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

Month: June 2006

Why are you a Democrat, again?

Dianne Feinstein can kiss my flag-buffed butt.

(No, it’s true! I use flags for toilet paper! Not just paper ones, either. I scour antiques stores for cotton and silk flags, preferably ones flown either in battle or from the porches of elderly widows.)

The proposed flag amendment, which in its entirety reads, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States,” was a bipartisan measure. Its chief sponsor was Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and the chief co-sponsor was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who is running for re-election in November.

“Bipartisan” on a technical level, sure. “Bipartisan” in spirit, not a bit of it. This is not an issue of bipartisan national importance–hell, it’s not important at all. It’s not an issue on which reasonable people may reasonably agree, like campaign finance reform or sex trafficking. It’s not an issue on which everyone in politics should have an opinion, like deficit spending or the estate tax. It’s not a pressing concern, like the Iraq war exit strategy. It’s not an issue which the wingnuts have, for better or worse, forced into the public arena such that politicians may not dismiss it as the manipulative prairie muffin it is. It’s not even an issue America knew about last week.

This is political jingoism. This is a transparent ploy on the part of the Republican party to divert attention from the President’s poll numbers, which are holding steady at “extremely low.” This is designed to keep Republicans in place during the midterm elections. A concussed mealworm would recognize this for the shameless grandstanding it is. A politician with approximately forty years of political experience, fourteen of those in the senate, should know better. Even apart from the free-speech issue, Dianne Feinstein’s support for this amendment should be cause for her to hang her head in shame.

Read More…Read More…

Supreme Court News

Just a quick post, since the big boss has finally taken note of my existence and has given me direct assignments for the first time in two years: The Supreme Court released its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the big Guantanamo Bay case, ruling that military tribunals for at least 10 suspects at Gitmo are improper. The opinion appears to be 5-3, with various concurrences in part; the Unholy Trinity of Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissented. Roberts took no part.

It’s a 92-page document, so I’ll try to at least glance through it during lunch and report back.

UPDATE: CNN has more.

Posted in Law

Odds and Ends

Caring for the People Who Care for our Children: I wonder what the “we love babies” crowd would say to this?

Childcare workers deserve better pay and better treatment. Period.

A Japanese university is dispatching female students as “angels” to increase girls’ interest in science. Very cool. Thanks to Cara for the link.

Montana Right-to-Life endorses a neo-Nazi candidate. Because we… love… babies!

A new book explores mother-daughter conversations. Sounds very interesting. Hopefully I’ll get my hands on it when I get back to the states.

In Support of an Amendment Banning Fag Burning.

From Feministing, we find this little gem: A baseball player physically assaults his wife in public, and Major League Baseball responds that it has no policy regarding spousal abuse, because that’s a private issue. If that wasn’t enough, now t-shirts are being sold sporting the player’s number and the words “Wife Beater.” Because wife-beating is as American as apple pie.

Choice Words

In response to this article on TomPaine.com, Lynn Harris at Broadsheet asks if it isn’t time to change the term “pro-choice” to something a little more accurate:

“Choice” sounds to me like what you make between baked and mashed, when in reality these matters are life and death. “Choice” sounds — to the opposition, or the undecided — like a bunch of affluent women choosing among an array of options, including abortion on a whim (sic). When it comes to the rights we’re fighting for, after all, so many women have next to no choice at all.

This is partly why Quinlan and others say that “using the term ‘right’ — as in inalienable rights — is a frame that works much better, and can have appeal to libertarian side of both parties.” It’s also handy for linking abortion rights to civil rights, they say.

Fair enough, but we already call what we’re fighting for — at least part of it — “abortion rights.” And that still doesn’t cut it: a) We’re fighting for even more than abortion rights, and b) “abortion rights” is hardly an oomphy one-syllable word you can stick after “pro.” More to the point, it’s not an oomphy one-syllable word that can trump “life.” Damn them for taking — and failing to live up to — that one. Speaking of “them,” even “pro-family” sounds creepy at this point. So. Ideas? I’m open.

Well, I have a problem with saying that we’re fighting for “abortion rights,” because that’s only one prong in the reproductive rights (hi there, existing rights-based term!) movement. And with the anti-choicers going after women’s reproductive health in general through their opposition to birth control, their fight against the HPV vaccine, abstinence-only education, and their legislation to put warning labels on condoms, this obviously goes well beyond abortion.

So I think “reproductive rights” works quite well. Or “reproductive freedom.” But then, I didn’t have a problem with “pro-choice” in the first place. Thoughts?

