"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
In case you've been in hiding for the past two weeks, you should know that everyone is running for president. And they're starting now. I'm pretty sure Dem Hill staffers are still hung-over from all the celebrating, but even though winter came late, spring is coming early in Washington. Joe Biden has already stepped in it (again), and he only officially announced his candidacy yesterday. Nice.
While Congressional leadership is trying to get work done, it seems everyone else is starting to take sides. As women sign up to work with anyone but Senator Clinton, of course, they're being asked why. That's the bad news. The good news is they're all giving the same answer. Being a woman does not get you the automatic support of women. There's no vagina litmus test, people. Congratulations on your new gigs, Kate, Eureka,and Amanda. For the rest of you out there, am I wrong? Should women, especially feminists be supporting Hillary by default?
Fun with Feminist Flickr (beating cancer/beating women edition)
Several people have sent me this breast cancer awareness ad, put out by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. When I first saw the picture, I wasn't so sure it was totally offensive. And as Ann said to me via IM not so long ago, perhaps it's the group trying to counter the criticism of their "girlie pink ribbons" image.
But then I was driving and saw the ad on a bus shelter, and all you can really make out from far away is a picture of a woman's torso with the words, "Punch it, Strangle it, Kick it," etc. So, ugh. Plus, the headless woman is yet another example of how the Komen Foundation always seems to imply "save the boobies!" rather than "save women's lives!"
Immigrants wishing to live in the small Canadian town of Herouxville, Quebec, must not stone women to death in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules released by the local council.
The declaration, published on the town's Web site, has deepened tensions in the predominantly French-speaking province over how tolerant Quebecers should be toward the customs and traditions of immigrants.
"We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here," said the declaration, which makes clear women are allowed to drive, vote, dance, write checks, dress how they want, work and own property.
"Therefore we consider it completely outside these norms to ... kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc."
Well how lovely. I wonder if the council has rules about locally-born men not beating their wives after a night at the bar? Somehow I doubt it.
Salam Elmenyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal, said of the declaration, "I was shocked and insulted to see these kinds of false stereotypes and ignorance about Islam and our religion ... in a public document written by people in authority who discriminate openly."
It's amazing to me that people are still using the bullshit excuse of protecting women to justify blatant racism.
South Dakota is at it again. A new abortion ban bill is expected to be revealed today at the state Capitol--and this time around it will have exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the woman. (So generous, I know.)
“Legislators in the House and Senate who did not vote in favor of the bill that was passed last year say that they would support such a bill that had exceptions for rape and incest and clearly defined health exceptions,” [Rep. Don Van Etten, R-Rapid City] said.
...Kate Looby, state director for Planned Parenthood in South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota, also was in the Capitol on Monday. She said the lawmakers were “ignoring South Dakota voters,” who rejected an abortion ban last November.
The only exception in that measure was to save the life of the mother, but Looby said she believed South Dakotans would not accept the new measure either. “I think the people of South Dakota want the government to stay out of this private, personal family matter,” she said.
Let's hope so. But this is going to mean a change of fighting words on our part. After all, a lot of what pro-choicers talked about when trying to defeat the last ban was the lack of exceptions...
Recent research has shown that pregnant women going full-term can drink coffee without the fear of health risks.
While studies have alleviated the perception that drinking coffee while pregnant can lead to miscarriages or birth defects, it was just this most recent study which found that women can get their caffeine fix without fear of premature birth or an underweight baby.
"iFeminist"WendyMcElroy has written a piece for Fox News, Continuing to Defame the 'Duke 3' as Rapists, where we're misquoted:
Even the popular gender feminist site Feministing had conceded "it probably isn't appropriate to continue calling this the 'Duke rape case'."
That's funny, because I'm pretty sure it was a commenter that wrote this--not us. Congrats, noname: Fox News loves you!
I'd like to think this was a mistake (despite the fact that it's pretty damn clear who is blogging and who is commenting) so I've emailed McElroy about a retraction. But still--ugh.
UPDATE: I've had a series of emails with McElroy which seem to indicate that she's unwilling to remove the incorrect quote unless Feministing provides her with our position on the Duke case. Check them out after the jump (read from the bottom, up). This is seriously bad journalism.
