Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 August 2012

What No One Else Will Tell You About Feminism [Feminism]

What No One Else Will Tell You About FeminismGuess what? You're a feminist. If you are a person alive in the world, other people, both men and women, have told you that all feminists are hairy, reactionary, undersexed, man-hating bitches who need to quit cryin' (because we have suffrage now! And Roombas!). HOWEVER. THAT IS OBVIOUSLY STUPID.

Feminism is not a radical movement or a fringe movement or an embarrassment or a fraud. Feminism is simple. The "patriarchy" does "exist." To identify as a feminist is to acknowledge that women are people, and, as such, women deserve the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities as other styles of people (i.e., men-people). To be a feminist is also to acknowledge that the world is not, currently, a fair and just and safe place for women to exist. Because it is not. Obviously (see: everything ever). To deny these things makes you, at worst, a bad person who hates women, including but not limited to: Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jennifer Garner, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez, your mother, Jennifer Lopez's mother, Jennifer Garner's Aunt Marcy, Michelle Obama, Ellen DeGeneres, Cher, Julie Andrews, Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, Kraken Kardashian, Karphone Kardashian, Kickball Kardashian, Kornkob Kardashian, and THE VIRGIN FUCKING MARY. At best, it makes you a complacent idiot.

ONE MORE TIME: If you are not a feminist (or something blamelessly ignorant, like a baby or a ferret or a college freshman), then you are a bad person. Those are the only options. You either believe that women are people, or you don't. To help you pick one, here is some information!

?These were the tough old 19th-century bitchez (note: Calling women "bitchez" with an affectionate z is pretty upper-level ironic material—maybe just stick with "women" for now) like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton who were all, "Heeeeeey bros, we were thinking that maybe if you're not busy we could get the right to vote and stuff please maybe?" Then they proceeded to righteously fuck shit up until the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920, which gave American women the vote. A lot of the first-wavers were totally racist, plus they were still pretty into the idea that a woman's job is shutting up and scrubbing stuff. But, you know, nobody's perfect.

?After World War II, women started to be like, "Oh! Maybe I can get a job and tell my husband to stop raping me!" They began taking on subtler forms of sexism and misogyny—things that might not be legally mandated (like voting rights) but were fucking up women's lives nonetheless. These women would become the second-wavers. In 1963, Betty Friedan made everyone go crazy by suggesting that the nuclear family might be a crock of shit that stifled women's potential and made them unhappy. Then sooooooo many things happened!!! Birth control pills, illegalization of marital rape (in all states, FINALLY, in 1993!), ,Griswold v. Connecticut, affirmative action rights for women, Title IX, Roe v. Wade, and SO MUCH MORE—look it up on Wikipedia, seriously. (Fun fact: Bras were not actually burned.) There was much arguing about pornography (zzzzzz). The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass. Once shit started to get done, shrewd anti-feminists took the opportunity to declare sexism officially over, because women were now allowed to not be raped (sometimes) and also to work for low wages in garment factories and rapey advertising agencies, and therefore any woman who complained about anything from this moment onward was a hairy, braless bitch. Women continued to fight, because women are awesome. Fuck Phyllis Schlafly.

?One day, someone had the gall to point out that the term "women" encompasses more than just "upper-middle-class disgruntled white housewives." Immigrant women exist. Trans-women exist. Entirely gruntled upper-middle-class white housewives exist. Sex workers exist. Third-wave feminism is the idea that women can and should define their own womanhood. Because there are one million different kinds of women, the third wave is big, and can get a little confusing and muddy, and maybe doesn't exist at all (history is a continuum, really, not a series of waves). Some of the new feminism—particularly the "I use my sexuality as a weapon!" crowd—can look a lot like the old sexism. But don't worry about it. Just follow your instincts and keep calling people on their shit.

Hhhhhhhhhhhhh. These dicks think that gender inequality is over and we should all have a party because Sex and the City 2 was super empowering. Fuck these dicks. Or, rather, don't.

A lot of heterosexual men get very angry when women don't look the way they think women "should" look. But guess what? "Should" is not a thing. Women's bodies are none of your business. Women's body hair is none of your business. What women weigh is none of your business. What women wear is none of your business. Whether or not women want to fuck you is none of your business, unless they do want to fuck you, in which case you should go for it (high-five!).