In Defense of the Working Girl

Megan O’Rourke has a very good take on Linda Hirshman’s new book:

But—though I almost hate to say it—buried beneath Hirshman’s overblown rhetoric is a useful idea, now set out in a short book titled Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World: namely, that our obsession with choice prevents us from asking tough questions about how to achieve further equality. “Deafened by choice, here’s the moral analysis these women never heard,” she says: Until there is more equity in the cultural norms for child-rearing and household tasks, each time a woman decides to “opt out” she is making a political decision that reinforces an already ingrained social inequality. Women who believe otherwise suffer from a mixture of false consciousness and impractical idealism. It’s when Hirshman is at her most radical—when she sets aside the language of personal fulfillment in favor of injunctions about the collective good—that she is at her most valuable. I would never write this book, but I’m glad somebody did.

Read More…Read More…

What’s Going On Here?

Yglesias:

I never, ever, ever watch prime time cable news because it makes me want to kill extremely large numbers of people. Tragically, I walked through the door yesterday and my roommate already had Hardball on. There were two people debating the issue of . . . whether or not The New York Times should be brought up on charges of treason. Seriously. Treason. For publishing an article in a newspaper. Treason. And there was Chris Matthews happily presiding over the whole thing as if this was a serious conversation that people should be having. This all taking place on a network that, allegedly, does journalism.

Atrios:

Torturing people, jailing journalists for treason, the president being allowed to disobey the law at whim… The mainstream media has made all of these things a part of the normal conversation. They’ve allowed “two sides” to all of these things to be debated on equal footing. Left wing bloggers on the internets complain about the media and they get ignored and accused of “blogofascism.” Conservatives call for the New York Times to be blown up and their reporters and editors jailed and they get treated seriously on MSNBC’s flagship political talk show.

There’s a problem here. You’ve been playing this game for years, letting these people control the terms of the debate. This is where it has brought you. Congratulations.

This is exactly why I decided to go into law instead of journalism.

Read More…Read More…

No Vaccines For Me, Thanks, I’ve Got Jesus As My Co-Pilot

We’ve all heard the story before: The religious right is all up in arms about an HPV vaccine that could prevent cervical cancer and save the lives of thousands of women because they think it might encourage pre-marital sex.

Today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will determine whether Gardasil — which has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a guard against the cancer-causing human papilloma virus, or HPV, for girls and women ages 9 to 26 — should be widely used. The panel’s decision would establish whether private insurers and the government would cover the cost of such vaccinations. By recommending that Gardasil be universally administered to girls ages 11-12, the committee can facilitate widespread vaccination and enable all girls and women to protect themselves from a sexually transmitted infection that the CDC says 80% of American women will have by age 50.

Opponents of the vaccine argue that abstinence is a “foolproof” alternative that negates the need for mandatory vaccination. These groups believe that vaccination will act to lower young women’s sexual inhibitions and promote risky sexual behavior, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

Read More…Read More…

Submit to New Moon

I’m a little late on posting this because the email got lost in my inbox, but I would be seriously remiss if I didn’t mention the opportunity for feminist girls to submit to New Moon, a thoroughly fantastic feminist magazine.

They’re currently accepting submissions for the Jan/Feb 2007 edition, which will be entitled “Letters to Congress,” and they’re planning on sending a copy to every single Congressperson. Very cool. From the press release:

Special Call for Submissions: Write to Congress!

For 13 years, New Moon has printed YOUR opinions on everything from the war in Iraq to making new friends in “Dear Luna.” For our special January/February 2007 “Letter to Congress” issue, we want you to keep telling us what you think-and we want you to tell world leaders, too!

We’ll fill the January/February 2007 “Dear Luna” section with YOUR “Letters to Congress” instead of letters to Luna. So your letter could look like this:

Dear Congress:
I believe that it’s time to address Global Warming. Global Warming is an important issue because . . .

OR, you could write letters to specific members of the U.S. Congress, like this:

Dear Senator Dayton:
I’m writing to thank you for voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. I’m glad you voted against this amendment because . . .

Feel free to share personal stories, statistics, and conversations you’ve had with friends to back up your ideas. When the issue comes out, girls will be able to read each other’s opinions just like always in “Dear Luna”-except this time, Congress will be listening, too!

Send your Letters to Congress to girl@newmoon.org or New Moon:
Letters to Congress
2 W. First St. #101
Duluth, MN 55802
USA

The deadline is July 19th, so get on it if you’re a feminist girl! And if your girl-days are over and/or if you have any fabulous feminist girls in your life, think about picking up a copy of New Moon for them.

New Moon is also holding an online survey about girls’ political views. Head over and check it out.