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

Month: May 2005

Erica Jong On Laura Bush

No matter what you think of my poorly-constructed title, this isn’t political porn. Erica Jong rips into Laura Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on the campaign for women’s rights at the HuffBlog.

Now that Laura Bush is back from the Middle East and can take off her black scarf, it’s time to ask why she is promoting freedom for women in the Middle East when the rights of American women are being systemically eroded by her husband’s initiatives. Is it the same reason why her husband promotes democracy abroad while the Patriot Act and the suspension of the Geneva Convention dilute democracy at home? Is wearing the headscarf the last refuge of a desperate housewife? Of course women in the Middle East need the vote, an end to domestic violence and free access to contraception. But so do we. Odd that it is always easier to proselytize for feminism abroad while ignoring deteriorating womens’ rights at home.

And one minor criticism for Ms. Jong: if I hear anyone call Laura Bush a “desperate housewife” again, I will scream. Laura Bush is hardly a helpless woman. She is a wealthy, powerful saleswoman for a political agenda.

via Feministing

Amnesty International and a Culture of Life

In the rush to prevent the “the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings” (said Tom DeLay in a fit of melodrama, equating cell division to real, live people) the United States has conveniently redefined a culture of life to disregard or outright deny human rights to, you know, humans.

Amnesty International has branded Guantanamo prison as “the gulag of our time” in addition to other scathing assertions about American detention centers around the world.

the US government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions and to “re-define” torture. It has sought to justify the use of coercive interrogation techniques, the practice of holding “ghost detainees” (people in unacknowledged incommunicado detention) and the “rendering” or handing over of prisoners to third countries known to practise torture. The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process.

The USA, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity. From Israel to Uzbekistan, Egypt to Nepal, governments have openly defied human rights and international humanitarian law in the name of national security and “counter-terrorism”.

The report offers a radical solution to at least some of the inhumanity done in the names of American citizens: close Guantanamo Bay. My knee-jerk reaction is total agreement. If one doesn’t believe this will have some sort of positive consequence on a micro level, one only has to look at the anti-American sentiments, and the rioting, and the bombings, and the overall general violence generated by American military presence in the Middle East over the last year. Closing Guantanamo, or even Abu Ghraib, would send a message that we are serious about the rhetoric of peace and common humanity that so often flows out of Washington, and begin a renewal of commitment to these values of human dignity that most American citizens openly endorse.

Brief international goodwill, a la the Indian tsunami, is not enough to cultivate a true global community no matter our intentions.

Unfortunately,

Economic interests, political hypocrisy and socially orchestrated discrimination continued to fan the flames of conflict around the world. The so-called “war on terror” appeared more effective in eroding the international framework of human rights principles than in countering the threat of international “terrorism”. The security of women facing gender-based violence in the home, in the community or in situations of conflict barely received attention. The economic, social and cultural rights of marginalized communities continued to be largely ignored.

A true culture of life is one that does not perpetuate a rule of law that says human rights only matter in times without conflict. One cannot fight terrorism as it is currently defined with bombs, tanks, guns, and prisons. If one wants to reduce terrorist acts, state-sponsored or not, one must first look to the root causes: racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, misogyny, invisibility, strict fundamentalism, limited resources, lack of educational opportunity, economic hardship, the spirit of revenge, and the desire for complete consolidation of power.

The solutions to these do not lie in gunpowder.

For interested readers, the Baltimore Sun provides a synopsis of the Amnesty International report and responses from the U.S. government.

This website really stinks

Hah. Gotta love stupid puns about repulsive, sexist deodorant websites. I wasn’t aware that even deodorant could be marketed with such over-the-top sexism, but the Axe website proves that it can. You build (or “customize,” as they call it, kind of like a car) your “dream girl,” and Axe tells you what kind of body spray to purchase to snag her. Rad. Now, my slow dial-up connection was taking a few minutes to get me all the way into the site, and after about 30 seconds I asked myself, “Wait, why am I looking at an Axe deodorant site to customize my dream girl?” so I clicked out of the page. But not before I read the lovely “page loading” message:

Your desires are important to us. Please continue to hold. loading legs loading firm buttocks loading swan-like necks loading super-sized chest you could bury your head in loading moist pillow lips loading seductive haunting eyes loading naughty tongue…

I’m just gonna skip the usual deconstruction of this website because, really, it’s not that complicated to see what’s going on here: women, like cars and other things you “customize,” are things. They serve a particular purpose in a man’s life, and that purpose is sexual, ornamental or both. Plus, you should buy things. Things like Axe. Because buying things gets you more things.

So everything else aside, let me just add this: Axe stinks. Seriously. I’ve smelled it, and it’s nasty. I also have a (perhaps unfair, but now… maybe not) stereotype about the type of guy who uses Axe body spray — and it’s not appealing. And let me reiterate: It. Is. Smelly. No offense to any nice boys or girls out there who use it — but do you even exist? Are there nice, cool, progressive and socially conscious men and women who are purchasing and using Axe body spray, after their repulsive ad campaign and this inane website? Anyone?