Privilege is invisible. If you have no idea what male privilege is, there's a good chance you are currently benefiting from male privilege. That's how privilege works. Essentially, due to the social and political power structures that dominate the entire earth, shit is easier for men. Women make less money, exert less political influence, have their clitorises cut out (actually really truly — Google it), and are widely thought of as property and treated like poop. Privilege is real, and anyone who tells you otherwise is Ann Coulter.

Unless you're a total asshat who thinks people are unequal, you are a feminist. YOU are a feminist. You ARE a feminist. YOU ARE A FEMINIST. Welcome aboard!

What No One Else Will Tell You About Feminism This post was reprinted with permission from How to Be a Person, The Stranger's Guide to College by Lindy West, Dan Savage, Christopher Frizzelle, and Bethany Jean Clement (August 2012, Sasquatch Books). It's on pre-sale now. We're biased, but we highly recommend you buy it. Or Lindy will cry.

View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Tavi Gevinson Graces Cover of Bust, Talks Feminism and Mean Girls [Rag Trade]

Tavi Gevinson Graces Cover of Bust, Talks Feminism and Mean Girls16-year-old Tavi Gevinson is on the cover of Bust magazine and this week's New York Times Style section. The blogger and Rookie editor talks to the former about her interest in fashion, feminist conversion experience, and college plans. The Times tagged along on Rookie's recent road trip of readings and events across the U.S., which ended last week in California.

Tavi tells Bust about how at age 12 she convinced her parents to let her skip school to line up for the Chicago launch of H&M's Comme des Garçons collection. Gevinson pleaded her case at the family dinner table. "I just said that I thought [Comme des Garçons] was really interesting and that it meant a lot to me," says Gevinson. "Because it was not about looking attractive or looking cool or looking pretty. In retrospect, that must've been really comforting to parents who had a kid in middle school, when everyone else has, like, humping parties or whatever."

Gevinson also explains why she now spends less of her time writing about fashion and attending fashion week events. It's that mean girl Anna Wintour's fault, basically:

"I sat next to Anna Wintour at a Band of Outsiders show, and she asked me, "When do you go to school?" I just felt like, When do your models go to school?...There wasn't any real enthusiasm coming from the people who were there for what was going on around us, even though it should have been this exciting, creative thing. I felt funny about that experience. I wanted to start writing about other things on my blog, branching out from fashion."

Never meet your idols.

Although Gevinson's ardour for fashion has cooled somewhat, and Rookie, the online magazine Gevinson founded at 15, is a general-interest site aimed at teenage girls, Gevinson still thinks a lot about clothes and their meanings. "Fashion can be used to assert your individuality and your control and power over how you perceive yourself and present yourself, and it can be a form of expression." [Bust, NYTimes]

Tavi Gevinson Graces Cover of Bust, Talks Feminism and Mean GirlsSpeaking of very young women in fashion, in the September issue of Flare, 18-year-old cover model Lindsey Wixson says that she thinks about her family every time she's asked to pose topless or nude:

"I want to make them proud and I try to keep it pretty modest. The fashion industry always wants something else out of you and you can decide if you want to fall into that or maintain your morals and stay true to yourself. I always think about what the people from my hometown would think of some of my shoots. I care about what my family thinks — they wouldn't want to see my boobs printed everywhere."

When she was 15, Wixson described having to ask a W stylist to let her wear a flesh-toned bra underneath a transparent blouse the magazine had chosen for her. [Fashionista]

Tavi Gevinson Graces Cover of Bust, Talks Feminism and Mean GirlsFashionista and the Fashion Law point out that many of the styles in Madonna's new footwear line strongly resemble designs by Christian Louboutin and Nowhere. Originals are on the left, Madonna's are on the right. [Fashionista, the Fashion Law] Tavi Gevinson Graces Cover of Bust, Talks Feminism and Mean GirlsOPI is releasing a top coat flecked with tiny pieces of 18-karat gold leaf this fall. No word on price. [TLF] Tavi Gevinson Graces Cover of Bust, Talks Feminism and Mean GirlsA Los Angeles-based artist designed this Louis Vuitton wafflemaker. [Complex] Want to know who makes money in fashion? A bunch of old white men, mostly. Women's Wear Daily compiled data on executive pay from various S.E.C. filings for this year's list of the most highly paid U.S. C.E.O.s in fashion and retail. JC Penney's newish C.E.O. Ron Johnson tops the list with total 2011 compensation of $53,281,505. Abercrombie & Fitch's Michael Jeffries is second with $48,069,473. Neil Cole, the president and C.E.O. of Iconix, was paid $37,424,782. Ralph Lauren was number four with $36,325,782, and Nike's Mark Parker rounded out the top five with compensation of $35,212,678. These figures are all for total compensation, which for C.E.O.'s comprises both take-home pay and stock options, which fluctuate in value depending on stock prices and when the options actually vest. But however you count it these dudes are still making mad skrill. In addition to Johnson's spot at the top of the list, JC Penney executives and former executives take up three other slots in the top 10 for a total of over $1.4 billion in compensation. Under Johnson's watch, Penney has cut more than 1,000 jobs. Reed Krakoff, the president and executive creative director of Coach (and the owner of a Calder mobile and a spheroid toilet), came in at number eight on the list with compensation of $21,188,980. [WWD]Miuccia Prada gave an interview to Italy's La Repubblica newspaper addressing the decline of Italian apparel and accessories manufacturing and the foreign ownership of Italian luxury brands. Prada used as an example the firing of Belgian designer Raf Simons from Milan-based company Jil Sander (which Prada once owned), which preceded Simons' departure for Paris, where he now leads Christian Dior. Reports WWD:

