In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery

Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery by Siddharth Kara
(Columbia University Press)

This review may contain triggers.

At this moment, there are roughly twenty-seven million people enslaved globally, and over a million of them are sex slaves. Millions more have escaped, “earned” their freedom, or died from assault or STDs over the past twenty years – and, unless action is taken right now, millions more will become enslaved. Tellingly, almost all the countries that serve as either origins or destinations of trafficking victims have enormous, well-funded police forces devoted to drug wars, but can’t be bothered to rustle up the money for anti-trafficking efforts. The abuse of drugs has the power to whip entire populations into a frenzy, but the abuse of people is met with listless dismissal.

Read More…Read More…

Preach it, Judith Warner

It’s about time someone wrote this:

Now, I’m just as jealous of the yoga-pants-at-9-a.m.-on-Monday-morning crowd as the next frazzled working mom. But, I’m sorry to say, however delicious charting the downfall of the wealthy at-home mom may be, we do have to stop for a little reality check. While the rich, bathed in our attention, are turning necessity into a hand-wringing sociological event, most women in this country are just going about their business, much as they always have.

We — journalists and readers both — simply must, for once, resist the temptation to let what may or may not be happening to the top 5 percent (or 1 percent) of our country’s families set the story line for what women’s lives are becoming in this recession.

Because, the fact is, the story’s not about them.

“This is a classic blue collar recession,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress. Fully half the jobs that have been lost so far have been in construction and manufacturing. Only 5.1 percent of job losses have been in finance and insurance — the kinds of careers that support the opt-out lifestyle.

The kind of marital tensions that we’re seeing in the downwardly mobile lifestyles of the rich and wretched, the family historian Stephanie Coontz told me this week, aren’t necessarily typical of couples further down the income scale, either. Wealthy families, she said, have tended, with their work-around-the-clock husbands and at-home wives, to have adopted a rather old-fashioned model of marriage, with fixed sex roles. They’ve set the tone, but the rest of the population hasn’t necessarily followed.

Increasing numbers of working class women now — in a downturn where 82 percent of the job losses have been among men – have become their family’s sole wage-earners, it’s true. But their husbands, very often, are holding their own at home just fine. For while the stereotype has long been that working class men won’t do “women’s work,” Coontz said, the truth is that in recent years they’ve had a better track record than the most high-income men in sharing domestic duties. Twenty percent of these men, in fact, actually do more housework and child care now than their wives. “These people have been doing it for some time and they’re much more ideologically committed to doing it,” she said. “I think your worst offenders” (dirty coffee mug-wise), “are in that top 5 percent.”

“I’ve been a little irritated by the slams on men,” she added.

It’s not just for the sake of being fair to the hubbies that we’ve got to keep our wits about us these days and avoid falling into the usual clichés about class and gender with which we tend to make sense of men and women’s changing lives. There’s a deeper reason, too: paying attention only to the – real or perceived – “choices” and travails of the top 5 percent hides the experiences of all the rest. And this means that the needs of all the rest never quite rise to the surface of our national debate or emerge at the top of our political priorities.

This happened very obviously in the 1990s, when the New Traditionalist story line hid the fact that many mothers at home were actually either poor (and unable to “afford to work” if they had kids, as Coontz puts it), or had had their nonworking “choice” made for them by an inflexible workplace or a high-earning husband’s nearly 24/7 work schedule. Years of public prosperity passed without any real action on creating family-friendly workplaces.

We can’t let that happen again now.

Wealthy families may be downsizing somewhat, but many others are living right on the edge. The former don’t need government support; the latter desperately do. There were hopeful signs emerging in the not-so-distant past that much-needed change might be on the way: a number of states had voted to start to pay for family leave, and momentum was gathering behind paid sick leave, too. But now, states are backing away from those initiatives. A ballot measure that would have brought paid sick leave to Ohio has been withdrawn, the Associated Press has reported, and in New Jersey and Washington state the implementation of new mandates for paid family leave may be delayed because of fiscal concerns.

The Obama administration clearly has made the real-life needs of middle- and working-class families a high priority. But in the current climate, fighting Republican and business community concerns about “raising the cost of work” is going to be a real challenge.

So let’s make sure we remember who’s really suffering. And give their stories their due.

Word. Read it all.

Whoa.

This Delonas cartoon appeared in the New York Post today. (h/t)

Barack Obama did not actually write the stimulus bill.  But I don’t think that I’m at all incorrect in asserting that it is the general public perception that he did.  I didn’t even know for sure until I looked it up, and I read quite a fair amount of news.  And regardless of who the actual author was, the bill was promoted as the president’s package.

