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

Month: June 2009

Chris Brown pleads guilty

I know this is old-ish news, but Chris Brown reached a plea agreement with prosecutors and received five years probation and 1,400 hours of labor-oriented service. I’ve read some commentators voicing their concern that the punishment isn’t harsh enough, since Brown isn’t actually serving any jail time. I’m of two minds on that one: On the one hand, it is striking that a man who severely beat up a woman didn’t actually have to serve jail time; on the other, we too often use jail as a default punishment, and see anything else — no matter how helpful — as too soft.

More striking to me, though, is the fact that Rihanna was prepared to testify. So much of the commentary immediately following Brown’s arrest revolved around the meme that Rihanna was partly to blame, or that by not leaving him she set a bad example; but now that she took the incredibly brave step of agreeing to testify in court, there’s a whole lot of silence and not much support.

I’m glad Brown pleaded guilty. I’m glad Rihanna left him, and that she felt strong enough to be available to testify. I hope she is able to move on, and that he takes this seriously and commits to the life-long self-work of being non-violent.

Bad Mommy

Sit down, kids, because I have some terrifying news: Sometimes, women drink. And smoke. Sometimes they even smoke marijuana. To top it all off, some of those women are mothers.

Yes, this is the news that USA Today brings us, in an article about post-pregnancy “substance abuse” — a term apparently so loosely-defined that it includes any alcohol use at all.

Women drink in fairly low numbers while pregnant — only one in eight women has a drink during the entire course of her pregnancy, and most of that seems to be in the first trimester, when some women don’t realize they’re pregnant. The number of women who drink alcohol — not binge-drink, mind you, just drink — within three months of giving birth is 31%, a figure that strikes me as fairly low (I haven’t ever had a baby come out of my body, but the day I do, someone had better give me a glass of wine). And despite the fact that women with children use alcohol, cigarettes and drugs in low numbers, USA Today still thinks you should be Very Concerned:

The portion of pregnant women using alcohol dropped during pregnancy (19% the first trimester, 7.8% in the second, and 6.2% in the third).

“Women are getting the message and are reducing their drug use across the board when they’re pregnant,” Delany says. “We need to do better in helping women understand: Not only should you not use while you’re pregnant, you should continue not using.”

According to the study, 31.9% of women used alcohol within the first three months after childbirth.

The study also found that the number of postpartum women who used drugs and alcohol was significantly less than the number of non-pregnant women who were using substances, except in the case of cigarettes.

The implication, Delany says, “is that having children creates a protective factor so that women may not be going back to drug use.”

Delany says the study highlights the importance of getting the message out to women to not resume substance use after pregnancy.

“It’s just something we need to work better on as a nation,” he says. “Women just aren’t stopping the way we would hope.”

I’m all for efforts to help people — all people, not just the ones with uteruses — curb substance abuse. I’m in favor of efforts to encourage parents not to smoke around their small children. But I can’t get on board with the message that women need to stop all substance use after pregnancy. And I definitely can’t support those efforts when they conflate “use” with “abuse.” Mommies are people too, and it doesn’t make someone irresponsible or an addict to have a beer or a cigarette after they have a kid.

It is interesting, though, that for all the focus on telling women to never ever drink or smoke or use drugs ever because of the babies, there’s no similar admonishment made of men. Last I read, men actually do have higher rates of substance abuse than women; and from the statistics in this article, it sounds like pregnant women and mothers have substance use and abuse rates on the lower end of the spectrum. So why are we focusing on Bad Mothers again?

Banning the Burqa in France

French legislators are considering introducing legislation to ban the burqa in their country, in the name of respecting women. The burqa, these politicians argue, is a “prison” and “degrading” to women.

I’m personally of the mind that calls for women to cover their bodies because the female form is somehow inherently tempting or representative of sex are misogynist, regressive and certainly out of line with the most basic tenets of feminism. But women make choices about the way we dress for all kinds of reasons — sometimes to follow a religious tradition, sometimes to be perceived as attractive, sometimes to be invisible, sometimes to just cover our bare asses. Most of our motivations aren’t feminist or anti-feminist. When it comes to religious requirements especially, we know that outlawing certain garments in public doesn’t make women shed the offending item of clothing; it just makes women refrain from public interactions.

And that’s precisely what will happen here. Outlawing the burqa won’t make women who cover themselves decide to walk outside in a sundress; it’ll just mean that women and girls won’t leave the home as much. The women who are supposedly victimized and imprisoned by some pieces of cloth will instead be prisoners in their own homes and communities.

It’s also no shock that the offendingly modest piece of clothing is one worn primarily by immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.

Empowering women doesn’t come from limiting what women can and cannot wear in public. It comes in part from giving women — all women — wide access to the public sphere. You don’t have to like the burqa to realize that outlawing it will have a hugely negative impact on women.

