-
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
8
Walking Out a Rapist
Filed Under Europe, International, human rights, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 22 Comments
Did anyone doubt that my first post back would be about a rape-related issue that is considered “controversial”? If not, you know me well.
. . . Well, almost.
You see, the British Home Office has released this campaign to fight the sex trafficking industry — and from what I can tell, I love the concept (I have a practical criticism later). But, nowhere can I find the full text on the poster or an image large enough to make out the small text myself. As the Home Office has received my criticism before for some pretty terrible anti-rape ads, I’d like to know the full text before I sing its praises. If you find it, please send it on! I’ll be looking for it over the next few days; just be aware that my opinion is subject to change or expand on that basis. But here’s what we know:
Posters will appear in clubs and pubs from Monday warning men against paying for sex in brothels with exploited or trafficked women.
The posters, which will be piloted in men’s toilets in Westminster and Nottingham, will say “Walk in a Punter. Walk out a Rapist”.
They are part of a six-month home office review into tackling the demand for prostitution, which began in January, and aim to point out that trafficked women are forced into selling sex, and that forced sex is rape.
“So if you pay for sex with a trafficked woman what does that make you?” the posters ask.
They also urge Johns “if [they're] man enough” to call Crime Stoppers if they come across something suspicious.
Popularity: 15% [?]
May
4
LGBT Equality and Justice Day 2008
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, activism, excursions, feminism, human rights, legislation, politics | 2 Comments
My apologies that I didn’t get to this sooner, but I’ve been alternately busy and dealing with various personal shit. I can’t say that it has been the best week. But even though my memory is slightly less clear than it was when I should have written the post, I did still want to write about Equality and Justice Day.
Popularity: 13% [?]
Apr
14
Blog About The Congo Rape Epidemic
Filed Under Africa, International, WOC issues, activism, blogswarm, feminism, human rights, media, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments
Yesterday was the day to blog about the Congo rape epidemic. As Sunday is my day off from blogging, I missed it — but as I always say when I come in late to these things (a specialty of mine), it’s better late than never, and it’s not too late for you to participate either.
I was unfortunately not able to watch the documentary The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo, since I don’t have HBO, and I hope that it will be soon available through another outlets for those of us who don’t have access. But I’m happy that it has been made and that it has inspired bloggers to engage on this difficult topic.
It’s human nature to want to ask “who is responsible?” And the obvious answer is “the rapists.” This is absolutely true; of course they are responsible. But this type of epidemic does not materialize from nothingness. When rape is allowed to exist this rampantly and for so long, when weapons and funding do not appear out of thin air, when the world’s richest and most powerful nations turn away or ask simply and disinterestedly “what can we do?”, we must hold others accountable. And as Anxious Black Woman notes, among them are the Corporate Rapists, those who benefit financially from the conflict through their pillaging of the land’s natural resources. She prints a partial list of those corporations that absolutely must be disseminated as far and wide as we can manage:
Popularity: 18% [?]
Apr
11
Victims Don’t Owe You Anything
Filed Under International, human rights, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice, violence against women and girls | 9 Comments
A woman is being held in jail as a means to force testimony against her domestic abuser.
It gets worse: she’s pregnant.
And worse: her lawyer says that she is due to deliver every day.
And horridly ironic: one of the charges against her boyfriend is forcible confinement.
The victim, whose name I don’t feel it is appropriate to use (and in any case have seen spelled in no less than four different ways), did indeed testify today. She has said that she wants to raise her baby with her boyfriend and then she made up a highly transparent story about how the abuse didn’t happen, despite the mountain of physical evidence to the contrary. She has also vowed to never call the police again.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Apr
9
Offensive Remark of the Week: Beating and Raping Women Doesn’t Mean You Hate Them Edition
Filed Under assholes, bigotry, human rights, media, misogyny, offensive remark of the week, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, sexism, violence against women and girls | 11 Comments
NY Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof muses on the differences between misogyny and sexism. And I’d be really grateful if someone could honestly tell me that this is some kind of bizarre parody and he can’t be fucking serious. Instead, we do get to play the ironic game of determining which category Kristof falls into! Emphasis mine, and try to control your blood pressure:
Then in the reporting for this column, I spoke to evolutionary psychologists who emphasized the distinct origins of racism and misogyny/sexism. Racism seems based in a hard-wired tendency of ancient humans to divide into groups to improve odds of survival, and it was an evolutionary advantage to be able to identify strongly with your own tribe and to fear or kill members of other tribes. That may be why even very small children — even infants — draw racial distinctions or other in-group/out-group distinctions.
