-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
May
12
Need a laugh?
Filed Under feminism, fun, marketing, media, pop culture, products, random, sexism, stereotypes, videos | 5 Comments
Writing this blog everyday, I sure as hell do! And this cracked me up.
If like me, you’re fed up with stupid sexist commercials, check out a few getting some feminist skewering:
I want to see more of Sarah Haskins. And I also might have to start watching InfoMania. It kind of looks like VH1’s Best Week Ever . . . but with jokes that are funny.
Popularity: 2% [?]
May
9
When Good People Do Nothing
Filed Under WOC issues, discrimination, feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 3 Comments
VERY STRONG TRIGGER WARNING
The story of Romona Moore’s murder is horrific, not only because of the terrifying brutality involved, but because of the terrifying apathy that allowed it to occur. Moore is dead because she and those who tried to help her were ignored. It’s a really shitty consolation, but the very least we can do, to pay attention now. If you think your mental health can handle it, I urge you to please read the full story.
You know, I’m one of those feminists who thinks that racism is indeed a feminist issue, just like poverty, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and much more are feminist issues, simply because these are factors that oppress women on a daily basis and prevent them from living lives freely, safely and to their full potential. I’m sad that so many seem to disagree — but even if you do disagree on the basis outlined above, I don’t know how anyone could read Romona Moore’s story and not see how racism is a feminist issue, when racism is allowing and assisting the unspeakably violent rape, torture and murder of black women. As for the lawsuit, I hope like hell that her mother wins it.
The failure of authorities to care about the unexplained disappearance of a black woman is not an isolated incident. Not by a long shot. And neither is average people failing to do the right thing when given the chance.
All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
There are many reasons that people do nothing, and sometimes they are justified. It may be believed (often very rightly) that doing the “right thing” will result in more violence or more severe consequences than turning a blind eye. Sometimes one’s own life is on the line. But I don’t see that this was the case here, either for the police officers that refused to even open an investigation, or for the man — probably numerous men — who saw Moore after she had been tortured raped and was probably about half-dead, and did nothing. Not even an anonymous phone call . . . that is, not before it was too late.
I read stories like these, and I find myself wondering where the hell the good people who do something are. And sometimes I wonder how “good” we can really call the people to do nothing. SAFER has an excellent post about bystander training and learning to be the person who does something. Despite our hunches and hopes for ourselves, I don’t think that any of us truly know if we are that person until put in the position. But at the very least, I want to believe that we can learn from the fatal mistakes of others.
Story via What About Our Daughters?
Popularity: 7% [?]
May
2
Blogging Against Disablism
Filed Under blogswarm, disability, discrimination, feminism, reproductive justice, violence against women and girls | 1 Comment
I’m very sorry that I missed Blogging Against Disablism Day, yesterday. I’m even more sorry that I don’t have much of anything to say on the subject right now.
I would like to note that less than a year ago, I didn’t know a damn thing about the disability rights movement. I was only vaguely aware of its existence. Blogs — and this is perhaps the thing that I love most about the blogosphere and what it can do when at its best — opened my eyes. I’m exceedingly far from being an expert on disability rights now. But I have done some research. I read more than one disability rights blog regularly. I’ve struggled to overcome a lot of my own prejudices in that time. Which is precisely why it amazes me that I wrote this post last year — Disability Rights Are a Feminist Issue — and still agree with it now. I’m glad and a bit relieved to say that I can recommend your reading it.
A few things I didn’t note in that post that I would like to note now:
If feminists believe in reproductive justice, disabled or not, we must be particularly concerned for the rights of people with disabilities. Their reproductive rights are in some of the greatest danger, and we really need to work to overcome our own prejudices on that matter and recognize that reproductive justice is for everyone, not just some. The problems with the pro-choice movement are precisely why the term reproductive justice was coined, and if we’re going to use it in a way that is more than mere appropriation, we need to recognize that attitudes towards the reproductive rights of those with disabilities was and still is one of those problems.
