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

On Child Pornography

Child porn should be an easy issue, feminist and otherwise. We’re all against it, right? I mean, no one “supports” child porn, except sickos. And yet…

Ren has a post up about the recent Supreme Court child pornography ruling, and she raises a really interesting point:

My feelings? Honestly? I think porn featuring real children is awful and should be illegal (and it is), and those caught making it, buying it, owning it? They deserve punishment via the law. This other stuff? Stuff that is computer rendered or altered? Humm. I don’t like it, find it disturbing…but…if it isn’t made with real children involved? Then it isn’t really child porn.

She hits on a big issue in the child pornography debate: Is the harm in child porn only to the child making it, or is it also a larger social harm facilitated by the people who consume it?

Obviously if you think the crux of the harm is in the making of child pornography, then it makes sense to just enforce existing age laws and call it a day. But a lot of people — including members of the Supreme Court — believe that the harm is not only to the exploited child, but to society and to the real children that pedophiles prey on. From that perspective, it is incredibly problematic to “age down” actresses so that they look like little girls. Whether that’s “really” child porn isn’t a closed subject, I don’t think. No, it’s not using actually children, but it is digitally altering adults to look like actual children. It is banking on the idea that pedophiles or people which pedophilic sexual urges will believe the images feature actual children.

Read More…Read More…

If you wear a black & white scarf, the terrorists win

Thanks to Wonkette I found out about the most asinine snippet of fabricated outrage since Falwell warned us all about that sinister homosexual Teletubby. This time, right-wing cheer squad Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson have frothed up at the mouth over the fact that Dunkin Donuts and Rachael Ray are colluding to support anti-Semitic terrorism.

Wait, what?

Rachael Ray in a Dunkin Donuts commercial

Look, right there! In the middle of the picture. No, above the “artificial sweeteners and skim milk are better for you” latte she’s hawking… she’s wearing a black and white scarf! Or more precisely, what the froth squad are calling a keffiyah — the traditional Arab headscarf that, in a particular black-and-white pattern, became a symbol of the Palestinian people and their struggles for sovereignty. Sadly, they’re not joking. Although I have to say I laughed out loud at the phrase “hate couture.” The thing is, if you look at the scarf Rachael Ray is wearing in that picture, it doesn’t even remotely resemble the pattern traditionally associated with the keffiyeh, which resembles an interlocking net or a chain-link fence. Look, here’s Yasser Arafat wearing one… a fairly iconic and well-known image. But Ray’s scarf doesn’t even have a regular geometric pattern on it.

Read More…Read More…

Too Poor to Parent

Low-income women — and black women in particular — have their children taken away far more often than white women. Black children are twice as likely as white children to enter foster care.

The reason for this disparity? Study after study reviewed by Stanford University law professor Dorothy Roberts in her book Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (Basic Books/Perseus, 2002) concludes that poverty is the leading cause of children landing in foster care. One study, for example, showed that poor families are up to 22 times more likely to be involved in the child-welfare system than wealthier families. And nationwide, blacks are four times more likely than other groups to live in poverty.

But when state child-welfare workers come to remove children from black mothers’ homes, they rarely cite poverty as the factor putting a child at risk. Instead, these mothers are told that they neglected their children by failing to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, education or medical care. The failure is always personal, and these mothers and children are almost always made to suffer individually for the consequences of one of the United States’ most pressing social problems.

This article originally appeared in Ms. Magazine, and the author is Gaylynn Burroughs, an attorney at the Bronx Defenders who represents parents accused of child neglect. The point she makes in the above paragraph is crucial: These are national social problems, but instead of addressing them as such, we’re turning them in to individual failures and punishing individual women and children.

The comments at AlterNet are predictable — there was even one (now deleted) saying something to the effect of, “These people should be spayed and neutered.” Lots of commenters make the point that women shouldn’t have children until they’re financially stable, and the fact that a poor woman has a baby is automatic proof that she is a bad mother — because a “good mother” would not have a baby while poor. Others point out that having a child is poverty-inducing. That is certainly true — kids are expensive, and for women, having a child is a major risk factor for dropping below the poverty level.

