December 2004 Archives
Feministing won't be posting due to the holiday. Y'all have a safe and happy new year!
Check out Newsday’s article on the last standing abortion clinic in Mississippi, and the lead that the state has taken in the war on reproductive rights.
There used to be seven clinics available to get an abortion. Yet over the recent years, Mississippi has become widely known as a state that is intent on abolishing the procedure from its territory. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is now the last clinic remaining.
Mississippi reached a peak of abortions in 1991, when 8,814 were reported. The number dropped more than half in 2002, and last year the figures were less than one-third of the national rate. The state recently passed the new “conscience clause” in effect (allowing any health care provider to refuse an abortion or emergency contraception). It’s one of the only two states requiring consent of both parents for a minor to get an abortion (the other state is North Dakota). Along with Texas, it also requires that women seeking abortions be told -- despite the National Cancer Institute’s findings -- that abortion may increase their risk of breast cancer.
Wow. If the last clinic is closed, I say we just move all the anti-choicers there to live in their merry utopia state o' "morals".
Susan Sontag, a renowned feminist, author and playwright, died on Tuesday in a New York cancer hospital at the age of 71. She was one of the most esteemed writers of her generation, as well as a passionate human rights activist.
She was born on January 16, 1933 in New York, and was raised in Tuscon, Arizona and Los Angeles. She attended the University of Chicago at the early age of 16 and later went to Harvard and Oxford to study. She returned to New York when she was 26 and was an anti-war activist and cultural critic in the 60s. From then on she wrote various plays and novels, including In America, which won the U.S. National Book Award in 2000.
She continued to write essays this year, much on the war in Iraq and the failings of the Bush administration.
This week a new independent women’s magazine will hit the stands. The publication is not particularly about women, but written by women about various global issues, concentrating on solution-based commentary rather than the typical focus on crises and war.
World Pulse features women journalists from around the world, and includes articles on a range of issues, such as human trafficking, the drug war, and perspectives on the recent U.S. elections. The magazine was created by Executive Editor Jensine Larsen, whose inspiration stemmed from working as a freelance journalist on ethnic cleansing in Burma and indigenous movements in South America. The experience made her realize that there was a substantial lack of solutions-focused news as well as women’s voices in media coverage on global issues, and decided to do something about it.
It looks like this is going to be a great project. Look out for newsstands!
The City Council in San Antonio, Texas recently approved a measure that will require strippers to wear permits while they are on stage.
According to the Associated Press, the reasoning behind this deliberate public shaming of women (called a “human display ordinance,” puh-leeze) is to make it easier for police to identify dancers.
Um, isn’t stripping legal? And I’m guessing if you’re in a strip club, it would be pretty easy to identify who the dancers are. If the local cops can’t figure that shit out on their own, I’d say the City Council has a lot more to worry about than strippers.
A lawyer for clubs in the area is arguing against the measure, pointing out that it is pretty fucking dangerous for a woman to wear a piece of paper that displays her name and address.
But hey, what’s wrong with accommodating potential stalkers, right?
Check out Women’s eNews’ article from Sunday on the discrimination and abuses that transgendered people and lesbians endure in homeless shelters. It looks into the reasons behind these occurrences and the failure of the shelter system to provide gender-appropriate services.
Although the Department of Homeless Services insists that they work hard to ensure that people are respectful, it looks like individual shelters don’t play by the rules, says Jay Toole. Toole is a shelter inspector with the Coalition for the Homeless in New York and a community organizer for the Queers for Economic Justice network.
In the past, Toole lived in shelters herself. In her shelters, beatings and rape of lesbians by guards and other workers were common and continue to occur. Lesbian couples also face the discrimination of various forms of proof of interdependency that are required in order to stay in the same shelter (forms of proof that are easily acquired by a married couple).
Transgendered women in particular are in shit because they're usually sent to men’s shelters, where they're raped and beaten as well. Toole says the men just see them as “girly men” that need toughening up. Much of the time they also have to comply with standards of the men’s shelters by dressing as men, and are not given access to gender-appropriate health services as well.
The total number of people who enter the NYC shelter system on any night is about 36,000, which is a 75% increase from 1998. On top of that, the number of women in the shelter system has nearly doubled from 5,200 to 10,000 over the last 6 years.
And this is in New York. I can only imagine what goes on in other cities.
It looks like Martha Stewart’s new home in the can has motivated her to speak up about women’s prisons. Her Christmas message this year is not full of cookie recipes or how to make a fabulous wreath out of hair, but about the need for address towards women’s treatment in prisons. Here’s a section of her Christmas message:
“I beseech you all to think about these women--to encourage the American people to ask for reforms, both in sentencing guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking. They would be much better served in a true rehabilitation center than in prison where there is no real help, no real programs to rehabilitate, no programs to educate, no way to be prepared for life ‘out there’ where each person will ultimately find herself, many with no skills and no preparation for living.”
Good for her. But if this is going to be a new interest she’s taking on, hopefully she’ll divulge more about the serious problem of sexual and physical abuse, medical neglect (which includes reproductive health), and discrimination based on race and sexual orientation that incarcerated women are subjected to.
For now, it sure beats a new cookbook!
I'm too horrified to write anything about this. A Small Victory has compiled a list of organizations taking donations to help the earthquake victims. Go there. Be generous.
UPDATE: CNN also has a list of groups.
Last week, the LA Times reported something extremely disturbing on the contest to replace Terry McAuliffe as the head of the Democratic National Committee:
The debate is focused on curbing the party's support of abortion rights.
