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

Month: May 2009

Stand in Solidarity Against the Dominican Republic Abortion Ban!

I recently posted about a complete ban on abortion passed in the Dominican Republic. Many readers wanted to know what they could to do help the women there who are organizing there against this measure.

From Akimbo, here’s a start:

In addition to voicing opposition to Article 30, women’s rights organizations are asking that during the second reading, when, according to the regulations governing the assembly, Article 30 must be discussed and is once again subject to approval, Congress modify its language or maintain the current language of the Constitution.

In light of this serious situation, Colectiva is requesting support and a show of solidarity on May 6.  Please write to the Dominican Republic embassy in your country and let them know that women’s health and rights will be compromised if the language of Article 30 is approved as it is now written.

May 6 is today!  So, write write write!  A sample letter, also from Akimbo, is below:

Dear Mr. President of the Dominican Republic, Dr. Leonel Fernández Reyna; Mr. President of the Parliamentary Assembly for Constitutional Review, Senator Reynaldo Pared Pérez; Mr. Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly for Constitutional Review, Deputy Julio César Valentín:

On April 21, 2009, Article 30, which amends the current Constitution of the Dominican Republic by establishing the right to life “from conception to death,” was approved under pressure and threats from the Catholic hierarchy and right-wing extremists.

This article will severely and negatively impact public policies, medical practice, scientific development and women’s lives, especially poor women. It also violates international agreements signed and ratified by the Dominican Republic, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Article 30 limits women’s autonomy, and denies them their human rights. In light of the significant step backwards that the approval of Article 30 would represent for the human rights of Dominican women, I ask that during the second reading, when Article 30 must be discussed and is once again subject to approval, you reject the proposed language and maintain the current language of the Constitution.

Sincerely,
[NAME]

Frau Sally Benz from Jump Off the Bridge has also done us the favor of finding some of the contact information:

United States: embassy@us.serex.gov.do
UK and Australia: embassy@dominicanembassy.org.uk
Canada: email larias@drembassy.org and copy ygutierrez@drembassy.org

For those of you in other countries, googling “Dominican Republic embassy [your country]” should find you the relevant contact information.

As I wrote before, women’s lives are at stake.  So please, act and spread the word.

Demand Respectful and Accurate Reporting on Lateisha Green

On June 11, the trial of Dwight DeLee for the murder of Lateisha Green begins. Lateisha was a trans woman who died from gunshot wounds in Syracuse on November 18. And like the murder of Angie Zapata, Lateisha’s murder is being tried as a hate crime.

But local media insist on repeatedly disrespecting her gender identity in their reporting on the case. The fact that Lateisha was a woman was made known very quickly by her friends and family. So there’s no excuse whatsoever for the Syracuse media to be reporting on her murder using an incorrect name and pronouns days, weeks or months after her death — not to mention now.

Read More…Read More…

Supreme Court and the Single Girl

Dahlia Lithwick and Hanna Rosin have a great article up about the Supreme Court short-list — and notably the fact that it’s populated by “single” women. (Note: Kathleen Sullivan and Pamela Karlan are both in long-term relationships with same-sex partners). Sonia Sotomayor, Kathleen Sullivan, Pamela Karlan and Elena Kagan are all unmarried and child-free; Sullivan and Karlan are out lesbians, and Sotomayor and Kagan, like many other powerful unmarried women, are rumored to be (because why else would a woman be middle-aged and single?).

Lithwick and Rosin dive into the ridiculousness of the lesbian rumors and the focus on the nominees’ single status, as if not having children makes them pathetic. But the most interesting part of the article comes in the final paragraphs:

Another question raised by the predominance of unmarried women on the short list: What kind of woman does it take to get there? Several years ago, some conservative women economists set out to prove that the wage gap between men and women was a myth. Anita Hattiangadi, then of the Employment Policy Foundation, concluded that if you compare men and women of “comparable worth,” the wage gap virtually disappears. So what does “comparable worth” mean? It means the same education, experience, and life circumstances. Thus, Hattiangadi found that among full-time workers age 21 to 35 who live alone, the pay gap between men and women disappears. The only significant pay gap, she found, was between married men and married women.

Hattiangadi intended these findings to finally bust the “myth” of the pay gap, but, of course, they just clarified the real problem: Men and women are not very often in comparable circumstances. When they get married and have children, women’s pay shrinks. That means the only women who can keep up with men are the ones who work very hard, and they are often divorced or unmarried and childless. Thus, as we ponder a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, it’s hardly a surprise that the current short list is dominated by such women. And so the list is a Catch-22: The choices a woman may make to achieve stunning legal success are the same ones that may also someday preclude her from a Supreme Court confirmation.

Men actually see their income and job stability increase as they marry and have children; for women, it’s the opposite. The wage gap certainly exists, but it’s more of a “mommy gap” than anything else. In the United States, motherhood is culturally glorified, until it’s time to deal with actual mothers — and then they receive almost no state support, they’re underpaid, and they’re viewed as soft and less intelligent. And yet if a woman shirks her cultural responsibility to have babies by a certain age, she’s a spinster or a radical or a lesbian. And if she’s those things, well, she’s probably not fit for the Supreme Court.

