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

Meet the HR3 Ten: Joe Donnelly

Ten Democrats cosponsored H.R.3, even with language redefining rape; four of those ten also apparently don’t care if pregnant women die. Sarah Jaffe takes a closer look at all ten; find all posted to date here.

In the run-up to the 2010 election, Melinda Henneberger at Politics Daily wrote of Joe Donnelly: 

Democratic incumbent Rep. Joe Donnelly and his Republican challenger in next month’s election, state Rep.Jackie Walorski, have a fair amount in common: Both are pro-gun, pro-life, and oppose climate change legislation, though it’s Donnelly who has been endorsed by the NRA, and he, too, who emphasizes his stand against illegal immigration.
Both candidates are running against Nancy Pelosi and on Hoosier valueswhatever those might be

Despite running against his own party and its priorities, Joe Donnelly got $770,760.74 in DCCC expenditures in his race. Not bad, eh? Donnelly’s district was a “red to blue” target in 2006, and so the party kept pouring money in to keep him in it.

Molly McClure is from Donnelly’s district, and she notes that while Indiana as a whole is pretty conservative, it did vote for Obama in 2008–the first time a Democrat had taken the state since 1964 and Barry Goldwater’s epic loss. Obama took South Bend/St. Joseph County in ’08, but much of the rest of the district voted McCain. She notes that the district is heavily Catholic–in addition to Notre Dame, other Catholic schools are prominent in the area.

So during the 2010 campaign, Donnelly was running ads slagging his (female) Majority Leader at the time and his (black) president, notably over the issue of immigration. As Greg Sargent noted, he’s from Indiana–not exactly a contentious border state. Yet he couldn’t even bring himself to vote for the DREAM Act to give immigrant kids citizenship if they went to college or joined the military. 

Read More…Read More…

I knew they were going to make it about Lara Logan’s looks

(For more on the “they”, please see Jill’s post below. Trigger warning, etc.)

Because that’s what happens when you’re a female foreign journalist in the Middle East. Get hurt? Well, you shouldn’t have been a female foreign journalist in the Middle East, and certainly not a BLOND one! In the immortal words of Eddie Izzard “those are the rules… that I just made up!”

Of course, they made it about Scary Muslims as well. Because the assault Lara Logan suffered in Cairo had all the right ingredients for a nice round of Bash the Muslim. Debbie Schlussel (who gets rape threats herself, but can’t seem to connect the dots and understand that this means that sexual assault is nothing to gloat about, JESUS CHRIST) went on her usual rant about “animals” and such, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

So there’s Lara Logan and there’s narrative that she has used her looks to get ahead, and now she’s gotten punished, and hey maybe she was a crap journalist all along and we just didn’t realize it because she’s hot (of course, if Logan had not been conventionally attractive, then people would just make jokes about how she shouldn’t be on TV in the first place), and what the hell was she thinking – didn’t she realize that her looks were a liability in such an Uncivilized Place, and what’s up with these networks giving these little ladies such important, dangerous jobs…. and on and on and on the vomit stream continues. People want to blame Lara Logan, because it’s the easy way out. They want to construct an illusion that a journalist who was just doing her job had any control over the actions of the people who assaulted her to begin with.

I can’t imagine the horror Lara Logan went through, but I know all too well how such victim-blaming narratives play out. When I spoke about dealing with daily sexual harassment in Jordan, the most common response was, “Well, what can you expect?” It’s a neat trick, because the men around me were simultaneously reduced to Uncontrollable Animals and absolved of responsibility in the matter. It meant that my stories could be co-opted, used as Just Another Reason Why We Should Bomb the Muslims to Hell – or else used as an excuse to vilify the Slutty McSluts of the Western world, who made shows like “Sex & the City” popular (I SWEAR TO GOD, THAT SHOW HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP IN RELATION TO LOGAN’S CASE, AND EVERY TIME SOMEONE DOES THIS, I EDGE CLOSER AND CLOSER TO JUST RIPPING OFF THEIR ARMS AND THEN BEATING THEM TO DEATH WITH THEM) and then get all uppity when people abroad get funny ideas about them.

The narrative in such cases also conveniently obscures just how pervasive sexual assault truly is, how it’s just about everyone’s damn problem, and, in this case, how Logan was probably not the only one who was attacked.

Logan’s case horrifies and terrifies me, because it hits so close to home. I’m not like Logan – I don’t have her experience, I wouldn’t go to war zones like she has done (I’ve dealt with enough violence in my life, so it’s not my journalistic cup of tea) – but when news of this broke, an American colleague actually went as far as write me and basically say, “Gee, this could’ve been you! Aren’t you glad you left the Scary Middle East? Haven’t I TOLD you that it’s not for women like you?”

Oh God, man, screw you.

Why under-educated pop stars should probably not try to talk politics.

