"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
Well not really. But you can hear her on Sex Talk, "a weekly podcast on gender issues, equity and feminism," that Rebel Dad started up. Good shit.
In addition to Jess' odd ramblings on masturbating in Atlanta, the show features an interview with Lissa Bell of the National Partnership for Women & Families, and some great news items.
Peter Benenson, the founder of human rights organization Amnesty International, died Friday evening. Very sad. Send Amnesty a message of condolence here; I believe they are collecting them for a later tribute.
According to a recent poll, most single Japanese women would prefer not to marry and think they would be happy living alone for the rest of their life.
While the newspaper that did the poll, the Yomiuri, noted that the results reflect "a recent trend among single women who no longer attach social stigma to choosing the single life," they didn't necessarily think this was such great news.
Japan's government is struggling to stem a tumbling birthrate and keep the population from shrinking...
"The result depicted a tendency among younger generations to remain single, leading observers to the conclusion that the number of people who marry late will further increase and will lower the birthrate," the newspaper said.
So ladies, I know you're happy being alone, but screw you! The world needs populating; get to it!
So Samhita beat me to the chase a bit on this one, but just to elaborate a bit...
The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) begins its two-week run starting Monday in New York City. I know a lot of folks aren’t really into the UN processes (for varying reasons), but this meeting should be really interesting.
Firstly, over 5,000 people (mostly women) have registered for the meeting from all around the world. Also, this particular CSW marks the ten year anniversary of the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, a meeting that resulted in the Beijing Platform for Action, an agenda for women’s empowerment. For a lot of great background info and ideas for action, check out Beijing and Beyond.
During the next two weeks there will be a tremendous amount of events, discussions, panels and official UN meetings; I’m hoping that I’ll be able to blog about a good number of them.
First bit of juicy gossip concerning the meeting:
Thursday night the U.S. started up shit during a discussion of the political declaration for CSW. They proposed an amendment to a paragraph which discusses reaffirming the Beijing Platform. They wanted to add a statement saying that “reaffirming does not create any new international rights and does not include the right to abortion.”
The Beijing Plus Ten Conference starts today in New York which is the ten year review of the Beijing Conference in 1995. The Beijing Conference raised awareness of the international status of women's rights and attempted to bring about legislative change by way of a document called the Beijing Platform for Action, that were a set of principles and strategies of action to help enforce change around women's issues.
After ten years, there is a lot to discuss. According to one article on Voice of America several of the sponsers of the conference (including the World Bank) believe that we have made progress in the area of women's issues. On the contrary, groups such as Amnesty International believe that issues such as violence against women have continued uninterrupted since the last conference. Furthermore, Kyung-wha Kang, the chairperson of the Commission on the Status of Women (the folks facilitating the review), said the issue remains the biggest obstacle to the advancement of the world's women.
Kang also discusses that the goal of the conference it to create a strong document to reinforce the standards set in 1995. But that goal is already stirring some controversy with reports that the United States is pushing for the inclusion of an anti-abortion plank.
Shocker. We will keep you posted about the happenings of the Conference.
I Think the IWF & Larry Summers Just Found A New Best Friend
Meet Dr. Farrell. He's the asshole of the week that the NY Times Business Section decided to give in-depth coverage. He's a pseudo-scientist that believes he's finally figured out the gendered wage gap. His answer: women self-sabotage.
"Women, he believes, methodically engineer their own paltry pay. They choose psychically fulfilling jobs, like librarian or art historian, that attract enough applicants for the law of supply and demand to kick in and depress pay. They avoid well-paid but presumably risky work - hence, the paucity of women flying planes. And they tend to put in fewer hours than men - no small point, he says, because people who work 44 hours a week make almost twice as much as those who work 34 and are more likely to be promoted."
Ummmm, yeah. But where is the analysis on how women are pushed out of partnerships and senior level positions when they become pregnant. Or how women are *still* left tending to the majority of childcare and house work. And how no matter how many hours we put in, we will still *never* be eligible for the boys club. I don't care how you spin it, it is just plain *wrong* to blame women for their lower pay. (sigh).
