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

Buy Indie Day

via Kate comes the news that today is Buy Indie Day. Head to your local independent book store and pick up something. Kate’s book isn’t out yet, but you can pre-order it. And I’ll second her recommendation of Jessica Valenti’s latest, The Purity Myth, which I will hopefully be writing about in more detail in the coming days. Today, though, I think I’m going to buy Netherland, which I embarassingly have not yet read.

And as long as we’re buying independent, might as well eat independent too — check out the Eat Well Guide, which helps you find local organic and sustainable food, markets and restaurants. It’s exactly what I need after reading this article. (Thanks to Jaclyn for the link).

In Honor of Fair Pay Day

Re-posting this awesome guest-post by Sarah Jaffe. Sarah has another fair pay post up today — head over there and read it. Here’s Sarah:

So our economy is falling apart, right? And the government keeps bailing out these massive financial firms while talking Very Sternly to the auto company CEOs about how they need to restructure and cut costs. Of course, the number one cost CEOs and reporters love to talk about is the “labor cost,” all the while nicely avoiding mentioning that “labor cost” is what real people make in wages and other benefits.

Unions, in other words, are a convenient bogeyman, yet they do and have done more to improve the living standards of American workers than anything else. And 44% of union workers are women. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

“If the share of women in unions continues to grow at the same rate as it has over the last 25 years, women will be the majority of the unionized workforce by 2020.”

There’s a bill in Congress right now that you’ve probably heard of called the Employee Free Choice Act. Briefly, the bill would allow three things: it would allow workers to form a union simply by signing a card—the so-called “card check” provision; it would provide binding arbitration for employers and workers when they cannot agree on a contract; and it would strengthen penalties against employers who seek to intimidate workers trying to form a union.

And I believe it should be a feminist issue.

Read More…Read More…

Target Women: Your Garden

Of course, “garden” doesn’t really mean garden, if you know what I mean ladies, and I think that you do! Of course, we’re talking about that feminine garden. You know — the one down there.

(Click here if you can’t view the embedded video.)

Apparently with Sarah Haskins, ask and ye shall receive. Well, okay, she didn’t take on the not-so-subtle indication that women need to be perfectly trimmed, shaved and generally hairless at all times in order to be considered feminine and attractive. But taking on the fact that if advertisers want to insist so strenuously that we need to have the hair around our genitals removed or otherwise almost unnoticeable, they really ought to just fucking say “trim/shave your pubes”? Right now, that’s enough for me.

Taxing Soda

In a post a few weeks back, a lot of Feministe readers disapproved of taxing cigarettes, and had some interesting arguments that I, a supporter of such taxes, hadn’t previously considered. So I wonder: How do you all feel about taxing sugared beverages?

William Saletan seems to think that the tax would only apply to soda, but from the policy paper it looks like it would apply to any beverage with added sweeteners. I’m not a big soda drinker, but I do require a daily hazelnut Americano, which I imagine would be taxed. While I’m not a huge fan of the OMG OBESITY EPIDEMIC tone of the policy paper, I do agree that it’s reprehensible that soda is heavily marketed at kids, is sold in schools, and is often more easily available than healthier food products. And unlike other unhealthy foods, soda has zero nutritional value. I would certainly favor the soda tax if it were used to subsidize the cost of healthier foods, since access to healthy foods is more a class issue than anything else.

I’m not usually particularly interested in regulating what people put in their bodies, but since our government already subsidizes corn production (artificially driving down the cost of products sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup), and since the policy paper includes a proposal to use the tax money in furtherance of more equitable access to healthy food, I have less of an issue with this particular tax. Of course, I would prefer that we overhaul our agricultural and food production and safety policies entirely — and I would prefer we did it from a rights-based perspective instead of an obesity-prevention one — but that doesn’t look like it’ll be happening anytime soon. What do you all think? Should our soda be taxed?

Unions, Women and Fair Labor Practices: Why the Employee Free Choice Act is a Feminist Issue

A guest-post by Sarah Jaffe

So our economy is falling apart, right? And the government keeps bailing out these massive financial firms while talking Very Sternly to the auto company CEOs about how they need to restructure and cut costs. Of course, the number one cost CEOs and reporters love to talk about is the “labor cost,” all the while nicely avoiding mentioning that “labor cost” is what real people make in wages and other benefits.

Unions, in other words, are a convenient bogeyman, yet they do and have done more to improve the living standards of American workers than anything else. And 44% of union workers are women. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

“If the share of women in unions continues to grow at the same rate as it has over the last 25 years, women will be the majority of the unionized workforce by 2020.”

There’s a bill in Congress right now that you’ve probably heard of called the Employee Free Choice Act. Briefly, the bill would allow three things: it would allow workers to form a union simply by signing a card—the so-called “card check” provision; it would provide binding arbitration for employers and workers when they cannot agree on a contract; and it would strengthen penalties against employers who seek to intimidate workers trying to form a union.

