March 2009 – Page 9

Friday Random Ten – the Really, Is U2 Still Cool? edition

You know the drill: Put your MP3 player in shuffle and post the first 10 songs that come up. And then someone explain to me why anyone would pay $300 to hear U2 live.

Friday song you should all listen to: Big Weekend (thanks Dave). Who else is ready for summer?

1. Les Savy Fav – One Way Widow
2. Yeah Yeah Yeahs – Dudley
3. Miles Benjamin Anthony Robinson – Mountaineer’d
4. Radiohead – 15 Step
5. Tom Waits – Anywhere I Lay My Head
6. The Pogues – The Old Main Drag
7. Amr Diab – We Hikaytek Aih
8. The Bloodsugars – Purpose Was Again
9. Voxtrot – Wrecking Force
10. Cat Power – Living Proof

Friday videos (only two this week, because I have shit to do):

Telepathe:

Band of Horses:

Catholic Church Excommunicates Mother and Doctors Over 9-Year-Old Rape Victim’s Abortion

In Brazil, there is a horrific story of a 9-year-old girl who was raped and impregnated (h/t Falloch’s comment). It’s believed that the rape was committed by her step-father. The girl was not only pregnant at that young age, but also pregnant with twins. And so, as makes perfect sense, she had an abortion. Because she was raped, because she was much to young to have a child, and because the stress of having twins would of course have been far too much for a 9-year-old’s body to handle. And she could have died.

Now, the Catholic Church has excommunicated both the girl’s mother and the doctors who performed the abortion, which likely saved the girl’s life.

Well then. At least they didn’t excommunicate the girl, right? Maybe they decided that she was much too young to have made the decision to have the abortion on her own, or to understand what was happening. But not too young, apparently, to be forced to give birth to the twins caused by her rapist. Not too young to quite possibly die in the process.

In defending the decision, the Church’s lawyer has said:

“It’s the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder,” Miranda said in comments reported by O Globo.

But rape, apparently, is a-okay. After all, I don’t see the step-father, who allegedly admitted to having raped the girl since the age of 6, being excommunicated. Killing a fetus is apparently worthy of such censure and shunning. Horrifically violating a small child, though? Well, we all make mistakes. And this stance is of course nothing new.

The lawyer also argued that the girl just should have carried to term and had a cesarean section. Because obviously a lawyer knows the girl’s condition better than her own doctor. And obviously the girl’s mental well-being doesn’t count for a damn thing.

Who knows what a cesarean section would have done for the girl, since the doctors didn’t present the issue of her giving vaginal birth as being the main health concern here. But oh well. God says. Clearly, if this child died in the course of fulfilling “God’s wishes,” it would have been a lesser tragedy than the cold-blooded murder of those innocent little fetuses. After all, in other extremist Catholic doctrine, a woman is better off dead than raped anyway.

RH Reality Check asks: Is this what religious objection to abortion looks like? Seeing as how the point of the entire anti-choice movement is indeed to erase any and all concern for the woman in question, in fact to erase her very existence if at all possible . . . clearly, yes. In an extreme nutshell, this is exactly what it looks like.

cross-posted at the Curvature

Petition to Investigate Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Reign of Terror

Feministe has posted before about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County (which contains Phoenix, AZ). This is the man who has reinstated chain gangs, refused to feed inmates anything except bologna sandwiches, set up tent cities as a way to combat prison over-crowding, refused to transport female inmates for abortions they planned to pay for themselves, and more. He is known especially for his choice to specifically target undocumented immigrants, and jail them (as opposed to the normal protocol for those without criminal records, which is turning them over to federal authorities, who normally send them back to their home countries).

Most importantly of all, many prisoners have died on his watch, due to abuse, neglect, and a lack of medical treatment.

