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

It’s Not Mardi Gras For Everyone, Charlotte Allen

Charlotte Allen of the Independent Womens’ Forum, you’ll remember, shook her finger at “liberal-elite puritans” (read: one guy at the Washington Post) for not unreservedly embracing this year’s Mardi Gras even though many of its black and poor residents are unable to participate and the city still lies in ruins.

I guess Ms. Allen didn’t want to be reminded that not everyone is able to indulge in the “simple pleasures” of Mardi Gras. Here’s an example of what she doesn’t want to think about because, well, beads! While white society dances the night away at the Comus and Rex balls, there are no cotillions for the black Carnival societies in New Orleans.

Read More…Read More…

Shackled During Childbirth

Many states routinely shackle pregnant prisoners during labor and delivery, citing “flight risk” when they’re taken to outside hospitals.

Despite sporadic complaints and occasional lawsuits, the practice of shackling prisoners in labor continues to be relatively common, state legislators and a human rights group said. Only two states, California and Illinois, have laws forbidding the practice.

The New York Legislature is considering a similar bill. Ms. Nelson’s suit, which seeks to ban the use of restraints on Arkansas prisoners during labor and delivery, is to be tried in Little Rock this spring.

The California law, which came into force in January, was prompted by widespread problems, said Sally J. Lieber, a Democratic assemblywoman from Mountain View.

“We found this was going on in some institutions in California and all over the United States,” Ms. Lieber said. “It presents risks not only for the inmate giving birth, but also for the infant.”

Leg irons and wrist shackles are common in the 23 states and federal corrections bureau where this is still allowed, either by law or by corrections-department policy. I’ve never been pregnant, but I’ve been in serious pain, and writhing often helps. It seems cruel to deny that kind of freedom of movement to a prisoner who is giving birth, especially since there’s a guard standing by in case she and her placenta try to make a break for it.

Read More…Read More…

More on the videotape:

Scott at Lawyers, Guns, and Money has more on the videotape case, and he links to a post by iocaste with a different take on the conflict between “vigorous defense” and “you want this woman to do what?!”

Judge to Victim: Watch Video of Your Own Rape or Go to Jail

This one is just plain fucked. Four young men participate in the rape of a 16-year-old girl at a house party (she’s now 20). She was unconscious, and they gang-raped her, spit on her and scrawled obscenities on her naked body with a marker. Because she was passed out, she doesn’t remember the rape itself.

But since these fine young men decided to record their endeavors, there’s a videotape.

One of the men, who videotaped the incident but didn’t have sex with the woman, has pled guilty and is going through a state-run boot camp as punishment. One of the other men fled to Albania, where he is at large.

While the woman was testifying on the witness stand, the defense wheeled out a television to play the tape. She became visibly upset, obviously not wanting to relive the experience by watching it in front of a court room full of strangers. Put yourself in her shoes for a minute: How many of us wouldn’t be upset if we were sitting in a chair in front of a room of dozens of strangers, and a tape was brought out showing us stripped naked from the waste down and sexually assaulted by two men while a third wrote on us with a magic marker?

But the judge has ordered her to watch it or be held in contempt and face jail time. Which is about as fucked up as it gets.

The defendant should absolutely have the right to face his accuser in court. He has had that right, and she has answered every question asked of her on the stand. And I don’t think anyone is arguing that the video shouldn’t be shown at all. But how does it further justice to force her to watch this video? Let her leave the room and show it. Let the defense attorney make whatever point he’s trying to make with the video. But forcing her to watch it is simply cruel.

Of course, just as problematic is this Chicago Tribune article (registration required) which, after detailing the situation, inexplicably ends the article with:

The fourth defendant, Sonny Smith, 20, of Brookfield, who operated the camera, pleaded guilty to child pornography and was sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp.

In another rape case in 1995, a woman who had accused then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds of sexually abusing her when she was 16 was jailed for seven days after refusing to testify against him. She later recanted.

Reynolds was convicted and sent to prison but was pardoned by President Bill Clinton after serving more than 2 years.

…I don’t get it. So there is this rape case, and the fourth defendant pleaded guilty, and then did you know that there was once this other rape case that has nothing to do with this, and the accuser recanted? Totally irrelevant. And really biased. This whole situation — the trial and now the coverage — is just sickening.

Thanks to Julia and Jessica for the link.

Missed a spot.

