-
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% [?]
Apr
12
When you’re this big of an asshole, wishful thinking is your best bet
Filed Under assholes, beauty myths, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming | 5 Comments
If you read or receive updates from Media Matters, or are masochistic enough to do your own right-wing media watch, you’ll have probably heard of Marc Rudov. He’s a frequent guess on The O’Reilly Factor, apparently has his own radio show now, and has made his pathetic career off of telling the world what exactly is wrong with women and how they fail to live up to his standards. Most of the time, it comes off as petulant whining about how women are such big whores who will fuck anyone but for some reason won’t fuck him.
I haven’t seen very much written about him in the feminist blogosphere, and I think it’s for a good reason. He has a bit of the Ann Coulters about him; getting pissed off at the things he says only pleases and encourages him.
Which is why personally, I believe that it’s better to mock. Two days ago, he was on The O’Reilly Factor discussing beauty pageants (because O’Reilly likes to cover those hard hitting issues and because the Miss USA pageant was apparently last night), and used the opportunity — again — to call women filthy slutbags for having bodies and stuff. Check out the video and partial transcript below — the video even rewards you with some of the old Fox News Porn.
Popularity: 20% [?]
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
29
Updates and Things
Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, assholes, blogging, media, objectification, politics, race and racism, random, rape and sexual assault, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 5 Comments
A few stories I’ve recently blogged about have some updates:
Yesterday, I wrote about a woman who was forced to undergo a painful process of removing her nipple piercings before she could board a plan, apparently for the amusement of the male security officers. The TSA has responded to the situation:
The TSA said Friday in a statement on its Web site that the officers properly followed procedures, but that the procedures must change. In the future passengers can either allow a visual inspection of their piercings, or remove them, the agency said.
The statement stopped short of apologizing to Hamlin.
”TSA acknowledges that our procedures caused difficulty for the passenger involved and regrets the situation in which she found herself,” the agency said in a statement. ”We appreciate her raising awareness on this issue and we are changing the procedures to ensure that this does not happen again.”
Hamlin’s attorney said she accepted the TSA statement as an apology, and commended the agency for taking quick action. The policy change is ”an achievement for the protection of passengers’ civil rights while meeting the security goals of the TSA,” Gloria Allred said.
Uh huh. Well call me difficult to please (you wouldn’t be the first), but I do find it a little odd how the TSA website already said prior to this statement that “If you are selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to a pat-down search.” A pat-down search was never offered to Hamlin, and was in fact refused to her when she made the offer herself to show her nipple piercings to the female guard in private — the same guard who had to look at her piercings anyway as Hamlin went through the excruciating process of removing them. So I think that TSA will have to try again. Changing a policy is totally different from beginning to enforce one that is already in place. It was previously indicated that Hamlin was considering suing if she did not receive an apology. I think that it will be a shame if a lawsuit doesn’t go through, and after all of the trouble, TSA gets off the hook with a slight wag of the finger.
I’ve also recently blogged about how Al Sharpton and the NAACP are supporting leniency for the Dunbar Village rapists. Now, Sharpton’s organization (NAN) and the NAACP are furiously denying, changing their stories and pointing fingers at each other. Sharpton has tried to rewrite history and is blaming the “misinformation” on the women of color bloggers who have raised awareness and interest about this issue, without noting that the information came from numerous objective and mainstream news sources. In other words, he’s not only ignoring the fact that women of color deserve rights equal to those of men of color, but is now also blaming his own disgusting mess on women of color rather than taking responsibility for his actions. Nice. Also, while reviewing the denials and backpedaling, check out this flier. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of who produced it, but according the the Dunbar Village blog, it was passed around at the NAN and NAACP join press conference on March 11. And even if they didn’t produce the fliers themselves, the fact remains that putting together an event with this type of bullshit propaganda being openly distributed isn’t exactly the best way to prove that you’re not supporting the rapists (and neither is standing on a stage with the rapists’ families).
Keep those letters coming, folks.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Mar
28
Bad Ass Women’s Activist of the Week: When Ordinary Women Refuse to Accept Absue of Authority Edition
Filed Under assholes, bad ass women’s activist of the week, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 8 Comments
Think it was bad when Southwest Airlines started kicking women off of their planes for dressing “inappropriately?” Well they’ve apparently got nothing on the Transportation Security Administration. They recently forced female traveler Mandi Hamlin to remove her nipple piercings before allowing her to board a plane — even though she offered to show her piercings to the female officer and required pliers to remove the jewelry:
Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.
