Open Letter to Nature Editor Mr. Gee

Dear Mr. Henry Gee,

You are the editor of a science journal.  Scientific works require a large amount of editing.  These must be concrete, fact driven and should contain as little bias as possible.  It is also your job to promote ethical work as evidenced by the commenting requirement on the site that, “You must not submit any material to the Site which… is inappropriate. Material will be considered in appropriate if that material is…defamatory, abusive, malicious, threatening, false, misleading, offensive, discriminatory, harassing, blasphemous, racist or sexist,” as Paul Anderson mentioned in his detailed letter to you.  How can you hold reviewers and readers to high ethical standards, but not authors?  This is why I fail to comprehend why the article Womanspace by Ed Rybiki was a necessary work that you felt must be published.

First, the article is a work of science fiction.  Just because a genre has “science” does not mean that the work is meant to be published in a “science” journal.  The most important part of the term “science fiction” is the “fictional” aspect of the writing.  I cannot comprehend why you feel the need to include both fiction and fact, in one journal.  Arguably, I found myself confused, and doubt the credibility of Nature.  How am I to tell whether each work is reliable given that there is the potential for fact and fiction in various articles?  Therefore, I recommend that you not only remove the science fiction article Womenspace, but all writings under the category of “science fiction” on the Nature website.

Furthermore, there is a lack of “fiction” within Womenspace considering the summary involves author Ed Rybicki “swearing that at least some of this is a true story.”  True stories are arguably “non-fiction” and the story has iMacs, cars and stores (all which exist today).  The story could possibly be taking place in 2011.  Considering the short story is in the “Futures” section of Nature and if the story is true it must have occurred in the past … how can it qualify for the “Futures” section?

I understand that this article may have been an attempt to provoke reaction (considering your comment “I’m amazed we haven’t had any outraged comments about this story”), or perhaps divert from the common science journal stereotype with inserts of fiction, but the issue is you have forgotten your audience.  The purpose of the article was obviously not scientific betterment; thus, the article became a “bad way to crank up traffic on the site” (Female Science Professor).

The actual writing of said article was questionable and the rhetoric was too clear.  Not to mention that the author defended his point while failing to realize that “his writing” was likely the issue.  True the article was meant as a satiric piece, but if the piece is not conveying satire than it must be a combination of the readers and authors fault.  Had the article been in a different media (a blog, book, fiction magazine) the satire of the article would have portrayed differently (and arguably easier).  Your readers, Mr. Gee, are not well versed on finding satire and irony in everyday readings.  The readers of Nature are educated and prone to taking the points literally.  What else would you expect from science enthusiasts who pore over reports, theses and abstracts all day?  Science writings are considered “dry” only because adjectives, adverbs, and descriptive langue could lead to different interpretations and perspectives.  While new perspectives mark success for “fiction” writers, science articles serve to unite readers about a new theory or possibility.  Scientific writing is the lack or individualistic thinking and fiction encourages the act of distinct interpretation.  Clearly science and fiction are divided; thus, should not be combined in a scientific journal such as Nature.

The merging of these two distinct genres (scientific articles and fiction) will always be controversial and misleading to readers because Nature is only one genre (labeled on the site as a “scientific journal”).  Had Nature been a scientific journal/ science fiction journal perhaps the audience would have understood the transition between science and science fiction. Since no such entity exists I recommend you remove the article or start a science fiction Nature magazine.  Theoretically speaking, even if the article had been given a lengthy introduction explaining that the article in question was satiric and fictional audience members would still have been offended because fiction shouldn’t been in science journals to begin with.  The problem is even with rhetorical choices designed to promote a satiric interpretation the battle has already been lost.  The first rhetorical choice to put a fictional work in a science journal cancels any attempts at satire (as most fiction writers don’t expect high levels of literary interpretations from the scientific community).

In addition, most of the controversy surrounding “Womenspace” argues that the article is “sexist.”  As one commenter Marnie M. eloquently explained, “regardless of your [Rybiki] qualifying statements here in the comments and your intentions and true views, your story comes across as sexist.”  So here in lies the problem, since a majority (mainly women) are offended and consider the article to be sexist is it sexist?  The answer, Mr. Gee, is yes.  Just because author Rybiki didn’t intend to be sexist and is not sexist in real life does not mean that “Womenspace” is not an offensive sexist piece of writing.

