Women's Rights: Best Represented by Vagina Billboards?

On a Montana Christmas morning in seventh grade, I got a pin that said, "This is what a RADICAL FEMINIST looks like." I wore it to school my first day back because I knew I would get attention for it. My best friend at the time was raised in an incredibly conservative household and he and I argued politics during our Civics class all the time. Sure enough, within the first three minutes of Civics, we had a very heated argument going. My teacher told me to take my new pin off. I refused, since it's my First Amendment right to wear it, and got sent to the office. They sent me back to class (with the pin on), told me not to cause trouble, and told him to regain control of his own classroom.

Recently, the University of Cincinnati Feminists and the University of Cincinnati LGBTQ groups have combined their efforts to create a project: "Re-envisioning the Female Body." This project consists of 12 temporary billboards with giant photographs of vaginas that will be placed outside a building on the University of Cincinnati's campus for four hours apiece on Thursday and Friday. According to this article by Kendall Herold of WCPO, the reason the students give for this project on their Facebook page is "to combat social inequalities and abuses through the use of our vaginas as a form of collective resistance to oppression and to claim our positions as individuals with unique experiences, perceptions, and needs" and "to call attention to the vagina as a site of conflict in medical, legislative, domestic, and representational arenas." Author's Note: I would highly recommend against going to the Facebook page that is linked at the end of the aforementioned article. Their main photo seems to be one that will be featured on a billboard.

The president of the University of Cincinnati issued this statement yesterday, saying that the billboards will be allowed on campus because UC is "a public institution obligated to protect the First Amendment, even--perhaps especially--when that protection results in disagreement." While this is understandable, I don't know how legal it is; not because of the nature of the First Amendment, but because of laws against public nudity. I don't expect the president of UC to be well-versed in these laws, but I do expect the Cincinnati police department as well as university attorneys to look into it.

I'm still incredibly invested in women's rights, but a decade after the seventh grade pin incident, I no longer see myself as a "radical feminist." This is radical and, in my not entirely humble opinion, completely misses the point of being women's rights activists! If women want to draw attention to our rights and try to move forward in changing our society so that we have equality, we cannot be so stupid. If we are trying to have men and other women take us seriously, showing giant vaginas with "personal stories under each one" for eight hours on a public university campus is hardly the way to accomplish this! It is important--so important--to have our voices heard, but it is equally important that we conduct ourselves so that we can retain the respect that women who have come before us have fought for and won!

As women who desperately want equality in our "medical, legislative, domestic, and representational arenas," would it not serve us better to put our energies and talents toward earning our degrees in medicine, in political science, or in anything else in which we want equality, than throwing around photos of our privates in a manner that suggests we care more about making a scene than affecting change? This will not change anything. Anything. 

There are, however, some things that we, not as women, but as citizens, can do that will affect change:

• Research the positions of your governments (local, state, and federal) on issues regarding your body, your salary, and any other matters about which you are concerned.
• If you don't like any of the positions that your elected leaders have taken on one of the previously mentioned topics, let them know. You can't just rant about something on Facebook or Twitter and expect it to change. You can rant about something on Facebook or Twitter, write or call your elected leaders, and then expect it to change (in time, with a fight, and your continued haranguing of your leaders).
• Call your healthcare providers and insurance companies to find out what is covered in your healthcare plan. 
• Find out if your male counterparts at your job are making the same salary you are. If they are, great! If not, you need to decide whether you'll take it up with your employer or not.

Here is the best thing, in my opinion, we can do to affect change:

• If there is something about which we are unsatisfied because it illuminates inequality between the sexes and we want it to change, we must take action. We must take action! But (and I wish I could emphasize the gravity of "but" more than just putting it in italics!) we must ensure that the action we take is intelligent and is relevant and, beyond everything else, does not take away from the reason for the action.

