Let me begin by discussing how the full-body Muslim veil is oppressive. In my opinion, although I am certainly not an expert in the Islam religion, these veils represent and reinforce a patriarchal appropriation of women’s bodies. They also repress female sexuality. Worn traditionally in Afghanistan and Iran, the burqa and the niqab “protect” women from the male gaze. Yet ironically, these veils were initially imposed to “protect” men from what is often considered unregulated female sexuality. Indeed, Muslim men are encouraged to control their sexual urges from female “temptresses.” It is thus the woman (and her body) who is blamed and punished—via “protection”—for male sexual desire.

But does the oppressive nature of the full-body veil mean that it should be banned? I very much agree with McPeake, who states that by banning the burqa, France also hinders religious freedom and women’s rights.  In his article, he wonders: “I thought having freedom meant having a choice: a choice to wear specific clothing, a choice to be a member of a specific religion, a choice to live however you choose.” McPeake also points out that these women are being discriminated against because they’re women. And thus I wonder: is the ban perhaps another way to target women, in particular, those women who abide to customs that Western society cannot fathom? Meeting a woman wearing a full-body veil may be socially challenging because it limits one’s ability to have a mutually engaged conversation with her, but does this mean that it should be banned? Women should have the right to choose if they want to wear the full-body veil, regardless of what may be its limitations. Although not all Muslims wear veils, it certainly isn’t fair to punish the ones that do.

Yet the issue becomes even more complex. Sheetal Pathak, a regular blogger, states that “the Muslim community itself is also divided on the issue of the niqab. Some suggest that a ban is necessary and others insist that wearing a niqab is a personal choice. I would personally like to hear more Muslim voices on this controversy.” I agree with Pathak. Instead of further alienating and marginalizing the Muslim community, Quebec and France should encourage and listen to the opinions of Muslim women. By doing this, they will also demonstrate that women, regardless of religion, can speak up and do have voices.

But is this really what they believe and want? Quebec and France demand that the burqa and the niqab be removed from their province but seem to show little, if any, interest in what Muslim women think about this decision. Their lack of interest in the Muslim point of view as well as French or Quebecois-Muslim experiences demonstrates (and promotes) a view of the Muslim minority as Other—as people not valuable enough to be heard. Accordingly, another blogger states: “it’s little wonder the Muslim population feels targeted.”

Nonetheless, many Muslim women are speaking up about the decision to ban the burqa and the niqab. Naïma Amed, for example, a woman who was asked by her CEGEP St-Laurent French teacher to remove her niqab, went so far as to file a human rights complaint against the province of Quebec.

According to Gavin Hewitt, a BBC Paris news reporter, “there is [also] a concern that some [Muslims] are pushing separate identities and that could lead to parallel rather than integrated communities.” This may be true; however, I think it is important to acknowledge that Quebec and France are also “pushing” away Muslim identities. France may not want a multicultural society, but Canada claims it does. In my opinion, a multicultural society is a hybrid society; it encourages, through a process of transculturation, a mutual exchange of and between cultures.

Yet integrated communities are only one issue among many involved in the banning of the burqa and the niqab. Another is the double bind that Muslim women are caught in. As Pathak notes, whether a Muslim woman wears the full-body veil or not, she will receive some kind of punishment and feel some kind of loss, either from her adopted country or her home country. This relates to the overriding question that I find myself asking: how can we, in countries with Muslim minorities, encourage equality without restricting religious freedom, but more specifically, women’s rights?

In this article, I am going to assume, due to the popularity of these movies among millions of young women across North America, that most people who are exposed to the media are familiar with them. Furthermore, I also want to say that I have not read the books myself. For those of you who are avid fans, yes, I may miss some things.

From blogs that I’ve read and discussions that I’ve had, it seems as though many people believe that these movies are merely stories and “nothing more or less,” as even Stephanie Meyer, the author of the books, has noted. If this is true, then they’re just, as Meyer also points out, “fantas[ies] with vampires and werewolves,” right? Wrong. These vampire fantasies can all be understood as a metaphor for patriarchal Western society. This is because, perhaps without meaning to, they reflect the patriarchal narratives that Western society upholds and condones.

