Empowerment VS. Exploitation. Where do we draw the line?

By Megan Coleman
Student Projects Assistant
Office of the Dean of Student Life
Enrollment Management and Student Affairs
Portland State University

I am currently taking the senior capstone “Sexual Assault Education Theater,” it’s a really fun class and I would highly recommend it. While in class we were discussing the media’s representation of women, and how that representation drives what society thinks women “should be”. During the presentation the Lingerie Football League, or LFL, was brought up. I had heard of the LFL before and knew that it was a real thing but I had never actually seen any of the games. All I knew was that the LFL portrayed women in minimal padding running around playing football.

We were shown a promo video for the league that was framing the athletes as strong women who where kicking butt, they even mentioned that this was “breaking down barriers”. I’m not saying that these women aren’t strong independently minded people who love what they do. If these experiences are empowering in their minds more power to them, but let’s really think about the motivations here. What barrier is a lingerie football league really breaking down?

There is a certain historical narrative with women not being allowed to play sports, specifically the more violent sports like football. So in that sense, yes having a women’s sports team that is nationally recognized is a great thing (even though there is already an independent women’s football league….). I find it hard to believe, however, that this is the true intention. The promo ads are certainly framing this league as a step forward in women’s rights but the videos of the fans of this sport would suggest otherwise.

My favorite video, linked below, shows a reporter at a tailgate party for the team Chicago Bliss asking the fans about the upcoming game. All the fans are incredibly excited and pumped for the game but when the reporter starts asking about their favorite players, who they think will win or anything about the actual sport they were unable to answer. It soon becomes clear to the reporter that the fans are not there for the game but for the view.

So if the fans themselves aren’t recognizing the sportsmanship happening on the field, what is the point? It was clear by the commentary of the fans that it was about watching women in lingerie not football. A few people in my class compared it to mud/jello wrestling or other such activities. I have a hard time being convinced that this is an attempt to bring credibility to female sports when most of the fans have no idea what is actually going on. The LFL website says its mission statements is, “The Lingerie Football League has become the Ultimate Fan-Driven Live Sports Phenomenon - Blending Action, Impact and Beauty." They even refer to the league as “true fantasy football” not really a compelling argument for a truly progressive idea.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not the portrayal of women scantily clad is a form of empowerment. The “slutwalk,” where women protest the idea that dressing provocatively makes your to blame for any sexual assaults that may occur is just one example of how women use their bodies to make a statement. Many, but not all participating in the slutwalk dress provocatively to protest the idea that the way you dress puts you at fault for other people’s actions.

I think, honestly, it comes down to motivation. The people in the slutwalk are dressing in a dramatized way in order to protest a particular statement about sexual assault survivors. The LFL athletes are dressing in a particular way, from what I can gather, to sell tickets. To me there is a big difference but I think it’s a grey area that will have to be taken one case at a time. I am personally not convinced that there are any barriers being broken down by the LFL or that it is about female sports at all. I think that there is a huge difference between the ladies who play for the Independent Women’s Football League and the LFL. One is about the game and the other seems to be mostly about the exploitation of women.

Video Links:
LFL Fans: http://youtu.be/I9nUddW-aa8
Website Links:
LFL: http://www.lflus.com/
Independent Women’s Football League: http://www.iwflsports.com/
Portland Shockwave, Oregon’s IWFL Team

How to Be/Not Be a "Nice Guy"

by Sarah Jeanne Lombardo
PCC Sylvania

A group of men gathered several times at my school to discuss the need for a Men's Resource Center on campus. Now, I'm all for Men's Resource Centers as places where fellas can gather to discuss and then change the ways society constructs and maintains gender norms--i.e., that men are perfect and stoic and strong and should beat up anyone who says they're not (which usually means calling them womanly or gay), and women are pretty and polite and accommodating and should never say or do anything offensive (like talk about the ways "being accommodating" harms women). I'm all for MRCs as places where dudes can put together programs that help other dudes be nicer to themselves and women, especially where "be nicer" means stop hating women and gays or anything about themselves that could be considered womanly or gay.

