-wives focus on the parts that mates appreciate, while abandoning what might evoke more competition than warmth.

Another “inverse evolution” parallel might suggest that even banal urges may not come from potential mates at all.  Future breeders have to look wayyyy down the line to where they will be ready to settle down.  Today’s competition has less to do with landing a mate right now and more to do with fitting in with a girlie clique, avoiding the mean girls, etc.

Finally, Newsweek also published a “nature v. nurture” approach to Elizabeth Edwards’s plight:

If Elizabeth Edwards were behaving as evolutionary psychology says she should, she would not be separating from her philandering husband, former senator John Edwards. He, after all, merely slept with the help; he never pulled a Mark Sanford, who called his mistress his “soulmate.” Women are supposed to find only emotional betrayal upsetting; they’re not supposed to care if their mate shtups anything in a skirt (Elin Woods is therefore conforming to the stereotype of women being forgiving of sexual but not emotional infidelity if she, as reported, stays with Tiger; the very fact that his mistresses numbered in double digits suggests there wasn’t exactly a deep emotional commitment there).
Of all the ways men are from Mars and women from Venus, this supposed sex difference in jealousy is one of the most amusing. But an intriguing new study suggests that the gender gap in jealousy may be the result of something that is not at all hard-wired: the different ways boys and girls are raised.

Genetically it makes sense that respective genders react the way we do:

[I]f a woman sleeps around, then her partner might (unknowingly) be deprived of her reproductive services for at least nine months, and could wind up raising another man’s child—both of which hurt his own chances of reproducing, which is the currency of evolutionary success.  A man should therefore become much more upset by his partner’s sexual infidelity than by her emotional infidelity (developing a crush, for instance, but not acting on it).

In contrast, if a man falls in love with another woman, he might abandon his wife and children, putting them at risk, but meaningless extramarital sex is unlikely to lead to such a drastic outcome. A woman should therefore care more about her partner’s emotional infidelity than his casual hookups.

So approaching this from the “nature” (genetic hardwiring) point of view — the traditional perspective — politicians’ wives are doing what’s best to protect their investments.  Jenny Sanford should be more angry than Hillary Clinton.  Does a deviation from nature to nurture change anything?

Well, there’s pride.  Helpless women of yore would have found better incentives to forgive and forget, bc the alternative would have been devastating.  Today women crowd tomorrow’s trophy husbands out of graduate school.  Our rejection of traditional roles provides indignant leverage to reject old caveats attached to outdated mores.

Which begs the question: Has marriage followed mores down this inverse path?

Perhaps it’s because gender roles have evolved in a more inverse — or merely quicker — way than community’s relationship formulation (i.e., marriage, domestic partnerships, but certainly formalized) that so many couples diverge again from tradition.  Or perhaps one rship-member’s helplessness was a critical element after all in the formulation traditionalists know and love.

Formalization helps everyone though.  Formalizing forever-ship protects against the perils of balding and late-onset unattractiveness.  It ensures childrearing help.  And, if nothing else in this modern world, it tamps the spread of disease.

As usual everything comes down to pragmatism.  If you would like to participate in traditional roles — including parenthood — then traditional models work.

They may well be “caveman” instincts.  But it’s pointless to deny the community benefits that accompany the traditional model.  Instead, postpone the social apex and accompanying inevitable decline.  It doesn’t matter whether we’re moving forward or backwards; why reject nature for nurture at the expense of comfort?

It may prove satisfying to intellectualize the whole enterprise, but when it comes down to it everyone benefits from the same perks that benefited our grandparents.

Examples of Coercion

In my first year of law school as a writing exercise we had to analyze “coercion.”  At what point do the conditions presented become so slanted as to render one party helpless to make a choice?

It’s a little paternalistic to assume that conditions could deprive someone of choice.  We’re all subject to the same underlying facts, the same desires, etc.  If one party is more susceptible to pressure than another, whose problem should that be?

Lately for some reason I keep seeing examples of debatable public “coercion.”  A lot of it is my trawling the internets for femme topics, stuff that speaks more directly to women.  But even a lot of feminism, I’ve said before, is somewhat a solipsistic response to imaginedly-coercive conditions.