In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir notes that woman is, in Western society, considered Other to man, who is the “Subject,” the “Absolute,” the “One,” and who has, for centuries, represented human beings in general. She also claims that men and women engage in a dichotomous master/slave relationship, where women are dependent on their “masters”—their male sovereigns. Although this argument was made in 1949, it remains true today.

And it is precisely this master/slave relationship that is at the heart of Twilight and New Moon. From the beginning of New Moon, Edward leers in the background, watching Bella. “It’s my job to protect you,” he says. But Bella complies, too. She says: “if this is about my soul—take it, I don’t want it without you.” Even after Edward breaks up with Bella, she relies heavily on Edward’s guidance via his ghost (or whatever it is). And, when Edward is not around, Jacob is right there to “save” her from her humanity. The traumatic state that her break-up leaves her in—one where she lies crumpled on the forest floor and staring out her bedroom window as the months go by—also reveals her inability to function without Edward—a man. Bella will so willingly give up her life, or her “soul,” to be with him—for what is a woman without a man? Furthermore, she is unable to deal with change: she yearns to be promised by the men in her life that she will never be abandoned and always be protected. Although this kind of change is difficult for all of us, what kind of man, in any world, vampire or real, can promise such a thing?

How truly unfortunate is it that Bella’s identity, like many other identities I’m sure, even at times my own, is dependent on a man’s? When Edward and Jacob are no where in sight, her low self-esteem takes centre stage in the movie, revealing that, without a man, women lack individuality and identity. Even minor parts of the movie have patriarchal undertones: it is the men who drive Bella’s truck while Bella sits obediently beside them, and it is Jacob, claiming that he has more “know-how,” who fixes motorcycles while Bella watches.

These movies teach teenage girls that in order to find true love, to feel happy, to be anything at all, they must be protected and “saved” by men. With this in mind, I can certainly understand why indulging in the Twilight saga is so satisfying. It allows women to temporarily feel how Bella feels: saved by men who “love” her. But is what Bella experiences really love? It seems to me that an unrealistic model of “true”-love is being projected here, and it is one that positions a lack of self-differentiation at its core.

Although women have achieved more equality, in, for example, the workplace, today there are other complex issues that reveal just how unequal our society continues to be. Beauvoir upholds that in order for women to be truly considered equal to the “Subject,” they need to actively change their status as “slaves.” “If woman,” she states, “seems to be the inessential which never becomes the essential, it is because she herself fails to bring about this change.” Being the autonomous individuals that women are, I know that breaking this master/slave or essential/inessential pattern is possible. But, in the mean time, I am going to side, as many of these autonomous women probably do, with team Bella.

The show went behind the scenes of The Arizona Cougar Convention, where about five older women tried to meet and hook-up with young, “hot” men—otherwise known as “cubs.” Four of these women were present on the show, and each one claimed that seducing men, and being seduced by men, was a way for them to claim their independence. Tyra, too, seemed to suggest that this “hunting” was empowering for women. I can certainly understand this. After decades of being “hunted” by men for male sexual pleasure only and being denied the right to express their sexualities, women are fed up—they want sex, too!

However, this kind independence seemed problematic to me for numerous reasons. Yes, women are now fighting back; they want the independence and autonomy that men have traditionally had in patriarchal Western society. And thus, women take on man’s role of “hunter” in order to get this. Three questions come to mind here: do women choose to take on what is traditionally a man’s role, or are they forced to because they have limited space to negotiate their sexualities? And, are these so-called cougars really gaining independence and autonomy? I also wondered, in trying to seduce men, do women also exploit and objectify them? If this is the case, then here, patriarchal attitudes are reversed—they are upheld by women and enacted upon (younger) men.