Via Shankar at TK. Because for whatever reason, today I’m really feelin’ the blogs of conservative former NYU students.

What would happen if right-wingers played by their own rules?

Katha Pollitt — who, yes, I am in love with today (and hell, every day) — has a few suggestions to allow righties to practice what they preach. My favorites:

1. Stem-cell research. According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 22 percent of the population thinks extracting stem cells from pre-embryos frozen in fertility clinics is unethical. These tender souls have prevailed upon the Bush Administration to restrict federal funds for stem-cell research. This has resulted in a bidding war among states eager to lure researchers, which nobody sees as the best way to do the science. Why not split the difference? Bring back federal funding, but those who oppose it can take the appropriate tax cut. The catch is, they agree to forgo any cures stem-cell research might yield: They’ll have to live with their Parkinson’s, diabetes, Alzheimer’s or cancer, which, since they believe stem-cell research is wrong, is surely what they would want to do anyway.

4. Teen sex. Every school will offer both abstinence-only and comprehensive sex ed–parents can sign their kids up for the course they prefer. In states with notification/consent laws, parents will remain free to discourage or prevent their daughters from having abortions. The catch is, if they choose this route, they are legally responsible for the total financial support through college of the babies their underage daughters produce. After all, if a girl is too young to learn about birth control, too young to have sex and too young to decide on her own to have an abortion, she’s obviously too young to be a mother. Having made the choice for her, the parents should bear the consequences. If they don’t like this system, they can try to extract child support from the baby’s father (or his parents), and good luck to them.

6. English only. Do you blow a gasket when your ATM asks you if you’d like to bank en español? Check the English-only box, and get priority on tract housing in Utah or Idaho. But first, just to make sure your own linguistic skills do justice to the language of Shakespeare, Woolf and Baldwin, you’ll be enrolled in a free, intensive, yearlong literature class taught by brilliant, dedicated, culturally conservative professors who firmly believe they failed to get tenure at Ivy League universities because of their resistance to grade inflation and what passes for education these days. Less than a B sends you back to the land from which your ancestors most recently escaped.

Of course, liberals like me would never support the kind of legislation that Pollitt suggests (and she’s obviously being a little tongue-in-cheek with this piece). Why? Because, unlike those running the current administration, I kinda like the idea of people other than just me having a wide range of rights, and the ability to decide for themselves how they live their lives. How novel.

Virginity or death!

Good lord I love Katha Pollitt. This column is about a week old, but check it out if you haven’t already. She writes about the religious right’s opposition to an HPV vaccine that could save the lives of thousands of women, and help prevent cervical cancer in even more.

I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about “life” than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex–pregnancy, disease, death–abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it’s better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it’s better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It’s honor killing on the installment plan.

The whole column is so good that I’m fighting the urge to copy and paste the entire thing here just to make sure that it gets read… but I’ll leave you with this excerpt.

As they flex their political muscle, right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear. That’s why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be less available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses–it’s in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place. If preventing abortion was what they cared about, they’d be giving birth control and emergency contraception away on street corners instead of supporting pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions and hospitals that don’t tell rape victims about the existence of EC.

Via Classical Liberal Conservative

Stem cell bill passes in the House

Too bad Bush will probably veto it and continue to block funding for this potentially life-saving research. I found this section particularly interesting:

“Research on stem cells derived from human embryos may offer great promise, but the way those cells are derived today destroys the embryo,” said the president who was speaking before a group of parents who had children using embryos that had been created for other couples using fertility treatments. President Bush has pledged to veto the bill passed this afternoon because he says it would destroy life to save life.

Followed by:

The legislation that Mr. Bush has vowed to veto would reverse the president’s ban on using federal money to conduct new embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cells, the starting point for every tissue in the human body, would come from live human embryos scheduled to be discarded at fertility clinics.

So… the group of people he was speaking to — parents of children conceived using fertility treatments that resulted in the discarding of other embryos — should be in support of banning stem cell research… why? Because if we’re going with the idea that a small cluster of cells (so small and undeveloped that what type of cells they will be can’t even be determined) is the equivalent to a human life like mine, and arguably deserves the same protections, then didn’t these parents assist in “killing” when they supported a fertility clinic in having children? Because, as anti-choicers are quick to remind us, fertility clinics try and fertilize a whole lotta eggs, and only a few embryos take. So maybe I’m slow, but it seems to be that Bush was speaking to the wrong group — given that, by anti-choice standards, these people are accomplices to murder. I mean, it was the anti-choice crowd that pitched a fit about fertility technology 20 years ago, and still hasn’t given up the fight.

I also love this quote from our President:

“This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.”

The “potential life” argument is one that is always destined to fail. Each of my unfertilized eggs is a potential life. Every sperm cell expelled for purposes other than procreation is a potential life thwarted. But I’m not crying every time I menstruate, and, apart from some severely guilt-ridden souls, I don’t think most men cry themselves to sleep every time they masturbate. So “potential life” loses. And I simply cannot accept the argument that a cluster of yet-to-be-determined cells is a life equal in value to mine. Aren’t pro-lifers supposed to value… life? While I certainly don’t wish them any ill, I wonder if they’ve ever dealt with a family member or close friend living with Parkinsons or Alzheimers, or had someone close suffer a paralyzing injury. Because when you see someone close to you — someone who is undeniably alive — struggling to live through disease, or living differently with paralysis, you really get to thinking about what it means to value “life.” And forsaking real lives in the name of ridiculous anti-choice politics isn’t it.

