-
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
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% [?]
Mar
18
Welcoming Governor Paterson
Filed Under Democrats, disability, media, politics, race and racism | 3 Comments
What did everyone think of New York Governor David Paterson’s inaugural speech? (transcript and video.)
Due to the whole not having a computer thing, I haven’t had the time to read other blog reactions. I did listen to a majority of the speech on the radio (I had somewhere to be) and read the part that I missed. Honestly, I was pretty impressed. He was very personable, charming and most of his jokes were actually funny. I was also kind of surprised that he so clearly rebuked Spitzer:
Of course, I never expected to have the honor of serving as Governor of New York State. But our constitution demands it. This transition today is an historic message to the world that we live among the same values that we profess, and that we are a government of laws and not individuals. Today we can be proud of our democracy.
Granted, he kind of had to say something. And I’m not so sure that I agree with him (I don’t think that “we” live by the values that we profess — I think that Spitzer just acted stupidly enough to destroy any good will towards him that might have saved his sorry ass). But I do appreciate the sentiment and that he is trying to distance himself from Spitzer rather than act as an apologist or simply pretend like the whole thing never happened.
I have to say that I was also very pleasantly surprised that the first words he said with regards to policy and agenda were single mothers, children living in poverty and social justice:
It’s that New York families are more challenges today than they were yesterday. And if we are going to build a viable future for New York, we are going to have to help single mothers who have two jobs. We are going to have to give children better schools and families who don’t have health care some redress.
It’s refreshing to see a NY governor not jump straight to “wasteful spending” (which is a problem, but hardly the biggest, and generally an excuse to cut money from the places that need it most) and, the all-time favorite, high property taxes. When Paterson did address property taxes, he also did it in the context of affordable housing rather than just an easy applause line.
I studied the same issues and had the same experiences, hopes, and frustrations as so many other New Yorkers. I am chagrined at the high cost of education for my family. And the prohibitive price of health care.
I have talked to New Yorkers for decades about the crumbling upstate economy, the crush of property taxes and the lack of affordable housing. These are issues that we will continue to focus and address, but we can do more.
There is also the historic aspect; we’re looking at the first black governor of NY, the third black governor in the U.S., and one of the few governors to have a disability, depending on how you define “disability,” that tends to provoke pity from the well-meaning but clueless and inspire immediate bias.
As I’ve mentioned, I was also once greatly impressed by Governor Spitzer, so I do not entirely trust my immediate impressions. But I do know that Governor Paterson has a great record with regards to social justice, poverty and promoting equal opportunity for racial minorities, women and the disabled. In fact, he largely made his career off of these issues. And even if it does turn out that he’s not all he’s cracked up to be, we do know this much: he’d have to pull out all the stops to disappoint us more than the last guy.
From Paterson’s speech:
I was born in the borough of Brooklyn. I was educated on Long Island. Harlem is my home. This is where I learned love for family and appreciation for community.
I have confronted the prejudice of race and challenged the issues of my own disability. I have served in government for over two decades. I stand willing and able to lead this state to a brighter future and a better tomorrow.
Let me reintroduce myself. I am David Paterson and I am the Governor of New York State.
Welcome, Governor Paterson. May you serve us well and with integrity.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Feb
9
One-Quarter of U.S. Women Experience Intimate Partner Violence
Filed Under disability, gender, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 2 Comments
A new CDC report shows that one-quarter of U.S women have suffered intimate partner violence. This won’t come as much of a shock to those of us who have been paying attention. I also highly doubt that it will change the minds of those who like to deny the extent of violence against women, seeing as how they regularly ignore the FBI stats on the instance of false rape reports. But I do think that the report is somewhat interesting for its demographic findings:
Black women were more likely to report domestic violence than whites or Hispanics, but it was most frequent among multiracial, American Indian and Alaska native women.
Women of all income and education levels suffer such abuse, although it was more frequent among the poorest and those who attended but did not graduate from college.
“Perhaps one of the factors at play here is the high prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses, and dating violence,” Michele Black, a CDC epidemiologist who helped write the agency’s report, said in a telephone interview.
Black said she could not say whether domestic violence rates were rising. The results were comparable with those of a 1995 government survey that found that 24.8 percent of women and 7.6 percent of men reported suffering domestic violence.
