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

Disability and Class

This is a guest post by BipolarGirl for Blogging Against Disablism Day. Don’t forget to check out the rest of the Blogging Against Disablism Day posts here.

Trigger Warning

I am bipolar. There’s debate as to whether I’m bipolar II or I. There’s debate as to whether I have anxiety attacks or hypomanic episodes. I take two medications every day and will for the rest of my life. One, lithium, balances my moods and keeps me from becoming uncontrollably and terrifyingly manic. The other, effexor, does what it can to keep me from slipping into a dark and enveloping depression. Both have side effects I could really do without – the constant thirst, the layer of fat over my belly, the moments that feel like an electric shock in my brain if I miss even one dose of effexor.

There are a lot of things I could say about being bipolar. How even though I have amazing health insurance, I still can’t get assigned to a therapist for longer than 10 weeks at a time. How I feel about the wide gulf between the reality of mental illness and the public perception of mental illness. How sometimes I still have so much trouble with depression that I want to crawl into bed for the rest of my life. How I used to cut myself and haven’t for over 10 years but still automatically think about it whenever I get emotionally overwhelmed, the way I imagine a drug addict would think of using.

But instead I want to talk about intersectionality. While I feel I would share a lot of experiences with other people with bipolar, I also feel I have a unique experience in the disability community because of my socioeconomic privilege. I want to highlight the impact my class had on my disability experience because I feel it was one of the most important factors in my recovery, and I think the fact that class can be such an important factor is ridiculous and needs to be addressed.

Read More…Read More…

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?

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.

Two Articles

MoJo has some great pieces up right now. Two I want to highlight:

1. The Dark Side of Overseas Adoption. International adoption is loosely regulated and often “closed;” in some places, it’s turned into a child-buying market.

2. Brave New Welfare: Clinton-era welfare “reform” is lauded for decreasing welfare dependency and shortening the TANF rolls. In reality, case workers are turning down eligible women in an effort to keep enrollment down, and families are living in severe poverty.

In 2006, the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence conducted a survey to figure out why so many women were suddenly failing to get tanf benefits. They discovered that caseworkers were actively talking women out of applying, often using inaccurate information. (Lying to applicants to deny them benefits is a violation of federal law, but the 1996 welfare reform legislation largely stripped the Department of Health and Human Services of its power to punish states for doing it. Meanwhile, county officials have tried to head off lawyers who might take up the issue by pressing applicants to sign waivers saying they voluntarily turned down benefits.) Allison Smith, the economic justice coordinator at the coalition, says the group has gotten reports of caseworkers telling tanf applicants they have to be surgically sterilized before they can apply. Disabled women have been told they can’t apply because they can’t meet the work requirement. Others have been warned that the state could take their children if they get benefits. Makita Perry, a 23-year-old mother of four who did manage to get on tanf for a year, told me caseworkers “ask you all sorts of personal questions, like when the last time you had sex was and with who.” Elsewhere, women are being told to get a letter proving they’ve visited a family-planning doctor.

Read the whole thing.

A few things which I hope to write about later

But I figure I’ll direct your attention to now.

1. Is Food the New Sex? I was pretty excited to read the title of this article, since food policy is one of my pet interests, and the social constructions of food and sex (and how they overlap and relate) is something I’m perpetually fascinated by. I mean, it’s food and sex — do I need to explain further? Unfortunately, the Hoover Institution (a right-wing think tank at Stanford) managed to make the most interesting of topics overly-moralizing and boring, complete with cookie-cutter caricatures to illustrate a very tired point. However, kudos for this line, which made me laugh, even though my juvenile take on it is probably not what the article was going for: “The mindful vegetarian slogan, “you are what you eat,” has no counterpart in the popular culture today when it comes to sex.” Heh.

2. Designers and retailers ignore the average American woman, who is a size 14 and 163 pounds. It’s an interesting article. But why the classist commentary? For example: “I don’t want any more polyester, hip-hop gear, frumpy jeans and themed capris! I want the designers not to assume that I am a frumpy 55-year-old, middle-management employee. . . . Is anyone listening to us?” via Knit Me a Pony‘s Twitter.

3. All the major players on Obama’s health care team are women. via Baratunde on facebook.

Formerly Incarcerated People and Economic Justice

Check out this video, in which a man named Vincent, who has a criminal conviction 25 years old and still can’t find work because of it, talks about his experiences:

In the accompanying article for RaceWire, Seth Wessler writes:

The White House has appropriately put creating and saving jobs at the center of the stimulus plan. But for people with criminal records, the prospects of inclusion in the national recovery are dismal. It’s not enough to create a job when a quick criminal background check will result in so many people losing it or not getting it at all. Those with prior convictions will be excluded from the game before the starting whistle sounds.

Communities of color experience higher rates of joblessness. This is due in part to the damning mix of the stigma of having a criminal record, the assumption that ex-prisoners can never redeem themselves, the ensuing ban on public employment for people with felony convictions and the practice of employers doing background checks.

