-
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
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% [?]
Apr
26
Faulty Feminist Introspection
Filed Under feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sexual exploitation and harassment, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 17 Comments
Will someone tell me what the fuck this shit is?
A study has concluded that men often “misinterpret” women’s subtle messages during a sexual encounter when the message means “stop”. But my WTF is not towards the study, which is nonetheless very interesting to talk about — my outrage is at the blog post from Broadsheet (emphasis mine).
Now, for the ear steam: I think it’s unfair to blame this sexual miscommunication on men. Just as men are misreading women’s indirect resistance, women are miscalculating how men will interpret their cues to slow down or stop. (Interestingly enough, in previous research, Motley found that women use indirect messages of resistance to avoid upsetting men, but most men easily accept direct resistance.) I also find it hard to blame men for not correctly reading women’s indirect resistance; women are often expected to, in the very least, put on a halfhearted performance as the steadfast sexual gatekeeper — even if it’s clear that she ultimately intends to abandon her post for the night. Given that cultural script — first she resists, then she consents — how is it any surprise that a guy would misinterpret a woman’s subtle suggestions to slow down?
What. The. Fuck.
Of course, the commenters think that it’s the best damn thing since sliced bread.
When Clark-Flory began this post with anger for the concept of “faulty male introspection,” I was with her. The idea sounded pretty damn offensive to me, too. What, guys are just too stupid to talk to women and ask what they mean when unsure? Women are a whole different species that we can’t expect men to actually communicate with? It’s not that he’s sexually assaulting you, ladies, it’s that he has faulty male introspection.
But no. That’s not what she was mad about. She was mad because it placed all the blame on guys. Due to ambiguous writing, I’m not even sure if she merely thinks that women need to take some of the blame, or if she thinks men should be entirely off the hook.
Popularity: 24% [?]
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
15
Mother May I?
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, cross-post, legislation, misogyny, patriarchy, pregnancy, rape and sexual assault, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 4 Comments
Who remembers the 2005 and 2006 California propositions that tried to instate parental notification rules for minors seeking abortions? You know, the ones that failed? Well, not so fast. Looks like it’s probably going to be on the ballot this year, too. Meet the man you can thank:
Jim Holman, owner of the San Diego Reader, has spent millions trying to persuade Californians to pass a law requiring parents to be notified before their underage daughter has an abortion.
After two failed ballot measure campaigns, Holman said last year that he didn’t want to try again.
But when other anti-abortion advocates, including winemaker Don Sebastiani, launched a third campaign, Holman couldn’t resist opening up his checkbook once again.
“Sebastiani was not deterred. He said, ‘We have to go back again and again,’ ” Holman said. “He led with big donations and I sort of followed.”
The result could make California political history.
The $1.8 million donated by Holman and Sebastiani so far is likely to put a parental-notification initiative before voters for the third time in four years. The measure would require a physician to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion for a girl under the age of 18.
If the measure qualifies, it would be the first time since the California initiative process was established in 1914 that the state’s voters will consider the same measure so many times in a four-year period.
Planned Parenthood is arguing that Holman, while not doing anything illegal, is abusing the electoral process, and I agree. No, money alone does not get an initiative on a ballot, but if you spend $1.8 on an issue that inspires the kind of passion abortion does and don’t manage to get the just-under 700,000 signatures needed in a very large state, you’d have to be pretty damn inept. Holman is, of course, perfectly within his rights — that doesn’t mean there’s nothing unethical about it.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Apr
15
Diluting the Message
Filed Under assholes, education and schools, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, violence against women and girls | 16 Comments
I love the folks over at SAFER, and you really ought to go check out this post.
In short, some guy wrote a really obnoxious opinion piece about rape for his student newspaper. (The jackass starts off by saying that rape is “controversial” — WTF?) Essentially, he was playing the How Far Can I Go Before It’s Rape? Game. Where’s the line in the sand? Can you please tell me the exact point at which sex that is incredibly ethically dubious technically turns into sexual assault? Consent is just so confuuuuusing. How can I knoooow? (psst: consent is when she says YES.) He also throws in a bit of “if the woman who was raped doesn’t call it rape then it’s not” . . . and fuck all the social conditioning that says women who have been raped are damaged goods and that what happened to them is their own fault. Also, ignore that using the word “rape” only to have your experience invalidated hurts more than if you don’t go out on that limb.
But in the middle of it all, he manages to let an inadvertent nugget of truth slip out. I can only assume that it was an accident. But there it is, and Ashley pounces on it and makes the excellent point that yes, sometimes definitions of sexual assault can go too far — and when they do, it hurts women and anti-rape advocates a hell of a lot more than it hurts the rapists. And while I don’t really think that this is an exceedingly common occurrence — in fact, the opposite problem is one that comes up a lot more — I’ve seen it enough that it needs to be addressed. So go read the post.
Popularity: 16% [?]
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
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
11
Dancers For Hire Exploited, NYT Gets Hard On
Filed Under WOC issues, class and economics, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, race and racism, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment, stereotypes, work | 3 Comments
Former employees have filed a lawsuit against a club where they used to work as dancers for hire, claiming that they were never paid wages for their work. The women are mostly immigrants, many of them Spanish-speaking only, and they were paid a mere $2 per dance direct from the customers while the club raked in profits from the door fee and drinks. They were forced to pay fees to the club in order to work there and were all around treated like shit. (All emphasis mine.)