The article reports, "The leading candidate, former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe...argues that the party cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on [abortion,] one of society's most emotional conflicts....Party leaders say...they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions."
This is appalling and completely terrifying.
Comments, please!!
UPDATE (from Jessica): LiberalOasis has some great analysis on this, and lets us know why we shouldn't be freaking out quite yet.
According to the BBC, there is a growing trend among Western Europe's well-to-do to travel to Romania for egg donations. Wait-lists for egg donations in the UK may be as long as seven years, while they are readily available in the Romanian market.
In Bucharest, women earn up to £150 for donating their eggs. Due to Romania's relatively low standard of living, earning more than a month's wages for egg donation may seem like a steal. However, given the extensive medical procedures involved in the donation, including hormone treatments and surgical egg retrieval, the profit isn't as great as it may seem.
This is an issue that I have a hard time wrapping my head around. I believe in giving women agency to make decisions about their body. And I think that women should have the ability to use their bodies for financial gain or to help others. *BUT* given the realities of international political economies, I feel uncomfortable in advocating for the right of affluent Western women to travel abroad and consume the eggs of women in lesser developed countries.
Dr. Stephen Wilkinson, a medical ethics specialist, notes that: "[Egg donation] is such a difficult area of ethics. One the one hand, people are benefiting from the money. But on the other, we do have this residual concern about exploitation and about inducing women to do something that's not in their best interests." Ummm yeah. Not to mention the underlying issues of xenophobia and racism.
It's no coincidence that women in Romania earn £150 for a donation, while women in the UK earn upwards of £1000 and women in the US receive around $8000.
Also, interesting to note is that in both the UK and the US women are paid for their "time and effort" in the egg donation process--not for the eggs themselves. The idea behind this policy is that payment should not be the primary motivation in donation. BUT considering that women in their twenties are the target suppliers of eggs, this ethical consideration seems out of touch with the realities of the market. Thoughts?
Check out Becoming an Egg Donor for more info.
Um, this was just too odd not to point out.
Jo An Corrales, Marlon Brando's former business manager, has filed a $3.5 million suit against the deceased actor's estate, accusing him of sexual harassment.
Clearly it's awful if she was harassed by Brando, but suing a dead guy? Come on now.
Now this is some seriously disturbing news. Reuters (through Integrated Regional Information Networks) reported today that in Gabon, illegal abortion killed more than 25 percent of pregnant women in 2001. It was also reported that many of these women were teenagers.
Abortion is illegal in Gabon, unless the life of the woman is in danger. I would say that more than one in four pregnant women dying counts as lives being in dager, wouln't you?
The Associated Press reported today that Japan is setting up a task force to consider allowing an empress, something that is now banned by a post-World War II law.
Unfortunately, it's not really for a seeking-to-end-sexism kind of reason:
Japanese law bans women from ascending to the Chrysanthemum Throne. But no boy has been born to the Japanese royal family since the 1960s, and government officials have been fretting about how to solve the royals' most serious succession crisis in centuries.
Oh well.
We hope all of you had a great holiday weekend are making amazing plans for the upcoming New Year celebrations...
Just a quick thing:
Don't know if anyone noticed this in the NY Times magazine yesterday, but it was too laughable not bring up:
Check out the headline for one of the articles (the whole mag was "The Lives They Lived," focusing on different folks lives who died this year):
RUSS MEYER, B. 1922
The Man Who Really, Really Loved Women
By CHRIS GORE
He couldn't take his eyes off his actresses' breasts. But deep down, they say, he was a true feminist.
Um, ok. I'm game.
Russ Meyer was a filmmaker and Playboy photographer. And according to Tura Satana (a former star of his films) was also a feminist because:
He loved to make women look good. I have never seen any of the gals in his films look bad. And the men in his movies were always incapacitated in some way. They were either in a wheelchair or on crutches or short of a full deck. He liked to make women strong, make them feel that they were empowered.
Uhh...ok. Last time I checked, making women look good didn't qualify you as a feminist. And of course it's great to make women empowered in films, but no so much if you have to cripple men to do it. Creepy.
Hope y'all enjoyed the holidays and we'll be back tomorrow!
Feministing will be posting sporadically through the weekend.
Check out yesterday's article from the Village Voice, "Superwoman 2.0", which discusses the economic struggles that that our generation has to endure as young women in American society.
There is also another article on this issue on the generation debt that is specifically directed towards men, "I, Breadwinner?", which deals with young lads' own economic conflicts that can arise.
Interesting articles, but I was a bit disappointed with the heteronormative/nuclear family vibe.
I'm curious to know what y'all think, so feel free to comment...
As an update to my post earlier this month on complaints being made by women being violated and humiliated during patdowns in airports, it looks like some action has finally been taken.
NBC11.com reported yesterday that the government has modified screening procedures for female passengers, prohibiting security to feel in between their breasts, which they were formerly allowed to do. Now they are only authorized to check the perimeter of the chest, backside and stomach.
So is this a good change? Sure. Will women no longer feel invaded during airport screenings? Eh, I don't know about that. Let's hope this is just a start.
It looks like the conservative radio giant, Clear Channel Communications, has shifted their focus from their pro-war antics to another target: insecure young women.
Titling their new enhancement program, “The Breast Christmas Ever”, they are running a number of contests on their radio stations where young women send in letters and pictures, hoping to be the lucky winner to get breast implants for the holiday, reports CBS News. The listeners vote, ultimately deciding which woman “deserves” it the most. They apparently claim it a “noble cosmetic self-help exercise” that saves young women’s self-esteem. Give me a fucking break.