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

You know the drill: Post a link to something you’ve written this week, along with a description. Make it specific; don’t just link to your whole blog.

And happy Father’s Day!

Violence-Abetting Anti-Choice Fanatics: Now in Congress

This is pretty scary: An anonymous Republican senator has put a hold on a resolution condeming clinic violence. Apparently this guy can’t even bring himself to declare that killing doctors is wrong. The resolution in its entirety reads:

Whereas Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas was shot to death at church on Sunday, May 31;

Whereas there is a history of violence against providers of reproductive health care, as health care employees have suffered threats and hostility in order to provide crucial services to patients;

Whereas the threat or use of force or physical obstruction has been used to injure, intimidate, or interfere with individuals seeking to obtain or provide health care services; and

Whereas acts of violence are never an acceptable means of expression and always shall be condemned:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate— (1) Expresses great sympathy for the family, friends and patients of Dr. George Tiller; (2) Recognizes that acts of violence should never be used to prevent women from receiving reproductive health care; and (3) Condemns the use of violence as a means of resolving differences of opinion.

Not at all controversial.

We’ve written a lot about the anti-choice movement here on Feministe and elsewhere, and have long argued that the systematic and ongoing violence against women’s health clinics is not the work of lone wackos, as the mainstream media and anti-choice groups often portray it; rather, fault lies with the mainstream “pro-life” movement and a right-wing political establishment that tacitly condones and even promotes anti-choice violence. This is a pretty good example. Republican Congressmen aren’t out shooting doctors, but they are making it clear that they aren’t going to condemn those who do. That’s a pretty frightening perspective, and it lends credence to those people who do commit violent acts. It leads them to believe that they are supported by the Republican party, corporate media and the pro-life establishment.

And they are.

It’s not just an anonymous Congressman obstructing a resolution on clinic violence. It’s Joe Scarborough — now on the “liberal” network MSNBC — defending doctor-killer Michael Griffin pro-bono (Gunn had an attorney, so this wasn’t a matter of a man needing representation. It was Scarborough seeking out the case and voluntarily taking it on, until he was removed). It’s the National Right-to-Life Committee giving Scarborough $15,210 the next year, helping him to win a Congressional seat. Heck, the senior policy advisor of Operation Rescue herself went to prison for two years for conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic.

The support for anti-choice violence is strong and deep. It’s in the mainstream “pro-life” movement, and it’s in the Republican party. The GOP should be ashamed right now.

Well gee, I think I’ll go get that pap smear after all

It’s not at all uncommon in this world to see advertising images that are some variation on the message that women are only good for ogling and fucking. But somehow it has a particular sting when the ad in question is supposed to be about why women’s lives matter.

This image was posted on Sociological Images, and was created by BC Cancer Agency. The page where the ad was found has been taken down, but here’s a cache. Further, according to comments over at the Sociological Images post, these ads have been seen all over Vancouver.

To address some of the comments over at that post before they appear here: no, I don’t think the Birth of Venus is a sexually objectifying image. And I’m all about appreciating the beauty of the human body — whatever shape or size that body takes (including the one being mocked above).

But when you take such a lovely image and use it to argue that it’s the reason why women’s lives are worth living? Because men like to look at women and definitely don’t like to look at other dudes? That’s more than just a little bit offensive. Because actually, I’m pretty sure that this world “needs women” because we’re human beings, and we make all kinds of amazing and awesome contributions to society.

And I’m also pretty sure that the reason to prevent cervical cancer isn’t about whether or not “the world needs women” (who don’t all have cervixes, by the way). The reason to prevent cervical cancer shouldn’t be seen as any different from the reason to prevent any other cancer.  Which is, as is my understanding, because we value human lives and think they’re worth living just because . . . well, just because.

Fat and fashionable AND happy? Impossible!

This Times article on plus-sized clothing lines isn’t nearly as bad as it could be — it even features Beth Ditto! — but it of course includes the tired old trope about how fat girls are really unhealthy and the body acceptance they display may just be a cover for self-hatred. Because if you don’t love your body, obviously it’s because you’re fat, but if you do love your body, then you must be lying. Because, you know, you’re fat:

More than tokenism, such fashion and media tactics seem born of a conviction that larger young women have become more self-accepting. “They are inclined to show off the parts of their bodies they love,” said Ms. Sack, the Chicago retailer. Pushing the trend is a broad movement of fat acceptance among academics, anti-bias activists and some psychologists. “It’s important to reclaim ‘fat’ as a descriptive, as even something positive,” argued Ms. Maribona of Fat Fancy.

But others point to serious health consequences of being overweight. Andrea Marks, a specialist in adolescent medicine in Manhattan, suspects that “the vast majority of overweight girls are not so happy.” Apparent self-acceptance, she added, may be a cover for defiance or resignation.

Read More…Read More…