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

Democracy, it was fun while it lasted.

Dear Democracy,

It’s been nice knowing you, it really has. We had some good times, didn’t we? Remember when Howard Dean rose to prominence because of internet donations and grassroots efforts? And when Barack Obama was elected in part because a ton of people gave $5 or $10 or $20 to his campaign? Heck, even those wacky Republican teabaggers got in on the action!

But today, I bid you farewell. Don’t get me wrong, I know you’re still here, technically, chugging along. I’m not suggesting that you’re going to disappear forever, or that you’re dead to me. You haven’t died, Democracy, but you’ve changed. It used to be about us, you know? We could talk about ideas and debate heatedly, and sometimes things didn’t turn out my way, but I always at least felt like I had a say in our relationship. Now, you don’t listen. Why would you? You’ve found someone else — and they’re a lot more wealthy and influential than I am (I maintain that I’m better-looking, but hey, it’s you who has to go to bed with them every night). Democracy, darling, I suspect that they will only be a bad influence on you — they’re almost guaranteed to make you more conservative and definitely less responsive to anyone’s needs but theirs. I mean, why would you bother to think about me when your new beau is footing all your bills? I don’t mean to sound bitter, D, but don’t you see what’s going on here? They own you, baby!

Remember that time we marched on Washington in defense of reproductive rights? When we nearly froze our toes off on the Mall during Obama’s inauguration? When we went door-to-door in Pittsburgh, in Nashua, in Ohio? I was really in love with you then. I really felt like you got me, you know? Those were great times, and I’ll miss them. I hate to say it, Democracy, but that new fling of yours? He ain’t me. I can’t even bring myself to consider him a person. I hope all the money — and I understand, it’s a lot of money — is worth it.

You take care now. Thanks for the memories.

Jill

If you’re in New York City, go vote today

It’s election day in New York, so hopefully you’re all getting out there and casting your ballots. Planned Parenthood has a handy voter guide to check out — you’d be surprised by how many candidates have mixed views on choice, or didn’t even answer the questions. And it’s worth remembering that city council members and other local politicians often have the most power when it comes to issues like sexual health education and access to reproductive health care like emergency contraception.

The race I’m most interested in is the one for Manhattan District Attorney — even though I can’t vote in it, since I live in Brooklyn. Leslie Crocker Snyder has a decent shot of being the first female DA in Manhattan, and she’s certainly an impressive and accomplished woman — but she’s a little too “tough on crime” for the tastes of many liberals. Of course, she’s also been the target of most of the mudslinging by the tabloid press, so I think it’s fair to say that New Yorkers are more familiar with her record (good and bad) than the others’.

Richard Aborn has focused on racial inequalities in the criminal justice system, and is a proponent of stricter gun control laws and treatment over incarceration for non-violent offenders. He’s also endorsed by Jerry Nadler, a gem of a congressman. He has very fair views on the rights of criminal defendants — very important for a prosecutor.

Cy Vance is a solid Democratic contender — tough on both violent and white-collar crime — and he’s endorsed by Gloria Steinem and the New York Times.

You can read the candidates’ views on women’s issues, in their own words, here.

It’ll be an interesting race.

Shall we tint our Twitter avatars? No? Carry on…

As many of you are no doubt aware, Manuel Zelaya, the democratically elected president of Honduras, was ousted in an illegal military coup last June.   Obama originally issued a condemnation of the army, who stormed the presidential palace and removed and forcibly deported Zelaya while he was still in his pajamas.

Obama’s extremely reasonable response was nice, at least compared to Bush’s endorsement of  (and connections to) the short-lived 2002 illegal removal of democratically elected leftist president Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Zelaya and Chavez are political allies.   The US has a long history of undermining and actively supporting the overthrow of leftish governments in Latin America (This isn’t the greatest or most comprehensive overview, but it’s a start.)  So I was really disappointed when Obama backed down from having a position beyond that this is None of Our Business:

“The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we’re always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can’t have it both ways…”

Because funding mass murders and installing puppet dictators is really equatable with supporting actual democratic process and providing humanitarian aid.