The CDC said women who suffer domestic violence are three times as likely to engage in risky sex and 70 percent more likely to drink heavily than other women.
They are also twice as likely to report that their activities are limited by physical, mental or emotional problems and 50 percent more likely to use a cane, wheelchair or other disability equipment, the CDC survey found.
These women also were 80 percent more likely to have a stroke, 70 percent more likely to have heart disease or arthritis and 60 percent more likely to have asthma.
Kiersten Stewart, director of public policy for the Family Violence Prevention Fund advocacy group, said the CDC figures broadly fit other assessments that about a quarter to a third of U.S. women experience domestic violence.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Jan
7
This is what I hate about politics
Filed Under 2008 election, abortion, disability, marketing, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, reproductive justice, sexism, videos, women’s health | 11 Comments
The Clinton campaign has put out a last-minute attack mailing against Obama in New Hampshire, and the content really pisses me off:
Barack Obama’s campaign fought back Sunday against rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in an under-the-radar dispute over who would best protect abortion rights.
Obama’s campaign made automated phone calls to New Hampshire voters accusing Clinton of “last-minute smears.”
The recorded message came in response to a Clinton mailing that said Obama failed to stand up for the right to choose abortion. The mailing said that while serving in the state Senate in Illinois, Obama voted “present” seven times on abortion legislation instead of taking a yes or no position.
In the Obama call, Wendy Frosh, of Planned Parenthood in Northern New England, said Obama “has a 100 percent pro-choice record and has always been a champion for women’s rights.”
Yes, this does look very bad on paper. But here are the facts: Obama’s “present” votes were Planned Parenthoods’ idea.
Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.
Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.
“He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled.
But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights.
Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.
“It’s just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership,” Ms. Madigan said. “In fact, it was the exact opposite.”
I recommend reading the full article, because it explains some of the weirdness of the “present” vote culture in Illinois. I find it to be odd, too, but Obama didn’t make the rules. As for the rest of his “present” votes, I think that he has given adequate explanations for most of them. Others, not so much. But then again, Clinton doesn’t exactly have a perfect voting record, either. What pisses me off is that Clinton and her campaign are smart enough to know better. They know that the ads are huge manipulations of the truth and that Obama is actually an incredibly strong pro-choice candidate. In fact, it’s probably my favorite thing about the guy. So I call bullshit very loudly and indignantly.
The upside, I realized, after the burst of anger subsided, is that there really must be parts of this country where abortion rights are a winning issue. Otherwise, the mailing never would have seen the light of day.
I also can’t bring myself to pick on Clinton too greatly. Earlier today, during a Q&A session, she teared up while answering a question about “how she does it.” The video is after the jump.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Dec
11
Prosecutor: Gang-rape of ten-year-old was “childish experimentation”
Filed Under Australia, International, WOC issues, assholes, bigotry, class and economics, courts gone crazy, disability, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 10 Comments
Again: all kinds of trigger warnings.
Via Lauredhel, more disturbing information has come to light about the Australian case of the ten-year-old girl who, according to a judge, “probably agreed to have sex” with the 6 youths and 3 legal adults who gang-raped her. Brace yourself.
The child - who had been living in a Cairns foster home before the department decided to return her to Aurukun, in Cape York - has been diagnosed as “mildly intellectually impaired” and suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, having been born to an alcohol-dependent mother. [. . .]
An eight-month investigation was conducted into the April 2006 multiple rape and submitted to the Department of Child Safety, resulting in one senior officer being sacked and two others suspended for 12 months on full pay - a situation that still exists.
A senior departmental official yesterday told The Australian that the child involved was sexually abused at age seven and, as a safety measure, was put with various foster families, eventually ending up in 2005 with a non-indigenous family in Cairns. But she was returned nine months later to Aurukun, where she was gang-raped by the nine males. [. . .]
The investigating committee also reported that the Child Safety officers took no remedial action when the girl threatened to commit suicide. [. . .]
The committee also found the child had first contracted syphilis in April 2002 when she was aged seven and was raped by five juveniles in Aurukun, receiving severe genital injuries.
