Apr

30

Selling Anxiety . . . and Heteronormativity?

Filed Under media, sexism | 13 Comments

In the Feministing Feminist Weekly Reader, there was an article by Caryl Rivers called Selling Anxiety, about how the media promotes anxiety in women regarding the choice to have a career.

The article does an excellent job of dispelling the media myths that women who have careers are bad mothers and bad wives– if they are able to, in fact, what with their busy careers and all, actually have the chance to get married and/or have children.

The new message is not that women’s can’t achieve (except in math and science.) It’s that if women do achieve, they’ll be miserable– as will their children. It’s astonishing how often this message is repackaged and replayed. These scare stories become “Chain Reaction” stories-jumping from newspaper headline to magazine cover to TV nightly news to 24 hour cable.Often the stories are wrapped in a veneer of “research,” but all too often the science is badly skewed. To an appalling degree, news stories overhype the findings of a small single study that seems to spell bad news for achieving women, or give prime news space to studies which are poorly designed, do not reflect a broad base of research, or misinterpret findings. The result is that readers can come to believe that “science” decrees that men don’t like smart women or that day care ruins children.

You can read the full article to see how the writer disproves these myths. And that’s great, well done, definitely needed.

And yet, I was really disappointed to see that there was no deeper criticism of the assumptions that these scare-tactics are based upon. Even in this article, which aims to go against the mainstream media’s version of the story, a very important question is not asked: why do we care if men like smart women?

What about lesbians? Or the happily single? Or women like myself, for whom if the myths were true and no man would want a thinking, ambitious woman, would prefer to just not get married? At the end of this analysis, we’re meant to let out a big sigh of relief– so men DO like smart women, and they CAN have well-adjusted kids and a great sex life– and to wag our finger at the media for lying to us about something so important.

But what if they didn’t? If men couldn’t stand smart women, does that mean we should throw our books out the window? Or quit our jobs in order to be better wives? Rivers obviously doesn’t state so anywhere, and I can only imagine that she’d disagree. But by excluding the fact that the media blindly expects women to want these things– hell, is one of several entities telling us that we want these things– it reinforces the idea that of course we do. It reminds us that the world now says “of course you can still work while you’re a mother” but never tells us “it’s okay to not want children.” It says “marriage can be an equal partnership” but not that “marriage isn’t for everyone.”

And that makes me pretty damn anxious.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

30

Abortion Clinic Bomber Arrested

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, discrimination, reproductive justice, women’s health | Leave a Comment

Authorities have captured and charged a man in relation to the bomb that was placed outside of an Austin abortion clinic on Wednesday. That’s a relief, to know that the nut job is off the streets, right?

But wait a minute:

The Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force — made up of federal, state and local law enforcement authorities — arrested Paul Ross Evans, who authorities said was on parole for an unspecified crime.

Evans was charged with violating federal laws banning the manufacture of explosives and interfering with access to an abortion clinic. He appeared before a federal magistrate, and was being held without bail.

Now, if someone who has a better understanding of the law than I do thinks that I’ve got this wrong, please correct me and explain how. He was charged with manufacturing explosives and interfering with access to an abortion clinic. Right. Valid charges.
But what about attempted murder? Public endangerment? Terrorism?

Seriously, wtf? Am I wrong in thinking that maybe, just maybe, he wasn’t charged with these much more serious crimes, which he did in fact commit, because the only people he was endangering were women seeking abortions and the health care professionals providing them? That because it was an abortion clinic and not an office building, where “innocent people” (i.e. not “baby killers”) were? Other blogs have already discussed the fact that the media won’t call these psychos what they are: terrorists. But the government refusing to call them such, as well?

Something sure as hell seems fishy to me.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

30

Offensive Remark of the Week (4/29)

Filed Under assholes, bigotry, offensive remark of the week, race and racism, sexism | 3 Comments

Anyone remember the name Bernard McGuirk? No? Before he was fired, he was Don Imus’ sidekick, the one who started the whole “nappy headed hoes” incident by originally calling the Rutgers team “some hard-core hoes.”

