-
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
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
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
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
7
Anti-Choicers Are Furious Because Obama Cares About His Daughters
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, abortion, anti-choice extremism, misogyny, parenthood, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | 48 Comments
You’ve probably already read about Barack Obama’s statements regarding teen pregnancy and the outrage it has inspired in forced-birth proponents. Amanda has already wonderfully skewered the reaction. This is what Obama said:
“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
I mean, really, with all the talk about sex not being anything casual and engaging in sex is a “mistake,” it would seem that Obama is pandering enough to the religious right “sex-is-bad-mmkay?” crowd. But no, instead he has made them very, very angry. Honestly, I think they’re pissed because of his reasonable assertion that telling kids not to have sex doesn’t mean they’re going to listen. But in typical “the liberal made a reasonable point — quick, make everyone look over here!” fashion, they’re screaming and hollering about how Obama said that babies are punishment. They also claim that his comments were about abortion, which is blatantly false, even if the comments he made do easily carry over and most likely influence his pro-choice views.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Apr
3
Why We Can’t Afford to Dismiss Nick Eriksen
Filed Under assholes, bigotry, blogswarm, feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 16 Comments
You may have heard that two days ago, a British politician was revealed to be behind a far-right blog that spews prejudice at every turn. Among Nick Eriksen’s most offensive comments were those regarding rape (trigger warning).
The Standard can reveal that Nick Eriksen, the BNP’s London organiser and the second-highest candidate on its list for the Assembly, is the author of “Sir John Bull,” a notorious far-Right blog which has regularly advocated hatred and abuse against women. The disclosure will be a serious blow to the BNP’s hopes of London electoral success.
On 24 August 2005, Mr Eriksen wrote: “I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime … Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.
“To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that forcefeeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.
“The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors.”
As far as conservative nutjobs go, Eriksen is extreme. Based on his other blog posts, I honestly don’t think it’s possible for him to look at a woman with anything but vile contempt. And the British National Party? They’re terrifying, and run almost entirely on a platform of making racism acceptable. There’s also the fun irony of the fact that they are “tough on crime” and support “the rights of victims” — no, really, they support corporal punishment for vandals and petty thieves. Which can only mean Eriksen thinks that spray painting graffiti on a wall is worse than raping your girlfriend.
We’re not dealing with your average misogynist, but once the shock wears off, I find Eriksen’s comments to be absolutely fascinating. And significant.
Popularity: 19% [?]
Mar
27
Significant Numbers of Irish Blame Women for Rape
Filed Under Europe, International, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 9 Comments
A lot of what I’ve been writing about lately seems to fall under the category of wholly unsurprising and yet still utterly depressing. Here’s another one for the files:
Just like in the good old U.S. of A. (and Australia), a new poll shows that in Ireland, large numbers of citizens think that women are at least “partially responsible” for rape (note: this is a cached page. The Irish Examiner, which helped conduct the study and has the most comprehensive info about the results, is currently experiencing problems with his website. I’ll put the proper link in later if I notice the page is back up).
* More than 30% think a victim is some way responsible if she flirts with a man or fails to say no clearly.
* 10% of people think the victim is entirely at fault if she has had a number of sexual partners.
* 37% think a woman who flirts extensively is at least complicit, if not completely in the wrong, if she is the victim of a sex crime.
* One in three think a woman is either partly or fully to blame if she wears revealing clothes.
* 38% believe a woman must share some of the blame if she walks through a deserted area.
The results also show that defence barristers, looking to swing the deciding three members in every 12-person jury, can exploit misgivings in certain demographics about the perceived responsibility of female victims.
Dramatic differences in empathy towards victims based on age and social class are revealed. Gender, however, had little impact.
In every category, widowed, divorced and separated people took the harshest view on the role of the female victim, compared with married or cohabiting couples.
The results of the poll support the results of the ground-breaking Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI) report in 2002, which found 15% of the population believed a raped woman was not an innocent victim.
A few notes are necessary, here.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Mar
12
Another exciting round of Men Can’t Be Held Responsible for Their Actions, Let’s Blame The Wife!
Filed Under Democrats, assholes, media, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, sex and sexuality, sexism | 13 Comments
I thought I’d point out, just in case you haven’t noticed, that Silda Spitzer is totally to blame for the fact that her husband had sex with a (many) prostitute(s), and we should be questioning her actions. Just yet another game of “a man did something really stupid and selfish, so let’s all look disapprovingly at his wife.”
Now, when Dr. Laura Schlessinger says things like this — “When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he’s very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs” — we can’t act surprised and hold a straight face at the same time. That’s just Dr. Laura deciding to get out of bed in the morning; it sucks, but what are you going to do? In the end, despite the fact that the hosts apparently sat there stunned by the delusional and offensive nature of the statement, whose idea was it to have her on the show in the first place? Of course the producer knew that she was going to say something like that, and it’s precisely what they were looking for.