In interviews in Spanish, several former dancers said the owners often made them pay a $60 or $70 fine when they missed a day of work. Several complained of having to pay an $11 fee each day just to enter the club and an additional $10 if they arrived a half-hour late.
They said that sometimes, after dancing from 4 p.m. to 4 a.m., they had to attend meetings that lasted until 6 a.m. in which the owners held forth, calling some dancers “puta” (whore) as well as ugly and fat. The dancers’ most serious complaint was that the club never paid them a cent for their 45-hour workweeks.
“I never received anything in wages,” said Patricia Gonzalez, a long-haired, leggy immigrant from the Dominican Republic who quit dancing at the Flamingo last June. “In my three years there I must have paid thousands of dollars in fines. And I paid the daily fee of $11 to enter. What kind of job do you have to pay just to go to work?”
The lawsuit raises an intriguing question of law: whether the for-hire dancers were employees, who should have been paid wages for every hour they worked, or independent contractors who, as the Flamingo’s owners assert, were merely renting space on the dance floor.
The owners say they had no obligation to pay wages, asserting that the dancers were entrepreneurs who made a living by keeping the $2 they earned for each dance.
“They’re paying to rent the space so they can make a living,” said Peter Rubin, a lawyer for the club. “They can keep all the money they make dancing. They don’t have to split anything with the house.” The club makes its money by charging the men $5 to enter and $7 a drink.
[. . .]
If the dancers win their lawsuit, it could have ripple effects at the city’s many for-hire dance clubs, latter-day versions of Depression-era joints where men paid 10 cents for a dance. Many of today’s dancers, like their customers, are illegal immigrants who earn their money off the books. Amy Carroll, a lawyer for Make the Road, said it was ridiculous for the Flamingo to suggest that the dancers were independent contractors.
“It seems that Flamingo is doing the worst of both worlds,” she said. “They’re not paying the workers anything, and they’re controlling every aspect of the dancers’ work life. They tell them what days to work, what time to show up, what outfits to wear, what makeup to use. They even make the dancers sign in and out to go to the restroom. That level of control makes them employees, not independent contractors.”
Popularity: 20% [?]
Apr
10
Because a Woman’s Free Will is of Their Utmost Concern
Filed Under Democrats, abortion, anti-choice extremism, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice | 4 Comments
I know that in crazy anti-choice wingnut land, logic isn’t exactly popular. But I do believe they’ve reached new heights of insult to basic reason. The Oklahoma Senate has passed a new bill that is more or less a hodgepodge of anti-abortion legislation. Take a look at the emphasized lines at the end of this excerpt.
SB 1878 combines various pieces of abortion legislation proposed this session.
One provision would require women who seek an abortion to undergo an ultrasound within one hour of the procedure.
Dr. Dana Stone, an Oklahoma City physician who is the chairwoman of the Oklahoma Section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said the ultrasound legislation was of great concern to her because of its invasive nature early in pregnancy.
“The patient has no ability to opt out,” she said.
Lamb noted that the legislation does not require a woman to view the ultrasound images.
It does require that the images be displayed so the woman may see them. It also requires the examiner to give a medical description of the images, to include dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of cardiac activity.
The bill also would require minors who seek abortions to provide written parental consent. Lamb said that is needed to ensure that minors aren’t coerced into ending pregnancy.
I reread those sentences several times, flabbergasted and convinced that I had interpreted them incorrectly. But no, I can still read. An author of the bill is actually arguing that requiring a minor to get written permission from her parents to have an abortion would ensure that she has not been coerced into ending a pregnancy.
Here is a list of anti-choice beliefs that one would have to buy into for this to make even a remote amount of sense:
- All men are sexual predators
- Therefore, women do not want abortions but are always pushed into them by their partners who want to continue having casual unprotected sex without consequences
- The decision to end a pregnancy is somehow fundamentally different from the decision to continue a pregnancy
- Until 18, all females are the property of their parents
- Until 18, one does not have a fundamental right to health care
- All parents are anti-choice, and none of them are abusive, which means that they could never be the ones who are coercing their daughter into an abortion
- Somehow, these anti-choice parents would never use the requirement of written permission to coerce her daughter out of an abortion, except . . .
- As stated, pregnant women are helpless and one could never actually want an abortions for her own reasons (like not wanting a baby). And if she does, she just needs to be talked down because all those baby-making hormones are making her a little irrational and unable to understand how very badly she really does want to become a mommy in several months. So allowing parents to force their daughters to give birth is a plus.
What really does scare me though is that 38 out of 48 legislators apparently bought into this argument. All who opposed the bill were Democrats, but 14 Democrats were in favor of it. And here is one of the fucking geniuses who OK Dems can count among their ranks.
Sen. Debbe Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City, voted for the measure but said she was concerned that it would require victims of rape and incest to view an ultrasound.
Well, it’s good to know that she had some concern for the extreme emotional distress that the bill could impose upon victims of rape and incest who are already going to be in the middle of an unthinkable experience . . . and then voted for it anyway.
What a proud day for democracy, both capital and lower D.
Popularity: 15% [?]