Recently in News Category
Cross-posted at My life more ordinary
I am super-grateful to Jessica for posting about this issue on the main Feministing blog; however, given its US base, the main blog doesn't always give issues occurring "down under" the same attention, so I felt compelled, as a female university student in Sydney (thankfully, not at Sydney University!) to flesh out this sorry saga a little more.
To recap, the Sydney Morning Herald recently broke the story that a group of students from St Paul's College, a residential college of the University of Sydney, had created a Facebook group called 'Define Statutory' - and that this was just "part of a broader culture at the residential colleges that demeans women in a sexist and often sexually violent way". St Paul's college is Australia's oldest residential college (the approximate equivalent of dorms in the US) and the only at the University of Sydney to still exclude women. Ex-residents lists read like a 'Who's Who' of Australia and include ex-prime ministers and prominent media personalities. The reaction of the college was lukewarm at best, with the warden Canon Ivan Head (yes, the college is affiliated with the Anglican Church!) stating only that the page is "contrary to clearly stated policies governing conduct in college", whilst the Students' Club Committee posted on the college website that it "condemns the attitude to women of the Facebook group page". St Paul's College describes itself by saying that ''All the facilities of the college are designed to ensure that men have the greatest possible amenity and can spend as little of their life as possible dwelling on mundane, domestic arrangements. St Paul's allows the university experience to grow beyond the purely academic routine of lectures and tutorials, and to become true renaissance men in a modern setting.''. A setting, that is, where graffiti on the wall (according to media reports) includes "They can't say no with a c--k in their mouth'' and ''Any hole is a goal''.
While I'm very happy that this bill passed, it comes as no surprise to me unfortunately that 30 white male senators would oppose this.
Check this out if you would like to send these senators a few words or two.
The above site also has an interview with Jamie Leigh Jones which gives much of the background information and her story.
Ceara Sturgis is a senior at a Mississippi high school described as being exemplary: "a straight-A student, goal on the soccer team, a trumpet player in the band and active in Students Against Drunk Driving". Despite all of this, Ceara's school is not allowing her senior photo to be included in the yearbook.
Why? Because Ceara is also a lesbian and since, as her mother says, she "feels more comfortable in boy's clothes", decided to wear a tux for the photo.
Her mother, Veronica Rodriguez, is fighting the school's decision, and the local ACLU has also written to them asking that they include Ceara's photo in the yearbook. No comment from the school so far.
Rodriguez says, "She's not a troublemaker. She is gay. She wants to wear the tuxedo because that's who she is. She's not ashamed of that."
According to the article, Ceara has very few problems with other students because of her sexuality and gender expression.
So what is this school so afraid of?
One thing we can say is that at least now many people get to see Ceara's photo. I really admire her strength and courage and I hope that other LGBT highschoolers like her can take the same things away from her story that Ceara has: "It has made her feel that she is not alone, that she is important and somebody".
Good luck, Ceara!
Today, The George Washington University’s college newspaper, The Hatchet , ran an article about an incident that I find completely outrageous. Earlier this week, an incident happened in the freshman dorm wherein a young man, who we now know was a freshman at the University of Maryland, reportedly was intoxicated when he entered the dorm and proceeded to enter the rooms of several young women, crawl into their beds and initiate what has been called “unwanted sexual contact.” According to one of the women, the man “ "tried to kiss her, 'and attempted twice to place his hands down the front of her shorts.'" The woman woke up screaming and the man fled and ran into another young woman’s room.
The young man has now been charged with first-degree burglary. Burglary? That doesn’t even begin to cover the crimes that this student is alleged to have committed. When asked to comment, the defendant’s attorney said , “This is not a sexual assault case. You have a really good kid who has never been in trouble his entire life. It's your typical freshman 'I went out and had too much to drink and was being silly' kind of case." Everyone makes mistakes their freshman year of college. Sexual assault—of which this is clearly a case —is not a mistake, it is a crime. What a dangerous world we live in if this kind of behavior can be labeled as “typical.” He went on to comment, “This frankly shouldn't even be a criminal case. I think it's being entirely blown out of proportion." The way this case is being handled is terrible and thoroughly trivializes the experiences of these women who were victimized in their own rooms. This type of behavior is completely unacceptable—and illegal—regardless of the level of the man’s intoxication or his prior behavior. This dismissal of his behavior as a normal freshman student having too much fun sets an awful standard for students on campus and fails to do justice to the victims in this case.
by Laura Baudo Sillerman
Continue reading at Women's Voices For Change.
For the last few months, I've given a lot of thoughts to NOW's current administration and its close association with 2nd-wave feminists like New York's National Organization for Women's president Marcia Pappas and Los Angeles' NOW president Shelly Mandell, and how such associations does not move our movement forward, but rather, backward.
For the record, Pappas is the woman who blasted Ted Kennedy when he decided to endorse Obama over Clinton, claiming that he betrayed women. Mandell is the woman who endorsed Palin because she is a woman.
Along with charges of racism and the inability to adapt with change, NOW has become somewhat of a joke since last year. I've seriously considered no longer supporting it, in membership and attending conventions, but my ties to its local chapter is too strong for me to cut all ties.
But NOW helped me decide quite easily yesterday, when it blasted David Letterman for his affairs, citing that his actions create a hostile work environment for women, because men in power are sexually harrassing them.
I get it. I understand that men in positions of power can and sometimes do use their power to force women into sex, or lose their jobs. I get that sometimes, the work environment is hostile for women. It's a serious subject and one we need to take on.
But NOW, without having heard from any of the women with whom Letterman had sex, using this opportunity to address the issue is classless, and most importantly, shows it doesn't truly care about the individual experiences of women, but rather, will readily write them off to achieve an end goal.
In this instance, NOW attempts to speak for all women, represent all women, without them asking NOW to do so. In this instance, it is NOW making victims out of women who otherwise are empowered women who just so happened to have had sex with Letterman.
It seems NOW does not thinnk women can make decision on their own as to with whom to have sex, nor does it trust women enough to think that they can have sex without having been coerced into it.
The thing that bothers me most about this is it seems like NOW doesn't care about the personal experiences of these women, or what truly happened with them, and without their consent, is using them to further a cause. To be sure, it's an issue we need to talk about, but the end does not justify the means. We don't have the rights to ignore or embelish the personal experiences of women for our own cause, even if it's a good one.
Time and again, it seems NOW is stuck in the past - unable to change and get past the fights it so honorably fought for in the early days of its existence. It seems to comprise of privileged women who claim to speak for all women, without actually checking in with women to understand their lived experiences or needs.
Perhaps critics are right - perhaps NOW has become irrelevant to modern feminism, and no longer serves a purpose. Perhaps some critics are also right in that NOW cannot simply see beyond gender, and as a result, is no longer capable serving the multitudes of women with multitudes of experiences.
In either case, I am still mulling over how I can go on to support women politically and personally without NOW. It's time, I think, we create a new political organization aimed at helping women, because as I see it, of the current, NOW is not the answer.
Whew! When fall hits, so do a slew of official "months." October is now swathed in pink for Breast Cancer Awareness Month ; less expected, however, is this sudden influx of pink National Football League merchandise. For the latter, it seems, we can thank Tanya Snyder, 47, whose husband Dan owns the Washington Redskins. She told the New York Times about the way cancer changed her life:
After she learned she had breast cancer early last year, she called Dan at his office and he sped home. They took a long walk. “I just remember being in a twilight zone,” she said. “I felt like I was 2 feet tall. I was very afraid.”
