"I love feministing.com and always learn from it." Katha Pollitt, The Nation
"Many people need a morning "fix." For some, it's coffee. For others, it's "SportsCenter." For me, it's Feministing.com." Katie Stone, The Denver Post
"Feminism is fun again! Every bit as edifying as your women's studies books from college, but with a biting sense of humor that keeps things punchy, not preachy." Marie Claire, December 2006
Happy Halloween from the Hate-Mongers on the Right
Do you ever wonder what hate-monger evangelicals do on Halloween? Apparently, they have turned it into a tool for proselytizing…
This year, for the 33rd year, students at Jerry Falwell’s “Liberty” University (it is an accredited institution…but I think the quotation marks are appropriate) put on a show called “Scaremare”, an elaborate performance described by the Washington Post as part haunted house, part sermon. Visitors are led into an abandoned orphanage with graphic demonstrations of what hell is like and who "deserves" to be there. These interactive scenes include women who have had abortions and gay men who have died of AIDS. No, I'm not kidding. (I wonder if they've made room for the feminists yet).
Apparently this is but one of a growing number of staged performances in this vein throughout the country. This year, more than 20,000 visitors from around the country have come to Falwell-U for the event. Even scarier is the fact that “Scaremare” falls within the more “moderate” end of the evangelical haunted house spectrum. Two companies that sell "how-to" kits for these fucked up haunted houses include scripts, detailed suggestions on music, costumes and props -- including how to select the best cut of meat to depict an aborted fetus.
A professor at Falwell’s Liberty University explains the "philosophy" behind Scaremare: "There's no question that people need to fear what is their eternal destiny… So here's the objective truth about hell..." Oh yeah, this sounds *real* objective.
According to organizers, these events have been very effective in converting people. One estimated that he had converted over 13,000 people since 1996! While this is shocking on a certain level, it seems appropriate in some ways: fear is, after all, the preferred means of the Right.
For the record, not everyone is so enthusiastic about this fire and brimstone approach. Rev. Eileen Lindner of the National Council of Churches USA argues that: "Education doesn't take its best root through fear and intimidation… That's not only not the best way to teach the Gospel's lesson of love; it's incompatible with the Gospel's lesson of love."
Hmmmm...maybe I'll go out treak-or-treating as Jerry Fallwell tonight. Now THAT would be really scary.
In Ruth Rosen's latest piece for The Nation, she discusses Women Really On Their Own--i.e. single women voters. While it has effectively been drilled into our heads that 22 million single women didn't vote in the last election, Rosen explores the impact that "single" status is having on the vote. Her conclusion--"Memo to politicians and the political parties: The difference between married and unmarried women's political views is greater and more decisive than the gender gap." (sigh). It turns out that there is a *huge* difference in how the single gal and married gal votes.
Recent polling data from Democracy Corps, found that single women favor Kerry over Bush by almost 26%, while married women prefer Bush over Kerry by 2%. Ugh. And a National Annenberg Election Survey taken in July found that out of 1,641 adults polled, 55% of married women supported Bush's job in the White House, while only 43% of single women approved. The poll found a similar "marriage gap" among women on questions of Bush’s handling of the economy, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. When respondents were asked about abortion, 28% of married women said they strongly favor banning all abortion compared with 19% of single women. While both of those numbers scare me, that's a *big* gap.
Adam Clymer, political director of the survey, hypothesized that single respondents were more negative towards Bush because they tend to have lower incomes and be younger. Rosen also chalks up the gap to greater economic security among married women. Is it really that simple, though? If I slip on a wedding ring and become privy to an economic bump up, will I suddenly fall *that* out of touch? I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a walk down the aisle would suddenly land me in bed with the Bush regime. (sigh).
