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

Conversations With My Sister

I saddled up to the computer today and had this message waiting for me on Gchat, courtesy of my little sister:

i seriously got struck by lightning!
i got smote
but clearly, you are unconcerned
do i have to fall off my bike to get some attention?
jesus

The “fall off my bike” line was a reference to my dad, who got into a(nother) bike accident last week (he, like my lightening-struck sister, is fine, although he did ask me if I was studying for the Bar yet approximately six times in two days immediately after the accident. So, concussion — but that appears to have healed itself. Still better than the last bike accident, where the pain-killer-addled post-surgery conversation went something like, “Jill! Hi! I feel GREAT! Yeah, I’m still in the hospital, but we’re having a party! Everyone is here! Bob is here, and Tom is here, and Peter is here! …but they tell me I broke my neck. But I feel GREAT!”).

Oh, family.

So the Great Spaghetti Monster has rained down on the smaller Filipovic, and she feels she’s not getting the proper attention for it — so I figure I’ll give it to her here, so that her smiting can have an audience of thousands. Although I’m sure there’s a whole list of people who send me regular hate mail who are wondering why I’m not the one who got smote. Apparently God works in mysterious ways.

Posted in Uncategorized

Oh for the love of God.

TNR cover hillary clinton

This is really beyond the pale. And really, if the “What election sexism?” Democrats can’t see how over-the-top this is, I don’t really know what to say.

Progressives should be better than this.* I haven’t been a Clinton supporter, but the misogynist crap she’s gotten throughout the election has made me a whole lot more sympathetic towards her. There are a lot of questions to raise and a lot of skepticism to be had about both Democratic candidates — we can do that without resorting to sexist and racist crutches. And we can cut the whole “She’s tearing the party apart!” nonsense. You know what tears the party apart? Insulting and attacking the party’s base by launching racist and sexist attacks. Drawing big fat lines between Clinton and Obama, as if either he or she were the bad guy — and in doing so, giving John McCain (the real bad guy) a great big pass.

For thoughts on sexism in the election in general, I refer you to Rebecca Traister and Amanda Fortini.

Contact the TNR editors (letters@tnr.com) and tell them to stick to the issues — not sexist caricatures.

Thanks to Linda for the link.

_________________________________
*And yes, I realize that TNR is not “progressive.” But it’s (pathetically) seen as moderate to left-leaning. And it’s only one example of the nasty misogynistic attacks that have been directed at Clinton.

You and I Already Know

You might already know I Wanna Fuck You from the immense amount of radio airplay it was getting last year, in the censored “I Wanna Love You” version, of course–the distinction here is important, which is why I’m not being radio-friendly. If you’re not, it was the first single to reach #1 on the charts for Senegalese-American rapper Akon and the second for his collaborator, Snoop Dogg. Akon also got attention last year for humping 14-year-olds onstage.

So although I heard Akon’s version about a billion times in 2007, I just found this other live video from spring of last year. It seems that the deeply weird American-French sister duo CocoRosie started performing an inverted version of Akon’s song during their European tour. Like the original, it features a guy trying to pick up a dancer at a club, but from the opposite point of view, far more introspective, and rotated towards their signature Billie-Holiday-meets-fractured-experimental-trip-hop style.

Here are the choruses of the two songs:

Akon:
I see you winding and grinding up on that pole,
I know you see me looking at you and you already know
I wanna fuck you, you already know
I wanna fuck you, you already know

CocoRosie:
You see me trying to smile up on this pole
But I’m just hiding the pain that’s deep in my soul
You wanna fuck me, I already know
You wanna fuck me and toss me back on the floor

I had a series of strong reactions to this song.

Read More…Read More…

Meeting Your Meat

Elaine sends on this diary she wrote for DailyKos about transparency in animal agriculture (warning: disturbing graphic at the end). She’s absolutely right: Installing video cameras in slaughterhouses is a logical and economical way to make sure that there’s some real oversight in the food industry.

I tend to differ with some vegetarians and vegans on the morality of eating meat, and I tend to differ with some meat-lovers on our individual responsibility to counter the environmental harms and animal abuses that come out of the meat industry. But I think we can all agree that there’s no need for unnecessary cruelty towards living beings, and that improper meat industry practices not only harm animals, but threaten our health. Greater oversight is a necessity, and cameras are an efficient way to do it.

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

How is it Sunday already and I have gotten nothing done this entire week?

Hopefully you were more productive than I was. Give us whatcha got.

“MindWar”: The Bush Propaganda Machina

Though not surprising, this is incredibly disturbing — and indicative of yet another failure of a lazy corporate media and a twisted, absolutist government that seems to be taking its cues from fascist regimes:

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

Read More…Read More…

Illinois Court Rules Against Forced-Sterilization of Disabled Woman

Good news:

Disability rights advocates and medical ethicists praised a precedent-setting ruling Friday by the Illinois Appellate Court denying a bid to sterilize a mentally disabled woman against her will.

The woman, identified only as K.E.J. in court records, isn’t capable of raising a child on her own, but her guardian failed to prove that sterilization would be in her best interests, a three-judge panel in Chicago ruled unanimously.

[ . . . ]

The ruling was the first appellate opinion on the issue in Illinois.

 

“It’s extraordinarily significant” because it guarantees the disabled a court hearing, said Katie Watson, a Northwestern University professor who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of about two dozen medical ethicists.

[ . . . ]

K.E.J., 29, suffered a brain injury as a child when she was struck by a car. As a result, she cannot be left alone to operate a stove or perform most household chores.

The woman lives with her aunt, who was appointed as her guardian in the mid-1990s. In 2003, the aunt filed a “petition for tubal ligation” in Cook County Probate Court, arguing that her niece had a bad medical reaction to other birth-control methods.

At a bench trial in 2005, K.E.J. testified that she hoped one day to have children. “I will love taking care of them,” she said. “I will love, you know, to see how they grow.”

Seeing our atrocious history on forced sterilization in this country, I’d say that this ruling is oh, several decades overdue. I personally found both Pregnancy and Power and Killing the Black Body to be excellent primers on this subject as well as great books (but I’m sure that there are other great books I haven’t read that focus primarily on this issue — if you know them, leave the titles in the comments). But the simple version of the facts is that for many decades, America participated in and promoted forced sterilization of those who were deemed unfit to pass on their genes. That included women of color, the poor and those who were referred to as “feeble-minded” — disabled women (the phrase was also used to justify sterilization of other socially-scorned women, like those who were promiscuous or sex workers). Many people believe that this is still happening, like with the Norplant situation several years back (also covered in Killing the Black body), and there is more or less undeniable evidence that it is still happening to non-English-speaking women and the disabled.

We often treat disabled people as though they are undeserving of certain things in life, and sexuality and parenthood are pretty high up on that list. I do not think that being unable to raise your children on your own makes you unworthy of giving birth to and raising children. And I certainly don’t see any justification for a forced-sterilization of a woman who has made it clear that her wishes are otherwise; we need to see it as equally heinous to forced-birth and forced-abortion. By it’s very nature, a fundamental right is not conditional, and believing in reproductive justice means believing in it for all. And so I applaud the court and congratulate disability activists on this win; I can only hope that the success continues.

via FRIDA