But is appears that Rybiki was aware that his work would read the wrong way when he tweeted “I WILL catch flak for this…all about looking for knickers. Womanspace : Nature.”  No apology, no attempts at understanding other readers’ perspectives, no attempts at editing, only comments that author Rybiki does not consider himself to be sexist.  He argued that, “my own (better-paid) professional wife thought it was funny. So too have a number of other senior female professional colleagues – and their female grad students.”   Female Science Professor best sums up the fallacy of this argument, “men are only sexist if they say they are, but they never are if someone else says they are? And any woman can speak for all other women … and therefore if only one woman is not offended, sexism doesn’t exist…”

Again this is a false idea then statements such as “I’m not a racist, but Asian’s can’t drive” would be labeled as “not racist.”  However, this is not the case.  The usage “I was just joking,” “it was written tongue-in-cheek,” and “I’m not sexist/racist” before writings that can and may be taken as sexist/racist does not remove an author from being a “sexist/racist” writer.  Also as Female Science Professor stated one woman, or man does not speak for the opinions of all women or men; therefore, it is incorrect to make vast generalizations (especially in scientific journals) that do not apply to all people.

Sexism is often referenced to predominately male careers (business, math, science etc.); even today men dominate most of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).  The article reads as sexist because it is dealing with a subject (science) in which some women still feel the effects of sexism. In the blog post by Female Science Professor titled “He Must Be Joking,” she gives a stark portrayal of sexism in her past experiences at a university.  Following the post many women (and men) contributed their own experiences with sexism.  Debatably, sexism issues still arise within the scientific community today and even a “tongue-in-cheek” article brings to mind those sexist ideals existing currently.  Though the short story’s purpose may have been to remind the audience to refrain from sexist notions; the joke “hits too close to home.”

Your idea, Mr. Gee, was good in theory and bad in practice.  You attempted the experiment (fiction merged with fact) and received different results than I assume you expected.  The scientist within you knows how you should react.  Apologize, remove the article, remove your current theory, discover why the theory failed and create a new theory.  If not I expect you’ll see a decrease in publications, potential readers and reliability of your esteemed scientific journal.

Sincerely (a no longer potential Nature reader),

Brenna McNabb

Anderson, Paul.  “An open letter to Nature.”  Webblog entry.  Once Upon a Time in the West of London.  17 Nov. 2011.  1 Dec. 2011.  <http://www.paulanderson.org.uk/2011/11/an-open-letter-to-nature/>

“He Must Be Joking.”  Webblog entry.  FemaleScienceProfessor.  7 Dec. 2009.  1 Dec. 2011.  <http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2009/12/he-must-be-joking.html>

Henry Gee.  Science journal comment #27330.  Nature.  Nature.com.  3 Oct. 2011.  1 Dec. 2011.  <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/477626a.html>

Marnie M.  Science journal comment #31213.  Nature.  Nature.com. 28 Nov. 2011.  1 Dec. 2011.  <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/477626a.html>

“Nature Error.”  Webblog entry.  FemaleScienceProfessor.  18 Nov. 2011.  1 Dec. 2011.  <http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/11/nature-error.html>

Rybicki, Ed. “Edrybicki Status.” Twitter. 29 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://twitter.com/#!/edrybicki/status/119389612786458624>.

Rybicki, Ed. “Womanspace.” Nature 477.7366 (2011): 626. Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/477626a.html>.

Blog Reflection (Get it! Haha)

Wow, the term is almost over!  Sorry I’ve been gone for so long people (all 7-8 followers).  I was hoping (emphasis on hoping) I would be done with my open letter by now, so I could potentially post it on here before my final blog reflection.  But woe is me, I have failed to create a perfect open letter to Editor Henry Gee (foreshadowing *hint hint*).

Now begins my Blog Reflection 2.0 in hopes of better understanding my rhetorical choices.  Be prepared to be enthralled by the technical and rhetorical aspects I have made regarding my blog!

Having read many of the Blog Reflections, I noted around the middle area I always start to tune out a bit, so please BARE WITH ME though my reflection and I’ll try to make this as concise, quick and painless as possible.  **Edit: Just reread that last sentence which sounded like a waxing commercial … that was unintended.  I apologize**

First off, audience, I made the rhetorical decisions to often address you (“Yes YOU!”) and attempted to write in a style and tone that would create a more intimate discussion with you all.  Also, my whole “dry, boring, academic voice” was not going to cut it for my blog posts.  I’m sure most of you would have just fallen asleep (I probably would have).

Leading to my second point that like many other bloggers mentioned, I struggled with finding interesting, relevant blog topics and on top of that I truly feared that readers would hate all 1,000 words!  This was not the case and I feel I stayed fairly true to the academic nature of the blog (except for this post because I’m celebrating a fabulous blog!).

My formatting for my blog was rather simplistic which I chose to prevent unnecessary graphics or font colors from taking away from my blog entries (PS. Am I the only person with a subscribe button?).  I also tried to unite each of my blog posts with an image and definition.  In case some of you beautiful people were wondering, I hoped every reader learned something by the end of my posts.  Or at least now knows that “Obscene” is an adjective.  It was a cunning move on my part to expand my (and your) vocabulary.