It is my opinion that the UC Feminists and LGBTQ groups have gone out of their way to create a shocking scene with "Re-envisioning the Female Body." And it will be shocking. This project will get attention. It already has gotten close to 15 minutes of air time on our local ABC station alone. But will it get attention for what the supposed point of this project is? I really don't know that it will. It will be remembered, but not for a gain for women's rights; it will be remembered for 12 giant vaginas and possibly a lawsuit.

I am so impassioned about my rights, about all women's rights, but passion alone does not create change. It must be accompanied with reason, with purpose, and with strategy, none of which that can possibly be misconstrued as emotional or confused and so take away from the intention of the initial passion and function of the action.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Women: Take the Chip Off Your Shoulder

This morning, I saw a story about Honda making a car called "Honda Fit She's"--marketed exclusively toward women. It's pink. The apostrophe in "She's" is a heart. It's apparently supposed to be "adult cute", according to the designers. The car also comes in brown and white, the "color of eyeshadow". Apparently, it's only being marketed in Japan. So, I went to the Japanese Honda site and this is their ad for the Fit She's. Very pink and very cutesy.

Now, obviously Japanese culture is different than American culture. The "cute" factor is incredibly amped up in Japan; or maybe it's massively down-played in the States. When I saw the story about the Fit She's, my immediate reaction was, "That's terrible! It's so demeaning. Not all women like pink. And the heart?! Come on, I'm not 16." Then I got to thinking about it. Why shouldn't the car market try to appeal to women? Almost all the other markets try to attract a specific set of people, don't they? I looked at the ads during the first hour of "Good Morning America" (68% of GMA's viewers are women) to see which companies were obviously trying to appeal to women.

Out of 55 total ads during the first hour, I felt that 34 of them were geared toward women. There were 14 campaign ads (3 of which were appealing to women), 9 food ads (6 of which included a mom with her kids; 3 of which were coffee ads), 6 beauty product ads, 1 each for "Katie" and "Ellen", and some clothing and appliance ads.

So, if 62% of the ads on GMA were trying to appeal to the female market, why did I feel so weird about the Honda Fit She's being "for women?" Since I had to go back through my DVR to re-watch all the ads to count them, I had some time to think about this.

I think American women have gotten used to the notion that we can hold our own and be as good as, or better, than men. While this may or may not be true in different areas, it does not mean that we are the same as men. I know a bunch of my "feminist" friends are not going to be happy about that statement, but it's true. And why would we want to be the same as men? We get to be women!

I feel like many of the women who complain about not being treated the "same" as men are also the ones who say that "men are sh!t." "Chivalry is dead" is a common saying among "successful" women. Maybe it's dead because super-feminist women have killed it. Half the time a guy holds the door for us, we say "thank you;" but the other half of the time, we get upset that he is treating us like women and being polite to us, instead of letting us "do it ourselves." God forbid a guy be polite.

We have a huge double standard going on here. We want the same treatment as men, but we want our political candidates to cater to the "women's vote." We want the same respect that men get, but the way many women bitch and complain about the lack of respect leaves men (and other women) disgusted. We want to be equal to men, but then we're upset when men don't put us on a pedestal and hold the door for us.

Going back to the Honda Fit She's topic, while I think the main market for a pink car with a heart on it in the States would be 16-year-old girls with rich daddies, I don't think Honda should be faulted for doing what companies' marketing teams are supposed to do best: find their target consumer and do whatever it takes to get that consumer to buy their product. And, obviously, Honda has done that. The Honda Fit She's is selling in Japan, but it's not even on the market here, because American women (over all) wouldn't make it worth Honda's time and money.

So, women, this morning I felt that chip on my shoulder; the chip that I feel I have to have to keep up with men, or prove myself, or whatever silly reason. Take the chip off today. Leave it at home. Enjoy being a woman today. If that includes allowing men to be kind to you, let it happen. If it includes realizing, not resenting, but realizing that you wear makeup for yourself and not the "male dominated society," let it happen. Am I saying "let guys treat you like crap today"? No. I'm saying, embrace your femininity without putting men down or blaming them for the choices you, a liberated woman, make.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Three Personal Reasons I Support President Obama

Last night, Mitt Romney performed well in the first presidential debate. He was well prepared and was finally specific on some of his policies. President Obama seemed tired and annoyed. It's no secret that I've been working for the Obama campaign for the last month and last night I got a lot of texts, emails, and messages about how Obama was "dominated" by Romney and asking why I support President Obama when Romney is such a "clear choice." Here are a few reasons why President Obama has personally made my life better in his first term.