With disclaimers that I’ve no firm position on which of these are coercive and which not, here are some examples:

Kate Harding’s “fantasy of being thin” reminds me of our sort of paternalistic fear of fat.  Is the push for calorie labels really just a response to coercive market conditions?  Or is it a real health initiative?  Is the “thin culture” coercive?

These Dove ads speak for themselves: Beauty is subjective.  When I was much younger I remember reading that beauty has a lot to do with proportionality — eyes:cheeks ratio, etc.  How much (intellectual) control do we have over our conclusions w/ re to beauty?

And finally, Burqa Barbie.  Barbie has in some ways (on a small scale) represented in the US what the Burqa represents abroad. As long as women make choices — to wear a Burqa or heels or get plastic surgery — it’s not for other women to judge.

When the message “you are imperfect” becomes so pervasive as to undermine women’s ability to choose, then we should stop permitting — or, indeed, requiring — messages that continue to reinforce that coercive message that really hurts women.

I’m so ignorant about Hijab feminism, but the whole “coercion” question is really interesting–see a great video here (WordPress, why are you so coquettish about embedding?!).

Sexist Newsweek Cover Inspires Frum’s Latest Opinion: “She Asked for It!”

And now, an entirely new argument for sexism: She asked for it! Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Sarah Palin complains that her Newsweek cover is sexist. The magazine borrowed a photo from Palin’s Runner’s World interview last year, showing the fit governor in running shorts next to the question: How do you solve a problem like Sarah? Journalist David Frum scorns Palin’s complaints, claiming that “she brought it on herself.”

Where have we heard this one before?

For such a smart guy this is a remarkably tired argument. This smacks of all the flaccid-minded men who have long attempted to control women by demeaning them, justifying their actions because “she asked for it.”

This has nothing to do with Palin’s politics. This has everything to do with an old-fashioned Salem-style witch trial. Frum’s claim that Palin “brought it on herself” attempts to pigeonhole the governor into a prefabricated conception of women that comes from Frum – not Palin.

Frum told The News Hour with Jim Lehrer Nov. 18 that “[Palin] is a woman who has got into a position of leadership by sending very powerful sexual signals. And we see that in the way that men like her much more than women do.”

Or perhaps men like Palin much more than women do because she is a Republican. Men tend to lean right at the polls, while women lean left. Perhaps the gender disparity in Palin’s fan base comes from her politics, not her person.

Frum wants to inject Palin’s public persona with a Salem witch trial mentality. She must be a witch, your honor; she came to seduce me in my dreams! But the only “powerful sex signals” Palin sends come from the base fact that she’s a woman. Once, last year, she showed a little toe cleavage. But really, David, what would an attractive woman have to wear that could spare you from discomfort?

Society has long understood that insecure people impose those insecurities on the people around them. Folks eager to be perceived as the smartest person in the room treat every conversation like a competition, talking over their colleagues and only about themselves.

Similarly, insecure men have long objectified the women around them. You need only look to how Rodrigo and Iago, and finally Othello, objectify Desdemona in Othello to see how deep this particular vein runs. Perhaps a more modern man than Othello should be able to engage with an authoritative woman without determinedly reducing her in his mind to one of those laughably-outdated sexist paradigms long after women shed those old pigeonholed roles.

It does not take a feminist to be offended by such intellectual laziness. Frum’s claim that Palin has forced sexuality on us reflects his own uncreative “scholarship”. This cheap attack is the punditry equivalent of a schoolboy dipping a compatriette’s pigtail in ink. It’s unnecessary. It’s weak.

It wasn’t Palin who sent “sex signals,” in the form of fit thighs on the cover of Newsweek – it was the magazine. Former White House press secretary Dana Perino notes that Newsweek’s decision to run this revealing cover without Palin’s permission was “worse than sexist”:

I think it is demeaning and degrading and Newsweek knew exactly what it was doing. They made sexuality a part of her performance. And this is something that if it had happened to someone on the left, the feminist organizations would be screaming about.

This is not a question of sexism versus feminism. This is a small-minded ad hominem attack by a man made uncomfortable by Palin’s femininity.