All rhetorical notes aside, I really have grown in writing through this class.  I feel that in the essays, responses, discussions (or arguments) and blog entries I’ve competed in this course I’ve finally established my voice as a writer.  I theorized that my expansion in style was due to the nature of this course (which is a fairly opinionated subject).  Often posts were left up to my interpretation or opinion which I’ve obviously experienced before, but not at this caliber.  I’m slightly miffed that one required English class (ENG103) at Chapman University could have such a large impact on me.  I mean what was I doing in high school English?  I could have been at Chapman.  ACTUALLY GETTING AN EDUCATION!  But the past is the past, and even if I do feel like I’ve learned more in this course than all of my high school English classes combined, I’m happy I got this experience.

I did (and am still) struggling with the initial purpose I planned for this blog.  I underestimated how broad the term “feminism” is and I still don’t feel that I know enough about every aspect of the movement to give my complete idea of what my definition of feminism is.  Thereby preventing me from giving evidence of whether I’m a “feminist” or not.  So I’m still undefined, but with a better understanding than before and hopefully I can continue my journey on another blog or writing media.

Will I continue this blog?  Good question.  The answer is a definite no, not because I didn’t enjoy blogging or the blogging project, but because I wouldn’t want to limit myself to one purpose.  If I had the opportunity to ”do-over” my blog again I probably would want a blog title and purpose that allowed me to explore a wide variety of topics and subjects instead of struggling to connect every post.

I’ve really enjoyed my ranting and comments I’ve posted to some extremely talented bloggers in this class.  I’ve made friends and learned so much from my fellow classmate through their blogs and our own class discussions.  Thanks for a great year everyone!

Well that’s all readers.  Summary of a terms worth of blog posts and rhetorical decisions in under 800 words (no small feat for me).  I’ve spent the year signing off with the name Undefined Feminist, but since this is one of my last posts let’s try something different . . .

Sincerely,

Brenna McNabb

Verb:  Speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way.

Noun: A spell of ranting; a tirade

So technically, I’ve already covered how women are misrepresented in science/STEM (2 males : 5 females out of 7 chemistry majors). And after attending some extra credit science lecture’s I’ve realized the same idea’s that “FemaleScienceProfessor” has noted . . . WHERE ARE ALL THE FEMALE SCIENCE SPEAKERS?!

My Chem 140 lab instructor is female, and the head of the Chapman Chemistry Department is Dr. Catherine Clarke, so it’s not as if there are NO females in science.  But of the two speeches I’ve attended thus far, both speakers were male (the third coming up is also male).  That’s not to say they (the male speakers) weren’t EXTREMELY interesting, but Dr. Salzameda (my lab instructor) told us about her research, which was just as interesting, so why aren’t women scientists coming out to Chapman?

“And then I look at the list of keynote speakers: all men, no women. I won’t specify the exact number of speakers, but let’s just say it is in the vicinity of 10, so it’s not as if there’s just one or two.”- FemaleScienceProfessor

http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/11/man-boycott-2011.html

I’m also part of the Chapman ACS club and so we chose 10 speakers from UCI to come in and speak.  Of course I actually looked them all up (courtesy of the UCI website) and promptly noted most (that offered to attend) were men.  UCI has a skew for men scientists, but since more of the women opted out of speaking, my attempts to pick an equal number of females and male (because I want to know how females fare in the sciences) were thwarted.

Are women doing more research?  Not willing to attend or speak?  Do they not do enough research to warrant a lecture?  Is it a scheduling conflict?

Obviously, one can’t just write off the lecture coordinators as “sexist” and call it a day.  There is clearly an underlying problem here and FemaleScienceProfessor offers the idea of Boy(cott)ing the lectures with less female representation which if anything seems to be encouraging the problem rather than stopping it.  Especially since the lectures I’ve attended have always been more female than male in attendance.  Gotta love that Chapman gender ratio!  It appeared to make the older male lecturer a bit uncomfortable to be speaking to about 50 female and 10 males (also the only upperclassmen that attended were the female Chemistry majors).

Many of the professional female, science blogs cover the topic of family.  Almost every female science blog posts about the struggle between a career, family and raising children (occasionally research is also thrown in).  So it is highly possible that there is just not enough time for a professor/ researcher / parent to give optional and voluntary talks on their research.  But I’d like to encourage women to give more lectures, especially since there are so many interested females!

Undefined Feminist

*edit* I was re-reading my posts and noticed I forgot to attach the link to the FemaleScienceProfessor blog! It is now up. Sorry about the confusion.

You’ve heard of genocide, infanticide, and suicide, but have you ever heard of femicide?  I hadn’t.  Also apparently neither has spell check (this page is covered in those misspelling squiggles).

In light of my recent post about “Creepers” I thought I would analyze how I thought the term came about and the reasoning behind the word; thus, I stumbled upon the term “femicide” in one of the studies I read.