Living Liberally 2009

Living Liberally, the umbrella organization that sponsors Drinking Liberally, Laughing Liberally, Reading Liberally, Eating Liberally, etc etc is holding its annual fundraiser on May 30th. Air America’s Sam Seder is the master of ceremonies, and honorees include Media Matters of America, the Honorable Scott Stringer, and Jack and Jill Politics.

It’s going to be a great event, and hopefully you can make it. Living Liberally does great work bringing progressives together around the country — their Drinking Liberally events attract thousands of particpants in nearly every major city and a whole bunch of smaller ones, and they’ve done an incredible job at linking liberals up with other liberals. For those of us who love politics and who crave some interaction with other politically engaged progressives, Living Liberally has been a life-saver.

But like other non-profits, Living Liberally has been hit hard by the recession. So even if you can’t come, please consider donating. They operate on a shoe-string budget and still manage to do incredible work, so every dollar you give will be well-spent.

You can buy tickets, donate, and learn more about the event here. I already bought my ticket, so I hope to see some of you there!

Trial for soldier accused of raping and killing a 14-year-old Iraqi girl

Steven Green is standing trial for the murder of Abeer Kassem al-Janabi and her family. The details are horrifying. (Trigger warning on those links and the rest of this post).

Green has pleaded not guilty to killing 14-year-old Abeer. The crime he is accused of is nearly unimaginable:

Prosecutors have said Green was the triggerman among a group of soldiers who attacked the family March 12, 2006 near Mahmoudiya, Iraq. They said he shot 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi’s parents and 6-year-old sister, then was the third to rape the teen before shooting her in the face several times

There doesn’t seem to be a question of whether Green participated in the gang rape and murder or Abeer, and the murder of her family. The issue is his role in the crime, and his culpability:

Defense attorneys have asked jurors to consider the “context” of war surrounding Green, painting a picture of young soldiers in harsh wartime conditions, lacking leadership and receiving little help from the Army to deal with the loss of friends.

…yeah, not buying it.

On the one hand, I do think it’s fair to place some amount of blame on the “context” — and by “context,” I mean the U.S. military and Green’s superiors. When we dehumanize Iraqis, torture with impunity and build a military industrial complex that relies on brute violence (and often sexualized, hyper-masculine constructions of violence) for supremacy, we shouldn’t be surprised when individual soldiers do really terrible, sexually violent things to the people they have branded sub-human. But of course, “we shouldn’t be surprised” doesn’t translate into “we shouldn’t punish them.” I hope Green and the other men who raped and killed Abeer and murdered her family rot in jail for a long, long time.

The Right to Discriminate

Washington and Lee law professor Robin Wilson has an op/ed in the LA Times arguing that same-sex marriage laws must be careful to not infringe on religious freedom. Apparently “religious freedom” doesn’t just mean the right to practice the religion of your choosing without state interference, or the right to be free from state-mandated religion; no, it means the right to discriminate against people you don’t like:

The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage. But once it is recognized legally, all kinds of people — clerks in the local registrar’s office, photographers, owners of reception halls, florists — might not have the legal right to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, even if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs. Religious organizations could be affected too. For example, a Catholic university that offers married-student housing might have to rent to married same-sex couples or risk violating state law.

I hate to say “cry me a river,” but really, cry me a damned river. No, people should not be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people in the course of their work day. If you’re a florist, you should not be able to refuse to make flower arrangements for a same-sex couple any more than you should be able to refuse to make flower arrangements for a mixed-race couple. If you work at the local registrar’s office, then you should have to serve LGBT people the same way that you serve hetero folks. And if you’re a Catholic university, you still don’t get to violate the law — especially if you receive state and federal funding.

Of course, religious institutions refuse services to certain groups of people all the time, and I doubt it would be an issue for any church to refuse to marry same-sex couples. But as long as we’re talking about the state conferring marriage rights, it’s awfully hard to argue that LGBT people should be the legal targets of discrimination because their very existence violates someone’s moral code. Should religious people be forced to marry same-sex couples in a religious ceremony? No. But should state employees have to do their jobs? Should people who offer certain secular services like photography or floral arrangements be permitted to simply not serve LGBT clients? No.

We have anti-discrimination statutes for a reason. And make no mistake about it, this isn’t an issue of “traditional marriage.” It’s about categorizing LGBT people as second-class citizens and allowing discrimination against them that would not be permitted if leveled against many other minority groups.

Consider this: As far as I know, there has been no major effort on the part of conservatives to protect religious peoples’ “right” to discriminate against those whose marriages align with a different religious tradition. Certainly a Jewish couple married in a synagogue by a Rabbi wouldn’t fit into the religious Christian’s definition of a good, traditional Christian marriage. So should an employee at the state registrar’s office be allowed to refuse to service that couple because it violates his religious beliefs? If a photographer shows up to the ceremony and is distressed by the yarmulkes, should he be able to walk out — or refuse service in the first place?