UPDATE II: The reference to Feministing has been taken down and McElroy assures me a retraction is forthcoming.
There will be no sex with the male escort. Or so they say at Precious a "rent -a-fling" service employing 1,500 male escorts.
"Our customers are mainly women working in the adult entertainment business, but following them are housewives and office ladies in their 30s. Recently, we've also noticed an increase in housewives in their 40s and 50s," Haruki Kamisato, the head of Precious, tells Shukan Post.
Women pay a basic fee of 10,000 yen for a two-hour session, but some women will also pay more to have the escort give them a sensuous massage.
Um, yeah I am SURE they are only getting massages. But what is more interesting than this? The claim that women do this for more philosophical reasons.
Unlike men who use paid escorts primarily because they want to relieve sexual frustration, women into the rent-a-fling caper are seeking something a little more philosophical.
"Just seeing the faces of people who notice you walking around with a gorgeous guy on your arms is enough. My husband treats me like little more than a maid, so the attention I get when being with a cute young guy makes up for that," another housewife, this one a 40-something woman, says. "I might get the occasional sensual massage, but we never have sex."
That is so profound. Although, some women may be using this service for the attention they get from the men, I am sure there are other reasons as well. And maybe not as often as men, but please believe, women do pay men to have sex as well.
'Cause you're guaranteed full submission with these lovely ladies. This is some seriously creepy shit.
It’s terrifying when a patriarchal tradition not only extends into the afterlife, but when women are slaughtered in order to respect it. Two Chinese women were killed by three men and were then sold (their corpses, that is) as “ghost brides.”
The most heinous part of this story is that the men had only decided to kill the women when they realized “that the women would be worth much more dead than alive.”
A young woman was raped by a man who grabbed her as she was walking to her car from a local parade. After she called police and reported the crime, it was discovered that she had an arrest warrant out for her.
It was from an arrest when the woman was a juvenile and she was accused of not paying restitution. The woman says she was not aware there was a warrant out for her, and her attorney says it appears to be a paperwork error.
"They were more interested in prosecuting her for something that's a paperwork snafu from four years ago, that was juvenile. They were more interested in working on that than finding an experienced rapist," stated the victim's mother.
Still, the woman was put in handcuffs and taken to jail. She was not allowed bond, and the medical staff at the jail refused to give her the Morning After Pill even though it had been prescribed at the hospital.
Apparently the medical supervisor at the jail wouldn't allow her to take EC because it was against her religion.
"So, here we have a medical supervisor imposing her beliefs on a rape victim," said attorney Virlyn Moore. "As a human being, how someone could be so violated by this monster and then the system comes along and rapes her again psychologically and emotionally - it's outrageous and unconscionable."
The young woman was arrested on a Saturday, and wasn't able to leave jail until Monday afternoon. After being raped. Just sit on that one for a while. Unbelievable.
Via Feminists to the Rescue.
Ever since I got cable (bad choice when you have as much to do as I) but I have been watching a ton of Vh1 Soul, soooo good. And I love this song. All I can say, "I can have another you in a minute, so don't ever get to thinking your irreplacable. . . "
For some reason several of my girlfriends have been sending me this song/video. I guess it is important to remember the strength we have on our own, despite the nefarious implications of hetero-romance and what not. It is corny, it is mainstream, it is entrenched in disgusting capitalist patriarchy, but I can't help but get a little happy that young girls (and my girls) are singing this song.
I love you feministing for giving me a platform to rival this evil, expose it, make it known and fight it. I love you feministing commentators for kicking commenting butt. This story is awful. And so is this thread that followed it at Digg. Please a) start a more appropriate discussion here and b) go kick some commenting butt. Together we can overcome!
The line that should be ignored but disturbed me profoundly: "They are married.. He owns her.. It could never be rape because he is entitled to anything he wants."
Guest blogger du jour: Jill Morrison on laws that punish pregnant women
Jill Morrison is Senior Counsel at the National Women's Law Center and was a speaker at the NAPW conference on the panel "How might you be prosecuted? Let me count ways: Punishing pregnant women based on claims of fetal rights and the war on drugs."