Now I guess that because Dr. Farrell served on the board of NOW in the 1970's we're supposed to think that he's not so anti-feminist after all. That he's just presenting a new paradigm of economic analysis. Ummmm, yeah.
"It is O.K. to trade a fatter paycheck for more time with children and hobbies. Just recognize that society did not force the choice on you. 'Feel powerful and happy that you have control over your own life,' Dr. Farrell said. 'It's better than feeling like an angry victim of discrimination.'"
Well, you know what. I think anger is a pretty valuable tool. And rather than just accepting wage discrimination or blaming myself & other women for our low wages, I say that we keep giving the Dr. Farrells of the world hell.
One final thought--could the Times *really* not find anything better to publish than this propaganda? Well, hey, maybe in the post-Summers media climate, backlash is cool.
Check out Cynthia Gorney's piece for the NY Times, Imagine a Nation Without Roe v. Wade. After giving a brief purview of the states that still have pre-Roe abortion laws on the books (Michigan, Colorado, Alabama & fourteen others) and the states likely to keep abortion legal (New York, Maryland, California & seventeen others), she offers this thought-provoking passage:
"Roe created the national right-to-life movement, forging a powerful instant alliance among what had been scores of scattered local opposition groups. What would happen to that movement, should the galvanizing target of its loathing suddenly disappear? How different would it be, fighting on simultaneous multiple fronts? And how would politicians react if an antiabortion vote were no longer easy theater, an appeasement gesture likely to be neutralized by court challenge, but instead could actually make abortion a felony? How might voters themselves react, if the election booth decision could truly make the yes or no difference?"
While I believe with my heart/mind/soul that the majority of women *aren't willing to go back*, I believe that a post-Roe society is something that we must think *critically* about. And not just in a oh-my-god-it's-too-scary-to-think-about kind of way. What *would* happen to the reproductive rights of women in red states? Would their state legislatures suddenly develop a conscience? Or would women be the victims of their conservative state legislatures? Would the issue be contentious enough that state legislators would allow constituents to go to the polls and vote directly on the issue? And if the polls are right, and the majority of Republicans are pro-choice, how would this sentiment map onto a post-Roe political landscape?
To this end, Gorney concludes with a warning to the left:
"Since the last presidential election, reflective discussion among Democrats has included the once unthinkable proposition that the end of Roe might not prove an unqualified disaster after all - that the political process, and Democrats themselves, might have something to gain from the tumult that such a ruling would set off in the states. This thinking isn't lost on the other side. 'All it's going to do is kind of balkanize the pro-life battle into 50 individual battles,' said a Michigan anti-choice lobbyist. 'There's always the phrase, Be careful what you wish for.'"
Well *clearly* none of us are wishing for this outcome. But it leaves us with the same old question--where do we go from here?
According to Reuters, U.N. officials are finally acknowledging that sexual assault by peacekeepers is not limited to African missions such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Ivory Coast. A recent examination revealed that widespread allegations of sexual exploitation have emerged in all *sixteen missions* worldwide.
In an attempt to address the issue, the U.N. is now threatening to expel countries that refuse to prosecute its offending soldiers. U.S. State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said that the U.S. would consider supporting the move. He also noted that, "We have worked very carefully with the U.N. to try to get them to...make sure that in fact prevention becomes a top priority for U.N. peacekeeping operations and troop contributors." While I'm glad that the U.S. is willing to back the effort, I'd say that we still have a lot of work left to do with our own soldiers in combat.
Overall, I think this is a *really* important step for the U.N. to take. Since the U.N. does not have jurisdiction over foreign soldiers, it can only demand that a country prosecute their offenders at home. With such limited power, naming countries that refuse to address sexual assault by their soldiers, and requiring them to leave the mission is probably the most pragmatic step the U.N. can take.
