Heteronormativity and Relationship Ed

Heard a story on NPR's Morning Edition today about abuse in young adult romantic relationships. I certainly appreciate the sentiments behind the healthy dating programs discussed in the story, but they seem to rest upon flawed, monolithic assumptions about teen desire and sexuality. The report applies this reasoning to the ways that teens interact in dating relationships:

"Teens are being exposed to these things at a very crucial moment in their development, when they are becoming interested in the opposite sex and when they're trying to establish a sexual identity. Up until adolescence, Wolfe (professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Toronto) points out, they've been relating to people of the same sex" (parenthesis added).

I'll definitely agree that socialization is gendered in that it is encouraged that boys play with boys and girls play with girls, but to carry that gender socialization over into questions about romantic relationships and sexual desire reaks of heteronormativity, and I won't agree that that is a good thing. If the folks running these programs assume their students are destined for heterosexual dating relationships, they further marginalize lesbian and gay teens and continue to mask the fact that abuse (emotional, physical, sexual, and otherwise) can and does occur in a variety of intimate relationships. When the goal is to provide students with a toolbox for engaging in complex relationships that may introduce them to the complications of sex, commitment, compromise, and power dynamics, it is unfortunate that these programs neglect a substantial portion of their audiences and, in effect, deny the importance of inclusive health education.

the fbomb

The definitions of feminist activism are many, and while the jury may be out on where blogging falls along that definitional spectrum, I'm inclined to declare the fbomb a sophisticated example of active, young feminism. It's not often that I come across 'by girls, for girls' projects that earnestly work toward feminist objectives and candidly express feminist perspectives (see the sometimes mess that is gurl.com). Certainly, the fbomb stands to gain a lot from more diverse feminist viewpoints and experiences, especially in terms of race, sexualities, and relationships among so-called 'first' and 'third' world women, but Julie's doing a pretty bang-up job thus far. I look forward to seeing how the project develops as Julie grows/changes/learns as a feminist.

The Barbie 'Issue'

Are we supposed to be impressed with Mattel's new line of African American Barbies? Are we to applaud Mattel for being so progressive, finally producing, in 2009, its iconic Barbie in several shades of brown?* I'm surprised at the amount of folks who actually are happy with the So in Style line of Barbies, or at least, the amount of folks who aren't as critical as I think this moment in Barbie history warrants. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly behind efforts to diversify the world of dolls, but the way in which we've been introduced to the So in Style line makes me a little wary of this effort. See, for example, a supplement to the July 2009 issue of Vogue Italia - a tribute to 50-year-old Barbie featuring dolls of color in some interesting (ah, I love how vague that descriptor is) contexts. There are the S&M dolls, the bathing beauties, the lingerie-clad models, and the supplement itself is a nod to last year's 'all black' issue of Vogue Italia - an issue that is often read as a statement on the whitewashed fashion industry. It certainly says something that there must be a purposeful effort to produce an all black issue of Vogue and that the follow up this year is questionable in its depictions of black dolls. At the very least, I think we can safely say that that something these texts tell us is that most youth culture in the West remains white youth culture.

*The very first black Barbie appeared in 1980, but the first black doll in the Barbie family was Christie, who became friends with Barbie in 1968. Anyway, the difference between the earlier incarnations and the So in Style line is that the latter are touted as representing more 'authentic' or 'real' black girls and teens.

Back to it/the party!

I've been gone from this blog for some time, as I was holding down another blog during an education abroad program in Rome and then enjoying a bit of a respite from the blogosphere (not to mention other responsibilities). I hope to be back on semi-regular basis in the coming months - at least as often as I stumble across girl culture moments here and there.

For my first post back, I mostly just want to share a fantastic internet item that my friend Allison turned me on to. It's not necessarily new news, but I think it's important news and worth reminding everyone about if they've encountered it previously but since moved on. If you haven't seen Amy Poehler's series "Smart Girls at the Party" on ON Networks (.com), and you have a vested interest in girls' lives/girlhood studies/girl culture, you must grab a cup of tea, get comfy in your computer chair, and blow through every episode as soon as possible. Poehler and her co-creators use this series as a testament to the agency of girls and youth culture, and it's freakin' funny. The show is devoted to "extraordinary individuals who are changing the world by being themselves" - it just so happens that these individuals are girls. Unfortunately, it appears that no new episodes have been taped since "Smart Girls" premiered last fall, but I sincerely hope that another season is in the near future.

