-
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
“In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she’s a feminist or a masochist.” –Gloria Steinem
Sep
30
Offensive Remark of the Week
Filed Under Democrats, Republicans, abortion, assholes, courts, misogyny, offensive remark of the week, patriarchy, politics, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment | Leave a Comment
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas seems to have gone out of his way to be offensive this week. He is releasing a new book about his life. In both the book and his interviews about the book, he makes the claim that the Anita Hill controversy was about abortion. Says CBS on an interview with Thomas that will air tonight:
Thomas, whose Supreme Court positions on abortion issues have been conservative, says the confirmation hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee — allegations he continues to deny — were really about abortion. “That was the elephant in the room … That was the issue. That is the issue that people are apparently so upset about,” he tells Kroft. “[That is the issue] that you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now,” says Thomas.
He says the hearings harmed the accuser, Anita Hill, himself, and ultimately the country by setting a precedent manifested in other highly charged, media-infused events such as the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. “The process harmed her. It harmed me and we see sort of the precedent of this kind of thing begin to harm even people like President Clinton,” Thomas says. “Things are out of control. That’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the court. What are we going to look like years from now if we can’t get people confirmed because everybody gets to attack them. They get to draw and quarter them.”
Popularity: 17% [?]
Sep
29
Beer Ad Misogyny-Off
Filed Under marketing, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture, products, sex and sexuality, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment | 3 Comments
vs. 
I’m not about to argue that fembots are a positive trend in advertising. Though Garfield might have been overreading the Heineken ads when he suggested they were serving beer out their uterus, they still disturb.
But as mute robots, are they really more subservient and here for your pleasure than the soft-flesh porn lite usually served between games? As far as the argument that female cyborgs embody sexist body ideals, are they that much worse than the standard 34-24-36 Budweiser model? If anything, the impossibility of their parts would seem to dissuade emulation.
Plus, while the SVEDKA_GRL cashes in on the idea of making it with a big-breasted piece of metal, the ad’s not all retrograde. “Thank you for making the gay man’s fashion gene available over-the-counter in 2033,” reads one of its New York billboards. “Madame President and her first lady serve Svedka at all official state functions,” pushes another. It’s more sensational than it is political but at least she/it boasts a point of view.
Let’s just get it out of the way and say that the “gay man’s fashion gene” statement, though probably in the pursuit of gay acceptance, as so often happens, is actually pretty offensive. The one about the female president is pretty good, fair enough. But do statements promoting gender equality give you a free license to be otherwise sexist? Last time I checked, the answer was no. So I find the point to be fairly moot.
On to the ads themselves.
Popularity: 54% [?]
Sep
28
Aurora Antis Get Crazier and Crazier
Filed Under abortion, activism, anti-choice extremism, courts, reproductive justice, women’s health | Leave a Comment
You know, the thing about this Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic debacle is that it just keeps getting more and more absurd.
First off this week was the “silver bullet” incident. The anti-choice foes who are desperate to bring the clinic down dug through zoning rules and announced at the tops of their voices that Planned Parenthood was required to obtain a special permit for their building and didn’t. Very pleased with themselves, the antis declared that they had found the “silver bullet” that would kill off Planned Parenthood’s case. Luckily (and amusingly), they were wrong.
Aurora zoning law requires a special-use permit for a non-profit medical clinic. To acquire such a permit, the applicant must schedule a public hearing, notify property owners within 250 feet of the proposed building and advertise the hearing in a local newspaper, none of which had happened.
But [Aurora spokeswoman] Ergo said the property was zoned as a planned development district, and the city moved forward based on those regulations.
“Based on the land use petition and qualifying statement that was submitted by Gemini Office [Development], the proposed use was a permitted use for the property,” Ergo said.
Of course, that in no way declares the case over. But I do think that it clearly demonstrates the mounting desperation on the anti-choice side, not to mention an embarrassingly loss.
It gets better though! Who remembers the fact that anti-choice protesters filied a federal lawsuit against the Aurora police for supposedly interfering with their right to protest (i.e. making sure that they didn’t block traffic or cause an unnecessary disturbance outside of people’s homes)? Now, probably just for the fun of it– and because they know that since their donations don’t go to anything like, oh, medical services, they have a lot more money to blow than PP who is obviously getting strapped for cash at this point– they’re slapping Planned Parenthood with a libel suit.