Oh Justin Bieber, your hair is so pretty but you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer:

In his new Rolling Stone cover story, Justin Bieber tackles the hard stuff: sex (“I don’t think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them”), politics (“I’m not sure about the parties, but whatever they have in Korea, that’s bad”), health care (“Canada’s the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don’t need to worry about paying him”), and the big one, abortion. “I really don’t believe in abortion,” Bieber tells the magazine. “It’s like killing a baby?” But what if that baby (baby, baby, oh) were a product of rape? “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

Yes, ladies, everything happens for a reason — including being raped and getting pregnant. Maybe next time the Beebs gets into an accident or suffers an injury, he should tell himself that everything happens for a reason, and so there’s no need to avail himself of Canada’s excellent health care system. Wouldn’t want to interfere with God’s plan. That’s what the Koreans do.

Also, this is why reporters shouldn’t ask ignorant-ass pop stars about politics. Ask him more about hair products. The people have a right to know.

Lara Logan assaulted in Egypt

CBS Journalist Lara Logan was physically and sexually assaulted in Egypt this week (trigger warning for this whole post):

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently home recovering.

This story has been discussed extensively, and the coverage has been… disturbing, to say the least. Take, for example, this LA Weekly article, which calls Logan a “Warzone ‘It’ Girl,” a “firecracker” and a journalist “known for her shocking good looks” — and that’s just in the headline, lead and photo caption. There’s emphasis on the fact that she’s a “blonde reporter,” and that she has made a career of “using her Hollywood good looks” for advancement. Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon has covered what she aptly calls “the victim-blaming machine” that seems to kick in as a response to every high-profile rape case. New York University Center for Law & Security (now former) fellow Nir Rosen, another journalist, made a series of stunningly offensive remarks on Twitter about how Logan was trying “out-do” Anderson Cooper. Cooper, for those who weren’t following, was punched in the head while covering the Cairo protests; notably, the coverage of Cooper’s assault didn’t focus on his light hair color or his stunning good looks. (Rosen, to his credit, has given an extensive apology and explanation, which should serve as a model for anyone reacting to a major public fuck-up).

Unsurprisingly, our favorite local rape apologist, Robert Stacy “How can I be pro-rape when I think you shouldn’t even heavy-pet before marriage?” McCain has jumped in to emphasize that this isn’t about an act of violence against a reporter, it’s about brown Muslim savages being so overcome by desire for a hot blonde that they just have to rape her. Never mind that women in the West are raped all the time, by other people who are also from Western countries. Never mind that women who aren’t hot and blonde are also raped. Never mind that if you are hot and blonde and you’re raped, the immediate response is that something about you as a person brought the assault on. Never mind that it was a group of Egyptian women and 20 soldiers who helped Logan escape the assault. “Brown people are savages who will go after pretty white women” is too convenient a narrative (and RS McCain isn’t the only right-winger going this route).

None of which is to say that assault and public harassment aren’t big problems in Egypt. Eighty-three percent of Egyptian women report being sexually harassed on the street, and 62 percent of men admit engaging in harassment. In the brief amount of time I spent in Egypt, I was harassed and followed and cat-called extensively. That viewpoint — that women in public are public property — was pervasive particularly in Cairo, but is hardly exclusive to Egypt and certainly doesn’t correlate with the prominence of Islam in any particular country. We can address the fact that Logan’s assault didn’t happen in a bubble — that assault and harassment and groping are part of a continuum of sexualized attacks that women face in Egypt regularly (including, yes, Egyptian women!) — without going the intellectually lazy route of concluding, “So Muslims.” I would hope that, similarly, visitors to New York who are harassed on the street — and street harassment is very common here as well — wouldn’t be so ignorant as to blame, say, Christians for their experiences. Point being, we should recognize that assaults on women for having the audacity to move through public space are widespread, and are part of a greater, systematic misogyny that impacts all women (not just the ones that you want to fuck) and that doesn’t tie to any particular religion or ethnic background or location. Certainly culture is a factor, insofar as cultures which restrict women’s rights and see women’s bodies as public property are probably going to have greater problems with women in public space. (Welcome, also, to the United States.)

There’s also been a lot of talk about how Logan “put herself in harm’s way,” and how maybe we should be reconsidering the deployment of female journalists, because they are particularly vulnerable — as if it’s not possible for men to be assaulted (and sexually assaulted). Right-wing blogs are saying that it’s Logan’s “liberal mentality” — her audacity in believing that as an attractive blonde woman, she could ever possibly be able to do her job, or even go out in public gatherings — that got her assaulted. The blame is on her, not on the men who actually assaulted her. There’s even a poll asking, “Is Lara Logan to blame for her own sexual assault?” When male journalists are harmed or even killed on the job — and I’d be willing to bet that male journalists are assaulted and killed more often than female journalists — the media narrative is, basically, “He was brave and this is a tragedy.” But when it happens to a woman, the narrative shifts to, “Should women be doing this?”