In the decade her husband has owned the Redskins, Tanya Snyder has ceded the spotlight to him. Now she is talking about her illness for the first time, becoming the delicate face of the N.F.L.’s effort during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, with help from Larry Fitzgerald, the Arizona Cardinals wide receiver, whose mother died of breast cancer.
At games on Oct. 4 and on other dates in October, players will wear hot-pink gloves, wristbands and cleats, and goal-post legs will be wrapped in hot-pink padding. Each fan will receive a pink-and-white rally towel and will be inundated with the message that screenings for women over 40 are crucial.
“Before she got sick, she’d be all excited about these programs,” Dan Snyder said in an interview at Redskins Park, the team’s headquarters. “It’s kind of eerie. So maybe it was meant to be to help with this.”
Read the rest of the news at Women's Voices For Change.
Entering Zurich for the Zurich Film Festival, Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police. The US is expected to make a formal extradition request.
Honestly, I don't quite know how to feel about this. He had pleaded guilty in 1978 to a charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" of thirteen, and then skipped the country. However, he claims the judge in the case had agreed to a plea bargain ("time served") and then reneged.
And the person he molested -- now forty-five years old -- has also asked that the charge be dismissed. She came to a settlement with him in civil court, and now just wants it to be over.
Any thoughts?
So here's what's going on in Canada, people. Charges for polygamy against two religious leaders are dropped on the grounds of religious practice under the Charter of Rights and Freedom. One of the accused, William Blackmore, "was charged with one count of polygamy with at least 19 women named in an indictment."
Irene Spencer , who was married off to Verlan LeBaron when she was only sixteen years old, talks about the abuse hidden behind polygamous practices in the name of religion. LeBaron was already married to her half-sister when he married her, and she would later give him thirteen children and watch him take eight more wives after her. Spencer says that "the men always say ‘marry them young so you can train them.’
I am very disappointed.
Anyone who read about Turing in this post or who voted on the petition, or anyone who just cares about LGBT rights will be pleased to know that an apology has been delivered.
'2009 has been a year of deep reflection - a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain's fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.
In advance of Labor Day I thought this article in USA Today was interesting, "Women gain as men lose jobs."
According to the article, in June of this year women held 49.83% of jobs in this country and despite the record unemployment their numbers are growing. In fact, women are poised to become the majority of the workforce for the first time in our history in October or November of this year.
The article does a good job of pointing out a few caveats and important tidbits for thought:
(1) The change reflects the growing importance of women as wage earners, but it doesn't show full equality. On average, women work fewer hours than men, hold more part-time jobs and earn 77% of what men make.
(2) Through June, men have lost 74% of the 6.4 million jobs erased since the recession began in December 2007. Men have lost more than 3 million jobs in construction and manufacturing alone.
(3) Strikingly, this also applies to other sectors, such as local government. Of the 14.6 million-person workforce (which includes cities, schools, water authorities and other local jurisdictions) 86,000 men were cut from payrolls during the recession while 167,000 women were added.
Horrible news. A gunman .opened fire in the basement of the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association in Jerusalem, killing three people and injurying eleven that were attending a support group for gay youth.
(Trigger warning)
This Monday, Otty Sanchez murdered her child and then attempted suicide, claiming the devil had commanded her to do it. It was a gruesome act of cannibalism. Police reported that every officer was silenced by the scene. And while this was a tragedy beyond comprehension for most people, the act’s similarity to Andrea Yates’ 2001 murders and the media’s response imply a larger problem. Why does the media fetishize women cracking under pressure?
Andrea Yates
There is an undeniable similarity to Andrea Yates’ infanticide in 2001. Like Sanchez, Yates claimed the devil compelled her to drown her five children. Both lived in Texas, Yates around Houston and Sanchez in San Antonio. And like Sanchez, Yates had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized for psychiatric reasons twice, then diagnosed with postpartum psychosis within a year of the killings.
Yates stands out for feminists because when she married, her newly adopted religious beliefs included the Quiverfull movement:
“As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man;
so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them”
Psalm 127:3-5
Members of the Quiverfull movement abandon contraception, natural or otherwise, and procreate as much as nature will allow. Prior to the deaths, Yates experienced criticism from her church and family that she was not an adequate mother in the eyes of God. She claimed it was this that drove her to kill her children, the belief that her spiritual failure had spread to her children, who would by extension never be saved.
Otty Sanchez’ story is reminiscent of this; the week of the killing, she had a nervous breakdown for which she was hospitalized and released. Then, her boyfriend’s family also called the police about alleged child negligence on her part for failing to use a car seat. Forbidden from driving upon threat of calling the police again, the boyfriend’s family allowed her to return to their house. Sanchez was heavily reliant on her sister for help with the child at this time.
It’s possible that the pressures on these women, religious, familial, and otherwise, expedited their breakdowns. Though Sanchez was additionally diagnosed with schizophrenia and quit taking medication, the parallels between the situations suggest an underlying problem of women being pressured to choose motherhood regardless of their well-being.
Also, postpartum psychosis affects 1/1000 mothers, while less-severe postpartum depression affects 1/10. Sanchez had ceased taking medication for her schizophrenia, while her boyfriend still took medication for his. This increased her risk for postpartum psychosis by 50%.
Here, the “devil made me do it” connection is strengthened. Richard Pesikoff, a psychiatry professor at the Baylor College of Medicine, gave the following testimony in Yates’ trial:
“Postpartum psychosis is far rarer, affecting only about one woman in 1,000. Women with postpartum psychosis have delusions, frequently involving religious symbols and a desire to harm their newborn.”
Watching Eve Fall
The American media already has an unhealthy obsession with unhinged women. Reality shows glorify women “cracking” or “breaking,” getting in fights and losing control of their emotions. This is inherent to everything from Jerry Springer to Fox’s upcoming reality TV adaptation of the 1988 film, “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. ”
Furthermore, even lightweight shows like Nanny 911 or Wife Swap put women under extraordinary scrutiny and encourage them to be suddenly self-critical of their parenting. This perpetuates the idea that there is just one effective parenting style. The larger theme of all these shows, of course, is that women are unpredictable and crazy. And while an underlying cause of this was the lack of adequate schizophrenia medication, Sanchez’ diagnosis of postpartum psychosis is instead chalked up to the mythical power of “hormones” to turn the kindest woman into a raging monster.
One question is, “Were Otty Sanchez a man, would his media coverage be the same?” I can speak for my local paper of 17 years, the Sacramento Bee, that Otty Sanchez made the front page on Monday with a headline with the phrase “Eats Brains,” which they later changed to “Child dismemberment.” And how common is front-page coverage of a man killing his child ? It would possibly make it into the B section, titled “Metro”- just for local news.
The mainstream media mirrors the grisliness in shows like “Law and Order: SVU,” furthering a desire of viewers to watch women as criminals. There is an American fetish for building unattainable standards for women, and watching as women fall short and blame themselves . This includes beauty, career, sexual, spousal, and parenting standards. Just as tabloids satisfy the desire to see other women’s flaws, (“Celebrities without makeup! You’ll never believe her cellulite!”) there’s a desire to tear down mothers as crazy. Furthermore, I would argue that this dates back past reality TV, past women being thrown in asylums, to the story of Adam and Eve that underlies the understanding of interactions between men and women today —audiences and the general public want to see women experience guilt and punishment for not measuring up.
