The problem with the "People of Walmart" site

Walmart has come under plenty of deserved criticism in recent years for its poor working conditions, its inequitable treatment of female employees, and its anti-union stance. But a new web site, People of Walmart, takes the Walmart hate too far by viciously ripping on the people who shop there. Site contributors send in surreptitiously taken photos of Walmart "creatures"--like, for instance, "a 400lb mother of 6 wearing a pink tube top, leopard tights, and hooker heels," according to the About Us section of the site--along with a snarky caption.

Unsurprisingly, most of the targeted individuals on People of Walmart are women of color and full-figured women wearing short skirts. Site contributors call them out with stomach-turning glee. One post features a women leaning over a case of meat in a mini-skirt. "Thanks for the sneak peak of your beef," the caption reads. Another post entitled "Honey Glazed Hams" features a photo of a woman's behind in orange shorts. "I guess the Drano in my eyes was only a temporary solution," reads the caption. "Someone please just come at my eyes with a cheese grater and don’t stop until it breaks." Several posts also ridicule men wearing skirts or heels.

What People of Walmart accomplishes--and this, perhaps, may explain its ever-increasing popularity--is a no-holds-barred denigration of people who fall outside of the conventional image of society: people of color, old people, people who defy gender norms, people with larger bodies, people with smaller bodies, people who wear a lot of clothing or a little clothing or the "wrong" kind of clothing. And let's not forget the broad category of people who shop at Walmart because of its low prices: poor people. Yes, People of Walmart is a place for uncomfortable people to voice their discomfort with the "other." And since so many of us are used to making fun of Walmart in the first place, this little project seems totally innocuous. Well, it's not. -Naomi

Gardasil: "indispensable"

Newsweek's list of what was "Unknown in '99, Indispensable Now" features Gardasil, the HPV vaccine designed to prevent the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. Despite the controversial nature of the vaccine and the uncertainty of how successful it will be at protecting women (and men) long term, Newsweek reminds us that the vaccine is an aid in protecting and empowering women when it comes to sexual behavior.

It's often that I hear people lamenting the dangers of sex that have dramatically increased over a generation, and Gardasil "will give women the opportunity to protect themselves. Whether or not young adults are promiscuous may not change; that’s not the problem. Kids are going to explore. But rather than having another generation that cowers with fear, we’re giving young people the opportunity to take command of their health and to make their own responsible choices." To look at the vaccine in this light is to celebrate the ability of women to choose their own sex lives in an increasingly safe manner. -Sara

Abortion and health care

The health care bill that the House passed on Saturday feels like progress, except when it comes to women's reproductive rights. What's at stake is the ability of the proposed health insurance exchange (in which the government will be able to subsidize private insurance plans) to cover abortions. A spot-on New York Times editorial explains the explicitly restrictive language and says that the current bill would be at best an "infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors."

House representatives Dianna DeGette and Louise Slaughter crafted a letter to Nancy Pelosi currently in circulation for additional signatures, in which they firmly set forth their pro-women, pro-choice stance and write, "The Stupak-Pitts amendment represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law." I applaud their vigorous stance, and the legislators and activists who join them. -Sara

The Lady Finger on the radio

The Lady Finger editors were featured on the Chicago community radio station Vocalo earlier this year. If you missed the live broadcast, you can now hear the interviews on dating and marriage and on food, politics, and media. -Sara & Naomi

Speaking from privilege

As I learn more about privilege and engage with communities of people who also think about the subject, it is sometimes brought to my attention that I use words and phrases that are oppressive to people of one marginalized group or another. Luckily I never picked up the most obvious or commonly sited examples of these, and as an educator have worked to convince my students to stop using “gay” and “retarded” as negative terms. I am guilty, however, of using many other words that refer to specific groups of people in similar ways: lame, crazy, spaz. This topic came up among friends at a recent Feminist Potluck, and I walked away with that disdain so often felt by people thinking from their privileged identities: Why should I have to change my behavior because other people are “overly sensitive?” Do gay men really care if people use “pansy” in a derogatory way if it’s not directed at them? How can I be expected to learn which terms are oppressive to one group or another, when they are used so frequently outside of their original context or intent? Don’t I do enough for social justice causes? I don’t think I can handle this further inconvenience.

