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

Friday Random Ten – The “Blogging is going to make me fail out of law school” edition

1. Erykah Badu – On & On
2. Sigur Ros – Se Lest
3. Madonna – Sorry
4. The Cramps – Psychobilly
5. Radiohead – Black Star
6. Van Morrison – Sweet Thing
7. Beth Orton – Ooh Child
8. The Notwist – Solitaire
9. Tom Waits – I’ll Take New York
10. Magnetic Fields – The Book of Love

Friday Random Article, via Dave the Insufferable Music Snob (I think he might give Ms. Marcotte a run for her money): Believe it or not, Tom Waits did not used to sound like he was vomiting bullfrogs. I have some of his old stuff. It’s true. And you can even download two of my favorite Tom songs from the site.

And a bonus video: NYU President John Sexton, king of NYU sloganeering, on the Colbert Report, denouncing sloganeering.

Posted in Uncategorized

On Being Public Property

Ann at Feministing has an extraordinary post today about how being extraordinarily tall (she’s 6’2″) means that she gets all kinds of intrusive (and predictable) questions from people who view her unusual stature as an invitation to comment.

Fratty dudes in bars will chant “6 footer!” or loudly make bets with each other about how tall I am. (Well, I’ve actually had restaurant wait staff and fellow wedding guests make bets, too, so maybe it’s unfair to pin that one on the bros alone.) People stare openly, all the time, everywhere I go. There are some days, namely those when I’m wearing whopping 1-inch heels, that I feel like I leave a ripple of height comments in my wake. Small children point and say, “Mommy! Look at the giant lady!” Women who feel insecure about their own height will often say to me, “I wish I was that tall!” No, honey, you don’t. Really. . .

To a certain degree, I still get angry at well-meaning strangers who feel it’s OK to make a comment about my body. It’s not. I don’t walk up to short men and ask how short they are. I don’t approach strangers and announce to them what color their skin is. I don’t approach other women to tell them how skinny or blonde or freckled they are. Also, I hate it when strangers ask me if I’m a model or if I play basketball/volleyball. I never ask short men if they’re a jockey. (Well, I do if they’re being an asshole to me. But never out of the blue.) I hate that people immediately think my physical characteristics have anything to do with my career or interests.

Ann writes about feeling physically exposed during her adolescence (she reached her present height in 7th grade, when she was for a time the tallest person in the school). I myself went through a brief period of being the tallest one in my homeroom during 8th grade (my 8th grade class picture is really a hoot, since I’m taller than everyone, including the teacher, by a good five inches). But by the time high school rolled around, I wasn’t quite so unusual anymore, for my height at least (my weight was another story, since I was one of the few back then).

And when you’re the tallest, or the fattest, or the shortest, or the only person of color, or the only redhead, you become defined by that characteristic in other people’s minds. I was always the fat girl, before I was anything else. Because that’s how people remembered me. And people — strangers — will feel free to make comments to you or to draw conclusions about your personality or interests based on the unusual characteristic you display. Ann gets asked questions about how tall she is, and people presume that she’s interested in basketball or volleyball. Redheads undoubtedly get sick of hearing how fiery they are. I knew a tall black man in college who got asked so many times if he played basketball that he finally just started going along with it and letting star-struck UConn fans buy him drinks. I don’t know how many times that someone I don’t know has felt free to comment on what I’m eating, or how much, or whether or I should be. Or, my favorite, to presume that I don’t have enough “hustle” to do some particular task. Several very short people in comments to Ann’s post write of being sick to death of being presumed to be young, silly or delicate because of their size.

The phenomenon, notes another very tall woman, is an unsettling reminder that women’s bodies are public property, up for judging.

To begin with, to be extra-tall is to be somehow more public than the average woman. Everybody sees me. Strangers on the subway peer upward and tell me about their childhood neighbor who was tall. Fellow grocery shoppers sheepishly request my help procuring items from upper shelves. Male passers-by mutter, “That was one giant woman.” Men seem particularly inclined to register one characteristic: tall. They put me in the “enormous” category and move on.

There’s a really odd dynamic in being unusual in some way: you’re both highly visible and highly invisible. You don’t conform, and your nonconformity both calls attention to you and renders you unworthy of attention once you’ve been categorized. It’s got a certain freedom to it as well, once you realize that you’re so far away from the standard that you can’t easily conform.