The patriarchal ideology I refer to is based on what feminist film theorists, specifically Laura Mulvey, have termed the male gaze. The competition that occurs between these middle-aged women, a competition that is driven by the “cubs” they “hunt”, perfectly demonstrates how women of all ages compete against one another for male attention, approval, and desire. Their own value as women and as human beings is still determined by the degree to which young men desire them; at the same time, these young men are also fetishized (think of the erotic allure of male abdominals), objectified, and exploited. The male gaze is referred to as such rather than female because it has traditionally been the man who has “looked” at the female for visual or scopophilic pleasure. Although this kind of thinking assumes that the gaze of women has little value, these middle-aged women seem to have internalized a “male gaze.” Not only are they competing for the male gaze, but they are also developing a female gaze in order to find a male “cub” to take home with them.

However, in order for these women to succeed in attaining the male gaze, they must meet a certain beauty ideal. Ironically, although cougars are usually middle-aged women, this ideal is a youthful one. Indeed, it was the youngest looking cougar who won The Arizona Cougar Convention.  The other cougars were outraged. Both the desire for youth and the male gaze separate these women from each other, and encourages them to compete against one another for a crown that represents what is constructed as youthful, beautiful, and independent.

My first reaction to these women was one of frustration. I thought, how can they discriminate against other women and men—even themselves? I also wondered how they could dismiss other women in order to succeed in their sexual endeavors that often objectify, exploit, and fetishize. But my questions began to develop further after I heard the personal opinion of a professor whom I greatly admire. I actually began to feel frustrated with my own frustration. I, too, am a woman, and I wondered why I could not feel more compassion for these women who are trying to negotiate their sexualities in a world that values youth only? Certainly—I do. And so, I began to realize that what I really want to express in this article is not hostility toward these women, or any kind of woman for that matter, but to encourage women to challenge the patriarchal ideology that often determines their ways of thinking, living, being. This is the same ideology that is still employed not only by women, but also by the men who castigate middle-aged women as MILFs and cougars.

In order to challenge this patriarchal ideology, women must dismantle and understand the binary oppositions that it embodies. The importance of understanding these binaries is precisely the reason why feminists are needed. As the male gaze continues to circulate, and as women are forced to work within existing patriarchal formulas to gain independence and autonomy, so will the discrimination that is imbedded in dominant Western ideology. Because we are now on the verge of a Fourth Wave of feminism—one based on global political activism—it’s time to dismantle the myth that feminists hate men and become concerned with, as Canice Leung, writer for the Metro Vancouver newspaper, so rightly points out, the “eternal need to understand who we are as individuals and as a society.”

As I have stated in previous articles, the Canadian government’s current neoliberal thinking posits that Canada has achieved equality and thus feminism is no longer needed. The general population seems to have also embraced this thinking. However, race and gender inequality persists. One particular inequality that currently exists is that of violence against women. Over the past thirty years, many organizations have formed to help women who have experienced violence. Although this form of activism began occurring during the Second Wave of feminism, it can also be considered a part of the fluid and flexible stage that feminism has now entered. This stage is what many feminists refer to as a third—even a fourth—wave of feminism. Categorizing feminism in such a way can often be limiting; however, in order to speak more generally about women’s plights, it is almost impossible not to categorize feminism at all. As Barbara A. Crow and Lise Gotell state in their book Open Boundaries: A Canadian Women’s Studies Reader, anti-violence activism today is complex. However, my goal in this article is neither to address these complexities in detail, nor is it to do discuss solely the violence and other inequalities that exist today. Rather, it is to address and inform Bishop’s students about a current activism that is helping Anglophone women in Lennoxville and across la région de l’Estrie.

The Lennoxville & District Women’s Centre, located at 300-257 Queen Street near Pep’s Restaurant, provides health, violence and sexual assault counseling and intervention. In other words, those involved in the Centre help many local and, for the most part, Anglophone women manage the extreme violence, poverty, or other crises, that they face. The Centre also acts as a resource centre for women by offering information and referrals. However, the Centre is not limited to these things. Because they are the only Anglophone non-profit organization out of the 101 women’s shelters and centers in Quebec, they cover a range of issues, from violence and poverty, to women who have difficulty raising and taking care of their children, to those who deal with anxiety, depression, and other health problems. Often, those who work at the Centre encounter women with problems that they cannot handle because the Centre is not a frontline organization; it provides no rooming or housing. If this happens, they take the issue to the local bilingual and frontline women’s shelter, L’escale de L’Estrie, in Sherbrooke.