Rosen also notes that for all of the discussion of the Sex and the City voter at the start of the election season, neither candidate has really done much to reach out to single women. "Instead of addressing the everyday security needs of "women on their own," both candidates pandered to (largely married) "security moms" who were supposedly obsessed by the prospect of terrorist attacks...True, John Kerry and John Edwards went on talk shows popular with women, but they talked about how they would fight terrorism. And yes, Bush's website has a section called "W Stands for Women," but it does not address concerns these women view as critical to their lives. It was only during the last few weeks of the campaign that Kerry rolled out a new stump speech that directly addressed women's economic security."
Chris Desser, co-director of Women's Voices. Women Vote, notes that, "[N]early one-third of unmarried women polled said their main reason for not voting is that they believe their lives will not improve, no matter who is elected." While there are undoubtedly many *very* strong economic & reproductive rights arguments for how Kerry will substantially impact the lives of women if elected, it's a shame that we're nearing the eve of the election and finding that Kerry hasn't made a strong enough pitch to inspire the potential mass of young, single women voters.
Come on, I'm looking for your thoughts. Like, why do *you* think there is such a big "marriage gap" among the ladies? And how inspired do you feel about stepping into the voter's box on Tuesday? Other thoughts?
So in the spirit of the holiday, Feministing wants to see your best efforts at feminist and/or political costumes. Send your pics to me, and we’ll feature the best ones on the site on Monday.
Usually I go with a birthday-themed costume (I’ll be officially in my late 20s the day after Halloween…now that’s scary!), but this year I really had go with something election-inspired.
After some serious consideration, I’ve decided to go as a “swinger state” for a Saturday night soiree…So be prepared to see some trashy-ass pictures of me dressed as a 70s-style swinger (think The Ice Storm) with a Hello-My-Name-is-Pennsylvania sticker on. Can’t wait…
Apparently Steven Scott Soper (maybe it was all the alliteration that put him over the edge…) went nutty when his girlfriend told him that not only was she breaking up with him, but she was –gasp!—voting for Kerry for president.
Soper, a strong Bush supporter, told his soon to be ex-girlfriend Stacey Silheira that she would “never live to see the election,” and held her captive with a screwdriver to her neck until police could subdue him.
I see a future with the RNC for this guy. Bringing voter intimidation to a new level…what a go-getter!
Was anyone in Pittsburgh on the 27th? Turns out Gloria Steinem introduced Le Tigre's show at Mr. Small's Theatre. Steinem discussed the political process, especially the importance of voting in the upcoming election. It's amazing that Steinem, second-wave extraordinaire, recognizes the influence music (Le Tigre, Ani Difranco, etc.) has on third wave women. "The ability of music groups of all kinds to go directly to the public without passing through the media is crucial," she recently told Billboard. "People know and trust musicians based on their records and their lyrics. In this age of pretty skewed media, that's precious." Right on.
Yesterday the UN Security Council heard from more than fifty speakers on the perpetuation of gender-based violence in war. Thoraya Obaid, head of the UN Population Fund, chastised the counsel for not implementing programs that would provide protection to women in conflict areas.
"From Afghanistan to Liberia, from Colombia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from Burundi to Darfur -- the list goes on and on -- women and girls, and even men and boys, are being subject to sexual violence, torture and slavery that defy the imagination and bring into sharp focus the cruelty that human beings can inflict on each other. It is truly sad, and terribly angering, to see the tremendous needs. But it is even more shocking to witness the response so far, which remains completely inadequate."
What actions could the UN take to provide a more adequate response? Well, I think Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno was on the right track when he disparagingly noted that, "women constitute only 1 percent of military personnel in U.N. peacekeeping operations, and peace processes and negotiations remain overwhelmingly male-dominated arenas.'' In fact, out of the 27 U.N. special representatives in charge of U.N. peace operations, only two are women. While I don't believe that placing women in these positions of power would necessarily change the landscape of the problem, it *is* a step in the right direction.
Intensely disturbing is Guehenno's observation that *this year alone* in the Congolese city of Bunia, 70 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse were made against U.N. peacekeeping personnel. Until the UN deals with the issue of sexual assault among its "peacekeepers", I'm hard-pressed to understand how it can "protect" women from more systemic forms sexual violence. (sigh). Thoughts?