I kid you not.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Sep
28
Congrats to the Matthew Shepard Act!
Filed Under Democrats, LGBTQ, disability, gender, homophobia, legislation, politics | 2 Comments
I almost forgot! The news came out last night: nine years after Matthew Shepard’s murder, the Senate has passed the Matthew Shepard Act 60-39. The legislation extends protection against hate crimes to the LGBTQ community– and gender and disability!
Three cheers for a Democratic Senate! Bush, of course, has threatened a veto. Which would be a lot of fun. We shall see.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Sep
28
On Katha Pollitt and the meaning of feminism
Filed Under books, feminism, gender, media, misogyny, patriarchy, sexism | 11 Comments
Some of you may have already read some of the misogynist hoopla regarding Katha Pollitt’s new book of personal essays, Learning to Drive, but I think that this Salon piece by Rebecca Traister really takes the cake.You see, it’s technically supposed to be a defense of Pollitt and a rumination on the double-standards for male and female political writers. Except that Traister waits until page 3 to start talking about the double-standards, and until the last few paragraphs to get to the defense. The rest of the time is spent mocking Pollitt in every way under the sun– calling her book “humiliating,” “pathetic” and wondering, oh my, how she can be a feminist even though she has lived a real life.
. . . I wonder: Is there ever a point at which it is a good idea for women, especially intellectual, politically engaged women, to strip off their clothes and caper naked as jaybirds in front of a line of would-be assassins?
. . . Questions about the wisdom of personal disclosure get thornier if the writer is a vocal feminist. If a woman is critical of patriarchal practices, a stance that will inevitably lead to being called a man-hater, is there any gain or loss in disclosing that she is happily married to a man? Or that she is a lesbian? Or that she has recently experienced a breakup? What if she thinks that a personal betrayal, or a love affair, or a sexual experience, has shifted her ideology? What if she wants to make some extra money writing freelance essays?
Hmm, yes, when are women actually allowed to speak their minds? And how do they go about getting permission from the patriarchy? Is there a form to fill out?
Popularity: 17% [?]
Sep
27
Who knew that you could make sexual asasult worse?
Filed Under International, bigotry, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, religious fanaticism, violence against women and girls | 2 Comments
Courtesy of reader Cheryl comes this very sad story. In Ottawa, a Muslim woman was sexually assaulted while attending university. An Ottawa paper covered the story, printing that the woman was raped. The victim has now come out clarifying that she was not raped, due to concern that she will be rejected as “not clean” by the Muslim community.
Ottawa’s Muslim community is standing behind a young woman, who was sexually assaulted at Carleton University in early September, in her plea to clarify that she was not raped.
The woman expressed her concern through Ottawa Hospital Sexual Assault Unit nurses Tuesday that as an un-married Muslim woman, she would be considered “not clean” and that perceived rape would threaten her future with a potential Muslim husband.
Mumtaz Akhtar, president of the Ottawa Muslim Association said he believes the community will support her. “We do not judge,” he said. “We should let her have peace with herself.”
. . . The young woman, who has not been identified, told Christine Baker, a sexual assault nurse examiner at the Ottawa Hospital, four days after the assault that she was not raped and expressed concern that the incorrect information would destroy her future.
“This is the rest of her life that we’re dealing with,” she said.
“This misconception, and by it being so widely publicized, could potentially ruin her future in a much more devastating way than anybody else who is not of that faith,” she said.
This is tragic on more than one level.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Sep
27
Aurora Rally for Planned Parenthood
Filed Under abortion, activism, anti-choice extremism, reproductive justice, women’s health | 1 Comment
By all accounts, the rally in Aurora went very well on Tuesday. Officials say that at the height of the protest, 250-300 pro-choice supporters attended and outnumbered the opposition 2 to 1. Great work!
After the jump, there are a whole bunch of pictures courtesy of JenLovesPonies, who attended the rally, with commentary! The Planned Parenthood Aurora blog also has a lot more images– and video!
Popularity: 19% [?]
Sep
26
Gee, freedom of speech and victims’ rights sure are frivolous
Filed Under assholes, courts, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 3 Comments
I’m sure that many of you remember or have been following the case of the woman who was banned from using the word “rape” at her own rape trial. Earlier this month, she filed a lawsuit against the judge who had this insanely insulting idea, and received some interesting responses as a result.