Although the Centre itself has been running since 1981, Boutique Encore, one if the Centre’s many projects, has opened only recently. Located at 178 Queen Street, Boutique Encore sells gently used clothing and invests all of its profits into the Women’s Centre. Whatever they do not sell, the Centre donates to a variety of local organizations. So, if students have any used items, such as clothing, bed and bath products, furniture, etc., please bring them to the Centre. Hopefully very soon there will be a station on campus where students can easily drop off these items. I will keep those interested informed on where this station will be.

In addition to the Boutique, the Centre also organizes many other fun and creative activities and support groups. For further information about these activities, feel free to pick up their monthly newsletter, which can be found at either the Centre itself or Boutique Encore. To become a volunteer, which the Centre greatly encourages and appreciates, application forms can be filled out at these two locations.

Although I want to create awareness about the Centre for those people who are interested in becoming involved in it or who feel that they are in need of support from it, I also want to emphasize what seems to me like a lack of awareness about the Lennoxville community as well as the female empowerment that the Centre encourages. Many Bishop’s students, myself included, do not seem to realize the amount of poverty, among other issues, that exist within this community. After speaking with Terry Moore, the Executive Director of the Centre, I feel almost ashamed to have, in previous years here at Bishop’s, dismissed the issues that surround me. Terry also talked briefly with me about one particular goal that the Centre aims to achieve. In providing moral support, the Centre hopes to help women realize and achieve their own potential as individuals. This goal ties in nicely with a crucial point that Jane Doe makes in her article “The Ultimate Rape Victim. ”Doe states that raped women are often constructed as “victims” who are unable to assert agency and participate in social and political change. In encouraging self-determinism amongst women, especially those who have experienced violence, the Women’s Centre acknowledges that women, whatever their economical situation, cultural or ethnic background, and experiences, are active individuals in society, an agency that is usually denied them because of gendered and racialized inequalities.

Many women participate in disciplinary practices in order to meet ideal standards of appearance, gesture, health, and performance. I was somewhat shocked, but certainly not surprised, to hear that some of these practices include control of facial expressions, careful constraint of movements, scent, ways of eating, and control of bodily functions, as Susan Wendell notes in her article “The Flight from the Rejected Body.” Wendell also describes what she refers to as socially enforced “disciplines of normality.” These often internalized disciplines contribute to the cultural norm, and are not necessarily the ideal, although the two are interrelated.

Both women and men strive to meet cultural norms, or come as close to them as possible, because they are constantly bombarded and driven by the cultural ideal.  Those who do not meet standards of normality are often faced with both external and internal shame as well as self-hatred.

These cultural norms and ideals that exist within our society create a disjunction between women and their bodies. I have often wondered if my own body is real at all anymore. I, like many women, have not only internalized dominant beauty ideals but have also attempted to construct my appearance, among other things, according to this ideal. Furthermore, I have always thought that in doing this I am actually taking control over my own body. Yet, as Wendell states, it is this myth of control that actually encourages women to meet body ideals. Wendell also states that the female beauty ideal requires women to objectify their own bodies, along with the bodies of other women. However, she claims that “objectifying one’s own body is more complex; one must, in a sense, split one’s consciousness from it.” This includes “treating it primarily as an instrument for accomplishing one’s goals, regarding it as a physical object to be viewed, used and manipulated and treating it as a material possession to be maintained, exploited and traded.”

In my own opinion, taking care of our bodies means more than just exercising and eating healthily, it means acknowledging our very real bodies, rather than objectifying and exploiting them. It also means valuing and bonding with our natural bodies, not experiencing our bodies through cultural expectations only. However, this brings to mind another very important point: what about those people who do not identify with their biological bodies, i.e. those who are transgendered? Moreover, what about men’s bodies, and those men and women who are within different cultures?