We may not all be big fans of Eminem, but I do think this is a pretty incredible video and would love to know what y’all think of it.
The question is: Clearly Eminem has been continually and unabashadly misogynist, and has promoted violence against women. Should feminists embrace this video, that I’m sure will be extremely popular in the days to come before the election because of its potential political power? Should we push aside our opinions about Eminem?
But the folks at the Chicago Tribune disagree. Because of a last-minute freak out over the contentious c-word, editors were running around like maniacs pulling out the Women’s News section from their Wednesday papers.
The Tribune had originally planned to run an article, “You c-nt say that (or can you?),” which discussed “cunt” and whether the word was becoming more acceptable.
Instead of the intended article, which was written by freelancer Lisa Bertagnoli, the Tribune ran a piece about military widows. This only reached readers in the city however; those in suburban areas didn’t get the Women’s News section at all.
The weirdest thing about this story (at least to me), is that Bertagnoli never even uses the word cunt! But apparently because she hints at it by “providing words it rhymes with and making its anatomical reference clear,” it was offending enough.
So it’s not just the word that the Tribune folks find offensive…even the idea of cunt is too much!
I know that people have pretty divergent thoughts on this, but how does removing an article that is simply attempting to open some dialogue serve anyone?
If you're a Teresa fan, you're going to seriously enjoy Nerve's Wife Swap (ignore the title, I beg of you), a love-letter of sorts to the "cheeky," "sexy" future first lady...
It looks like we have some voters for Bush outside of the U.S., and they seem to have the right idea. Readers of a British magazine have rated President Bush as thus year’s top screen villain for his appearance in Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” So while Laura's winning votes for her cookies, her hubby's winning his own votes for being evil. I love it.
Bush beat a handful of other nominees, including Doctor Octopus in “Spiderman 2,” Leatherface in the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” Gollum from “Lord of the Rings” and Darryl Hannah’s character, Elle Driver, in “Kill Bill 2.”
Almost 10,000 people voted in the poll conducted by Total Film magazine. For this win, I would have to give Bush a standing ovation.
In an article in the Post-Standard yesterday titled, “Chocolate Chunks Sway Voters," you can only guess what that means. That’s right, it’s a Candidates' Wives Cookie Bake-Off! You have got to be shitting me.
No, unfortunately not. Apparently the newspaper took a poll of Central New Yorkers on their preference between Teresa Heinz Kerry’s pumpkin spice cookies and Laura Bush’s oatmeal chocolate chunk cookies.
“The cookies were educational projects for schools, classes and social agencies. The idea was to have fun and focus on the events of the presidential election. The cookie votes were cast strictly on taste. More than 400 people took the time to let us know what their taste buds selected.”
Wow. I’m all for getting involved in fun ways to “focus on the events of the presidential election," but then why, please, tell me why cookies?? Ugh. I can't think of a worse way to trivialize the two women. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if Laura was thrilled, especially when she found out that her cookie won the poll. Should we be surprised she won in a bake-off anyway?
As we’ve reported before, there’s only one choice next Tuesday when it comes to equal pay for women.
Women’s Enews took a look at the candidates recently, showing how each one could potentially hurt—or help—their pocketbooks.
The article notes that working women represent almost 65 million votes, yet these women still earn less than men in every state.
The wage gap for women (contested by a freaky few) is still at the very sad 76 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
Women’s Enews author Robin Hindery makes the very good point that despite his W Stands for Women nonsense, Bush “makes no mention of the wage gap in his official platform.” Huh. Imagine that.
Hindery also notes that a raise in the minimum wage—which Kerry has vowed to bring up to $7 per hour—would disproportionately benefit single working mothers. That’s an advantage I could get behind…
What about Bush?
Bush opted not to address the minimum wage issue in the debate, and shifted the conversation instead to the importance of education. He also does not discuss the issue on his campaign Web site.
During his 2000 campaign, Bush told The Associated Press that he supported a $1 increase in the minimum wage, but only if states could opt out. However, he has rejected all wage-increase proposals since being elected.
