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

Month: June 2006

Misfortune 500

Check it out. This parody of the Fortune 500 by the Women’s Environment and Development Organization is chock full of information about the ways that companies treat women, children and minority workers. It’s not only extremely informative, it’s well-organized, with each entry providing relevant news stories and describing exactly how each company is falling short in its policies and practices.

Also included: information on women’s efforts to protest corporate malfeasance and companies that are getting it right — a short list, unfortunately.

Via Feministing.

Let’s Get Physical…Or Not

Gyms no longer the pick-up scene they were in the 70s and 80s.

When men and women first began working out together in the late 70’s and early 80’s, the atmosphere at many gyms was as sexually charged as a John Travolta-era disco: beefy men and lithe women pumped iron, Jazzercised and gave each other the eye.

Rolling Stone magazine picked up on the trend in 1983 with “Looking for Mr. Goodbody,” a cover story which proclaimed health clubs to be “The New Singles’ Bars.”

The article served as the springboard for the cheesy 1985 movie “Perfect,” in which the still-gyrating Mr. Travolta was cast as a muscle-bound investigative reporter wooing a buff aerobics instructor played by Jamie Lee Curtis. For many people who joined gyms in those days, getting healthy was an afterthought. But now, trainers, gymgoers and fitness industry experts say, expectations have reversed. Health is often the key motivator, and, with a few exceptions, the idea of the gym as a pick-up spot is about as passe as neon pink leg warmers.

Read More…Read More…

When Artists Fight

This article in the Times about a lawsuit filed by glass artist Dale Chihuly against two other artists caught my eye. I’ve done a bit of glassblowing, though my lumpy, lopsided mugs and vases are nothing compared to the works that Chihuly puts out.

Or, I should say, “Chihuly, Inc.” Because Chihuly himself hasn’t done any glassblowing for 27 years, after an accident left him without range of motion in his shoulder. He presides over 90-some glassblowers who produce his works, which take their inspiration from the sea. And now he’s claiming that the two defendants, one of whom worked for him for many years, are violating his copyright on off-center, sea-life-inspired, brightly-colored works of art. But the real question is whether he can claim copyright on nature or on techniques that have been around for millennia:

Read More…Read More…

A Simple Question:

Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?

Consider:
-Property rights for married women
-Credit rights for married women
-Interracial marriage
-The decline of child marriage
-States — not just religions — offering marriage rights
-Marriage for love instead of simple economic stability
-Choosing your own partner in marriage
-Wider acceptance of pre-marital sex
-Child-free-by-choice marriages
-Divorce

Now, would we say that marriage has evolved, or that it’s remained a stagnant, steady institution since the dawn of Western civilization?

The highest court in New York is reviewing this very question. I think anyone who is intellectually honest — or anyone who has any sense of history — will come down on the side of marriage as an evolving institution.

The arguments that the attorneys are making against same-sex marriage are incredibly weak:

Peter H. Schiff, senior counsel to the state attorney general, said there was no urgent need to change the law, and pointed out that same-sex couples accounted for only 1.3 percent of all households in New York State, a “very small” number.

“I don’t think anybody 100 years ago was thinking about this issue,” Mr. Schiff said. “It wasn’t on the radar screen.”

But the “it only applies to a few people” argument isn’t a good justification for denying basic rights to a group. Try again.

In yesterday’s hearing, the New York City plaintiffs were joined by three other groups of plaintiffs from across the state. New York City’s lawyer, Leonard Koerner, said yesterday that even in its own case law, the Court of Appeals had affirmed the reason for marriage as “the begetting of offspring,” not, as the plaintiffs argued, as the sanctioning of a loving and committed union between two people.

Except that we let infertile people get married, and the right of married people to prevent conception was affirmed in a Supreme Court case. How, then, can we say that the very purpose of marriage is to have children?

And even if we do agree that the marital unit is the best place to have and raise children, what about all those same-sex couples who are parents?

Let’s hope that the New York court comes down on the side of equal rights.