While this, of course, would then create new problems--mainly, who would take the place of these soldiers--I still think that it has the potential to create change. Being named as a country that refuses to prosecute its rapists never makes for good international PR. And for many developing countries, there are *big* economic incentives for being a part of a mission (i.e. soldiers earn significantly more working for the U.N. than they could at home). In any case, I think it's worth a try.
U.N. undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guehenno, noted that, "The whole issue of the professionalism of peacekeeping is at stake." Yeah. Well, that and the lives of the hundreds of women and children who are the victims of these assaults.
My, my, the Bush administration sure does seem to make fashion waves on its trips to Europe. First there was the shameful Cheney in his "Staff 2001" knit hat and green, fur-trimmed parka at the Auschwitz ceremony. And now Condoleezza Rice is raising brows among cultural critics with her fashion pick for the Wiesbadan Army Airfield.
Washington Post style writer, Robin Givhan critiques:
"Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual."
"Rice challenges expectations and assumptions. There is undeniable authority in her long black jacket with its severe details and menacing silhouette...If there is any symbolism to be gleaned from Rice's stark garments, it is that she is tough and focused enough for whatever task is at hand."
While I'm still wrestling with Givhan's critique, I'm struck by the fashion conundrum that powerful women are left to wrestle with. By breaking with her usual uniform -- "a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps" -- Rice got cast a dominatrix. While I personally think that the "power-suit" is an extremely unflattering look, why does breaking free of a two-piece suit imply sexual deviance? It seems that even in wardrobe choices, critics are eager to impose the virgin/whore dichotomy on women.
It looks like a state house in Georgia approved a bill that will require women seeking abortions to undergo a 24-hour waiting period.
In fact, the bill also includes a laundry list of little additions: minors will be required to tell their parents, and every women seeking an abortion will be told of the health risks involved, as well as brochures with fetal pictures and information on child support. What. The. Fuck.
A decent amount of the more controversial aspects were actually taken out of the bill, like informing women of the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer (although it's been proven nonexistent) and allowing fathers and parents to sue abortion providers for malpractice. Whaa?
Supporters of the bill said that it ended up being a compromise between pro and anti-choicers. Um, yeah. I don’t what the hell they’re talking about, because there is absolutely no middle ground when it comes to this bullshit.
Apparently I’m a little late on thiscrazy-ass story out of Florida, but I had to write something:
Kelli Davis, 18, had her senior class photo taken in a tuxedo top and bow-tie outfit provided for boys rather than the gown-like drape and pearls provided for girls. The school's principal decided it could not appear in the yearbook because she didn't follow the dress code.
Kelli, a straight-A student with no discipline problems, is a self-proclaimed lesbian. She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo. “Because that's me, you know. That represents me. The drape does not,” Davis said. “They're not accepting me, that's the whole reason we're here.”
Kelli’s school principal decided to ban her pic from the school yearbook. Lovely.
Even better, School Superintendent David Owens said that the decision had nothing to do with Kelli’s sexual orientation: “There's a dress code to follow -- a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It's just that simple.” Yeah fucking right.
You gotta love this girl’s parents though; they wanted to make sure that their daughter’s picture made it into the year book, so they bought a two-page ad in the back of the book for $700, which will feature the picture.
As an update to Jessica's post yesterday on Kansas Attorney General’s demand for the medical records of ninety women who have received abortions, I thought I’d delve a bit deeper into this nonsense.
Attorney General Phil Kline was actually permitted by a district judge in October to see these private files, but two medical clinics in Kansas have brought the case to the Supreme Court, reports ABC News. The clinics say that Kline demanded complete and unedited medical records of women who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancies, as well as girls 15 years and under who sought abortions.
No hearing has been scheduled for the clinics’ appeal, but if the higher courts don’t intervene, women who have obtained abortions may have government agents at their door. There may even be a gag order that prevents the clinics from even telling these women that their records are being exposed. So not only will they be stripped of their privacy rights, but won’t even know about it?? The fact that this guy even has a shot at this makes me feel like I’m in the fucking twilight zone.
