I kissed a girl and I liked it

Queer Wom*n, getting stepped on twice

Sexism, it tends to come up a lot, in conversations with me anyway. There are two significant elements of Sexism.
1. Attitudes or behaviour based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2. Discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex.
This definition, taken from dictionary.com explains the two elements of sexism; the enforcement of gender roles and discrimination of a person based on gender. The definition lacks an explanation about WHO is discriminated against. It is of course: Wom*n.

There are people who claim Wom*n's liberation is here, that's it's been achieved. While yes feminist activists have achieved significant legislative reform and have changed society's views, wom*n are still subject to discrimination and the enforcement of gender roles.

Men are grossly over represented in positions of power around the world. The table shows how much less wom*n earn on average in various industries compared to men, despite obtaining the right to equal pay in 1972 after fighting tooth and nail for decades. Table from: Sydney Morning Herald 18th May 2007. (Click here to see Jessica Irvine's article: "Wages up but women still earn less than men" http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/wages-up-but-women-still-earn-less-than-men/2007/05/17/1178995324045.html)

The institution of the family; a socially constructed socialisation unit, plays a primary role in the oppression of both women and queers. The "nuclear family" what is seen to be the "norm" or to be in some way "natural" is in fact a construct of capitalist society. (This is not an attack on all those who are from or who have a nuclear family) Marriage began as something for for the ruling class. Wealthy men wanted their money to be kept in the family, to do this they had to ensure the wom*n bearing their children were in fact bearing THEIR children. Marriage is a legally binding contract. We know that marriage laws used to refer to a wife as her husbands "shackle" he was her property and could do as he liked. Divorce laws were skewed to benefit a man. It was soon realised however that marriage and family life could be used also for socialisation into gender roles and to control workers. A Man who had to support his wife and children would not be as likely to quite, strike or protest. The myth that children need both a mother and a father is related to the fact that society has set gender roles, so children must learn within their family what Men should do and what Wom*n should do, hence the argument againts same sex marriage and adoption. These family units allow for the extraction of a woman's unpaid labour.

Wom*n were once house keepers and Men; the "bread winners" Now Wom*n are expected to "do it all." Married Wom*n (wom*n in de-facto couples are also effected) and mothers are expected not only to work for a wage but also to cook, clean and look after the kids. The lack of egalitarianism in couples regarding housework, especially in married couples is depicted in the studs conducted by the University of Queensland:

"Women in de-facto relationships reported spending 19 hours a week on housework, while married women reported spending 25 hours a week. Both married and cohabiting men reported spending nine hours per week on housework...Women with careers still take on the lion's share of domestic chores, often juggling more tasks in less time, Dr Baxter said."

(click here for a more comprehensive detailing of the study http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=1991)

A significant element of wom*n's liberation is sexual liberation, owning our own sexuality. Unfortunately this has also made it easier for wom*n's bodies to be exploited. will someone please explain to me what scantly clad women have to do with a phone company? (Dodo). I was infuriated when I saw a billboard depicting a blond woman (yes we all know where this is going), with large breasts (clearly visible of course) with a perplexed expression on her face. Regrettably my anger at the time prevents me from remembering the precise slogan or the company. Perhaps some one else has seen them? The slogan however was something along the line of "make insurance simple" Perpetrating the stereotype that wom*n are unintelligent. Beer adds! now couldn't we all rant about beer adds. Beer advertisements are primarily aimed at men as we all know it's a "man's drink." Beer adds present us with one of most obvious image of the exploitation of wom*n's bodies and their sexuality. It is particularly. dubious as there is an implied message that drinking leads to sex. Most young wom*n i know have at some stage in their lives been taken advantage of by men while drunk. Though it'd be hard to prove it court, and most women don't pursue it legally, not least of the reason being the stigma that would be attached to them, this is in fact RAPE!

On that note, I'm sure we're all sick an tiered of the double standards of our society regarding sexual intercourse. A man who "sleeps around" is a stud, while a wom*n is a slut, a whore, etc etc. The double standards extend beyond this, in that a woman who does not "put out" is a frigid. And yet another wom*n who perhaps dresses "promiscuously" is a tease if she doesn't "follow through"

A wom*n should be able to wear what ever she wants, without judgment and stigma. "Where ever we go, however we dress; yes means yeas and no mean NO" We can not however confuse sexual liberation and sexual exploitation.

On top of the stereotypes, the enforced gender roles and the discrimination of sexism, queer women must also put up with queerphobia and homophobia. Lesbians and bisexuals are on one hand revered as some "great sexual fantasy" or are disregarded and mocked as "dyke's." While sexuality is not something you choose to make a political stance. Queer women do in their sexuality and/or gender identity refuse the gender stereotypes which are so prominent. This can be listed as a reason for the discrimination directed aimed at queer women. (Queer men also refuse these gender roles but queer men are oppressed for being queer, not for being male)

Interestingly enough, while on the computer today my family had "so you think you can dance" on in the background. Katy Perry came on and preformed her song "I kissed a girl and i liked it" On first hearing the title I was impressed, it sounded like a headline for a lesbian/feminist article. I was less impressed when i discovered the unintentional irony of the songs title when I listened to the words. (Click here to see the lyrics:http://www.lyriczz.com/lyriczz.php?songid=59497)

"I hope my boyfriend don't mind it"

Why should a wom*n's boy friend control anything about her, least of all her sexuality.

"No, I don't even know your name It doesn't matter Your my experimental game"

While I am the last person to suggest that we should all settle down into monogamous, stable relationships this particular line shows a total lack of respect for the wom*n she kissed. It's a typical misogynistic line, many of us would be up in arms hearing a man talk like this, as they so often do. We must remember that wom*n can and do project sexism onto other wom*m.

"It's not what, good girls do Not how they should behave My head gets so confused Hard to obey"

On one hand this line could almost be seen as challenging the gender stereotypes that i have been discussing and could in fact appear to be an example of sexual liberation. In the context of the song however it is clear that Katy is meant to be playing up to that "sexy bad girl" image which is of course aimed at men.

This song is to my mind a neat example of the double stomp experienced by queer women, it is both homophobic and sexist.

This song presents us with one of those situation in which me must decipher between sexual liberation and sexual exploitation.