Personally, I thought that it was a brilliant and necessary move to protect victims’ rights in the courtroom.
Astonishingly enough, though, judges look out for each other. Yesterday, a judge threw out the lawsuit declaring that there was a failure to produce enough evidence that the suit was not frivolous.
I know that civil and criminal courts have different rules and procedures. But is it actually the plaintiff’s job to prove that a suit is not frivolous, instead of the defendant’s job to prove that it is? I mean, is “is your lawsuit frivolous?” a question regularly asked in courtrooms, because I can’t imagine that it is. Please all you lawyers out there, clear this one up.
Even if it it somehow the plaintiff’s job to prove that a suit is not frivolous, it seems pretty damn absurd that someone might argue that it’s frivolous to fight for a woman’s right to give honest testimony in a criminal trial. I know that this argument has been made. But it’s still absurd.
Apparently the judge was also concerned that the victim was simply trying to get a new judge assigned to her case, after he has declared two mistrials and violated her Constitutional rights (both to free speech and a fair trial). In which case, uh, can you blame her? And Christ, shouldn’t a new judge maybe been assigned already, if he couldn’t handle it well enough the first two times around?
Appeals are being considered. But I somehow doubt that the world is going to become less shitty by the time any appeal reaches court. Sigh.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Sep
26
She Should Run
Filed Under 2008 election, action alert, politics, reproductive justice | 1 Comment
Throughout history, women have made up two percent of the total individuals serving in the U.S. Congress. Though women make up 50% of the population, only 25% of all public offices are held by women today. Even though we’re doing the best we ever have with 16 female Senators, 70 women serving in House of Representatives and 9 female governors, women are still vastly underrepresented. The numbers for women of color are far worse. Only 20 Congresspersons are women of color (included 12 who are African American). No women of color serve in the Senate.
Clearly, we need more women in office. But with so much at stake for women’s rights this election season, we don’t want just any women– we want pro-choice women.
That’s where She Should Run comes in. She Should run is a campaign designed to nominate 1,000 pro-choice women for all levels of office. From the site:
Studies show women are more likely to run for office if we ask them to run. With She Should Run, we are committed to making sure as many women as possible get that critical ask. Once we collect the nominations, we will ensure these women receive the support, training, and resources they need to join the next class of strong and successful women leaders in our country.
Right now it is especially important for women to get involved in public life, from community organizing to the legislative process to the nomination and confirmation of judges. Women bring a fresh and different perspective to issues like reproductive rights, health care, education, and security. WCF is committed to encouraging women leaders who can take on these challenges.
So far, there are 800 nominations. There is no specific deadline, but as we know, the 2008 election season is rapidly approaching, and in some cases already underway. If there is a woman you think should run for public office, nominate her now.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Sep
25
Why Generalizing About Porn Doesn’t Help
Filed Under homophobia, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pornography, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexism, violence against women and girls | 13 Comments
Perhaps in response to the Don Hazen review of Robert Jensen’s book Getting Off, AlterNet today has another article on the topic. This time it’s by Riane Eisler, and she argues that pornography and war are intricately linked.
I want to start off by saying that Eisler’s writing is not particularly academic. She also repeatedly and gratingly uses the word “porno” (seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say “porno” in a non-facetious context? Unless you’re in 4th grade or living ten years ago, it’s either “porn” or “pornography.”). But I’m going to work past all of that and ask you to do the same, because I think that what she has to say is interesting– even though I disagree with her.
I find her initial link between war and pornography to be compelling:
Liberals often defend images of men chaining, whipping, torturing, and even killing women in the name of sexual pleasure as harmless exercises of free speech. At the same time, they strenuously object to war propaganda.
But if war propaganda is effective in dehumanizing members of “enemy” nations to make it possible for men to hurt, kill, and degrade other human beings — as it clearly is — why would images of women as merely body parts for male sexual use and abuse not have similar effects? Why, like other propaganda, would stories and images that dehumanize women not blind people to the reality of women’s suffering? If linking sex with violence had no effect on behavior, why would savvy media professionals link sex with whatever they are trying to sell — from cars to Coca-Cola — to influence peoples’ behavior?