In contrast, the evolutionary origins of attitudes toward women were based presumably less on hatred and more on desire to control them and impregnate them, so as to pass on one’s genes. Acquiring and enforcing a harem, so as to improve the odds of one’s own genes being passed on, might involve ruthlessness, enslavement and brutal beatings, but there was no evolutionary incentive for gender hatred as there was for hatred of different tribes. And of course much of the anti-women behavior around the world, from genital cutting to bride burnings to sex trafficking, is typically overseen by women themselves, and it’s easier to see their behavior as opportunism or deeply-embedded sexism than as hatred of fellow women. So that’s why I wonder if sexism, in the sense of discriminatory attitudes toward males and females, isn’t a better way of thinking about the issue than misogyny, in the sense of hatred toward women.
Other anthropologists I spoke to also noted that the most discriminatory restrictions against women tend to come not from those who profess to hate women, but from those who profess to honor and protect them. Think of Afghan society, for example. After interviewing many men who beat and lock up women and threaten to kill them if they take a false step, I’d say that their attitudes for females are a mix of bizarre honor and contempt, but not usually hatred.
My head hurts.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Apr
5
More Contractor Rape, More Cover Up
Filed Under Republicans, activism, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls, work | 4 Comments
I mentioned before that the theme of this year’s Sexual Assault Awareness Month is sexual violence in the workplace. So, let’s talk about it.
Another woman has come forward to tell her story about working for KBR in Iraq. She was drugged and brutally gang raped by at least one American soldier and one KBR coworker. As the only medical personnel in the area, she was required to treat herself, never received a rape kit, was forced to medically treat her rapists during the course of her job before she was allowed to go home two and a half weeks later, had her allegations ignored by her supervisor who may have actually been one of the rapists, and then faced multiple aggressive attempts at cover up once she reported the attack.
The Nation has the full story. I’m issuing a strong trigger warning for the article as the descriptions of rape are graphic and the recounting of what happened next is very emotionally painful and difficult. But if you can do so safely, I adamantly urge you to read it.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Apr
1
Sexual Assault Awareness Month
Filed Under activism, blogging, blogswarm, feminism, human rights, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 5 Comments
I just wanted to drop a quick note to acknowledge that today kicked off Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Click the link for more ways to get involved. Here’s one suggestion: if you haven’t noticed the badge in the sidebar, April 3rd is Blog Against Sexual Violence day, scheduled to coincide with A Day to End Sexual Violence. The theme this year for both the awareness month and the blogswarm is sexual violence in the workplace.
I, of course, will be participating. I urge you to get involved, too, particularly if you write for a blog that doesn’t generally deal with sexual violence issues. I can keep hammering away about rape until I get carpal tunnel, but at the end of the day I still write for a feminist blog. And the people it is most important to reach are the kind who wouldn’t be caught dead with the URL of a feminist blog in their browser history.
You don’t have to blog about the theme topic — any subject matter regarding sexual violence will do. I don’t think that my post will be on sexual violence in the workplace, though I haven’t yet picked a topic (suggestions are welcome!). Though I blog about sexual assault rather regularly, I will make a special effort this month to cover those issues even more, as much as the rest of the crazy misogynist news will allow. I’d particularly like to highlight activist groups that are working to combat sexual violence, and I’m especially interested in community-based work and innovative approaches. If you know something that fits that bill, please do let me know!
For a real post highlighting the importance of this month, check out Marcella. And then, while you’re there, sign up to blog against sexual violence on the 3rd and grab yourself a blog badge.
Popularity: 13% [?]
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
14
What is this “rape” of which you speak?
