-
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
-
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Republicans said the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases.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% [?]
Mar
19
“Conscience” has nothing to do with it
Filed Under anti-choice extremism, class and economics, courts gone crazy, discrimination, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, women’s health | 14 Comments
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.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Mar
4
International Sex Workers Rights Day
Filed Under blogswarm, class and economics, courts gone crazy, discrimination, feminism, human rights, misogyny, objectification, pornography, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 26 Comments
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).
Popularity: 27% [?]
Mar
3
Pregnant Women and Drug Addicts: They’re People, Too.
Filed Under WOC issues, abortion, class and economics, discrimination, human rights, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, women’s health | 6 Comments
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.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Feb
13
On the murder of Sanesha Stewart
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, WOC issues, bigotry, class and economics, discrimination, gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, sex work, violence against women and girls | 16 Comments
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.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Jan
31
Manila Women Fight for Birth Control
Filed Under International, WOC issues, abortion, activism, anti-choice extremism, class and economics, discrimination, legislation, patriarchy, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 1 Comment
Female activists from poor communities in Manila are demanding access to contraceptive services:
Women from three slum communities in Manila asked the appeals court on Wednesday to allow them access to contraceptives in public clinics, revoking a local law that bans condoms and pills.
In 2000, the capital’s mayor issued an order stopping doctors, nurses and other health workers from promoting and distributing contraceptives, instructing them to teach only the natural method of family planning.
“We want to decide for ourselves how many children we would have, and not the government to tell us how to do it,” Lourdes Osil, a mother of six, told reporters after her lawyers asked the court to declare the seven-year-old local law unconstitutional.
“We were denied not only access to contraceptives, but even our rights guaranteed in the constitution to make a free choice were also ignored and violated.”
Home to an estimated 89 million people, the largely Catholic Philippines has one of the fastest-growing populations in Asia with around 2 million babies born every year.
Under President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, a devout Catholic who relies on the support of politically powerful bishops, the central government promotes natural family planning methods such as abstinence when the woman is ovulating.
Emma Monzaga, one of the petitioners, said she was getting injections once every three months to prevent her from becoming pregnant, but was told on her third visit to a public clinic that the treatment was no longer available.
“I was asked to go somewhere else to get the shots because the city hall has stopped funding the family planning program,” Monzaga said, adding her family could not afford to spend extra for contraceptives.
“We used to get it for free. It’s becoming a burden because we have to eat and send our six children to school.”
I’m sure that Monzaga is far from being the only one who cannot afford to spend money on birth control in an area where many struggle to put food on the table. And as important as the right to personal autonomy and reproductive choice is, this situation goes far beyond those kinds of concerns. We’re literally talking about life and death:
Popularity: 21% [?]
Jan
30
Burmese Refugees Held Prisoner in Thai “Human Zoo”
Filed Under Asia, International, WOC issues, bigotry, class and economics, discrimination, human rights, misogyny, objectification, race and racism | Leave a Comment
No, really, I swear this time: I have no idea what to say.
*sputters something incoherent about racism, colonialism & sexism*
. . .
Popularity: 15% [?]
Jan
28
On “Pro-Choice Republicans”
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, Republicans, WOC issues, abortion, class and economics, human rights, politics, pregnancy, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 6 Comments
This RH Reality Check article on pro-choice Republicans has intrigued me and got my brain whirling. To someone like me, “pro-choice Republican” is quite the oxymoron. Yeah, I’ve heard of them existing (though I don’t recall every knowingly meeting one in person). But every time I hear the concept, my head just about explodes.
The basic premise for pro-choice Republicans, which I accept, is that traditional Republican values of personal freedom and lack of government intrusion are perfectly in line with legal abortion and medical privacy. But there are two very significant problems here. The first is that the Republican Party has seemingly not stood for these principles in some time, and certainly not in my time. In my 23 years, Republicans have always been anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-black civil rights and in favor of abandoning the most basic principles of the capitalism they so adore by artificially propping up big business. The second problem is that merely being in favor of legal abortion doesn’t make one pro-choice.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Jan
25
Immigration Guidelines for Family Detention Don’t Protect Children
Filed Under WOC issues, class and economics, human rights, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | Leave a Comment
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have updated their guidelines for family detention facilities, including the notorious T. Don Hutto detention center. It is currently very common for the children of detained undocumented immigrants who have committed no other crime to be held in detention along with their parents, even when better options are available. Families in detention generally receive few special privileges, which means that children who have also committed no crime are being held as and treated like prisoners. The new guidelines aim to resolve some of the current issues, but they fall short in many ways:
The first-ever federal standards for immigrant women and children held in confinement at facilities in Taylor and Pennsylvania are an improvement, but fall short of ensuring appropriate conditions for families who have committed no crimes, advocates for immigrants and refugees said Friday.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials on Friday posted the 37 new standards on the agency’s Web site. They address education, discipline, use of force, medical care, strip searches, sexual assault and prevention, detainee counts and other issues.
The standards were approved Dec. 21 and are now in effect, said agency spokesman Carl Rusnok.
They were stipulated in a settlement agreement reached last August in federal lawsuits filed in Austin by the American Civil Liberties Union and the University of Texas Law School immigration clinic, Rusnok said.
Attorneys for several children confined at the T. Don Hutto residential facility in Taylor contended in the lawsuits that conditions there were inhumane and violated minimum standards for minors in immigration custody, set under a 1997 settlement approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorneys could not be reached for comment late Friday.
The standards also apply at another smaller facility for immigrant families in Berka, Pa.
“We commend the Department of Homeland Security for drafting standards that will improve these facilities,” said Michelle Brané with the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children in New York. “However, we continue to be concerned with many provisions of the standards, particularly that they allow children to be disciplined based on adult prison protocol, including the use of restraints, steel batons and strip searches.”
The 512-bed Hutto facility, operated by Corrections Corp. of America and overseen by the federal agency, opened in May 2006 as one of two centers in the nation that confined families on noncriminal charges while they awaited decisions in asylum cases or final arrangements for deportation.
The facility generated controversy later that year, with critics saying that it was inappropriate for children. Opponents said there were better alternatives to confining families, such as holding them in nonpenal settings, as Congress also advocated.
You can read through the guidelines yourself here. The portions that I scanned actually looked like they forbid corporal punishment for children, but I’m very far from being a lawyer. It also wasn’t easy to find a whole lot on the issue — I came up with a handful of news articles and a handful of blog posts — but everything I did manage to find carried the same claim from more than one organization. Nothing I found included any indication that ICE has denied the charges, even those articles containing different statements from them about the guidelines and facilities. And the allegations become even easier to believe when looking at other changes made last year only thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU: