-
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% [?]
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
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% [?]
Mar
6
Mainstream Media Says Wham, Bam, Thank You M’am
Filed Under gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, stereotypes | 26 Comments
Here’s something that will probably not surprise and yet still manage to annoy the crap out of you. There is a new study on the desired length of sex for heterosexual couples, as determined by American sex experts. Check this out:
The US study is the first to review what experts believe is the ideal length of time to have penetrative sex, with the random sample of Americans and Canadians labelling seven to 13 minutes most “desirable”.
Intercourse lasting between three and seven minutes was deemed “adequate”, but anything less was considered “too short” and beyond 13 minutes was “too long”.
The study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, aims to calm unrealistic beliefs that healthy sex should last a long time.
Dr Jane Howard, a Brisbane medical sex therapist, said there was little data on Australians’ expectation of sex. Anecdotal evidence suggested most women were happy with three to seven minutes, while men were not.
Now, as someone who enjoys sex and generally assumes that large portions of the rest of the population also enjoy sex, a question instantly sprung to mind: in what universe? No, seriously, this America? Three minutes? And wait, men are the ones who want sex to be longer, and women don’t? This is, in fact, contrary to every generalized remark I’ve ever heard about heterosexual practice. Don’t tons of straight women complain about how too many men rush during sex? Are the bulk of American men who sleep with women just really bad in bed, and I’ve somehow gotten through life without realizing it? (I am, after all, married to an Australian.)
It almost seems like they’re leaving something out. Of course, no one openly explains or discusses that the study is only about heterosexual couples — I presume that you were supposed to infer this from all the talk of penis in vaginas and the fact that only men and women are described as potential sexual partners. But, you see, this has nothing to do with prejudice or heteronormativity — this is about facts, people. As it turns out, any two people who do not have one penis and one vagina between them cannot have sex. That’s not even a joke — I’m going off of media characterizations.
Popularity: 35% [?]
Feb
18
And here I was thinking that we should demand structural change
Filed Under books, misogyny, patriarchy, sexism, stereotypes, work | 13 Comments
The Times has an article on two new books about how women can get ahead in the workplace. I’m sure that we’ll hear a lot about both of them in the next few weeks/months as the media trips all over itself at the opportunity to spew misogyny while not actually being held responsible for it. How bad is it? Even the Times thinks its sexist.
“Seducing the Boys Club” is equal parts autobiography and how-to manual. Ms. DiSesa bases her recommendations on her 35-year career in advertising.
[. . .]
She lists seven deadly sins — humility, timidity, cowardice, submissiveness, blind obedience, visible fear and hypersensitivity — as common female traits to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, she also warns women to avoid male tendencies like getting “drunk with power.”
The two principal tactics advocated by Ms. DiSesa are seduction and manipulation. After bundling them together in a glib Madison Avenue abbreviation, she declares that, “All the men in our lives — the ones we work with or live with, admire or desire, and love or hate — are easier to control if we master the Art of S.& M.” Why would men fall for such tactics? “First of all, they love seduction,” she writes. “And second, they are oblivious to manipulation.”
Ms. DiSesa points out that sex and seduction are not one and the same. The first implies sleeping one’s way into the executive suite, an approach she deplores. The second, as she illustrates in rambling anecdotes, is more about using sophisticated charm and sugar-coated words to win the support of male business associates.
“One of the greatest tools, or weapons, we have as women is flirting,” she says, later adding, “Men like women who like them.”
[. . .]
There are no maybes in “What Men Don’t Tell Women About Business.” Mr. Flett describes himself as a “reformed alpha male” who is now dedicated to helping women outwit alpha males.Mr. Flett says the foundation of the 21st-century business model is “authenticity.” But instead of recognizing the new paradigm, he says, many women keep hiding behind personality masks to play roles like Mother and Geisha or try to pass themselves off as “one of the boys” by feigning interest in macho sports like ice hockey. At the same time, he accuses other women of committing a laundry list of typical female mistakes he details in chapters with subheadings such as “Taking Things Personally,” “Making Excuses” and, in a description of perhaps the most egregious mistake, “Not Keeping Secrets.”
But Mr. Flett also seems to contradict himself. “Women don’t have to become men in order to be successful,” he says. “In fact, they should appreciate that they hold a lot of the skills men attempt to learn.” That said, he proceeds to advise women to act more ruthlessly. Among the dictums he says he has learned from his own male colleagues are “Success is yours for the taking,” “Leadership is given to those who take complete responsibility” and “The world drives over weakness.”
