| |
So there's this news story about an immigrant from Ghana convicted of rape despite DNA evidence to the contrary circulating right now. And I'm reading it and shaking my head at the way the case was handled and crafting a post in the back of my head for ABW and then I get to the bit about the victim's rights groups marching and protesting and confronting his supporters and I have to say I don't get it. The evidence against him (such as it is) doesn't hold up (in fact it points to someone else entirely) and race is clearly a factor in his persecution prosecution. And while I'm sure the people marching and confronting his supporters would see themselves as feminists, what exactly is feminist about supporting the railroading of an innocent man? I know some of my posts over the years about feminism have been very controversial(and this one will be too I expect), but I'm honestly trying to figure out where feminism is going when it's 2009 and the party line is to support the victim even when she accuses the wrong man. This is how lynchings worked, this is why so many black women in particular shy away from the idea of "sisterhood" with white feminists. Years ago in college I sat in a classroom discussing the psychology of sexual harassment and this white woman pops out with "Why do black women always support black men? Why don't they support the other women?" and for approximately 10 seconds everyone in the room froze and then as one they all turned to look at me for an answer. (Pro tip, just because there is a POC in the room that does not make them the voice of authority for their racial group. Really.) And you know, I gave an answer somewhere along the lines of "They don't always support black men, we are not a monolith" but really what I should have said was "Racism still exists" and left it at that. Because even though we're women, we're also *black* women and we know from family history, first hand experience, and paying attention to the world around us that there's always a chance that someone is lying and he's innocent. One of my great uncles was lynched for *looking* at a white woman, and I can't say as I find it much of an improvement so many years later that instead of being killed a falsely accused black man goes to jail. At what point do supporting the victim and recognizing the reality of race intersect? | |
|
There is an excellent blog post here about the images of Iranian women which have appeared in the Western press coverage of the current unrest and demonstrations against the very likely fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. I found the post through the excellent blog Muslimeh Media Watch, which I recommend everyone to read. It is perhaps the nature of news media to search for appealing symbols for complex political movements, and the image of the young democracy advocate in Tehran, wearing a loose headscarf and standing against the Basiji, has become just such a symbol. As the blog post I linked to points out, however, Westerners should be very cautious when using such images as political fodder, because in Iran as in many other primarily Muslim countries with histories of secular government the right to wear the Hijab, crudely known as a veil in the West, has at times been as dearly cherished as the right to go without a veil. I also find frustrating in general the attitude that women's engagement in the political processes in Iran is new to the current pro-democracy protests. As an American, I frequently talk to people who have this idea that Iran's theocratic-democratic government is as oppressive and totalitarian as was Afghanistan under the rule of the Taleban - but Iranian women played significant roles in the 1979 revolution, and have been university professors, scholars, novelists, and political advocates for decades at least - I admit my knowledge of Iranian women's history is spotty. Finally, I am wary of the attitude that a vote for Mir Hussein Moussavi (or an article sympathetic to him in the Western press) is necessarily a vote for women's rights. Many Americans, at least, have an idea that because Ahmedinejad is a foreign policy hardliner and a fierce opponent of American power in the Middle East, he is necessarily an "Islamic fundamentalist" bent on suppressing women. This ignores Ahmedinejad's popularity with sectors of the Iranian rural poor, which, again, includes women - women who have come out, yes, in chadors, to support their candidate, countering the pro-Moussavi supporters. Hard though it may be for Americans and other Westerners to see, Ahmedinejad himself came into power as a domestic reformer - and Moussavi is a former prime minister from the 1980s, an insider's insider, who has become a reformist candidate through a series of political accidents which I don't pretend to understand; I doubt many Westerners do. Finally, a question - I have been getting the majority of my news from the New York Times and National Public Radio. Does anyone know how accurate/fair those two sources have been so far? I can't really measure their objectivity because I'm not an expert and I don't really know anyone with contacts in Iran. | |
|
Here is an interesting, if depressing article on women in the US, fitness and muscle. The author gives a disclaimer: I wasn’t going to write an introduction to this article, but it hit me that there is no way I can get around it due to the nature of the content below. Before you read this article you need to understand that no look or body type that you desire to carry is wrong. This article is not about knocking the “skinny girl” or “bulky lifters.” The purpose of this article it to finally give a definition of what the average population believes to be bulky . What you choose from there is your personal journey. I find it... placating. Since the article that follows only describes how women have a pretty extreme aversion to "muscle" -- No I'm not talking about rejecting women who do bodybuilding and have 6% body fat as "too muscular" ... I'm talking about rejecting this as "too muscular" : (Images of women under the cut.) ( Read more... ) | |
|
This BBC News article today sickened me to the core and, although it refers specifically to rape in South Africa - and is nauseating - it filled me with dismay for the way, globally, so many men seem so insecure that they seek group identity and acceptance through collusion in a myth of 'hardness' and 'power with the back-up of a threat of violence'... and shy away from open and soft expressions of feeling and gentleness. And of course, women can retreat into defences of hardness and cut off emotion as well. But culturally I perceive this huge almost worldwide problem of a defective masculine culture, fuelled by insecurity and fear, that seeks acceptance by peers through the reduction of 'other' to de-personalised recipients of violence, violent attitude, threat, aggression. And its the cultural engraining of these attitudes from such a young age that dismays and disturbs me, along - even more - with the impact this then has on the ordinary lives and ordinary feelings of other people. I don't call out 'all men' in these comments. Many men must find these cultural pressures dismaying in their own way. It seems like our species has evolved with aggression (and the switching off at some point in the brain of empathy and sensitive feeling) in order to survive... so just how are attitudes changed - to re-channel the genes - so that as a species we really can survive and co-exist better? Just how can young men be helped to reclaim their best and most natural feelings - those feelings they hide from their peers, behind a facade of 'toughness' for fear of seeming weak. When, really, this cultural 'normality' of violence is itself a psychological weakness and enfeeblement... It extends to the way we portray the 'norm' of 'violence' through the media... to the 'normality' of military culture embedded in many societies... and this whole fear of being 'othered' by the tribe if we allow the gentle and the tender and sensitive to surface, and expose the longings of the heart for love and mutuality. | |
|