We also must be particularly concerned for the rights of people with disabilities if we care about violence against women. Women with disabilities are much more likely than women without disabilities to be sexually assaulted. Women with disabilities also have a much higher rate of being victims of intimate partner violence.
And really, if we just care about women, if we care about feminism, we should care about the rights of those with disabilities. Women are a large part of the disabled community, and they face discrimination on a daily basis in terms of medical care, housing, employment, the right to make personal decisions and much more. Women with disabilities are women. We are feminists, and may have disabilities ourselves. It is our job to fight legal and social systems that prevent women from the opportunity to live happy, safe and free lives. The argument for why disability rights are a feminist issue really is that simple.
Diary of a Goldfish has the roundup from the blogswarm. It’s holds a huge amount of posts and is full of great bloggers, so I strongly encourage you to read through it. For more on the intersection of feminism and disability activism, I couldn’t more strongly recommend F.R.I.D.A. as a source to add to your blog readers.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Apr
24
Why We Need to Stop the Democratic Infighting
Filed Under Democrats, Republicans, assholes, class and economics, discrimination, legislation, misogyny, parenthood, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, sexism, work | 12 Comments
Because John McCain is a misogynist nutbag. As are his fellow Republicans.
Yesterday, Republican Senators successfully filibustered — that’s right, not just voted against but fucking filibustered — a bill that would provide those who have been the victims of discriminatory pay with more legal recourse. In other words, they filibustered a civil rights bill. Because Republicans have so learned the error of their prejudiced ways.
Republicans said the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases. “This debate today is not about allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.
[. . .]
Mr. McCain, who was campaigning in Louisiana, skipped the vote but told reporters he would have opposed the bill since it could contribute to frivolous lawsuits harmful to businesses.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, accused Democrats of unfairly trying to paint opponents of the bill as unsympathetic to victims of salary discrimination. “The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases,” he said.
Um, what exactly, Senator Hatch, is being unfairly represented? Victims of unfair pay discrimination need a recourse, and you are actively denying it to them. You’re openly protecting companies who have a history of discrimination. And you are allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination, Senator Isakson, by refusing to hold those corporations who have engaged in it responsible for their actions. This is pretty fucking simple.
John McCain didn’t show up to vote — but did support the “it would provoke lawsuits” argument (um, assholes, that’s the point), and had this to say:
“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.
“It’s a vicious cycle that’s affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least,” he said.
Oh, I see: so Senator McCain, you’re going to start supporting flexible work schedules and reduced working hours for both parents? You’re going to promote men taking a more active role in child-rearing and support social services that help women with child care? You’re also going to support those who are genuinely stuck in low paying jobs because a lack of educational opportunity with resources, and work to improve school systems and economic equality?
Um . . . no. McCain supports the “free market” — the very same free market that allows employers to discriminate against women, racial minorities, the disabled and LGBTQ individuals. He’s just using an opportunity to remind everyone that women belong back in the kitchen with a child on each hip. He also needed to point out that women are only paid less is because we just can’t stop popping out the kiddies, are uneducated and don’t do equal work — even though the Ledbetter case shows that this argument is a bunch of shit.
Below the jump, what I think of McCain and the Senate Republicans (all but six of whom voted to block the measure).
Popularity: 18% [?]
Apr
16
The Cost of Unwed Parenting?
Filed Under bigotry, class and economics, parenthood, patriarchy, politics, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sexism, social conservatives, stereotypes | 14 Comments
There have been previous attempts to calculate the cost of divorce in America. But the sponsors of the new study, being released Tuesday, said theirs is the first to gauge the broader cost of ”family fragmentation” — both divorce and unwed childbearing.
The study was conducted by Georgia State University economist Ben Scafidi. His work was sponsored by four groups who consider themselves part of a nationwide ”marriage movement” — the New York-based Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest of Redmond, Wash., and the Georgia Family Council, an ally of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family.
”The study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing — besides being bad for children — are costing taxpayers a ton of money,” said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values.
”We keep hearing this from state legislators, ‘Explain to me why this is any of my business? Aren’t these private matters?”’ Blankenhorn said. ”Take a look at these numbers and tell us if you still have any doubt.”