Prada partly blamed the media, accusing the Italian press of not taking fashion seriously, considering it "frivolous," without realizing how relevant it is in terms of sales and employment. She also pointed a finger at intellectuals and left-leaning politicians, who "remain diffident toward wealth and glamour," while money, she said, can actually help "organize art, culture and fashion."

[WWD]

Model-slash-Transformers star Rosie Huntington-Whiteley tells British Elle magazine that she never really enjoyed modeling. "I wasn't quite tall enough either and I hated it to be honest. There was no individuality, no opportunity to be individuals. I think that people forget you're human and you just become an object. I was constantly reminded that I wasn't right wherever I went and that was difficult because I'd come from a place where it didn't matter." [Telegraph]Congratulations to Missy Rayder, who just gave birth to her first child. The model and her boyfriend, artist Marko Velickovic, have named their son Luka. [P6]Karlie Kloss is going to be the face of the giant Target/Neiman Marcus/designers fashion collaboration happening this holiday season. [WWD]Fashionista has a round-up of all the 2012 September issues' ad pages. Vogue is sitting pretty with 658 ad pages, up 74% from 2011. Elle has 400 and Harper's Bazaar has 360, and each is up 51% over last year. Marie Claire has 237, an increase of 45%, and InStyle rounds out the top five with 440 pages, up 10%. Lucky is the biggest ad page-loser, with 136, down 38%. We're still going to be picking up the Lucky September issue, however — we hear that the cover profile of Eva Longoria was written by This American Life's Starlee Kine. [Fashionista]Now that Brian Atwood is partly owned by the large apparel company Jones, the brand is planning to open its first-ever boutique. Three more are to follow in 2013, up to a total of 15 Brian Atwood stores by 2017. [WWD]According to the Rapaport Report, the diamond industry's standard pricing guide, diamond prices are falling due to declining demand in India, where the currency is currently high, and Europe.

The group said the price for one-carat diamonds dropped 13.7 percent year-over-year in June. During the first half of 2012, prices for one-carat diamonds fell 3.6 percent, with the steepest declines occurring during the latter part of May and through June.

You know what this means, ladiez! If he really loves you, he'll buy you a 13.7% bigger rock. [WWD]

And now, a moment with Robin Givhan. Robin, how did winning a Pulitzer for your fashion criticism affect your life and career?

Probably one of the most gratifying things after winning was I got such an outpouring of support from the industry. Mostly women, because with newspapers, certainly, it's mostly been women who've covered the fashion industry, and several of them said that they were so thrilled and felt that it had elevated them in the eyes of their own newsroom because so often, fashion, even though it's a billion-dollar industry, is still seen as this kind of women's concern.

[Style Blazer]


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Marina Abramovic Isn't a Feminist [Feminism]

Marina Abramovic Isn't a Feminist Add famed performance artist Marina Abramovic to the list of powerful women at the top of their field who don't want to be called feminists. Abramovic told the Guardian that she was initially hesitant when Rufus Wainright asked her to lead a women-only lecture at Meltdown 2012:

"I am very clear that I am not a feminist. It puts you into a category and I don't like that. An artist has no gender. All that matters is whether they make good art or bad art. So I thought about it, but then I said yes."

