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

The Character of a City

Every so often, someone releases a list of the most expensive cities in the world in which to live. Here’s an ABC News article on one from the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, listing the most unaffordable cities in the English-speaking world in relation to wages. My town is Sydney, ranking in second place.

I’ve been reflecting on what makes up a city – this city – when it’s so hard to live in it.

The Sydney property market (rental in particular) is notoriously vicious. There’s a musical about it this season, Open for Inspection, to illustrate. An unbelievable number of people will show up at every inspection, groups surging in the door for that fifteen minutes. This city has a reputation for being impersonal: it’s considered unusual to make eye contact and smile at strangers, and you’re considered to probably be out to steal from them if you do. (I mean, I’ve had shop assistants and cashiers look at me with shock and almost tearful gratefulness when I respond to a ‘hello, how’re you?’ with a ‘fine, thanks, and yourself?’) This kind of isolating menace is never more apparent than when it’s inspection time, from the powerplay around who gets in the door first, to who achieves the friendliest relationship with the real estate agent, to the little games around personal space. It’s a hard city in which to find somewhere affordable and liveable in which to place yourself, and it’s a big, unfriendly city. It is not expected that we be kind to one another.

Sydney is a city very much divided along class and ethnic lines. I am not sure how to explain to you how class works in Australia, because it seems to slip through a lot of the understandings used to explain class elsewhere, and also because I am from a middle class part of town. In some ways, Sydney’s like a group of bickering villages, really, with their ideas about the other, caricatures of uneducated, working class slobs and clueless private school snobs (as for the latter: accurate with disturbing frequency!). It’s such a large city that the more privileged groups get to stay in their enclaves without ever much mixing if they don’t want to or can’t. I mean large both in terms of population – there are about 4.5 million Sydneysiders – and spatially, with Sydney being very spread out and national parks and other sorts of greenery all round about.

As for ethnicity, there’s a sense that if you are one of those, you belong there. Muslims in Lakemba, Italians in Leichhardt, new immigrants who can’t speak English in Ashfield, and so forth. It’s a big city and there are all kinds of people from all kinds of groups all over. It says a lot about this city that there are such strong ideas, regardless, about who belongs where, and who is straying out of their space.

Read More…Read More…

Review: Not Ordinarily Borrowable or, Unwelcome Advice by Thomas Thurman

Friends, we here at Feministe are all lovers of books, particularly books about women going out in the world, and into themselves. That’s why it was such a pleasure to receive a review copy of such a book written by one of our own readers. That book is Not Ordinarily Borrowable or, Unwelcome Advice, a work of middle grade fiction by Thomas Thurman. There’s a whole review below the cut, but the general point of it is: I don’t care how old you are; if you can, go and read this book at once!

Read More…Read More…

Why Roger Ebert is the best

He is hilarious, and also such a stealth feminist:

“No Strings Attached” poses the question: Is it possible to regularly have sex with someone and not run a risk of falling in love? The answer is yes. Now that we have that settled, consider the case of Emma (Natalie Portman) and Adam (Ashton Kutcher), who first met when they were 6 and now meet when they’re maybe 26. Busy people. He’s a low-rent TV producer and she’s a medical student. She doesn’t have time for romance, and he’s dating the sexy Vanessa (played by the well-named Ophelia Lovibond).

All of this is fun while it lasts. Then the wheels of Hollywood morality begin to grind. There was a time when the very premise of this film would have been banned, but times change, and now characters can do pretty much anything as long as they don’t get away with it. Although “No Strings Attached” might have been more fun if Adam and Emma had investigated the long-term possibilities of casual sex, it is required that the specter of Romantic Love raise its ominous head. Are they … becoming too fond? Emma suggests they try sleeping with others so, you know, they won’t get too hung up on each other. If you’ve ever seen a romantic comedy you know how that works. Experience shows that not sleeping with others is the foolproof way of not getting too hung up, etc.

This is a strange film. Its premise is so much more transgressive than its execution. It’s as if the 1970s never happened, let alone subsequent decades. Emma and Adam aren’t modern characters. They’re sitcom characters allowed to go all the way like grown-ups.