Scafidi’s calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes. The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.
Wait, an assumption? That can’t be right, can it — that they based a study on prejudice and stereotypes rather than facts? *Rechecks who funded study* Oh.
Hey folks, you want to know what doesn’t cost society a damn dime? Domestic violence, child abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, compulsive gambling, kids growing up in a house with two parents who hate each other, kids growing up in a house with parents who are always angry and bitter, depression, stress-induced/agitated health conditions, and a general understanding that people can’t expect or deserve happiness. Why not go back to the good old days?!
Popularity: 17% [?]
Apr
11
Dancers For Hire Exploited, NYT Gets Hard On
Filed Under WOC issues, class and economics, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, race and racism, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment, stereotypes, work | 3 Comments
Former employees have filed a lawsuit against a club where they used to work as dancers for hire, claiming that they were never paid wages for their work. The women are mostly immigrants, many of them Spanish-speaking only, and they were paid a mere $2 per dance direct from the customers while the club raked in profits from the door fee and drinks. They were forced to pay fees to the club in order to work there and were all around treated like shit. (All emphasis mine.)
In interviews in Spanish, several former dancers said the owners often made them pay a $60 or $70 fine when they missed a day of work. Several complained of having to pay an $11 fee each day just to enter the club and an additional $10 if they arrived a half-hour late.
They said that sometimes, after dancing from 4 p.m. to 4 a.m., they had to attend meetings that lasted until 6 a.m. in which the owners held forth, calling some dancers “puta” (whore) as well as ugly and fat. The dancers’ most serious complaint was that the club never paid them a cent for their 45-hour workweeks.
“I never received anything in wages,” said Patricia Gonzalez, a long-haired, leggy immigrant from the Dominican Republic who quit dancing at the Flamingo last June. “In my three years there I must have paid thousands of dollars in fines. And I paid the daily fee of $11 to enter. What kind of job do you have to pay just to go to work?”
The lawsuit raises an intriguing question of law: whether the for-hire dancers were employees, who should have been paid wages for every hour they worked, or independent contractors who, as the Flamingo’s owners assert, were merely renting space on the dance floor.
The owners say they had no obligation to pay wages, asserting that the dancers were entrepreneurs who made a living by keeping the $2 they earned for each dance.
“They’re paying to rent the space so they can make a living,” said Peter Rubin, a lawyer for the club. “They can keep all the money they make dancing. They don’t have to split anything with the house.” The club makes its money by charging the men $5 to enter and $7 a drink.
[. . .]
If the dancers win their lawsuit, it could have ripple effects at the city’s many for-hire dance clubs, latter-day versions of Depression-era joints where men paid 10 cents for a dance. Many of today’s dancers, like their customers, are illegal immigrants who earn their money off the books. Amy Carroll, a lawyer for Make the Road, said it was ridiculous for the Flamingo to suggest that the dancers were independent contractors.
“It seems that Flamingo is doing the worst of both worlds,” she said. “They’re not paying the workers anything, and they’re controlling every aspect of the dancers’ work life. They tell them what days to work, what time to show up, what outfits to wear, what makeup to use. They even make the dancers sign in and out to go to the restroom. That level of control makes them employees, not independent contractors.”
Popularity: 20% [?]
Apr
9
Offensive Remark of the Week: Beating and Raping Women Doesn’t Mean You Hate Them Edition
Filed Under assholes, bigotry, human rights, media, misogyny, offensive remark of the week, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, sexism, violence against women and girls | 11 Comments
NY Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof muses on the differences between misogyny and sexism. And I’d be really grateful if someone could honestly tell me that this is some kind of bizarre parody and he can’t be fucking serious. Instead, we do get to play the ironic game of determining which category Kristof falls into! Emphasis mine, and try to control your blood pressure:
Then in the reporting for this column, I spoke to evolutionary psychologists who emphasized the distinct origins of racism and misogyny/sexism. Racism seems based in a hard-wired tendency of ancient humans to divide into groups to improve odds of survival, and it was an evolutionary advantage to be able to identify strongly with your own tribe and to fear or kill members of other tribes. That may be why even very small children — even infants — draw racial distinctions or other in-group/out-group distinctions.