Says Perino:

There is a special burden for women in politics. And we saw that even for Hillary Clinton. And especially if you’re an attractive woman and a conservative woman, then that burden is even greater. But the great thing for Sarah Palin is she’s having a wonderful book tour, she’s done some great interviews. She’s going to tour the country.

This has nothing to do with politics. Women should not have to wear ugly clothes because attractive suits make men like David Frum blush. Old-school misogyny stems from insecurity and will thrive in a community that does not rebuke Frum for comments like this.

Lashing out at Sarah Palin because she dared to leave the house with her face uncovered is outdated and inappropriate. Of course, if Frum would feel more comfortable around women to whom he is not attracted, that remains entirely his prerogative.

At The New Agenda.

Nature and Nurture

This week it’s all about Nature Versus Nurture

First we saw this evidence that women on the Pill — a big dose of estrogen — find themselves attracted to men that would not be as attractive without that hormonal push. Not only does the Pill quell the natural ebb and flow of a woman’s monthly mentality; it actually inhibits women’s ability to interpret male pheromones.

This effect gets magnified by the fact that courtship is all about the combination of pheromones — “chemistry” — and behavioral cues. Women naturally experience an emotional and mental shift throughout the course of the month. When women quash that hormonal flux with a stabilizing hormone super-dose we lose the peaks and troughs.

Unlike their sisters in the animal kingdom, human females don’t openly advertise their ovulation. But even without a human version of the baboon’s bright pink behind, signs of fertility sneak out, according to several studies. Subconsciously, women dress more provocatively and men find them prettier when it’s prime time for conception. And a report from the University of New Mexico demonstrates that the cyclic signs have economic consequences.

Psychologist Geoffrey Miller and colleagues tapped the talent at local gentlemen’s clubs and counted tips made on lap dances. Dancers made about $70 an hour during their peak period of fertility, versus about $35 while menstruating and $50 in between.

Women on the pill averaged $37 (and had no performance peak) versus $53 for women off-pill. The contraceptive produces hormonal cues indicating early pregnancy, not an enticing target for a would-be suitor. Birth control could lead to many thousands of dollars lost every year.

Libby suggests we “consider the pill’s trade-offs: Sure, you can have sex pretty much whenever you want, but you’re seemingly less likely to be in the mood, less able to capture male attention, and when you do finally hook up, it’s with a guy you probably don’t even like!”

The second hormone news this week concerns testosterone. Booth b-school at UChicago provides hard evidence both that testosterone levels directly govern relationships to risk and that that governance comes as a function of thresholds. Self-selecting students who come to Booth’s monolithic investment bank-focused program end up leaving in two groups: most men go into investment banking, while just over a third of women enter the same field.

Someone with a testosterone level of 150 will not be more risk-seeking than someone w/ a level of 140, but both will be infinitely more likely to take a high-pay, high-risk position than someone w/ testosterone at under 100. This binary “threshold” function contributes hugely to the idea that men and women simply seek different exposures to risk.

If most women come under a threshold that most men exceed then obviously the risk-seeking behavior of the two groups will fall into statistically-significant differential groups. I don’t blame women for not chasing the hedge fund lifestyle, but I do wonder how many women sought a highly “competitive” program and then  became frustrated at themselves for deciding midway through that they are more risk averse than they thought.  This decision is not unique to women, but the statistics suggest that women decide against the risks more than twice as often as do men.

Taking artificial hormones masks people’s ability to get an objective grip on what we’re feeling. Important here to note that it’s not just women who go through monthly cycles, or who struggle against risk-averse instincts at work; studies suggest that actually men are more prone to cyclic mood shifts than are women, but because the shifts are not physical men are less inclined to notice or track these moods.  And ask any man in this economy whether he’d trade part of his salary for job security and it’s quickly obvious that we all find ourselves on some deck of this same boat.

Knowing that a given bandwagon carries certain hormonal implications, we should provide for these shifts. If we’re not on the Pill, we should realize that we’ll be quicker to temper that last day, and accordingly treat ourselves to deep breaths. If on the Pill, we should realize that we’ll likely find ourselves drawn differently to certain male traits, and experiment with dosages before committing to a man we may well find less attractive when we enter that baby-making window.