According to Princeton sociologist Devah Pager, joblessness among former prisoners after a year is somewhere around 75 percent — three times the level among the same population before incarceration. The trend toward never-ending punishment, even after people have served their time, infects communities of color, especially Black people, with particular venom.

It’s important food for thought. And it also brings up the issue of the revolving door that our prison system, or prison industrial complex, has become. It seems that a big part of the reason why many people re-offend is because of a lack of other options, due to both limited education and limited job opportunities. In many case, they either must commit more crimes to survive, or re-offend because they have nothing to lose, anyway.  So we’re talking about a whole lot of issues rolled into one here: economic justice, racial justice, and safety within communities.

Read the full article here.  Clearly, something needs to change.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

For those who have not heard of Henrietta Hughes, she is a homeless woman who stood up at a town hall meeting and told Barack Obama that she is unemployed and has been forced her to live in her car.  She further pleaded with the president to do something to ensure that people like her had housing

“I have an urgent need, unemployment and homelessness, a very small vehicle for my family and I to live in,” she said. “The housing authority has two years’ waiting lists, and we need something more than the vehicle and the parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom. Please help.”

Now, Michelle Malkin has decided to publicly mock her with taunts like “If she had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too.”  She then went on to say:

Hughes didn’t explain the cause of her financial turmoil. Obama didn’t ask. And if we conservatives dare to question the circumstances — and the underlying assumption that it is government’s (that is, taxpayers’) role to bail her out — we’ll be lambasted as cruel haters of the downtrodden.

[. . .]

Well, pardon my unbending belief in fairness and personal responsibility, but why should my tax dollars go to feed the housing entitlement beast?

Indeed, why should housing be considered a right?  After all, what does my housing say about my personal class status and how much better I am than other people, if there aren’t those other people out there who don’t have a place to live at all?

The worst part is that Malkin isn’t alone.  From Limbaugh falsely saying that Hughes “ask[ed] for a car” to others claiming that Hughes is “milking the system,” there’s no shortage of people who want to bring down the woman who had the potential to a far more sympathetic Joe the Plumber — an everyday American who is actually negatively affected by the economic policies of our government.

And they can get away with it!  I just, honestly, do not understand.  Are people like Malkin really so privileged and entitled themselves that they just do not comprehend the very concept of housing not owned by the person living in it — and that therefore “I need a place to live” does not equal “buy me a new house, please” — or do they just really think that no, if you’re not as fortunate as the rest of us, you really do deserve to live on the street, and as a neighbor I have absolutely no responsibility for what happens to you?

On second thought, I don’t know that I want the answer to that.

Via Womanist Musings

Thoughts on Feminism, Class, and Context

The other day I posted a missive that was a little ill-conceived at my other blog. I was too frustrated to frame this argument better. Here’s another try.

Awhile back, discouraged with my inability to squeeze dollars from nickels, I decided that I should just educate myself on the basics of money. It seemed simple enough. I stopped skimming the financial section of the newspaper, and began — for the first time ever, mind you — reading about budgeting, saving, looking at long-term solutions for some of our financial troubles. Many of the solutions proffered for people looking to get ahead are troublesome: buy less Starbucks, remortgage your home, invest in an electric car, don’t plunder your 401K, fly coach. Fine solutions if you have money to begin with, smart solutions, even, but not so helpful for those whose belts cannot be tightened further. This was the reason I started the HUHO project way back when.

Yeah, and all that shit fell off when the job market in my town really tanked and our options started to run out. It became one of those situations where you just had to put your nose down and be thankful that you were still getting a paycheck. The national economic crisis, to me, was elsewhere until everyone in my department, except me and two others, was laid off. And then when another twenty were let go when their jobs were “relocated” right before the holidays. Then the local factories closed down for their annual holiday and it was announced that they weren’t going to reopen for awhile, and when they did it would be on a limited basis. There’s basically a hiring freeze for three counties in any direction, so everyone shuts the fuck up and stops complaining because there aren’t any other options, and moreover, you know that any job that opens up has 300 people clamoring for it.

You know, this is my landscape. This is not a thought exercise on the disappearing middle class.

Read More…Read More…

Disrupting Bloomberg

Dissent has been bubbling up more and more frequently here in the cold, snow-blown streets of New York. The other day, when it was announced that Wall Street was using its bailout funds to hand out record bonuses to its employees, I started hearing murmurs of discontent and talk of tarring and feathering stock brokers even amongst normally placid centrist liberals. There are a lot of people here in this city, and most of us are not benefiting from the economic bailouts that are lining the pockets of a few companies and their favored employees.

This afternoon, our fairly clueless mayor was having a lunch to discuss the future of New York City. The price per seat: $249. The intended guests: the elite business people of the city. You know, CEOs. Heads of major law firms. All the people that decide “the future of New York City.” The ones who decided that the present involves fat Christmas bonuses for them and theirs.

Fortunately, some of the other 99% of the city’s people with an interest in our future decided to crash the party.

Read More…Read More…