The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin’s chest, the Dallas-area resident said.
Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.
She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.
“Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her,” said Hamlin’s attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Allred is a well-known Los Angeles lawyer who often represents high-profile claims.
Applying pliers to the torso of a mannequin that had a peach-colored bra with the rings on it, Hamlin showed reporters at the news conference how she took off the second ring.
She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring. (emphasis mine)
Best case scenario, this was sexual harassment. Absolutely nothing that Hamlin was forced to do was necessary. She was upfront and compliant. None of it made passengers more safe, and the officers knew it. It seems pretty obvious that the male agents did this for shits and giggles. They sexually humiliated and injured her, laughed about it, and then proved that this was their goal by completely ignoring her equally “dangerous” belly button ring.
Popularity: 22% [?]
Mar
25
Feminists Judge Beauty Differently
Filed Under beauty myths, feminism, media, objectification | 9 Comments
When I saw the headline Feminists More Open-Minded on Weight, I expected an article on the fat-acceptance movement (which the Times had reported on fairly recently). But no, this time, feminist open-mindedness on weight has apparently been proven!
I’ll say up front that I did not pay $30 to read the study in full, but here is the abstract:
The present study examined the effect of feminist ascription on perceptions of the physical attractiveness of women ranging in body mass index (BMI). One-hundred and twenty-nine women who self-identified as feminists and 132 who self-identified as non-feminists rated a series of 10 images of women that varied in BMI from emaciated to obese. Results showed no significant differences between feminist and non-feminists in the figure they considered to be maximally attractive. However, feminists were more likely to positively perceive a wider range of body sizes than non-feminists. These results are discussed in relation to possible protective factors against the internalisation of the thin ideal and body objectification.
Well, cool. I buy that. Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me. After all, the first step to changing your perceptions is understanding where they come from.
But based on the Times description of the study, there’s something a little weird going on here:
The photographs were of 10 women, faces concealed and wearing tight gray clothing, who ranged in body mass index from emaciated to obese.
I can only assume that this is part of the methodology, the idea being that the faces of the women could skew the results away from an assessment based merely on body size. But regardless, it does strike me as kind of fucked up to ask women to assess the “attractiveness” of other women only after their humanity has been erased. Of course, we’re asked to judge women in this way on a daily basis; women are constantly carved up and served to us as generic bodies and body parts. We see overweight women with their heads cut off from the field of vision as some form of “respect” every time there’s a story on obesity in the nightly news. We see thin women displayed sexually with their heads obscured or cropped out of the photograph for public titillation. One almost has to wonder if a few of the feminists in this study noticed the trend, got annoyed and overcompensated. After all, this premise seems to buy into the basic if false presumption that you can judge a woman’s attractiveness based on body parts that do not include her head.
And what the hell is up with the tight clothing? Obviously they were trying to not skew perceptions by dressing the larger women in looser clothing — but wouldn’t it have made sense to dress all of the women in well-fitting clothing? It seems to me that clothes showing body size and shape but not clinging to the skin would be fair to every woman, where as the tight clothes buy into a preference towards a certain body type, what with the popular idea that thin women should show off as much as possible and overweight women should wear giant sacks..
Anyway, if anyone has full access to the study, I’d be interested to learn just how much wider the feminist range of “attractive bodies” was to the non-feminist range– and whether it extended further for both over and under-weight bodies, or only one direction. Also, did the women actually identify as “non-feminists,” or did they just answer the question “are you a feminist” with a “no”? I’d say that there’s a clear difference between a woman who says “I’m not a feminist” (most women, sadly) and a woman who says “I’m a non-feminist” (Laura Schlessinger).
The Times does provide us one extra bit of detail about the results — and what a stunning conclusion it leads us to.
The study participants were asked to identify the thinnest and heaviest women they considered “physically attractive.” They were also asked to say which woman they thought was most attractive.
Feminists and nonfeminists tended to agree on which woman was the most attractive. But that woman was described by the researchers as somewhat underweight, suggesting that even feminists cannot fully avoid societal pressures to be thin.