This week, he appeared on Hannity and Colmes and when asked about the incident, and the fact that racism and sexism in the media is now being monitored more carefully, McGuirk said:

“it’s like the oft-quoted anti-Nazi German pastor who said, you know, first, they came for the Communists, but I wasn’t a Communist, so I didn’t say anything. Then they came for the Jews, but I’m not a Jew, I didn’t say anything. Then they came for the Catholics, but I’m a Protestant. Then when they came for me, there was nobody to speak.”

Oh yeah. Because, you know, firing Don Imus and Bernard McGuirk because they made blatantly sexist and racist comments (and kudos to CBS for firing McGuirk as well when his remark was mostly only sexist) is SO THE SAME as the genocide committed by Nazi Germany! It’s indiscriminate prejudice I say, to call these men on their indiscriminate prejudice! And if we don’t stop it now, old racist, misogynist white men will have NO VOICE LEFT. Is that the kind of society we want to live in?

[Um, yes?]

In any case, if there was any question left that these assholes have no business ever opening their mouths in public, we can pretty much lay it to rest now.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Apr

29

Will Mexico City Require Doctors to Perform Abortions?

Filed Under International, abortion, legislation, politics, reproductive justice, women’s health | Leave a Comment

I found an article today about anti-choice activists in Mexico City fighting the new legislation which legalizes abortion through the first trimester. That part was pretty standard: they’re going to distribute fliers with pictures of aborted fetuses (of course) and list of all the lawmakers who voted for the law. Fine, whatever, I think that people deserve to know how their lawmakers vote.

The interesting part revolves around questions about the law itself.

Mayor Marcelo Ebrard said that doctors at city-run hospitals could not refuse to perform the procedure because of moral objections, apparently contradicting earlier statements by the city’s health secretary.

“We have to serve the public, that is what the law orders us to do,” Ebrard told reporters on Friday.

Ebrard, whose leftist Democratic Revolution Party supported the law, did not indicate whether doctors who refused to perform abortions would be asked to resign.

Mexico City Health Secretary Manuel Mondragon on Thursday said doctors could not be forced to perform abortions that strictly are elective.

The text of the law does not address whether city doctors can refuse to perform the procedure.

This, I think, is going to be a really interesting point. In the U.S., pro-choice activists have been fighting to require pharmacists to dispense birth control pills and emergency contraception. But what about abortion services?

On the one hand, I would not want a doctor who believes that abortion is murder to perform abortions. Could we really trust such a doctor to have the patient’s best interests at heart? I think it’s a concern. On the other hand, in the U.S. we are currently experiencing a shortage of abortion doctors in many areas and struggling to find ways to fill the gap. Would requiring all doctors to perform abortions help to normalize the procedure and remove the stigma? Or make the job of anti-choice protesters and terrorists much more difficult, since they wouldn’t know who to a attack, or have to conduct their protests outside of all hospitals? Or would it simply violate the rights of doctors and put patient health at risk. Would there be some kind of way for require that doctors perform abortions, but have a system to process appeals for those who feel strongly about the issue? We also have to take into account the fact that the abortions in Mexico City will be nearly free for the poor and insured. So there’s an added dimension of how to make the system plausible and workable without overloading the system.

I think that it’s worth discussing. And it will be interesting to see how this plays out in Mexico City.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

28

Take Back the Blog Post

Filed Under blogswarm, discrimination, sexism | 2 Comments

The internet, we are told, is a “global village.” It is a place where everyone, including all those traditionally excluded from mainstream media, can have a voice, can find communities and express their own truths.

All of that is true, of course. As long as you are a white, English speaking, straight, “moderate” male.

And while those of us who don’t fit that mold can create spaces that are more public than ever before, we’ve also made ourselves more vulnerable. It’s one thing to tell a woman to her face that you don’t think she deserves equal rights; it’s a hell of a lot easier to say it online, where you think that your friends, parents, spouse or employer will never find you.