In contrast, the evolutionary origins of attitudes toward women were based presumably less on hatred and more on desire to control them and impregnate them, so as to pass on one’s genes. Acquiring and enforcing a harem, so as to improve the odds of one’s own genes being passed on, might involve ruthlessness, enslavement and brutal beatings, but there was no evolutionary incentive for gender hatred as there was for hatred of different tribes. And of course much of the anti-women behavior around the world, from genital cutting to bride burnings to sex trafficking, is typically overseen by women themselves, and it’s easier to see their behavior as opportunism or deeply-embedded sexism than as hatred of fellow women. So that’s why I wonder if sexism, in the sense of discriminatory attitudes toward males and females, isn’t a better way of thinking about the issue than misogyny, in the sense of hatred toward women.
Other anthropologists I spoke to also noted that the most discriminatory restrictions against women tend to come not from those who profess to hate women, but from those who profess to honor and protect them. Think of Afghan society, for example. After interviewing many men who beat and lock up women and threaten to kill them if they take a false step, I’d say that their attitudes for females are a mix of bizarre honor and contempt, but not usually hatred.
My head hurts.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Apr
4
“News” Organization Files Offensive “Report” on Trans Issues
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, assholes, bigotry, gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, parenthood, pregnancy, reproductive justice | 8 Comments
By now, you’ve probably heard of Thomas Beatie, the transgender man who is pregnant with his first child. With the exception of the original Advocate story, written by Beatie himself, pretty much all coverage I’ve seen has been extremely obnoxious and sensationalized. Thomas and his wife Nancy say that they came out with the news on their own so that they could have some say on the framing of the media coverage — and one would assume they also have at least some interest in trans rights — but they seem to have underestimated the media.
Yesterday, Beatie was on Oprah (did anyone see it? how did it go?), and so coverage is now even more intensified. Though I’m sure that there are less credible news sources reporting much more offensively, this shit from MSNBC pissed me the fuck off:
Pregnant “man” tells Oprah: “It’s a miracle”
That’s right, according to MSNBC, Beatie who has lived as a man for many years, is legally recognized as a man and is legally married to a woman is now a “man.” You know, can’t let those trans folk get to uppity by acknowledging their legal rights or showing them any basic respect.
Maybe if MSNBC wanted to somehow clarify how a man could be pregnant in their title, if that was so very important to them, they could have used the phrase transman or transgender man, rather than trying to illegitimatize his entire identity with the scare quotes? Ah, but then fewer people would be drawn to click on the link, wouldn’t they?
Then there’s this lede for a related video report: “Is it true? Is it possible? Thomas Beatie of Bend, Ore., says “yes” to both questions, claiming he’s five months pregnant. But is his claim real, or a hoax? KTVZ reports.”
Nothing like getting people to make you some money off of ad viewings by using a teaser that suggests a person’s major life event might be a “hoax.” Also, if you watch the video, you’ll see a reporter harassing Beatie’s neighbors and then feigning surprise when they won’t talk to her or express their support. Also, while intruding on their lives, uninvited with a microphone and camera, they decide to wag a finger at the paparazzi camped outside of Beatie’s home for their completely inexcusable crime of . . . intruding on the neighborhood uninvited with microphones and cameras.
Hey MSNBC, are you getting a good view of my middle finger?
You can contact MSNBC at letters@msnbc.com. They ask that you include the URL of the story you’re responding to in the body of your email.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Apr
3
Why We Can’t Afford to Dismiss Nick Eriksen
Filed Under assholes, bigotry, blogswarm, feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 16 Comments
You may have heard that two days ago, a British politician was revealed to be behind a far-right blog that spews prejudice at every turn. Among Nick Eriksen’s most offensive comments were those regarding rape (trigger warning).
The Standard can reveal that Nick Eriksen, the BNP’s London organiser and the second-highest candidate on its list for the Assembly, is the author of “Sir John Bull,” a notorious far-Right blog which has regularly advocated hatred and abuse against women. The disclosure will be a serious blow to the BNP’s hopes of London electoral success.
