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

Someone please get this man a dictionary

Because he’s having some trouble with definitions:

So last month when Enron’s head lobbyist, Linda Robertson, reborn as the Fed’s head lobbyist, attacked congressmen pushing for an audit of the Fed– primarily Grayson and Ron Paul– as ignorant of the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy, Grayson reacted by pointing out that Robertson has a long and well-known career as a “K Street whore.” She shills for whoever pays her.

Alan Grayson didn’t say they should all be lined up against a wall and shot; he probably wouldn’t even agree with that as an excellent way to help get the country back on a good footing– especially because there actually are some good one in the lot. But those good ones do not reside on K Street and no one not of that K Street Culture of Corruption world would count Linda Robertson as one of the good guys. She was, after all, the head of Enron’s lobbying office– a position that defines the word “whore.”

I’m not actually sure that heading a lobbying office is how we define the word “whore.” Perhaps Klein meant, to him,”whore” means “a woman I don’t like”?

(For the record, I think it was a pretty screwed up thing for Grayson to say, and I’m glad he apologized. There are plenty of ways to criticize Enron lobbyists without misogynist and sexualized name-calling. He was wrong, he owned up to it, and now it doesn’t do liberals much good to stand up for him. Just take the hit on this one, guys, and let’s all move on).

Thanks to Julian for the link.

National Women’s History Museum bill moves to the Senate

This is pretty cool. The House of Representatives recently passed a bipartisan bill (HR 1700) that would set the stage for a National Women’s History Museum to be built on the National Mall. It now moves to the Senate. The House passed HR 1700 on a voice vote, and in previous years similar legislation died there, so I dare to be optimistic about this bill’s chances in the Senate.

From the National Women’s History Museum website:

This bipartisan bill (H.R. 1700), re-introduced by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), will allow NWHM to purchase – at fair market value – land next to the National Mall and build the first major repository of women’s accomplishments and contributions in Washington, D.C. The Senate companion bill will be re-introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) shortly.

The sale of this land involves federal property and must be approved by Congress.

The National Women’s History Museum Act offers a viable opportunity for NWHM to secure a permanent physical space to house the collections that it plans to make public and further its educational services. The new location at 12th Street SW and Independence Avenue SW is across the street from several of the nation’s most iconic museums, such as the National Air and Space Museum, the National American History Museum and the National Gallery of Art. It’s the right place for a comprehensive museum on women’s accomplishments.

Word to the wise: Never date a guy who reads Details

Shorter Details: Tricky bitches will get themselves pregnant and then make you pay for it.

Imagine for a moment this perfectly plausible scenario: You’ve had a steady girlfriend for a year or so and everything’s going great. You still hold hands at the movies. Friends tell you you’re good together. You’re both around 30 years old and making plenty of money, maybe living together, but you’re nowhere near considering fatherhood. And though you occasionally get the feeling that her biological clock is set far ahead of yours, she tells you she’s “safe,” so you don’t worry. Why would you? It’s not as if you’d just picked her up on Dollar Margarita Night at Senor Frog’s. But one morning she tells you something has gone wrong. Unlikely as it sounds, she’s pregnant-and she wants to keep it. What she doesn’t tell you, though, is this: She wasn’t being safe all along. She wanted to have that baby— and the way she saw it, this was the only way to make it happen.

You know where this is going, right?

A few experts discuss the “trend” of women tricking men into impregnating them, without offering any hard information or statistics. A few odd people are interviewed, and they confirm that they’ve heard that other odd people are getting pregant accidently-on-purpose. And then we get to “Roe v. Wade for men”:

Last year, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Saginaw, Michigan, says he had the same reaction when his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, allegedly pulled something similar. Dubay claims she told him she was infertile and was using a contraceptive “as an extra layer of assurance and protection.” But when she got pregnant anyway and told Dubay she was keeping the baby, he said he wanted no part of it. Earlier this year, he argued in court that her alleged deception should exempt him from having to pay child support. His lawyer, Jeffrey Cojocar, reasoned that Michigan’s paternity law violated the Constitution’s equal-protection clause: If the situation were reversed and Dubay had gotten Wells pregnant after claiming he was sterile, he’d have no way of forcing her either to keep or to abort the child. The judge didn’t buy his argument, but it’s helped open a broadening national dialogue: Where do you draw the line between deadbeat dad and victim of deceit?