An open letter from a female directorI am considering going into film myself. And I find the current state of the industry absolutely horrifying. And I am by no means as forgiving as Ms. Theirs is re: the attitude of the males in charge. They aren't good-hearted. Not with the shit that they keep writing, directing and funding about women, minorities. The everlasting focus on the 18-30 male crowd, as if no-one else goes to the freaking movies. The increasingly vomit-inducing premises of the romantic comedies that they deign to throw at women's audiences. The everlasting awarding of the action hero with some girl as a goal for getting the job done. The irritating and headache inducing idea that women need to be thin as sticks and be showing as much skin as possible in practically every role...seriously, there has got to be a coalition of women whose main idea is to find ways and means to get around Hollywood and get stuff done. In the meantime... EDIT:Alyce Myatt Of GFEM: How To Get Your Indepedent Project Funded | |
|
I got a link to this sent to me in an email (Link contains graphic lyrics about sexual violence) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/eminem-misogyny-and-the-s_b_211677.htmlAnd I thought I'd post it here for discussion. I was interested in seeing a breakdown of Eminem's new album's sexism since I haven't heard his new album, and am not very interested in it being familiar with his previous work. But I did not like the way this article went about it. Starting with comments about how poor Eminem can be criticized while Black artists aren't, with some implication that this is because white people are afraid of people of color 'playing the race card'. It doesn't explicitly say that, rather it says "These racial dynamics are important issues to examine in another time and place." However, it's all written as though being white is a disadvantage here for Eminim, and sounds very reminiscent of "race card" arguments to me. Later the author talks about how white liberals recognize the problems with racism, but don't treat sexism and heterosexism as seriously and that arguments "long . . . discredited when it comes to racism" are still used to allow sexism. Lots of oppression olympics stuff going on. I find the lyrics of Eminem's new songs that were mentions just... horrifying is the best description I can think of, but overall this post left a bad taste in my mouth with how it went about discussing the issue. | |
|
I was already in so much shock and grief over the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. And then I read this on my way out of work this morning. Nowhere does this forced-birther-pandering asshole mention that Dr. Tiller provided medically necessary abortion services for doomed pregnancies. I was filled with so much rage that I just couldn't sleep past 3 hours, even though I have another 12-hour night shift tonight and will be so tired I'll have a hard time seeing straight. I want to set the record straight and am going to submit the following to as many newspapers and blogs as I possibly can. I woke up crying and my husband just hugged me and didn't say anything about my being too obsessed with abortion rights like he usually does. Set The Record Straight It was with shock and deep grief that I read of the vicious, cold-blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller. While he was at church, no less. And then I read the journalistic accounts and I was filled with cold rage at the lies that are being spread about this truly great man, this champion for women’s lives. The accounts mention that he provided late-term abortions and then went on to quote the anti-abortion rhetoric regarding his “slaughter of thousands of little boys and girls.” The record must be set straight. Dr. George Tiller provided third-trimester abortions to women with doomed pregnancies. The majority of the fetuses were already dead, the rest would not survive past birth if they went to term. In many cases, both woman and fetus would die if the pregnancy continued. These were very much wanted pregnancies that went horribly wrong. Contrary to anti-abortion aspersions, no woman obtains a third-trimester abortion simply because she no longer wishes to be pregnant and wants to fit into a prom dress or a bikini. Third-trimester abortions are illegal for any reason other than severe fetal deformity and grave threat to the health or life of the pregnant woman. “Pro-lifers” tried time and time again to get Dr. Tiller’s medical license revoked, but those efforts were shot down in court every time because Dr. Tiller only ever performed medically necessary third-trimester abortions. They shot at him, they stalked him, they vandalized his property, and they forced him to take security measures that ultimately failed. So dedicated was he to saving women’s lives that he pushed on despite these vicious acts of terrorism. My heart goes out to his wife, his children, and his grandchildren. Though we did not personally know Dr. Tiller, the assassination of this compassionate, loving and exceedingly courageous man has left a hole in the hearts of millions of us. - Mood:enraged
| |
|
abortion provider dr. george tiller was shot dead inside his church this morning in wichita (kansas, in the united states). he was one of the only providers of late-term abortion in the entire united states, & was shot in both arms outside his clinic in 1993, but recovered. he was acquitted in march of nineteen charges alleging that his late-term abortion services violated kansas state law. this is obviously important feminist news, especially in light of the fact that dr. tiller ran the only abortion clinic in the state of kansas NOT in kansas city. for those unfamiliar with kansas geography, kansas city is on the eastern-most edge of an enormous state that sprawls laterally across several hundred miles. while most of kansas's population is concentrated in the eastern towns (kansas city, wichita, lawrence, topeka, et al), western residents are demographically more impoverished, & traveling to procure abortion services is therefore a greater hardship. kansas also has some of the most retrogressive & oppressive laws in the united states concerning abortion, including a 24-hour waiting period (particularly burdensome for women traveling to get abortion & women seeking late-term abortions) & parental notification laws. losing dr. tiller is a great loss to reproductive freedom for women in a region of the U.S. where providers are difficult to come by & laws are especially restrictive. with him gone, there is ONE abortion provider in the entire state of kansas. these are the kinds of things we need to remember when we are thinking about reproductive choice. ACCESS is key. anti-choice activists failed in their attempts to shut dr. tiller down through legal system railroading, so one of their number murdered him. i live in boston, massachusetts right now, where i have a choice of abortion providers at my disposal. in a location like this, it's easy to take choice for granted & forget about the fact that lack of access renders legalized abortion immaterial to huge numbers of women, either because they live in an area without a nearby provider (83% of american counties do not have providers), or because they are subject to restrictive laws that make abortion difficult to procure (waiting periods, notification requirements, etc). i am moving to kansas in august & was hoping to volunteer at dr. tiller's wichita clinic. i'm hopeful that another doctor in kansas will carry on dr. tiller's necessary work, but that won't erase the losses of today, & the marginalization of all women who are denied abortion through threats of violence, lack of access, legal system machinations, stigma, & financial burdens. | |
|
So...
It seems like no one has posted here in awhile, so I am trying to generate some discussion by exploring the topic of women and news. Feel free to talk about any of the following or anything else you think of:
What are some interesting news stories from your area that would concern feminists/feminism or women? By that I mean stories about issues that would affect or be of interest to feminists or women (to you, women/feminists in your area, or women/feminists around the world) or stories that have "feminist" implications (interpret that as you will).
What are some stories that should be being covered but aren't?
I will say that my state (North Carolina, USA) is wanting to cut funding that goes to domestic violence shelters and services as part of its effort to balance the budget during the recession. This is at the same time that the number of DV incidents has increased (abuser's unemployment is a risk factor for DV) and the women we serve are needing our services longer because it takes them longer to find a job to support themselves. Charitable donations have decreased because people either can't spare the money anymore or they are worried they will suddenly have financial problems so they are saving their money instead of donating.