The contests also require the lucky winners to send in “before and after” pictures of themselves (one station insisted they be topless), as well as sign a liability release that frees Clear Channel, their radio stations and the plastic surgeons of any future problems with their implants. So not only are they promoting sexist and voyeurist ideas, but potentially putting women’s health in danger.
Don’t you just love the holidays?
To take action against this ridiculously degrading shit, here are some contacts:
Clear Channel:
Mark Mays, President and Chief Executive Officer
1-210-822-2828
MarkPMays@clearchannel.com
FCC:
1-888-CALL-FCC
fccinfo@fcc.gov
Or if any of y’all live in these areas, you can call individual stations:
Radio Stations:
95.5 WKQI FM Detroit, MI
248-967-3750
97.9 KISS FM Jacksonville, FL
904-636-0507
Z107.7 FM St Louis, MO
314-333-8000
93.3 WFLZ FM Tampa, FL
813-839-9393
Reuters reports that things aren't looking good for Bush's social security plan. In case you haven't been following, his plan allows workers to divert a portion of their retirement contributions into an individual investment account. Sound good? Think again...
Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, a progressive platform of labor, minority and women's organizations explains that, "Bush's plan [would] dismantle America's most successful social protection and anti-poverty program." Why? Heidi Hartmann of the National Council of Women's Organizations explains that, "Social Security is critical to women, because it offers lifetime guaranteed benefits, higher returns for low-earning workers, cost-of-living adjustments and spousal benefits for widows and divorced women." In fact, more than half of elderly women would live in poverty without the limited protections of social security.
While critics contend that the stock market generally *is* the only way to make long-term returns on investment, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond challenges this assumption, explaining that, "African Americans cannot afford to see their future raffled off in a risky stock market gamble." Further, those individuals who do manage to turn a profit will find that their returns are "taxed" by administrative costs. For those who earn less & invest less, the administrative costs will be proportionally greater and the net returns smaller. (sigh).
So who exactly stands to benefit from this plan? John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO contends that: "The only group that would benefit from privatization is the financial service industry, to the tune of nearly one trillion dollars in fees to manage the private accounts. This would be the largest windfall for that sector in American history." Wow--imagine that--Bushie in the hand of big business. Shocking.
What's depressing is that women already receive the dregs of the current Social Security system. Thanks to the gender wage gap, women have less income to pay into the system. If you couple less retirement benefits with a longer life expectancy, women have to make a little stretch a lot further. While not ideal, *at least* the current Social Security provides benefits for life and adjusts for inflation. That's a *lot* more than can be said for the market.
Women don't need the stock market to increase their benefits. Rather, they need administrative changes to the current system--like crediting the work of caregivers and increasing survivor's & divorcee's benefits. Click here to send a letter to Congress telling them to just-say-no to the privatization scheme.
If you want to scare the shit out of someone this holiday season, give them the gift of misogyny. And not just any old misogyny—it’s girl-on-girl hating! Sweet…
The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute has put out a Great American Conservative Women 2005 calendar. Let’s just take that in for a minute, shall we?
Rebecca Traister at Salon covered this more than disturbing pictorial, which she thinks may be inspired by last year’s Babes Against Bush calendar.
And who are our lovely conservative calendar girls? Among others, the calendar features Christina Hoff Sommers (of “The War Against Boys”); Dr. Laura Schlesinger (“I deeply disdain the feminists for what they have done to generations of women…”); Phyllis Schlafly; Michelle Malkin; Condi; and naturally, Ann Coulter.
Come on, ladies! Don’t you want to be the first on your block with a wall-full of anti-feminists?
UPDATE: Also check out Mouse Words' take.
UPI reported yesterday on Marek Halter, who is publishing a "Feminine bible" trilogy of novels.
Halter, who is described as a “French-Polish writer, peace activist and Holocaust survivor,” wants to give biblical women their due through his three books, Sarah, Zipporah, and Lilah.
That’s right, Halter is a man. In the article Halter says that he sometime had difficulty writing from a woman’s point of view, but relied on daughters of friends for insight into the female mind.
So should Halter’s sex matter in his effort to give more recognition to the women in the Bible? Should his politics matter? (Fadela Amara, a French-Arab feminist, calls Halter a leader in the French anti-discrimination struggle.) Just asking…
Wellesley College’s Women's Review of Books will stop being published after the end of the year. Sad!
The Women’s Review was a journal on fiction and nonfiction writings by and about women, and had been around for 21 years
Susan Bailey, the executive director of the Wellesley Centers for Women said of the publication: "It's very sad…because it is one of the last publications of its kind, focusing on women's writing and women's voices, reviewing books by large publishers as well as smaller presses, and providing opportunities for intellectual experiences and exchanges in a setting where women's voices were at the center."
Author and sometimes-reviewer for the journal, E.J. Graff added that "it was one of the last truly lively feminist publications I can think of…I think of it as part of the loss of room for feminist discussion. A lot of us are upset about the shrinking of media space, print and broadcast, for ideas that put women's lives at the center instead of as a footnote."
How annoying that women’s academic pubs aren’t supported enough to sustain themselves…ugh.
Bitch magazine is taking on the much debated shirt that declares, "I had an abortion."
Given the recent craziness over Frances Kissling's article on the value of the fetus and revelations that the Dems are considering a "big tent" approach on abortion, continuing this discussion is more important than ever.