Of course the National Organization for Men, a men’s rights group, is all over it:

“Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were ‘Mattilda,'” the website says. The NCM doesn’t have much contact with men who acquiesce to their role as new fathers. The guys who come to the organization see their situations as deception in its purest form.

“A lot of these men feel like they have no control,” says Mel Feit, the NCM’s executive director. “The courts are ruthless in enforcing getting money and not asking questions. Judges aren’t allowing the fraud argument, either.”

Interestingly, Matt does have the same amount of reproductive control he would have if he were Matthilda — he can do what he wants with his own reproductive capacity. Matt and Matthilda’s reproductive capacities differ — the window for Matt to exercise his reproductive rights may end before Matthilda’s — but both of their reproductive rights begin and end with their own bodies. No one is telling men that they can’t wear condoms or use birth control or get sterilized. In fact, Matt could probably try to have an abortion if he wanted to, but it sounds like he’s a cisgender dude and it’s not going to work out. So it’s unfortunate that he feels he has “no control,” but what he actually wants is the right to control his female partner. Or, at the very least, he wants the right to not have to be responsible for a child he helped to create.

No, it’s not “fair” that some men don’t get to decide whether or not to have a baby when their female partner gets pregnant. It’s also not fair that some women have to push something the size of a football out a hole the size of pencil. Welcome to biology. You don’t see us suing over it.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people are jerks. Some people are also manipulative, abusive and selfish. Some of those people are women. I do not doubt that some women, somewhere, have lied about being on birth control in order to get pregnant. But some manipulative jerks does not a trend make. I feel bad for any man who is manipulated or lied to so that his partner can get pregnant against his wishes. That is a really bizarre, selfish and terrible thing. But it doesn’t justify subverting the basic bodily autonomy rights of an entire class of people (or even the basic bodily autonomy rights of the jerk in question). The way around manipulative jerks who would lie about being on birth control is to use birth control yourself. You know that “control” you feel like you’re missing? Here’s how you get it: Wear a condom. Get your tubes tied. Put some pressure on drug companies to come up with male birth control — the reason they aren’t developing or marketing it is because they don’t think there’s a demand.

You know what is an actual established problem, bolstered by research? Men sabotaging their partners’ birth control pills as a form of control and abuse. Just sayin’.

What men like Matt want isn’t reproductive rights; they want reproductive veto rights over someone else’s body. Or they at least want to be able to get out of having to pay for a child once it’s born, because they were tricked into having unprotected sex.

The National Center for Men and all the Matts of the world would probably be better off agitating for male birth control or other forms of actual reproductive rights for men, rather than just targeting women and trying to get out of paying child support. And Details would probably be better off writing about actual problems rather than the misogynist fantasies of men’s rights activists — this article almost tops their “Is It OK to Demand Anal Sex?” feature.

At the very least, Details provides us all with a handy dating tool — if you see a copy in a dude’s apartment, run the other way and run fast.

But The Animal Companions Are Doin’ It For Themselves

disneyprincesses
(click to embiggen)

Via Sociological Images, where the wise commenters note that the three most recent princesses are excluded. Pocahontas, Mulan and Giselle — and upcoming princess Tiana — are redeemed despite their character assets (which are debatable once Disneyfied) in part because of their ever present animal companions?

I’ve watched my share of Disney movies, but I’ve never trained a critical eye on this animal companion business. From now on, whenever I need to do something really important, like ace a job interview or make a great impression at the next conference, I’m going to look to my housebears for some magical! cat! action!

The least they could do is dress me for the office Christmas party.

Devaluing women’s words

I am very grateful that the Feministe crew saw fit to bring me in, but I must admit to being very surprised and not feeling quite deserving. I want to deconstruct some of the patriarchal influence that had its role in shaping my reaction.

Now, I’m hardly in a position to judge the value that my writing might have to other people, because I’m coming from inside my own head. I can’t speak to what another person might find valuable; I am speaking to express my ideas, connect with the lovely blogosphere and share awareness of issues that matter to me. But I can say that I frequently worry that my writing isn’t good enough, that there’s some standard that I’m failing to meet, that I will be unmasked as the fraud I really am, who knows how I’ve lasted this long? This worry is so bad that I feel nauseous when going to see blogger friends in person.