Who’s to blame for Sanchez ceasing to take medication? Did she feel it was stigmatized? Did she lack the money or insurance to pay for it? Was she under religious as well as familial pressure? Did she feel her diagnosis was dismissed as trivial? Was there any way to prevent this?
I don't think she is an anomaly, and I think the media's glorification of the failure of women is a symptom.
Last week the Worthington trial concluded in Oregon. I'm not sure how much national press this received, so here is a rundown of the basics:
The Worthingtons are members of a church that uses prayer and rituals to treat illness and distrusts doctors and the medical industry. Commonly called "faith healing". Last year their toddler daughter died of pneumonia and a blood infection, at the time of her death she also has a large growth on her neck. She never saw a doctor and prosicuters claim that her condition was treatable. Both parents were being charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment. In the end, the father was convicted of mistreatment and the mother was acquitted. The basis for her acquittal was that in their religious beliefs wives must always defer to their husbands, so even if she wanted to take the child to a doctor, she wouldn't have because her husband was opposed to it. This is the first high-profile "faith healing" trail in the state and was possible because of a law passed a few years ago saying that people couldn't use their religion as a defense for crimes.
This situation has brought public debate about a whole host of issues from freedom of religion, government interference in raising children and criticism of western medicine. I have strong feelings on those issues, as I'm sure most people do, however there are plenty of places to discuss those, let’s not dwell on them here. I'm writing to gain a feminist perspective on the acquittal of the woman.
The mother's defense was that she defers to her husband and therefore takes no responsibility in the girl's death. The news reporting insinuates that this a religious reason, but the law (as I understand it, I'm not a lawyer) is that religion cannot be a defense for a crime. So does that mean her defense was that she was being controlled by her husband? In my world-view that makes her a victim of domestic abuse. And from that perspective, am I victim blaming when I feel anger and toward her?
Mostly, I keep thinking that if I were on that jury I would have convicted her. I am angry at both the parents for what I see as severe neglect and I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of watching a child die and not rushing them to the ER. I cannot really believe that the mother simply was letting her husband call the shots and unless she either was in agreement about the anti-doctor stance (which seems to be the case) or she was being forced to defer to her husband/family/church. Either way, I'm angry at her. I'm angry at the foolishness of not wanting a doctor and I'm angry about not standing up to the people controlling her. The latter sounds like victim blaming when I really think about it, the former does not.
I don't want to contribute to the culture of blaming victims for crimes against them, so I don't know how to discuss this topic. I'd like to hear some feminist perspectives of this, particularly the victim-blaming aspect .
I haven't noticed any postings about this on Feministing yet so I wanted to say something briefly about it, to get a discussion going. This post concerns the recent New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. V.M. and B.G. case, and the issues raised about competency during labour and pregnancy more generally.
I recently read an excellent article by Louise Marie Roth at the Huffington Post on this case. I don't think I can articulate the arguments better but wanted to see what the feministing community felt about this, particularly the majority based in the USA, as there have recently been more setbacks than steps-forward in the arena of women's reproductive health and rights.
Briefly stated: VM was in labour and an obstetrician advised a c-section. She refused. The obstetrician found that she was competent to make the decision. VM vaginally delivered a healthy baby. The baby was not handed over to her parents. The judge in the original case agreed that the refusal of VM (and agreement of her partner BG) constituted abuse and neglect of their child and approved a plan to terminate their parental rights.
The district and appellate courts not only placed fetal rights ahead of the bodily integrity of the woman giving birth but have now set a precedent for interfering with parental rights over decisions that are competently made and result in no harm to the child in question. I'm pretty sure the former is a more worrying trend but the latter isn't too fabulous either.
As I mentioned, I'm not adding much to Roth's article but wanted to draw attention to yet another example of paternalistic infringement of women's rights.
by Chris Lombardi
Today, two 53-year-old women were front and center on the national stage: Judge Sonia Sotomayor, as Senate hearings on her nomination to the Supreme Court began, and a primary care physician from Louisiana named Regina Benjamin, who was appointed today to the long-vacant office of Surgeon General.
Dr. Benjamin, a member of the second class at Morehouse School of Medicine, received the prestigious Macarthur Foundation "genius grant" for her health center the Bayou Clinic. She has been variously called "an angel in a white coat" and "a healing force," so named by the Readers Digest for her work after Hurricane Katrina:
Read more about Dr. Regina Benjamin, and the latest news from Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearing at Women's Voices For Change.
One of the pioneers of women's studies in India, Dr. Neera Desai, passed away on 25th June 2009 in Mumbai, at the age of 84.
Dr. Neera Desai was the Founder Director of Research Centre for Women's Studies (1974) at the SNDT Women's University in Mumbai, India. She was among the first few women academicians in India who raised their voices against the invisibility of women within academic disciplines.
Her works include: 'Women in Modern India' (1952) and 'Feminism in Western India' (2004). She was a member of Status of Women in India Committee that produced TOWARDS EQUALITY REPORT. in 1974, and was nominated for 1000 Women for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.
Working on women's issues and feminism across the social categories of tribe, caste and class, she was committed to taking higher education to the grassroots.
A Memorial Meeting is scheduled for 29th June 2009 in Mumbai, India.
No, this post isn't about released Guantanamo detainees. It's about high heels being declared "torture chambers" by none other than Andre Leon Talley, editor-at-large of Vogue magazine. Well, if he says it, then it must be true!
Of course, Talley's not really the first one to say it. Many feminists have deemed high heels to be a device of female imprisonment. But to hear it from the fashion industry itself is quite remarkable.
Talley write, heels are "poorly designed for the well-being of the foot," and make women look like "herd of fashion beasts, aping one another in impractical shoes."
He makes another astute observation: "Men, fortunately, don’t have to think beyond a brogue, a monk strap, a moccasin, a flip-flop, a lace-up, and for extravagance and height, a tango heel on a cowboy boot."
Apparently hard times call for practical shoes. But hopefully flats are here to stay!
By Kierra Johnson, Executive Director, Choice USA
“Now it’s your generation’s turn.”
Those were the last words spoken to me by Dr. Tiller on April 26th, 2009 in the barely audible softness of his voice. He gave me the warmest hug, thanked me for my work with young people and I turned and walked away. We were at a conference and we had just finished talking about the students who were organizing in Kansas to write letters in support of Dr. Tiller in the face of attacks from Operation Rescue. I promised to send him copies of the letters and had no reason to believe that he wouldn’t be overjoyed at power being exerted by young activists and warmed by the love and support of young people from his home state of Kansas.
“Now it’s your generation’s turn.”
It keeps echoing in my head because what began as a charge, turned out to be a prophecy. He knew that this battle for true bodily autonomy and self determination wasn’t over. He knew that young leaders would have to take up this fight that had yet to be won. He knew that he wouldn’t get to the promise land with us but with the greatest hope he pronounced us, Generations X and the Millennials, the new stewards of his visions and values.