Similarly, if we’re in a drag race program where only the most risk-friendly survive, we should consider how much we really enjoy risk, and whether we’d be happier at, say, Harvard, an equally prestigious but more leadership-oriented, less bank-focused (and therefore less risk-dependent) program.

What bothers me about the way these studies are presented and advertised is the underlying familiar assumption that women are helpless to resist. Yes, the nature of hormones blinds us to their effects on our bodies. But women in this year 2009 are sophisticated actors with all of this knowledge under our belts. Perhaps I find my eyes welling up at Hallmark commercials (or, more appropriately, media re politics and the economy) during a given week, but I’m aware enough of the science behind it that I’m not overwhelmed. I don’t blame my body. It’s simply not about being one sex or another, but rather about the choices we make within those physical bounds.

I’m not sure that we do properly compensate for the effects we should be sophisticated enough to anticipate.  With regards to the estrogen studies, I suggested last week that perhaps this “estrogen effect” has contributed to our growing divorce rate. It makes sense that with rising Pill use, prevalent, temporary birth control that stops at marriage and influences attraction would lead to widespread divorce.

Add to that the statistical evidence that it’s women who initiate most splits, and it seems that the link between widespread Pill use at courtship age and rising divorce rates is not as tenuous as we’d like to think.  Even if we should by now be in a position to anticipate changes over time, we are not acting to create the appropriate cushions to ease those anticipated blows as they come.

This is mostly interesting from an academic perspective. But for women I’d draw the same conclusion I always draw: Pay attention to the factors. Be sophisticated about decisions. And enter every relationship — as much with hormones and significant others as with higher education — with an understanding of who you are and what you want.

Rose-Colored Glasses

At The New Agenda:

One of the best parts of my tiny, rigorous law school is the spiritual generosity of its affiliated community. Last year one evening I spirited myself away to a secluded restroom to freshen up before a late interview. I ran into my Property professor similarly composing herself; for a moment we leaned together towards the mirror over the sink and gossiped like sisters.

In that brief conversation my professor taught me two important lessons:

First, it is possible to be powerful and to be feminine.

Second, and perhaps more importantly: Women control the happiness factor in relationships.

When I say “feminine” I mean the way I’ve internalized the word. “Feminine” like my father’s mother, who rolled meatballs between her palms and kept her five kids tidy and respectful at the tail end of the Depression. “Powerful” then connotes the ability to command a room without being aggressive; without resorting to cheap ploys or wiles.

From time to time I am struck with the realization that we have bastardized the concept of femininity. Rather than appreciate and enjoy those fairer instincts to nurture, many women follow the Old Male Lead and assume Old Roles. Coquettish, apologetic, and cute. Or strong, aggressive, like our fathers. Finding balance proves difficult as each generation promptly outgrows our role models, and few female role models tend to bridge that generational gap.

Indeed my professor’s two critical notes of advice come hand-in-hand. The path to powerful femininity requires a woman to exhale, relax, and realize that she is already in fact powerful. No role playing necessary.

That exhalation becomes critical. We live in a time of gender flux. There is little need to burn our bras or march for suffrage, but this generation’s Lily Ledbetters do suggest that we are not yet accustomed to choice.

Choice represents a sort of responsibility conundrum. In this flux time women encounter glass ceilings only as high as we permit. We find statutory relief in equal pay for equal work. Key to that formula remains the requirement that we work as hard as we’d like to be paid.

Similarly, my professor suggests – and studies support – that both of a relationship’s parties’ happiness rests in the woman’s choice to be happy. Yesterday yet another study surfaced showing that not just a man’s happiness but his life span improve dramatically when a woman knowingly, intentionally determines that we will be happy.

Evidently a man’s education proves less determinative to his longevity than his partner’s education. This study’s authors postulate that the difference lies in educated women’s ability to sift through and find the best health messages available in our media-saturated age, or possibly that women’s greater responsibility for the household results in a cleaner, more livable environment for their men.

These hypotheses resonate, but I can’t help linking all of these case anecdotes together. Women, not men, initiate the lion’s share — more than 70% — of all divorce filings. Women, more than men, struggle with timely gender flux and a dearth of appropriate cross-generational role models. Greater even than the effect of tidiness on health lies the effects of stress.

