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

Blogging for Choice: On Trusting (and Not Trusting) Women

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that secured abortion rights for women in the United States. Sally already wrote a great post about this year’s theme, “Trust Women.” Jos over at Feministing has also written about what “Trust Women” means for her, especially in light of Dr. Tiller’s murder.

For me, though, “Trust Women” rings a little bit differently — because, quite frankly, I don’t trust women to always make the right decision or the best decision any more than I trust men to. At the end of the day, human beings do foolish things all the time — we make bad choices, we lie, we cheat, we mess up, we hurt other people, we make mistakes. We do things we regret. We regret not doing things. It’s part of being human.

So, no, I don’t trust women to always make the right choice or the best choice. And one consequence of that is that I sure as hell don’t trust any other woman (or man) to make the best decision for me about my body.

Part of being human is accepting that no one of us is perfect or infallible, and that in structuring our laws and our society, one goal is to mitigate harm as much as possible while giving individuals as much freedom as possible. For me, “trust women” isn’t a rallying cry because women are the best decision-makers or because women don’t make mistakes or because every choice is a good choice; it’s a rallying cry because it emphasizes that women are human. We are imperfect, we are fallible, we will not always choose what any given outsider thinks is best — but we nonetheless deserve the right to determine, for ourselves, how and when and why we reproduce.

Why? Because who else is going to do it? To put reproductive rights in the hands of anyone but the individual whose body is doing the reproducing is to radically infringe on the most basic of human rights. It is in essence to say, “Your very being is not as important as my opinion.” And if we don’t trust individuals to make their own choices about reproduction, given their own unique set of circumstances, why in the world would we trust outsiders — who know significantly less about the whole of any one individual’s circumstances than the individual involved — to make such important decisions for them?

Trusting women doesn’t mean believing that women are morally superior or magically able to make the best choices all of the time. Instead, it means giving women room to be human — and trusting that no choice is perfect, that no human being lives in a vaccuum, and that we mostly do the best we can given our circumstances. And sometimes we don’t, and that’s ok too.

Here, I’ll echo Miriam’s point: That choice matters, and trusting women matters, but changing the circumstances within which women make their choices matters too. Women should have the right to determine their own reproductive lives, but that right is too often limited not only by anti-choice laws, but by the day-to-day injustices that women face because of their race, class, body, or a myriad of other factors. Actually work to give women a full range of real choices, and then I’ll take a little more seriously anyone who would put their opinions on abortion before a real live woman’s fundamental right to be free from bodily harm and physical intrusion.

Because make no mistake: Infringing on abortion rights does real, tangible harm to women. The abortion debate is often framed as an individual’s right to terminate a pregnancy, but that’s only half the story. It’s also about an individual’s right to be free from government intrusion when it comes to the most personal and fundamentally human things — choice, desire and self-determination in sex and reproduction. For me, the pro-choice position isn’t just “women have the right to abortion” (although it’s that, too); it’s also saying, “The government does not have the right to come in and tell me when and how I must or must not reproduce.” Putting the decision to have a baby (or not have a baby) in the hands of the government, or in the hands of anyone other than the person doing the having, is an unconscionable violation of physical integrity and human rights.

So I trust women, and I don’t. I trust myself, at least, to be the best moral arbitrator when it comes to how and when I reproduce. And I am not so arrogant to think that my opinion is more important than another woman’s evaluation of her own unique reproductive circumstances. So I trust her to do the same. And I trust that, because we are all human, we will not always handle our choices in a way that X, Y or Z person thinks is best. We won’t always handle our choices in a way that we ourselves think is best, at the time or down the road. It will be messy and imperfect. But at the very least, we will try to self-preserve. At the very least, to trust women is to say, “You, too, are a human being and you, too, deserve sovereignty over the little flesh-and-blood space that only you occupy.”

I trust that allowing all of us that basic bit of humanity is the least we can do.

Friday Random Ten – the Come to My Event! edition

As a reminder, I’m hosting a Hope for Haiti benefit TONIGHT from 6-10pm at Gallery Bar in NYC. $10 at the door, and all proceeds — plus a portion of the bar proceeds — benefit Hope for Haiti. If you’re in the area, stop by! Now, onto the Ten:

1. Passion Pit – Smile Upon Me
2. Nick Cave – Nobody’s Baby Now
3. Ben Lee – Catch My Disease
4. Sufjan Stevens – Casimir Pulaski Day
5. Gang of Four – Second Life
6. Grizzly Bear – Central and Remote
7. The Capstan Shafts – Sick of Green
8. M83 – Graveyard Girl
9. The Blow – Babay (Eat a Critter, Feel its Warmth)
10. Feist – Gatekeeper

Post yours in the comments.