The gap between women and their bodies is widened further by a current plastic surgery trend, one that we can observe through the media. Because plastic surgery reconstructs the female body, a woman’s real body is rendered irrelevant. Plastic surgery, according to Wendell, has begun to raise the standards of normality. More and more women are dismissing their very real bodies in order to pursue the cultural ideal and correct physical “abnormalities.” Darling-Wolf states that plastic surgeons redefine the female body “as an object for technological reconstruction.” Furthermore, they offer their services as “a solution to those unfortunate characteristics that pull women away from the young, white, middle class ideal.” They also “evaluate proportions through the measurement of Caucasian faces.”

Consider, for example, the recent plastic surgery of 23-year-old reality TV star Heidi Montag. Heidi recently had ten surgeries in one session, but still claims that beauty comes from within (to see Heidi make this claim, watch her interview with People magazine). In using Heidi as an example, some may believe that I, like the media, may be objectifying her. Although Heidi may actually want to be objectified, probably because she has internalized dominant beauty ideals, this is not my intention. I do not want to exploit her efforts to become this ideal. I merely want to use her as an example in order to create awareness about a struggle that so many women (and men) face. As I am now on the topic of celebrities, I would like to note that one Hollywood diva whom I appreciate is Lady Gaga. Her outrageous outfits suggest that she is aware of the socially constructed nature of her identity. However, the issue of women’s rejected bodies is not merely a bad romance; it is a very real reality.

After reading her article concerning the book Half the Sky by journalists Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, I decided it was time to learn more about the experiences that women face in other countries. So, I recently picked up the book and began reading it for myself. It tells stories about women who are trafficked, drugged, beaten, killed, and forced into prostitution in Africa, Asia, and India. As the book’s subtitle, “Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide,” states, it also aims to fight this oppression by helping particular organizations like American Assistance for Cambodia.  I deeply admire that the book aims to bring these issues closer to home; it creates awareness about the turmoil that many of these women face. It also makes these issues important in a society that often dismisses both the impoverished children in Africa and the violence, oppression, and discrimination that occurs to women in the East.

However, as I was reading it, I began to question the book as well as the many organizations that try to help these women. Despite its strengths, Half the Sky seems to re-establish many stereotypes. It depicts the West as good, innocent, and moral, and the East as “Other.” It does not outline or even acknowledge the role that Westerners often play in increasing prostitution and violence towards minorities, both abroad and in the United States, where the authors are from. Although the issues addressed do take place in the East, where some cultural groups seem to consider their women as burdens and as inferior, Westerners are certainly not innocent. Yet, is it not these “good and innocent” Westerners who are supposed to save the poor and malnourished inferior “Others” from their fate by sponsoring children and families?

Although I agree with and encourage female empowerment, it sometimes seems as though the very empowerment that many of these organizations want to achieve is one related to Western civilization and its idea of progress. Despite the book’s profound hope to change the situation for the millions of suffering women worldwide, an optimistic view that I can certainly appreciate, there always seems to be an underlying notion that these countries need to “progress” as Western society apparently has. Despite my efforts to find ways to “help” these battered and suffering women across the world, I do not have any answers to this confusing and complex issue. All I have are questions: when it comes to female empowerment, is there a right or wrong way to achieve it? How do Westerners proceed in terms of helping women from other countries? What should our role and responsibilities be?

After both some careful thought and internet research, I have come to the conclusion that no, blackface in any situation is not okay. Not only does this particular incident of blackface show cultural insensitivity, but it also objectifies women of colour. For those people who embody the Neo-Liberal belief that North America has achieved equality, think again. This issue of Vogue aims to portray a new trend in high fashion, a trend that is apparently best represented using dark skin. The photographs of Lara indicate that Vogue is using exotic stereotypes to sell and promote “ethnic” fashion trends. The image of a black woman (not even a real black woman!) is used as means of selling and promoting. Thus women of colour are understood as objects and commodities and, in this particular incident of blackface, as the exotic and beautiful “Other.”