First, I am a woman.

• Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill he signed of his first term. Mitt Romney still refuses to answer whether or not he would have signed this bill. I can't imagine being a woman and voting for someone who refuses to answer whether or not he thinks I should get equal pay for equal work.
• Under Obamacare, starting in 2014, I will no longer have to pay more for my health insurance than men pay. If Romney is elected and gets rid of Obamacare, I will continue to have to pay more for my health insurance than men simply because I am a woman.
• Under Obamacare, my birth control is covered. I pay a fraction of what I used to pay to get my prescription birth control. I have had a lot of people ask me, "Why should I pay for your birth control? Just don't have sex." Here's the thing: people are going to have sex whether they are on birth control or not. I think it's more important to keep women who can't afford to have children from getting pregnant, instead of complaining about the kids being born into poverty and the "irresponsibility" of the mothers.
• Mitt Romney is going to make all abortions illegal. There will be no exceptions for pregnancies that occurred because of rape or incest. I have a friend who was raped at 17 and became pregnant. She ended up miscarrying, but was planning on getting an abortion because she was absolutely not in a place financially or physically where she could have had the child. What would have happened to her if she hadn't miscarried and abortion wasn't legal? Making abortions illegal is terrifying because if women can't get them safely and legally, they will get them illegally or try to perform them themselves. This is really scary because it is going to put many more women at risk for infections, diseases from unclean instruments, and death than if abortion was legal and they could have it done safely. Last night Romney said that he didn't want a board of people making decisions about his healthcare (in regard to Obamacare). I don't want him making decisions about my healthcare.

Second, I am someone who is currently benefiting from Obamacare.

• Last night, Romney said that his plan would allow young people up to 26 years old to stay on their parents' health insurance plans--if their private health insurance company allowed it. I know that before Obamacare was passed my parents' health insurance plan did not allow that. I am 23 years old and unemployed. Now, because of Obamacare, I get to stay on my parents' plan and I have health insurance.
• Last night, Romney said that his plan would make it possible for people with pre-existing conditions to have insurance--if they were already on an insurance plan that allows that. I know that my parents' health insurance plan doesn't cover pre-existing conditions. I don't know how I could find insurance while being unemployed that I can afford that would cover pre-existing conditions. Because of Obamacare, I will get to have health insurance even though I have a pre-existing condition.

Third, I am part of the LGBT community and so is my older sister, who was married to her wife in 2008 when it was legal in San Francisco.

• Obama supports same-sex marriage. Romney is going to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
• Obama repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so now people can serve their country without hiding a part of who they are.
• Obama made it possible for my sister to visit her wife in the hospital. Romney would take that right away.
• Mitt Romney favors allowing states to ban civil unions, which means that people of the LGBT community would not be allowed to even be in a union. This is a problem because this affects LGBT couples' health insurance, life insurance, adoption plans, visitation rights, and also the right that they don't have just because they are in the LGBT community: to marry the person you love.

This is the second sentence of our Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 

that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Obviously, it was written at a time when only men (white men who owned property) were "created equal." But times have changed. If these rights are "self-evident" then why are we (women and the LGBT community) having to fight so hard to get our rights? President Obama has, and is going to continue to finally grant us our "unalienable Rights." If Romney is elected, we, the mothers, daughters, sisters, and leaders of the community, will not get the self-evident truths upon which our country was founded.

I agree: this is a very clear choice.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Sources for this article include:

women.barackobama.com

lgbt.barackobama.com

gobackteam.com

barackobama.com/truthteam