That choosing an educated partner permits greater longevity suggests that powerful femininity leaves both partners happier in the long run. Indeed:

The general consensus of sociologists is that, whereas a woman’s marital satisfaction is dependent on a combination of economic, emotional and psychological realities, a man’s marital satisfaction is most determined by one factor: how happy his wife is. When she is happy, he is [happy].

Feminism isn’t about getting what we want; it’s about having equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness. Powerful and feminine models ebb and flow; it remains to us to decide what will make us happy and then pursue it.

I, for one, would trade a fat male Ledbetter Act paycheck for flexible hours at home with my family. This choice may invite derision from the Winifred Banks types who marched for my choice in the first place, but here we are, and, frankly, I choose my choice.

And that is the interesting part. Flux comes not from external pressures, but from my generation’s own inner turmoil as we learn to exercise that grave responsibility, choice. Happiness, health, longevity. It may fail thresholds for both romance and sex appeal to choose a thousand times a day to remain powerful, feminine, happy, and yet that choice proves solid. Strong. Sustainable.

Employers pay women less because women seldom demand more. Failed relationships flounder at least as frequently in her restlessness as in his. Health, wealth, and longevity all rely on this simple co-dependence between women’s decision to exhale, to trust our instincts, and the less stressful, divorce-free environment (ideally) fostered by it.

I search frequently for a better word for equal opportunity than “feminism.” Until I find that term I’m grateful to my professor and to the female role models who remind me that the key is not to analyze, but to enjoy. There is something satisfying in accepting that the pursuit of happiness absent gendered caveats represents a profoundly noble goal, even as a young woman, even in flux, even for free.

Hillary Clinton: Femme-inist?

I blog occasionally for a women’s group, and what I hope to bring to that table is my own search for what kind of woman I’d like to be: lawyer, mother-of-five, patient and kind, MILF, etc. I write about gender issues a lot just because articulating demographics — racial tension, gender stereotypes, politics that revolve around any of the above — never fail to fascinate me.

Ever since Hillary’s interpreter-flub outburst this summer Hillary has been very much on my radar, perhaps for the very first time. This week I’m thinking about Hillary’s perception as the “Lady Macbeth of Little Rock,” and whether that reflects more discomfort w/ the idea of a woman on top than actual “blood” — even just blood of the “bitchy” variety — on Hillary’s hands.

For that matter, Lady Macbeth was just doing the best she could ambition-wise under the limited circumstances available to her back in the day.

The Clintons-as-Macbeths analogy may be old news, but it’s new enough to stay interesting to me. Hillary’s position and perception as Sec. of State is of particular interest; if we thought she was such a “bitch” during the election season, why are we relying on her to cultivate peace? Why would Obama hire someone he can’t fire without mobilizing the Clinton Machine? Why would North Korea chant a Red Rover for sending Former President Clinton right over, and why would we — and Hillary — comply?

Yes, I’m exploring a bromidic, already-oft-discussed, would-have-been Girlie Studies thesis. I’m sure every college library in the country is flooded w/ feminist looks at Macbeth. Still my heart goes out to Hillary, wearing her ridiculous banana-colored suits (I have a polo dress in the same color). She never smacked a glass ceiling; she just did what many politicians did, and became much too human.

I feel for her, I’m fascinated by her, and for a little while I plan to blog (perhaps annoyingly) about Hillary doing the best she can despite her frequent, unintentional trudges through mud.

For those who read this blog, I welcome your emails/comments on whether and what you think of Hillary, and whether she’s what you’d call “a feminist” or, more importantly, “feminine.”

Has Feminism Jumped the Shark?

CA Senator Barbara Boxer scolded Gen. Michael Walsh for calling her “ma’am”, and insisted that he call her “Senator” because she worked hard for the job and she earned the title.

