Happy Eid al-Adha from Best Buy

For those of you who aren't up on your Muslim holidays, Eid al-Adha is the Feast of Sacrifice. It celebrates the virtures of making sacrifices for your god, and is based on a story about a man named Abraham (in his various spellings). Allah/Jehovah/God told Abraham to kill his son as proof of his devotion. But once it was quite certain Abraham really would do such a thing, Allah/Jehovah/God told Abraham to abort the mission. It was enough that he was willing. As such, the holiday also celebrates the idea that Allah/Jehovah/God would never really ask you to kill your kid just to show your devotion.

Muslims celebrate on this day by sacrificing an animal. One third they keep, one third goes to family and friends, and one third to feed the poor.

Best Buy's well-wishes to Muslims on this holiday has sparked some contoversy. That Fox News link provides a nice, unbiased review of the controversy.

No, really, it does.

The message board at BestBuy.com has been abuzz with what looks like mostly negative reactions from offended Christians. Best Buy has responded by saying that they are going to start including greetings for many holidays. I guess they decided to start with this one.

Here's my thoughts: Christians may not celebrate this holiday, but they share the story. And they share the values it represents, do they not? Perhaps what we should be doing is focus on what these religions share, which is quite a lot.

Hell, at least the Muslim holiday includes giving food to the poor right there in the holiday description. Sure, PETA would throw a fit over the animal being killed to begin with, but at least they give most of the meat away.

Barbie, Eat a Sandwich

There's an interesting comment thread at Feministing regarding this video. Is it awesome or offensive? Does it subvert the Cult of Thinness or just shift the policing of women's bodies from a derogation of one size extreme to the other?

And now I will grace you with my thoughts:

The fights over whether it's worse to be the thin person constantly harrassed to "eat a sandwich," or the fat person constantly harrassed to "put the sandwich down," or the average woman who constantly worries that sandwich will make her fat, is divisive and beside the point.

This isn't about who is more oppressed.

(And while we're at it, size isn't only about sandwiches. But I digress...)

Let's note what this battle over who gets more harrassed because of their size really shows: damn near every single woman, regardless of size, has a complaint about how she's been made to feel bad because of her size. You know why? Because the huge pressure average-and-above-sized women feel to be thin, AND the vitriol directed at women who ARE thin, are both situation-specific manifestations of a greater problem, in which women's bodies are constantly being policed and objectified. Weight is but one part of that. Right now the ideal is thinness. We could change that, but still not get rid of the underlying problem.

So how about instead of swinging the pendulum toward thin-hate, we just stop policing women's bodies altogether? Criticism of the thinness ideal is good. Holding up an image of a woman to abuse as a symbol of all that's wrong with this ideal is bad.

And the "it's directed at a doll" excuse doesn't fly with me. Since when does the target have to be a real, live person for the act to be sexist, racist, homophobic, sizist, etc.? You're not killing real hookers in Grand Theft Auto, either.

What matters is what Barbie represents. Yes, she represents an extreme form of the thinness ideal, which is at least partially rooted in a societal tendency to police women's bodies. You know what else she represents? Take another look at that song. Barbie is characterized as dumb and vapid. Why?

I mean, she's just a doll, after all. She is what we project onto her. Why do the girls imply she's a vapid idiot? Hell, she's a doctor who has been to the moon!

I say we take guidance from Jezebel on this and drop "eat a sandwich" and all its iterations out of our general lexicon.

And while we're at it, let's drop "have a sense of humor," too. Because the only time I've ever heard that phrased used is in response to someone sticking up for themselves or someone else.

It's not about how many sandwiches you do or don't eat. It's about having a positive body image. More than that, it's about body image taking a backseat altogether when it comes to a girl's self-esteem.

And I think that's what those girls were trying to say.

Undergraduates and Feminism

This week in Social Problems we covered inequalities of sex and gender. To conclude the week, I talked a bit about feminism and showed different examples of feminist sites and arguments. Then I asked my students to reflect on feminism. Do they call themselves feminists? Is feminism still necessary? Why or why not?

Nobody claimed the feminist label, but 69% (18/26) argued that feminism is still important and useful. Of those who said it was important but did not claim the label for themselves, about half indicated it's because they personally do not fight for gender equality. They believe there should be equality, they believe there currently isn't, and they believe this is wrong. However, for them, feminism involves taking active polital stance to rectify the situation. As such, labeling oneself 'feminist' is not the same sort of self-categorization as labeling oneself 'liberal.'

The other half either didn't claim the label because they don't like to label themselves, or for no specified reason.

Of the eight that do not still feel feminism is useful:

All of them agree that gender inequality still exists. Three dislike feminism because it is too White and middle class. They feel gender inequality is worth fighting against, but they feel like calling themselves feminists means they would be favoring the fight for one at the expense of others.

The other five feel that gender inequality is natural and - yes - even good. There are biological differences, and men make naturally better leaders. It's God's intention, or they just prefer for men to rule (these are women making such arguments).

There was another interesting tidbit regarding the belief about feminist battles. Most students favored (you know, IF they were to be a feminist) a more essentialist approach to gender equality. They feel that many of the differences we see between men and women are natural and we don't really need to bother with that - socialization amplifies differences that are already there. Inequality mainly results from our society's tendency to favor male attributes and contributions. In other words, feminism should focus less on getting rid of gender stereotypes and more on valuing the feminine. Though many of those same students are quick to argue that we shouldn't punish people when their gender performance does deviate from the norm.

So, they seem to interpret gender differences as being aggregate traits rather than categorical ones. They are true on average, but not in total. In other words, maybe the categories are socially constructed, and socialization further shifts these gender differences into even more of a binary, but the basis is still biological to some extent.

I think there might be a research project in this...