Now, Abramovic is excited about the lecture — she plans to focus on what feminine energy entails and says she won't allow any men to attend — but why waste time being scared of the term "feminist"? Is it because she's afraid that if she identifies with the movement she'll be a feminist first and an artist second?

"What constantly surprises me is when a woman breaks through the glass ceiling in her field and feminists automatically assume she's one of them," Aminatou Sow, digital strategist and founder of Tech Ladymafia, told Amanda Hess in an interview for her recent piece on the difference between women who work in tech and journalism, inspired by Marissa Mayer's disdain for the term. (Earlier this month, we wondered whether it mattered if Meyer thought she was a feminist, and concluded that it's more important that she act like a feminist than identify as one.)

Hess found that women journalists usually have no problem identifying as feminist while women who work in the tech world engage in feminist action (mentor women, care about the gender ratio, etc.) but shun the title itself. Sow added that "grassroots feminism needs a rebrand." But why wouldn't feminists assume Abramovic and Mayer aren't one of them?

In times of feminist-related doubt, maybe it's always best to refer back to Caitlin Moran, the bestselling, straight-shooting author of How to Be a Woman. Last week, Moran told Hoda and Kathie Lee that feminism is a "dirty word" for some women because people associate it with "being very angry, hating men, and never wanting to have sex." (And wearing bad outfits to boot, she said.) She continued:

In the book I do a test, and the test is this: if you put your hand inside your underwear and you see that you have a vagina, you check that, that you're a lady. So the answer to that question is, "Are you a lady," yes. And then you say, "Do you want to be in charge of your vagina?" and the answer is yes. Then congratulations, you're a feminist.

It's hard for me to decide whether it's a step forward that more high-powered women don't see themselves as feminists — that our society has evolved so much that at least some women can afford to be "gender-blind" — or if it's a bad sign that even the world's successful women feel they have to shun the term as so not to alienate male peers and/or be labeled.

Meltdown 2012 – Marina Abramovic: 'Artists can do whatever they want'
[Guardian]
‘How To Be a Woman': A fresh take on feminism [USA Today]
Debate over new Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer reveals divide between women in media and tech [Poynter]


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Monday, 30 July 2012

What Do Gymnastics, Orthodox Judaism and Feminism Have in Common? Me. [Gymnastics]

What Do Gymnastics, Orthodox Judaism and Feminism Have in Common? Me.When people find out that you grew up as an observant Jew, a game I like to call "20 Questions About Orthodox Jews" is inevitable. Here are a few couple of prime examples: "Is it true that you guys have sex through a hole in a sheet?" Or: "Why do married women shave their heads and wear wigs?" And once, they find out that I took gymnastics classes about as often as I went to temple they ask, "How did you tumble in a skirt?"

Leaving aside the first two questions for the moment, I'll address the third. No, I didn't flip in a skirt. I wore leotard, which made gymnastics easier but Orthodox Judaism a lot more complicated. And for seven years, I worked through my athletic and religious issues — where else — but in the basement gym of a synagogue.

Every Sunday morning, I was coached by Nina, a former New York State champion on several events. A college student with braces and rubber bands, she was the most feared instructor in the gym, which was no mean feat since the rest were Russians. Nina dressed in army fatigues and pulled her baseball cap low. She stomped across the mat in shit kickers in spite of the fact that shoes were not permitted on the equipment. And when she yelled at our group, which was often, the entire gym stopped to watch.

Despite the harshness of her coaching style, we wouldn't have gone to any other group. Tis a far, far better thing to be pushed too hard than told to simply do your best, which is something Dickens would've written had he done gymnastics. Nina drilled us in the basics but then coached us through much more difficult skills, such as flyaway flips off the uneven bars and back walkovers on the balance beam. We didn't see Nina's demands in a malicious light. Rather, we understood her purpose — to make us better gymnasts.

I took whatever Nina said as gospel. When she advised me to do extra pushups and sit-ups at home in order to master a new skill on the uneven bars, an event that demands an excess of upper body strength, I did them every night. A few weeks later, I successfully performed it on the bars, which shocked her. I didn't understand why. "You told me that if I did pushups and sit-ups every night for a month, I would get the trick. So I did," I informed her.

"You really did them at home? Every night?" she asked, incredulous.

"Of course," I replied. For a coach who demanded such utter respect inside the gym, she seemed to have no expectations of her pupils once we were outside of her purview. She seemed oblivious to the power she wielded over me. My mother once yelled as we locked horns over the mess in my bedroom: "I bet if Nina came here and told you to clean it, you would!"