Read Ann’s whole post, particularly her thoughts on what she finds positive about being so tall, namely the looming.

NARAL: WTF?

Glad to see that the leading abortion rights group in the United States is staying neutral on a bill that would give women false information about abortion and declare that pregnancy begins at fertilization (the medical definition of pregnancy says that it begins at implantation).

I don’t have any problem with making fetal anesthesia available if women want it. I do have a problem with requiring doctors to give women brochures which claim that fetuses feel pain, when this point has been contested by doctors and pain specialists, and in fact the opposite appears to be true. I also have a problem with legislating the medically inaccurate idea that pregnancy begins at fertilization.

In other words, More options: Good. Lying to women: Bad.

This isn’t NARAL’s first major slip-up. I’m not sure what’s going on over there, but they need to get it together.

UPDATE: It looks like at least a few of the state affiliates have figured it out.

In other depressing reproductive rights news, Uganda doesn’t look like it’ll be legalizing abortion any time soon, and a singer in Indonesia is being criminally investigated for allegedly terminating her pregnancy (sorry the link is weird; click “printer-friendly” to read the article).

The “pro-life” movement: Proudly turning women and doctors into criminals, and killing hundreds of thousands while they’re at it.

The Global Gag Rule is Killing Women

The United States’ policy of denying reproductive health funding to any organization that so much as mentions abortion — by petitioning their own government for reproductive rights, performing abortions with their own non-U.S. money, referring women to abortion providers, or even telling women that abortion is an option — is contributing to “shockingly high death and disability rates in developing countries.”

Now there’s something for pro-lifers to be proud of.

Approximately 500 000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy, abortion and childbirth, 99% of them in developing countries, according to the World Health Organisation.

“These deaths would not be tolerated in other circumstances,” says Dorothy Shaw, senior associate dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Countries are failing in their responsibilities and promises to fund sexual and reproductive health programmes, including supporting universal access to contraception, Shaw says. Contraception alone would dramatically reduce abortion rates, she says.

“More than 68 000 women die every year from back-alley or self-induced abortions,” notes Janie Benson, vice-president of research and evaluation at Ipas, an NGO focused on increasing women’s ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights and preventing unsafe abortions worldwide.

Many of the 20-million women who have unsafe abortions each year suffer from medical complications — some for the rest of their lives, Benson says. “This is a preventable pandemic,” she emphasises.

Read More…Read More…

Good news from Cairo

A group of Muslim scholars have declared female genital cutting to be incompatible with Islam. Millions of girls have their genitals cut in what is a long-standing cultural practice in some parts of Africa and the Middle East. I use the term “genital cutting” because I don’t think “female circumcision” accurately conveys what this procedure is; I’m tempted to use “female genital mutilation,” because I don’t think “cutting” quite gets the point across either, but some women who have had their genitals cut oppose the use of that term. So “cutting” it is. And we should all be clear on exactly what that means:

Read More…Read More…

More Positive SSM News

From the “Their Nuts Sure Ain’t Like Ours” file: Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has declared the still-contentious issue of same-sex marriage closed after his motion to reopen debate on whether to restore the “traditional” definition of marriage in Canada went down to a resounding defeat. [Edited to correct the purpose of the motion. Thanks, Canadians!]

After a Conservative motion calling on the government to restore the traditional definition of marriage was defeated yesterday by a resounding 175 to 123, Mr. Harper said he will not bring the matter back before Parliament.

“I don’t see reopening this question in the future,” he told reporters who asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives won a majority government.

Nor does he intend to introduce a “defence of religions” act to allow public officials, such as justices of the peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

This doesn’t mean that the Conservative Party won’t bring the matter up again in the future when Harper’s no longer in charge, but Harper’s done the astonishing-to-my-American-eyes thing and quit while he was ahead rather than, say, keep calling votes in hopes of chipping away at the edges of same-sex marriage. Not that he’d have much of a chance:

The vote yesterday, which fulfilled a Conservative election promise, marked the sixth time since 2003 that the House of Commons has decided in favour of same-sex marriage.