Some history on the word femicide:

“Femicide was first used in England in 1801 to signify “the killing of a woman.” In 1848, this term was published in Wharton’s Law Lexicon, suggesting that it had become a prosecutable offense.”-Via Wikipedia

Because before 1848, you know it was totally fine if you murdered people so long as they were only women.

In a study “Intimate Partner Stalking and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women’s Safety” by Jacquelyn Campbell, Carol Runyan, and others femicide is defined as “all killings of women, regardless of motive or perpetrator status.”

The study procedure looked at 821 women (spanning 10 cities) of “attempted or actual partner femicide” (basically men assaulting or killing their female partners) and analyzed the “stalking and threatening behaviors” displayed by the attacker in the year (12 months) prior to the assault or femicide.  The study was to determine which specific behaviors are associated with an increased risk of assault or actual femicide.

Here some conclusions of the study:

A woman’s chance of becoming attempted/ actual femicide victim…

-Doubled when the woman reported the perpetrator.

-Quadrupled when the perpetrator left a threat on the victim’s car.

-Increased by a factor of 9 when the perpetrator threatened to harm to the children if either the woman left or did not return to the relationship.

“49% of the attempted or actual homicide victims who were not physically abused were stalked, results suggesting how important it is to recognize the serious risk of deadly harm presented by stalking behaviors alone. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions do not consider stalking, without assault, as sufficient grounds for orders of protection, and anti-stalking laws are difficult to enforce for batterers. In similar fashion, one-third of the women were not assaulted within 12 months prior to the near lethal/lethal event. Clearly the use of physical abuse assessment is inadequate to identify all women at risk to potential lethality, and clearly stalking laws need to be strengthened if necessary and applied in domestic violence cases more uniformly and systematically so that women who are threatened, even if they are not followed or assaulted, can get the protection that the stalking statues were meant to convey.”

So let’s think about this. If a woman reports the man, her chance of being assaulted goes up and if the man threatens her, the woman’s chance of being assaulted also goes up.  Any stalking or threatening behaviors exponentially increased the rate of female injury or death.  Oh and under the ”stalking” laws most women who are being stalked and threatened don’t qualify because they haven’t been physically assaulted. Pretty depressing news, if you ask me.  But how does this relate to “creepers?”

First, it’s important to note mostly females’ use the term to describe men.  Men often complain that women are “judgmental” and that the term is used more in relation to “sex appeal and attractiveness.” For example some male definitions are (mainly because this is exactly what my guy friends thought) …

“Typically a nice guy, but is called a creep because girl’s can be ruthless jerks.”

“An otherwise normal person labeled as such, often by a woman who is young and in her teenage years, by someone who is insecure, judgmental, and really won’t give anyone outside their social circle a chance.

They often attempt to disguise their rationale by what could be considered purely coincidental events, such as staring at a camera in the background of a photo, being alone (which conversely can show independence, a desirable trait), or simply wandering eyes happening to glimpse another person.”

This is just a theory, but there are many studies regarding the safety of women in regards to male assault and violence.  Assuming men don’t worry about being raped, injured or killed by strangers (“rape schedule”).  Studies show women HAVE to be more careful because the laws in place are not valid protection.  Perhaps the term “creeper” is a defense mechanism designed to protect women and other women around.  I know after my encounter I warned every women I came into contact with about the dreaded Starbucks.  Women can’t trust the law for their protection, women can’t trust the law enforcement for their protection, women can only trust in their friends, guts and selves.

There are hundreds of mean words for men to call a woman, why are men getting all bent out of shape about the word creeper?  Men if you’re subjected to that label often maybe it’s not the women’s perceptions that are off, it’s yours.  It is always possible that the woman was being over judgmental, but more often than reflect on your past actions.  Was there anything you said that could have been taken the wrong way?  Or was too forward and aggressive?  The point is it’s a woman’s choice to use the term, and it’s probably not for entertainment value or to irritate men, but more about protection and remaining aware of the people surrounding you (a self-defense mechanism).

This concept of female slaying (by men) or “femicide” directly relates to the heart of feminism.  Women have a right to life and choices as much as men.  How often do you hear of women being physically abusive in a relationship or threatening to kill the children?  It’s a societal issue that men consider their want and needs above the women’s.  Additionally, the concept of threats often labels women as possessions more than people (parallel of A Handmaid’s Tale) which is an idea that feminism seeks to overcome.  Feminism (or at least my definition) encourages women to make their own choices, for their self benefit.  Too often women are pushed by society to be the focused on community and relationships, while men focus on themselves and the individual.  Though now it’s is less obvious in society there is still pressure on women to “fix” and ”maintain” the household, husband, children and relationships.