From what I hear, some of the discussions have been about how unhealthy these gender roles are. But most of the conversations have been about the ways that men are made to feel bad about being men. The example that keeps coming up is a poster (full disclosure: I co-created this poster) for a school-sponsored play that discussed how women are treated on campus after sexual assault, and how these create an unfriendly atmosphere for women in higher ed. The poster featured a close-up shot of a man with very "angry hands" taking off his belt, presumably to assault someone, either physically or sexually (and yes, I know the latter encompasses the former). Below the image was the quote "1 in 3 college men say they would rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it."*

The discussion regarding this posters often consisted of "this poster says all men want to rape women, and I don't rape women, so this if unfair." Of course, that's not what the poster said, and if anything is unfair, it's the stuff women do on a daily basis to protect themselves from rape, or the things guys get away with because women are afraid they might get attacked if they say something, but I do see how men who don't rape might get itchy when they believe someone is calling them a rapist. Unfortunately, the discussion rarely veered toward "what can we do about it," and when it did, the answer was never "ask men why they might feel rape is something you don't do because it's illegal, not because it's wrong--and then work on ways they can stop."

The answer was either "get women to stop saying these things" or "we should prove to women that we're the nice guys." While the former was just dangerous--if we don't say these things we don't get any closer to stopping these things from happening--the latter was really misguided. The group pondered volunteering at a shelter for raped and/or battered women. When, afterward, one of the participants asked me how I felt about it, I didn't really offer an opinion, but I did wonder aloud if men were even allowed to volunteer at shelters, since women might want to recover from the trauma of their male partners' violence in the absence of males. His response was a kinda sorta chest-thumpy "but I'm not her husband...she needs to see that I'm a nice guy!"

This was frustrating for multiple reasons--the most important being it was just plain selfish. Dudes should work with survivors of domestic and sexual violence because they want to help women become empowered after a thoroughly horrifying experience, not because they want to look good. Moreover, if the space they want to work in doesn't really work well if they're there, and they refuse to accept a policy that addresses this, they are failing to recognize the importance and validity of a safe space. In failing this, they reaffirm the idea they should be welcome into any space on their terms. Barging into a space to say they're not the barging-in type isn't really nice. The first thing guys have to do to prove they're nice is listen to women when they say they're doing it wrong.

Now, I understand that this argument is hard to swallow--what's the difference between not allowing men into a shelter and not allowing women into the military, or blacks onto a golf course? What's the point of sheltering women from men, when they're just going to be encountering men in their daily lives once they get out of the shelter? Et cetera. I don't agree with these lines of thinking, but I know it takes a lot of education to get away from them, so I don't push it. I did, however, impress this:

Women don't just want nice guys to prove they're nice guys, they want nice guys to help other less-than-nice guys be nice guys. There are a lot of spaces that work with survivors of domestic and sexual violence, but not nearly enough places that work with perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence. Men need to create these spaces, and better yet, create spaces where they can discuss with other non-perpetrators ways they might develop perpetrator-y tendencies, before they actually get to perpetrating. Something like.....a Men's Resource Center, informed by feminism, and for the betterment of men and women and everyone outside and in-between! HUZZAH!


*Some places the 1-in-3 statistic has been published:


Fisher, B., and J. Sloan III (1995). Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Koss M.P., Dinero, T.E., Seibel, C.A. Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim's experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1988:12:1-24.

Malamuth N.M. Rape proclivity among males. J Soc Issues. 1981;37:138-157.

Eyes Wide Open: A Woman's Work

by Talia Jae

I began my training today with the new Women's Center advocates. Great first day. Everyone is really enthusiastic, excited and eager to contribute to the conversations. That is wonderful in my opinion. We discussed a lot of housekeeping stuff and what the women's center does, as well as what feminism means.

Bell Hooks says, "Feminism is a movement to end sexism." We took a look at what that means. Issues such as body image, sex, parenting, work, wages, marriage, childcare, etc... are on the list of women's issues that we see a lot of oppression through sexism. This list spawned a lot of discussion around what these particular issues might mean and how they are used as a form of oppression to women.

Three of the words stuck out to me in particular. Work, Parenting and Childcare. I am a mother of two small children and a wife. I am also a student and an employee/coordinator. I embody many roles in my life. The combination of parent and employee is a tough one though, for women. When you are partnered and both parents work outside of the home it makes childcare difficult. Childcare is insanely expensive anyway and arranging it to fit your particular needs is another obstacle. This requires a lot of juggling between the parents.