He valued quality of life, leadership, advocacy, love, objectivity, fairness and the truth. He valued the tenants of democracy. He valued Choice. He also believed in risking everything for what you believe in and he did just that. For decades he battled homegrown terrorists and he endured. He experienced verbal and physical violence and endured. He experienced a liberal and progressive community that was pro-choice but too scared to be vocal champions and endured. And though his life was taken on May 31, his spirit will endure. While I am saddened by the loss of this beautiful human being, I am inspired by all of those who were touched by him and the renewed vigor that was undoubtedly birthed into our movement.
I haven’t been to church in a long time, but my southern roots run deep. I know that our work is God’s work. And I know that Dr. Tiller is an angel. I believe that a change will come and I am grateful for the foundation that he helped to build for that change. Unfortunately I don’t think I ever got a chance to really thank him for all he’s done for our movement and women and their families across the country. And so, in honor of George, my final gift to him are my many thank yous to all of you who give your blood sweat and tears for the sake of social change.
So to you medical students who still make the choice to put yourselves on the front lines, I thank you. For every social justice activist who refuses to avoid how the denial of reproductive and sexual health information and services disproportionately impacts the women of color, low income families, immigrants, and youth in their communities, I thank you. To the clinic defense workers who are the everyday heroes of doctors and patients alike, I thank you. To the counselors that listen to women’s stories and provide non-judgmental support, I thank you. To every person who has tried to make the world a place where women’s decisions and experiences are valued, I thank you. To every advocate who has put someone else’s well-being before their political party’s platform, I thank you. To every person who has gifted a dollar to ensure access to reproductive health and rights, I thank you. To every teenager who makes their teachers and parents uncomfortable because they demand the truth about sex and sexuality, I thank you. To every student who has made activism a part of their college curriculum, I thank you. They say that when one door closes another opens. And so, to you that read this, consider it an open door. Come join a movement for change, a movement for justice. We need you to raise your voices. We need you to pound the pavement. We need you to tell your stories. We need you to ensure that violence and intolerance is eradicated and democracy is upheld.
I was too young to remember the bombings in the 80s. I was too self-absorbed to remember the physical attacks in the 90s, but this final act of cruelty against Dr. Tiller against will be impossible for me to forget. I am so honored to have known him and I thank him for making me a better more determined activist for justice. I look forward to seeing you all in the streets!
Mourning and ready to continue the fight,
Kierra Johnson
"Forget the ingenues: Several women over 40 have appeared on Broadway this season." That was the headline for a Times theatre article. Is this news? Seriously...It just puts women over 40 in a box; an "old" box. Like it's surprising women over forty are stlll getting jobs in theater. I read this and just said, "What?" Here's the article.
This week, three of the women most talked about as potential new Supreme Court Justices just happened to be in Washington. Conferences happen a lot at Georgetown Law School, many with names like “Fair and Independent Courts in a New Era.” But this week's conference by that name was dedicated to Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Court, and at least two of the women on President Obama's reported short list for the Court were in town for the event. After news leaked that one potential nominee, Judge Diane Wood, was scheduled to meet with the President, "Television cameras filmed Ms. Wood on Wednesday as she walked through the crowd of legal scholars and judges," reported the New York Times. Wood told reporters "she had long planned to attend the conference and would not answer any questions at the event about the Supreme Court." Also on the speakers' list for the conference: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, left, who like Wood is already a target of conservative Web sites opposing Obama's potential nominees. Meanwhile, Court buzz also followed the Washington arrival of Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, in town for a clean-air summit and the President's announcement of new fuel-efficiency standards. Read the rest of the news at Women's Voices For Change.
This is crossposted on my blog.
You've probably heard of this story by now. Daniel Hauser is a 13 y/o who's been diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma, which is said to be highly treatable with chemo and radiation. Daniel's family is Catholic but also "believe in the 'do no harm' philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians." So the family prefers natural healing and feels suspicious about the effects of chemo (and rightfully so).
Daniel has quit chemo after one treatment, and he and his mother missed a court appearance, resulting in an arrest warrant for the mother and an order to seize Daniel, put him in foster care, and resume treatment immediately. It's unclear from the news stories whether Daniel himself made the decision, or if it was his parents choice. And even if it was his decision, no doubt his parents worldview is deeply influential on him. Add to that the complexities of whether or not a child can truly grasp the gravity of a terminal illness, can balance the short-term pain of treatment with the loss of years of his life, etc, and you have a very complex case. All the issues of government intervention in parenting, child autonomy, religious freedom, and the power of the medical-industrial complex factor in here in a very convoluted way.
There has been a good deal of buzz about a recent study published in the British Journal of Psychology.
Apparently, a study revealed that, while women found a man in a Bentley more attractive than a man in a Ford Fiesta, men were oblivious when confronted with the same choice.
Is anyone else bothered by surveys like this? It seems there is a new one every few months, they tend to codify sexuality in very stereotypical ways. Of course there are biological and evolutionary mechanisms which guide attraction. Should we study them? Sure. But as soon as results like this are published, everyone seems to say things like, "See women really are shallow when it comes to attraction." or, "See! Women are nesters, and men are the virile spawn-spreaders!"
I think instead these surveys say more about the researchers and as us as an audience than about their subjects. Perhaps we should ask things like, what makes us interested in surveys like this? What results were the researchers hoping for?
Its no secret people use craigslist to find ways to get their rocks off, so to speak. Unless your head has been buried in the sand, a medical student has been accused of the craigslist killing and attacking a masseuse. News reports have been out about the fiance wanting to stand by her man. People are wondering how she could not know he led a double life and automatically calling her a codependent. Its easy to say if that happened to me, I would end the relationship. We don't know what she is really going through. Just hearing what the media has chosen to sensationalize. Is it her fault and is she really in denial about her fiance? How embarrassing for her and her family.
I am not saying she should deny everything, but the issue I have is she is already being blamed for "not knowing he had a double life". Isn't that why the term double life exists? Its interesting to know how brilliant these people are about leading a double life, but don't realize the truth will come out. The classic blame the woman. I think she is still in shock about her fiance being accused. I hope and pray the fiance does what she really knows is right. I think she knows deep down, but does not want to face the truth yet. Its hard to realize someone you love and trust has a dark, evil side. The media needs to stop attacking her and I hope she has family and good friends standing by her. Honestly, I feel bad for her and hope she finds the strength to face the truth and get some help. You think you know someone, but don't.
So there are all these articles cropping up all over the news about what's being referred to as the "Afghanistan 'rape' law". These stories inform us that Afghanistan is so outrageously backward that it permits "a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife even when she says, "No."" Ohmigod! Husbands can rape their wives and get away with it? Amazing, I know. According to the linked article, President Obama rightly calls this law abhorrent. But wait a minute -- are we so smugly confident that our own country is "civilized" enough that marital rape is something shocking and foreign? From about.com (and echoed elsewhere):
Until 1976, marital rape was legal in every state in the United States. Although marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states in the U.S., some states still don't consider it as serious as other forms of rape. The only states that have laws that make no distinction between marital rape and stranger rape are Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
On a related note, some of you might remember that as recently as 2006, a court in Maryland decided that women cannot say no after intercourse has begun. That ruling has since been overturned (but it was law in Maryland for a couple years, while I personally was living there, too) but I think it's telling that such decisions are made in the first place.
You know that thing about courage to change the things I can? We can change this. This is our own culture and our own law. That isn't to say that I don't think the state of affairs in Afghanistan is also outrageous, but let's not pretend as if "those people" are the one with the problem.