I don’t have these thoughts consciously, but when I examine my reluctance to put the work necessary into changing my speech, this is what comes up. I realize now that I’ve thought of these changes as some kind of sacrifice that I’d be making for people with whichever marginalized identity is applicable, as if I’m Such A Good Person for putting in the (really very minor) effort necessary to change my speech patterns.

Then I read this passage in “A History of Women in the West”: “Thinking about [women] stemmed from a common episteme or conceptual matrix defined by men who referred to themselves as ‘us’ and to women as ‘them.’ Listen to Rouseau: ‘Let us begin, then, by examining the similarities and differences between her sex and ours.’” Rouseau clearly did not intend for women to read his work. When we use language that is oppressive or offensive for a group of people to which we do not belong, we are marking out an “us” and a “them.” Perhaps it is not as clear and purposeful as Rousseau’s language in this quote, but it is in effect the same. As feminists, most of us are probably aware of instances in which we have been on the receiving end of this Othering, but we may not spend much time considering how we might be doing the same thing to other groups.

When a feminist blogger makes an ableist comment, even unconsciously, the message is, “I am speaking from a place of privilege and my intended audience is people who share that privilege.” When a media outlet provides coverage of the wealthy classes with no mention of the system that gives them that privilege, they are in effect saying, “Don’t bother to read our work if you don’t share this privilege; we’re not talking to you.” Likewise when someone refers to a transgender person by the wrong pronoun. Now, there is nothing wrong with choosing to address people with your same privilege—it’s okay for a man to write specifically for other men, or a wealthy person for other wealthy people—but one should state that that is the intention. The problem is that when we use privileged language when addressing an audience that includes people with and without that privilege, we are perpetuating the idea that the privileged group is the Universal and the Normal, the actual (if unstated) intended audience.

It can seem overwhelming to have our privilege pointed out regularly, or to realize that we’ve been engaging in this kind of speech thoughtlessly our whole lives. It’s frustrating to make mistakes. It is a privilege to feel this way, to have the option of tossing up our hands and refusing to think about it. It is a privilege to be blissfully ignorant. It is our choice whether to address the problem within ourselves, to be open to criticism, to apologize when necessary, and to learn how to be as inclusive as possible in our speech and actions. -Adrienne

Gender and sexuality in the Muslim world

Today, human rights groups in 11 countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East will stage public demonstrations to oppose sexism and gender violence in Muslim communities. The global event, called One Day, One Struggle, will call attention to honor killings, female genital mutilation and cutting, and discriminatory laws that allow for the stoning of women. Many of the day's demonstrations will also focus on LGBTQ rights (or the lack thereof) in the Muslim world and beyond.

Meem, a Lebanese organization focused on queer and transgender women, has started a Facebook initiative in tandem with One Day, One Struggle called Operation: Sex Change in which supporters are asked to change their sex on their Facebook profiles to stand in solidarity with transgender individuals.

"My friends, there is a lot of awareness we need to raise about transgender issues," reads the Operation: Sex Change announcement. "We need to break the silences and the misconceptions – starting from the ones in our own selves."

"So I ask you to join me by doing the same on your Facebook. If you feel too scared about what people will say, then you can understand – if only for some fleeting seconds – what transgenders have to go through their entire lives. So please, take the bold step and stand up for a community who continue to suffer among us every day." -Naomi

Women of the Wild West

"Waiting and Mad" is what early 20th-century artist Charles M. Russell called the above painting. Curatorial material in the Russell exhibit currently on display at the Denver Art Museum explain that Russell often painted American Indian women, but few caucasian women, who did not fit into his vision of the American West. The odd discrepancy is the definitively Western aesthetic and sexy pose that Russell superimposes on his subjects. (See, for example, Girogione's Renaissance Venus:)

To be waiting along at home and to be angry at the absent male partner who is late to return is not necessarily to behave in a Western manner, but it is indeed to uphold gender norms codified and perpetuated by the pioneering white men of the West.

Russell's work also includes "Indian Maid at the Stockade," featuring a similarly busty woman whose clothes are barely covering her breasts:

Russell's work matured from his vision of the Wild West to be tamed by brave men to a nostalgic vision of the natural world after barbed wire and development had encroached. One continuous theme, though, is sexualized Indian women alongside men who hunt, rope cattle, build settlements, and leave their wives behind to tend house. -Sara