I know from many women's experiences, including my own, that when the mother has a job as well it is often seen as expendable. What I mean is this; when my child is sick and needs to come home from school it is completely expected that I will be the one to leave work and pick them up. When childcare cannot be arranged I am the one to stay home for the day. If childcare is too expensive then it is assumed that the woman will stay home and care for the children while the man goes to work.

Now by no means is this the rule. There are many households with many unique situations and struggles of their own. I am just touching on society's traditional view of marriage, children and parenting roles. Why is it that the woman is expected to drop her work and run home if need be? If a man were asked to do this more often than not it would probably come as a shock to them. Women's work has always been seen as expendable, less valued, underpaid or not paid at all. After having children this really became apparent to me.

We women are not treated as equals to men. Sure, we have come a long way in the last hundred years but lets not ignore the work that still needs to be done. The more we acknowledge society's oppression the more we can work against it. Lets stop assuming these roles we have been boxed into and start talking about why the box is there.

I, for one, am getting claustrophobic.

Guest Contributor: On Virginity

(originally posted 4/09 at wordpress.com)


by Daphne

What a strange concept virginity is. The idea behind such a status can be mind-boggling. How do we give meaning to virginity individually? There are a multitude of differing notions on which activities one can lose their virginity doing. The dictionary defines virginity as never having experienced intercourse. However, many would interpret it otherwise. Certain sexual acts would be included and others would be excluded. The definition of virginity is socially and contextually constructed, therefore the very conception of virginity is culturally based, not something one can reliably base on fact or certainty.

Eyes Wide Open: Manhandle

(originally posted 4/09 at wordpress.com)


by Talia Jae Potter

–verb (used with object), -dled, -dling.
1. to handle roughly.
2. to move by human strength, without the use of mechanical appliances.
(Dictionary.com)

Pronunciation: \ˈman-ˌhan-dəl\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1851
1 : to handle roughly
2 : to move or manage by human force
(Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Wow. I was just pondering the word manhandle. What does it mean, where does it come from, why do we use it. I have used it. I looked the word up in a few dictionaries and found approximately the same answer in every one. "To handle roughly."

What does this mean? It's a very simple example of ways that society have used a term to consciously, or subconsciously, ingrain the idea of what a man should be. I know it may seem completely ridiculous to look at a word like this and analyze it but I do. This is telling men, yet again, that to be a man you must be rough, strong, dominating, etc... At least this is my perspective of what it is saying in the undertones. The fact that this word has been in the dictionary and used commonly for over 150 years is amazing.

I believe men have so much to live up to in order to fit into society's idea of what a man should be that it is really detrimental to men as much as to women. If a man isn't overtly strong, rough-and-tough, dominating, overt, boastful, then is he not a man? Of course not. But what does that tell men anyway? That in order to be seen as a man in society as well as to women they must fit into this very tight, tiny box.

Sexism is hurting women in so many ways but it is also hurting men just the same. It is a shame.

Guest Contributor: "Bromance"

(originally posted 04/09 at wordpress)


by Alicia Katopodis

"Bromance"
I have recently noticed a new way of thinking about intimate relationships among young men. This new idea of "bromance" has revolutionized what is acceptable for men in our society. Now men can have relationships with men that involve feelings and emotions with out being labeled as homosexual. Now there is even a television show that airs on MTV that highlights this recent development. It is a competitive reality show that follows nine men as they compete for the friendship of one man, Brody Jenner. This concept has never been made into a public spectacle and so well received. This show and this concept has changed the opinions about male relationships. Yet it has also blurred the lines between male intimacy and male homosexuality.

Snapshot: 4GrrlzEyezOnlies (Or, Wow- That's Really Sexist Branding on that Candy Bar!)

(originally posted 03/09 at wordpress)


by mae stephenson

Excuse the sarcastic title this week, folks; the item in this week's image deserves a title no more mature than the item itself.