So, to me (as someone who works at a DV shelter), cutting DV funding during a recession has about the same logic as cutting funding to the employment security commission (though most/all of the ESC funding is by the federal government, not the state government) or other social services. This issue has gotten little to no media coverage. DV affects everyone, but it most directly and usually affects women (and their children), so I think it's a feminist issue.
What do you think about "news" and "feminism"? Does "the news"--by that I suppose I mean mainstream/traditional media, but you may interpret it differently--do a good job of covering "feminist" or "women's" issues? Should it?
What sort of news sources do you use? Do you use any news sources specifically because they are good at covering women's/feminist issues? What non-mainstream sources (blogs, magazines, newsletters, etc) do you use to get news about feminist/women's issues if you do?
Just as an FYI, I am about to hit the sack, so it will be awhile before I respond to any comments. I hope folks get involved without me though! | |
|
How would marital and sexual morality laws have been formulated in the absence of patriarchy and its attendant homophobia? Patriarchal religious laws have always been formulated from heterosexual men's point of view. In patriarchy, sex means heterosexual penetration to cause pregnancy. Patriarchy aside, any general sexual system has to take into account that most people do it that way-- but patriarchy tends to specify this as the only legitimate form of sex. Because fatherhood in patriarchy is bound up with concepts of domination, property, authority, and status. When men control all the resources and property and have the system set up for their sons to inherit it, they want to ensure that only their actual genetic (or adopted) offspring will inherit. In patriarchal tribal societies like Arabia, male lineage is also crucial to membership in a tribe and therefore access to protection and resources, one's entire place in society and survival itself. How to care for the children resulting from heterosexual sex is a question that concerns society as a whole, while mothers are generally the primary caregivers. But in a patriarchal system where dominant men control the resources, the mothers' ability to adequately care for their children depends on their place in that system and their winning the approval of the dominant males. From that necessity follows the rule to have sex only within marriage, since marriage is set up so that men dominate over women. This assumes that all sex has to be heterosexual and leading to pregnancy. This rule based on baby-making is completely irrelevant to gay sex, of course. The patriarchal system isn't set up so that gay people can form pair bonds. The rule of either one man marrying one woman--or one man marrying several women (but not vice versa)--is set up so that males dominate women in all social units from the family level on up. The whole system depends on the unequal legal status of men and women. If a lesbian marries another woman, there is no man for her to be subordinate to; if a gay man marries another man, there is no woman to be subordinated. But under the present laws of countries where women have gained equal status and rights, there is no longer any reason to maintain a ban on gay pair bonds. So the enforcement of heterosexual marriage persists only because of continued adherence to patriarchal religious laws made to keep women subordinate. This is why women's rights and gay rights are closely intertwined. If not for authoritarian religion's hold on people and its resistance to change despite the obsolescence of its premises, there would be no real opposition to gay marriage. So the religious rules forbidding premarital sex are not applicable to a gay couple. Under equality of gay marriage, as in Massachusetts, extramarital affairs are still just as wrong, because that violates the commmitment between a couple and hurts the partner who is cheated on. That isn't going to change, because it holds the same regardless of heterosexuality or homosexuality. But what is different when gays and women have equal rights is in the case of a gay couple having PRE-marital sex, when no one has formed a permanent commitment. It doesn't lead to pregnancy, so there is no consequence for society, no added demand on resources. (Thanks to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) dimension_view who initiated the discussion in LesbianMuslims that this was a contribution to) | |
|
I realise there's been a bit of discussion recently about how "allies" is a flawed term, especially to apply to oneself, but I need a shorthand for "members of a oppressor class who are actively working against that oppression", so I'm using it in that way throughout this post.
So I'm going to assume that everyone is on the same page about policing the tone of members of oppressed groups being a bad thing, as it's derailing, disingenuous, fails to take account of how exhausting it is to constantly moderate ones tone whilst discussing your own oppression, and sets standards that are impossible to meet, because calling someone out on their privilege is often seen as an inherently uncivil thing to do.
But part of the reason it still gets made by well meaning people is that there is obviously truth in the idea that sometimes expressing an idea differently will communicate it better. So bearing that in mind, is it okay to to discuss the tone taken by allies in the hope of making them/us more effective advocates?
It's pretty obvious to me that it's okay for oppressed people to say to their allies, "Actually, the way you're expressing anger over this is appropriative and unproductive. If you want to help then $this_alternative_approach would be better." And I think it's also fairly obvious that someone saying to an ally "I think your argument is wrong, but maybe if you were politer about it I'd be more willing to listen" has most of the same failure modes as if it were said to someone from the oppressed group (although it would be less harmful to the person in question). But there's a grey area in the middle that I'm not sure about - in particular where allies are talking to one another and trying to debunk their privilege, or in discussions with other people who haven't even acknowledged theirs. Is there any place for discussion of tone then? | |
|
During our last giant edit of user page info & rules apparently our 'don't delete posts' fell by the wayside.
But now it is back:
Do not delete posts. If mods ask you to make an edit, or delete to comply with the rules you may then consider deleting your post. But deleting a post because you do not like the way comments are going is simply not allowed. | |
|
So, there was a navel-gazing post here that was deleted that came across as a total "love me, I'm a liberal" and "give me my good ally cookies" post. And this is why I personally hate the term ally. The people who have privileges I don't who are side by side with me, speak up and take action on issues that affect me and their privilege lets them ignore, I know are good people who get it. They don't need to tell me they're my ally, I know they're with me, because I'm side by side in struggle with them. And when I go out and stand up for things that I have the privilege to ignore, that's how people know I'm in solidarity with them.
Really, all this talk about thinking differently and how much someone recognizes their privileges now and is a good ally,leaves me unimpressed and not wanting to hand out cookies. To everyone navel-gazing about their privilege and how good of an ally they are, were you in the streets on May Day? Do you know how your community treats houseless people? Have you tried to do anything about it? Do you know how busted the DSM-V committee stuff is for both trans people and sexual minorities? Educated anyone on it? Done anything about how the continued increase in militarization here and abroad affects poor and working class people, people of color, and especially poor and working class POC and is a significant part of the US's imperial ambitions ever increasing? Done anything to try and stop it? How's the police brutality where you are -- done anything about that -- political pressure, copwatching, etc? Know anything about the intersection of fatphobia and sexism that is behind United Airlines new policies? Done anything to support people stigmatized by psychiatry so that they don't get forced hospitalization and forced treatment? Done anything about how the prison-industrial complex is wiping out communities of color, and basically uses prisons as slave labor for multinational corporations and the US military?