Misogynist men bash female bloggers because they can. They attack us online because they’re cowards and it’s easy. Because they can’t stand us making even a whole seventy-seven cents to their dollar, having more social freedom than their mothers did and calling them rapists when all they did was rape someone. They’re angry because we’re not satisfied with what they’ve “given us.”

The kind of men who attacked Kathy Sierra are the ones who think that woman with a bra strap showing was “asking for” sexual assault. They’re the kind of men who think you’re fucking nuts when you try to explain that just because a woman didn’t say “no,” she didn’t necessarily say “yes.” They think that women shouldn’t be able to have abortions if they were “a slut” who had consensual sex. They laugh at Axe commercials and watch Girls Gone Wild. And they think that a little “light” domestic violence really isn’t that bad.

We threaten them by our mere presence in an arena they feel entitled to by the sheer virtue of being born with a dick. They treat us as a target for their anonymous aggression. And they think that we will go away.

I have absolutely no criticism for Kathy Sierra and how she handled her situation. I have nothing but sympathy for what she went through. No one should ever be threatened with sexual violence, even if it “wasn’t serious.” No one should have their social security number posted online. That’s not criticism or a game; it’s fucking assault. And anyone who tries to tell you that there weren’t misogynist motivations behind it is either a liar or an idiot.

But we have to take back the blog for the same reason that our ancestors had to fight for the right to vote; because we will never be given that which we don’t demand.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Apr

28

make/shift

Filed Under feminism, media | 2 Comments

make/shift is a new feminist magazine that will be published twice annually. I just finished reading the first issue, which I ordered online, and wanted to share.


It heavily features fiction, poetry, and creative non-fiction. Topics include those that toy with notions of gender and relate particularly gendered experiences and relationships. There also a heavy focus on war (specifically the toll that war takes on women), other global/social injustice and the role that race plays in these experiences.

In addition, there are several profiles of small non-profit organizations that are making a difference for marginalized groups of people, particularly groups that are started within the communities they’re helping. And there’s an interview conducted by Celina De Leon of feministing with activist Loretta Ross, co-founder of Sister Song, co-organizer of the 2004 March for Women’s Lives and major proponent of reproductive justice. I originally bought the magazine largely because of this interview, because I’ve seen Ross speak in person and she’s brilliant. If you’ve never heard of her, the interview is definitely worth reading.

At the moment, the magazine seems a bit hodge podge. It will be interesting to see where it goes, what kind of submissions it attracts and to (hopefully) watch it find its voice. You can order a single issue for $5.95 online or get a 4 issues subscription for $20. Check it out.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Apr

28

Democratic Presidential Debate Coverage

Filed Under 2008 election, media, politics, sexism | Leave a Comment

After watching the Democratic Presidential Debate, my brain was too fried to watch the post-coverage. I thought that Clinton, who is definitely NOT my favorite candidate, was incredibly confident, well-spoken and did a generally excellent job. Edwards, who IS my favorite candidate, held his own and seemed to answer his questions in a very straight-forward, honest manner. Obama, though very well poised and self-assured, seemed all but incapable of answering the question that was asked of him– one of my biggest political pet peeves. Richardson had a similar problem, not to mention his persistence in eating up other candidates’ speaking time and generally ludicrous claims (on your first day of office, you’d end the Iraq war with diplomacy? Really? On your first day?). Kucinich creeped me out with his pocket Constitution, his over-simplification of the issues and unclear stance on abortion. Gravel was obviously unhinged, and in his attempt to provide dissent only provided spectacle. Dodd and Biden made absolutely no impression on me whatsoever.

Luckily, though, media matters watched the post-coverage for me. And what they saw was incredibly insulting to women.

Matthews appeared to argue that many viewers would be basing their decisions about the candidates on how, in Clinton’s case, the candidate was dressed, or, in the case of the male candidates, how their spouses were dressed: “Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is — Michelle [Obama] — and they said, ‘I like the fact he’s [Barack Obama] got this pretty wife. He’s happily married. I like that.’ They like the fact that Hillary was demur, lady-like in her appearance.” When Mitchell interjected, noting “You’re talking about two … lawyers,” who went to “Harvard and Yale,” Matthews defended himself, saying, “Cosmetics are a part of this game.”

