• BlogHer Ad Network

  More from BlogHer

  Advertise here

  BlogHer Privacy Policy

• Categories

  2008 election abortion action alert activism Africa anti-choice extremism Asia assholes Australia bad ass women’s activist of the week beauty myths bigotry blogging blog news blogswarm books class and economics courts gone crazy cross-post Democrats disability discrimination education and schools Europe excursions fat-shaming feminism fun gender homophobia and transphobia human rights International legislation LGBTQ issues marketing media misogyny objectification offensive remark of the week parenthood paternalism patriarchy politics pop culture pornography pregnancy products race and racism random rape and sexual assault religious fanaticism reproductive justice Republicans reviews self-promotion sex and sexuality sexism sexual exploitation and harassment sex work slut-shaming social conservatives South America stereotypes videos violence against women and girls WOC issues women’s health work

• Archives

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007

• "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem

  
  
• 
  

• "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

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?

cross-posted from Feministe

Popularity: 7% [?]

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% [?]

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).

Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

Clearly, it should go without saying that Pat Buchanan is a fucking nut. Really, I try to ignore these types more than anything. I just don’t have the time to follow the disgraceful career of every racist, misogynist, homophobic, nationalist, religious fanatic puppet of the Republican party.

But this time . . . oh, this time. Buchanan has written a column as a response to Barack Obama’s recent speech on racism in America (all emphasis in quoted text is mine). And as far as I can tell, Buchanan’s feelings are really hurt because Obama didn’t take the time to personally thank him for the fact that slavery ended and rich white dudes like himself only continue to demand slightly more subtle forms of oppression. It’s a good point; for everything else he’s said, I don’t remember Buchanan ever remarking (in public) “that slavery thing was a pretty sweet ride — why don’t we bring that back?” Why the hell aren’t all those uppity black folks sending him thank you cards?

Really, read the whole thing; it’s a fucking doozy.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

Aww. Buchanan feels he isn’t being listened to and has to remind the entire world that he presumably has a white penis. I’d feel so terribly bad for him if a single word of it was true. But please, wait, because that’s the intro. It gets about ten times worse.

Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

Yet again, an Illinois court is hearing a case about the state’s requirement that all pharmacies dispense emergency contraception. This time it’s in the Illinois Supreme Court hearing the same old tired crap about how requiring a person whose job is to provide medical care to actually provide medical care is somehow breaching their rights.

The rule doesn’t require pharmacies to stock Plan B, but it does require pharmacies to order the medicine if a patient requests it.

The patients whose prescriptions were returned by Vander Bleek and Kosirog’s pharmacies didn’t ask that the medicine be ordered when told that the businesses didn’t stock Plan B. But if asked, the pharmacies would refuse to order Plan B. That could result in suspension of their licenses to operate, Rienzi said.

Okay. Good. I actually doubt that the state would have the nerve to suspend their license, but if they did? Good. They should. I don’t think I’ve made it any big secret that I absolutely do not believe pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense EC. While pharmacies are indeed private businesses, they also happen to provide a public service. Refusing medical care is not okay.

Read more

Popularity: 20% [?]

Arizona, apparently discontented with simply attempting to strip pregnant drug addicts of their human and civil rights, has now decided to work on destroying any rights that pregnant teenagers in the state may have left. A new bill would mandate that the only way a teenage girl can get a court waiver for an abortion without parental consent is to prove that she is mature enough to make the decision. Sound kind of vague? It is. And that’s precisely the point.

A minor would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents’ consent, under a bill passed Tuesday by the House of Representatives.

Supporters say that HB 2263 just codifies a 2003 ruling on the existing parental-consent law by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in which the court specified criteria that can be used to determine if a minor is mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion.

Under the bill, the court could consider factors, including whether the minor has traveled on her own, handled her own finances, lived outside her parents’ home and made other significant decisions.

The measure also requires the court to weigh whether she has considered all her options and the potential consequences.

You know, the standard “a teenage girl who can’t confide in her daddy about an abortion needs her legislators and judges to take his place, and a daddy’s job is to restrict his daughter’s life no matter what the consequences” kind of fare. But what the hell does “mature enough” mean? Does anyone know? And what teenage girl handles her finances while living outside of the home before age 17? A few, certainly, but come on, now.

In this article we get a vague but somewhat more reliable description of how “mature enough” will actually be interpreted:

Read more

Popularity: 22% [?]

As I briefly mentioned earlier, yesterday was International Sex Workers Rights Day. I missed it; I didn’t know that it was going on until I’d already posted for the day, and I just didn’t have the time for a second post. So I planned to write about it today instead. I felt slightly guilty about that, but now that I’m well aware that the issue didn’t get nearly as much coverage as it should have, I feel really guilty. I tell you this not only by way of explanation, but also to say that if you blog, I know it’s easy to miss things and to not blog about something when you should. And it’s not too late to make it right.