Instructions and advice for the young bride

From an 1894 newsletter:

To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex.

Read More…Read More…

What You Should Be Reading Since I’m Not Writing

The regular computer is again broken and typing on this laptop must be equivalent to the seventh circle of hell. To top it off, my ADD is in full swing. I’ve been a napping fool and don’t have the usual tiredness to keep me somewhere near attentive, and just found myself sitting in front of the TV knitting in a bikini top when I was supposed to be out gardening, in part because I was in the garden, came inside for some water, realized I hadn’t tried on the new bathing suit, then forgot about the gardening, started some laundry, and realized Montel was on. So I totally had to sit down and knit socks. Duh.

In addition, I just completed my first summer exam (and did well, I think) and have a load of homework due tomorrow. Don’t expect much blogging from yours truly in the next few days.

And since you’re here and feel the urge to read something of quality, take a few moments to see these notable posts.

Feminism
Amanda notes one of the most important things overlooked in arguments in favor of abortion-related parental notification laws:

What’s not addressed in that selective bit of reasoning, of course, is that if you are under 18 and want to have a baby, no one has the right to stop you. You have reproductive choice when you are under 18, unless, of course, your choice is the one that the religious right doesn’t want you to have. More than a few parents would love the right to force a teenager to have an abortion, but that’s not their legal right.

Parental consent/notification laws are just one of many laws that have been placed on a woman’s right to choose, modifying it so that it’s not actually her right but someone else’s. Parents have veto power now, and in the past, for those who forgot, so did husbands.

Amanda also writes on the new study released that women are (still) underrepresented in journalistic media. Her conclusions aren’t surprising, at least not for the population that reads this blog.

At Volsunga, Ms. Thang is pissed about an article that skewers teen parents and their relationship to the welfare system. Look, do you want us to carry out our pregnancies or not? Can’t have it two ways.

Lynn at Noli Irritare Leones writes her second to last piece on Emma Goldman and her views on violence. This one is particularly interesting. Give it a read.

The first letter out of Flea’s email bag is from a minister working through his thoughts on homosexuality, abortion, and choice. He maintains a rather passive view toward non-church members, one that both Flea and I can respect, but some of her responses made me want to stand up and cheer, in particular, this response to the ages old assertion that if a teen mom wants a break from her kids, she’s an irresponsible mother:

Oh, by the way, as a 35-year-old mother I can tell you it’s very important for me to be able to blow off steam with kids my own age every now and then. My 46 and 49-year-old sisters, who are also mothering young children, feel the same way. I can’t imagine why it should be different for a 17-year-old mother. All work and no play makes for a depressed mommy, and that isn’t good for the baby.

If there’s one thing that pisses me off, it’s the looks and comments I get when E is at his father’s and I go out for the evening. I even receive some of the same criticism from my family. No one thinks twice when a married couple gets a babysitter for the evening, but anyone who had a child before the age of twenty and dared not to marry the babydaddy deserves eternal banishment from the world of fun for the rest of her life.

Right. Moving along…

What kind of government dispenses free viagra for rapists? Good question. Ours does. Majikthise offers an alternative perspective on this story, in part that functional sexuality may be the key to psychosexual rehabilitation.

Blogging
The Fshk Blog points out this article in the NYTimes on blogging, and Pandagon’s response to what is, by all account other than conservative accounts, a very complimentary article on blogging. Complimentary articles by MSM on blogging are rare. Take them with grace.

Politics
Also at the Fshk Blog, Media Matters debunks ten myths related to the now “resolved” “nuclear option.” Waveflux does an excellent job explaining the inevitable fallout from this political compromise.

Chuck found a particularly interesting definition of the word fascism while reading a book on linguistics. It reads as follows:

“The word ‘fascists’ in my title is used ironically, in the style of 1960ish political rant, of cousre. It is not used in its sense as a technical term. Fascism in the technical sense inovlves “the presence of a charismatic leader, a high degree of militarism, the endeavor to create a monolithic nation, and to include all institutions within a single political party, and intensive propaganda in a collectivist ideology.” (P.L. van den Berghe, Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective, John Wiley, New York, 1967, p. 109)

Sound familiar?

Shakespeare’s Sister discusses the core values of the Demoractic party, taking Kos to task for being a mouthpiece for the political party and his willingness to give up individual issues to gain votes. Like Shakes, I’m a reluctant Democrat, but only because they’re the closest powerful party that (shallowly) represents many of the issues I am passionate about, even if it chooses to abandon them once they get enough consolidated power to truly enact some change. It’s a painfuol compromise, but better than opting out whatsoever.

At the Liberal Avenger, Michelle & Jesse Malkin are skewered for their defense of internment and institutional racism.