Oh, holy moly, I just hit 1,000 words! Whoot!  Anyways, ladies, gentlemen, fellow classmates, professors and other people, hopefully something was learned today.  It may seem negative, but a great way to solve the issue is for women to take time for themselves.  That’s right ladies, I’m condoning and even recommending individualist (or selfish) behavior.  Don’t be rude, or mean, but take more time to do what you want especially when it regards relationships.  Helpful tip, if a man isn’t cool with you controlling the relationship, ever, he’s probably not a keeper.  Of course, the best way to prevent (even though it’s crap women have to “prevent” possible violence against them) a violent relationship is to STOP a violent, possessive relationship from even occurring.

Undefined Feminist out!

Definitions taken from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=creeper

Study Citation

Mcfarlane, Judith, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, and Kathy Watson. “Intimate partner stalking and femicide: urgent implications for women’s safety.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 20.1/2 (2002): 51-68. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

Blog reflection usually involve photos of the blogger from a previous post or when they were younger. So here I am with my girl scout friends and then 10 years later as a senior Aren't we adorable?

I’d like to apologize for not truly sticking to my original purpose and defining feminism.  In my defense, the feminist movement is quite broad and encompasses many aspects and issues of society.  I know, I still failed.

I am losing my purpose (said an unbiased reader) which is a problem I whole heartedly agree is my main struggle.  I could lament for days about how I struggle with WordPress, writers’ block and wait for inspiration to strike . . . except I suspect all of my readers have blogs of their own (hello other “Writing About Women” classes).  I’m “preaching to the choir” so to speak and most couldn’t care less.

To solve said issue, I debated going back and re-writing all my previous posts, but that would only lead to a) more work for me, b) more work for you (the person re-reading all the posts) and c) more work for my professor (would probably doesn’t want to re-read and grade 7 previous blog posts).  In reality since it is more work for everyone, it’s highly unlikely that anything productive will come about re-writing older posts.

And so with my excessive blog knowledge (not kidding), I decided to employ the guaranteed to save time and effort, fail safe . . .  BLOG REFLECTION!

Blog Reflection: (noun) —- Usually bloggers make reflection on their past posts or past year of blogging.  Often they apologize for not updating frequently enough (or in my case failing to follow the purpose completely) and type about their past growth and posts.

My posts are fairly frequent, it’s not like I’m posting every day, but still.  I do feel as if I have grown as a writer and feminism scholar, I’m praying hoping my posts read this way.  I AM GLAD that my Mathematician post caused so much traffic and comments on my blog (I did something right). Thus, I have decided to return to blending in academic with pop culture which is more fun for me anyway.  I get to read a bunch of abstracts and study reports which I love to do, so my readers don’t have to!  Winning!

But I still WANT to address the questions I set about to answer on the first post.

So why does society have a negative connotation with the “feminine beliefs?”

Answer: This mainly has to do with the lack of knowledge most people have of feminist beliefs.  I’ll be the first to admit I was wary of this class because I had no prior knowledge of feminism. I was wary mainly because I HATE not knowing something.  I do think media and pop culture has an effect on the connotation.  I haven’t really dealt with this question in my blog yet, but I definitely will by the end (hopefully soon).

Why does the word “feminism” make me imagine the bra burnings myth of the 60’s?

Answer:  Because I am insanely idiotic.  I am; however, excited that I did retain enough history to remember the burnings were not actually real.  I mainly think of the bra burnings myth because my US history teacher showed our class a documentary that had the old black and white film of women throwing their “bras” into a burning trash can.  It was very vivid and done with purpose.  Also I recall all the women said a few words as they threw in their “bras.”  I know one was about “I will not stay in the kitchen” and I think one had to do with women being encouraged to stay home.  Yeah, also I watched a re-enactment of the women’s rights movement called “Iron Jawed Maidens” with Hilary Swank.  So that was my extent of my knowledge on the start of the “feminist” movement.

Can feminists be sexy? 

Answer:  YES!  But only if it is “sexy” in your personal opinion and you are not objectifying yourself for people. See posts on “Style Bubble” and “Perfume.”

Are there still feminist issues today?

Answer:  !!!  I was surprised at how many feminist issues exist today.  I’m not sure if I thought this because I am ridiculously optimistic or because I’m rather uninformed.  But clearly (see the “Obscene,” “Mathematician” and “Creeper” posts) based on many of the current topics I covered in prior post there are many issues today in regards to feminism.

So that was my reflection for the day week.  Stay tuned for better, lengthier, more satisfying posts!

Undefined Feminist.

If you haven’t seen the above SNL sketch (The Creep) go to youtube and check it out!

Creeper:

1)      An offensively unimaginative word devised by tacky, brain-dead college students to describe people they deem sinister, indecorous, uncouth, or otherwise unpleasant.