And I believe it should be a feminist issue.

Read More…Read More…

Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery

Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery by Siddharth Kara
(Columbia University Press)

This review may contain triggers.

At this moment, there are roughly twenty-seven million people enslaved globally, and over a million of them are sex slaves. Millions more have escaped, “earned” their freedom, or died from assault or STDs over the past twenty years – and, unless action is taken right now, millions more will become enslaved. Tellingly, almost all the countries that serve as either origins or destinations of trafficking victims have enormous, well-funded police forces devoted to drug wars, but can’t be bothered to rustle up the money for anti-trafficking efforts. The abuse of drugs has the power to whip entire populations into a frenzy, but the abuse of people is met with listless dismissal.

Read More…Read More…

Regulating New Jersey’s Hair Down There

New Jersey’s reputation for big-haired women may have just been taken to the next level: The state is considering enforcing its ban on Brazilian bikini waxes. As Reason says, when hairless genitalia is banned, only bandits will have hairless genitalia.

The state Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling is moving toward a ban on genital waxing altogether after two women reported being injured in their quest for a smooth bikini line.

Both women were hospitalized for infections following so-called “Brazilian” bikini waxes; one of the women has filed a lawsuit, according to Jeff Lamm, a spokesman for New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the cosmetology board.

Technically, genital waxing has never been allowed — only the face, neck, abdomen, legs and arms are permitted — but because bare-it-all “Brazilians” weren’t specifically banned, state regulators haven’t enforced the law.

The genital area is not part of the abdomen or legs as some might assume,” Lamm said.

…well there’s your first problem.

Spa owner Linda Orsuto, who owns 800 West Salon & Spa in Cherry Hill, estimates that most of 1,800 bikini waxes performed at her business last year were Brazilian-style.

“It’s huge,” she said, adding that her customers don’t think their bikini lines are anyone’s business but their own. “It’s just not right.”

She said many customers would likely travel across state lines to get it and some might even try to wax themselves.

Back-alley Brazilians and do-it-yourself waxes are no fun for anyone involved.

I’m all for greater health department oversight of salons — some of the practices I’ve seen are pretty disgusting. One of the more common ones is re-using those popsickle stick things on the same client — putting wax on the stick, using the stick to spread the wax on the client’s skin, and then putting the stick back in the wax and re-spreading. It’s not sanitary, since wax isn’t hot enough to kill all the potential germs you just redeposited into the vat. When you’re dealing with the innermost folds and countours of someone’s most private parts, you don’t want unsanitary conditions. Or, to put it more blunty, I don’t want someone else’s buttcrack germs spread all over my crotch. Waxing can also cause burns and ripped-off skin if done improperly. So please, New Jersey and other states, regulate away so that people don’t walk out of their salons with infections and open wounds.

But banning a bare beaver? There are surely problematic aspects to waxing — including the usual feminist and gender issues, which we’ve all spent more than enough time navel-gazing (vulva-gazing?) about — but are Brazilians really so physically and socially problematic that we need to ban them? Maybe I’m just getting old, but the Brazilian craze seems to have died down a bit anyway. The salon I go to now offers a “French” wax, which isn’t as extreme as a Brazilian, because there was a demand for something not quite as bare. Seems to me that, regardless of the pubic hair trend du jour or my own feminist views on waxing,* health departments should be regulating public health and safety, not pube design. Certainly the great state of New Jersey could find something better to do with its bureaucratic spare time. Although if they are going to waste time and resources micromanaging the aesthetics of the local beaver population, I know at least one guy who may be interested in helping out.

Thanks to Tom Foolery for the link.

_______________________________
*Those views, for the curious: I don’t really care.

Preach it, Judith Warner

It’s about time someone wrote this:

Now, I’m just as jealous of the yoga-pants-at-9-a.m.-on-Monday-morning crowd as the next frazzled working mom. But, I’m sorry to say, however delicious charting the downfall of the wealthy at-home mom may be, we do have to stop for a little reality check. While the rich, bathed in our attention, are turning necessity into a hand-wringing sociological event, most women in this country are just going about their business, much as they always have.

We — journalists and readers both — simply must, for once, resist the temptation to let what may or may not be happening to the top 5 percent (or 1 percent) of our country’s families set the story line for what women’s lives are becoming in this recession.

Because, the fact is, the story’s not about them.

“This is a classic blue collar recession,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress. Fully half the jobs that have been lost so far have been in construction and manufacturing. Only 5.1 percent of job losses have been in finance and insurance — the kinds of careers that support the opt-out lifestyle.