For me, I understand that appealing to more moderate pro-choicers is important. But in terms of political strategy, watering down our message on choice has the potential to leave us seriously vulnerable. Thoughts?
UPDATE: Also check out Kameron's (of Brutal Women) take on the issue at Alas, a Blog.
The Washington Post reported today that two of Congress’s “most outspoken” anti-choice members were appointed to Senate Judiciary Committee—Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Sen.-elect Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).
Yeah, “outspoken” is one way of putting it. Frigging Coburn supports the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions—I’d say that’s a bit more than outspoken!
What’s even scarier is that the inevitable fight over Supreme Court nominations will begin in the Judiciary, now made up of 10 Republicans and eight Democrats.
Come on now, I thought that the holiday season was supposed bring joy, goddamn it!
The FBI made a statement last Monday that the number of rapes in the U.S. increased within the first half of 2004, reports Women’s eNews.
The FBI’s preliminary crime report was drawn from 11,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide. Rape has increased by 1.4 percent from the beginning of the year until June, when compared to the same period of time in 2003. The jump was bigger in the nation’s largest cities, which had a 6.5 percent increase.
All of the law enforcement agencies in the four regions of the U.S. showed an increase in the number of rapes.
And yet Bush wants to cut funds from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Nice stuff.
I don’t want anyone to think we’re getting marriage fever over here at Feministing, but this was too crazy not to write about.
According to a new study from the University of Michigan, men looking for long-term relationships and marriage would prefer to be with women in subordinate jobs, rather than women who are supervisors.
Lead author of the study, Dr. Stephanie Brown, said in the NY Times that the findings “provide empirical support for the widespread belief that powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women.” (Did anyone else cringe hearing the term ‘marriage market’?)
And why do men supposedly feel this way? According to Dr. Brown it’s the “pressures associated with the threat of paternal uncertainty.” So essentially they’re saying that men think that women who are in subordinate positions aren’t as likely to cheat on them and have other men’s babies. Which I would assume is why the men in the study didn’t show a preference when asked about having a one-night stand with women. (Cool to be powerful if you’re just getting fucked, but a big no-no as a wife…)
Now I’m not saying these finding are entirely untrue, but they sound fishy to me. All of these evolutionary biology/psychology arguments are problematic to begin with, but even just thinking about it logically: if this was really the case, wouldn’t straight powerful women around the country be mate-less?
Given my hesitation about the study, I was glad to see that the NY Time piece quoted Dr. Ellen Berscheid, a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, who is also wary of “these florid psychoevolutionary interpretations of human behavior that wholly ignore the influence of contemporary, mundane social institutional forces.” (She just says it all fancy-like.)
Thanks to Christopher for pointing out the story!
Just an update on last week's post on women-only schools...
A judge ruled this past Thursday that Wells could go ahead with their plans to admit men next school year, despite two women's lawsuit to keep the college all-women.
Check out the Guardian Unlimited's article yesterday praising numerous women for their worldwide accomplishments. A random group of women were asked to give their female heroes of the year, and they obliged happily. The result is a list of wonderous women -- from inspirational musicians to kick-ass activists -- who we owe much thanks to for their achievments this year.
Keep up the good work, mamas!
Well, first of all: Fuck you.
Secondly, check this out:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has called for an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a Congressional investigation into Viacom’s hiring practices.
Apparently Viacom sent out an email concerning a job opening in their government relations department reading:
Importance: High We need to hire a junior lobbyist/PAC manager. Attached is a job description. Salary is $85-90K. Must be a male with Republican stripes.
Huh. Nice job, guys.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said, "This is a blatant violation of federal law prohibiting discrimination against women in hiring…It is stunning that one of the largest corporations in America is so comfortable violating this 40 year-old prohibition that it has openly sent an e-mail advertising its discriminatory hiring practices…”
I would say not so much stunning as it is fucking stupid.
Many thanks to Jenny for the link.
The NY Times reports that two women are the leading competitors for the presidential race in Chile:
Soledad Alvear, the Christian Democrat, and Michelle Bachelet, the Socialist, say they are hoping that the shift of attitudes will prove decisive when voters go to the polls a year from now.
"If you'd asked me a decade ago could a woman become president, I'd have had to say no flat out," Ms. Alvear said in an interview here. "But there has been a tremendous cultural change, and I think people are now willing to vote for a woman. That is a result of our offering a different style of leadership, one that people want because it is identified with the real Chile."
Gillette is introducing a new Venus razor with vibrating technology, "the first power wet shaving system for women." Innuendos abound…
Now I know my mind is somewhat in the gutter, but once I heard this new razor’s name I knew that it wasn’t just going to be me having a little snicker at Gillette’s expense: Venus Vibrance. Get it? Cause it’s all vibrant AND it vibrates! So clever, those marketing folks.
The Associated Press noted that “the battery-powered razor…delivers gentle pulses to the shaving cartridge.” Shit, I don’t know whether I should shave or rub one out.
Yes, I’m gross. It’s Friday; forgive me.
Two women in Brooklyn have started an awesome service to prevent sexual assault in their neighborhood—free rides home. Simple, but damn effective.
Using their own money, Consuelo Ruybal and Oraia Reid started RightRides after a number of women were raped in Williamsburg and Greenpoint (neighborhoods in Brooklyn). Their motto is: "Because getting home safe should not be a luxury." Word.
They operate from midnight to 4am on Sundays and also offer rides to women coming home from the Lower East Side and the East Village in Manhattan.
