Friday Femme Fatale: Goldman Sachs, Girl Power & "Gay" Slurs

Due to the holiday madness - I didn't get a chance to write up a Friday Femme Fatale last week. But, now I'm back on schedule and excited to bring you the most interesting fodder from the feminist movement each week.

First, The New York Times reports how corporate entities are working to develop women's business skills around the world. Their efforts aren't totally philanthropic, however, but by engaging women - these efforts aim to help out their bottom line:

Many corporate programs employ microloans, grants or gifts to promote business education. Goldman decided to take a different approach after its research showed that per-capita income in Brazil, China, India, Russia and other emerging markets could rise by as much as 14 percent if women had better management and entrepreneurial skills.

I think that this is a great idea to help women succeed around the world, tap into their natural skill set and perhaps these efforts can translate across other industries as well. As The White House Project's motto goes - "Add Women, Change Everything" - and it seems that The World Bank and now, Goldman Sachs have also figured out a similar secret.

Secondly, Shakesville reports on a story from the BBC that says "How 'gay' became children's insult of choice." Melissa McEwin shares her thoughts on the findings:

I'm pleased to see The Patriarchy^TM so successfully entrenching itself among the next generation. Otherwise, we feminazi bitchez and hysterical queers might genuinely have to start "looking for things to get mad about" in order to maintain the level of sustained outrage which confers upon Democratic presidents who ignore us that elusive and priceless currency with conservatives who want to destroy them. And us.

The Times (London) reports on "The New Feminists: Lipstick and Pageants" saying that "Yes, you can wear lipstick and be a feminist. The F word is being rebranded." The article walks a fine line of trivializing the feminist movement, while trying to challenge it's current identity. I don't agree with telling those who originally framed the movement to "step-aside", but I do think it is healthy to work to make the movement relevant and appealing to the modern woman. 

Phoebe Frangoul, 27, editor of Pamflet, a self-styled "feminist fashion zine", speaks about working to turn the tide on feminist stereotypes and make it more palatable to mainstream audiences:

"I write about the right to wear high heels and still call yourself a feminist. I don't feel they're mutually exclusive, and my friends don't either." She laments the extreme feminism on show at the LSE and other universities, saying it puts people off the cause. "There are so many people out there who wouldn't describe themselves as feminists, but they blatantly are in their actions. They're just scared of the word. If you asked Gwen Stefani if she was a feminist, she would probably say no, although Charlotte Church has said she is. I don't know if we're third-wave or post-feminist, but we definitely want to be all things and don't feel like we can't be."

I can see where Frangoul is coming from - but I can't say I entirely agree with it. As someone who certainly enjoys the fashion of high heels and other "girlie" forms of feminism, I too, would like to see a transformation around the seemingly negative stereotypes that are stuck to feminsts. But for every face lift, there needs to be a corresponding policy agenda. It's hard to say you want equality by simply wearing stilettos, if there is nothing else to stand on.

Lastly, Bonnie Erbe dissects the female and male reactions toward Caroline Kennedy's bid for Senate saying that "No one should feign surprise at a new poll showing women more supportive of Caroline Kennedy's bid to replace Hillary Clinton as New York's junior U.S. senator. But what is interesting about this poll is why men are less likely to support her."