The same conversation happens about “normal” sexual assault — the kind that doesn’t happen to prominent media figures. Women are lectured about how to keep ourselves safe and out of harm’s way — don’t get too drunk, don’t walk home alone at night, don’t talk to strange men, don’t wear provocative clothing. The message is to be careful while you’re alone or among strangers, when in fact women are much more likely to be assaulted by someone they know, and are most likely to be sexually assaulted in their own home or in the home of someone they know. When women are sexually assaulted, there’s a backward-looking guessing game at what she could have done to prevent the assault — she shouldn’t have gone to that bar, or worn that, or drank so much, or been out that late. The implication is that women are safest if they remain inside. Men are much more likely than women to be physically assaulted in public, but they aren’t repeatedly warned to stay home.

When women do transgress those boundaries — when we do interact in public — some men use that as an excuse for punishment, through harassment or groping or sexualized insult or, as here, assault. That’s what we should be talking about: Cultural and structural misogyny, including hostility towards women moving freely through public space, and pinning the blame on women when men assault them. Blaming Logan, or casting her attackers simply as brown savages who couldn’t help themselves, feeds into the same system that enabled this attack.

The Logan story, of course, is barreling down the usual path. It’s a shame to see it used as a lecture for women everywhere (and female journalists in particular) to be afraid, and as a mechanism to further demonize Muslims.

I hope Logan is able to find a peaceful recovery.

South Dakota bill would allow the killing of abortion providers as “justifiable homicide”

Yes, really.

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state’s legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman’s father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

Here is the exact language of the bill:

22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

It doesn’t take a creative reading to understand that this bill would classify murdering abortion providers as “justifiable homicide,” so long as the murderer could show that he was acting in the defense of an “unborn child.”

…I don’t really have any other words.

UPDATE: The legislator behind the bill defends it, saying “It would if abortion was illegal … This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.” Since abortion isn’t legally homicide, he says, this law wouldn’t apply.

But that’s just incorrect in reading the plain language of the bill. The part about “justifiable homicide” doesn’t refer to the person being defended; the homicide that is justifiable is the killing of the person who was a threat to the life or safety of another (in the abortion scenario, the abortion provider). Would it hold up in court? Maybe not. But it does establish a potential defense to doctor-killing.

So what exactly is the purpose of this law? State Representative Jensen, who sponsored it, says:

“Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn’t want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend’s abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child.”

Um.

Meet Mark Critz.

Ten Democrats cosponsored H.R.3, even with language redefining rape; four of those ten also apparently don’t care if pregnant women die. Sarah Jaffe takes a closer look at all ten; find all posted to date here. Originally posted at RH Reality Check.

Meet Mark Critz. He got a huge chunk of cash from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last election to hold the seat he’d won in a special election after the death of his old boss, John Murtha. How huge? $2,107,202.86

Murtha was best known for coming out loudly and angrily against the Iraq war–as the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a veteran, he was “taken seriously” the way us antiwar ladies usually aren’t. But Murtha wasn’t a dove by nature: he’d voted for the war in ’02, making his claims of being “pro-life” once again a little iffy. 

Critz follows in his boss’s footsteps and opposes our right to our own bodies–he’s a cosponsor of HR3 and HR358–the one that would let us die if a doctor thought that saving us might injure a fetus. 

Read More…Read More…

Ah, Romance.

someecards.com - I'd like to dedicate this boner to you

It’s Valentine’s Day, which means that everyone is either complaining (“it’s such a corporate, Hallmark holiday”) or making a big show out of how happy they are (see 1.5 million Cosmo-style articles across the interwebs and on a magazine rack near you about how much the author, who spends the rest of the year hawking self-loathing and female anxiety, loves herself). The only thing more annoying than the obsession over Valentine’s Day (hate it! love it!) is peoples’ apparent need to project all of their insecurities and issues onto Valentine’s Day. It’s just a day. We’re all going to be fine.

I personally like Valentine’s Day because it means that as soon as all the heart-shaped candy in the drug store is gone, it’ll be replaced by Easter candy, which is far superior and which necessarily includes Cadbury Creme Eggs (and also Cadbury mini eggs). V-Day is a harbinger of good things to come (to Rite Aid). I’m sure that speaks volumes about my own psychoses.

Of course, Valentine’s Day isn’t what it used to be. Those romantic Romans really did shit right, and we don’t seem to have followed suit. So if any of you crazy kids are getting smacked by a dead goat carcass tonight, enjoy it. And send pictures.

And happy Valentine’s Day, really. What are you all doing? (I hope at least one of you is getting laid.)

So, wait.

I don’t listen to the radio (I don’t own a radio, which is odd, since I am 96 years old). However: There is apparently a very popular musical act called Lady Antebellum? And to be fair, I have heard their hit song played in several delis across New York City and didn’t know who actually sang it until tonight, so it’s not totally foreign to me. But they’re winning Grammy awards? And their name is, I will remind you, LADY ANTEBELLUM?

Seriously, why is this happening? (Also, Train, really? We think this is good enough to award? The world is ending, and we all deserve it).

Also, What Tami Said.