Furthermore, blackface also views people of colour as a form of mockery and entertainment. This issue of French Vogue uses the image of dark skin to entertain its presumably trendy and white middle class female readers. However, the media also uses blackface in other ways as a form of entertainment. Recently in an Australian talent show, a group of white men attempted to imitate the Jackson 5. Four men painted themselves black while one painted himself white. The audience cheered and hoorayed but Harry Connick Jr., one of the judges, was outraged. And Harry’s outrage was certainly called for; this group thought it would be funny to make a joke out of black men. By mocking black people, the media is further alienating them from Western society. The media is also portraying black people as buffoons and uncivilized savages for the purpose of entertaining us “civilized” and white middle class folk. During the colonization process, Western society attempted to “civilize” black people. Colonization may not occur today, but clearly its strategies are still embedded in our culture. Blackface is another colonial attempt to dehumanize black people. It is evident that by using black people as commodities as well as a form of entertainment, they remain outside of Western “humanity” as “Other.” However, today it seems that the “Other” cannot even be “helped” by civilization. By being made into jokes, people of colour are now beginning to exist outside the binary of civilized versus uncivilized because they are only seen in an arena of mockery.

For many of you, the question of why Vogue France did not just use a black model may arise. This issue of the magazine featured models like Kate Moss, Claudia Schiffer, and Yasmin Le Bon in order to celebrate supermodels.

However, no black supermodels made the magazine’s cut. And there is the answer to that question: it is not the black woman herself that Vogue was interested in but rather, it was the image of her as an exotic “Other” that they were concerned with. Using a black model would have meant accepting that black women are just as capable of modeling as white women. I would also argue that women are capable of much more than modeling because modeling suggests that women are merely commodities and objects to be consumed. But I will save that issue for another article…

However, blackface can also been seen in a positive light. In Cycle Thirteen of America’s Next Top Model, Tyra Banks used blackface as a way to value notions of hybridity. By painting the six finalists according to two different races other than their own, she challenged the stigma that many people of mixed races are subject to. They are often considered impure and “half-breeds” in Western society. But Tyra seems to be valuing these dual identities. However, this is not the case with French Vogue. This magazine may have also used blackface as a way to cause controversy in order to sell and promote their magazine. However, there has been talk on the internet that France does not have the same cultural sensitivity that many (but certainly not all) North Americans have. This could be because France and many other countries may not have experienced civil rights movements and national discourses on race in the same way that North America has. If this is the case, then we are definitely not nearly as close to an equal society as many people think we are.

By now, most of you have probably come across Freud’s theory of penis envy. In case you haven’t, Freud stresses the realization in female psychosexual development of a lack a penis.

For years, feminists worldwide have debated this so-called theory. Luce Irigaray is one of these feminists. In her incredibly explicit and moving article “The Sex Which Is Not One,” Irigaray states that this theory is one of many theories (and not just Freud’s) that defines female sexuality within masculine parameters. Think about it: do most of us not assume that women lack something that men have? Certainly Freud did. But do men not lack a vagina? Why is it that women are characterized as “lacking”?

Irigaray continues with the idea that since female sexuality is understood within a patriarchal ideology, it needs to be rearticulated using terms that are not recognized by the patriarchy. These terms can manifest in what she considers the prelinguistic (before language). In other words, the female body needs to be rewritten, understood and mapped out without using patriarchal language. Writings of the female body must express that female sexuality is not used only for the purpose of male desire, but rather, to experience “multiple” female pleasures. Think about it: how many movies are there today that encourage a sexuality where males dominate and females are submissive? Irigaray refers to these imposed female desires as a form of masochism. Last year, when I learned about this article, that word jumped out at me. Sure, I was slightly surprised, but I was more compelled; it’s true, isn’t it?