But Mr. Flett also seems to contradict himself. “Women don’t have to become men in order to be successful,” he says. “In fact, they should appreciate that they hold a lot of the skills men attempt to learn.” That said, he proceeds to advise women to act more ruthlessly. Among the dictums he says he has learned from his own male colleagues are “Success is yours for the taking,” “Leadership is given to those who take complete responsibility” and “The world drives over weakness.”
Did you catch all of that, ladies? Don’t sleep your way to the top, but act in a way that will make everyone think that you did. Flirting is great because men are stupid, and even great business men who manipulate people day in and day out don’t know how to spot the kind of manipulation that involves pushing our your boobs. It’s our only hope: flirting is the best “weapon” we have. Since we don’t have brains or anything.
Also, must we tell you again? Stop gossiping and crying to keep yourself out of trouble. And please, mothers/geishas, quit dusting your boss’ office and decorating with doilies. Unless that’s part of your flirting, I presume.
You know, I’m well aware that the business world is still run by men and women are constantly being forced to adapt to the patriarchal rules and make sacrifices to survive. But you know what doesn’t help? Reinforcing the ridiculous MRA claim that women are the ones with the true power because of our innate role as the gatekeepers of sex. Telling women that in order to become equal to men and get them to stop thinking that we don’t belong in the workplace because we’re all manipulative whores, they must start using flirtation as a manipulative device? Hmm. Sounds like someone’s goal isn’t equality. Like maybe the guy who says that women are a great contribution to the workplace so long as they stop acting like sensitive whiny bitches, which they do all the time.
*Checks calender* Yup, it’s 2008, folks. We’re still only making seventy-something cents on the male dollar, sexual harassment and other gender discrimination run rampant, maternity leave is a distant dream, and this is what we have trying to pass as a solution.
[NOTE: An earlier version of this post accidentally contained a link to "adult" material. This was obviously not intentional. I was doing a Google Image Search for an image to go along with this post (didn't find a good one) and while searching for "flirt" and "boss," porn unsurprisingly turned up. There is a bug with FireFox (as some users may know) that causes the URL to stick in the address bar at the top of the screen when a large number of tabs are open. I didn't click on the link before deleting it, but can only assume that this is what happened without my noticing after I closed the tab. I sincerely apologize to anyone who clicked on the link, and hope that you know it was a really bizarre accident.]
Popularity: 17% [?]
Feb
1
Judge Exhibits “Supreme” Stupidity
Filed Under WOC issues, assholes, courts gone crazy, discrimination, gender, misogyny, paternalism, race and racism, sexism, stereotypes, work | 3 Comments
Pardon the pun (come on, sometimes it’s just too easy), but I’m wagering that once you read this, you’ll pretty much forget about anything stupid that I’ve said:
A county judge was reprimanded for calling three black female lawyers “the Supremes” in court and advising the defendant to get “an experienced male attorney.”
Talk about value! Judge Boone’s court apparently runs a two for one special: for a limited time only, come for the racism and get the sexism for free! Sale ends temporarily when a judicial commission calls him out on his shit.
The most unbelievable thing of all, though, is that it gets worse. And as so often happens, the extra insults come flying in the guise of an apology.
Washington County Circuit Judge W. Kennedy Boone has acknowledged that his comments suggested racial and sexual bias. In his written response to a complaint, Boone said he was trying to protect the three public defenders from representing a difficult defendant.
The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities concluded the comments Boone made during a court hearing last April were “undignified and disparaging.” The notice of reprimand was published Jan. 18 in the Maryland Register.
Niiiice. The only thing better than some sexist racism or racist sexism is the kind that is really in the best interest of the insulted, who just aren’t reasonable enough to see it. White Man’s Burden, anyone, or did he just go to the Justice Kennedy School of Law?
Boone can see how his comments might “suggest” some form of “bias” (haven’t we learned yet that words like “sexism” and “racism” are just too mean and should never be used, let alone admitted to?). But it only seems that way because he was so determined in his nice white male savior way to protect the poor little lady lawyers from the big bad legal system. It’s not that he holds some form of prejudice against black women, it’s that he thinks black women are too weak and incompetent and vulnerable to do their jobs as lawyers properly.
That makes me feel much better.
Popularity: 18% [?]
