"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
A 22-year-old lesbian wrote in asking about appropriate levels of public displays of affection, stemming from frequent arguments with her mother. One of her mother’s concerns was that her daughter and girlfriend were “inviting trouble, perhaps even physical trouble.”
Check out Prudie’s response:
Dear Polite,
Prudie's opinion about the ongoing head-butting is that anybody's PDA (hetero and gay) should be within the bounds of restraint. Handholding in public is fine, necking is not. (For everyone.) A spontaneous expression of love—a brief one—is fine if it's not for effect and there would be no consequences … for example, if you're in an environment known to be homophobic, you would be asking for trouble. If you know someone who might be discomfited by seeing two girls display physicality, skip it. As the erudite Roger Rosenblatt has written, "If you find yourself making accommodations, that does not make you a hotel." In this case, it just makes you thoughtful.
Um, what the fuck?
Under Prudie’s oh-so-PC veneer of “necking isn’t cool for anyone,” is a really disturbing message: it’s your fault if you’re a victim of violence based on your sexual orientation. Yeah, yeah…she said if “you’re in an environment known to be homophobic.” But the last time I checked, pretty much the whole fucking country is known to be homophobic. Are there any completely safe spaces to be gay?
Not to mention, her advice sounds way too similar to the common (bullshit) argument that sexual assault victims were “asking for it” by wearing certain clothes or walking alone late at night. But I doubt Prudie would ever write that…much easier to blame the victim when they’re gay.
On a smaller scale of annoyance: the advice to forego physical affection in front of someone who “might be discomfited” by it is pure shit.
All female battalions in India tackle crimes against women
Back in my Women's Studies undergrad, I remember reading about a group of women who formed an alliance in India to fight sex offenders on gender divided trains. I guess at the time there had been a lot of men breaking into the women's cars and engaging in acts of sexual violence. Not only did these women form a group, but they armed themselves with bats and when the men would break in, they would beat the crap out of them! Aight.
Following in this tradition, the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India just created the first the Tamil Nadu Special Forces Fifth Battalion: the world’s first all-female battalion.
Tamil Nadu has always been progressive regarding women, electing the first female chief minister (a state chief minister holds the power of a U.S. state governor). It boasts the first women’s university, first women’s engineering college, first female-staffed police station, first all-female police commando company, and now the first women’s special-forces police battalion.
Historically, women were allowed in police forces, but they were usually relegated to administrative positions. India’s first elected female chief minister, J. Jayalalitha believes that if 1/2 the population is women, then perhaps the police force should not only be representative of that, but sensitive to the needs of crimes against women. Prior to the creation of women's battalion, Jayalalitha had created the All Women's Police Station (AWPS), which were staffed by about 15 women, trained in crimes against women.
AWPS has been extremely successful.
Today, there are 188 AWPS, one in each Tamil Nadu district, along with two toll-free help lines — Woman in Distress and Child in Distress — through which anonymous complaints are pursued at the same priority level as regular complaints. The result: a 23 percent increase in reporting of crimes against women and children — and a higher conviction rate. Several other states have started pilot AWPS.
Finally, Kalpana Nayak, battalion commandant says, that “policewomen are equally motivated and fit to be on a par with their male counterparts. Before this program, the male-female ratio was 42 to one; it’s now 12 to one [85,000 men, 7,000 women], the highest in India.”
Following a historical legacy of warrior women in India, this is pretty rad. I definately support large groups of women trained to defend the needs of other women.
Not long ago, the Boston Globe featured an article, Step off, about "the objectification of black women -- both visually and lyrically --" in contemporary rap music and videos. Old news, right? Not so fast. Apparently, "as this years-old aesthetic reaches a crescendo, a rumble of complaint is emerging from black men and women."
As the article reports, students at Spelman College in Atlanta organized a protest of a campus fund-raiser by Nelly after getting a look at his ''Tip Drill" video, which shows the rapper sweeping a credit card down a black woman's buttocks. In January, Essence began a "Take Back the Music" campaign that was initially scheduled to last a year, but it will now ''go on until we see change." The magazine featured stories on the subject in its January and March issues, spearheaded a national weeklong campaign to write letters of complaint to programming directors at BET, MTV, and Fuse, and, last month, held a packed town hall meeting at Spelman to discuss the subject with six panelists, including representatives of BET and of TVT Records, the Atlanta-based home of hit crunk acts the Ying Yang Twins and Lil Jon. Next month the issue takes on a scholarly tone when the University of Chicago brings in more than 1,000 people to a three-day conference where professors, artists, and activists will talk about feminism's place in hip-hop.
And (though not mentioned in the article), let's not forget Sarah Jones.
The author of the article was careful to point out that these campaigns are not about indecency, but are a legitimate fight against (and examination of) the intersection of racism and sexism in our culture.