Well gee, as heartening as it is and all that no one called Clinton a “dog face” (or worse), you’d think that serious political commentary might actually be able to see past a woman’s appearance. Apparently not so for Chris Matthews. Read (or watch) the entire thing, and you’ll see that he’s completely incapable of seeing Clinton as anything other than a big, walking vagina. Other commentators, including Tucker Carlson and the supposedly-liberal Keith Olberman have a similar impairment. It’s fairly shocking, though kudos to Clinton’s strategist for refusing to talk about what she was going to wear.
Here’s another little gem:

Additionally, the MSNBC analysis focused heavily on stereotypes about female candidates, even though most agreed Clinton overcame those stereotypes during the debate. For instance, Matthews repeatedly asserted that “[y]ou can’t be aggressive against a woman candidate on stage, or you’re in big trouble,” and wondered how the male candidates would overcome such a challenge. Similarly, during an interview with Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson on MSNBC’s Tucker, host Carlson asked: “We were talking earlier about the difficulty the other candidates face in addressing and maybe even going after Senator Clinton on the stage. It does seem like all who attack Hillary Clinton come out the worse for it. Do you think that’s true, and is it an unfair advantage she has because of her sex, do you think?”

An unfair advantage due to her sex? Some people, it seems have no sense of irony. The media is completely incapable of talking about her as a candidate without taking her gender into account, and Carlson wants to know if it’s an advantage that no one can take the delicate (or as she’s generally portrayed, not delicate enough) little lady seriously. Oh yes, it must be excellent not being seen as an equal who is worth engaging in actual debate.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

27

Texas Leglislators Block HPV Vaccine Order

Filed Under legislation, politics, women’s health | Leave a Comment

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s proposal to issue an executive order requiring the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) to all 11 and 12 year old girls has been effectively thwarted.

In a 135-to-2 vote that appeared veto-proof, the Texas House gave final passage on Wednesday to a Senate bill that bars the state from ordering the shots until at least 2011. Even many supporters of the governor resented Mr. Perry’s proposal as an abuse of executive authority.

“There was no public testimony — why we were jumping so fast into a vaccine that was not for a true communicable disease,” said Senator Glenn Hegar Jr., a Republican representing a district just west of Houston who sponsored the Senate bill to overturn the governor’s order. It passed 30 to 1 on Monday.

But Senator Leticia van de Putte, a Democrat from San Antonio who is a pharmacist and was the lone Senate vote for the vaccination program, said that with 400 deaths in Texas from cervical cancer each year, “I’m thinking of the women that will die because we didn’t act.”

I know that many people are against this vaccine for a variety of reasons that don’t include a fear of sex. Many are concerned that the vaccine has not been thoroughly tested enough to justify a mandate and fear that it may be unsafe. I disagree, but let’s assume for a moment that the critics have a point.

Is setting a date really fair? Who’s to know when more evidence will come to light? Some think that Perry was too rash in his decision, but the decision by the legislature to make a mandate illegal for five years seems arbitrary. Why not pass a law saying that they can’t mandate the vaccine for one year? Or a law stating that any vaccine mandates have to be run through the legislature first?

Also, Perry’s order would have allowed parents to opt out. What this mandate really would have done was raise awareness with parents as to the existence of the vaccine and require the state and insurance plans to make the vaccine available at an affordable cost. With all the evidence we have as of now, I believe that this vaccine is a great and amazing breakthrough that should be available to everyone. Some don’t agree, or think that it’s too soon to tell. I just wish that the state had been able to find some middle ground.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

27

Rally For Women’s Lives

Filed Under abortion, activism, feminism, politics, reproductive justice | 2 Comments

Yesterday, my husband and I went to the Rally for Women’s Lives in Rochester, NY. It was organized on short notice as a protest response to the SCOTUS Federal Abortion Ban decision.