That being said, to those who purposely avoided blogging on the topic, I understand why. Talking about sex work causes fighting, and not the feminist vs. troll kind, but the feminist vs. feminist kind. Positioning yourself in that argument isn’t a fun thing to do, particularly if you think that each side has at least a couple of good points, and it’s easy to avoid the question all together (this is of course, what we call “privilege”). But that doesn’t make avoiding it right. I’m fine with everyone voicing their opinions, but I do want to let everyone know up front that I will not allow things to get ugly, personal or insulting. And while I’m not going to insist that everyone post from a pro-decriminalization standpoint, I do insist that comments come from a perspective that promotes rights for sex workers — however you believe that those rights are best obtained. I’ve never had to ban a feminist before, or even ask one to stop posting; please don’t make me start today.

So. Why sex workers’ rights? Well, it’s pretty simple. Even those sex workers who enjoy their jobs get a hell of a raw deal. All around the world, sex workers are: investigated and arrested for making a living, deported even when there is evidence of non-consent, left without any form of job security, gang-raped and abused by their bosses but left without recourse for fear that they themselves will be arrested, and arrested for mere suspicion of prostitution, including carrying condoms (which only discourages safer sex).

Read more

Popularity: 27% [?]

Last week, reader Jessica sent me a link to a story about new legislation being considered in her state that would forcibly imprison pregnant women suspected of being addicted to methamphetamine, sending them to drug treatment facilities against their will. The Arizona bill is, of course, designed to protect fetuses, not women.

The Senate Judiciary Committee took the first steps toward approving SB 1500 Monday, mandating that state Child Protective Services workers go to court if they know or have reasonable grounds to believe a mother-to-be is using meth and is not getting voluntary treatment.

That order would require the mother to cooperate.

The legislation would let CPS ask a judge to have sheriff’s deputies actually pick up the woman and bring her to a facility for treatment.

Sen. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, said she’s not normally a proponent of government intervention into private lives.

“But I do think that the state has some very specific roles,” she said. “And one of them is to protect people from harm from other people.”

Indeed: the state has a specific role to protect people from harm, so long as the person isn’t a pregnant woman being harmed by the government who thinks that pregnancy gives them total control over her body.

The bill would expand the child abuse statutes to include methamphetamine use during pregnancy — essentially, defining child abuse as something a woman does to harm herself, intentionally or unintentionally, while carrying a fetus. It seems that all legislators opposed to the bill are doing so on the basis that it challenges abortion rights, or at least presents a slippery slope for challenges later on down the line.

Critics of the proposal are concerned that Gorman is trying to give the measure some teeth by extending the definition of what now constitutes “child abuse” to fetuses.

Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, pointed out the existing definition of child abuse includes acts that endanger the life of a child. He said Gorman’s bill could be interpreted as prohibiting abortion.

From a practical standpoint, Cheuvront said he doubts that Gov. Janet Napolitano would sign any bill she believes interferes with the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

Gorman said that wasn’t her intent.

But committee members refused to remove that language.

While I thank Cheuvront for opposing the bill and hope that he and other legislators continue to vocally do so, I think that his reasons are troubling and just plain off the mark. The problem is that, regardless of what Cheuvront actually feels, this kind of argument suggests that if it were possible to pass the legislation without putting abortion rights in any sort of danger, there would not be a problem.

I’m naturally wary of slippery slope arguments. They are often valid, but they often aren’t. Even when the slippery slope is a very real possibility, I think that this is just a shitty way to make your case. Okay, so the bill could potentially be used as a basis for anti-abortion legislation in the future. This is bad. But if it’s capable of doing this, there has to be a problem with the bill right now, a reason why this legislation is a bad idea for what it is and not what it could later encourage.

Luckily, there is such an argument, and it’s one that I’m actually far more concerned with at the moment.

Read more

Popularity: 24% [?]

A woman has sued her municipal golf course for refusing her right to play in a tournament because she is a woman.

Elaine Joyce, a champion amateur golfer, and her father were looking forward to a weekend tournament last May at the respected public course on Cape Cod where they hold full memberships. But their names were not listed when officials posted the tee times for the event at the Dennis Pines course.

The Masters U.S. Open British Open P.G.A. Championship Joyce’s father, Pat, received a call from the club’s head pro, Russell Champoux, who said the tournament was not open to women. It did not matter that Joyce would play from the men’s tees. Or that she had won more than 20 club championships over the years. Or that she had captured the title in 2001 at an event for the state’s top female club champions.