Another service for the Williamsburg area is NYC RapeMap (I know, creepy name) which is creating “a multi-lingual information-sharing resource that is free and open to everyone where women can exchange safety information about their streets.”
Yeah, I know this is a small local story, but I live in Williamsburg. So there. Plus actions like these show how just a few women organizing locally can make a difference. (Did I really just say “make a difference”? Shit, I’m hokey today…)
So anyone have any innovative ways to combat sexual assault going on in their town?
Finally.
A Portland Press Herald editorial has pointed out the pervasiveness of pregnant women being killed by their partners.
In the midst of all the sensationalist coverage of Scott Peterson's trial, seeing this piece is slightly comforting. Slightly.
Jeez…we’re like relationship central today.
In any case, given the controversial Enragement Ring post recently, I just wanted to throw a couple of related links out there:
Firstly, the always amazing Mouse Words on an advice column taking on relationship vs. engagement etiquette when it comes to marriage invitations.
And check out this slightly disturbing (on a number of levels) article from the NY Post on women buying fake engagement rings to deter sexual advances and harassment. The picture kind of freaked me out as well...
Then you might want to check out this book: Against Love by Laura Kipnis.
A polemic that doesn’t hold back (even a little), Against Love takes on monogamy as a capitalist tool and makes the case that adultery may be inevitable for all of us.
For some reason whenever I'm slightly inebriated this is the book I pull out and start raving about to friends. (Much to the chagrin of the boyfriend, but what can you do.)
So check it out. Or chastise me for being an anti-family whore, whichever you prefer.
You be the judge. Check out this, uh, thought-provoking article on CareerBuilder.com, entitled “Are Married People More Successful?”
An examination of myths and realities relating to marital status and career success, the piece sums up “the case for marriage” thus: “On balance, research indicates that marriage has a strong positive effect on career success and life fulfillment -- especially for men. It also shows that women no longer need to sacrifice their education and career aspirations to improve their chances of getting married.”
It seems wedded individuals are paid more, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, viewed as being more stable and reliable, and generally live longer than single people. Apparently smug marrieds are smug for a reason!
Is it just me, or is our culture more obsessed with marriage and breeding right now than it has been in quite some time? I’m not saying these findings are bullshit, necessarily, and I’m definitely not knocking marriage and family, but I’m just personally reeeaaally tired of feeling like they are being aggressively hyped and promoted as mandatory life goals.
It’s this cultural climate that makes me dubious of the study’s finding that “[f]orty percent [of married people] say they are ‘very happy’ with their lives, compared to 25 percent of single people.” I wonder if this discrepancy is solely a result of the fact that married people enjoy “better mental health” than single peeps do (as the article reports), or if it might also be related to the ubiquity of cultural images and messages that suggest that a person’s life is not complete until he or she has found someone to share it with.
Then again, I’m a raving lunatic. But I imagine I’m not alone in objecting to the phrasing of one of the article’s more poorly articulated conclusions:
“Thanks to wives' nagging, married men also are less likely to catch colds and more likely to monitor blood pressure, cholesterol and weight than their single counterparts.”
Yes, that’s right. Nagging. Because where would compulsory heterosexuality be without restrictive gender roles? Ah, good times.
Thanks to my muse, Gary, for the article.
--Contributed by Lauren
On Monday, George W. Bush nominated Republican Mike Leavitt to replace Tommy Thompson as Secretary of Health and Human Services, reports Ms. Magazine. Leavitt is former governor of Utah and presently the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Oh, and he also wants to abolish women’s reproductive rights.
Throughout the course of time that Leavitt has been governor, he’s signed various bills prohibiting women’s right to choose. He’s signed legislations that required a 24-hour waiting period before a women can obtain an abortion, forced women to seek counseling (that included biased materials) before getting an abortion, and incorporated the term “unborn children” as included under the state’s homicide statute. Leavitt’s administration defended a 1991 law in court that restricted abortion except in cases of rape, life endangerment, incest, serious fatal defects or a grave danger to the woman’s health. How compassionate.
According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, Leavitt stated in 1992, “I am strongly pro-life and anti-abortion,” Additionally, Leavitt said in 1997 that he wanted Utah to have the “toughest abortion law” in the nation.
It’s nice to know women’s health may be in such good hands. Sigh.
It looks like Harley-Davidson has created a new section of their website specifically designed for female bikers.
The section, titled “Women and Motorcycling,” includes riding stories from various women as well as a history of women bikers. I won’t lie, I’m not a huge fan of motorcycles, but ‘tis very interesting stuff.
According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, women accounted for close to 10 percent of all motorcycle owners nationwide last year. That was an increase of 8.2 percent from the previous year.
Ride on, ladies!
Ok, I know we usually don't post on celeb gossip, but I just found this really disturbing and felt the need to share (From NY Post):
Joe Simpson, the former Baptist minister turned manager of daughters Jessica and Ashlee, doesn't shy way from talking about his offspring's physical assets. "Jessica never tries to be sexy," Simpson tells GQ. "She just is sexy. If you put her in a T-shirt or you put her in a bustier, she's sexy in both. She's got double D's! You can't cover those suckers up!"
Plastic surgery parties for teens. Yeah, you heard me.
The New York Observer reports that plastic surgeon-sponsored soirées are quite the hit among rich NY teens, where they can dance to bad club music, drink nonalcoholic drinks out of martini glasses, and get consulted about a nose job. Sounds like a fucking blast.