I’m about to have SRS, but somehow I never learned to do makeup properly. My lipstick covers most of the lower half of my face. I’m twitchy and neurotic, and correct people on their grammar and punctuation. Oh, and I have no friends.

Charlie Girl provides another (spoiler-heavy) review of Transamerica, including some pointed snark about an aspect of the film that escaped my notice completely.

Beauty Call

I need some help here. If you’ve ever spent a winter in New York, you know that many older buildings like mine have eyeball-shriveling levels of heat. Then there’s the general dryness in the air, and the cold.

As a result, my face is a flaking, crusty mess, but even worse, my scalp is itching and flaking all over the place. Does anyone know what to do for a snowstorm from one’s scalp, preferably without turning one’s hair into a greasepit?

Sibling Violence

Interesting article today in the Times about sibling-on-sibling violence. It’s seen as a normal part of growing up, and dismissed as “boys will be boys” or a phase, but sibling relationships — particularly among closely-spaced brothers in large families — are the most violent, on a blow-per-blow basis, of all domestic relationships.

In a study published last year in the journal Child Maltreatment, a group of sociologists found that 35 percent of children had been “hit or attacked” by a sibling in the previous year. The study was based on phone interviews with a representative national sample of 2,030 children or those who take care of them.

Although some of the attacks may have been fleeting and harmless, more than a third were troubling on their face.

According to a preliminary analysis of unpublished data from the study, 14 percent of the children were repeatedly attacked by a sibling; 4.55 percent were hit hard enough to sustain injuries like bruises, cuts, chipped teeth and an occasional broken bone; and 2 percent were hit by brothers or sisters wielding rocks, toys, broom handles, shovels and even knives.

Children ages 2 to 9 who were repeatedly attacked were twice as likely as others their age to show severe symptoms of trauma, anxiety and depression, like sleeplessness, crying spells, thoughts of suicide and fears of the dark, further unpublished data from the same study suggest.

“There are very serious forms of, and reactions to, sibling victimization,” said David Finkelhor, a sociologist at the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, the study’s lead author, who suggests it is often minimized.

“If I were to hit my wife, no one would have trouble seeing that as an assault or a criminal act,” Dr. Finkelhor said. “When a child does the same thing to a sibling, the exact same act will be construed as a squabble, a fight or an altercation.”

Reading this piece, I started to realize how much I had internalized this idea that sibling violence is not really violence. I come from a large Irish family, with six kids (four boys, two girls) within 8 years. I never considered myself to have been physically abused; that was something your parents did to you. But while I never really took serious beatings from any of my siblings, there was plenty of sibling-on-sibling violence. It’s what we’re supposed to do, after all, being a large Irish family.

For instance, my sister and I got into some knock-down drag-outs with biting, scratching and hair-pulling (the one time we tried to punch each other, we wound up driving our fists together, which hurt like hell). When my younger twin brothers got stronger and bigger than me, they started to pin me down and use physical force in our disputes. The youngest worked out his jealousy issues with me for a couple of years by throwing things at me every time he saw me — one time, he hit me square in the back with a huge candle — and by hitting me with various things, including a snow brush to the mouth that chipped a tooth. I also gave him a nosebleed once when he was annoying me by grabbing my leg while I was trying to walk by — though, true to my socialization, I got panicky when I saw the blood and fled the scene. I’ve thrown plenty of stuff in my time (I even badly bruised my elbow when I was trying to throw something and chase someone at the same time, and ran into a wall).

The boys in my family, being so close in age, definitely had a more violent relationship with each other than they did with my sister and I or than the girls had with each other. The oldest set himself up as the family enforcer, and we used to call him “the Disciplinarian.” The twins were at each other from infancy — my mother had to put them in separate playpens because they would bite and scratch each other, and even after they were separated, they tried to grab each other through the bars. The twins beat the youngest on a regular basis.

And this shit didn’t stop in adulthood, at least among the boys (they left the girls alone after a while, and my sister and I haven’t fought physically in 20-odd years). When my oldest brother got married 10 years ago in Washington State, we all repaired to our hotel rooms after what was probably the most boring reception ever, congratulating ourselves on how much less dysfunctional we were than the bride’s family. But within minutes, the twins were in a fight, and the one who started it got mad that he lost it and called the cops. When the cops came, they found out that the complainant was also the instigator, so they *both* got arrested, under Washington’s zero-tolerance domestic violence policy.