. . . Many studies show that images linking sexual arousal with cruelty and violence desensitize men to rape and other gender violence. Even beyond this, porno dehumanizes women and perpetuates the notion that half our species is put on earth to be used, and abused, by the other half.
I find this to be a valid argument, and I mostly agree with Eisler here. But then she starts taking it a little too far:
Now what we’re talking about here is pornography, not erotica. Erotica is about giving and receiving sexual pleasure. Pornography is about linking sexual arousal with the infliction or suffering of pain — be it psychological or physical. Erotica (from Eros, the Greek god of love) is about sexual love. Pornography is about male control over women — and even beyond this, about domination and violence as normal and fun.
Images that link sexual arousal with causing physical or psychological pain perpetuate repression and injustice across the board. They condition people to accept, and even want, relations of domination and submission enforced by violence.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Sep
25
Missouri and Reproductive Rights Don’t Seem to Mix
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, courts, discrimination, human rights, legislation, pregnancy, reproductive justice, women’s health | 1 Comment
Missouri is getting a pretty bad reputation regarding abortion rights. I have already written about the Missouri law that would require abortion providers to undergo expensive and medically unnecessary renovations that would effectively close the clinics and make abortion unavailable in the state.
Now a ruling (of sorts) has been made:
A federal judge ruled Monday that a new Missouri law imposing stricter safety regulations on abortion providers might be constitutional if the state softened the requirements.
The ruling means Planned Parenthood can continue to provide abortions in Columbia and Kansas City while the organization and the state Department of Health and Senior Services negotiate waivers on certain safety requirements.
. . . U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith ruled Monday that the law could violate Planned Parenthood’s constitutional rights if the Missouri health department adopted regulations so harsh that they posed an undue burden on Planned Parenthood.
Smith ordered Planned Parenthood to tell the health department exactly what regulations it wanted waived within 30 days. The department then must respond within 30 days.
The Judge also ruled that if the restrictions are applied to facilities that provide only medically-induced abortions, that aspect of the law would likely be unconstitutional.
So is this a victory? It’s hard to say. The good news is that the clinics can stay open. The bad news is that there is going to be a drawn out fight between Planned Parenthood and Missouri legislators over what is and is not “reasonable.” Planned Parenthood has already agreed that they would meet any reasonable health requirements, but I’m sure that what they consider reasonable is quite different from what the anti-abortion lawmakers think is reasonable. Of course, all of us would have liked to see the law thrown out entirely. But quite honestly (and sadly), I’m not sure that we could have expected more than this.
But that’s not the end of Missouri’s publicized trials with restricting abortion. A new lawsuit has revealed to the general public that female inmates are restricted from having abortions.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Sep
24
On Degradation, Violence and Porn
Filed Under books, feminism, misogyny, objectification, pornography, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 13 Comments
Here is a book that I can’t wait to read: Getting Off (Pornography and the End of Masculinity) by Robert Jensen. It’s a a book by a feminist male against pornography. What the hell is not to like?
But from Don Hazen’s AlterNet review, I can tell that it’s going to be a tough read. From a book excerpt, here’s Jensen:
First, imagine what we could call the cruelty line — the measure of the level of overt cruelty toward, and degradation of, women in contemporary mass-marketed pornography. That line is heading up, sharply.
Second, imagine the normalization line — the measure of the acceptance of pornography in the mainstream of contemporary culture. That line also is on the way up, equally sharply.
If pornography is increasingly cruel and degrading, why is it increasingly commonplace instead of more marginalized? In a society that purports to be civilized, wouldn’t we expect most people to reject sexual material that becomes evermore dismissive of the humanity of women? How do we explain the simultaneous appearance of more, and increasingly more intense, ways to humiliate women sexually and the rising popularity of the films that present those activities?
As is often the case, this paradox can be resolved by recognizing that one of the assumptions is wrong. Here, it’s the assumption that U.S. society routinely rejects cruelty and degradation. In fact, the United States is a nation that has no serious objection to cruelty and degradation. Think of the way we accept the use of brutal weapons in war that kill civilians, or the way we accept the death penalty, or the way we accept crushing economic inequality. There is no paradox in the steady mainstreaming of an intensely cruel pornography. This is a culture with a well-developed legal regime that generally protects individuals’ rights and freedoms, and yet it also is a strikingly cruel culture in the way it accepts brutality and inequality.
Popularity: 31% [?]
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