While that was probably true, I doubt I would've hero-worshipped Nina the way I did had she been encouraging housework. The reason I followed her Pied Piper-like over the vault and off of the balance beams was precisely because what she asked me to do didn't seem at all ladylike.

Unwittingly, Nina was showing me a different way to be female in the world. I could be strong to the point of being aggressive. My mother, who had been the first in her family to go to college, intellectually conveyed her ideas about feminism to me, insisting that if I got an education, I could do whatever I set my mind to. But what about whatever I set my body to?

Through gymnastics, feminism was communicated physically, which turned out to be much more powerful than its intellectual demonstration. If ideas about inferiority or separateness of women are rooted in our different bodies, then the best way I found to overcome these ideas was by using this same body to accomplish feats of strength that were not considered natural for us.

My teachers at school were always trying to rein me in physically. I was often chastised when I did cartwheels at the back of the room during recess because my skirt flew up as I turned on my hands. "It is not befitting a daughter of Israel," I was told.

They chose to ignore the strength and coordination and prowess it took to perform the skill. Rather, they sexualized it by characterizing it as indecent. Modesty in clothing and demeanor, I was taught at school, was supposed to accomplish the exact opposite. It was supposed to prevent women from becoming sexual objects, but its enforcers, in their zeal to get us to cover up, overlooked the other traits of the female body. My teachers and rabbis were the ones who sought to turn my body into an inanimate object, suitable only for gazing or averting one's eyes.

Nina was also teaching me a different method for interacting with men. Rather than deferring to them, she playfully challenged the male coaches to handstand or handspring or chin-up contests. Watching her compete with the men (and often win) reminded me of the years before I started wearing skirts full-time when I challenged the neighborhood boys to footraces, often outpacing them. I'd pump my legs and arms as hard as I could, until they were moving so fast I felt practically out of control, like a boulder picking up momentum as it rolls down a hill. The more out of control I felt, the more I became aware of my physical power. I was not circumscribed at all — not by fear, concerns about my gender, or by the suitability of my clothing.

However when I started the first grade, I stopped wearing pants. My yeshiva demanded that students dress modestly all of the time. Unlike Nina, my school's administration believed that its dominion extended beyond its doors.

Running in a skirt simply isn't the same. Even if it's flared enough so as not to shorten your stride, when you're in a skirt, you're always glancing down, worrying that the hem might fly up and expose your underwear or knees. Skirts impose self-consciousness, a keen awareness of the femaleness of your body. Anxiety and wind drag slowed me down and I started losing more races than I won.

Yet inside the gym, I continued to wear the skimpy attire of gymnasts. I acted as though the gym was outside the jurisdiction of Jewish law. Even if it was my own personal Green Zone, my behavior engendered no small amount of cognitive dissonance. I had been taught that modesty wasn't really context dependent — if I couldn't walk down the street in a leotard then I couldn't leap in one on the balance beam —but for the time being, I was protected by my relative youth. The full brunt of Jewish womanhood wouldn't hit me until I turned twelve and became a bat mitzvah. So I continued doing flips and tried not to think about what came after.

In the months leading up to my twelfth birthday, I desperately wanted to talk to Nina about what I should do. Should I quit the sport once I became too old to wear a leotard around men? Or should I continue doing the sport in defiance of the rules? I knew what her answer would be. She would tell me to stay with gymnastics, which is what I hoped to hear. Yet even in these imaginative conversations, I'd hear myself rejecting her permission. "But you don't understand," I'd say.

And she didn't. Though she coached me and some other Orthodox girls over the years and knew some of the rules we lived by, she didn't understand why they were important. To her, they were merely lists — things we could eat, things we couldn't; stuff we could do on Saturdays, stuff we couldn't do. She probably didn't see the big deal of moving one item from the forbidden to the permitted list. But in my reality, these items were more like threads in a quilt. If you tugged on one, you end up snagging the whole.

So when I turned twelve, I disappeared from the gym for a few weeks. I did not, however, stop thinking about gymnastics. I watched tapes of competitions I had recorded off of the television and tried my best to mimic if not the acrobatics of the elites then at least their choreography. I practiced my beam routine on the lines of the kitchen linoleum. My mother, after watching a few weeks of my self-directed practices, asked if I wanted her to take me back to the gym. I shook my head. "Do whatever you want," she said, returning to her coffee and newspaper.