Amnesty International recently released a report warning of a post-coup humanitarian crisis in Honduras.  Mass demonstrations have been underway, met with arbitrary arrests and brutality.  Calls for aid have been largely ignored, at least here in the US.

I would be especially, especially interested to hear from Feministe readers in other parts of the world.  How is the media covering the coup?  How is your government and population responding?  Here, it’s not even a story anymore.

Hey, remember the worldwide Twitterevolution after the elections in Iran? People in the US were all over that.  I saw so many tweets from people who had turned their avatars green praising the brave souls in the streets of Tehran.  Hell, I made my avatar green.  I changed my location to Tehran.  I had my doubts about what all this did for the courageous in the streets, but if in any tiny way it showed support, I wanted to show support.

But the whole thing left a gross taste in my mouth.  Much as I supported the people of Iran fighting for their rights to self-determination, over here in the US all the support felt like it was coming less from the grassroots up than from the government/corporate media power structure on down.  It is in the interest of US foreign policy to undermine Ahmadinejad however possible.  The feel good story of normal people like you and me banding together across the globe via Twitter, the little company that could, to Twitterize the popular revolution?  PR gold.
Earlier this summer the US Congress even passed a resolution condemning the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the crackdown on peaceful protestors. One thing that bugged me then was the complete hypocrisy of the US government, which has in recent history shown no such love or respect for demonstrators on their own soil, including those specifically demanding free and fair elections.  I don’t want to equate the bloody repression of protesters in Iran to that facing  those in the US protesting the 2000 and 2004 stolen elections or anything, but the US government hardly has a history of glorifying their own citizens when they fight for democracy at home, let alone any consistent support for those fighting for their rights across the globe. It is clear that all the love the US government feels for Iranian protesters is primarily motivated by political opportunism.

This is not to in anyway undermine the demonstrators in Iran, who have my love and support.  But it is to point out that I think Honduran demonstrators are equally deserving.  And there are obvious reasons why they’re not getting it.

Vote now!

A group of superheroes are competing to be the next mayor of DC. Vote now — polls close at 6pm EST. I’m personally throwing my weight behind Wonder Woman, but check out all the candidates and cast your ballot.

Ross Douthat tries to understand teh sexism.

And fails.

Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex education, slash funds for special-needs children or inject creationism into public schools.)

Let me re-write that for him.

Here are the lessons of every national politician ever. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer (see Chelsea Clinton). Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented (see Barack Obama is a Muslim). Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith (see id).

None of which is to say that Sarah Palin didn’t endure her share of sexism — she sure did. She was ultimately brought down by her own idiocy — a fate that didn’t befall her idiot compatriot George W. Bush. She was attacked for her looks and for her family choices in a way that male politicians aren’t — she also played on her looks and her family choices in a way that male politician’s either can’t or don’t. But what makes me the most uncomfortable about Douthat’s piece is this observation:

In a recent Pew poll, 44 percent of Americans regarded Palin unfavorably. But slightly more had a favorable impression of her. That number included 46 percent of independents, and 48 percent of Americans without a college education.

That last statistic is a crucial one. Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.

He’s sort of right about the “perfect foil” observation (less perfect, I suppose, in that she failed to actually foil Obama). What rubs me the wrong way is the idea that Palin’s “great success story” was at all democratic, or represents a democratic ideal. In truth, it represents an ugly truth in the same way as GWB’s rise — it’s the idea that a class of people, no matter how foolish or lazy, deserves access to power simply by virtue of being born a particular color and in a particular social class. “Anyone” cannot grow up to have a success story like Palin’s. While that’s certainly a comforting thought to the traditional right-wing base (read: disgruntled white people who are unnerved by the fact that others are getting a piece of the American pie), it’s not something that sits so well with the rest of us.