Joyce complained to the town, but over the next several months, Robert Canevazzi, the Dennis town administrator, did not budge. When Joyce filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in July, the club said its actions were not discriminatory. In a letter, Canevazzi told Joyce that the club would begin scheduling men’s and women’s fields in all tournaments in 2008, giving women more weekend play. The club’s lawyer, Kristin Tyler Harris, reiterated the position. But women would not be permitted to play in men’s tournaments.

On Friday, Joyce, 43, filed a federal lawsuit in United States District Court in Boston to challenge the town and the golf officials. Her case confronts the tradition of men’s tournaments on morning weekends, events that are woven into the fabric of golf life at private and public courses.

The 25-page federal complaint says that by denying Joyce the same “full citizenship status” as men at a public golf course is as unlawful as operating a men’s-only bar or a whites-only drinking fountain. Joyce is “entitled to the equal opportunity to aspire, to achieve and to participate based upon her individual talents and capacities regardless of her gender,” her lawyer, Laura R. Studen, said.

Good for her. As detailed in the article, this isn’t the first case of discrimination that Joyce has suffered as a woman trying to play competitively. A decade ago, a neighboring town apparently tried to disallow her the right to play with the men on weekends — and when the town administration required them to accept her, she faced some really ugly, misogynist reactions:

After the town acted in that case, it took 18 months for her to be admitted as a member. Joyce said some members of the group were appalled and let her know it. One said he would play only if she played naked. Others walked off the course when paired with her. Some refused to speak to her during rounds.

Way to be adults, jackasses. One would think that common decency would bar them from playing if unable to grant their fellow golfers the most basic kind of respect, but apparently having a penis really is the most important requirement for membership.

Now, of course, Joyce is well within her rights to sue. And whatever her ultimate reason for doing so, I think that she is correct and I wish her well. I can, however, make a highly educated guess as to the exact straw that broke this camel’s back. At least, if it was me, and I was wavering on whether or not to litigate, I know that my decision would have been made right here:

Although Elaine Joyce is a member, Champoux, the head pro, did not inform her of the decision to bar her from playing. Instead, he called her father.

Oh yeah, they did. Even though she is a member, even though she was scheduled to play in a tournament with her father, even though the reason for disallowing their right to play was based on her, they couldn’t even extend the courtesy of giving her a fucking phone call. They called her dad.

If these guys are really so damn stupid, arrogant and disrespectful to add that kind of insult to the injury, I say they deserve to be taken for every dime they’re worth.

Popularity: 19% [?]

You may have already heard about the senseless murder of Sanesha Stewart. Stewart was a trans woman of color who was stabbed to death, apparently by a male sex partner.

In the wake of this tragedy, the media has not only failed to show respect for a fellow human being whose life was cut short, they’ve been downright, outlandishly offensive. Stewart has been called a “hooker,” despite any actual evidence that she was a sex worker and claims from her neighbors that she was not. Her appearance has been commented on repeatedly. She has been referred to by masculine pronouns and her masculine birth name, with her legal feminine name referred to as a “nickname.” Here is one infamous article from the NY Daily News. It was originally called “Fooled john stabbed Bronx tranny,” though after GLAAD made some noise, they changed it to the oh-so-improved “Cops: Ex-con slays Bronx transsexual ‘hooker’.” A warning: the language below is extremely disrespectful and upsetting.

A transgendered prostitute was stabbed to death in the Bronx Saturday by a customer who was apparently surprised by the hooker’s true sex, police sources said Saturday.

The victim - a 25-year-old man who dressed like a woman - was identified by sources as Talib Stewart, who often went by the feminine nicknames of Nesha or Sanesha.

Stewart was stabbed multiple times inside a Belmont apartment building about 6 a.m. Saturday, police said.

A 37-year-old man was later arrested inside the second-floor apartment, police said.

Though the suspect’s identity was not immediately released, the sources said he was the prostitute’s john who became enraged when he learned his partner was not a woman.

Stewart, more than 6 feet tall, was known to wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels, neighbors said.

Stewart also apparently had undergone surgery to give him larger breasts and other female characteristics, neighbors said.

“She looked like a girl but when she turned around, you knew it was a man,” a 17-year-old neighbor said. “She had a big jaw and an Adam’s apple.”

Neighbors said Stewart was a friendly and flirty presence on the block and was rarely hassled for his appearance.

“She’s always been Nesha to me,” said a friend who just gave her first name, Janelle. “She’s funny and outgoing.”

“It’s a shock - nobody should do something like that,” said another neighbor who asked not to be identified. “She never had any problems here.”

Stewart’s relatives visited the crime scene Saturday afternoon and angrily declined comment. Neighbors said they didn’t know if Stewart was turning tricks but they had noticed frequent male visitors to her home.

The suspect remained in police custody last night as the Bronx district attorney was determining which charges to file, officials said.

Must we list off the problems here? I hope not, but here goes, anyway.

Read more

Popularity: 24% [?]