But I’m not buying the line that being poor makes one unsuitable for parenthood. What does make one unsuitable is abuse or neglect — and those don’t depend on how much money you have.

Of course, it’s a problem if there’s not enough money to give your kids three square meals a day. But I’d suggest that it would be a whole lot better to increase welfare benefits or food stamps instead of taking the kids away. It’s a big problem if the kids can’t get medical care when they’re sick — of course, it’s also a problem that Mom and Dad can’t get medical care when they’re sick. There’s a pretty clear solution to that one, and again, it would be much better for everyone than to put the kids in foster care and hope the problem will go away. Obviously it’s problematic that kids from low-income families often have fewer opportunities when it comes to education and jobs — but that’s hardly the fault of their parents. These are structural and systematic problems, but it’s symptomatic of our society’s blind spots that we insist on blaming the mothers.

Family is not a privilege. Yes, in an ideal world every woman would be able to get out of poverty before she had babies; but not every woman is going to be able to escape poverty. And yes, in some situations women and girls have children which keep them in that cycle; but again, I’m not sure the problem is the kids as much as the lack of other options.

In another thread, someone mentioned the book Random Family. If you haven’t read it, check it out. One thing that blew my 20-year-old mind when I read that book back in a college journalism class was how all of my white-girl middle-class solutions don’t work across the board. Yes, contraception access is crucial — but it’s not going to stop a teenage girl who wants to get pregnant because for her, it’s the best option. Yes, it’s better for everyone to have health care, wholesome food, and a good education with every opportunity in the world available to them — but that isn’t reality, and until it is, we can’t be blaming individuals who are doing the best they can with all the odds stacked against them.

Black motherhood has long been demonized in this country, from slave owners viewing female slaves as simple cost-effective ways to create more slaves, to involuntary and coerced sterilizations, to ripping black children from their mothers under the guise of “protection.” Yes, it is abuse to starve your child, to neglect them, to beat them. It is not abuse if you’re too poor to pay to keep the lights on that month. And children are not objects of privilege that only the rich are entitled to.

Women who are good, loving moms but who can’t afford certain luxuries — or even certain basics — don’t deserve to suffer the burden of our societal failures.

Creepy Dads

Yuck. Purity balls are bad enough; purity balls in which the girls don’t even talk while the fathers explore their narcissistic fantasies of “protecting” their helpless daughters by crossing swords (hello, phallic symbol!) and having their daughters kneel under them are a new height of creep. And this part was just… gah:

Loss tinged many at the ball. Stephen Clark, 64, came to the ball for the first time with Ashley Avery, 17, who is “promised” to his son, Zane, 16. Mr. Clark brought Ashley, in her white satin gown, to show her that he loved her like a daughter, he said, something he felt he needed to underscore after Ashley’s father left her family a year ago.

“Promised” to someone? Ick.

Supporting Marriage Equality Is Like Being a Nazi

At least that’s the line coming from an anti-gay group in California that’s encouraging county clerks to refuse to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples:

Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order.

I have this running theory that most conservative actually have no idea what the Nuremberg trials were — they usually invoke Nuremberg when talking about how they’re going to prosecute abortion providers for murder, leading me to believe that they think “Nuremberg” just means “really really serious trial that had something to do with Nazis.” This just bolsters my theory.

Scarlett Johansson as Tom Waits

As any of of the regular Friday Random Ten readers know, I am a huge Tom Waits fan. He occupies more of my music collection than any other single artist; and because of that, he appears almost weekly on my FRT. I love his old stuff, when he voice was smoother and had yet to develop that signature grit; I love his more experimental stuff, when he had established himself and was playing with sound and drama. I love and hate his persona — the can’t-quite-make-it, down-on-his-luck guy who turns to liquor and women for comfort. But I love his music. I’m not sure if it’s the tonality of his voice — there’s something about imperfection and grit and that smoker throat that I just adore — or if it’s because he was always on in the background when I was a kid, but I love his music. I have no direct memory of listening to his music growing up, the way that I do with Bob Dylan or Van Morrison or Miles Davis, but I guess he was just sort of on, quietly. Maybe that’s why I have such a soft spot in my heart for him, and why I find his stuff so calming.