But according to the ultra-sensitive Steven Pearlman, a Park Avenue plastic surgeon, “it’s not just a nose job these days…Girls gain confidence after their surgeries and want to improve many other elements of their appearance. For example, girls with big noses often have big, frumpy hairdos. We can direct them to a stylist who can help fix that.”
Yeah, what is it about big noses and bad hair that always seem to go hand in hand? Puh-leeze.
Another gem from Dr. Pearlman on the right age for plastic surgery:
“It depends on the individual, but I can generally start on girls at 15 and boys at 16…Though with the guys, you have to be careful that they’re not going to be doing any sports too soon after their surgery.” Cause girls generally don’t do anything active besides like, shopping at the mall, right?
This guy is the ultimate dickhead—he invites already-insecure girls to a party where their looks are dissected to the point where only a $10,000 surgery will cure their ego. Nice job, asshole.
Ignore the fact that it's sitting on piano keys. A knitted uterus. Huh.
I happen to think it's hysterical, but when I showed it around to some folks in my office there were resounding "ewwwww!"s to be heard through the halls. So I guess maybe it's just me.
So if you're crafty and feel like giving the gift of cervix this year, check out Knitty.com for the "Womb" pattern. And if you think a uterus resting leisurely on a piano is funny, wait till you see it in some more active shots...
We've already covered this ridiculously scary invention, but I couldn't let the picture go to waste.
That's right, ladies, you can get your man his very own “lap pillow” while you’re not there to lend your thighs! For only $90, you can have this surprisingly popular chopped torso to comfort your honey while you’re away.
Can you believe they’re sold 3,000 of these already? And let’s not forgot about the boyfriend arm pillow for the lonely women out there!
Can I puke now?
Two Wells College students have filed a lawsuit to keep the school from accepting men. At least, until they graduate.
According to USA Today, Wells is in dire financial need so it decided to “expand the audience” by admitting men.
Apparently in the 70s there were 300 all-women colleges; right now there are only 64. And three of those 64 are planning to admit men next year.
But despite the fact that only 3% of female college applicants say they want to go to an all-women school, Wells’ students are pretty fucking pissed about the possibility of having to go to school with men.
Sophomore Railey Savage says in the article that Wells is "populated by strong women who could be in leadership roles, who could be active members of their communities, who have found their voices. That's become really important to me, and I value and cherish it. And I want to keep it."
Another sophomore Starbuck Hersey (what a name!) says that "Women's colleges give women voices…Until there are equal rights for women in society, I think (women's colleges) should stay single-sex. But right now, we're just looking for three years.”
Any thoughts?
The NY Times' The Feminization of AIDS editorial...
I’m not even going to get into the politics surrounding abstinence in this article, which details how hundreds of virgins gathered in Uganda to meet the first lady and renew their pledge of abstinence. (Though I should mention that the US org True Love Waits was one of the organizers and boys were carrying signs that said, “Please open your eyes and ears homos.” Lovely.)
All I really want to point out is the extremely icky statement made by the Youth Forum Chairman Sam Ruboga, who argued that people should keep their “valuables” (is this a theme right now or what?) safe:
“You know what it is like when you eat a young, unripe mango? That's right. It is very, very bitter.”
Whoa.
Another weird weekend find I came across while shopping: Urban Outfitters is carrying a shirt that says, "Trust me, I'm a virgin."
Target sells "chastity" underwear:
Elaborately ornamented, with a golden lock at the front and center, they are designed to "keep the royal treasures under lock and key" and even have the words "safe & secure" . . .
Eww.
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage would be constitutional, reports the Washington Post.
The ruling was made on the basis that the traditional definition of marriage as between a woman and man is discriminatory. Although the Supreme Court didn't declare that the traditional definition is illegal, they ruled that the Canadian government has the authority to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Many lower court rulings in various provinces have already upheld same-sex marriage, leading to thousands of marriages across the country. Many couples from the U.S. have crossed the border to marry, considering the eleven states that have already banned same-sex marriage and Bush's intent to create a constitutional law preventing it from being pushed by "activist judges" and the "far-left minority." I really do hate that man.
Prime Minister Paul Martin of the Liberal Party announced on Thursday that he would introduce the legislation early next year.
We'll keep our fingers crossed over here in the Bush country. Sigh.
Check out USA Today’s article praising G.W.’s efforts to integrate the administration to the most diverse set of top advisors than any president in history. In one section of the nose-up-Bush's ass article, the author says,
"Among Bush's closest aides are Karen Hughes and Rice. Hughes, a veteran of his Texas campaigns and a onetime White House aide who is now an outside adviser, is one of the few willing and able to tell Bush when she thinks he has erred. Rice, a foreign policy aide in the 2000 campaign who worked in the White House for Bush's father, has become like a member of the Bush family.”
How sweet! That matters so much more than the fact that Bush is the first president since Warren Harding (1921-23) who hasn’t addressed the NAACP.
I’m so sick of this faux diversity tokenism shit that attempts to take away attention from the president’s blatantly racist and sexist policies.
A sad update on an earlier post.
Haleh Sahba, an Iranian women's activist who was forced to leave Canada, was arrested pretty much as soon as she got off the plane in Iran.
She now faces charges of leaving Iran illegally.
Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmental and women’s rights activist, received the Nobel Peace Prize today. She is the first African woman to win the award.
Maathai, 64, founded the Green Belt Movement in 1977, a grassroots organization for women and children, which has planted more than 10 million trees, produced income for 50,000 people and now is established in a dozen countries in Africa and in the U.S.