You should read the whole thing. And if you’re bored and looking for more Ebert reviews, I would recommend this old-ish one, where he eviscerates Nicholas Sparks. It’s the best take-down I’ve seen since Bruni reviewed Cipriani.

On second thought about Kermit Gosnell

He does tell us a few things about abortion. They just aren’t what William Saletan thinks.

The Gosnell case shows us the worst of what happens when abortion isn’t accessible. Gosnell’s “clinic” was nothing short of a house of horrors, and he preyed upon women who couldn’t get abortions anywhere else or who were unfamiliar with the American medical system — poor women, immigrants, minors. Michelle Goldberg writes:

No woman would subject herself to such a place if she thought she had somewhere else to go. Forty-one-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, who died after being given an overdose of sedatives at the clinic, was a refugee who had recently arrived in the U.S. from a resettlement camp in Nepal. She couldn’t read English and may not have had any idea how to find a decent clinic. Minors went to Gosnell’s clinic—it was the one place they could skirt state law and get abortions without parental consent. Gosnell performed illegal late-term abortions on women who should have been cared for months earlier.

As Florence pointed out in a comment on the previous Gosnell post, “It also says quite a bit about how important it is to give laws teeth. The laws were in place to prevent this from happening, but despite numerous complaints the state couldn’t or didn’t intervene.”

Gosnell’s clinic hadn’t been reviewed by the Department of Health in 15 years. Members of his staff were unlicensed and not properly trained. And Gosnell knew that he could get away with offering sub-par care to women who he thought were less likely to complain — young women, immigrants, poor women and women of color. As Lori Adelman details:

As you may have witnessed, media coverage of these charges against Dr. Gosnell and nine staff members of his clinic has been rife with gruesome details like this one, which have understandably generated public reactions of horror and disgust. But buried deep in articles describing “bloodstained furniture” and ” jars packed with severed baby feet,” is a less gory but equally as horrifying insight that, at Dr. Gosnell’s clinic, “white women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area” than Gosnell’s regular clientele, which was comprised primarily of poor minority women, including many immigrants. Gosnell reportedly treated these white suburban clients to a more pleasant and sanitary experience because he believed they were “more likely to file complaints” about substandard care.

He was right about that for a long, long time. Lori continues:

The crimes of which Gosnell is accused are exceedingly serious; he must be prosecuted for them to the fullest extent of the law. But the undeniably racialized elements of his practice reflect a need to explore the bigger picture of this story, beyond Gosnell’s presumed guilt or innocence: why Gosnell’s clinic was allowed to continue for so long, and why Dr. Gosnell’s patients, who were overwhelmingly poor minority women, had come to expect their health care needs to be met with such inadequacy that they were forced to accept Gosnell’s “care”.

Gosnell tells us quite a bit about the state of health care in the United States — and especially about abortion care. His clinic was by all accounts a disgusting, flea-infested mess. It doesn’t sound like the kind of place that women would go if they felt like they had any other options. Obviously anti-choice advocates are latching onto this story as an illustration of the horrors of abortion, even though most abortion clinics don’t look like Gosnell’s and are in fact subject to must stricter rules than other medical facilities — but there are more than a few health clinics, abortion-related or not, that are decrepit and run by incompetent practitioners. Those sub-par centers almost exclusively serve communities that are poor, of-color, immigrant, or non-English-speaking. It is absolutely a crisis.

But that’s not the story that you’re going to hear from anti-choicers and conservatives. You’ll hear “abortion is bad” without any recognition that outlawing abortion would have done absolutely nothing to help the women and babies who died or suffered in Gosnell’s care. You won’t hear about how affordable and accessible health care for everyone could have alleviated this situation, or how greater government oversight and enforcement of health care laws could have shut down Gosnell’s operation years ago. To prevent this from happening again — to stop other predatory clinics that offer a variety of health care services, not just abortion — we’d have to get into the hard stuff of recognizing the socioeconomic and racial inequalities in our current health care system. We’d have to admit that for many Americans, decent health care is inaccessible, and reproductive health care is especially poor. There’s a reason we have one of the highest infant death rates in the developed world. There’s a reason that in Washington D.C. the infant death rate is 14.1 per 1,000 live births, while in Connecticut it’s 5.5.