2)      Older men who hang out in college clubs and bars and stare at girls half of their age (occasionally make obscene gestures and comments). – Via Urban Dictionary

Both my roommate and I have experienced creepers at the local Starbucks.  I declined being bought a drink multiple times before finally giving in.  He was nice, but old and seemed determined to take up my time for finishing my ethics homework.  I told him my age (I know stupid) and clearly he was excited about the prospect of hitting up an 18-year-old.  Luckily, I was saved by a friend and now choose to study at the library instead.  My roommate’s experience was even worse. An older man told her his life story (during her attempts to study) and mentioned he was a martial artist. It happened to be late at night and she had to wait until she found other Chapman students to escape.

But creepers don’t just frequent hangouts around Chapman.  Last week, after lab some girls and I went to Einstein’s (an on-campus eatery). When my friend asked for a chocolate coffee cake, the male worker told her that she “didn’t want that.”  Obviously, she was confused, insisted that was what she wanted and would he please give it to her.  He continued to insist she didn’t want it because he “wanted it.” WORST PICK-UP LINE EVER!  Anyway, my friend started to say she would “take her business elsewhere” and was offended (rightly so), but the female cashier told her not to worry because the male worker liked her and would pay for it. !!!  Creepy! What young freshman in college wants to be hit on by an older guy working at her school?  All the campus eating places are all employed by Sodexo, so it’s not as if the workers are probably 18-22 years old.  Most importantly now my friend doesn’t want to eat there because she had a bad experience, similarly me and roommate now avoid Starbucks like the plague.

I can’t imagine being a man and thinking a girl would enjoy that experience.  Okay being hit on can be a real ego booster on a bad day, but it has to be done well.  By well, I mean only hitting on people who are interested/attracted, don’t pull a “Hitch” move and buy a drink for a girl who clearly doesn’t want attention.
Personally, I don’t want free things, I’d rather have cute smiles and glances any day (usually I leave a good tip too). Guys, women don’t yammer on to our girlfriends about the fact that “He bought me a drink!!!”  Who cares?  Why is it girls can expect to be hit on behind the register and when they’re paying customers?  And why is it men are taught that a way to a women’s heart is though their wallet? It doesn’t seem fair (or right).

Let’s be frank, the girls to boys ratio at this university stinks and is probably a contributing factor.  For the 1,931 male undergrads there are 2,749 female undergrads or 58.74% female undergrads (stat from CollegeProwler.com).  And most of the girls here are generally considered “hot” by their peers.  The problem is with that high of a ratio men expect women to be available for them.  This is evidenced in and around Chapman.  Where college prowler notes, “Guys love Chapman—60 percent of the study body is women, making it very easy for guys to find a girlfriend or a random hookup.” However, “Girls, on the other hand, have a hard time finding a serious boyfriend because guys don’t want to settle down with just one girl when there are so many available.”

I’m not sure if this is a college issue or Chapman issue.  I predict it’s more of a college issue with women’s enrollment in universities being higher than that of men’s.  It’s a stereotype, but usually psychologically correct that women want an emotional connection and men want a physical one. College student Jayne Dallas argues that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool because, “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent” (NYT).  Or in Chapman’s case about 5-10% of the 40% of men are homosexual, 10% have girlfriends and the 60% of women are competing for 20% of men available (in sexual orientation and relationship status).

This is really depressing to me because my parents met here at Chapman their freshman year.  Somehow, I doubt the collection of “Chapman Sweethearts” is going to be exponentially increasing with such an uneven gender ratio.

What do you think of women’s plight of a lack of men?  Do you think gender stereotyping is not due to society, but the power placement genders find themselves in? How does this relate to our text “The Handmaid’s Tale?”

Undefined Feminist

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=creeper&page=3

http://collegeprowler.com/chapman-university/guys–and–girls/#ixzz1bNzPELzH

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=all

Okay so the term “followers” or “subscribers” is pretty much common knowledge now, right?

Wait . . . you say you don’t know the terms?

Oh . . . you say you do know, but suspect the author is going to ignore you in favor of ranting about the term for the sake of the post? If you answered yes to the question, you’re absolutely correct!

So if you don’t know the term read on. If you do know the term and read the second question you still have to read on too because I tricked you! (Reference to Halloween in a little under 3 weeks).

Anyway . . .

Followers/subscribers — (noun) Refers to people reading, looking, commenting, challenging blog post on a frequent basis.  By “subscribing” or following a feed or blog “followers” will get emails about the newest posts, updates or even “tweets” that the author of the blog posts.

I’ve never really been a “follower.”  I prefer to read blog posts and not comment or not receive 50 million emails about every blog I check daily.  BUT . . . I would appreciate more traffic . . . so instead of posting “Guys I need 400 subscribers by tomorrow! Thanks I love you! <3″  I’d like to offer a better solution to creating devoted readers, like you.