Filed Under Africa, International, WOC issues, human rights, media, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, violence against women and girls | 8 Comments
This morning, I was reading the latest (March 17) issue of Time magazine. It contains an article on the Darfur conflict, and how the lines between “good” guys and “bad” guys are blurring.
Of course, there are extended descriptions of the violence and of the impact of that violence. But somehow, the issue of rape is conspicuously absent. In an article that is over 1,100 words long, the word appeared once, towards the very end of the article, as an after thought:
Amid continued militia and government attacks, it is Darfur’s civilians–both Arab and African–who suffer most. Battles last year drove more than 280,000 from their homes. Some find their way to Darfur’s swollen relief camps, home now to well over a third of the region’s population. But the camps are not immune to the violence. Many are controlled by the armed factions, and gangs of all stripes rob and rape many of those who venture outside. Other refugees wander Darfur’s unforgiving scrub, searching for a village or patch of land with some semblance of stability. Darfur’s humanitarian operation, already the largest in the world, struggles to service the displaced. Roads are a gauntlet of banditry, and attacks on relief workers are rising.
The word “woman?” It doesn’t appear in the article. Neither do the words “child” or “children.” Not once.
Can I possibly be the only one who sees something wrong with that picture? Yes, the article is about soldiers. It’s also about the extreme violence they have experienced and the atrocities that they commit.
Popularity: 28% [?]
Mar
8
International Women’s Day
Filed Under International, activism, feminism, human rights | 1 Comment
Happy International Women’s Day, everyone. I hope that you have a good one.
Personally, my day is shit. We’re having the worst snowfall of the entire winter today, and that means I can no longer volunteer at/attend Rochester V-Day tonight. Planned Parenthood of the Rochester/Syracuse Region is sponsoring a performance of The Vagina Monologues. I was really looking forward to it, and I’ve never seen the play live before. But I live 45 minutes away, and decided that since we’ll have about zero visibility tonight, icy roads, and I would have to drive on the thruway that gets most treacherous in bad weather, I would rather live. But if you live closer and can make it, go! Tickets are still available at the door. The volunteers have all worked really hard, the cast is great (I saw part of the group last week performing A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and A Prayer), and the money raised is going to our amazing Rape Crisis Services.
So yeah, I’m kind of mopey. But feel free to cheer me up with some good feminist happenings.
Here’s something that made me smile. Yesterday, Eve Ensler was in New Orleans to promote the 10th anniversary celebration of V-Day in the city next month (partial funds from all V-Days are going to support the women of New Orleans). She met with Mayor Ray Nagin, and he had this supportive if slightly bumbling message about his feelings on V-Day:
Mayor Nagin began his comments at the news conference by saying, “How am I gonna stand up and say, I’m a ‘vagina-friendly’ Mayor to these cameras after ‘Chocolate City’ and some of the other stuff that I’ve done. But you know what? I’m in.”
“She (Ensler) started describing the event, and you know what, I’m a guy and I’ve heard about the Vagina Monologues but I don’t know what was going on. I didn’t know anything about it and she started to describe this event - look, you know I’ve got a script and I’m not following it - and I was absolutely blown away at how awesome this work is. I mean, she is doing God’s work. So, I stand before you, a vagina-friendly Mayor. I am in! And you know what? It is so appropriate right now. New Orleans, Louisiana is the birthplace of jazz, you know, but it is the birthplace of so many tremendous women.”
Hehe. Okay, so maybe he should have stuck to that script. He probably could have done better than saying “I am in!” after declaring his vagina-friendliness. But since “vagina” is still such a taboo word, I imagine that a politician using it would be prone to such Freudian slips. (And this is about a million times better than Bush proclaiming his support for the right of OB/GYNs to “celebrate their love with women.”) I think that he meant no offense, and I take none. In fact, I’m rather happy to see such enthusiastic support from a prominent male public official for a subject so ridiculously unmentionable, for the event and for women. Good for you, Mayor Nagin. Though, just between you and me, I recommend that you start rehearsing speeches before you give them.
Popularity: 18% [?]
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% [?]