I get it, you care so much that you navel gaze all day about how you've got privilege, and that you really wish that people weren't oppressed. Going on and on about it makes it all about you, and a whole bunch of talk about your experiences coming to terms with your privilege was oh so hard for you is just empty talk, and guess what? Being oppressed is a lot harder. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we live under a massively oppressive system that is crushing our hopes and dreams and killing us and our friends and families every day. The system isn't going to smash itself while you navel gaze. We all need to work to tear it down, and a lot of that work is going to be hard, thankless work, a lot of it is going to be anonymous, a lot of it is going to be frustrating because it seems like we rarely win, but together we are strong, we can do this, and we can live in a world where we aren't oppressed, where us, our friends, and our families are safe. But you can't be involved in struggle for recognition, to soothe your liberal guilt, or to get praise from people. You have to be in it because you absolutely know that there is no other moral way to be in this world but to keep on fighting to change it. And we can change it, because if we all unite together in solidarity, there is nothing in the world that can stop us. And when you navel gaze and make it all about you, you stop yourself from actually doing the work. When you get wrapped up in yourself and dissecting every minute detail of how you've come to terms with your privilege, you're doing the system's work for it.
You don't have to be marching in the streets or taking part in direct action to actually do something; we all have our own preferred tactics, and as long as you're listening to the oppressed group that you're working with, and do things with that group rather than for them, you're doing something worth doing. Don't tell me you're a good ally because you try not to say busted things. Do things in solidarity with people, and people'll know the type of person you are by your actions.
I don't give out recognition for people making the only moral choice -- to engage in struggle -- and I don't expect recognition for what I do. | |
|
... So I call up to make a Dr.'s appointment to get my birth control refilled, and they tell me I cannot do this over the phone, that I've gotta come in and get the dreaded "exam". Fine, okay, I understand, it's been two years, and that's for my safety, and everyone should get checked out, etc, and so on. So I make the appointment and everything is hunky-frikkin-dory for about ten minutes until the secretary calls me back and has a very interesting question,
"Well, uh, our records show that you were a smoker, are you still a smoker, or have you quit?"
Now, anytime a Doctor, or medical professional asks me whether or not I do something they're going to lecture me about, I'm generally honest with some sense of annoyance, but there was something in her tone that told me saying "no" was, in this case, imperative.
S'a good thing I did, because upon saying, "No, no, I quit a little while ago," she said,
"Good, because there's a new protocol in place that prohibits us from prescribing any sort of contraceptive for women who smoke."
WTF?
Now, I understand that there are certain risks involved with the chemical makeup of both birth control pills v. the effects of smoking. Among them are heart attack and blood clot. I also understand that these risks increase significantly after 35, and that there are pills that are less likely, by dint of their chemical makeup, to have such an effect. That being said,
it is NOT the right of any medical provider to deny a woman access to contraceptive, on the grounds of ANYTHING. If there's a chance it might kill her, you warn her, and you give her her birth control!
I'm livid, and also curious if anyone's heard anything about this happening elsewhere? Do I need to find a new Doctor, or is this something that is being pushed on a larger level within the medical community?
EDIT: So, m'neighbor sees the same Doctor and just happened to have an appointment for an unrelated matter a few hours after my phonecall, and she asked if it was alright for her to inquire about this new "policy". I said alright, and she did---it's concrete, at least in so far as this clinic is concerned. No pill, no patch, no ring; quit smoking, or get pregnant and then quit smoking. | |
|
Hi All,
I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some good literature on reverse-isms. I'm really struggling to find something useful.
Thanks a lot!
EDIT: I apologize for my lack of clarity and lack of discussion. To clarify, I don't believe reverse-isms exist. I wrote this right after a discussion with my father, who very much believes in reverse-isms and I was/am desperate for some solid resources to counter his argument. I didn't consider how my post came across, and I just plain old forgot about the discussion rule.
So, to put my original post differently, how do you respond to people who assert that reverse-isms do exist?
| |
|
Earlier today, a member of this community posted and deleted two entries, one of which expressed a blatantly anti-transsexual perspective. While both of these posts seemed to come from a place of personal confusion, the individual was unacceptably questioning people's decisions to transition in the process of hir self-questioning and made several trans people here upset and uncomfortable. This person also complained about commenters' tone in checking hir and deleted hir second post after receiving a mod warning. As such, said person is now banned from this community. We would like to highlight, from our userinfo, "We are all accountable for our words, even if we regret them later" and remind you all that our new rules specifically say NO TONE POLICING. ----------- I would also like to introduce fall_of_sophia, the newest addition to our mod team. We are excited about having her on board and about the perspective she has brought to the community in her time here. | |
|
Keira Knightley's public service announcement on domestic abuse was recently banned in the UK. I suppose I'm just trying to gauge other people's reactions to this. In another community I am in people generally seem to be appalled that they could censor such an important issue from the public, but from a victim's standpoint I understand the reasons for it being banned. Thoughts? ***WARNING: advertisement is extremely graphic and could be potentially triggering to victims of abuse. ( PSA behind the cut )- Mood:thoughtful
| |
|
Hi all, I've been looking for a post made a while back, perhaps in 2005 or 06, which is a sort of '101' level article about why rape jokes aren't funny. I've looked through Google and found a couple of things, but I'm pretty sure this was on LJ so it would probably have been un-searchable by Google. If anyone remembers it, has it linked, in memories, or even posted it themselves, could you please post a link here? What I did find was a few blog posts I thought I'd share ( WARNING: some of these have triggering content and graphic, horrific recounts of rape): Don't Be This Guy, by Melissa McEwan of ShakesvilleA roundup of other posts about rape jokes by Melissa McEwan on Finally, a Feminism 101 Blogand What's the big deal? It's just a joke! at the Gender Blender BlogDoes anyone else have links to any posts that unpack the sexism in rape jokes? Especially about survivors making jokes about rape & sexual violence? How do you feel about survivors of violence making jokes about it (or about perpetuating it against others)? What about perpetuating it against people who access privileges they don't? I'm inclined to think it's unacceptable except in really select spaces where everyone shares assumptions about anti-violence, knows each other reasonably well, and it can't be misconstrued as excusing/condoning violence. Even then I don't really think it's okay. Perhaps to discredit/shame a perpetrator/abuser? | |
|