*I’ve tried posting short quick reads . . . but I’m struggling. 400 words is just not enough to thoroughly allow me to analyze.

*I’ve tried posting academically written posts . . . which I love, but are very time-consuming.  Thanks so much to all the response I’ve been getting on my “Mathematician” Definition Post (I hope you checked out 21centurysally’s original post which I responded to)!  I definitely got the most response with an academic tone. Switching back to that would hopefully encourage you readers to comment again.

*I’m TRYING to work on my informal, women voice . . . it’s SO HARD! I’m always worried that my tone/word choice is not reading well, but it’s quick to write (because I’m writing how I speak) and fairly easy to edit. If nothing else it’s been good practice.

The point is I’ve had my few shares of traffic attempts and I now have a new idea to drive traffic (other bloggers feel free to borrow my strategy!).

If you comment on my blog, I will …

1) Follow you (given your blog setting are not set to private).

2) Respond to your comment on my blog (given it warrants a response).

3) Comment on one of your blog posts (a fairly recent one).

Hopefully, this will inspire the followers who prefer to read and not participate (I’m really guilty of this) TO COMMENT! So thanks again for reading this lame, non-informative, fluffy post.  Feel free to comment about how much you HATED my rhetorical decisions so I have perform my 3 obligations to you.

Undefined Feminist

PS: My 5 followers (I’m pretty sure one of them is me HA!) are the best people in the world!  Thanks so much for caring to read my blog.

“Style Bubble”

-A “British born Chinese” woman whose passion for fashion has sparked attention by the world and blogosphere.  The blog name, “Style Bubble”, is actually a reference to the author’s childhood nickname “Susie Bubble,” because, as the story goes, her primary class
decided that Susie was “in a world of her own, in a bubble.” —-By Undefined Feminist

So out of the 100 professional blogs by women list (thanks Professor Campbell!), I recognized a grand total of one, “Style Bubble” . . . fail.

BUT . . . I didn’t just recognize it, I ruthlessly stalk this site, waiting and praying for updates.  Of the many (trust me there’s A LOT) fashion blogs that I follow I’ve always been the most inspired by the women/girls who don’t give a shit about what people think of their dress.  This concept of “dressing for one’s self,” to me, is a branch of feminism.  Why can’t women wear outrageous outfits without being considered “weird?”

Granted, Susie’s style is a combination of high fashion, bizarre takes on styling and a unique outlook on fashion.  Her style may not work for everyone, but if nothing else it’s refeshing to see a girl who prefers to have her patented “Susie Bubble high bun/topknot” than perfect curls.  Susie isn’t just throwing random outfits together.  She can (and often does) wax on about style,  her inspiration, or particular design detail of her outfit.  She covers, in extreme depth, new and old designers utilizing her philosophical knowledge of the inspiration, design process and interpretation of the clothing/styling.

“The idea of obscure arthouse referencing might sound poncy but upon seeing this powerful bit of footage, it’s easy to see why Nicoll would have fallen for it as inspiration fodder.  That it translated into the sort of separates that Nicoll has made his bread and butter from is a bonus – lurex sweaters, chiffon tees, liquid lame tunics, chiffon pyjama trousers, matching blouses and slip dresses are just some of the layering fodder that’s on offer with the addition of the more challenging PVC overlays and hooped skirts that I suspect are more for making a point about 60s feminine futurism rather than an actual real working wardrobe proposition.  That said I’m personally not one to say no to a hooped skirt re-imagined for the 21st century.  Especially when they encase the legs like romantic mosquito bed nets.  The secret is out… cheesy veils on beds are my weakness…” (“LOVE LFW: Shrouded in Sweetness” Post)

Her writing style is educated, articulate, but never fails to remind the reader that fashion is not simple clothes, its artistic creation at its finest.  Clothes and fashion is an art and you (as the clothing wearer) are an artist.  But Susie makes sure to mix vintage and Goodwill finds with Marc Jacobs and her Burberry trench which prevents readers from feeling out-of-place as she rants about high-end design houses.

The world needs more Susie Bubbles, feminists and women who dress for themselves even if sometimes the styling is questionable.  So wear what you want ladies; take a page from Susie.  Try socks and heels, mixing prints, out of this world color blocking, monotone outfits or (my personal favorite) sack dresses.  You can be sexy, conservative, high fashion or classy and a feminist loving your style.