You'd think the UK government would have better things to do in light of the state of the economy at present, but recently the BBC and other news outlets have been reporting on the possibility of reforming the rules of succession that govern the monarchy, some of which have been in place since 1701. The one I'm most interested in is the removal of primogeniture - the automatic succession of male children to the throne ahead of any females. Our present Queen only got her position because she had no brothers. Princess Anne is currently eight in line, her younger brothers being ahead of her in the line of succession. A removal of this clause would move her up to forth in line.
Although many in the UK are now calling for a republic and the abolition of the monarchy, I'm not among them, which is very hypocritical of me because I'm also a firm believer in equal rights for all. I'm not a rabid supporter, but I want to preserve the monarchy simply because the idea of our present bungling government and dour Gordon Brown as president fills me with unspeakable dread. Plus having a female head of state is cool. British history contains some awesome queens, but these women only made the history books because there were no men to get in the way. As the film "The History Boys" commented, Elizabeth I was remarkable not so much for her abilities but that she got the chance to exercise them.
So if there's the chance to have another woman on the throne without having to wait another hundred years, I'm all for it. If nothing else, it'll stop men like Blair and Brown becoming president.
As you will all have heard by now...
Though I'm glad he's been given life in prison, I've been really annoyed by the way this case has been handled. Apparently the nail in the coffin was that he murdered one of Elisabeth's twin sons by letting him die when he could've saved him, and then burning the remains. Without this charge, apparently Fritzl may not have got life. The baby death was what all the recent news stories have been focused on, as if 3,000 counts of rape don't merit a life sentence on their own.
Still, at least this case is done and hopefully the family can start to put their lives together.
So Octomom is kinda a weird freakshowesque name, right? It makes Nadya Suleman, her babies, her body, and her life seem othered and creepy to the max. In trying to come up with a more palatable, yet media-clever name did Octopussy ever come to your mind? No? Only Vivid Entertainment? Well, kudos to you Vivid. When Us Weekly got all in my face with Octomom's 8 sexless years, I was thinking that the exploitation train had run its course, but then, choo ! choo ! Here I find out you, Vivid Entertainment, are all set to pay her a million bucks if she stars in a porno taking on 8 guys! You may be clever, but you'll still have to pay TMZ (Too Much Zomg -assholeness ) for your even sweeter tagline : "Octomom is used to having multiple people inside of her at once."
If you're done gagging on your utter disgust let's move on to some finer points about this new chapter, eh? If you read the comments on TMZ (because why be satisfied with only boiling rage when you could totz escalate to white hot) many interneters are already calling for the state to come repo her kids 'cause being in porn makes you an "unfit" parent. Let's first ignore the fact that she has yet to even reply to Vivid, much less make a video. Also of note, the idea that being involved in sex work or porno makes you an unfit parent is, uh, not legally accurate, nor real fucking life accurate. (To aid in learning what child abuse actually is and how someone can for real get their kids taken from them, I'm including this link to DC's Child Protective Services page. And let me add that "exposure to" means making them watch/look at it, not family involvement.)
So people already hate Nadya Suleman for a variety of reasons (drain on society! crazy! bad mother! unnatural! poor! and the list goes on...). Most upsetting to me is the feminist backlash, seen most grotesquely over at Bitch, where many commenters were playing fast and loose with what reproductive choice meant to them:
I want to just scream it: just because you can have babies doesn't mean you should! It's a grave thing. There's a whole lot you can fuck up here. And yeah, poor women having children have been bullied by the media way too much and have been judged unfairly. So it's hard to come right out and say, Listen lady, what you are doing is asinine and irresponsible. But I can't support this kind of behavior. It's stupid.
That's right, pro-choice is all about choosing abortion, not the choice to decide the size of your family, psssh . So I'm thinking that if some feminists are willing to throw their values under a bus at the sight of 14 kids (!!!) and join all the other aforementioned haters the response to this will-she-won't-she porno debacle is going to be ugly. Keeping in mind of course, that unlike being pro-choice, being for or against the sex work industry divides us feminists like nothin ' else. (Sweet how we do it to ourselves, huh? Who even needs republicans at this point?)
And women are prouder than men, while men are more lustful. A Vatican report states that the two sexes sin differently . Should this be valid, we should bear in mind that it's the difference between Catholic women and Catholic men only. Right, let's continue with the generalization, polarization, exclusion and comparison game - comparison isn't necessarily ridiculous though. The Advertiser offers positive discussion on Buddhism.
You know the most deadly sin that is missing from the announcement, and is shared by both women and men? Reluctance to confess! There is a declining rate of confessions, and Pope Benedict said, "We are losing the notion of sin. If people do not confess regularly, they risk slowing their spiritual rhythm." I guess "we" and "people" include both sexes.
/also posted at Fortissimo /
On a study break, I decided to check out the news headlines. Turns out a (57 year old, not that it matters) man was sentenced by a Quebec court to five years for sexual assault, after he "married" a 10 year old girl. FIVE YEARS for raping a little girl from the age of 9 through 13. Given time already served, he'll be in for about, oh, four years - a year for each year of the abuse he perpetrated on this kid. Prosecutors had been asking for ten years - the maximum allowed by law.
Sometimes I just don't have the words to express my disappointment and anger.
The Birmingham News is a bastion of Alabama journalism
Basically, a stripper has sued the club she worked at because she was forced to drink alcoholic drinks bought for her while on the job, and then left her job drunk, crashed her car and injured herself.
The whole article is ridiculous, and of course the title has "stripper" in it. Ugh.
If you really want to have an aneurysm, read the comments. A whole lot of, "stupid slut deserved it".
I have received two messages today from friends who own their own handmade toy/clothes businesses who fear being put out of business by the new Consumer Product Safety Commission's regulations for third party inspectors. (This is the knee-jerk reaction to all those dangerous/toxic toys imported from China recently.)
Please help them! Follow this link to the Handmade Toy Alliance , sign the petition and send an email to your representative. These new regulations will disproportionately effect women who own small businesses and give the leg up to huge manufacturers who can afford the cost of the third party inspectors. We don't need this in our current economic climate, just as people are looking for more eco-friendly and sustainable ways to live.
Save Handmade! Thanks.
Ok, so I figured there'd be coverage of what she was wearing, but maybe tomorrow? We couldn't put off the tired old women-as-pretty-arm-candy discussion until the inauguration stage was taken down? This piece , from the Chicago Tribune posted before the ceremony actually started says
The ensemble also distinguished Obama in the pantheon of First Ladies as one of the few who could carry off yellow against midwinter skin.
Yep. They said it.
This one , from Time online, is a little better in my opinion. The author focuses mostly on the Cuban-born designer Isabel Toledo and the fabric/make of the dress, skipping most of the cliches so often found in writing on women's choices of clothes. I like pretty dresses and sparkly things too- but I just have to wonder, where is the interview? Her thoughts on this historic moment? Her agenda, if she has one? Why is the first stuff to come online about what she looks like?
Over the past year, as we have watched the presidential campaign unfold, I didn't really think there was much mainstream media attention on Barack Obama's mother. We know much about his grandmother, father and even sister, but what about Ann Dunham? I found this great article on the University of Hawaii at Manoa magazine, which gives us a little more insight. She was a researcher, a social activist and an advocate for women in developing nations.