I was recently reminded of the 1999 movie Cruel Intentions. I remember when this movie came out; I was eleven and aroused with curiosity. A man scheming with a woman to steal another woman’s virginity? This realm of sexuality seemed to exist outside of my own realm of grade five portables and an annoying little brother. Little did I know that I, too, would learn sexuality in terms of male desire. In the opening scene of the Cruel Intentions trailer, Ryan Phillippe’s character Sebastian snaps photographs of Selma Blair’s naïve and dimwitted character Cecile while telling her to undress because it will make her “sexier.” Here we encounter the heart of Irigaray’s essay. Female sexuality is ignored and male sexuality is endorsed. Sebastian wants her clothes off because she is sexier to him in that state. In the next scene, before throwing Cecile violently off the bed that they have presumably just had sex together in, Sebastian says that he is sick of “insipid Manhattan debutants.” This scene presents the classic binary relationship between men and women as aggressive and passive respectively. I say classic because this relationship has existed in society for centuries. According to Naomi Wolf, it began in the fourteenth century. But the myth of the female heroine is still perpetuated today. However, this heroine, as Wolf states, is a contradiction because heroism is about individuality and the female heroine is characterized as “beauty-without-intelligence.”

This brings me to the plot of the movie. Sebastian has “had it” with all the women in New York City and is bored. In a bet with his step-sister, he plans to seduce the virgin Reese Witherspoon. Witherspoon’s character Annette partly embodies Wolf’s notion of the female heroine: although she is smart, she is beautiful because she is innocent. Cecile embodies the other part of the stereotype: she is portrayed as stupid, presumably because she is not “sexy” enough for Sebastian (but what is sexy is the innocent Annette). Today the stereotype of the female heroine seems to have changed slightly from Wolf’s notion, but the passive/aggressive binary still exists in this movie: male aggressor wants to seduce a passive female. Thus, as an eleven year old girl watching this movie, am I not understanding female sexuality only in terms of a patriarchal binary?

In her article, Irigaray takes an essentialist stance. Although essentialism is limited and is considered a Second Wave crime to many Third Wavers, I am still a believer. However, I am also aware that a woman’s “female essence” can vary from culture to culture. Female and male roles, too, can vary from culture to culture. But essentialism is crucial in identifying, specifically in Western society, the language of the patriarchy. After mentioning this theory, I also want to be conscious of my materialist point of view. Sexuality is not just an issue pertaining to the body, but it is also socially constructed, as my understanding of Cruel Intentions suggests.

As many women read these magazines, they often objectify other women according to this image of beauty. In her book The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf states that women are often stigmatized, especially by other women, as either too “pretty” or too “ugly.” If a woman is too pretty then she is often considered a rival or a threat to other women, and if too ugly, then “one risks tarring oneself with the same brush by identifying oneself with her agenda.” Why are we so critical of ourselves? And more importantly, why are we so critical of each other?

Furthermore, men also objectify women. In order to receive this male gaze, many women may try to embody the socially constructed image of beauty. In her book, Wolf quotes John Berger: “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only the relations of men to women but also of women to themselves.” It is also important to again point out that the relationship between women and other women is also often determined by this “looking” and objectifying. With this arises another question: why is the male gaze so crucial to several women’s self-esteem?

In magazines, a skinny body is one aspect of a woman’s figure that is associated with beauty. It is this size 0 to 4 figure that Glamour Magazine is trying to shift away from. An article in November’s issue called “These Bodies are Beautiful at Every Size” contains several photographs of naked female models with curves, rounded shoulders, and belly rolls. The article suggests that these models are not actually plus-sized because their bodies are healthy and realistic. It also aims to convey to readers that these women, too, are beautiful. Although I very much respect Glamour’s decision to use “plus-size” models, the magazine is still a commodity whose main goal is to sell itself as well as other products. It also, as the magazine’s title itself suggests, continues to define beauty according to its own marketing strategy. Is it not up to women to decide what makes them be and feel beautiful? Femininity, along with size, age, and race is another image associated with female beauty in magazines (and other forms of media). But what about women who do not identify with what the media considers “feminine”?  As Wolf’s book implies, the notion of beauty driven by magazines is a myth.