“The rest of us,” though, are growing demographically. Hopefully that will translate into a broader definition of the supposedly democratic ideal.

U.S. Polling Locations Remain Inaccessible

I’m sadly not at all surprised to learn that there are a whole host of issues with accessibility at voting locations — but these numbers are pretty staggering.

A Government Accountability Office report to be released Wednesday found that in last November’s historic election, nearly one-third of polling places failed to accommodate voters in wheelchairs. Twenty-three percent had machines for the disabled that offered less privacy than offered to others — some even positioned in a way that other people could see how they were voting.

The study of 730 polling places in 31 states said improvements have been made since the agency’s last similar survey in 2000. But it found that 73 percent of polling places had some sort of impediment, such as narrow doorways or steep curbs, that might impede access to the voting area for people with disabilities. Nearly half of those sites offered curbside voting as an alternative.

“We are a far cry from where we need to be,” said Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, who requested the report. He said in a statement he would work with the Justice Department, which has jurisdiction to enforce federal election laws, to seek improvements.

The problems persist despite the fact that the first law requiring polling locations to be more accessible to people with disabilities was passed 25 years ago, and that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to put regulations into effect:

In 1984, Congress passed a law requiring states to make polling places more accessible to the elderly and disabled. The issue was addressed again in the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and in the 2002 Help America Vote Act, and it came with money — hundreds of millions have been given to states to make polling places more accessible.

“When problems arise in the administration of elections, we have a responsibility to fix them,” President George W. Bush said at the time. An author of the law, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., called it “nothing less than the first civil rights legislation of the 21st century.”

But seven years later, some local jurisdictions refuse to move polling places, arguing that voters won’t know where to vote or that there’s no place in the jurisdiction that meets the disability access requirement, said Lee Page, associate advocacy director at Paralyzed Veterans of America.

The article later goes on to note that even many of those locations which have accessible means of voting aren’t putting them into practice, because poll workers don’t know how to use the machines and/or just don’t want to deal with it.

I hope that when we consider the right to vote an extremely fundamental right in this country, at least in theory if not always in practice, the problem here is clear.  When voting locations are not accessible to all citizens, rights are being violated, and they are being violated in a clearly discriminatory way.  Period.

And while the option to vote absentee is often a very necessary one and should absolutely remain open for those who need it, one activist also notes an additional problem with the lack of accessibility actually within the voting location:

That leaves disabled voters the option of having the ballot brought out of the polling place to them, being reassigned to a different jurisdiction or voting absentee, Lee said.

“You want to vote with everyone else at your jurisdiction because it’s … part of the community,” Page said. “To find barriers in this simple issue is really disheartening, truthfully.”

I think that most of us know this to be true, even if we haven’t consciously had to think of it before.  There is a certain pride that a whole lot of people get with regards to entering that voting location and waiting along with other voters to cast their ballot.  There is a major community aspect to voting, quite often regardless of whether or not community members are voting the same way.

And that may seem like a relatively small problem compared to disenfranchisement.  But a major, major method through which ableism functions in our society is the method of exclusion.  Inaccessibility of all kinds doesn’t just prevent many people with disabilities from being able to go as many places or do as many things as they could in a non-ableist world — it also quite often serves to physically separate them from able-bodied people and denies them a place in the community.  And that is in absolutely no way a small thing.

via FRIDA

Women’s Right to Vote, the Beginning of the End for America?

This is simply amazing. In a highly emotional and grammatically-challenged screed, the author argues that the lady-vote ruined America by turning us into a country of emotion-driven sissies. He writes:

The result of the 19th amendment has been the ascension to power by the same kind of Marxists Ronald Reagen defeated from the Soviet Union. The weapon of destruction was not a nuclear warhead though, it was an emotional outburst that melted the brains of logic.

Almost all important issues today come down to an argument between an emotional feeling and a logical thought. When you raise a child it is logical to slap their hands or spank their behind when they do bad things. It is the interference of emotional feelings that allows laws to be passed that condemn that kind of love as child abuse.