So when it was announced that Scarlett Johansson was doing a cover album of Tom Waits songs, I got about 500 emails about it. And I’ve remained… apprehensive. But it’s gotten decent reviews, especially since I imagine music critics are dying to tear her apart on this one. And I’m pleasantly surprised that she’s covering some of my favorite Tom tunes — “No One Knows I’m Gone” and “Who Are You.”

So here’s her doing “Falling Down:”

And… I don’t hate it, even though I want to. Thoughts?

UPDATE: Yeah, I just went back and listened to Tom do the song (the live version off of Big Time), and… I still don’t hate Scarlett, but she really is no Tom. There’s a pain in his voice that she just can’t quite capture, and there’s a less predictable tone to it that makes it much more interesting. Hers, to me, sounds like background music. His is something that I actually listen to. Here’s his version for comparison:

Obama’s Running Mate

Seems like that’s all everyone is talking about — and mostly, whether it would be a good idea for him to ask Sen. Clinton. Some say it would undermine his “change” theme; others argue that her campaign has been too disrespectful for him to consider offering her such a position.* It’s a position I can understand — I’m also disgusted by the racism and disrespect that’s been leveled at Obama by Clinton’s surrogates, and sometimes by Clinton herself. And I’m disgusted at the sexism that Clinton has faced at the hands of the mainstream media and Obama supporters. Some of the more jaded but accommodating Obama supporters make the “keep your enemies closer” argument in supporting Clinton as VP.

But personally, I don’t think it’s a terrible idea. I think this primary has created a lot of anger and division within the Democratic party — especially between the old guard and the new model. It would do Obama good to ask, if not Clinton, then someone closely affiliated with the Clintons. I know a lot of Obama voters who are so angry at Clinton that they say they’d never vote for her; and I know a lot of Clinton supporters who are now refusing to throw their support behind Obama (certain communities which are usually reliably Democratic also seem to be hostile towards one of them or the other). This would at least build a bridge between the two sides, and both bring more votes to the blue side and attempt to stem the growing split in the party.

Plus it would do good for voters like me, who cast their ballot for Obama but who still respect and admire Sen. Clinton, who hate the sexism that’s been thrown her way, and who are disheartened by the split this has caused in the party.** Yes, there are more progressive candidates — and I wouldn’t be opposed to Obama looking into some of them. But it seems like so far, everyone else is trotting out the list of the same old guys — Dodd, Nunn, Strickland, Edwards, Biden. And don’t get me wrong, I like some of those guys (Dodd in particular). But an Obama-Clinton ticket is, to me, more exciting, and certainly more historic.

If not Clinton, it would be nice to see another progressive woman on the ticket. I don’t I buy into the idea that Obama needs a southern white boy to win; I think just putting him on stage next to John McCain is more than enough.

But then, I’m a liberal New Yorker, so what do I know? Who do you think should be Obama’s running mate, should he be the nominee?

*And yes, I know his campaign hasn’t exactly been kind to her, either, but that’s not the focus of this post.
**To be clear, no, I do not think that Sen. Clinton is causing that split by staying in the race.

FBI Recruiting Informants to Spy on Vegan Potlucks

vegan
When you eat lentils, the terrorists win.

Could be a job for some Feministe readers looking to make a little extra cash. Apparently vegan potlucks in Minnesota are the locus of anti-RNC protest-planning, and the FBI wants to make sure that they’ve got some of their people in there to make sure that the local hippie-chick pie-wagons don’t get too out of hand. The FBI was apparently doing similar things during the RNC in NY — except then, they were also paying undercover cops to incite violence.

And of course, they’re doing this all under the name of “fighting terrorism.” Wonder if they’re also spying on conservative groups, a notable set of which have long histories of murder, arson, anthrax threats, acid attacks, and bombings?

Thanks to Dad for the link.