As I have said, many women want to embody the image of beauty that is perpetuated by magazines in order to achieve the male gaze. Think of Cosmopolitan magazine. The cover page of October’s issue is smothered with titles like these: “Bad Girl Sex: These 12 Moves Will Show Him Your Really Naughty Side” and “What 81% of Men Expect on the First Date.” Not only do these articles encourage one particular image of beauty, but they also promote the notion that women should “beautify” themselves for men, not for themselves. Another article in October’s issue, “Fun Little Tricks Guys Love,” goes through at least ten things that women can do to attract a man as well as about five things that will repel him (so watch out ladies, don’t floss your teeth while driving). Cosmopolitan also issues a piece every month called “Sexy vs. Skanky.” This article tells women what is sexy and “good” and what is skanky and “bad.” Why does a magazine decide what is “sexy” and “skanky”?

Before concluding, I want to point out that what I have discussed may not apply to all women. Coming from a Western white and middle class perspective, it does apply to me. I also want to state that it may not necessarily be a bad thing to enjoy the male gaze. However, I want women, including myself, to ponder why so much of our self-esteem (if it does) comes from this gaze. We continue to live in a male dominated world. As Wolf points out, culture itself is male. And as the media continues to perpetuate the beauty myth, the male dominated world is also encouraged. Although women’s magazines unite women by connecting and relating to them, they, as many other magazines do, base their connections on stereotypical “female” women. By encouraging beauty for the purpose of male pleasure, magazines actually isolate women from each other. This separation is, in my opinion, just as bad as the beauty myth itself.

A mistake that many people make is to group women into one category. The image of the woman associated with this category is usually one of a white middle class. However, there is more than one type of woman: there are women of different races, classes, and sexualities. I think that it is important to address the “complexities of women’s everyday experiences”, as Candis Steenbergen puts it in her article, “Feminism and Young Women: Alive and Well and Still Kicking”. One complexity that I will bring to light in this article is the racism that Canadian First Nations women experience.

Because of colonization that occurred in Canada, Canadian First Nations women were (and still are) oppressed. Jeanette Armstrong, a member of the Penticton Indian Reserve of the Okanagan Nation, speaks up about her experience as an Aboriginal woman. In her article, “Invocation”, Jeanette says that “the colonization process” bears out the present social condition that Aboriginal women face. Racism toward Aboriginal women exists today as socially constructed attitudes and beliefs. For example, as middle class white women and men, we often stereotype Aboriginal peoples as the ‘other’. Himani Bannerji describes the racism that women of colour experience in Canada in her article “Introducing Racism: Notes toward an Anti-Racist Feminism”. She states that “middle-class women are complicit in our domination. Being class members of a middle class created on the terrain of imperialism and capitalism […] they cannot help but be part of our problem, not the solution.” Middle class men and women also participate in racism by merely acting as a consumer in our imperialist and capitalist society.

Rose Alexis, a First Nations woman who is a member of the Sylix Nation, experienced a more direct racism. In an article she wrote for Metro Vancouver called “Racism towards First Nations people persists,” she highlights an experience she had with her daughter as they were driving at night in between the Saskatchewan and Manitoba border. Rose noticed that her gas light was on so decided to pull over at the next gas station. When no one came out to service her car (as they normally would at this particular gas station), she went inside to talk to the attendant. To her horror, she was denied service. After pleading with the female attendant (yes, it was another woman!) for several minutes, Rose was still denied service. She reluctantly decided to risk the drive to find the next gas station.

On a more positive note, today First Nations women are claiming their voice. As Rose did in her article, Jeanette Armstrong also does in hers. She unites Aboriginal women who have experienced the “dehumanizing process” of colonization which she describes as “one of the cruelest on the face of this earth”. She stands up for First Nations women by calling them her sisters whom she sees “through eyes of love and compassion. Never disgust.” She gives a message to all of her sisters out there: “To you survivors, I congratulate you, I encourage you, I support you, and I love you.” Reading those last few words always gives me shivers and I cannot help but be compelled to pass Jeanette’s message on. Not only has Jeanette claimed her voice, but she is giving courage to other women to claim theirs, too.