Blog for Choice 2010

Hey hey, it’s Blog for Choice Day! Each year, they pose a question to spark the dialogue. Last year it was about our hopes for the Obama administration. This year’s question, in honor of Dr. Tiller, is: What does Trust Women mean to you?

As I was trying to come up with my response to this, I watched this video from GRITtv about reproductive rights as human rights. Do check it out if you have some time – it’s about 20 minutes long. It features Carole Joffe, author of Dispatches from the Abortion Wars, Silvia Henriquez, E.D. of NLIRH, and Lynn Paltrow, E.D. of National Advocates for Pregnant Women. (I’m hoping I’ll have some time this weekend to add a transcript. If somebody else has one, please let me know.)

The dialogue here touches on a lot, here are some bullet points until I get a transcript:

  • some (but not enough) improvement under Obama in terms of rights
  • Latinas and immigrants need access they don’t/won’t have
  • a reminder that pregnant women keeping their civil rights is still a radical notion
  • stressing that local access is a particular problem
  • the fanaticism in assaulting women’s rights and access
  • abortion rights might not be the priority for most, but human rights should be
  • anti-choicers focus on attacking the basic human rights of pregnant women but don’t try to reduce unplanned pregnancies
  • contraception was the middle ground before, but now it’s lumped with abortion
  • focusing on abortion is effective for Conservatives because it provides a distraction and prevents adequate health care reform
  • abortion providers are constantly under attack and clinics are targeted more under Obama, but there are physicians committed to providing abortions
  • we need to step it up with our activism and call them out on the misinformation they spread

Like I said, there’s a lot discussed, but there are two points in particular I want to focus on. The first is the notion that reproductive rights are human rights. To me, that’s the crux of what Trust Women means. Abortion is simply a medical procedure that allows a woman to do with her body what she wants and needs. Having a fertilized egg inside of her doesn’t suddenly make her incapable of making decisions, yet she is suddenly deemed unworthy of retaining her rights. The second point is closely linked to the first, in my opinion, and that’s education and information. If women are given access to accurate information about contraception, abortion, adoption, childbirth, etc., then why should anybody else be allowed to interfere with her decision and her rights?

If we set up a system built on mistrust and misinformation, then there is no hope for having a system that trusts women and puts women’s rights at the forefront. Yet that is the system we currently have. There are so many people who just aren’t informed, who don’t have access to contraception, and who don’t understand the basics of abortion. The video stresses activism, and I don’t disagree, but I think the activism has to be geared towards education and emphasizing that reproductive rights are human rights.

That’s my take on it, what’s yours? What does Trust Women mean to you?

(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge)

The Hangover That Never Ends: What I Learned From the Golden Globes

I’m still bitter about the Golden Globes. Of all the things that I could potentially be bitter about, I admit, this is probably the most absurd. I don’t watch the Golden Globes. I don’t care about the Golden Globes. Who cares about the Golden Globes, really? I just use them the way everyone else uses them, to figure out the odds for the Oscars. And I also stopped watching and caring about the Oscars, several years ago, so… yeah. However, this year I actually do care about the Oscars; as silly and vapid as that might be, I have a developed a deep emotional investment. This deep emotional investment’s name is Kathryn Bigelow. Before the Golden Globes, I was pretty sure that she was going to be the first woman ever to win an Academy Award for Best Director. And now, I’m starting to feel that she won’t be. This has done things to me it will take an epic amount of yelling at you to even begin to explain.

For example: the Cameron-versus-Bigelow thing, which was previously just a nice little grace note, has now become something about which I am kind of absurdly intense. Avatar will almost certainly get nominated for the Academy Award, and so will The Hurt Locker, so we are almost certainly going to see this again. And it needs to not play out this way next time. My understanding is that the two of them get along great, and no hard feelings, and I bet they have barbecues together every weekend and sing campfire songs and whatever: I don’t care. It’s not a Brangelina thing, because they are strangers to me, and their emotional and personal lives are their own. I just so happen to want Kathryn Bigelow to mop the floor with James Cameron and wring him out into a dirty bucket after the fact. In a professional sense.

Read More…Read More…

Democracy, it was fun while it lasted.