And the rest of us stood around and thought, domestic violence? It was just a fight! Then we tried to figure out who was going to bail them out the next day, since most of us had flights to catch, and how we were going to keep our aunts, who had rooms on the other side of the hotel, from finding out about our little White Trash Theater episode.

And even three years ago, when our mother was dying, the oldest, at age 37 and a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, was doing his Disciplinarian thing, beating up one of the twins in his own house for smoking pot. I got on him for that, yelling at him that he couldn’t do that anymore, that he certainly would get court-martialed if he tried to discipline one of his airmen like that — and smacking him in the head while asking how he liked that. (And then he really freaked me out by taking me outside to discuss further and breaking into tears.)

God, writing that made me realize that the both of us were excusing our violent acts as just a family thing — but the kind of family thing neither of us would tolerate from a spouse or parent, and certainly nothing we would do to a spouse or to a child or to a stranger. And I also realized that everyone else at the table — mostly our siblings, but some spouses — excused it as well (except for it being done in public).

There’s a reason, in other words, that I sometimes joke that I was raised by wolves.

Sugar and Spice, or Piss and Vinegar?

The Dark Side of Girl Power. Newsflash: Some human beings are violent. Some of those violent human beings are girls. This, apparently, will unravel society.

We all know that “girl power” has become a popular motivator over the years, but there is growing concern that this positive reinforcement is not without consequence. Girls may be expressing themselves a bit too physically these days. Gone are the days of girls made simply of sugar and spice and everything nice. Instead, there is a new American girl, one who is becoming more aggressive, and she is not afraid to make contact.

Christ. First, there were never “days” when girls were all made of sugar and spice and everything nice. We’ve been panicking about supposed changes in girls’ behavior for centuries. They were getting too smart, and doctors were sure that their ovaries were going to shrivel up, so we blocked them from education. Women wanted voting rights, and were told that it would destroy the family. Are we really blaming empowering girls for an increase in violence?

Read More…Read More…

Links and Links

You all have been awesome this week, and have been emailing all kinds of fantastic links. I want to write a post about all of them, but law school calls, so I’m putting them here, round-up style. Check ’em all out:

1. Sony makes the first sexist TV. Or, excuse me, “The first television for men and women.” Why do women like it (question written in pink)? Because it has a wide screen, so you can re-arrange the living room and put your couch anywhere! Because it adjusts the light conditions for when you trick your significant other into watching a romantic film! Because it’s pretty! And why do men like it (question written in blue)? Because the picture quality makes watching football and car chases more exciting! Because the wide viewing angle means you can sit anywhere in the living room to watch (after your wife rearranges the furniture)! Because it looks totally killer!

Ugh. Thanks to Josh for the link.

2. A map of women who have changed the world. Add a woman who has mattered to you.

To add a woman to the map:
– go to the map using the map url above
– register to add places to the map
– click on “Add Places to this map” right under the map, NOT “add a
Place” at the top of the page.
– find your location by putting an address or just a city and state
into the text box or by clicking on the map in the right spot.
– Click “next”
– Enter some information about the woman
– click submit

Here’s an example entry. Thanks to Tracy for the link.

3. Rednecks *heart* gay cowboys. Andrew Sullivan writes:

The past two decades have seen a huge shift in how homosexual people are viewed in the West. Where once they were identified entirely by sex, now more and more recognise that the central homosexual experience is the central heterosexual experience: love — maddening, humiliating, sustaining love.

It’s true that more and more recognize this — but a lot of folks in those red states still don’t. I’m optimistic, but Andy’s glasses are a little more rose-colored than mine. Via a nut.

4. Have kids with your partner, but you aren’t married? Sorry, you aren’t a family.

Black Jack isn’t the only city with an ordinance defining what kind of family can live within its limits. Most municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar, if not identical, rules.

Black Jack’s ordinance applies to unmarried couples with children. Under the law, a home cannot be inhabited by three or more individuals not related by “blood, marriage or adoption.”

The ordinance recently has come under scrutiny because of Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving. The couple purchased a five-bedroom, three-bath house in Black Jack and moved into the home last month with their three children.

But the couple was denied an occupancy permit because their household failed to meet the city’s definition of family.

Lovely. Thanks to j0 for the link.

And finally there’s this image:
abstinence

It’s part of an abstinence-only campaign. If the print is too small, it says, “Want to tell your dad you’re pregnant? Abstinence ’till marriage.” Thanks to Andrew for this one.

There’s all kinds of crazy stuff out there on the internets. Thanks to all of you who have been sending me these links.