Which means that we’ve got our first African American president being portrayed here as a monkey.  A dead monkey being shot by police in a country where deadly police shootings of black men are not at all uncommon.  In a world where death threats against the president are not at all uncommon, and where death threats against this president in particular have caused special reason for worry.  And regardless of who specifically the cartoon is supposed to be portraying (since I’m sure that a disingenuous “it wasn’t supposed to be Obama!” will be the defense) — since when is it okay to promote the murder of any government official?

Racism does not surprise me, anymore. But this has me flabbergasted.

It is the New York Post, so I doubt that it will do much good.  But nevertheless, their contact information is here.

Formerly Incarcerated People and Economic Justice

Check out this video, in which a man named Vincent, who has a criminal conviction 25 years old and still can’t find work because of it, talks about his experiences:

In the accompanying article for RaceWire, Seth Wessler writes:

The White House has appropriately put creating and saving jobs at the center of the stimulus plan. But for people with criminal records, the prospects of inclusion in the national recovery are dismal. It’s not enough to create a job when a quick criminal background check will result in so many people losing it or not getting it at all. Those with prior convictions will be excluded from the game before the starting whistle sounds.

Communities of color experience higher rates of joblessness. This is due in part to the damning mix of the stigma of having a criminal record, the assumption that ex-prisoners can never redeem themselves, the ensuing ban on public employment for people with felony convictions and the practice of employers doing background checks.

According to Princeton sociologist Devah Pager, joblessness among former prisoners after a year is somewhere around 75 percent — three times the level among the same population before incarceration. The trend toward never-ending punishment, even after people have served their time, infects communities of color, especially Black people, with particular venom.

It’s important food for thought. And it also brings up the issue of the revolving door that our prison system, or prison industrial complex, has become. It seems that a big part of the reason why many people re-offend is because of a lack of other options, due to both limited education and limited job opportunities. In many case, they either must commit more crimes to survive, or re-offend because they have nothing to lose, anyway.  So we’re talking about a whole lot of issues rolled into one here: economic justice, racial justice, and safety within communities.

Read the full article here.  Clearly, something needs to change.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

For those who have not heard of Henrietta Hughes, she is a homeless woman who stood up at a town hall meeting and told Barack Obama that she is unemployed and has been forced her to live in her car.  She further pleaded with the president to do something to ensure that people like her had housing

“I have an urgent need, unemployment and homelessness, a very small vehicle for my family and I to live in,” she said. “The housing authority has two years’ waiting lists, and we need something more than the vehicle and the parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom. Please help.”

Now, Michelle Malkin has decided to publicly mock her with taunts like “If she had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too.”  She then went on to say:

Hughes didn’t explain the cause of her financial turmoil. Obama didn’t ask. And if we conservatives dare to question the circumstances — and the underlying assumption that it is government’s (that is, taxpayers’) role to bail her out — we’ll be lambasted as cruel haters of the downtrodden.

[. . .]

Well, pardon my unbending belief in fairness and personal responsibility, but why should my tax dollars go to feed the housing entitlement beast?

Indeed, why should housing be considered a right?  After all, what does my housing say about my personal class status and how much better I am than other people, if there aren’t those other people out there who don’t have a place to live at all?

The worst part is that Malkin isn’t alone.  From Limbaugh falsely saying that Hughes “ask[ed] for a car” to others claiming that Hughes is “milking the system,” there’s no shortage of people who want to bring down the woman who had the potential to a far more sympathetic Joe the Plumber — an everyday American who is actually negatively affected by the economic policies of our government.

And they can get away with it!  I just, honestly, do not understand.  Are people like Malkin really so privileged and entitled themselves that they just do not comprehend the very concept of housing not owned by the person living in it — and that therefore “I need a place to live” does not equal “buy me a new house, please” — or do they just really think that no, if you’re not as fortunate as the rest of us, you really do deserve to live on the street, and as a neighbor I have absolutely no responsibility for what happens to you?

On second thought, I don’t know that I want the answer to that.

Via Womanist Musings

Thoughts on Feminism, Class, and Context

The other day I posted a missive that was a little ill-conceived at my other blog. I was too frustrated to frame this argument better. Here’s another try.

Awhile back, discouraged with my inability to squeeze dollars from nickels, I decided that I should just educate myself on the basics of money. It seemed simple enough. I stopped skimming the financial section of the newspaper, and began — for the first time ever, mind you — reading about budgeting, saving, looking at long-term solutions for some of our financial troubles. Many of the solutions proffered for people looking to get ahead are troublesome: buy less Starbucks, remortgage your home, invest in an electric car, don’t plunder your 401K, fly coach. Fine solutions if you have money to begin with, smart solutions, even, but not so helpful for those whose belts cannot be tightened further. This was the reason I started the HUHO project way back when.

