International Women's Day

When I first heard of International Women's Day, I was a kind of annoyed. I mean, women get one day? Out of 365?

But I guess the real point of days like this is to commemorate women who have shaped the world against all odds--in big ways and in small ways. In many countries, Women's Day celebrated like Mother's Day; a day to give thanks to the female family members and teachers in one's life.

So with that in mind, here are some of the woman who have made me who I am. I can't track them all down, and I can't thank them enough, but I can't imagine being the person I am today without them.

Ms. Geier, my fourth grade teacher.
Shifra and Hazel, my Hebrew teachers.
Ms. Cunningham, my eighth grade English teacher.
Ms. Horowitz, my tenth grade science teacher.
Melissa and Ilene.
Jane.
Kris.
Ahuva.
Julia, my writing teacher at camp.
Rebecca, my writing teacher.
My three grandmothers, Mira, Gloria, and Ann.
My mom.

Perhaps fittingly, given that the International Women's Day theme of 2011 includes "Equal access to education," most of the women on this list are teachers. I'm so grateful, not only to be a woman in a country with free and equal education, but to have the opportunity to learn from these amazing people. Who happen to be female. 

Happy Women's Day, everyone! Who are you grateful for?

Fiction Vs. Reality

Every day on my way to school, I'm struck by the contrast between these two subway advertisements.

The first one, unfortunately, I've been seeing everywhere, and it always makes me want to hit something. The text, if you can't make it out, reads "Less lawyer. More appeal." The image speaks for itself: the same slender young woman used to sell anything and everything, with curves, heels, long legs, and a sultry if vacuous expression. The briefcase at her feet is just another accessory--almost an afterthought.

To a teenage girl who'll be applying to college soon, who's considering a career in law, the message is clear: forget about that J.D. How you look in a little black dress will always, always be more important.

This ad is for the USA television drama Fairly Legal.

The second ad features a smiling woman in boxing gloves leaning against the ropes of a ring. This woman is also young, also attractive and feminine, but she looks happier--and more real. The image hasn't been photoshopped. Her face, not her legs, is the focal point. The text beneath her reads, "I am not your average girl; Keisher 'Fire' McLeod, boxer." A contender, not a ring girl.

The ad is for 4 New York, a WNBC news channel.

How can two advertisements, placed literally side by side, present two totally opposite portrayals of women? One woman is a fictional character; the other, a native Brooklynite. One woman is posed and photoshopped; the other, maybe a bit sweaty, but proudly in her element. One promotes an outdated stereotype of what a woman can be--the other tears it down.

There are over 4 million women in New York City. There are single women, married women, divorced women, lesbian moms, Jewish grandmothers, Starbucks baristas, students, teachers, aspiring actresses, women of practically every race, religion, and ethnicity. When I think about it, it's not the sexualized image of the Fairly Legal ad that most provokes me. It's that this image--so false, predictable, and limiting--is promoted over and over as if it's the only way women are. Or the only way they should be. The truth is that women are too diverse to fit into any one box. Advertisers should start pandering to that demographic.

This is a case of media fiction lagging way behind reality.


(You can see Mrs. McLeod-Wells' boxer bio here, by the way. She's pretty awesome.)

The Lurking Sex? Gender Inequality In Cyberspace

Cross-posted on the SPARK blog. (Link soon.)

The average Facebook user: male or female? Not sure?

What about the YouTube troll posting grammatically incorrect homophobic slurs? The preteen playing games on Neopets.com? The author of Harry Potter romance stories on Fanfiction.net? The viewer of a porn site? 

The gender line may blur, bend, or blip briefly out of existence, but it always seems to reappear--and the Internet, however progressive and democratic, is no exception.  

On January 31st, a front-page New York Times article examined the gender disparity among Wikipedia.com contributors. Wikipedia welcomes amateur editors, yet only 13 percent of registered contributors are women. This statistic doesn't reflect overall use of the site, which is split roughly 50-50 between the sexes. So women are reading Wikipedia; they're just not participating. This gender gap manifests itself in two ways: a lack of articles relating to primarily female interests, like friendship bracelets, "Sex and the City," and feminism, and a lack of female contribution to articles of general interest, resulting in a male-skewed view of what is "notable" in history and pop culture. 

SPARK stresses the importance of recognizing women for their voices, not just their bodies. The Internet seems to give women the chance to do just that--create an identity defined by ideas, not sexuality or physical appearance. If women were really interested, wouldn't they have already claimed their 50 percent of the Wiki sphere? 

There are a few possible reasons for the lack of women contributors. Some argue that Wikipedia's editing process is needlessly complicated, time-consuming, and technical. Wiki has its own system for editing articles, similar to HTML code, which may intimidate female users who don't see themselves as tech-savvy. Others blame the group of veteran editors--mostly male--who police certain pages, promoting their point of view. Others believe that men simply have more free time than women to engage in edit wars with anonymous strangers. 

Wikipedia's talk pages, like many Internet forums, are replete with arrogant assertions, blared ignorance, and cutting personal attacks. In theory, anyone can edit, but whether one's changes will stay on the site is a different matter. To contribute successfully, Wikipedia users must assert, defend, and promote their ideas. Do women lack the self-esteem to commit to such a battle? Do they just not care enough? 

Many women are less likely to enter into a contentious or hostile public environment, preferring to use the Internet in ways that they can control, through social media (networks and blogs). Social networking sites like Facebook are female-dominated, though by a much slighter ratio: 1.35:1 female-to-male compared to the 1:7 ratio of Wiki contributors. 

The Wikipedia disparity is important because the website supposedly models democracy. What does it mean when women are consistently lurkers, but not commentators? Consumers, but not creators? 

Wikimedia executive Sue Gardner's goal for Wikipedia--25 percent female contributors by 2015--will not be reached until women can assert themselves in the public space, both online and in "real" life. The Internet is the future, and women should claim their equal share.