Dear Democracy,

It’s been nice knowing you, it really has. We had some good times, didn’t we? Remember when Howard Dean rose to prominence because of internet donations and grassroots efforts? And when Barack Obama was elected in part because a ton of people gave $5 or $10 or $20 to his campaign? Heck, even those wacky Republican teabaggers got in on the action!

But today, I bid you farewell. Don’t get me wrong, I know you’re still here, technically, chugging along. I’m not suggesting that you’re going to disappear forever, or that you’re dead to me. You haven’t died, Democracy, but you’ve changed. It used to be about us, you know? We could talk about ideas and debate heatedly, and sometimes things didn’t turn out my way, but I always at least felt like I had a say in our relationship. Now, you don’t listen. Why would you? You’ve found someone else — and they’re a lot more wealthy and influential than I am (I maintain that I’m better-looking, but hey, it’s you who has to go to bed with them every night). Democracy, darling, I suspect that they will only be a bad influence on you — they’re almost guaranteed to make you more conservative and definitely less responsive to anyone’s needs but theirs. I mean, why would you bother to think about me when your new beau is footing all your bills? I don’t mean to sound bitter, D, but don’t you see what’s going on here? They own you, baby!

Remember that time we marched on Washington in defense of reproductive rights? When we nearly froze our toes off on the Mall during Obama’s inauguration? When we went door-to-door in Pittsburgh, in Nashua, in Ohio? I was really in love with you then. I really felt like you got me, you know? Those were great times, and I’ll miss them. I hate to say it, Democracy, but that new fling of yours? He ain’t me. I can’t even bring myself to consider him a person. I hope all the money — and I understand, it’s a lot of money — is worth it.

You take care now. Thanks for the memories.

Jill

Today in selling misogyny…

Via (read ahead before clicking through) Melinda Tankard Reist, via @The_Ausmerican, Australian men’s fashion company Roger David are selling some rather horrific and misogynistic t-shirts. The information I’ve found has been unclear, but these appear to be available through a line, or in association with a label, called “Blood is the New Black”.

I’m not going to show you what the t-shirts look like on here, you can click through to Melinda Tankard Reist’s site if you want to do that. I’ll briefly describe them, though, so if you’re not inclined to hear about it, skip ahead to the next paragraph. The Annie Hollywood t-shirt features a gagged woman; the text on the gag reads ‘Hollywood’. She looks tired and bleak and defeated. The second t-shirt features, in black and white, two women posing in their underwear. One is grabbing her crotch, the other her bare breasts. There is one large black strip placed over both their eyes, as though obscuring (in this case, forcing them out of) their identities. Both t-shirts are quite jolting.

Every time I see something like this, I wonder how anyone can stomach putting such products on the market. They are putting women’s images and women’s experiences of violence, abuse and objectification up for sale. As though it’s stylish. I think about the large number of people who must have had to design and approve these t-shirts. I think about how a marketing team must have seen fit to send them out to the general public, because they knew lots of people would buy them. The thing is, these are not abstract fashion statements. They’re statements about how it’s acceptable to harm women.

The horror of this is in more than just the commodification of violence against women. It’s not just about the buying and selling of images, symbols of women’s oppression. It’s about the survivors of violence having to endure these t-shirts being thrust in their faces when they walk down the street, at a party, going about their everyday lives. The horror in this is in forcing on these women reminders of their assaults and that their experiences and feelings are just fine to use and make a profit from, so void of emotional hardship as to be suitable fodder for an up-market fashion chain.

There is a contact form on Roger David’s (rather unnavigable, I’m afraid) website which you can use to let them know what you think. A warning: the first t-shirt features as you load the page. Curiously – though it may be the website design – I can’t seem to locate the second t-shirt on the website itself, and the first one only features in the page design rather than in the collection sections. However, it’s been my experience that a company will take offending products off a website and continue to sell them in stores, at least for a time; to the best of my knowledge, Roger David have yet to withdraw the t-shirts from stores. In any case, in addition to the contact form on the website, Roger David has a Facebook page, in case you wish to contact them through there. (It seems that the t-shirts were on the Facebook page and have been taken down.) Feel free to take wording from this post when you write to them.

TOMORROW: Hope for Haiti – Please Join Me

Re-posting this. Hope many of you can make it tomorrow! Please come say hi if you do.

If you’re in New York, I hope you’ll join me on Friday at a benefit that some friends and I have put together for Hope for Haiti. We are asking for a minimum $10 donation at the door (of course anything else you can give is more than welcome). 100% of the proceeds will go to Hope for Haiti, an organization whose mission is to improve the quality of life for Haitian people, particularly children, through education, nutrition, and healthcare. They are on the ground now and are offering much needed aid to survivors. Perhaps most importantly, they are based in Haiti and will be there for the long run — they were there before the earthquake, and they will be there long after. You can read more at http://www.hopeforhaiti.com.