Is this similar to when everyone in the military was called “sir,” regardless of gender?  Like looking for a gender-neutral pronoun, like referring to everyone as Plaintiff or It?  “Sir” was the military’s attempt to show female officers respect.  The obvious problem though was that the address disrespected everyone by referring to half the soldiers incorrectly.  Sir?  It would be like having someone call you “Kathy” every day.  Maybe it’s more formal than “Kat,” but it’s still simply wrong.  I understand having worked hard to earn respect.  “Ma’am” is a respectful, position-neutral title.  Even with doctors, polite reference might include both Dr. Jones, and ma’am.

I’ve been totally obsessed with gender lately, but this kind of thing, combined w/ the Letterman-Palin fiasco and the email I received from a feminist site addressing “why men don’t call,” has really…jumped the feminist shark.  We have bigger fish to fry.  The Lilly Ledbetters of the world might simply start negotiating salary.  Otherwise, turning everything into a “gender issue” invites references to Freud’s anti-hysteria device.  Get a grip, ladies, and focus in a feminine way on those issues that supersede gender.  Problems with Iran may, for instance, touch on girlie issues (at least inasmuch as how Iranian men treat women), but rather than cry feminism we should just bring a womanly touch to foreign policy.  Not in the Hilary Clinton “I married a man whose favor you should curry” way, but in a “let’s look at the long-term possibility of a sustainable relationship” way. 

Artificially making everything a “women’s issue” simply perpetuates a sort of non-rigorous sex version of the critical race theory.  Indiscriminate issue-making doesn’t solve anything, it only makes separatists of us all.  Fry the bigger fish!  Send back the catches not worth reeling in!  Focus on the disrespectful media, and do it wearing a well-cut blouse, not relying on coquettishness to charm the anchor.  But please don’t waste women’s time by asking “why he won’t call.” 

Finally, I’ve written before about how annoyed I get when women act in an archetypical way and then fret about being treated in accordance w/ the decade (or century) whose archetype they’ve chosen to embody.  Perhaps I’m projecting, because I’ve lately fallen into an intellectually lazy trap of blaming gender for being occasionally shy or reluctant to – as my Crim Law prof says – Speak Up!  I’m torn among two unattractive options: Is it lazier for a woman to blame her gender, i.e., I just like color, black clothes are boring, I will wear what I want and objectifying men can go to hell?  OR is it worse to take the Iranian standpoint: Men are animals, and they can’t help themselves – if I don’t cover my arms and legs and hair then I’ve effectively invited any “impure” thoughts about me he may have.  The latter reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials – You had impure thoughts about a woman not your wife?  The object of those thoughts must be…a witch!  Burn her! 

Which option is less attractive?  To be called “ma’am” and remember that you’re different from those called “sir,” or to be called “Senator” and denounce all of those major benefits accrued by having those qualities affiliated w/ “ma’am”?  This is a great lot of neo-feminist gibberish I realize, but I really don’t know which option represents the fry pan and which the fire. 

 

See also this fantastic article: Sexism Against Conservative Women Is Still Sexism.

Performing Gender

I repost this blogged case brief because I love how the author describes a restaurant’s requirement that female employees wear makeup: “Performing Gender.”

Taken originally from a San Diego paper:

Shenoa Vild hates to wear makeup. Face goop is simply not for her. She happens to think she has a naturally healthy, vibrant complexion. After meeting her, I have to agree.

But Vild, a waitress, says her former boss had an entirely different opinion.

He wanted Vild to wear makeup.

She wouldn’t.

So, she says, she got canned.

Vild had worked at Trophy’s in Mission Valley for five years without wearing makeup. Apparently, for all that time, it didn’t matter.

But the restaurant was sold earlier this year, and she says the new management wanted the women to doll up. Vild says she got the ax in late April when she wouldn’t.

Employers have the right to do this. A few years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discrimination for employers to make women wear makeup. (Who are these judges? Maybelline stockholders?)

But just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.

Having worked in bars and restaurants for an uncomfortable number of years I can’t really imagine an enforceable standard in the employee’s favor. Food-serving employees have to be, well, appetizing. This particular plaintiff is attractive, but a business needs to be able to police some baseline of employee behavior — especially in these economic times! Take my “nonfeminist” caveat into account as I dismiss the “performing gender” argument. But when you compare slippery slopes everyone would prefer that courts not prevent businesses — especially small businesses — from enforcing some minimal employee behavior standard.