I think the fundamental problem is that we may be dealing with different defintions of “logic” and “emotion.” Getting mad about something and responding by hitting the person who caused your anger is not, according to my defintion of “logic,” a reason-driven response; instead, it seems to be anger-driven, and last I checked, anger is one of those emotion-type things. As far as I can tell, when the author says “logical” he actually means “Whatever I believe to be right.”

It wasn’t long before the politicians started passing laws that made the more emotional voter satisfied. Just a cursory look at many of the feel good laws that have been passed by the federal, state, and local governments since 1920 is enough evidence to make my point. Just in California alone, over 200 new laws get passed every year by politicians who think more with their hearts then with their brains.

Why else would California have a law on the books that requires all persons under 18 years of age to wear a helmet while operating a non motorized scooter or skateboard. Or while wearing in-line or roller skates, or while riding upon a non motorized scooter or skateboard as a passenger? Then there are the Federal laws that restrict the use of children under 18 from doing any of a number of non dangerous tasks for an employer. Laws which only limits the employers desire to even hire minors. These are just two examples of laws that only an overprotective mother would support.

I realize that these laws have been passed by mostly men, but the only reason these men got elected was because they played upon the fears of women and castrated men during the election campaign. A couple of years ago I read a story that said there is over 100,000 federal, state, and local laws on the books that regulate or restrict some sort of normal human behavior. If you read all these laws you would see one common denominator, emotion. These laws play to an emotional tugging of the heartstrings.

Right, like all those laws passed more than a century ago outlawing certain types of consensual sexual activity. Clearly those were all penned by women, or supported by female voters, right?

It is this very emotional kind of feelings that is getting Americans to go along with Global Warming? Think about it? Who isn’t moved by the picture of the cute little white furry polar bear who is stranded upon a floating ice berg? The fact that polar bears can swim and average of 100 miles without even tiring matters not a bit, because logic does not play a role in the dbate. These days, a politician cannot raise taxes to save the planet from the evil humans without using emotion.

Yes, because the global warming debate is really about how far polar bears can or cannot swim. Logic at its finest!

Read the whole thing — it’s hilarious. And of course the Freepers are on board, and in agreement. They take it a step further and suggest that only property owners should be allowed to vote.

A terrible idea indeed.

via Christopher Hayes, Israel bans Arab parties from running in the upcoming elections.

Matt makes an interesting point when he says:

One of the most hopeful and impressive aspects of Israeli society, in my view, has long been the relatively cordial relations between the country’s Jewish majority and the “Israeli Arab” minority group of non-Jewish Arab Israeli citizens who live on the Israeli side of the 1948 ceasefire line. The relationship hasn’t been without its problems and allegations of discrimination, but by the standards of multiethnic polities Israel has done pretty well, and Israel’s friends could plausibly claim that Arabs with Israeli citizenship enjoyed more civil and political rights than did Arab citizens of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or the rest.

And as Spencer points out, it’s pretty troubling when a country that prides itself on being the “Mideast’s only democracy” disenfranchises 20 percent of the population based on race. Hopefully the Israeli Supreme Court will turn this one around. Any Israeli legal scholars in the audience with insights?

Waking Up “Post-Racial”

Latoya at Racialicious has written a really great post about waking up in supposedly “post-racial” America the morning after Obama’s victory. A teaser:

Over the last few weeks, I’ve read opinion and analysis that just leaves me cold.

We did not wake up in a new America, though some of us may feel that way. We’ve been the same country we have always been, and the reports now releasing about hate crimes during the election should remind us that while Obama has a decisive win, there is still a very vocal and unhappy minority. I also find it interesting that folks think there will be progress without cost. As if after every civil rights (and now, arguably, post-civil rights) victory all the opposition just melted away, and that people who were avowed segregationists instantly changed their minds and opened their hearts.

But we all know that did not happen.

It’s an excellent read, and definitely worth your time.  Go check it out.