I saw this for the first time in my life last weekend. It's a UK-based chocolate bar from our pals at Nestle (just google 'Nestle Boycott' for more reasons women shouldn't adore them). Yes, that is an extra-feminine woman symbol with the circle-slash "no" in place of an 'O' and reads "it's not for girls!" on the side. And yes, it's really just chocolate (I checked the ingredients just in case it was one of those specially formulated vitamin bars posing as candy). This bar can be found at your local SE 33rd and Belmont Zupan's where I snapped this picture. Not with the girly chocolate at the front of the store; in a more discrete location-- across from the baking supplies.

Hey... its 2009... Playboy... really???

(originally posted 01/09 at wordpress)

by Blythe Pavlik Why is Playboy okay?I don’t get it. I don’t get why Playboy is still considered the “gentlemen’s” magazine or why it is exempt, in some groups, from critical critique. I don’t get it. I grew up in a house with Playboy magazines.

And Then There’s Maude

(originally posted 08/08 at wordpress)


by Kelsey Mason

Maude is a television show staring Beatrice Arthur that aired on CBS from September 12, 1972 to April 22, 1978. The show was a spin off of All in the Family.

Beatrice Arthur plays Maude, an outspoken liberal, who considers herself a feminist. Maude is in her early fifties, but has the spunk of a twenty-two year old. She is a modern day New Yorker, who refuses to back down when something appears unjust. Maude spends her days advocating for civil rights, such as gender and racial equality. This strong, assertive woman stands on behalf of women’s liberation and abortion rights.

Reflections on the Faculty Favorite Lecture Series

(originally posted 06/08 at wordpress)


by Emily Hutsell

This term I took the IST 499 engagement credit, which required my attendance at 6 PSU sponsored events. Because of the interesting subject matter, I chose to attend many of the Faculty Favorite Lecture Series, for which a faculty member is chosen to present their current work. The topics of the lectures covered sustainability, White Studies, interrupting oppression and why America isn’t ready for a female president. Each of these events was extremely thought provoking, and whether or not there was an opportunity for discussion, it has been part of my discussion with others.

Interrupting Oppression // Discussion Post

(originally posted 05/08 at wordpress)



by mae stephenson

A few weeks ago, Sally Eck gave an inspiring lecture on interrupting oppression as part of the Faculty Favorite Lecture Series that happens every Thursday. An interruption is something you do when you notice someone making an oppressive statement or action. It could be any action you take from stating something like, "That's sexist" and walking away to sitting down and having an in-depth conversation with someone about the effects of oppression in our society. The lecture made me think of my father, whom I've always had a tumultuous relationship with, but of course, love dearly. Despite our frequent disagreements, he tries really hard to maintain a relationship with me and truly listen when I call him out on an action I disagree with (even if he doesn't always understand my point of view).

I'm not the best "interrupter," especially when it comes to my father. I often get upset and show frustration instead of calmly explaining how his statement is oppressive. But recently, when I interrupted him after making a racist joke, he actually apologized and said that he hadn't said a particular racist phrase since I had called him out on it several months ago. He explained that it's hard to "unlearn" all the racist jokes he's heard since he was child. It was definitely inspiring. But it was nothing compared to the way he made me feel this past weekend.

Herstory: bell hooks

(originally posted 05/08 at wordpress)



by mae stephenson

bell hooks Born Gloria Jean Watkins on September 25, 1952 in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. bell hooks uses lowercase letters for her name to shift focus from the author to the ideas within her writing.

bell hooks is arguably one of the most important authors of our time. A self-described "Black woman intellectual, revolutionary activist," "cultural critic," and "advocate of feminism," hooks has authored over thirty books and dozens of articles focusing on the interconnectedness of race, class, and gender oppression and domination. She coined the phrase "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" to describe these intersections. She also writes with an important and somewhat unique emphasis on self-love. In her dedication to ending class oppression she uses a writing style accessible for people outside of Academia and makes appearances on television and radio programs. Some of her titles include Ain’t I a Woman?: Black Women and Feminism, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics, Where We Stand: Class Matters, Teaching to Transgress: Education As the Practice of Freedom, and The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. In addition, she's written a handful of children's books including Be Boy Buzz and Happy to be Nappy after having a difficult time finding children's books that didn't enforce patriarchal notions of boyhood and books that taught young black girls to be self-loving, respectively.