Now, ACORN is calling on House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers to investigate Sheriff Arpaio both at state and federal levels. This man needs to be out of a job immediately — and it seems clear to me that he also needs to be criminally prosecuted. But they need your help

Sign ACORN’s petition calling for the investigation of Arpaio. Then, make sure that all of your like-minded friends do the same by March 11th. Because this really is an issue of life and death for far too many people.

Center Cosponsors Commemoration of 1969 Redstockings Abortion Speakout

If you’re in NYC tonight, this sounds like something to check out. From the Center for Reproductive Rights:

Join us in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the 1969 Redstockings Abortion Speakout, where women first spoke publicly about their then-illegal abortions.

Women testified about their dangerous experiences with back-alley abortions, or having to bring a pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption. The historic event took place here in the West Village to a crowd of 300 people. Speakouts then spread around the country like wildfire, sparking the Women’s Liberation Movement that has won us Roe and so much more.

Panelists will discuss this historic event and we will honor veteran feminists Ros Baxandall and Susan Brownmiller, who both attended the original ’69 speakout. Baxandall courageously spoke out about her own experiences in ’69 and Brownmiller wrote an article about the speakout for the Village Voice, Everywoman’s Abortions: ‘The Oppressor is Man.’

With this backdrop, the event will explore how we can use this history in our activism today to win more. Literature and CDs from the Redstockings Women’s Liberation Archives for Action will be available for sale at a low cost (all proceeds benefit the Archive).

Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2009 from 7 – 9pm
Location: Judson Memorial Church
239 Thompson St (at West 3rd St) in the Assembly Hall
Subway: ACE/BDFV to West 4th
More Information: Erin Mahoney at 646-853-7100 or birthcontrolproject@gmail.com

Sponsored by: The Women’s Liberation Birth Control Project and Social Wage Committee with inspiration and source materials from the Redstockings Women’s Liberation Archives for Action

Cosponsors: New Jersey National Organization for Women, Brooklyn-Queens National Organization for Women, Center for Constitutional Rights, Redstockings Women’s Liberation Archives for Action, The Center for Reproductive Rights, Fordham Chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, Joy of Resistance Multicultural Feminist Radio on WBAI 99.5fm, A Better Balance, and Judson Memorial Church

Thursday LOST Blogging: LaFleur

Spoilers below the image!

So, last night at about 7:20PM, our power went out. No, there wasn’t a storm, and we still have no idea what happened — only that the power didn’t come back until about 11:45. Meaning that I missed LOST.

Oh, I watched it first thing this morning online, of course. I’m just letting you know that I’ve had about 12 fewer hours than normal to think about/sleep on the episode.

Top 100 Women in History — Who’s on Your List?

image via.

Jill Miller Zimon takes a look at About.com’s Top 100 Women in History list, and is understandably skeptical. How one even comes up with a “top 100 women” list is a mystery to me, and all the lists that I’ve seen are very Western-centric. But Jill makes some excellent additions, so I thought I’d turn it over to you all: Who’s on your heroine list? Who do you think made invaluable contributions to feminism, politics, the arts, literature, philosophy, sports, culture, social justice and the world in general?

In a similar vein, Glamour has a spread this month in which celebrity women dress up as American icons. It’s not as terrible as it could be (although it certainly is lacking, to be generous, in a lot of areas), but the repeated emphasis on beauty stuck in my craw (for Rosie the Riveter: “Strength is beautiful;” for Althea Gibson: “She showed women…you can be sweaty, be gorgeous and do a great job;” for Audrey Hepburn: “She was so simply beautiful. And she loved charity work, something even more beautiful about her”). Plus the fact that the only time they use the word “feminist” is in describing Carrie Bradshaw, who isn’t even a real person.

So who should our icons be? Surely we can create a better list than Glamour and About.com.

The next step for fair pay

Tuesday morning I met with a woman I know from the National Women’s Law Center press shop and I told her that it’s very tempting to just blog on their work every day. I get a lot of good shit from them. She, of course, didn’t see the problem. (To which I say: put me on the payroll! I’m kidding, but I’m not.)