"Dunham worked for the U.S. agency for international development, setting up a village credit program, and served as the Ford Foundation program officer in Jakart specializing in women's work."
After reading this, and hearing his speech today, I feel even more confident that our 44th president might see himself not JUST as an American, but a citizen of the world. How do others think that his somewhat international upbringing might effect policy? Especially foreign policy?
I witnessed the inauguration of President Barack Obama in a noisy public high school auditorium. Every seat in every row was filled until 480 students were crammed and situated. Together, we waited for our school’s tech team to hook the computer up to the projector so we could digitally witness this historic moment of change.
We did not see President Obama take the oath of office. We did not see the inaugural address. Yet we heard him make history and, for the first time, we listened.
Almost every New York City public school attempted to visually broadcast the Inauguration of Barack Obama. Because the recession-laden Department of Education provides internet service to all these schools, only a few were able to see this current piece of history televised.
For once, I thank the DoE and those who under-fund public schools for excluding us students from the sensory experience of visualizing history.
This entire presidential race has revolved around identity “politics.” For angsty high school students, it is much easier to identify and deconstruct the color of a candidate’s skin than it is to understand their take on national and international issues. This past Halloween, three students from my school dressed up as Sarah Palin and one as Barack Obama. The mornings after debates, my peers and I were more likely to gossip about the candidates’ fashion choices than their proposed policies. “Sasha and Malia are getting a puppy” became code for “Barack Obama is the president-elect.”
We as a school showed how we as a country became understandably obsessed with the physical definitions of racial identity. We got so excited over electing the first African American president of the United States (a due and just enthusiasm) that we forgot the turmoil this president is inheriting.
Lucky for us, President Barack Obama helped high school students like me remember the distress of our nation. If my school had the proper resources to televise this historic event, I believe that we would once again let our eyes drift to the comportment of his nuclear family or the brown of his skin. I am lucky to have heard—just like Americans before me did when FDR came into office—this inaugural address on the radio. The only distraction to Obama’s talk on improving public schools like mine was the tingling static of change. For twenty minutes, my vision of this country was not muddled with physical judgments or racial stigmas. I heard a cogent explanation of how the nation will change.
Sitting in breaking government-funded chairs, I did not see Barack Obama become the 44th president of the United States. Instead, I closed my eyes and listened to what that means for my country.
feelings on keith olbermann aside...i could just *hug* him for disdainfully noting the idiocy of equating breast cancer and abortion!
Did anyone else see the article about the 13 year old girl strip searched because school officials thought she possessed Ibuprofen?
I think what is more disturbing is that it has gone to the Supreme Court as to whether or not children should be allowed to be strip searched because of allegations of having drugs. If it is ruled that school officials DO have the authority to authorize these searches (which, in this case, was entirely founded on the statement of another student) I see a huge potential for abuse. This can open the door for lots of victimization under the guise of 'searching for drugs' or because of bullies making false allegations in order to humiliate their peers.
This story is just ridiculous. Three girls ("14 or 15" years old) apparently took nude pictures of themselves on their cellphones and sent them to three teenage boys. "Police said the girls are being charged with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys face charges of possession." While someone, somewhere (parents and friends, maybe?), might legitimately be concerned that there is something inappropriate going on between the teenagers, it seems patently absurd to me that the girls would receive child pornography charges for taking pictures of themselves. From the article, it sounds like they weren't even engaged in any kind of sex act in the photo -- "It was a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude." Is a girl taking a nude self-portrait harming herself? If we think so, what does that reveal about how we think about teenage girls and their bodies?
Furthermore, it looks like the girls are being punished for what other people might do with the pictures -- sort of a preemtive "blame the victim" mentality.
'It's very dangerous,' said [the police Captain]. 'Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done.'
That's right -- watch out, girls, because every individual that might react to your behavior, even in the distant future, even through many degrees of separation, is not responsible for their actions -- you are.
I know, it sounds like a skit on SNL or a South Park episode, but it's for real. Apparently all teh poor menz who rely on GGW to boost their spirits during tough financial times are in danger of losing their only comfort. And we can't let that happen.
Would it be too much to ask that my tax dollars go to Head Start or the soup kitchen rather than Girls Gone Wild?
It seems a Maine businessman has decided to open a topless cafe in Vassalboro, a small town just north of the capital, Augusta. Despite the widespread disapproval of the proposed shop, the town said there's nothing it can do about it.
Let me be clear about what is being planned here: The cafe would serve coffee and bakery items and customers will be waited on by topless waitresses. There is certainly no advantage to waiting tables topless (in fact I can imagine spills of hot coffee would in fact be more dangerous), so I'm assuming the only purpose of this is for the pleasure of the customers.
Ew.
It's unfortunate, too, because Vasalboro is a place (like many in the US right now) that could really use new businesses that create good jobs. I would hate to see women apply there because they can't find an alternative. My guess is that it won't last more than a month anyway, if only because of the crappy location.
I do believe that if a woman wants to work at a topless bar, or at a strip club or wherever, she should certainly have that right, but my fear is of exploitation of women who need the money, and of waitresses getting harrassed.
Fox news in St. Louis, Missouri had a report on the morning news of the Polar Bear Club that swims the Mississippi every January 1. Of coarse the male news anchor had to inform all that "this is a mostly male-dominated tradition." One woman however does participate and the anchor walks to her and says "what's a pretty little thing like you doing here?" Why, in this day and age do men think they can talk to women this way? The fact that the other people watching the clip in the room with me didn't understand why it is a problem was even more alarming. I'm so tired of men treating women as less capable. I'm tired of women not being equal!!!!
2008: The Year of the Woman? Forget 1992: In the last days of 2008, we can look back on a year of change and see our voices everywhere. Linda at About.com's Women's Issues offers a gallery of a dozen, most of whom Mix has been watching all year. It was our year for medals, too: Dara Torres, 41, made history with two silver medals. and Brigadier General Anne Dunwoody joined the Army's top brass.
Many raised their voices in the Presidential campaign — and not only Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. This week's Newsweek Magazine notes that Oprah Winfrey's influence on the 2008 presidential campaign is still being debated : "She's denied that Obama is giving her a job, but we know she already has his ear. Jocelyn Noveck, of the Associated Press , in her roundup caught on to the new wave of power women:
Also energizing women is the sight of important national security posts going to females -- Clinton as the top diplomat, Susan Rice as U.N. ambassador, Napolitano as homeland security chief. What global changes, women wonder, might be in store under their influence?
The Audacity of Race: For many, the election of Barack Obama "was more than a political victory, it was a personal victory." But, as Mattie Francis observes, "We cannot pretend, as I heard some morning-after political pundits say, that we are “a colorblind nation” at this time in history. This is a myth." Writing for the Point Reyes Light , she uses her own interracial marriage and motherhood to examine the questions of race and identity that will color politics, into the new year and the new presidency.
To continue reading, please go to Women's Voices For Change
It's an All-Hillary newsmix today, as Barack Obama's lead speechwriter gets his hand caught where it shouldn't have been, Kathy Bates seems to draw upon Mrs. Clinton for her portrayal of a Defense Secretary, and two women are frontrunners to replace Hillary in the Senate.