Yeah, and all that shit fell off when the job market in my town really tanked and our options started to run out. It became one of those situations where you just had to put your nose down and be thankful that you were still getting a paycheck. The national economic crisis, to me, was elsewhere until everyone in my department, except me and two others, was laid off. And then when another twenty were let go when their jobs were “relocated” right before the holidays. Then the local factories closed down for their annual holiday and it was announced that they weren’t going to reopen for awhile, and when they did it would be on a limited basis. There’s basically a hiring freeze for three counties in any direction, so everyone shuts the fuck up and stops complaining because there aren’t any other options, and moreover, you know that any job that opens up has 300 people clamoring for it.

You know, this is my landscape. This is not a thought exercise on the disappearing middle class.

Read More…Read More…

Disrupting Bloomberg

Dissent has been bubbling up more and more frequently here in the cold, snow-blown streets of New York. The other day, when it was announced that Wall Street was using its bailout funds to hand out record bonuses to its employees, I started hearing murmurs of discontent and talk of tarring and feathering stock brokers even amongst normally placid centrist liberals. There are a lot of people here in this city, and most of us are not benefiting from the economic bailouts that are lining the pockets of a few companies and their favored employees.

This afternoon, our fairly clueless mayor was having a lunch to discuss the future of New York City. The price per seat: $249. The intended guests: the elite business people of the city. You know, CEOs. Heads of major law firms. All the people that decide “the future of New York City.” The ones who decided that the present involves fat Christmas bonuses for them and theirs.

Fortunately, some of the other 99% of the city’s people with an interest in our future decided to crash the party.

Read More…Read More…

Good news about women and the stimulus package

We didn’t win the birth control battle, but the stimulus package is still very good for women.

So, what’s in the package for women? “Expanding health for them, childcare, unemployment insurance, direct help in higher food stamps, and energy assistance,” said Joan Entmacher, vice president for family economic stability at the National Women’s Law Center, a non-profit, nonpartisan advocacy group that has worked closely with the Obama transition team and key members of Congress. “It also protects a lot of jobs for women in education, early education, and social work services,” she added.

“You don’t get everything you ask for,” said Entmacher, “[But] we’re pleased with the funding specifically targeted to childcare and Head Start and other investment for children with disabilities.”

Other feminist leaders are also guardedly positive about the stimulus.

“We’re pretty happy with what we’re seeing so far,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, “But we’re waiting to see details.”

Asked whether the Obama administration was more friendly to feminist advocacy groups than the last administration, Gandy laughed and replied, “Are you kidding? The difference is like night and day.”

Natalie Dylan Speaks Out

Yesterday, an article from Natalie Dylan — the pseudonym of the women’s study student who is auctioning off her virginity — appeared in The Daily Beast.  She now claims that the auction is more than a way to pay for grad school, as previously reported, but also a sociological experiment.  The article makes for an interesting read.  I recommend checking out the whole thing (it’s not very long), but these two paragraphs struck me as most relevant for discussion:

When I learned this, it became apparent to me that idealized virginity is just a tool to keep women in their place. But then I realized something else: if virginity is considered that valuable, what’s to stop me from benefiting from that? It is mine, after all. And the value of my chastity is one level on which men cannot compete with me. I decided to flip the equation, and turn my virginity into something that allows me to gain power and opportunity from men. I took the ancient notion that a woman’s virginity is priceless and used it as a vehicle for capitalism.

Are you rolling your eyes? I knew this experiment would bring me condemnation. But I’m not saying every forward-thinking person has to agree with what I’m doing. You should develop your own personal belief system—that’s exactly my point! For me, valuing virginity as sacred is simply not a concept I could embrace. But valuing virginity monetarily—now that’s a concept I could definitely get behind. I no longer view the selling of sex as wrong or immoral—my time at college showed me that I had too blindly accepted such arbitrary norms. And for what it’s worth, the winning bid won’t necessarily be the highest—I get to choose.

I hesitate to ask this question, feeling like the results are likely to divide along the common “anti-prostitution” and “sex-positive” feminist lines, but I’m also hoping that we might be able to have the conversation respectfully.  So, what do you think?

For my part, I’m personally uncomfortable with the concept of selling sex, especially within the context of a patriarchy, but also believes that one has a right to do with their body what they will.  I further think that Dylan is likely telling the truth about her intentions, and have thought the same things about this being an interesting example of how our society values virginity while watching this play out.  As someone who is rather resentful of the social construct of virginity and how it is used against women, I really do like that aspect and think it’s quite subversive, at the same time as I have the conflicting thought that it’s not so subversive (if again, still not morally objectionable in my view) to partake in “the world’s oldest profession.”

For what it’s worth, I think that Renee’s essay on this subject over at Global Comment is also quite good.

Discuss.

Thanks to Anna for the link.