This isn’t about tradition or religion. It’s about the right to discriminate. And that is not a right that I want enshrined into law.

ABC News taps anti-feminist activist to explain why pregnancy discrimination is OK

A guest-post by Kate.

I don’t watch a lot of TV, but if I did, this is the kind of a story that I’d expect from the likes of FOXNews: A counter-trend segment on how the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is bad for women. So imagine my surprise (and terror) when I found out this ridiculous piece was airing on main stream media by the normally more level-headed ABCNews.

In a preview for Friday’s 20/20 show, published today on ABCNews.com, Stossel makes the argument that there’s a new trend emerging of women who say that the new law keeps women down. And who are these self-loathing pregnant ladies? Well there’s really only one — Carrie Lukas, vice-president of the fringe conservative anti-women group, Independent Women’s Forum.

“If my employer decides they no longer want me as an employee, then it should be their right to fire me,” said Lukas in the piece. “I understand the desire for people to have the government step in and try to protect women, but there’s real costs to government intervention.”

According to Carrie, those costs are that because there’s now a law, employers might worry about being sued if they break it, and therefore be hesitant to hire women. Tell me if I’m wrong here, but I was under the impression that that check and balance system was the entire basis of our civil rights in this country.

Lukas’ argument, that women don’t need laws to protect them because their viability as candidates should speak for itself, has a long history in the women’s movement. It was the same excuse used by Phyllis Schlafly and her STOP-ERA cohorts in the ’70s to shut down the Equal Rights Amendment. Apparently, through Lukas and her ilk, it’s an argument making a comeback. To base an entire argument around Lukas is the reporting equivalent of doing a trend piece saying there’s an increasing contingent of people who don’t like living in houses, and then interviewing a homeless person.

I used to work for ABCNews — and in fact, wrote a pretty feisty piece on equal pay for them back in 2006, so I hope this isn’t some huge shift in company policy. Nonetheless it seems like plain old bad journalism to claim a trend in pro-pregnancy firing in the workplace piece around one woman — anti-feminist Carrie Lukas, no less — and call it news.

______________________________________
Kate is a political blogger and reporter who works and lives in Brooklyn. She has written for Talking Points Memo, The Washington Independent, Columbia Journalism Review and The Guardian, among other outlets. Follow her @itscompliKATEd on Twitter.

Asher Roth is everything that is wrong with the world, take two.

Latoya says it much better (and more thoroughly) than I did. She also provides a whole lot of links detailing the problems with Asher Roth, so head over there and read. It’s not a matter of Roth just “expressing himself” and overly-sensitive PC people being all kinds of mad cuz he’s white. It’s his arrogance and his smirking sense that he can do this rap shit better than black folks; it’s his insistence that his work is valuable because white suburban kids are the ones buying rap albums, and they’re entitled to hear from a white MC whose experiences mirror their own. Latoya rounds up a lot of good commentary, and this is one quote that stands out:

It’s never explicitly said—because if it was, he wouldn’t even be afforded the minor fame he has right now—but Roth’s rapping is not an alternative to mainstream hip-hop or capitalistic corpo-rap, but an alternative to blackness. It’s not entirely clear if Roth even realizes this (probably because he’s not thinking as hard as he thinks he is), but his contempt for most rappers mixed with statements about how he’s the kind of guy buying the music—again, and therefore not black people—sound contemptuous.

Plus, the guy’s just a jerk:

Roth addresses poverty and greed on the song “Sour Patch Kids.” And at his fans’ behest, Roth uploaded to his MySpace page “A Millie Remix,” a freestyle rhyme over Lil Wayne’s “A Milli” beat, criticizing rappers who boast about having millions of dollars but “don’t share, don’t donate to charity.”

“When I dropped that … (I thought) ‘You guys are always going off about how much money you have. Do you realize what’s going on in this world right now?’ All these black rappers — African rappers — talking about how much money they have. ‘Do you realize what’s going on in Africa right now?’” Roth says.

“It’s just like, ‘You guys are disgusting. Talking about billions and billions of dollars you have. And spending it frivolously, when you know, the Motherland is suffering beyond belief right now.’”

This is the same guy who Tweeted that he was hanging out with “nappy-headed hoes” and then tried to cover his ass by saying he was just mocking Don Imus. It’s the same guy who had this to say about hip-hop:

The first CD I ever bought was Dave Matthews Band’s ‘Crash’…That is how suburban I am…I finally got into hip hop in ’98 when I heard the Annie sample with Jay-Z….When I wrote my ‘A Milli’ freestyle, that was me listening to 10 years of hip hop and not relating to it at all. Like, Damn I don’t sell coke. Damn, I don’t have cars or 25-inch rims. I don’t have guns. I finally got to a point where I had the confidence to do this thing myself, and I was making music for me. And it turns out, a lot of people feel the same way I do.

He isn’t embracing hip-hop. He’s mocking it.

Just go read Latoya.