She was also beaten and jailed when she opposed state policies that endangered wildlife, forests and parks in Kenya.
The Nobel committee stated, "Maathai stood up courageously against the former oppressive regime in Kenya...Her unique forms of action have contributed to drawing attention to political oppression.”
Check out her acceptance speech here.
A win for reproductive rights advocates everywhere!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/pickering.retires.ap/index.html
Make sure to check out Frank Rich's The Plot Against Sex in America which not only takes on the abstinence-only bullshit, but discusses the bigger problem of Americans seeing sex as wrong, wrong, wrong.
Cause I'm actually quite fond of it...
In Norway, a 34-year old man was acquitted for raping an 18-year old women while she was asleep. Why he was acquitted? He was sleeping as well.
The young women fell asleep on a couch after a party with her friends, and awoke to find the man raping her. He claims he was awakened when she started screaming for help.
An ex-partner testified by phone that similar things had happened to her when they were together. (Um, yeah--sounds like an awesome relationship. Maybe I'm picky, but I like boys who don't fuck while I'm sleeping...)
It looks like the judges couldn't rule out the possibility of his unconsciousness and he was acquitted on a 2-1 margin. I guess they excused the fact that the man had been drinking that night, and undressed the young woman as well. ‘Tis a strange case. But will this be the new excuse?
What do y’all think?
A report was released by Amnesty International yesterday on the atrocities that are committed against women in war, and have actually stated that presently, women and young girls are the “collateral damage” in 36 conflicts around the world.
The report, titled “Lives Blown Apart: Crimes Against Women in Times of Conflict,” was released two days early of Human Rights Day (which, remember, is tomorrow) and pushes for global action on the issue, including earlier prosecutions by the new International Criminal Court (ICC). In the report, they expose the systematic pattern of abuse of women’s rights in numerous countries, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Columbia, Iraq, Nepal and Sudan. It’s estimated that 32 million women and children have been forced to leave their homes due to violence and human rights violations.
The report also features a number of testimonials from women survivors, who have endured rape, slavery, physical abuse, starvation and mutilation. The report is requesting:
-The ICC to be allowed to act effectively and deliver justice to women and girls, including through strong governmental support.
-Governments to publicly condemn violence against women and girls in any circumstances, issuing clear warnings or instructions to their forces that violence against women will not be tolerated.
-All governments, the UN and international bodies to ensure that women play a key role in the design and implementation of all peace-building initiatives.
-Immediate and effective assistance to survivors of violence against women, including emergency health care programmes and rehabilitation.
Props to Amnesty International for addressing this earnest issue. To see the report and take action, click here. If you’d like to find more in-depth analysis on the militarization of women, check out Cynthia Enloe. Very interesting shit.
California is suing over the bullshit abortion provision in the recently passed $388 billion spending bill. Jeez, CA--if only you didn't have "Girlie-Man" Schwarzenegger there, I might consider moving.
As Feministing reported last month, the provision blocks money “from going to federal, state or local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide abortions, make abortion referrals or cover them.” This stealthy attack on choice is similar to the increasingly common state-based conscience clause laws.
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that the provision "is an unprecedented attack on women's rights and state sovereignty...What the federal government says to California is this: If you want back your own taxpayer dollars for important programs that serve all the people of your state, you first have to refuse to protect the constitutional rights of the women who live in your state."
The lawsuit will be filed in federal court in California arguing that the amendment is invalid.
It looks like Feminist Egyptian author and doctor Nawal Saadawi announced that she will run for the presidency of Egypt in next year’s elections. Although she doesn’t expect to win, she is looking to mobilize people to vote on important issues facing the country, reports BBC News. If the candidacy goes forward, she will be the first woman to run for presidency.
Saadawi is one of the most widely translated contemporary Egyptian authors, most of her books concerning women’s and gender issues. She is also one of many revolutionaries who are pushing for constitutional change in Egypt. Yet her views have not sat well with the country's conservatives and Islamists, which has lead to death threats, censorship, court cases and imprisonment.
“I just want to get moving 70 million Egyptian men and women who are currently just spectators, without a voice and without power,” she says.
Good luck, Nawal!
I’m in a tremendous amount of pain from pulling my back out and just don’t have the energy to write something until these pain killers kick in. (Then you can expect some fun, rambling, Vicodin-induced genius!)
So go check out these awesome folks while I patiently wait to become numb…
Alas, a Blog has an excerpt from Frances Kissling’s piece on the value of the fetus and a discussion going.
Trish Wilson on false abuse accusations in custody cases…it’s the dads who do it more often.
Mouse Words on a freaky-ass iVillage advice column on marriage.
Rad Geek reminds us to remember the 14 women murdered in Montreal fifteen years ago on Dec. 6—as the killer shot the women, he screamed “I hate feminists!”
Haleh Sahba was forced to leave Canada yesterday despite the fact that she is likely to face severe punishment—even death—for her history as a women’s rights activist in Iran.
Sahba was imprisoned in Iran after she campaigned for women’s rights and later fled to Canada where her parents and siblings live legally. Sabha had been seeking refugee status for the past three years, so yesterday’s ruling was a tremendous loss.
Sorry to start the day off with sad news, guys…
The Fetal Frontier, brought to us by the Village Voice’s Sharon Lerner, is the latest in what seems like a deluge of articles and discussions this year about what I like to call the unapologetic abortion movement.
Lerner focuses on Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, and her recent article on the value of the fetus. (Published in her organizational newsletter, Conscience.)