Parts of this are x-posted from my personal journal.I am sure that I am not the only member of ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) feminist who gets RSS feeds of other feminist and womanist blogs on her LJ. I absolutely LOVE getting RSS feeds, obviously, because it generally makes progressive web-surfing much, much easier. For the record, I subscribe to some specific feeds, but also to the general "feminist blogs" feed. I subscribe to the latter because it tends to pick up the newer blogs and blogs with lower traffic. Today, in the course of my Friends Page/RSS Feed reading, I came across a post from a person calling herself Feminist X. Reading it, I was reminded -- AGAIN -- that many (if not most) feminists have a real blind spot when it comes to race. In a post titled Austrailian Aborigines, Feminist X begins by saying that she has never seen pictures of female Aboriginies and that she was therefore posting pictures she had found (I assume using a Google Images search) of Aboriginal women. Below the image of 5 Aboriginal women, Feminist X says this: ( Cut for racist and possibly triggering language )Several commenters attempted to critique Feminist X's post, but Feminist X regards the critical comments with derision. She laughs off suggestions that her post was insensitive and racist saying (and I'm paraphrasing) oh, I guess I should know more about British colonialism ha, ha, which we all know is not a BIG DEAL ha, ha and there are NO lingering effects of colonialism, ha, ha, FUCKING HAH. How can feminism succeed as a movement when white feminists seem so reluctant to let go of their racial privilege? Often, when white feminists are called out on this, their reaction is to gasp, clutch their pearls, and go on the defense. I am so sick and tired of this HUGE AND SEEMINGLY WILLFUL BLIND SPOT within mainstream feminism. As I said in my own journal and in a comment to Feminist X: If you have to write, "I don't want to sound racist but..." before making a comment, then what you are about to say is probably going to be racist. I think that those of us who identify as feminist (or in some cases, womanist) should have a zero-tolerance policy with this kind of bullshit. Then I remind myself of what happens here in feminist when the mods or members attempt to keep this space safe for people of color. The reactions from some white feminists in this community are pretty defensive and sad. Those reactions sometimes make me want to just close up shop and move away. But then I think, well, if people who ARE anti-racist leave feminism/womanism, what is left? So, to pose my question in a different way, how can we make white feminists wake up? | |
|
In the U.S. it is the National Day of Silence, the womanist blog (I feel) describes it best: On April 17 you can spend a day in silence reflecting on how are dissonance in worth and value wrongfully privileges certain bodies and allow your silence to speak the words that you may no be able to express.
Bullying doesn't just happen at school, or even at work, in our homes & neighborhoods or houses of worship. Bullying isn't always loud or threatening. Each time a post about queer rights or trans rights is made and the comment threads turn into 'what does cis mean?' or other such derailing actions - the conversation moves from the rights and real dangers people face to 'please educate the privileged' moments. This is silencing. There has been a lot of fail around some large feminist blogs as of late (google boycott feministe and feministing) in the way ownership and lesson taking has happened when this very valid issue is raised. I come from a huge amount of privileges that allow me to make this post. Any derailing for the 'sake of education' isn't going to compound my silence, other me, hurt me, or marginalize me. This post isn't about pats on the back, or a dozen comments on 'hell ya' but rather posing the question: What are the best strategies to beyond the day of silence end this kind of derailing? For folks to create a culture where the priveleged take on a sense of ownership in their own education & finding ways to be silent (and supportive) to end the smothering of queer and trans voices. How do we nip this shit in the bud, how do we hold ourselves, our community, and our colleagues accountable? - Mood:awake
| |
|
My brother is a decent kid, and I love him, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s homophobic. To his credit, he doesn’t want to be a homophobe...he’s a good, progressive boy raised by a progressive mom, living in a progressive area (San Francisco), and he has a lesbian sister (me) that he loves. He’d never beat up or tease a gay kid--he’s stuck up for a gay kids, or kids that were perceived as gay/effeminate, at school and boy scouts, even--he’s totally supportive of civil rights for the queer community and voted against Prop 8. I’m not saying he should get a medal for this; treating gay people like, well, people, is the bare requirement for being a decent human being, in my book. But I say this to establish that he doesn’t hate gay people or wish us harm. But he’s still homophobic. I use homophobic in the literal sense, not the general usage of the term. He is afraid of gay people. Well, gay men. Like many 19-year-old, heterosexual boys, he’s a product of our porn culture, and really likes lesbians. At least the “hot” ones. (But that’s a different rant, for a different time.) Gay men freak him out. Though he’s known several out gay boys, he’s never had a gay friend, and doesn’t want one. He’d never dream of interfering in the lives of gay men, but he doesn’t want to be a part of their lives, either. To his credit, he admits that this is a problem, specifically his problem and not something that gay people cause just by the fact of their existence. To his discredit, he doesn’t think that it’s possible to change the way he feels, and has no intention of making an effort to change. “It’s just the way it is,” he says. “Any guy would feel the same way.” (Presumably, he means any heterosexual guy. It’s a little thing, but it really shows his deep bias against gay folk, even with his progressive politics. All guys are heterosexual. Gays are “other.”) We had a long conversation the other day, during which I tried to get to the bottom of his homophobia. How can a kid who doesn’t really have a moral problem with homosexuality, who actively supports gay rights, who has been raised around gay people and has gay family, still harbor a deep fear against gay men? It came down to a couple of things. First, he finds gay sex skeevy. Okay. I can understand that; I find a lot of sex gross, hetero and homo. Hell, the time I heard my parents having sex in the shower scarred me for life, but it doesn’t mean I’m afraid of my parents. After some thought, he agreed. Yeah, he thinks gay sex is nasty, but it doesn’t make him afraid. He just doesn’t think about it. Which is good, because frankly, I think that people who like to sit around all day long thinking about sex acts in general, and sex acts that gross them out in particular, are just perverts. (Here’s looking at you, Peter LaBarbera.) So that explanation doesn’t work. The real answer, we discovered, is that he’s afraid that a gay man might find him attractive. He’s super uncomfortable with the thought of another boy checking him out. He has no idea what to do if a guy hits on him--what will he say? How should he act? And, of course, there’s an underlying fear of rape. Even though he acknowledges that it’s stupid (and arrogant), that he knows gay people aren’t roaming the streets looking to molest his ass, he’s still afraid. The kicker of the conversation was when he looked at me and said, totally seriously, “You’re not a man. You can’t understand.” ( Cut for length. Also, sexual assault triggers below the cut. ) | |
|
My male flatmate linked to this: Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature, saying it was a refreshing take on things. I think it's the most infuriating male-centred pile of shite I have possibly ever encountered. Said flatmate is usually quite confrontational and prejudiced anyway, so I assumed I would not be alone so I foolishly entered into a debate about it with my other male flatmate, who also thought it was a reasonable article. I am so fed up of this sort of narrow-minded crap. A few days ago I realised I don't know *any* men who haven't said something sexist that implies women are evil or incompetent. I haven't got the energy to deal with it anymore. EDIT: So apparently I have got myself into writing a full response to this article, specifically on what I dislike about it and why it is bullshit. If anyone has any points they feel should be made, I would reeeeally appreciate it. | |
|
On my visit last week to San Francisco to visit some friends, on Mission street random, strange men would approach me, say direogatory comments, whistle, mutter sexist and offense things all in correlation to my physical appearance. And no I wasn't dressed inappropiatly. A man after hearing my story, said to me, "It's a compliment, think about it as a celebration of your beauty".
