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

Month: March 2010

Bitches.

Have you seen this “bitch list” that has been circulating around the interwebs? If you haven’t, you probably shouldn’t, because it is simultaneously sad, disturbing, and bizarrely creative, especially since it reportedly comes from a third grader. So I will not waste your time or mine by critiquing it, but I will say that I’m disappointed “feminist bitch” didn’t make the list. Perhaps it’s on one of the missing pages? Or maybe we’re just covered by the “instigating bitches” category.

Posted in Uncategorized

Bits and Pieces

Photo of Madonna standing in an oversized coat on a street in New York.
I just like this photo.

Why a Big Mac costs less than a salad.

Wait people still make the “short skirts will get you raped” argument? For real?

Let’s hope Rush Limbaugh is a man of his word! Especially awesome is that when he threatens to leave the U.S. if health care reform passes, his destination of choice is a country with a pretty great universal health care system. Applause all around.

Some thoughts on pornography, men and misogyny. A topic I will hopefully write about later!

Women owe society neither babies nor excuses

There was a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald the other week you should have a read of, Don’t be rattled by the baby guilt trip by Nina Funnell.

Funnell was recently in attendance when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave a speech ‘about the ”crisis” of Australia’s ageing population and the various economic challenges we will face as a result.’ For context, Australia’s birth rate has been below the replacement rate of 2.1 since the 1970s and Australia is strict on immigration. After the talk, Rudd came to speak to some under-30s who had grouped together, including Funnell:

At that point one of my friends introduced me, dropping in that I am completing a PhD. At this, Rudd rolled his eyes and in a terse voice lacking any sense of irony remarked that is the “excuse” that “all” young women are using nowadays to avoid starting families. Since then I’ve come up with numerous one-line retorts, but in the moment I just froze in shock.

You should read the whole piece as Funnell takes this down beautifully. (‘Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? And why do we label them as selfish when they don’t? We never label career-driven men as selfish.’) I’m reluctant to tear apart Mr Rudd’s statement myself as, well, while the sentiment is pretty clear, what’s not clear from the article is what he said in full.

In any case, we can turn to the general sentiment. There are various harms in treating women as a monolith. I resent the assertion that not having children and at the “right time” is a bad thing. It holds women to be essentially baby makers who aren’t doing their duty to their country if they don’t follow the script – and this is something that needs an excuse. It also holds women responsible for the difficulties involved in pursuing higher academic study and starting a family at the same time. If Mr Rudd’s government, and governments worldwide, would be more supportive of those in that position, fewer people would have to face a choice between them. Until then, that some are put in this position is hardly their fault, hardly something for which women ought to be treated condescendingly.

Read More…Read More…

Guns, Race and Abortion

William Saletan takes on the “abortion is genocide” campaign, pointing out that guns are really killing a lot of African-Americans, but the “pro-life” movement doesn’t seem too concerned — in fact, they’re unapologetically pro-gun.

The numbers are provocative. But there’s something odd about the billboards. The child who appears beside the text is fully born. Abortion doesn’t kill such children. What kills them, all too often, is shooting. If you wanted to save living, breathing, fully born children from a tool of extermination that is literally targeting blacks, the first problem you would focus on is guns. They are killing the present, not just the future. But the sponsors of the “endangered species” ads don’t support gun control. They oppose it.

Two months ago, the Violence Policy Center issued an analysis of black homicide rates based on the latest FBI data. The national U.S. homicide rate is 5.3 per 100,000 people. Among whites, it’s 3.1 per 100,000. Among blacks, it’s 20.9 per 100,000. That’s four times the national rate and seven times the white rate. In 82 percent of black-victim homicides in which the fatal weapon can be identified, it’s a gun. And 73 percent of those gun deaths are inflicted by handguns.

The report calculates that in 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, blacks were 13 percent of the U.S. population but suffered 49 percent of all deaths by homicide. And the problem has been getting worse: From 2002 to 2007, the number of young black males killed by guns increased by more than 50 percent.

Maybe that’s why blacks, unlike whites, strongly favor gun control. In a Pew poll taken last year, whites said by a plurality of 50 percent to 44 percent that it was more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership. But an overwhelming majority of blacks, 72 percent to 20 percent, said it was more important to control gun ownership.

Saletan highlights the hypocrisy of anti-choicers raising a stink about race, when gun fanatics have pretty solid Klan roots — or, as he so beautifully phrases it, “People who live in glass hoods shouldn’t throw stones.” Indeed.