On 24 August 2005, Mr Eriksen wrote: “I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime … Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.
“To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that forcefeeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.
“The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors.”
As far as conservative nutjobs go, Eriksen is extreme. Based on his other blog posts, I honestly don’t think it’s possible for him to look at a woman with anything but vile contempt. And the British National Party? They’re terrifying, and run almost entirely on a platform of making racism acceptable. There’s also the fun irony of the fact that they are “tough on crime” and support “the rights of victims” — no, really, they support corporal punishment for vandals and petty thieves. Which can only mean Eriksen thinks that spray painting graffiti on a wall is worse than raping your girlfriend.
We’re not dealing with your average misogynist, but once the shock wears off, I find Eriksen’s comments to be absolutely fascinating. And significant.
Popularity: 19% [?]
Apr
1
Taking the Word “Judge” Out of Context
Filed Under books, courts gone crazy, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexism, slut-shaming, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 9 Comments
A new UK book about sexual assault reveals some judges’ disturbing if not particularly unexpected views about victims of sexual assault and their personal role in “interpreting” sexual assault laws.
Judges have undermined a law intended to stop defence lawyers cross-examining women in rape cases about their sexual history, by continuing to insist on their discretion to allow it, a new book discloses.
Interviews with 17 judges in London and Manchester found that some insisted they still had a wide discretion to allow questions on sexual history, although the law was changed in 2000 to impose severe limits on questioning.
One judge described the provision as “pretty pathetic because it’s get-roundable”.
Another said: “I’m not one for being unduly fettered. I’ve been appointed to do a job on the basis that I have a certain amount of judgment, and to be fettered or shackled by statutory constraints I don’t think helps anybody.”
In other words: “I’m a judge goddammit. That means it’s my job to judge. Who said anything about the law?” Or, perhaps: “Oh yeah, well I judge that your law is stupid! In your face!”
Popularity: 15% [?]
Mar
31
Obama is charismatic, but this is a bit much
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, media, politics, sexism, stereotypes | 9 Comments
I don’t think there are many people, with any candidate preference, who would argue that Obama is not incredibly engaging and likable. Whether you want to vote for the guy or not, let’s face it; he has charisma.
But watch the NY Times turn “Obama is charming” into “Obama makes women giggle and swoon and he’s so cute that they’ll just have to vote for him.”
Senator Barack Obama didn’t go on “The View” on Friday solely to talk about race and the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. He also wanted to address the gender issue. And if the fluttery response of the show’s five co-hosts is any harbinger, Mr. Obama will not have any trouble assuaging female voters if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton drops out of the Democratic race for the White House.
Barbara Walters told Mr. Obama he was “sexy-looking.” Sherri Shepherd announced that she had shifted her support from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama; she made Joy Behar temporarily switch seats with her during a break so she could chat up the candidate. Even Elisabeth Hasselbeck, a Republican, told Mr. Obama how moved she was by his speech to the 2004 Democratic convention.
[. . .]
Mr. Obama used body language to bridge the gender gap. The candidate who is sometimes attacked by feminists as a golden youth passing over them on his way to the old boys’ club reminded the co-hosts that he was “surrounded by women” at home.
He patted Ms. Behar’s arm and whispered so intimately into Ms. Walters’s ear that Ms. Hasselbeck accused them of “canoodling.” Mr. Obama is an effective speaker, but he is just as smooth at wordless communication: he mixed a cool and somewhat princely demeanor with warm smiles and touches.
Oh yeah, those feminists are totally bitchy Obama-haters. But when he looks at normal women with those deep brown eyes and flashes those pearly whites . . .
You know, if Obama is the nominee (and I think he will be), I have no doubt that he will indeed win many female votes. And being good looking has never hurt. But maybe his popularity with female voters will have more to do with the facts that women tend to vote Democratic, Obama is surprisingly progressive on women’s issues and John McCain, er, hates us? It’s just a hunch I have.
Popularity: 13% [?]