The kind of marital tensions that we’re seeing in the downwardly mobile lifestyles of the rich and wretched, the family historian Stephanie Coontz told me this week, aren’t necessarily typical of couples further down the income scale, either. Wealthy families, she said, have tended, with their work-around-the-clock husbands and at-home wives, to have adopted a rather old-fashioned model of marriage, with fixed sex roles. They’ve set the tone, but the rest of the population hasn’t necessarily followed.

Increasing numbers of working class women now — in a downturn where 82 percent of the job losses have been among men – have become their family’s sole wage-earners, it’s true. But their husbands, very often, are holding their own at home just fine. For while the stereotype has long been that working class men won’t do “women’s work,” Coontz said, the truth is that in recent years they’ve had a better track record than the most high-income men in sharing domestic duties. Twenty percent of these men, in fact, actually do more housework and child care now than their wives. “These people have been doing it for some time and they’re much more ideologically committed to doing it,” she said. “I think your worst offenders” (dirty coffee mug-wise), “are in that top 5 percent.”

“I’ve been a little irritated by the slams on men,” she added.

It’s not just for the sake of being fair to the hubbies that we’ve got to keep our wits about us these days and avoid falling into the usual clichés about class and gender with which we tend to make sense of men and women’s changing lives. There’s a deeper reason, too: paying attention only to the – real or perceived – “choices” and travails of the top 5 percent hides the experiences of all the rest. And this means that the needs of all the rest never quite rise to the surface of our national debate or emerge at the top of our political priorities.

This happened very obviously in the 1990s, when the New Traditionalist story line hid the fact that many mothers at home were actually either poor (and unable to “afford to work” if they had kids, as Coontz puts it), or had had their nonworking “choice” made for them by an inflexible workplace or a high-earning husband’s nearly 24/7 work schedule. Years of public prosperity passed without any real action on creating family-friendly workplaces.

We can’t let that happen again now.

Wealthy families may be downsizing somewhat, but many others are living right on the edge. The former don’t need government support; the latter desperately do. There were hopeful signs emerging in the not-so-distant past that much-needed change might be on the way: a number of states had voted to start to pay for family leave, and momentum was gathering behind paid sick leave, too. But now, states are backing away from those initiatives. A ballot measure that would have brought paid sick leave to Ohio has been withdrawn, the Associated Press has reported, and in New Jersey and Washington state the implementation of new mandates for paid family leave may be delayed because of fiscal concerns.

The Obama administration clearly has made the real-life needs of middle- and working-class families a high priority. But in the current climate, fighting Republican and business community concerns about “raising the cost of work” is going to be a real challenge.

So let’s make sure we remember who’s really suffering. And give their stories their due.

Word. Read it all.

Gendering Infants

I’ve seen a couple of blogs now post on Baby Bangs — a new company that creates wigs/toupee’s for bald or short-haired baby girls so that people will not commit the heinous act of mis-gendering them.  An example below, via Hoyden About Town:

As Gwen at Sociological Images says about a different but similar image:

The fact that we’re supposed to see the second photo as clearly cuter than the first makes me sad, actually.

Indeed.

Gwen then goes on to ask questions about why people are so concerned that someone might mistake their infant daughter for a boy, as this product is explicitly designed to avoid.  I’ll say that the question befuddles me, as well, though I was once the object of such concerns.

You see, I was not only born bald — I was born with male pattern baldness.  Hair around the back of my head, almost entirely bald on top.  In fact, it’s a joke in the family that as an infant, I looked remarkably like Phil Collins.  The pictures bear this out, actually — I totally did.  But my mom would then dress me in pink, in frilly things, dresses, and though she thankfully wouldn’t put those horrible lacy headbands on my head, she would carefully clip an itty bitty little baby barrette to the very short, small shock of hair in the center of my head.  And still, people would always assume that I was a boy.  And instead of finding this amusing, her telling the story indicates that it did a better job of driving her absolutely nuts.  When inquiring about why exactly it mattered, I never did get much of an answer.

In the end, though, as I question why it so bothers parents when their infants are mis-gendered, and why it is that social anxieties so regularly get played out via children, I also ask why people who are not the child’s parent are so keen on instantly gendering infants at all.  I further ask why they’d do it so nonsensically based on something like hair, which babies of both genders regularly lack.  I assume that it’s because people insist on applying already highly imperfect adult gender cues to people of all ages; but the ridiculousness of such a move completely confuses me, too.

Then again, I can’t really imagine a scenario where you’d have to guess the gender of an infant unless you didn’t know the baby’s parents.  As someone who doesn’t have even the slightest inclination towards reproduction or much of a soft spot towards babies at all, I really don’t understand the concept of strangers stopping to say how incredibly cute a baby is in the first place.  So maybe I’m not the best person to be asking these questions at all, but I still think they’re really interesting questions.