So ladies, even if you’re not thinking about all the other reasons to vote for Kerry next week, don’t forget about your pocketbooks. Cause I know I can’t afford Bush for another four years.
New York mothers who are victims of intimate partner violence can rest a little easier—the state’s highest court ruled yesterday that women should not lose custody of their children because of their partner’s violence.
The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in New York City has had a policy of removing children from a home where domestic violence is occurring, even if the children aren’t being physically abused. Domestic Violence groups contend that this policy unfairly punishes the mother for a crime that her partner is committing.
But the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously yesterday that the policy violates state laws, after three abused women who had their children taken away from them under the accusation of neglect filed suit.
But this ruling does not mean that children will simply be left in a home that is potentially dangerous. From the NY Times:
The court formalized specific standards for removing children from homes where domestic abuse occurs, requiring that authorities exhaust alternatives and insisting that the possible threat to the child's health or welfare be imminent…
… the authorities would have to show that the mother was indifferent to the psychological harm that repeated exposure to beatings caused the child in order to justify asking the courts to consider a removal.
I know this is controversial, and that many will feel that children's safety needs to be put first in violent situations. Naturally I agree, but in my experience as an emergency room counselor for victims of domestic violence, I have to say that this is an extremely important ruling. Many women will not report violence for fear that their children will be taken from them. At least now, if a woman knows that her kids can't be automatically removed from the home, she's more likely to seek help—which will benefit her and her children.
From the Sun Sentinel in south Fla.—most disturbing opening paragraph of an article, ever:
First daughters Jenna and Barbara Bush came to Miami on Monday with a new twist on a familiar plea: vote for my dad because he has been good to women.
Yeah, Bush has been great for women. He takes those pesky reproductive rights off your hands, and makes sure that you’re not bothered by the annoyance of things like equal pay and affordable child care. Cause who needs those bothers?!
Jenna went on to say that her dad “is open-minded...He also listens to us and gives us room to develop our own ideas and opinions.” But not your own choices, Jenna. Those are for the men-folk to decide, silly!
In an article in the Post-Standard yesterday titled, “Chocolate Chunks Sway Voters”, you can only guess what that means. That’s right, it’s a Candidate’s Wives Cookie Bake-Off! You have got to be shitting me.
No, unfortunately not. Apparently the newspaper took a poll of Central New Yorkers on their preference between Teresa Heinz Kerry’s pumpkin spice cookies and Laura Bush’s oatmeal chocolate chunk cookies.
“The cookies were educational projects for schools, classes and social agencies. The idea was to have fun and focus on the events of the presidential election. The cookie votes were cast strictly on taste. More than 400 people took the time to let us know what their taste buds selected.”
Wow. I’m all for getting involved in fun ways to “focus on the events of the presidential election”, but then why, please, tell me why cookies?? Ugh. I can't think of a worse way to trivialize the two women. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if Laura was thrilled, especially when she found out that her cookie won the poll. Should we be surprised she won in a bake-off anyway?
A Japanese-designed condom soon to be on the market has a little added pleasure factor—it vibrates.
Apparently this pulsing prophylactic has a vibrating ring at the base, and is currently being tested before its release. I wonder how one goes about being in that focus group…I want in.
Make sure to check out the NY Times’ piece today on the horror that women in Darfur are going through right now, we well as the argument over whether violence against women is a war crime. Um…Yes. Discussion over.
Seriously though, it never ceases to amaze me how people cannot make the connection between the incredible increase of violence against women and war. How is systematic rape not a war crime?
Violence against women—which is most often, but not limited to, sexual assault—is par for the course when it comes to armed conflict:
Sexual violence has been a tried-and-true way for armed men to sow terror among civilians in wartime, from the Balkans to Colombia and Congo to the genocide in Rwanda. The latter offers a particularly trenchant lesson for Sudan: Ten years later only a handful of allegations of rape have been investigated and prosecuted, according to a