Why do men think like this? I hear statements like that all the time, how they are complimenting a woman they find attractive by humiluating them and making them uncomfortable.
Other than that I had an enjoyable trip. - Music:Remember(walkin' In the Sand)-The Shangri-las
| |
|
Actual Rape Victim Jailed for “False Report”And the kicker? She sued for false imprisonment, and the case was dismissed!!!! The interesting thing was that I had just finished reading Incite's Women of Colour against Violence, where I met for the first time, the argument that the state was NOT the institution that is best to deal with domestic violence, since it pretty routinely perpetrates violence against women itself! And here we go. This is just...GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
The bold womyn at feminist avengers report the latest feminist news. Armed only with spray paint and feminist knowledge, womyn and feminist allies marked some locations in Columbus where rape has occured with the words "Someone was raped here." | |
|
My cousin just made a note about chivalry on facebook, and included this list that she got from somewhere else: ( Clicky )I've also heard things like, the guy is supposed to walk behind the girl as they go up the stairs and in front as they go down, so as to catch her/break her fall if she slipped. I feel like the majority of this is men coddling women because they can't do anything for themselves/can't take care of themselves. Especially with words like "unless she gets difficult about it" (#5) and suggestions such as helping her do something she had to fight to do in the first place (#8). Do you think modern chivalry is a noble idea, or is it more the idea that men have to do everything for the women? | |
|
Found this story via NPR - the gist is, a 14-year-old girl took explicit pictures of herself and posted them online to share with her boyfriend; state prosecutors are now charging her with possession and distribution of child pornography, and, if she is convicted, she could be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. The ACLU is defending the girl. ( Text of article below cut. )Personally, I think this is an absurd case of following the letter of the law and ignoring the law's spirit -- as the ACLU spokesperson points out, whom does this prosecution protect? The point of child pornography laws is to prevent the rape and exploitation of minors; it's just backwards to charge a person with exploiting herself, and forcing this girl to register as a sex offender isn't going to protect her or rehabilitate her, or do anything but marginalize her and damage her chances of leading a healthy adult life. Can anyone understand why New Jersey would want to press charges in a case like this? | |
|
Lyssa, who is a Latina trans woman, responded to this entry praising the Human Rights Campaign in Bilerico with the following comment: I want heads on a platter.
I want to see one dead HRC staffers head cut off, and put on a pike outside Rhode Island Avenue.
I want to see effigies of HRC staff burning bright in every town in America.
What I want most of all, is to outlive you all at the HRC, and piss on your grave.
PS, You should be glad I wrote this when I was in a good mood.
PPS, Can you guess if I am trans or not? Now, when i read this comment, i'm seeing a more-than-justifiable frustration with the way HRC's focus is exclusively on the most privileged of the queer "community," treating the mild inconveniences faced by white, middle-class, cissexual GLB people with more urgency, giving them more weight, than the lives of those who do not fall into those privileged categories--especially those who are trans and/or people of color. When i read this comment, i see an expression of anger that is less extreme or violent than many of the ones i've made myself, than many of the ones i've heard and seen other people make (and, somehow, HRC affiliates remain alive, with all their limbs attached). What i do not see in this statement is a threat; i don't read this comment and quiver with fear that Lyssa is going to come to the suburbia homes of everyone affiliated with HRC and take their heads. Lyssa is not even saying that she's going to be the one to perform the piking or plattering of heads. Bil, the cissexual white man who is the "Bil" in "Bilerico," apparently sees things differently. So differently, in fact, that he is willing to threaten to rain down very real institutional violence by reporting to the police whatever information he may have on Lyssa's place of residence along with his proclamation that she was making death threats, in spite of the fact that she's apologized profusely (linked with permission) for something which, as i see it, she didn't need to apologize for at all. And, by the way, Bil? Don't think that no one sees that you're being what you consider to be "nice" over on Bilerico, and then go over to twitter to say all kinds of fucked up shit. So, as has happened countless times before and will happen countless times again, the privileged members of the queer "community" respond to the frustrated protestations of a trans woman of color with violence, all the while proclaiming that it is not them but their victims who are the ones at fault, who are the "threats." lucypaw and questioning transphobia has more on this, and there is an entry about it in my personal lj that has more links than the one here. Edited To Announce voz_latina asked me (since she doesn't have posting access here) to post the following statement from her: In the interests of disclosure, I should add the second part of that post, which was actually published straightaways.
My apologies.
I meant to say "tinkle" on your grave. Saying "piss" was very unladylike.
As far as the rest, I want a pony, too. But we both know that all this ain't gonna happen, now don't we? So, your silencing has a very differential effect. When you try to "play fair" with a bully and a victim, you end up empowering the bully. But then again, that has always been your intent, hasn't it?
If trans women had that kind of social power, there would be no need to advocate giving the HRC their just desserts, now would there?
I think this kinda undercuts their claim to the seriousness of it. cross-posted here by request | |
|
via: debunkingwhiteDefective premises recur in new settingsA new experimental program at a nonconventional “lifestyle medicine” center is targeting pregnant women who are Black and Hispanic minority, poor and fat. These women are being enrolled into a free health program which tells them it will benefit them and their unborn babies and make their babies healthier.
No mention is made in the patient literature that, by the soundest clinical evidence to date, compared to the standard of care, the program’s alternative interventions have been shown to lead to poorer chances of survival for babies, higher rates of spontaneous preterm births, and to put babies at greater risk for serious physical and neurological health problems and learning disabilities. There is no indication that these underprivileged minority women are giving their informed consent or are aware they are participants in human experiments that could endanger their unborn babies.