Jan
26
Everything I Need to Know About Love, I Learned From Time Magazine
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, gender, media, patriarchy, sexism, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 20 Comments
This being one of those weeks when I wonder why the fuck I get Time magazine (answer: because it often gets me to read about important things I otherwise wouldn’t read about), their cover story last week was “The Science of Romance.” And it’s more than just a “story,” but an entire section tallying almost 50 pages. For a magazine that usually runs between 80 and 110 pages total, that’s quite a feat.
I had a feeling from looking at the cover that I was going to “learn” an awful lot. And Time surely didn’t disappoint. Below the jump, my newfound knowledge. But break out your Evolutionary Psychologist Bingo Cards first.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Jan
17
It Wasn’t Me, Honey - It Was My Midlife Crisis!
Filed Under assholes, gender, media, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, stereotypes | 11 Comments
Yesterday, there was a NY Times article about the social concept of the “midlife crisis.” Amazingly enough, it was almost intelligent. So close, and yet so very far. But when an article is called “Crisis? Maybe He’s a Narcissistic Jerk,” and starts out like this, I should probably know that it’s too good to be true:
With the possible exception of “the dog ate my homework,” there is no handier excuse for human misbehavior than the midlife crisis.
[. . .]
I recently heard about a severe case from a patient whose husband of nearly 30 years abruptly told her that he “felt stalled and not self-actualized” and began his search for self-knowledge in the arms of another woman.
It was not that her husband no longer loved her, she said he told her; he just did not find the relationship exciting anymore.
“Maybe it’s a midlife crisis,” she said, then added derisively, “Whatever that is.”
Outraged and curious, she followed him one afternoon and was shocked to discover that her husband’s girlfriend was essentially a younger clone of herself, right down to her haircut and her taste in clothes.
It doesn’t take a psychoanalyst to see that her husband wanted to turn back the clock and start over. But this hardly deserves the dignity of a label like “midlife crisis.” It sounds more like a search for novelty and thrill than for self-knowledge.
In fact, the more I learned about her husband, it became clear that he had always been a self-centered guy who fretted about his lost vigor and was acutely sensitive to disappointment. This was a garden-variety case of a middle-aged narcissist grappling with the biggest insult he had ever faced: getting older.
But you have to admit that “I’m having a midlife crisis” sounds a lot better than “I’m a narcissistic jerk having a meltdown.”
In fact, Friedman, who is a male mental health doctor, seems to fully accept that the “midlife crisis” is not only an excuse to act like an ass much more often than any kind of serious mental condition, but also that it’s almost entirely a male phenomenon. Can you think of a woman who has claimed to have a midlife crisis? Of a woman’s behavior who has been explained or dismissed away, however bitterly, as a midlife crisis? Any depictions of the midlife crisis, defined as such, in popular media (TV, movies, books, etc.) that have women as their subjects? I’m sure that there must be a few, but I personally cannot think of one. Instead, it seems like we think only men are self-reflective enough to face existential self-doubt and fear of death, and also that only men are stupid and swayed by their genitals enough to ruin relationships and financial stability without thinking about the consequences. Men face midlife crises, women who act similarly are just selfish bitches.
Popularity: 19% [?]
Jan
16
Wait, sexual orientation ISN’T a binary?
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, objectification, sexism, stereotypes | 11 Comments
Crazy but true, folks. Bisexual women actually exist. Their sexual preferences are not a phase! You hear that, bisexual ladies? You are now officially validated. You may go about your lives from this point forward knowing that a scientific study has confirmed that you’re not lying about your sexual desires. Doesn’t it feel great to know that you can believe yourself?
Popularity: 17% [?]
Jan
11
Feminists Aren’t Humorless Just Because Your Jokes Suck
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, assholes, bigotry, gender, media, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, sexism, stereotypes | 3 Comments
This comic by Pat Oliphant was run yesterday in the Washington Post (click the link for a slightly larger version of the cartoon). I wasn’t able to determine if the cartoon ran in the print edition, as the “print” versions of the paper online don’t seem to include cartoons (anyone have a hard copy laying around?). But Oliphant is a syndicated editorial cartoonist.
If you feel inclined to let the Post know that extreme sexism counts as neither humor nor commentary, they have a special email address specifically for online comic feedback. That the email exists makes one wonder what kind of cartoons they generally run, but all the same, you can find the contact information both for online comics and online content on the contact page.
Popularity: 15% [?]