''While there's sexism out there in society," says Cathy J. Cohen, director of the University of Chicago's Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture, "we have to be especially concerned with media images [of black women] because, in fact, that's how most people understand and interact with black communities. We live in a segregated society. People generally don't interact." And, the potential political implications are huge. ''Hypersexual deviance," says Tricia Rose, author of the seminal 2003 book on black women's sexuality Longing to Tell "has been associated with black women historically for a very long time. It's tied to the logic that cuts welfare policies for black women, right? The idea that they're promiscuous, they're irresponsible, or they're emasculating -- all of those kinds of representations impact policies."
Thank god people are rallying around these issues. Anyone still want to claim that "feminism is only for white women" or that "feminism is dead"?
A former sheriff’s dispatcher, Hobbs was told by her employer “to get married, move out, or find another job,” supposedly because of the state’s law against cohabitation. Cause those who live in sin don’t really have the time for work.
Hobbs quit last May, and luckily got the ACLU on the case. Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the ACLU-NC Legal Foundation, said that “the government has no business meddling in the private relationships of consenting adults.”
I agree, but it hasn’t exactly been the precedent set as of late. Just look at Bush’s marriage promotion programs for women on welfare. Who needs a job when you have a man? Ugh.
Clearly this specific case is just about some guy using a decrepit law to justify his blatant discrimination, and it probably won’t hold up in court. But taken in context with all the other crazy misogynist shit that’s been happening, it’s not something that should be dismissed too quickly.
Lafferty announces her resignation in the latest issue of Ms., due to hit newsstands this week, saying “in the last two years, I believe Ms. has been lively, provocative, thoughtful, and a fierce feminist example of advocacy journalism at its best…I wish the magazine’s owners all the best as they move forward with the kind of publication they envision.”
President of Feminist Majority Eleanor Smeal said of the resignation, “She resigned and that’s where it is. Change is constant and we know that, and we thought it had to happen at this stage, and we’re now onto another stage.” Sounds like she’s real broken up.
Apparently the main dispute was over control over content and the overall vision of the magazine. Lafferty said that the Feminist Majority Foundation “did not suggest any particular demographic or vision, other than very political and very narrow in their definition of a feminist… My vision of Ms. was that it would be a thinking woman’s magazine—a feminist magazine for sure, but my vision of feminism is a big…As the original Ms. was; they didn’t check membership cards at the door. I don’t believe in dogma, in exclusion or rhetoric. I thought it could be a magazine that invites women into the conversation about how we live today.” Wow…
Infighting and politics is certainly nothing new over at Ms.; they’ve gone through numerous owners, publishers and editors. But this recent debacle brings up an important question: can an activist organization with a specific political strategy successfully manage a magazine? Now, clearly Ms. is a feminist publication with a strategy of its own, but does that mean that it should compromise editorial control for (perhaps) more limited organizational goals? Any thoughts?
Definitely check out the whole piece, it gives an interesting inside look at this recent controversy, as well as some background on the mag that you may not have heard before.
To dwell on the intricacies of the law is to lose sight of a larger point. Turning customers away is bad for business. Pharmacies are in business to sell drugs. It's not good enough to tell a customer to call back tomorrow when a different pharmacist is on duty, or just go somewhere else. That may be relatively easy in a big city, albeit a good way to lose that customer's repeat business. But in some rural areas, the next pharmacy isn't a few blocks away, but many miles.
...Pharmacists must be free to exercise their professional judgment.
Good business practice dictates that employees' moral qualms cannot be ignored. But in respecting one set of concerns, pharmacy owners need to make sure another doesn't get trampled.
And then when you realize how much work still needs to be done, go and take action against the assholes who want to keep women from obtaining birth control and emergency contraception.
So to take on this craziness, NARAL Pro-Choice America is telling the nation’s biggest pharmacies (Wal-Mart, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Eckerd) not to stand between a woman, her physician, and her reproductive health choices. Send a letter now!
The Supreme Court ruled today that Title IX not only protects against discrimination, but also protects people from retaliation. Yay!
It was a close one, with a 5-4 vote.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that “reporting incidents of discrimination is integral to Title IX enforcement and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished,” and that if there weren’t protections against retaliation, “individuals who witness discrimination would be loathe to report it, and all manner of Title IX violations might go unremedied as a result.”
The not-so-surprising dissenting judges, Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy argued that “retaliatory conduct is not discrimination on the basis of sex.” I call bullshit.
The ruling came from a case brought by a girls’ high school basketball coach in Alabama who after complaining about unequal treatment and funding lost his coaching position.
A program in Alaska which trains women in the construction trades just received an award from the US Dept. of Labor. (Now if we could only get them to continue reporting on women’s wages...but that’s a gripe for another day.)
Alaska Works Partnership Inc. received the 2004 Exemplary Public Interest Contributions Award from the DOL for efforts to promote equal-employment opportunities:
The program began in summer 2003 with a program that included 15 women. For five weeks, they were given hands-on experience and exposure to various construction trades, including operating, electrical, plumbing, pipe fitting, sheet metal and carpentry.