As I come to terms with the word “feminism” I’m beginning to better definition of my version of feminism (and whether I actually qualify for the club).  Feminism is about women being able to make decisions for themselves and rejecting society’s notions of what is appropriate, right or wrong.  How women dress definitely falls into this category.  Women are constantly pushed to dress sexy, but not “slutty” by society, men, and even other women! Currently wearing a see thru shirt with a bandau and when I mentioned I was cold was I was rudely informed it was because I “didn’t bother to wear much.” !!! And by a girl friend! But maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe everyone does dress for themselves.  I know I don’t always dress for myself.  Though there is no standard definition for “self style,” I would consider outfit you like and would still like even someone commented it was ugly.  There is also a middle ground in that I believe that you can be dressed “provocatively” and still be dressing for yourself if your version of beauty is “sexy.”

How do you sell a “scent” on television, given that commercials are only auditory and sight based? Well most perfume ads tend to follow the frequently used idea that “sex sells.” But ads don’t just sell sex (though some border on pornographic) they continue to follow the notion that women are only good for being “sexy” (and in the video above, stripping). Let’s be frank, the idea is to portray a “real woman” and apparently “real women” prefer to be naked and have beautiful perfect bodies. Also “J’ADORE” by Dior is not a scent I enjoy, but is supposed to be sensual, elegant and smooth from the commercial, but I mainly just saw a women removing all articles of clothing.

When the model is walking with power and grace at the start of the commercial she is wearing a form-fitting dress, hat, heels and jewelry.  By the end she is left in her undergarments (I can only hope) and her heels. Like this woman wasn’t strong, confident and incredibly sexy in clothing? So the clothing just had to come off?  I’m not sure if this is just my opinion, but she removes her accessories rather carelessly. Her actions almost reminded me of the “aggressive woman” ideal where a girl rips off her clothing so she can have sex. While I agree that it’s fine if a woman wants to have sex, it saddens me that women who buy the perfume, the ad, the idea, may think “this” is what men want, and what women should be like.

This is one of the tamer “sexy” perfume advertisements aimed at women; Kate Moss does a lovely job at making me uncomfortable about the scent I’ve chosen. I’d never even seen this commercial until now and this was the scent I wore to work, tennis and school! I certainly never emulated or looked the way Kate Moss was portrayed in YSL Parisienne. Though the “Light Blue” commercials by Dolce and Gabbana do draw attention to the fact that perfume ads are scripted (yelling cut and snapping the marker is guaranteed to remind the audience). The campaign photos and American commercial are still of an oiled up half-naked women. The commercial shows a gorgeous girl in a bikini and then the man turns away! He prefers to swim and the woman follows him! Because women can’t just be sexy they also have to be available for when men want them.

Lastly, I’m a HUGE fan of simple, girly scents. Not like the sugary, fruity smells, but the light floral, fresh, clean scents. My current favorite is Miss Dior. Miss Dior is now represented byNatalie Portman, but of course the scenes often involve bedroom eyes, kissing and (my favorite) pulling up the sheets (seen here). The original Miss Dior commercial follows a young girl biking, laughing, eating, shopping, and then has to end with kissing some guy. Because women can’t just be having fun, they spend most of their days focused on men.

What do you think? Fellow ladies (or gentlemen) does it annoy when those pesky perfume ads come on? Do you cringe when a sexy voice murmurs the name of the perfume? Can I just have a perfume that is for fun, not “getting the guy?” Or am I the only one that thinks this? Am I totally off base? I hope not, but write me (even if I’m still trying to figure out how to moderate the comments)!

Undefined Feminist

Some common examples include (but are not limited to) language, violence, racism, harassment, threats or words/imagery of a sexual nature.

Information taken from the professional websites Women’s View on News (here) and the Huffington Post (here)

This Facebook page, “You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway,” (also it’s “you’re” and “she’s” and no, it didn’t make me lol) is sparking a large controversy on what is considered obscenity.  If you feel strongly feel free to report it on Facebook, but notice there is no “gender discrimination” or “encouragement of violent behavior” link (so good luck figuring out what claim it goes under).

Facebook also argues that they remove pages based on, “. . . groups that are hateful, threatening, or obscene . . . We also take down groups that attack an individual or group, or advertise a product or service.”  Seems like rape jokes would fall under all three categories, but Facebook is refusing to back down to petitions that consider rape an obscenity (seen here) and requesting the removal of said page.  Facebook dismissed the argument stating that “just as telling a rude joke won’t get you thrown out of your local pub, it won’t get you thrown off Facebook.”  I’m sure a joke involving sex or crude language is a different matter than a “rape joke.”

Personally, I think it’s not a potential “dirty” joke.  First off, it’s demeaning since “rape jokes” seems to apply exclusively to women. And secondly, it condones violent, sexual (rapist like) behavior and thinking. Lastly, and most importantly it makes light of both a serious issue and an action that has the potential to ruin a person’s life, mental and physical health and relationships.

So that was my rant for the day.  I may not know my definition of feminism or know whether I am in fact a feminist.  But I’m pretty sure we can agree that joking about non-consensual sex is the not good encouragement for society and the prevention of rape.

Undefined Feminist