If we want to actually help women and babies (and men and children too), we can increase access to health care and increase government oversight of health care facilities and practices. We can give government entities greater ability to enforce existing laws, and we can push for new laws across the spectrum of consumer safety — in health care, in food regulation and in consumer goods. But those are tough, across-the-board changes. They take (yikes) taxes and government involvement. They require recognizing that we have a problem, and that the USA is not #1 where health care is concerned.

Which is to say that enacting those changes is almost certainly a pipe dream. But that would be a whole lot more life-affirming (and life-saving) than simply using the Gosnell atrocity to fall back on the same old “make abortion illegal” position in the abortion debates. Illegality doesn’t end abortion. Demonizing abortion doesn’t end abortion. Using the Gosnell case as an example of why abortion is bad doesn’t end abortion. But affordable and accessible health care, including abortion care, for everyone regardless of socioeconomic status or location or immigration status or race or English language skills? That saves lives. That decreases the abortion rate. And that’s how we make sure that women aren’t forced to accept inadequate and dangerous “care” because they have no other options.

What Kermit Gosnell tells us about late-term abortion

Absolutely nothing.

No, really. Contrary to what Great Moral Authority On Abortion William Saletan has to say about the matter, I think we’re all pretty well agreed that if the charges against Kermit Gosnell are true, then dude is a criminal and needs to go to jail. Killing a baby after it’s born and has taken breaths? Is not abortion. It should be, and is, a crime punishable by law. And Kermit Gosnell is being criminally prosecuted.

Also, women don’t get late-term abortions for fun. Seriously. No one is like, “I think I will continue this pregnancy for as long as legally possible before I undergo an invasive medical procedure that is rendered longer, more expensive, and more complicated because I waited six months to have it.” No. It’s actually more like, “I really wanted this baby but now it turns out that there’s a fetal abnormality incompatible with life, and if I continue this pregnancy I risk my own health and/or life to give birth to a baby that either will not live or will only live in extreme pain for a very short while.” Fun stuff like that.

But way more entertaining to play Wise Man and draw lines in the sand around what are actually really complex moral issues. Saletan’s entire body of writing on abortion seems to center around the goal of getting pro-choice people to admit that abortion is kind of icky. So, Will, I will give you that: Abortion is pretty gross. So are many medical procedures. So is childbirth, actually. Can we move the conversation forward now?

Pregnant woman kicked out of a bar for being pregnant

Your weekly dose of “God Bless the ACLU”:

We’re all aware of the stigma about drinking during pregnancy. Every bar in America is adorned with a sign warning pregnant women of the dangers of alcohol while pregnant. But at a bar near Chicago, a warning wasn’t enough. Michelle Lee was hanging out at a neighborhood bar near her parents’ home, chatting with some friends. She was approached by a bouncer, who pulled her aside.

“Can I ask you a personal question?” The bouncer asked, “Are you pregnant?”

Lee said yes. (At 8 months along, she figured there was little doubt). Then the bouncer asked her to leave.

NOPE. Bars can’t kick you out because you’re pregnant. The bouncer cited potential liabilities if something happened — if a fight broke out, for example — but it’s unclear to me why the bar would only be liable if a pregnant woman was injured. It’s not totally out there to suspect that the problem wasn’t potential liabilities, it was the bouncer’s general view that pregnant women shouldn’t be in bars (even though this particular pregnant woman was drinking water).

Being a woman who is also pregnant doesn’t mean that you give up your right to participate in society. It doesn’t mean that strangers get to kick you out of establishments that offer food and drink. Coffee isn’t especially great for pregnant women either — can we kick ’em out of Starbucks? We should probably add “Do not enter establishments that offer alcohol, coffee, cured meats, tuna, or potentially under-cooked animal products” to Natalia’s instructions on how to be a nice pregnant lady who doesn’t offend polite society.