That kind of discussion has been taboo in the movement until now. Faced with an unrelenting onslaught of anti-abortion efforts, few supporters of the right to choose have been comfortable acknowledging their own limits on that right or doubts about it, lest expressions of unease be used against them.
But as Kissling tells it, the knee-jerk mode in which pro-choicers slap down whatever the antis put forward is no longer serving the movement well. The strategy of relying only on legal arguments without showing emotion has faltered, she argues, especially as the political right has begun to focus on the very few abortions performed later in pregnancy. Rather than reflexively opposing activists on the other side, she urges, supporters of the right to abortion should consider their proposals seriously.
However, other pro-choice leaders see Kissling’s strategy as dangerous—she is saying that we should "present abortion as a complex issue that involves loss—and to be saddened by that loss."
Kisssling is also critical of the recent upsurge in women who refuse to apologize for their abortions: she cites the controversy over Amy Richards’ selective reduction covered in the NY Times magazine and Planned Parenthood’s “I had an abortion” shirts. (Which are interestingly enough, now absent from the PPFA online store—the pic above was the only one I could find of the shirt!)
According to Kissling, things like this just fuel the anti-choice movement’s contention that we’re a bunch of callus bitches, killing babies left and right.
I do think that a more nuanced discussion of abortion and the pro-choice political strategy is needed, but not at the expense of women’s ability to talk about the issue without shame.
Why should women be apologetic? Doesn’t arguing about the moral implications of abortion presuppose that it is immoral?
Thoughts?
I am totally out of touch with most of what goes on in pop culture these days, having devoted the vast majority of the past few months to obsessing about the Red Sox and, more recently, enjoying coverage commemorating the Red Sox as the best team evah. EVAHHH.
But with the arrival of exam season came an urgent need to reconnect with general goings-on, which is how I encountered Rebecca Traister’s interesting discussion of “He’s Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys” on Salon.com. The book (penned by two former “Sex and the City” writers and based on an episode in which a character offers the aforementioned statement to explain why a guy wasn’t calling Miranda) encourages women to recognize the signs of a man’s lack of interest in them, accept that simple fact, and move the fuck on.
Apparently this book is a legit cultural phenomenon, one which I was not aware of and am, frankly, a bit ambivalent about. On the one hand, I think encouraging women to value themselves and spend time with people who really appreciate them is a great thing. And becoming comfortable with the fact that not everyone will dig you can really help a woman value her opinion of herself above that of a random man. But it’s curious to me that it’s taken this mantra to get women to question relationships with men who make them feel insignificant. Why do self-respect and autonomy have to come packaged with a trendy catch-phrase and sassy “Sex and the City” pedigree?
I think my main source of discomfort with the book stems from the title. It frames the issue in a very black-and-white manner, one which places the agency on a man to determine, through his indications of being “into” a woman, whether or not she is into him. And though it’s great to be able to let go of a situation that’s not giving you what you need, I think the title oversimplifies a bit. Ian Kerner, author of “She Comes First: The Thinking Man’s Guide to Pleasuring A Woman” and object of my appreciation, sums it up nicely when he says:
"Any relationship comes down to two people and backgrounds and context and how they meet, and to reduce it to a set of rules ... There's something insidious about it ... It is disempowering and a lot like "The Rules," and it sort of leaves all the power with the guys." As a sex therapist, Kerner said, he finds that both genders fall "prey to complexities and vulnerabilities, and men wonder how to be masculine and what to do.”
Another great part of the article is tbe comment that the titular mantra was first voiced by Berger, who was “the utterly self-obsessed and emotionally immature asshole writer who broke Carrie Bradshaw's heart with a Post-it note. So he's the wise man? He's the truth teller?" Traister astutely points out that in this same episode, Miranda breezily proclaims her comfort with the fact that her date’s just not into her, only to be told that he declined her invitation to come up to her apartment because he was on the verge of having severe diarrhea. Hee hee. Nice.
(Also make sure to check out the excellent post on the same topic at Mouse Words.)
-- Contributed by Lauren
Looks like Toyota is showing off how powerful the Corolla’s air conditioning system is by featuring a woman’s nipples getting progressively harder. Lovely.
Not that the engagement-ring-as-dowry discussion hasn't been done a hundred times over, but I felt the need to bring it up after reading a pretty furious rant from a local sex columnist.
New York Magazine's Amy Sohn devoted her last column to married men who don't wear wedding rings and what that means for single women in the dating scene. Innocuous enough, but then catch a load of her last paragraph:
There is, however, one class of married man that should be exempt from any sort of band-wearing, free to mislead and philander as they wish: guys who were strong-armed into buying expensive engagement rings for their wives. In an era when women's earning potential is nearly the same as men's, I find it disgusting that so many women still insist on being bought. They want to have it both ways: earn equally but then trade sex for money. I have less respect for them than I do for prostitutes, who have integrity. I only hope these women's husbands cheat viciously, humiliate them, and leave them.
Ouch! She is not fucking around! (Ed. Note: clearly Feministing would disagree with her "earning potential" comment, but that's beside the point.)
I agree that engagement rings (expensive or not) are problematic, but should we really direct all the related-rage in women's direction? The wedding industry is tremendous, and the norms concerning engagement, marriage, and pretty much anything concerning heterosexual love relationships, are pervasive like a mofo. It's impossible to escape.
So should we not look down on women that partake in romantic social norms? Or should women know better than to be convinced to put a price on themselves and their relationships?
On a personal note: I find engagement rings really creepy in that I would feel like I was being boug