Officially, about 100 people showed up (though I’d say it was probably more, because people kept coming and leaving throughout the two-hour rally). It was great, because we had such a diverse crowd. Unfortunately, the group was about 90% white, but it was also about 30% male. That really surprised me– I was expecting only around a 10% male population. It’s always great to get men out there to show their support for women’s rights, too, and be proud about it. The age range was great, too. I had an older women say to me that it was great to see people my age there . . . when I was thinking the same thing about her! One women even brought her daughter, who seemed like she was around 5, wearing a “this is what a feminist looks like” tee-shirt. I thought it was pretty cool. If I had a daughter, I’d want to teach her all about feminism and her bodily rights from an early age, too. Everyone was incredibly open to each other and accepting, and it was just amazing to see so many different kinds of people all there for the same reasons.

We lined a really busy street in front of the city’s largest museum, where lots of traffic would be going past. We had several signs that said “Honk for Choice” to get the people passing by involved. I got to hold one of those signs, and I had a blast with it. Most of the drivers were very supportive– we got a ton of honks (including some incredibly enthusiastic ones), lots of waves, smiles and thumbs ups, from all different kinds of people. There were mothers in minivans with their young children, middle-aged men in business suits, an amazing array of ethnic backgrounds, grandmothers and grandfathers.

Of course, it wasn’t 100% positive. We had some people flick us off (my husband started blowing kisses to one guy who gave him the finger, figuring that if he was anti-choice, he was probably homophobic, too). One asshole stuck his head out his sunroof and called us all whores. Oh, and then the psychopaths showed up. It started out with one guy and built to maybe five or six, on the opposite street corner. They were holding giant posters of aborted fetuses and kept yelling horrible things at us. For the most part everyone ignored them, although there were a few people who thought it was funny to fuck with them and pissed them off ;) Oh, and we had one woman with an “I Regret My Abortion” poster, and one woman who both looked and acted like #1 Nut Job Leslee Unruh.

When we were leaving, we had to walk by the crazy corner and the Unruh lady kept yelling at me. I was holding a “Keep Abortion Legal” sign that the organizer told me I could keep and holding my head high as I approached them. Interestingly enough, she didn’t have anything to say to my husband, just to me. She was yelling about how “Planned Parenthood kills millions of babies each year” and that they’re “the most evil place on earth.” I just started laughing at her as I went by. She kept yelling at me and I kept laughing, which just made her more angry. Then she said that I was “so naive” and I laughed again because it was either that or punch her in the face, and I believe in non-violence.

Anyway, it was a rewarding experience. A couple of local news channels showed and we got an article in the local section of the newspaper. And I had a fucking blast, actually.

Here are a couple of pictures from the event. I’m not in any of them, because I forgot my camera, but I did manage to get some photos off of the event organizer. These were actually taken at the beginning of the rally, while we still only had about 50 people.

And this woman here is holding my favorite sign of the day: “This is not democracy; This is misogyny.” Click on the picture to make it larger, and you’ll be able to see it. Also, way in the back you’ll be able to see a dead fetus picture being held up on the other corner. I was pretty close to them, near the corner and traffic light.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

26

Take Back the Blog

Filed Under blog news, discrimination, sexism | 6 Comments


Saturday, April 28th is Take Back the Blog Day.

As of late, there has been a lot of misogyny-based harassment of female bloggers taking place. It’s not just feminist bloggers (though they are arguably hit the worst), but female political bloggers, tech bloggers– you name it. You can read about it here. It’s one thing to get criticism of what you write. It’s another to be insulted based on your gender (or race, sexual orientation, etc). And it’s yet another to be threatened violently, like Kathy Sierra was. Especially when it comes to sexual violence.

You can click on the link to sign up your blog as a participant, and all of the posts will run on the site. The submissions deadline is 7pm on the day of the blogwarm. Of course, you can always just blog on your own without officially submitting your post.

On a related note, I just got my first harassing email! It was purposely condescending, anti-feminist, misogynist, and frankly, pretty creepy. It wasn’t solely due to this blog, but because of a comment I left on feministing, which he tracked to this site. Not fun at all, but something I expected would eventually happen.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

26

NY Gov Introduces Abortion Protection Bill

Filed Under abortion, legislation, politics, reproductive justice | Leave a Comment

With all of the news of states introducing and passing legislation to restrict abortion rights, it’s really nice to hear about a state doing the opposite.