Confessed Rapist Allowed to Stay at UMass Amherst

Well this is messed up. A UMass Amherst student allegedly raped an alumna of the school back in October. The alumna reported the rape to campus authorities, and apparently opted to go through the university’s disciplinary process instead of filing a formal complaint with the police. The dude confessed to the rape, and “was found responsible for sexual assault.” Which is a pretty serious crime.

His punishment: Deferred suspension. Meaning that he is allowed to continue living on campus, and he’ll graduate on time.

This is especially troubling when we know that campus rapists are often serial offenders, and when the university disciplinary process is supposed to be a way for sexual assault survivors to avoid the stress of going to court. Instead, it seems like too often the university is trying to cover its own ass and avoid a public relations nightmare instead of advocating for its students.

Oscars Open Thread

So the Oscars were last night, and a woman won Best Director for the first time ever! And that same woman’s movie won Best Picture! Which is exciting, especially since the next big contender was Avatar, which I have not seen mostly because I hate James Cameron and I really hate colonialist masturbatory pet-projects. Lauren wrote about The Hurt Locker here, and Sady covered Avatar pretty well over at her regular pad. Yay Kathryn Bigelow, boo James Cameron.

The big Oscar disappointment for me was Sandra Bullock winning Best Actress. Even though I love Sandra Bullock — she seems very sweet and smart and funny and like she’d be really fun to have a few beers with, because she would definitely be the person encouraging you to eat barbeque at 3 in the morning, and who doesn’t love that person? And her dress was one of my favorites last night, and whoever styled her did a fantastic job. But the movie she won for? And the character she played? It’s White Lady Saves The Day to the max, and I’m just awfully tired of movies about how tough white women come in and save children of color. Or, as David Edelstein put it, “[Bullock won] because her role in The Blind Side spoke to two semi-contradictory impulses in Academy voters: a) guilt over being filthy rich and white; and b) a hunger to channel your altruism in ways that enable you to crush other people on the playing field.”

But really, the Oscars were full of un-surprises, so onto the important things: What everyone was wearing. My absolute favorite was Sandy Powell, the woman who won the Oscar for Best Costume Design. But I can’t find a picture of her, so my #2 was Cameron Diaz (pictured above; Maggie Gyllenhaal was a close second). She was my surprise favorite of the night, especially because she often shows up to awards shows looking… troubling. And she generally just doesn’t do it for me. But she rocked the gold dress and I loved it.

On the dude side, of course Tom Ford was the best dressed:

Read More…Read More…

Blog for International Women’s Day

Banner for Blog for International Women's Day. Banner consists of an image of planet Earth, tinted purple, on a black background. Beneath the globe reads the words "Blog for International Women's Day", and "Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity".Today, March 8, is International Women’s Day. Gender Across Borders is hosting a Blog for International Women’s Day, and one of their prompt questions asks: What does “equal rights for all” mean to you?

I, for once, will keep it relatively short.

International Women’s Day is essentially a day of symbolism. Many use it as a day of activism, solidarity, or reflection, but the world cannot be changed in a day. So symbolism is still at its core. In its own way, that can certainly be a valuable and worthwhile thing.

But it is useless for even that much if it does not recognize and center all women, including and especially those who are most vulnerable and commonly forgotten. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not recognize and respect both the womanhood and humanity of women who are trans, and dedicate to fighting for their rights and basic safety. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not include and remember women who have disabilities, and work for their essential rights and towards creating greater inclusion and accessibility within our own communities. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not center poor women all over the globe, including those in developing countries, who are struggling against hunger and violence. International Women’s Day is useless if it overlooks the rights and safety of those suffering the greatest violence, including (in addition to those listed above) sex workers, trafficking victims, and slaves. International Women’s Day is utterly pointless if it does not include and explicitly welcome women of all races and ethnicities, sexual orientations, ages, immigration statuses, religions, and nationalities; remember that women have multiple aspects to their identities, and “woman” does not necessarily come first; support the work that women are already doing; and give the bulk of its attention to those who need it most.

In other words, International Women’s Day is useless if it does not include all of the women who are reading this blog right now. And International Women’s Day has failed worst of all if it only includes women who are able to read this blog right now. Because a day that is not about equal rights for all is a day that is necessarily not actually about women, but a day about only some women.

And that is something that all of us can stand to remember in our daily activism, as well.

Check out the full list of blogs participating in the Blog for IWD and/or sign up your own blog as participant.