Indulge me here, because I have to plug my favorite episode: "The Feminist - Ruby" . . .

Stakes is High*

There have been cases of suspected gas poisoning at three girls' schools in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, Afghani girls attending school were sprayed with acid, resulting in scarring and discoloration on their faces, as well as damage to their eyesight.

Globally, it's not always easy for girls to go to school (not only in 'developing' nations but also those that get classified as 'developed'), and that is why I'll link back here to the United Nations Girls Education Initiative (UNGEI). I posted about this initiative a few months ago, and while I still want to press a bit more on the concept of education and what it is to engage in intervention, I have a vested interest as an educator and long-time student in emphasizing the seriousness of gender differences and disparities in diverse kinds of educational processes. What is at stake for girls who desire education?

*Unfortunately, I can't claim the title - credit to De La Soul.

The Lost Boys of Disney

How does one address issues of girlhood and girl culture without considering everyone's favorite youth empire: Disney? I must confront the Disney fates now, as a particularly salient point about the conglomerate's television network and marketing appeared in the New York Times online a couple days ago. This article sets up yet another "crisis of boyhood" scenario, however, it is Disney Channel that is most put out by this crisis. That is, with programs like Hannah Montana driving the sales of related merchandise, girls are literally investing in the brand, but boys are not (although, interestingly enough, males make up 40% of the audience tuning into Disney Channel).

The most frustrating component of the article is the way in which Disney Channel relies on scientific experts to decode the complex psychological terrain that is boys' brains. Girls are easy and transparent, so to speak, and so they become devoted to a program and its related products much quicker than savvy and capable boys with multiple interests:

"The guys are trickier to pin down for a host of reasons. They hop more quickly than their female counterparts from sporting activities to television to video games during leisure time. They can also be harder to understand: the cliché that girls are more willing to chitchat about their feelings is often true."

Boiling viewers and consumers down to demographics communicates media reliance on the false, yet persistent, dualism that girls are superficial and boys are complex. Clearly, gendered expectations contribute to rubrics that girls and boys must live up to, lest they perform "abnormally." What's more transparent than their female viewers, I'm inclined to argue, are Disney's marketing strategies.

Girls and Reproductive Rights

Very recently, a judge ruled that over the counter emergency contraception should be made available to customers 17 and older (the age requirement was previously 18). Not a month later, a teenager in Fairfax, VA received a two week suspension and a recommendation for expulsion when she was seen taking her daily birth control pill during lunchtime. These are not unrelated stories in the contemporary context of reproductive rights discourses, and specific to this blog, as they are related to questions of girls' rights. Both instances raise concerns about girls' bodies and to what extent they are capable of making decisions regarding their individual bodies - especially as those decisions affect the capacity for reproduction (which is certainly highly classed and racialized - although the Fairfax teen's identity was not revealed, is it not fair to ask the question, "Would a black or Latina teenager have been condemned similarly for essentially preventing a possible pregnancy?"). Now, it seems that all instances of students popping pills, be they aspirin or Ecstasy tabs, are grounds for punishment, but the significant element in the case of a female student taking birth control pills is that this medication is related to reproduction and (hetero)sexualized, warranted or not. Interestingly, the Washington Post reports that the suspended teen spent her time away from school poring over the Student Responsibilities and Rights handbook that indicated her fate. Her close reading indicated the following:

"If she had been caught high on LSD, heroin or another illegal drug, she found, she would have been suspended for five days. Taking her prescribed birth-control pill on campus drew the same punishment as bringing a gun to school would have."

Indeed, is birth control - in the broadest sense - akin to gun control? Is emergency contraception in the hands of a 17 year old somehow reminiscent of Columbine? I have a bit more confidence in girls than these strange discursive relationships indicate we should/might. What are reproductive rights to girls (in the U.S., at least), and who knows "best" in terms of upholding those rights?