Whatever I want. As if! I internally scoffed a la my newest pop culture messiah, Cher Horowitz. In abstaining from gymnastics, I wasn't doing what I wanted. I was doing what I believed I had to do. Rules, I reasoned, weren't there to help you honor deep-seated desires. If that were the case then I would be perpetually walking on my hands and eating ice cream right after a steak while watching Saturday morning cartoons.

Instead I moped and started listening to Sarah McLachlan CDs. But before I completely and mournfully resigned myself to a future of overly sincere pop music and without a sport, I switched tacks. I got mad.

I started thinking about boys. I wasn't yet in the throes of puberty so these weren't sexual thoughts. Boys were still sort of an abstract concept to me, like calculus and space travel. How come, I wondered, didn't they have to worry about modesty? While there were proscriptions regarding the way men dressed, they were mere recommendations, like tipping your barista or flossing. They could play basketball regardless of who was present. Why was no one asking them to give up something they loved? (Though to be fair, they were taught not to masturbate, which was undoubtedly something they loved to do.) I knew that I was never going to be an Olympic champion or even a varsity athlete, but that's hardly the point. I wanted to see how far I could go. It's one thing to hit the brick wall of your own abilities whether they're physical or intellectual. It's quite another to be told what those limits are before you've had a chance to test them.

Once again, I felt like I was six years old, racing the boys down the block. This time, however, I didn't care about winning. I simply wanted the chance to play.

And so I returned to the gym dressed like the boys. I wore baggy clothing — loose fitting sweatpants and oversized T-shirts over my leotard. This, I reasoned, was more modest than the skintight clothing I used to wear. If not the letter of the law, I was trying to observe its spirit.

While Nina said nothing about my attire at first, she finally insisted I had to return to my skimpier clothing for safety's sake after the third time I slipped on the heel of my pants while on the beam. At this crossroads, I quickly took stock of the men in the gym. There were only a couple of coaches and a handful of male athletes, and the gymnasts were likely younger than thirteen. Without consulting the texts, teachers, or rabbis, I decided that it was okay for me to strip down to my leotard and shorts and do gymnastics just as I had a few months prior.

Though this was a relatively small decision that affected only ninety minutes out of the week, it was one of the first times in my life that I assessed what I knew of Jewish law and made my own choice. I had taken stock both of my love for gymnastics and the rules that governed my life outside of the gym. My passion for the sport had arisen organically, from within, whereas the law had been imposed on me from the outside without any regard for who I was as an individual. One felt right; the other I was told was right. On this occasion, I chose myself ahead of Judaism.

From that point, I started to trust myself at least as much as I did the male authority figures that parsed the Talmud and interpreted the law. After all, when you boil it down to basics, isn't that what feminism is about — women who insist on figuring out how to define themselves rather than being told by men who they are? Judaism told me one story about myself — about a modest, young woman who could be smart but not too aggressive about it, and ambitious but within certain limits. I, however, was discovering that this character outline was a work of fiction, at least in my case. I was intelligent and arrogantly wanted everyone to know it. My teachers would argue that I should work to curb these impulses and desires, but not because they were inherently bad. Rather they weren't appropriate for me as a woman. Had a man presented with my traits, he would've been handed the pulpit of a synagogue and a grant from a Jewish federation.

This doesn't mean that I won't listen to anyone, that there are no authority figures in my life to advise me in matters of faith and religion. I have a stable of mentors I trust, but none have earned my implicit trust merely because they hold rabbinic certification. "Because they are rabbis" — the answer my teachers frequently gave when I demanded to know why I had to follow their rules — which is really another of saying "because they said so." That line didn't work when my mother tried it on me at eight, and that was before I had even heard of Gloria Steinem.

However if Nina showed up on my stoop today, more than fourteen years after she last coached me, and ordered me to drop and give her twenty, I probably would. After all, the sages said, "Make yourself a rabbi." Mine just happened to be a Panamanian Catholic woman.

What Do Gymnastics, Orthodox Judaism and Feminism Have in Common? Me.Dvora Meyers is a freelance writer based in Brooklyn. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Slate, Tablet and elsewhere. She writes about gymnastics and Judaism at Unorthodox Gymnastics, and she is the author of Heresy on the High Beam: Confessions of an Unbalanced Jewess. She blogs about woman-y stuff over at The Anti-Girlfriend.

This post is excerpted from Heresy on the High Beam: Confessions of an Unbalanced Jewess, available for Kindle. Republished with permission.

Image via Shmel/Shutterstock.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.