An opponent of abortion, Kline also attempted to make it a requirement for health care professionals to report underage sexual activity. Luckily a federal judge blocked him, but the case is yet to be resolved. Kline commented on Thursday, “I have a duty to investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children.”
Child rape? Kansas law prohibits teenagers under 16 to engage in sexual activity, but associating “underage sexual activity” with "child rape” is a bit of a stretch. I also don't doubt that one of these “other crimes” is late-term abortion.
Additionally, the fact that he is demanding their personal information, such as names, details of their sex history, and psychological profiles makes it a bit obvious what the agenda is here. Not only is this a gross violation of patients' rights, but a blatant strategy to attack reproductive rights.
As an update to Wednesday’s post on Alabama’s ban of selling sex toys, we found that other countries are enjoying their rights to the fullest. While Amsterdam is pretty big on using vending machines for everything -- cash, food, condoms, even toothbrushes -- well, you can guess what’s coming next.
It looks like the southern Dutch city of Tilburg has begun to install sex toy vending machines at various businesses. There was actually some resistance by the city council’s building inspectorate, but the machine was approved after it was made child-proof. It can’t be purchased with money, just bank or credit cards.
So while Alabama residents are fighting just to be able to purchase one, the Dutch merely has to pop in some plastic to get their pleasure.
Feministing reported on this more than disturbing invention from Hong Kong software maker Artificial Life Inc. last year.
“Vivienne” (yes, she has a name) behaves in varying ways depending on how much money you spend on her.
Users eager to advance quickly toward a virtual kiss or even marriage should know that she has a faintly mercenary appreciation for gifts, from flowers and chocolates to cars and diamond rings. Some virtual gifts are free, but others will require users to make real charges against their monthly phone bills of 50 cents to $2.
What an innovative way to promote a tired stereotype of women!
But it doesn’t stop there:
If you marry her in a virtual ceremony, you even end up with a virtual mother-in-law who really does call you in the middle of the night on your cellphone to ask where you are and whether you have been treating her daughter right.
As Feministing pondered when we first reported on this—where is the virtual boyfriend who doesn’t return your calls and cheats on you?
A recent national poll showed that more than 6/10 voters believe the United States is ready for a woman president in 2008 and 53% of them think Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should be the woman to do it. The poll, conducted by the Siena College Research Institute and sponsored by the Hearst Newspapers, found that 81% of voters surveyed would vote for a woman for president; 62% said the country is ready for a woman president; and 67% said a female president would be better than a male chief executive in handling domestic issues.
Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, director of the Siena Research Institute and professor of statistics, stated: “The results are fascinating and very encouraging for women – and all Americans who want the nation’s highest office held by the best people, regardless of their gender".... "There was very little difference between men (64%) and women (60%) on whether or not the country was ready for a woman president in 2008 and whether or not respondents were prepared to vote for a woman – 80% of men and 82% of women said ‘yes.’
Now, I'll believe it when I see it. But this is always nice to hear.
For those of you near Albany (or for anyone who's interested), Sienna College is hosting a ‘First Woman President’ Symposium on March 4-5 to talk about this issue and to launch Women’s History Month. The sessions are open to anyone who registers. (To register, visit http://www.siena.edu/sri/FirstWomanPresConf.asp). They have some pretty serious panelists, including Eleanor Clift and Marie Wilson. Check it out.
Kline apparently is looking for evidence of a crime under late-term abortion laws. The records he's looking to get would include every patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile. This is such a disgusting violation of privacy rights; I'm fucking speechless.
I don't know if anyone has been following the recentJudith Warner buzz, but I'm curious to know what folks think.
(Warner's book, "Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety," says moms are going nuts trying to be perfect.)
To me it reeks of the Lisa Belkin "Opt-Out Revolution" silliness from a while back because of its assumption that the only mothers that count are white, educated, middle-to-upper class women.