New York State Governor Spitzer has introduced the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act.

New York’s abortion law, signed by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican, in 1970, predated the Roe v. Wade decision by three years and made New York the second state after Hawaii to broadly legalize the procedure — and the first to allow abortions for out-of-state residents. More than half of the women having abortions came from out of state in the first two years.

But the law is now considered out of date by abortion rights advocates.

Mr. Spitzer’s bill, the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act, would update the current law, which — for example — does not include a provision allowing for abortions late in pregnancies to protect a woman’s health. State laws on the books also consider abortion a homicide, with broad exceptions allowed.

Mr. Spitzer’s proposal would remove abortion from criminal statutes and make it a matter of professional and medical discretion. It would also repeal an old statute “that criminalizes, among other things, providing nonprescription contraception to minors.”

I saw Spitzer speak at the Family Planning Advocates of NY annual conference last month. He was quite charismatic, and much more importantly, very passionate about ensuring the right to abortion. Since I follow mostly national politics, it was shocking for me to hear something– a man!– speak so openly and say (paraphrasing, but it’s close) “We must ensure that a woman has a right to choose for generations to come, and regardless of what happens at the federal level, NY State is and will continue to be a pro-choice state.” He promised us at that conference that he would introduce such legislation, and I’m thrilled to see that he has lived up to his promise. Kudos to you, Spitzer. [If you are also in NY State, please click here to send a thank you message to the governor.)

Of course, introducing legislation doesn't mean it will get passed. While the state assembly is fairly liberal, the state senate is unfortunately NOT. As would be expected with any law that involves abortion, there will be a lot of resistance.

“The governor’s top issues for the rest of the session are overturning an abortion decision that has not been made, delivering same-sex marriage and campaign finance reform,” said John McArdle, a spokesman for Senate majority leader Joseph L. Bruno. “Our priorities continue to be dealing with the state’s economy, jobs, reducing taxes and making sure cops don’t get killed when they’re on the job.”

Yeah. Taxes and the economy are way more important than rights to reproductive choice and marriage for all. Because you know, money trumps ENSURING HUMAN RIGHTS any day of the week. Thanks Republicans!

Popularity: 4% [?]

Apr

25

National Call-In Day

Filed Under abortion, action alert, reproductive justice | 4 Comments

Today is The National Call-In Day to support the Freedom of Choice Act. It has been arranged by dozens of pro-choice gropus including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Feminist Majority and Sistersong.

You can call your member of Congress directly at 202-224-3121. Or, you can use this directory to find the direct line to your senator or representative’s office.

The idea is to request that your senators and/or representatives co-sponsor the Freedome of Choice Act. NOW has a list of representatives and senators who are currently co-sponsoring the act. If you have any senators or representatives on the list (both of my senators are) please call and leave a message thanking them for the support– because they’re getting a lot of angry calls from the other side.

NARAL recommends the following, simple script:

“Please cosponsor the Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.1964/S.1173) to codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.”

If you’ve never called your legislator’s office before, it can seem intimidating. The first time I participated in such a drive, I was really nervous and felt very awkward. In fact, I’m a fairly nervous person, in general, when it comes to interacting with people on the telephone. I can honestly say (though it still kind of makes me nervous!) that it’s not nearly as bad as it seems. You call the office, and a secretary will answer. You then ask for the person responsible for handling Women’s Issues or Women’s Health Issues. The secretary will connect you through. You express your support for the bill, and the aide will take down your name and full address. It’s that simple and it only takes a minute or two. They take these calls all day, and it’s really not a big deal to them. But several dozen calls in a day will really add up. A constituent taking the time to actually phone in their support for a bill means a LOT– and significantly more than a form email.

Please, please make your call today. Tell any pro-choice friends or family about the event and encourage them to call as well. If you have a blog, please share this information there. The more people who particpate, the better. This is democracy in action! Stand up and practice what you preach.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Next Page →