In his cups: Hollywood director Jon Favreau's films, like Made and Swingers , often have a boys-will-be-boys attitude. Meanwhile, Washington-bound speechwriter Jon Favreau, no relation, has been caught in a boys-will-be-really-incredibly-stupid moment. The latter Favreau, poised to become President-Elect Obama's Sam Seaborn, was tagged in a facebook photo over the weekend cupping the breast of a life-sized cardboard Hillary Clinton. The photo broke in the Washington Post and has produced startlingly little commentary since then.
However, former Bill Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers has a few choice words on the matter.
The towing company that last Monday towed the domestic abuse victim's car (despite even the attendent deputy requesting the vehicle not be towed) has received over 600 complaints at it's website, and an undisclosed amounts of angry emails to the manager, Charles White. This, along with several threats to cancel accounts, has prompted the owner of the towing company to return the $650 to the young woman.
No apologies, however, from owner Gary Coe, who charmingly stated "I'm not sure the driver made a bad call here -- he may have," Coe said. "But we are refunding the money because the management company at the apartment complex asked us to."
In a further move to deflect fallout, Coe has promised to donate $500 to a local shelter for women and children who are victims of domestic abuse.
Good luck with that, boys. Everyone at Retriever Towing involved in this debacle, from the tow truck operator to the manager to the owner, have all shown themselves to be complete a**holes. It's great to hear they returned the woman's money, it's faboo to hear they are giving $500 to the shelter. It's not ok that it is all being done with a pointed lack of any acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
While reading this morning's paper over my coffee, I came upon this gem:
Wilsonville assault victim made to pay tow truck 'drop fee' by Rick Bella, The Oregonian Tuesday December 09, 2008, 8:33 PMFirst, the young woman bolted from her Wilsonville apartment, blood streaming down her face.
Next, she frantically drove across the parking lot, got out of her car and ran into her grandmother's apartment, where she called 9-1-1 and reported that she had just been assaulted by her boyfriend. After providing a statement to a Clackamas County sheriff's deputy, she went outside to find a tow truck preparing to haul away her car.
Not even the deputy could persuade the tow driver to leave the car without making the woman pay a "drop fee."
"I explained to the tow driver that the woman was the victim of domestic violence," said Clackamas County sheriff's Deputy Wes Hall. "I told him there was no place to park, so she left the car with its four-way flashers going, because she was trying to get away. And I told him that she couldn't move the car because I had her keys. But that didn't seem to matter."
Hall estimated that the car was parked unattended "for 10 to 15 minutes."
This article appeared in the paper today, talking about how common chemicals have the effect of “feminizing male populations”, putting the “basic male toolkit under threat” by leading to baby boys being born with “smaller penises and feminized genitals”. Communities that are heavily exposed to such chemicals “have given birth to twice as many girls as boys”.
I find it interesting because of the way the issue is framed, and how the article glides from “smaller penises” to “boys have been born as girls instead”.
While reading the article, I also found myself thinking... so what? Okay, if it impairs the ability of endangered species to reproduce, then that's a problem. But as far as effects on human populations go, is this a big deal?
Split-pea soup for the soul: Diana Foote, food writer for the Treasure Coast Palm newspaper, says that anti-depressants are not what's needed during the recession. Instead, she writes, "I suppose the erratic Dow has something to do with it, but I don't feel safe anymore without a hambone in the freezer ."
This world AIDS day and throughout December put your foot down and demand an end to violence against women in the developing world.
A girl born in South Africa has a higher chance of being raped than of learning to read. With 5 million South Africans living with HIV the risk of HIV infection for women is extremely high.
More than 15 million women are living with HIV globally. Every half minute another becomes infected. Widespread violence against women and girls increases their risk of HIV infection.
Violence also increases women's risk indirectly. The threat of violence deters many women from refusing sex or insisting on condoms, even when they suspect their partner is HIV positive.
In their new strategy on HIV and AIDS, the UK government acknowledged these problems. Now, we need to move them from acknowledgement to action.
Put your foot down in solidarity and tell the UK government that it's time to take action on violence against women and HIV and AIDS.
Sign our petition today.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crises shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I have seen a few people bemoan that, in the near future, we will see another civil war in our country.
They have said it in reference to the fact that on Tuesday we elected Barack Obama as the first non-white president in the history of the United States.
But ladies and gentleman, our next civil war will not be about race. Our next civil war WILL be about a difference in ideology, an argument over the legislation of morality versus legality.
I just wanted to make a quick post to let you all know that <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27429817">Rachel Maddow will be interviewing Obama</a> on MSNBC tomorrow at 9PM(ET)! I am extremely excited about this, and can't wait to hear what questions she'll put to him and how he'll answer. Anyone else excited?
There are actually five ballot measures the state of Arkansas will be voting on this election, one of which is the Arkansas Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban. According to Stan Norris from the local Arkansas news channel, KAIT8, if the meausure passes, it will "prevent all unmarried couples, regardless of sexuality, from adopting and fostering kids. Any couple not legally married would not be able to adopt."
Proponents of the proposed ban include Christian groups such as Focus on the Family, Families First Action Committe, and the Arkansas Family Council. Organizations against the ban include: Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the Interfaith Council, the Arkansas Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatricians - Arkansas Chapter, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Arkansas Psychological Association.
It is both surprising and disheartening to me that groups such as Focus on the Family, notorious for their pro life stance which supports forcing women to give their child up for adoption in the case of an unwanted pregnancy should she decide she does not want to keep the baby, would support meaures impeding adoption. There are many loving qualified single people and homosexual couples who would love to bring a child into their home. These people already face obstacles in the adoption process, and now the state of Arkansas is proposing to limit adoption to only married couples. No matter what your politics, I think this is a very anti-life initiative, and I hope it does not pass.
Is the media going to stand by and let this happen? I fucking hope not. So far, the news results are encouraging. And while you can't exactly expect everyone to read the article on Alternet "10 Things You Should Know About Bush's Trillion Dollar Fleecing Plan ", (to steal a turn of phrase from Shark-fu) a bitch can tell a news article is important when it's on the front page of Yahoo, (see screen shot -- NYT article linked from the Yahoo homepage here .)
Increasingly I have a difficult time reading or watching news that doesn't have slant. Disclosure: I read Slate , Washington Post editorials, and that sort of thing instead. At first, I thought perhaps this was a deficiency on my part, that I just wasn't intellectually or politically confident enough to read news that came from a point of view different from my own. And perhaps that's part of the problem.
I think there's a bigger issue at stake, though, and that's the reluctance of mainstream journalism to situate their work in context and to call people out. For instance, rarely in a story on attacks in the Middle East do journalists give the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Nor do they often note, like The Daily Show is so adept at doing, when a politician directly contradicts him- or herself. To me, this is what actual news, and not just the fake kind, should be doing. So perhaps my attraction to The Daily Show, as well as the news that I consider as having a "slant" is part of this larger problem.
Today, PETA released horribly gruesome videos of farm workers beating and torturing pigs and piglets, on a farm that supplies Hormel products. The video, which I am not going to post, has circulated widely on the internet today, and can easily be found by a google search, if you can stomach it. Here are a couple links to news articles about the situation.
For the record, I despise PETA. I think they exhibit racism and sexism, and their tactics tend to be more shocking and offensive than helpful. But animal abuse is NEVER okay, especially to this degree, and I think it's important that they often bring it to light.
And what's more, animal cruelty is typically tied to misogyny, whether in act or in thoughts, and it's why feminism has a lot to do with it.