I don’t even know what to say. The girl was gang-raped at the age of seven. She was then removed from her community, because it was believed that she would not be safe there. Child Protective Services then moved her back from her foster home because of concerns over the historical and social impact of Aboriginal children living with white parents. The government is now calling this “rubbish” and trying to blame the situation on some kind of racial prejudice against white people, though it’s never explained why the girl could not have been placed in foster care with Aboriginal parents or simply in a different Aboriginal community. [Note: I do not know enough to say one way or the other whether or not the girl should have been removed from the care of the white family. What I'm saying is that blaming the call to remove her doesn't fly, because many other actions could have been taken that would have put her at less of a risk for danger.]
It gets a lot worse, though. It turns out that, though the judge is certainly to blame, she cannot bear all of the responsibility for the atrocity of this ruling. Why? Because the prosecutor in the case told her that the rape was “childish experimentation.” No. Not the defense attorney. The prosecutor. The one who is meant to act in the best interest of the ten-year-old, mentally disabled, previously sexually abused rape victim. He also called her and her rapists “naughty.”
Popularity: 37% [?]
Oct
4
On health care, women and caregiving
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, disability, legislation, parenthood, politics, sexism, women’s health, work | 7 Comments
A Womens eNews article via AlterNet asks whether the Clinton, Obama or Edwards health plan is best for women. Before reading the story, I have to say that I was excited. I was hoping for a detailed breakdown of the three plans from a women’s issues perspective with some kind of grading system telling voters which proposals they should support and why.
Well, the article is actually about how they all suck and Dennis Kucinich’s plan is the only acceptable option. That was the first let down. I’m willing to admit that in a better world, the Kucinich plan for true universal health care would be the plan that I would support. But I also honestly believe that there is not enough political will in America for such a plan, nor will there be for at least 10, maybe even 20, years. The insurance companies still have too much sway, the rich are still too powerful, the middle-class still has delusions that one day they will be rich, and the Republicans are still successfully scaring the crap out of people over having their taxes raised. And I would greatly prefer a decent health care plan instead of none in the vain pursuit of a great one. That’s just me, and feel free to disagree.
But while the main crux of the article was disappointing, this part both confused me and pissed me off:
The three private insurer-based plans are also identically stingy toward caretakers.
Some plans — Hillary’s and Edwards’ — would cover respite care to help caregivers. Edwards offers up flextime, longer leave periods and paid leaves to help “parents” balance work and family.
Although well intentioned these policies reinforce the social expectation that women will be able to meet the daily needs of those who cannot help themselves.
If, for example, federal legislation required employers to grant flextime to help care for the elderly, our social expectations of women would mean that any one of them who didn’t use this option — who didn’t toss aside her paying job to assume this role — would be subject to criticism.
And the news media wouldn’t shy from broadcasting every report — however marginal or questionable its methodology — that showed how much better it is for the elderly to be in the care of a daughter than a professional attendant.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Sep
28
Congrats to the Matthew Shepard Act!
Filed Under Democrats, LGBTQ issues, disability, gender, homophobia and transphobia, legislation, politics | 2 Comments
I almost forgot! The news came out last night: nine years after Matthew Shepard’s murder, the Senate has passed the Matthew Shepard Act 60-39. The legislation extends protection against hate crimes to the LGBTQ community– and gender and disability!
Three cheers for a Democratic Senate! Bush, of course, has threatened a veto. Which would be a lot of fun. We shall see.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Sep
3
Disability Rights Are a Feminist Issue
Filed Under bigotry, blogswarm, disability, discrimination, feminism, human rights, media, stereotypes | 15 Comments
One might ask why a feminist blogger is writing about disability rights. I’ll be honest and say that until I heard of this blogswarm and read more about the Jerry Lewis Telethon, it was an issue that I had given incredibly little thought. But the answer is easy. I’m advocating for the disabled for the same reason that I advocate for people of color and the LGBTQ community, even though I am white and straight. Firstly, women are inexorably a part of these communities. Secondly, one cannot fight for the equal rights of herself honestly and in good conscience without demanding the same for others.
I’d like to try, for a moment, to filter the issue of Disability Rights through a feminist perspective.
Popularity: 16% [?]
-
"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." --Margaret Sanger
-
"Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less." -- Susan B. Anthony