But I’m a lot more interested in the LA Times article about how Silda has been the focus of many conversations about the scandal:
This scandal has many salacious details, but it was the image of Silda Wall Spitzer at her man’s side that dominated conversations across the country Tuesday.
That moment of public humiliation stayed with people — men and women, Democrats and Republicans. At a beauty salon in Brooklyn Heights, at the Mellow Mushroom pizzeria in midtown Atlanta, at a Denver office building, at a bar in the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, the same questions came up:
How could she?
Why did she?
Haven’t we seen this play one too many times?
Why do we go through this ritual of public shame and repentance, with the political wife standing mutely before the TV cameras as her husband admits his sexual indiscretion?
“I find it nauseating . . . phony and awful,” said Leah Schanzer, 38, a doctoral student who stopped for coffee at a Starbucks in New York City. She gave an exaggerated shudder.
“It makes it seem like she’s Susie Homemaker,” said her friend Leslie Heller, 47. “She shouldn’t be standing there, next to him.”
[ . . . ]
“She should’ve said, ‘This is your fight. This is your battle. You stand there and get yourself out of it,’ ” said Linda Walters, 61. The Denver resident said she divorced her own cheating spouse.
It’s true: how could she do it? I mean, after spending so many years in elected office under the promise to uphold the law, not to mention claiming to be a strong champion for women, how could she go and throw it all away with the hypocritical and disgustingly selfish move of sleeping with a . . .
Wait, what’s that? Silda didn’t hire prostitutes? She’s not the one who broke the law? You mean that she’s not even in elected office and therefore holds absolutely no responsibility to us, and that she wasn’t the one who decided to fuck over the entire Democratic party with her inability to keep it in her pants? She didn’t even publicly humiliate a spouse?
Well that’s odd, then.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Mar
6
Mainstream Media Says Wham, Bam, Thank You M’am
Filed Under gender, homophobia and transphobia, media, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, stereotypes | 26 Comments
Here’s something that will probably not surprise and yet still manage to annoy the crap out of you. There is a new study on the desired length of sex for heterosexual couples, as determined by American sex experts. Check this out:
The US study is the first to review what experts believe is the ideal length of time to have penetrative sex, with the random sample of Americans and Canadians labelling seven to 13 minutes most “desirable”.
Intercourse lasting between three and seven minutes was deemed “adequate”, but anything less was considered “too short” and beyond 13 minutes was “too long”.
The study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, aims to calm unrealistic beliefs that healthy sex should last a long time.
Dr Jane Howard, a Brisbane medical sex therapist, said there was little data on Australians’ expectation of sex. Anecdotal evidence suggested most women were happy with three to seven minutes, while men were not.
Now, as someone who enjoys sex and generally assumes that large portions of the rest of the population also enjoy sex, a question instantly sprung to mind: in what universe? No, seriously, this America? Three minutes? And wait, men are the ones who want sex to be longer, and women don’t? This is, in fact, contrary to every generalized remark I’ve ever heard about heterosexual practice. Don’t tons of straight women complain about how too many men rush during sex? Are the bulk of American men who sleep with women just really bad in bed, and I’ve somehow gotten through life without realizing it? (I am, after all, married to an Australian.)
It almost seems like they’re leaving something out. Of course, no one openly explains or discusses that the study is only about heterosexual couples — I presume that you were supposed to infer this from all the talk of penis in vaginas and the fact that only men and women are described as potential sexual partners. But, you see, this has nothing to do with prejudice or heteronormativity — this is about facts, people. As it turns out, any two people who do not have one penis and one vagina between them cannot have sex. That’s not even a joke — I’m going off of media characterizations.
Popularity: 35% [?]
Mar
5
Not the Kind of Consent I Support
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, courts gone crazy, discrimination, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | 5 Comments
Arizona, apparently discontented with simply attempting to strip pregnant drug addicts of their human and civil rights, has now decided to work on destroying any rights that pregnant teenagers in the state may have left. A new bill would mandate that the only way a teenage girl can get a court waiver for an abortion without parental consent is to prove that she is mature enough to make the decision. Sound kind of vague? It is. And that’s precisely the point.
A minor would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents’ consent, under a bill passed Tuesday by the House of Representatives.
Supporters say that HB 2263 just codifies a 2003 ruling on the existing parental-consent law by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in which the court specified criteria that can be used to determine if a minor is mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion.
Under the bill, the court could consider factors, including whether the minor has traveled on her own, handled her own finances, lived outside her parents’ home and made other significant decisions.
The measure also requires the court to weigh whether she has considered all her options and the potential consequences.
You know, the standard “a teenage girl who can’t confide in her daddy about an abortion needs her legislators and judges to take his place, and a daddy’s job is to restrict his daughter’s life no matter what the consequences” kind of fare. But what the hell does “mature enough” mean? Does anyone know? And what teenage girl handles her finances while living outside of the home before age 17? A few, certainly, but come on, now.
In this article we get a vague but somewhat more reliable description of how “mature enough” will actually be interpreted:
Popularity: 22% [?]