The Paycheck Fairness Act was originally bundled with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act when it was moving through Congress last year. This year the Ledbetter bill was passed on its own and signed by Obama on January 29. Yay, but we’re not quite done.

Uh oh, they found out the real marriage plan…

From The News & Observer:

Two well-known conservative Christian commentators who spoke at the rally described a breakdown of society should gay couples be allowed to marry[…] David Gibbs III, a lawyer who in 2005 fought to keep brain-damaged Terri Schiavo on life support, told rally participants gay marriage would “open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina.”

“Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?” Gibbs asked. ”Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots.”

They know! Our cover is blown! Abandon OPERATION GAYSPOUSEBOT 6000! Back to the Basestar!

(minor BSG Season 1 spoilers after the jump)

Call Congress to Protect Planned Parenthood Funding

UPDATE: Whoa. No news yet on the Vitter amendment, but another amendment has also been proposed — this one attacking access to affordable contraception! Call your Senators! Call, call, call!

Sen. David Vitter is yet again attacking Planned Parenthood. He has introduced an amendment to the appropriations bill that would single out Planned Parenthood as ineligible for funding under Title X.

Planned Parenthood has faced these kinds of attacks many times before, even though (or because of, depending on your perception) they’re the leading provider of reproductive health care in the entire country. As the economy worsens, even more people are seeking out assistance from the organization, and they need more help than ever.

Call your Senators today and ask them to speak out on the floor and oppose Sen. David Vitter’s Amendment No. 601 to the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R.1105).

Senator phone numbers can be found here, and talking points can be found here. If you’re unsure of what to say, just recite this script:

Planned Parenthood’s health center is my community’s women’s health center, and I oppose Sen. David Vitter’s Amendment No. 601 to the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R.1105). It is an unconstitutional, completely unfounded attack.

The vote is expected to take place this afternoon, which means that it could actually happen any minute. So call NOW. I’ll keep this post updated if there is any news.

Fashion Police Question Whether Michelle Obama’s Bare Arms Are “Appropriate”

Though I certainly do like pretty clothes, I wouldn’t exactly call myself a fashion buff — and I usually ignore all of the commentary surrounding Michelle Obama’s wardrobe choices, even though I rather like most of her picks, too.

That is, I ignore it until the commentary on whether her dress was flattering starts to take a particularly sexist turn, into the realm of policing what it is and is not appropriate for women to wear, and which (not explicitly sexual) parts of women’s bodies are and are not appropriate for public appearances.

And that seems to be exactly what’s happening with regards to Michelle’s frequent choice to wear sleeveless dresses — such as the one she wore to the State of the Union address last Tuesday (above). The Huffington Post reports:

Michelle Obama made the sleeveless dress something of a signature look this past week, choosing to bare her arms four times in seven days.

The First Lady impressed many, but also made a few waves on Tuesday night when she broke with tradition and wore a sleeveless Narciso Rodriguez dress to the President’s address before Congress. Opinion was divided over whether it was appropriate to show so much skin at such a ceremonial event.

“‘Does the lady not understand that these Big Speech Events are serious and important? Not a cocktail party?'” wrote one Chicago Tribune reader. “”The season is winter. The occasion is business. Dress was wrong place and time.'”

But what particularly interests me is the response out of the White House:

Social Secretary Desiree Rogers defended the decision, telling the Washington Post that Mrs. Obama’s feeling is “If I want to wear no sleeves to hear my husband speak, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Damn fucking straight. Michelle Obama doesn’t need kindhearted Chicago Tribune readers — or anyone else, for that matter — explaining the importance of various official events in a condescending tone. I’m sure she understands perfectly well on her own, thank you very much. Maybe she’s just radical enough to not see (*gasp*) women’s shoulders as “inappropriate.” And maybe, just maybe, she can wear whatever the hell she wants.

via Michelle Obama Watch