Why has no one cared to notice? The answer to that question is even more disquieting….MORE So. much. freaking RAGE!!!!! I just.. who worries about WEIGHT during pregnancy for gods sake???? Dear heavens body shaming during pregnancy??? And targeting poor minority women AGAIN!!! I mean, if we ARE gonna worry about their diets how about making sure they have access to good, nutritious food, like fruits and vegetables, for example! Restricted diets? REALLY???? Is there no end to this BS??? | |
|
A US District Court for Eastern NY tells the FDA to reconsider access to Plan B, "morning after pill". The court says the FDA let politics come before science when it made a rule that women age 17 and younger must have a prescription for the drug. Women 18 and older can buy it without a prescription, but must show proof of age. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE52M65V20090324I think this is good news, as it's a step in the right direction. But according to the Reuters article, it looks like it only deals with 17 year old women. It looks like women 16 and younger would still need a prescription. (YEAH RIGHT. "Hey parents, please make me an acute/emergency Dr. appointment because I had sex last night." I don't think so.) | |
|
Hey ya'll,
The mods have updated the user page of the community. It is cleaner, leaner, and meaner with a clarification on the intent of this space (since some confusion had recently come up about posts:
This community has been established in order to discuss and debate feminist issues from an anti-oppression standpoint. A post with minimal text, requests for homework help, a repetitive post, or a post of the “look, isn’t this cool?” genre will be warned by the moderators. We also disallow memes and posts advertising local activism or charity events. None of these types of posts foster constructive discussion. If it is not amended after a warning, the post will be deleted.
But please re-read the page. Feedback here, or via email is always welcome, | |
|
breaking the silence:on living pro-lifers choices for women...
I have given a baby up for adoption, and I have had an abortion, and while anecdotes are not evidence, I can assert that abortions may or may not cause depression - it certainly did not in me, apart from briefly mourning the path not taken - but adoption? That is an entirely different matter. I don't doubt that there are women who were fine after adoption, and there is emphatically nothing wrong with that or with them; but I want to point out that if we're going to have a seemingly neverending discussion about the sorrow and remorse caused by abortion, then it is about goddamn time that we hear from birth mothers too.
Believe me when I say that of the two choices, it was adoption that nearly destroyed me - and it never ends. The only comparison I have is the death of a loved one. The pain retreats, maybe fades, but it comes right back if I poke at it. Writing this has taken me nearly two weeks. Normally, I can write this amount in about thirty minutes, with bathroom breaks. I started to type, and stopped only to reread, then go wail into my pillow. There is no such thing as "over" with this.
Birth mothers are a demographic seldom heard from, and then generally only in the context of how soon they want to "replace" their lost child. This is a huge WTF to me. I went into a self-destructive tailspin for over a decade, and never once thought that maybe a new doll would do the trick. Yet every support group, every online forum, every possible resource I found, all zeroed in on this one-size-fits-all panacea. I didn't want a new baby. I never wanted any babies in the first place. I also didn't want an abortion, and I don't see how any of my reasons for any of this are anyone's business, either. It was my choice to make, and that is that.
What I didn't realize at the time - because not one person in my whole life had ever seen fit to mention the possibility, including the pre-adoption counselors... There is not much that I can add to this. I can only say that I wish that I don't know, research, maybe? would be conducted on these issues, effects of abortion, adoption, what kidn of resources are available, what happens, whats the difference between the races? etc. etc., so that experiences like these are brought into the open and sensible evidence based solutions can be found. | |
|
Okay y'all. If anyone here is a member of or watching feminist_fatale, they seem to have been hit by the same hacker who came after feminist_rage yesterday. Another reminder, if a community you are in suddenly loses all of its entries and is replaced with a single entry with links in it, DON'T CLICK THE LINKS. Contact LJ Abuse, and let them know what happened. | |
|
A monthly student reading series on my campus decided to have the theme for this month be "The 'F' Word" and asked for pieces about feminism. I was initially very excited about the event and intended to submit several feminist poems I've written over the years in hopes of being selected to read. However, I was really turned off by the event/group pages on Facebook, in which there were, in the descriptions for the group/event as well as mass messages sent out to its members, several different jokes about feminism, all of which were about man hating or bra burning in some way or another. I really got the impression that the person behind the fb pages was either trying to come across as tongue-in-cheek about the theme or deliberately poking fun at the incident.
An example of one of these jokes; they sent out a mass message promoting the event and said "guys, be sure to bring your cup!" Then the author of the messages said "just kidding."
I was really appalled by this and wrote a letter of complaint. It's frustrating to me that an event which I originally thought was intended to promote feminism is being so disrespectful. I can think of very few other political themes you could go with where it would be okay to repeatedly poke fun at the movement. Further, I assumed since the theme was "The 'F' Word" that it would be looking specifically for feminist pieces about how the word has been misconstrued; if that's so, how is it acceptable to make jokes specifically relying on the stereotype of "feminism" being synonymous with man hating? This brings me to my point of discussion...
Why do people find it okay to openly mock feminism to a large audience, even when trying to promote its cause? Or is it not a big deal, and talking about feminism in a positive light in and of itself is helpful? | |
|
NOW (a U.S. news program on the Public Broadcasting System) did a show last week about the sexual harassment of teen girls in the workplace. From the site: A shocking statistic—teenagers are in more danger from sexual predators at their part time jobs than through the Internet. According to one estimate, 200,000 teenagers are assaulted at the workplace each year. It's a vastly underreported phenomenon, but some brave young women are stepping up publicly to tell their stories.While I was glad they covered the story, and I hope it encourages companies to reconsider how they handle sexual harassment policy - but also how parents perhaps communicate with their children entering the regulated work force, there were considerable issues. 1. All of the kids treated the job as 'recreational' - there was no reference or representation by young kids who desperately need their jobs. As horrific as it is for any person to be sexually harassed - obviously the power dynamic changes when a young person and most likely their entire family is reliant on the funds provided by an abusive employer. 2. The young women they have talk are, along with being of a certain social class that does not require their funds as added household income, are all white. Using these monochromatic examples ignores other power dynamics that enter the workplace. 3. Points one and two combined give these young women a certain sense of entitlement (here a good one - we should all feel entitled to a harassment free workplace) that shape how they discuss the situation, and their access to resolution. This is not addressed. 4. There was this argument at some point that this is the first time young women are exposed to a situation that could have sexual harassment - which totally ignores the situations that arise in the public and private school systems. Ultimately what really bothered me was the lack of real suggestion of how to change the situation. We can't rely on parents to necessarily tell kids how to navigate such situations, or rely on law suits to end the situation. This isn't because we shouldn't trust parents, or the law - but there is a reality of finite resources. Many parents are busy, over burdened, or don't fully comprehend their rights. The law is not equally accessible to all people. In my state, to work before the age of 18 you had to procure a waiver from your school and have it signed. The moment I turned 16 I did this so that I could add income into my family that was severely lacking. At no point was I encouraged to learn my rights as a worker. Luckily coming from a pro-union family I was given a talk on my state's laws about hours worked, overtime, and worker's comp. But at no time was I told about sexual harassment, and it is not as if it was not an issue in the collective unconscious of the culture. This was post Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas hearings. Looking back on it as an adult I wish my school would have set me aside and before I got the waiver signed educated me to my rights, explained how they might be infringed on and help me to make the cognitive connections that would be needed to handle a situation if it came up. If my school's job was to prepare me for the next step - one that only briefly included college, it did me a disservice by not educating me. But that's my take. What is yours? | |
|
I had the opportunity this week to speak with a group of small town/rural clergy - my local ministerial association. I've belonged to the group since moving to my new pastoral charge about a year and a half ago, and find it to be reasonably collegial, and rather conservative. I'm frequently the only woman there, and the group is mostly white.