The details of the fundraiser are below:

What: Hope for Haiti Fundraiser
When: Friday January 22, 2009, 6:30 – 10pm
Where: Gallery Bar: 120 Orchard Street, New York, NY 10002

A representative from Hope For Haiti will speak about the organization, Haiti, and the devastating earthquake — and will share some words inspiration and hope. There will be a DJ and a cash bar. And the lovely folks at Gallery Bar are not only donating their space, but are also giving a portion of the bar proceeds to Hope for Haiti. An informational flier is below.

Hope to see many of you there. And please feel free to re-post widely, and to pass this on to your various contacts, friends and networks. If you are unable to make the event but would still like to give, you can donate here.

Posted in Uncategorized

Good Reads

What Would MLK Tweet? Baratunde Thurston on what Dr. King might make of Twitter. It’s kind of brilliant.

Get Paid. Hey, bloggers and journos — Yahoo News is hiring. Ladies especially, get on this one.

Sugar Mama. More men are marrying wealthier wives, but old issues about money, power and gender remain. And the conclusion is pretty ridiculous: “Ms. Zielinski, the fashion stylist, said her best friend, a man, told her once: “ ‘You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?’ He laughed, but I found that pretty depressing.”” Uh, I’ll marry her.

Why Not To Have Girls. Historical dolls. I would add Ke$ha and the above quote to that list.

Tunes. The Coachella line-up is announced, and it’s kind of amazing. Amazing enough to justify that trip to CA I’ve been putting off. But that said, the list is a little (a lot?) dude-heavy, huh? For some lady-tunes, Marion Cotillard does Franz Ferdinand.

Rest Easy. Myriam Merlet, an incredible Haitian feminist, died in the earthquake. According to Democracy Now, “Merlet was the Chief of Staff of the Haitian Ministry of Women and an outspoken feminist who helped draw international attention to the use of rape as a political weapon.” She will be missed.

Pig Skin. Tim Tebow, who is apparently some sort of big-deal football player, will be appearing in an anti-choice ad during the Superbowl. Nothing like a little male bonding over the control of women’s bodies!

Where Are the Women Politicians? So I love Ta-Nehisi Coates and I think he is brilliant. But, really? A lot of people have written quite a bit about the answers to these questions!

Boob Jobs. Another reason to oppose same-sex marriage: Men can’t breast-feed! So, uh… only women should be allowed to get married? And only to other women?

Well-Behaved Women Rarely Make What Now? Shockingly, dude who runs dude-mag is kinda sexist. AskMen.com editor-in-chief James Bassil says of his site’s “Top 99 Most Desirable Women” list: “All the top women we see in this list are pretty well behaved and respectable women. We don’t see a lot of them parading around in public unless it is in the framework of their careers.”

Foucault-Free. Jessica Valenti on feminist elitism, why popularizing feminism is a-ok, and why Serious Theory is an important component, but not the end-all be-all, to feminism.

The Guantanamo “Suicides.” Reports of “suicides” of Guantamo detainees were investigated, and are totally improbable — leading to the conclusion that someone murdered the prisoners there. The article will make you very, very sad and very, very angry.

Mothers, be good to your daughters: Keep them the eff away from John Mayer

Regular readers know how I feel about John Mayer.* In case there was any doubt as to why John Mayer is such a horrific human being — in addition to his horrific music and horrific rape-y comments to a female journalist and his general annoyingness and his lack of talent and his seemingly endless misogyny — allow me to point you to his latest Rolling Stone interview. Including shirtless cover photo, showcasing his butt-ugly tattoos and six-inch-tall hair. And who doesn’t love sleeve tattoos? I love sleeve tattoos! Yet John Mayer may have just ruined them for me, because I can’t stop picturing him lounging in his Costco sweatpants** with that slack-jaw look on his face opining about pitching tents on vaginas (I am not kidding, read the link).

For the love of Christ, John Mayer, PLEASE GO AWAY.

UPDATED to say that this was so much hotter when Gavin Rossdale did it in 1996. God he was great in my middle-school years. (thanks, Ann).

____________________________
*I HATE HIM.
**Yes, I own those sweatpants too. But I am not on the cover of Rolling Stone. I am blogging. In my bed. Alone.