I am the kind of attorney that doesn’t actually have clients. I work for the National Women’s Law Center on policies that impact people, but it is rare for me to actually meet those people. Well, the Summit of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women brought me face to face with the amazing women who have had their basic constitutional rights snatched from them. Why? Because they were addicted to drugs.
In case you’re wondering, being addicted to drugs is not a crime, only the stuff you do is a crime, not who or what you are at a given point in time. So-
Being an addict: not a crime
Possessing drugs with the intent to take them, give them away or sell them: all crimes.
Being an alcoholic: not a crime
Driving while intoxicated: a crime
Despite this fact, all over the country, women are being prosecuted for “crimes” based only on their (1) being pregnant and (2) testing positive for drugs. No one else can be tested and prosecuted just for having drugs in his or her system. To get around what they obviously see as a shortcoming in the law, prosecutors charge pregnant women with “delivery of drugs to a minor” and “child endangerment” even though the laws clearly were not meant to be used in these cases.
This violates pregnant women’s constitutional rights, since (1) the laws are applied differently to them than anyone else, (2) they have no reason to know that these laws apply to what they are doing, (3) women have pled guilty to crimes that aren’t really crimes, and (4) the Supreme Court has held that punishing someone for being addicted to drugs or alcohol is both cruel and unusual punishment, since addiction is an illness. Not only is it unconstitutional, it doesn’t do a thing to help babies or their mothers. Threats of prosecution just scare women away from drug treatment and prenatal care.
I’ve filed legal briefs in a few cases to help women who were being prosecuted, but I’ve never heard their stories from them, face-to-face. And I have to admit: even after working on this issue for a few years, I never really thought about the women who’ve been prosecuted as being the best advocates for their own cause. My co-presenters at the conference, Mary Barr and Tayshea Aiwohi are awesome. They both created organizations to help women who are where they once were. Tayshea faces massive local resistance to her mission: opening homes for families in recovery from addiction so she could use your support.
This conference gave me a much needed reminder me of our common cause, and how much women can help themselves and direct their own lives when simply given the chance.
This weekend’s World Economic Forum held a “Powerful Women” reception, which was co-sponsored by Forbes and Ernst & Young. The welcoming speeches were given by the (male) CEOs of the companies as well. You can try to redeem yourself, Forbes...
Heads of state, ministers and chief executives were among those who attended...
But there were also a lot of men.
‘I think that shows that men like powerful women,’ quipped Deborah Platt Majoras, chairman (yes, that’s what her business card says) of the United States Federal Trade Commission, as she scanned the room while sipping a glass of champagne.
The whole coverage was about men’s reaction, even the one quote by a female attendee.
Mr. Forbes said he was not intimidated by the concentration of high-powered women in the room.
‘I have six of them at home,’ he said, referring to his wife and his five daughters.
Ya think he'd be more intimidated by a room full of high-powered feminist bloggers?
The New York Times has a piece today on how women seeking high political positions are playing up their motherhood for more votes. (And that the strategy is a good one.)
For a long time women seeking high office, particularly executive office, were advised to play down their softer, domestic side, and play up their strength and qualifications. Focus groups often found voters questioning whether women were strong enough, tough enough, to lead.
. . . Today, many political strategists say women no longer have to be so defensive. Voters have grown more accustomed to women in powerful positions. And women like Ms. Pelosi and Mrs. Clinton, whatever other problems they may have, have been on the public scene long enough and are familiar enough players in the architecture of power that they no longer have to prove their strength day in and day out.
Relax, ladies! Now that you’ve proved yourself worthy, you can be your natural, nurturing selves again!
What this means, strategists say, is that motherhood and a focus on children can become one more political asset to be showcased — a way of humanizing a candidate and connecting with voters, especially other women.
Because motherhood and children is the only thing that connects us, right?? Ugh. This piece is masking a sexist stereotype as some sort of liberation for mothers in politics: now that they’re seen as equals (ha), they can breathe a sigh of relief and embrace the domestic, softer and, most importantly, the most honest side of themselves again. (And it’ll get you votes too! How convenient.)
Like Jen said, it's not like Harry Reid is pitching his familial obligations to the masses. Anyway, the end of the article is my favorite part; when