Well I’ll be damned. Who would’ve thought that feminists were real people subject to socialization just like everyone else? Next thing you know, it’ll turn out that feminists have faked orgasms, worn lipstick, changed their last names upon marriage and been all human and everything.
UPDATE: Feminist Advatar answers many of my questions in the comments.
Popularity: 17% [?]
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% [?]
Feb
18
Distributing Homemade Porn without Ex’s Consent Could Land Man in Jail
Filed Under Asia, International, assholes, misogyny, objectification, pornography, sex and sexuality, sexual exploitation and harassment, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | Leave a Comment
This greatly pleases me: a Hong Kong man who posted sex videos of his ex-girlfriend online without her consent could face jail time.
A jilted Hong Kong boyfriend who posted video clips on the internet of his ex-lover having sex with him was warned on Monday that he could face jail.
Lee Wing-fung, 29, uploaded nude photos and video clips in an act of revenge when his former girlfriend refused to get back together with him.
He was sentenced to 240 hours community service in September after admitting criminal intimation and publishing indecent material.
However, the prosecution claims the sentence was too lenient and is now seeking a jail sentence for Lee.
It says the fact that he threatened the woman beforehand and published her name and work address with the video clips deserves a jail sentence of at least 12 months.
In the earlier hearing, the defence claimed Lee resorted to the action because he was devastated when his girlfriend ended their three-year relationship.
A true threat of punishment for such an action isn’t exactly one that you see often, even if the practice itself is becoming more and more common. We’ve long had people who steal and release homemade sex videos by celebrities. Then came the camera phone phenomenon of taking pictures up women’s skirts and posting them online or passing them around to friends. Now, the practice of posting sex videos without one person’s consent has increased, with the success of sites like xTube and YouPorn. For those who don’t know, these sites are the YouTube of porn — anyone can upload videos to the site, so long as they own the copyright to the material. They are designed specifically for amateur porn, and though the sites have a rule that the consent of all participating parties in the video must be obtained to legally publish it, there isn’t exactly any way to enforce such a requirement.
Though I’m sure that this kind of thing has happened to men as well, with straight men being the primary consumers of porn, women are mostly the ones getting screwed over. No matter how much a woman is comfortable and unashamed of her sexuality, as a general rule, she still wouldn’t want images of herself engaging in a sexual act available for anyone to see — particularly without her consent. Beyond simple modesty concerns, this is a highly rational worry, seeing as how one’s entire career can be unfairly jeopardized for even the most benign photographs (of course, it’s also a huge violation of personal and sexual rights).
Popularity: 28% [?]
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
19
In The Face of Slut-Shaming, Female Mayor Stands Her Ground
Filed Under feminism, media, misogyny, objectification, politics, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming, work | 18 Comments
A mayor from a small town in Oregon has been found to have “sexually suggestive” photographs on her MySpace page. That is, photographs of her in black lingerie, posing on a fire truck. Photographs that are obviously tame enough that MySpace allows them.
Whether or not her profile has always been sent to private, it is now. But Mayor Kontur-Gronquist has refused to either take down the photos or resign:
Mayor Carmen Kontur-Gronquist, whose MySpace photos of her posing in black lingerie on a fire engine put this Columbia River town of 600 into something of a pother, told ABC’s 20/20 Friday night that she’s not stepping down.
”They’re going to have to drag me out of here,” she said.
The pictures were taken before she thought of running for mayor, said Kontur-Gronquist, 42, the first woman to hold the unpaid position. She said she had permission from the fire chief to use the engine and had intended to use the photos in a contest about fitness in women.
A relative set up the MySpace page, hoping it would jump-start her social life, said Kontur-Gronquist, a single parent. Family members uploaded the photos and she said she saw no reason to take them down once elected.
”I had no clue that it would cause such a negative reaction,” she said. ”I called my council members and apologized. Everyone is entitled to their own private life.”
At a council meeting this month some people asked for her to resign.
”People aren’t laughing with us, they’re laughing at us,” said school board member Grant Wilkins.
What, exactly, are they laughing at, Wilkins? That your town has a Mayor who sees nothing wrong with her body, has the gall to demand the right to her own private life and doesn’t do everything you say?
Popularity: 69% [?]
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.