Eight provinces and Yukon, meanwhile, have declared that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage is a violation of equality rights.

The Liberals and Conservatives both allowed their members to vote according to their consciences. Thirteen Liberals voted for the motion aimed at ending homosexual marital unions and 13 Conservatives, including six cabinet ministers, turned it down.

Joe Comuzzi, who gave up his cabinet seat last year because he refused to vote for the Liberal government’s same-sex marriage law, voted against the Conservative motion yesterday.

I find the whole Parliamentary party-discipline thing fascinating. The idea that members wouldn’t always at least have the option to vote their consciences is a little odd to me. Nevertheless, I read somewhere else that Harper, at least, allowed Conservatives to vote their consciences because he didn’t want anyone to be able to say that he dictated the vote on a still-contentious issue. The same probably went for the Liberals.

And, but lordy, wouldn’t it be nice to have members of Congress talk like this about social issues that are popular with the populace but anathema to one special interest group or another?

One of those ministers was Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, who previously had voted against expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

“For me, this was just a practical matter,” he explained after the motion was defeated. “It’s been debated in the House.

It’s been considered by the provinces, by the courts, and I think it’s time to move on,” Mr. MacKay said.

Via Scott, who also wrote a post yesterday before the vote took place explaining why Canadians weren’t going to stage a giant backlash against same-sex marriage just because the courts were involved in getting the legalization ball rolling.

Get Out There And Vote, People

The 2006 Weblog Awards

Okay, kids. Voting is open for the 2006 Weblog Awards, where we’re finalists for Best of the Top 250 Blogs.

Right now, Stop the ACLU is creaming everyone else in the category, and I just can’t deal with that.

So go vote. You can vote once a day in each category for the next 10 days or so. Don’t let the bad, bad, anti-civil rights people win, ferchrissakes.

Good News on the Gay Equality Front

The highest legal body in Conservative Judaism, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly, has voted to allow — but not require — the ordination of gay rabbis and the celebration of same-sex unions.

The decision was not without controversy, with several members resigning in protest because they felt the decision was contrary to traditional law, and a conflicting set of opinions issued. But the decision will be closely watched, as Conservative Judaism is considered centrist, but still adhering to traditional Jewish law.

With many Protestant denominations divided over homosexuality in recent years, the decision by Conservative Judaism’s leading committee of legal scholars will be read closely by many outside the movement because Conservative Jews say they uphold Jewish law and tradition, which includes biblical injunctions against homosexuality.

The decision is also significant because Conservative Judaism is considered the centrist movement in Judaism, wedged between the liberal Reform and Reconstructionist movements, which have accepted an openly gay clergy for more than 10 years, and the more traditional Orthodox, which rejects it.

True story: friends of mine got married a couple of years ago. He’s Jewish, she’s Protestant. They wanted a rabbi for the wedding, and it was important to them to get someone who performed same-sex ceremonies. They found plenty of Reform rabbis who would have been more than happy to do the honors if they’d been a same-sex couple. But this interfaith thing? Most declined.

Interestingly, the decision appears unlikely to cause the kind of schism that, say, the Episcopal church is facing over the issue, in large part because the leadership sees its job as dealing with adversity and resolving conflict. And, in any event, individual congregations and seminaries can decide whether or not to ordain gay rabbis or marry same-sex couples.

The move could create confusion in congregations that are divided over the issue, said Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive director of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the movement’s more than 750 synagogues with 1.5 million members in North America.

“Most of our congregations will not be of one mind, the same way that we were not of one mind,” said Rabbi Epstein, also a law committee member. “Our mandate is to help congregations deal with this pluralism.”

Some synagogues and rabbis could leave the Conservative movement, but many rabbis and experts cautioned that the law committee’s decision was unlikely to cause a widespread schism.

Before the vote, some rabbis in Canada, where many Conservative synagogues lean closer to Orthodoxy than in the United States, threatened to break with the movement.

But Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, said: “I find it hard to buy the idea that this change, which has been widely expected, will lead anybody to leave, because synagogues that don’t want to make changes will simply point to the rulings that will allow them not to make any changes. This is not like a papal edict.”

All in all, a positive step for both Conservative Jews and the GLBT community. Good show!

h/t Rachel in comments.