And I’m acquainted enough with the patriarchy to see that it’s rearing its head in this thought, and that other women have this problem, too. (Well, I don’t know about the nausea, maybe that’s just me!) Irrespective of what value my writing actually has to the universe – and who can judge something like that, really? – this kind of thinking has a component of misogyny.

Women have long been told that our writing isn’t good enough, that writing is the domain of men.

Read More…Read More…

Money for Murderers

Anti-choicers are using eBay to raise money for doctor-killer Scott Roeder, who shot George Tiller while Dr. Tiller attended church. While I don’t object to that in priciple — after all, everyone is entitled to defend themselves in court, and private attorneys are expensive — we aren’t talking about auctioning off that bag of clothes you found in the attic, or your cousin’s collection of shot glasses. No, they’re auctioning off items that have the unique pedigree of being tied to pro-life murderers — Army of God manuals, prison cookbooks compiled by a woman doing time for abortion clinic bombings and arsons, an autographed bullhorn, and drawings by Roeder. The point isn’t to raise money to defend Roeder, it’s to glorify his actions, and the violence perpetrated by other “pro-life” activists.

Ebay doesn’t allow the sale of items that promote or glorify violence. Contact eBay here and ask them to take down these auctions.

The Name Game

Apparently 70 percent of Americans believe that a woman should change her name when she marries, and 50 percent believe it should be required by law. While I would expect most Americans to favor name-changing, I didn’t expect that it was that high, and I certainly didn’t think that so many people believe it should be legally mandated. I was also suprised that only 5-10 percent of women keep their own names.

I’m not married and so I recognize that this is an easier calculus for me to make now, but I have never even considered changing my last name. I don’t think I ever would consider it. My mom, like many women of her generation, took my father’s name — it’s just what everyone did, and it was easier. My best friend, who was raised in a pretty religious home, took her husband’s name when she got married — I don’t know that she really gave a lot of thought to the whole process. It was just what you did.

Where I actually felt the shock of the name-change was seeing a list of female names I didn’t recognize on Facebook, then clicking through and realizing, oh, that’s someone I’ve known since the 5th grade. Except not really, because I always knew Jane Jones and now she’s Jane Brown. Or maybe she’s Jane “Jones” Brown with her former name in quotes — because, I dunno, it’s a joke? I suppose I’m sheltered, but I assumed that the majority of my female friends (and especially college friends and acquaintences) would keep their own names. I was stunned at how many women I knew changed their names when they married.

Read More…Read More…

Introducing Chally

Hey, everyone. I’m Chally from Zero at the Bone and I’m joining the team here at Feministe. I am very excited and slightly terrified to be here!

You’ll be wanting to know a bit about me, then. I started blogging social justice at ZatB almost a year ago. Feel free to come by and visit, I enjoy comments. You can also find me on Twitter, and I’ve just joined tumblr and Dreamwidth, so you can follow/friend me at any of those places. I also write for an online bookclub of radical readers. Lastly, just a couple of weeks ago, a group of disabled feminists launched a group blog we call FWD/Forward, and it is really taking off. If you want to know anything about the intersection of feminism and disability activism, that’s your port of call.

I write a lot of personal stories, meta-activism and the like as well as more traditionally newsy blog posts and some light and fluffy stuff. Much of what I write is informed by my privileges, oppressions and identity markers, so here are some: I’m a non-white, cis, middle class, disabled woman. I consider that I’ve been a feminist all my life but only realised consciously in 2007. I enjoy feminist science fiction, knitting, Doctor Who, cake, all things theatrical and making the world a better place. I like long walks on the beach in the moonlight – no, wait.

Modly matters: I am disabled and on the other side of the planet from a fair portion of you – I live in Sydney, Australia – so you’ll have to excuse me if I take a long time to respond to your comments or emails. On which note, you can email me at chally [dot] zeroatthebone [at] gmail [dot] com, and please do. I have little tolerance for intolerance, if that makes any kind of sense, so keep that in mind when commenting.

Thank you to the rest of the Feministe crew for having me along for the ride. That’s about it, really. Any questions?