The online feminist community seems to have a few members with know-how when it comes to mobilizing in protest of human rights violations overseas. I have linked to the BBC report on this case, and I hope there's something we can do.
Thanks!
This is truly horrid! (The following is a release from Democracy Now!)
Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time. Police violently manhandled Goodman, yanking her arm, as they arrested her. Video of her arrest can be seen here:
Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfully detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.
Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.
Democracy Now! is calling on all journalists and concerned citizens to call the office of Mayor Chris Coleman and the Ramsey County Jail and demand the immediate release of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar. These calls can be directed to: Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman's office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).
Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this action by Twin Cities law enforcement as a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of these journalists.
During the demonstration in which they were arrested law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force. Several dozen others were also arrested during this action.
Amy Goodman is one of the most well-known and well-respected journalists in the United States. She has received journalism's top honors for her reporting and has a distinguished reputation of bravery and courage. The arrest of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar is a transparent attempt to intimidate journalists from the nation's leading independent news outlet.
Democracy Now! is a nationally syndicated public TV and radio program that airs on over 700 radio and TV stations across the US and the globe.
Just found this article about a woman stopped at security and asked to allow security personnel to further investigate her boobs.
Also, this commentary from Boing Boing.
When we often talk about taking a spouses last name, there will inevatible be the woman who admit that they're doing it because they hate their last names. But then the question becomes why does it always seem like women hate their last names, while men with shitty last names seem to have no problem keeping them and passing them on to unsuspecting offspring.
Well, via Jezebel comes a post about Kris Dyer , who thought his name was "rubbish" and decided to take his wife's, only to find that they made their friends uncomfortable with their "non traditional" decision.
It's an interesting read on how tied people are to traditions, and the underlying assumption that women will always take their husbands last name in marriage and what happens when that assumption is challenged.
It's actually refreshing to see a man taking his wife's name, though whatever it is the couple is comfortable with shouldn't be judged by others (as long as no one is being forced or coerced).
According to the BBC, three International Rescue Committee members were targeted and killed by Taliban gunmen. The women were in vehicles marked with the IRC logo. The IRC is pulling all of its aid programs in the country due to the insecurity.
What happened to our "concern for the women" of Afghanistan? If aid workers aren't safe there, there's no way Afghan women are. I hope to hear more about this from our presidential candidates.
Good news in the battle against asinine anti-abortion rhetoric (such as that used in recent South Dakota legislature, where lawmakers cited increased risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts caused by abortion as reason to outlaw the practice): the American Psychological Organization has declared this logic to be utter bunk, saying:
"...the most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy."
Read more about the report here (at Salon's excellent blog Broadsheet), or get it straight from the horse's mouth here .
I have to say, generally I can follow articles pretty well. My mum worked for many years at the Toronto Star, I wrote an article for them, and in general I understand how they're supposed to work. Sometimes I venture off looking for articles that are on major news sites and pick one that takes the cake for awfulness. Today, an article on Fox News takes that cake. (the article can be found here )
It starts off semi-okay (yet still pretty strange and ill-handled), and I'm actually pseudo-interested and fairly surprised that they're covering this story at all. But it quickly descends into an account of why Maria Bello won't get married and then descends into something about pool parties (I have to admit that by this point I'd basically stopped reading because the subject in the article had changed at least three times and I'm not longer interested in the slightest). All this from an article whose headline is "Mummy' Actress Maria Bello Calms Woman During Midair Schizophrenic Attack".
To be honest, I still don't know what this article was about.
As I was doing my nightly blog crawl, I ran across an article on the shooting at the Unitarian Church in California. When I saw it, I froze. The hatred of liberals that caused that man to shoot the people in that church is the same hate my father has in his heart for Liberals, and is from the same source.
In my house, the 'liberal movement' is on par with the most vile of things in the world. It is the greatest enemy of the world, and my father- and his glorious talking-head pundits on the radio, are the only one's that are correct. On my 19th birthday, the first time I had seen him and my mother since I moved into college, he loudly proclaimed that "When the revolution comes there won't be enough rope to hang the liberals with". That's right.
An apocalyptic proclamation from a neo-conservative. That's why, when I read the rantings of that man, I felt a tinge of fear. My father and that man are not the only people in this country that believe in that hateful speech. That is proven by the book sales and radio ratings of hate-speech peddlers like Rush, and (especially) Michael Savage.
As I'm sure many of you are aware, there is a sincere debate going on in Congress about offshore oil drilling. The New York Times reports today that the House republicans have blocked the democratic efforts on oil leases and drilling. Rather than allowing offshore drilling or drilling in domestic areas, democrats attempted to pressure energy companies into drilling for oil on lands they already leased from the federal government. This logical initiative fell short of the margin needed. Opponents argued that the legislation, "which also called on the Interior Department to accelerate leasing in an area of Alaska specifically set aside for drilling, could diminish domestic exploration since it would bar oil companies from obtaining new leases if they were not actively exploring current holdings." I think I missed something here. Isn't it a good thing that companies explore their current holdings before getting new leases? It makes perfect sense to me! In an effort to show that they were not against drilling for oil, the democrats offered this initiative, which republicans are denouncing as a sham. On the other side, democrats are asserting that this legislation will bring immediate relief to Americans and to gas prices, whereas drilling in new areas would take a few years before any effect would happen. "Democrats say oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they could be exploring. But republicans say many of those sites have proved to be dry holes or are the subject of lawsuits and disputes over federal permits." If it is proven that some of the land is a dry hole, thats one thing. If there are any lawsuits or disputes over permits, then that company probably shouldn't get an additional permit! Sheesh...
OK some of these links have been looming over me for a couple of days so I'm just going to throw a bunch out there at once.
First, we have a court decision where it's been found: No, you can't strip search AZ schoolchildren on suspicion of ibuprofen posession.
(I swear I'm not in love with the LA Times): LA County female prisoners hardly ever get to see a nurse, is violation of their rights.
Some ethical grey-area stories...
And from New Zealand: Pregnant binge drinker may be charged.
Federal Court decides anti-abortion wackos have 1st am. right to display gruesome images in front of schools (and presumably anywhere). They tried it in L.A., expect it near you soon!
I'm not gonna post the one about the Romanian 11 year old incest-rape victim but be glad to know that she got an abortion (under general anathesia) and her mum vows to kill the rapist (the girl's uncle) if she ever sees him again. I think the lesson of the story is (there's gotta be a lesson...)-- give your children the facts of life around when they spend any time out of your sight. I think the worst part of the story was that the girls grandma would mysteriously dissapear when the scummy uncle was feeling rapey. Just... what the hell kind of grandma is that?
Like most things I read in the news, I'm not really sure what to do with this one. To recap the news article , a woman was denied citizenship in France because it was determined that "her 'radical' practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes." It's also noted in the article that the French constitution grants freedom of religion. This ruling actually occurred a month ago but is just now being confirmed and reported.
The grounds for this ruling are just scary.
According to the Council of State, who ruled on this, "She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes"
To be fair, I know very little about both French politics & culture and the Muslim religion. But, I have lots of concerns here, though I'll just bring up a couple. 1) who really gets to determine the "essential values of the French community"? It seems really dangerous to me when differences are no longer tolerated. And 2) I'm excited that equality of the sexes is being talked about and valued, but I really feel like feminism or "equality of the sexes" is just being used here as an excuse or cover for a larger issue about religion.