...Beginning later this spring, the program will conduct training in Anchorage. Fifty-one women attended the first orientation for the Anchorage program. Another 41 are expected this week for a second orientation.
Love it. Nontraditional employment for women is something that isn’t often discussed in feminism, but it’s a necessary workplace issue. Construction and other nontrad jobspay great money and have flexible schedules, but women are often steered away from them.
I've got to say though, as soon as I saw the headline, College-educated white women earning less, I knew the piece was going to piss me off. Why report on institutional sexism when you can just try and create competition among women?
Could doctors refuse to treat gays under conscience clause laws?
According to ProudParenting.com, the conscience clause laws that pharmacists have been using to deny women birth control and emergency contraception prescriptions could also be used by doctors to refuse treatment to gay and lesbian patients. Looks like these laws are just chock full of discrimination. Jeez.
The ProudParenting piece specifically discusses Michigan’s law, which Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) notes “doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.” The legislation prohibits racial discrimination.
This isn't the first law as of late that discriminates against more than who it was intended for. Are these overlaps simply disturbing coincidences? Or is creating legislation that can be used against all kinds of us crazy "sinners" a deliberate strategy? Yes, perhaps slightly paranoid...
So after a lot of thought (and talking through what exactly constitutes "selling out...") we've decided to take ads on the site.
As traffic has increased for Feministing, we've had to upgrade numerous times and it's all out-of-pocket costs. We're hoping that taking on ads will let us continue the site without going totally broke!
So if you want an ad up, or know someone who might, we would really appreciate the support! (And frankly, they're not very expensive....)
The ever-classy lad magazine Maxim is “pranking” the Bush twins in the April issue by featuring a heavily doctored photograph of the twins in lingerie. The faces are theirs, the bodies…not so much.
Now, I hate Bush as much as the next feminist and I’m not exactly a fan of the twins either. But “pranking” Jenna and Barbara this way seems more like total humiliation than a harmless jab. (Did they take a cue from She's All That? I wonder...)
Should the Bush twins decide to bare all themselves, I'd be fine with it; but Maxim ripping their clothes off (i.e. doctoring a bunch of photos) is just plain degrading.
And this is a minor point, but the cultural fetishism of twins and sisters has got to stop, too. Hello, it’s frigging incest!? Actually, Shari Waxman did a piece for Salon on the twin fetish via that gross Coors advertisement a while back…good stuff.
Dads and Daughters, a national nonprofit org committed to providing "tools to men to be better fathers and advocates for their daughters," just put out a great action alert: Get the White House to Value Achievement Over Looks in Female Officials.
The "Dads" are justifiably pissed that in discussing the appointment of Dina Powell to Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Cultural Affairs, White chief of staff Andrew Card and budget director Joshua Bolton essentially focused on how cute she was.
So they want Dads across the country to send a letter to Pres. Bush; here's my favorite part of their sample message:
The first words that your chief of staff, Andrew Card, used to describe Ms. Powell were “extremely attractive.” Before articulating Ms. Powell’s numerous achievements, your budget director Joshua B. Bolten described her as “young, attractive.”
We doubt that you or your staff ever promoted a senior male appointee because he was “extremely attractive.” Such a double standard seems to reveal ignorance of an essential truth: a person’s value is in what she can think and accomplish, not in how she looks.
The film--by Jennifer Baumgardner and Gillian Aldrich (above)--features women talking about their experiences with abortion, in part to end the bullshit stigma surrounding the procedure.
Luckily, pro-choice forces are coming out to fight against this obvious privacy violation (and not so obvious anti-choice maneuver).
What makes me crazy though is those who would fools themselves into thinking that this search is really about protecting women. All I need to know about this one column defending Carter’s actions is that the author put the phrase ‘protecting privacy’ in quotes. Cause, you know...privacy isn’t a real right or anything....
Now let's let her rest. Just a quick update on the Schiavo case, her family has asked for protesters to chill. Also, Jeb Bush is saying that he can do no more, because he cannot violate a court order. This is after the Florida Supreme Court denied both his petitions: 1) To make Ms. Schiavo a ward of the state, and 2) to have her feeding tube reconnected. But clearly, this was not really about Terry Schiavo.
What do you think? Was this a political move and ultimately will this actually help good ole' Jeby and Georgey?
As many of you know, sex trafficking has been an ongoing problem throughout much of the world. Recently, Asmita Women's Publication Group conducted a study that found at least 17,000 Nepalese women forced into prostitution in four of India's major cities.
In an effort to combat this, the US has demanded that India make dramatic changes in its attempts at curbing the trafficking of sex workers. If India fails to comply they will be subject to economic sanctions in June. An article in Hindustan Times reads: Ministry sources said US Ambassador to India David Mulford met Home Minister Shivraj Patil over a week ago and conveyed to him that under the US's Victims of Trafficking and Violence Act, India's position could be downgraded for not doing enough to curb trafficking. If this happens, the US will be bound to vote against loans to India from international financial institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank.