You know what must be nice?

Having a life like this:

But they also say it’s hard to justify dumping a can of mystery meat for Bo while the rest of the family is sitting down to grass-fed osso buco with a side of biodynamic polenta. As people eat more sustainable seasonal produce and meat raised and butchered outside the industrial system, so do their pets. And as do-it-yourself hobbies like canning, gardening and raising backyard chickens have taken off in recent years, grinding 40 pounds of pet food starts to look like another fun weekend project.

I do love simple family dinners of grass-fed osso buco and biodynamic polenta. Who doesn’t? And yes, that is an article about making your own pet food. Which, before anyone gets mad, is not something I am opposed to, if that is how you want to spend your weekend! What is annoying is that, because it’s the New York Times, making your own pet food is presented as super-bourgie and also entirely necessary if you are the kind of person who only buys grass-fed beef and avoids processed foods (and I actually try to only buy grass-fed beef and I avoid processed foods, so this isn’t a criticism of those choices, obviously). It makes you feel kind of guilty for not loving your pet enough to make him his very own food, and it makes you resent the pet-food-makers for their fanciness and sanctimony, and it sells making your own pet food as a Rich Person Thing. Which I don’t think it has to be (even though I think it’s probably a bad idea for most people, since most people do not know the intricacies of animal nutritional needs).

Don’t get me wrong, the Make Your Own Pet Food People can be plenty sanctimonious. When I adopted my cat I had to go to Cat Lady Class to learn the ins and outs of cat ownership (you have to put screens on your windows because cats will definitely fall out; cats are allergic to onions; you should probably get your cat’s balls removed; etc etc), and we were told in no uncertain terms that if we really truly loved our cats and wanted the best for them, we would make them organic food and never ever buy food from the store. But if we were selfish enough that we would not, in fact, cook for our cats, then the only reasonable option was to feed them organic wet food that we only bought after carefully reading the label to make sure that the first ingredients weren’t nasty. If we did decide to feed our cats dry food, or some godforsaken brand like Friskies or Fancy Feast or Alpo, the cat should be taken away by CPS.

I decided to go the middle route: Bourgie organic food bought at the organic deli, after carefully reading the labels. Later, for medical reasons, prescription cat food. Middle-ground sanctimony.

So, point being, I haven’t exactly jumped on the cooking-for-cats bandwagon. That is a bandwagon that I never plan to jump on, actually, and the fact that I even had to attend something called “cat class” made me seriously reconsider the choices I had made up to that point in my life. But that said, it seems like, as is true with eating healthy, cooking for your pet is presented by the Times as something that’s unattainable for most people, unless you have a ton of extra time and a lot of extra cash, and is a class thing that only bored rich people do. Now, being that I have never cooked for my pet and I am almost definitely not going to start anytime soon (sorry, cat), I have no first-hand knowledge as to whether that’s true or not. But I’m guessing it is not, and, like preparing a healthy meal, it is not totally impossible to do on a budget and even with time constraints. The framing of home-cooked pet food, though, feeds right into the Healthy Food Culture Wars, where Rich Liberal Elitists are trying to force-feed you arugula, while Good Down-Home Folks know that a heart attack on a plate is the only way to be a True American — it’s a fictional debate. And the Times, because it’s the Times, has totally created a ridiculous “trend” story that seems to be based mostly on “here is this thing that one of my friends does sometimes,” and is basically prodding its readership to seriously consider whether it’s Class War time.

Do I think making your own pet food is a little bit silly? Yeah (although not as silly as feeding your dog a vegan diet. Seriously?). And it’s also potentially really bad for your pet, if you don’t do your homework to make sure they’re getting all of the nutrients they need. But grinding up some organs and feeding them to your favorite beast doesn’t have to be an Organic Farmer / Rich Person Thing. It will probably always be a dirty hippie thing,* but we all knew that.

______________________________________
*KIDDING. Also, I just wrote 650 fairly earnest words about making your own pet food, so I don’t think any of you should take me too seriously.