We decided to intersperse business meetings with educational/social meetings for a variety of reasons, and this week three of us were invited to share our personal stories/faith journeys. So it was a morning of storytelling and quite a rich one.
I really struggled with what to share with the group. Partly because I'm actually not that fond of talking about myself, but mostly because there's information I don't want to share in that group: such as my sexual orientation. And eventually I opted to tell a story about education and vocational formation, with as little personal information as possible. That strategy felt as though it had slightly more integrity than offering a highly edited personal story.
I'm left reflecting on the following:
Safe Space: the group was described as "safe space", and I might have actually rolled my eyes. On the one hand - it's not my "safe space", on the other - sure it's safe, physically at least, on the other, other - I think "safe space" is a problematic concept.
Personal/Political: telling stories can be highly effective because they personalize issues. But the risk?
Privilege/Passing: By not telling my story, I continue to pass for straight, and garner all the attendant privilege.
Your thoughts? Strategies? What am I missing?
| |
|
Okay, so a professor and I were discussing an essay topic, and we somehow got onto the idea of the Western feminist movement and what its value is to the Global South. She was arguing that a) Western feminism is basically the end-all, be-all of women's liberation movements and that all women's liberation in non-Western countries owes itself to Western feminism and b) that even though women of the Global South may resist patriarchy in their own way, Western feminism is superior because of the ability of Western women to have bodily autonomy.
I disagreed with this, saying that resistance is resistance, no matter how small--it's still valuable and worthwhile, and Western feminists can learn from women all over the world, and should not assume that the Western way is the best. She challenged me to find a) any existence of a matriarchal culture outside of the West (lol, because clearly the U.S. is a matriarchal society, wut) and b) to find any women's liberation movement in a non-Western country that has been as "successful" as Western feminism has.
So...uh, how the hell do I respond to that? I've tried telling her about how in foraging societies, women and men are generally seen as equally valuable, but she said that didn't count, because it wasn't the same as Western feminism (lol wut).
There were some other problematic things she said, but those could fill a whole other entry, hah. - Mood:annoyed
| |
|
Working at Gamestop has taught me a few things that I'd thought I'd share: 1) Many (not all) of our customers are not going to believe what my (mostly female) coworkers say. More often than not, they will refuse to speak directly to me even as I am ringing them up because somehow my ovaries negate the value of anything I have to say. When they ask to speak with a man, I tell the male or female customer that the man who may be working will say the exact same thing I just told them and if they actually want to speak with the MANAGER, she is a woman. To be fair, I know of at least one customer who doesn't like me ringing her up because I am black, but haven't really considered this to be a color issue. If I try to give them advice and they can't find anyone else around to address, they look at me carefully before saying "Oh, YOU play?" Why the crap else would I be working here. ( This crosses the line, making me want to cry while breaking things ) | |
|
I'm relatively new here and quite sleepy at the moment; I hope this makes something resembling sense. :) Am I the only one who gets a bad taste in my mouth when I hear about "empowerment"? I don't think there's any doubt that sexism creates power disparities on both social and personal scales, but, as a young middle-class white woman, I may have dealt with all sorts of cultural pressures to be polite and easy to get along with and "feminine", but I've also been told that I can do anything, that my opinions are Valuable and I should Speak Up. And I'm starting to realize that these messages, which I always took as a feminist victory, were a lot more specific to my race and class than they should be. It seems like a lot of the mainstream feminist rhetoric about asserting power, having faith in one's reason, etc. is very concentrated toward the women who already are "empowered" compared to most other women, and results in trampling of the perspectives of people who aren't white/cis/straight/middle-class or above in very much the same way as sexism, and a lot seems coupled to a reluctance to consider the effects of other oppressions and recognize that privileged feminists aren't going to get everything and will trample other people if there isn't a lot of checking. I made the mistake of reading links involving the recent LJ epic racial clusterfuck o' fail until my brains oozed out my ears, and more than one participant claimed, in summary, that being called on her racism was oppressive and abusive because people were claiming they knew her mind better than she did. This seemed to me like a disingenuous, racist dodge (and uncomfortably close to ways I've played to sympathy that probably wouldn't work if not for race and class) and got a lot of the criticism that it deserves - and some criticism noticing that those doing the calling-out weren't in the same oppressed group as the person who felt abused. How do you think we balance calling out bullshit with recognizing the legitimate ways women really are silenced? How should feminists reconcile being aware of our various privileges and blinders in our viewpoints with recognizing the validity of our thoughts despite what sexist society tells us? How do we prevent feminism from being a movement that's less concerned with oppression than with relatively privileged people's anger that it's happening to them specifically? - Mood:curious
| |
|
Edit: A bit of background from the comments : Infant mortality in Memphis: Memphis ranks worst in the nation for woeful rate of infant deaths Problem is, This disaster of a bill is NOT going to helpRachel has, for your perusal, SB1065/HB0890, which we might call the "The State's Bodies, Our Selves" bill. This bill would make mandatory drug testing for women who don't act right during pregnancy. If you don't get pre-natal care, the State wants the right to drug test you. If you don't come in for prenatal care promptly once the fetus is viable, they want the right to drug test you. If you don't get the right kind of prenatal care, they want the right to drug test you. In other words, if you act in any way "abnormal," the going assumption is going to be that you must be on drugs.
But here's the best part. If your pregnancy just isn't going right—the placenta comes open or the fetus dies or you go into labor early for no discernible reason, or the fetus isn't growing fast enough, or the fetus has congenital anomalies—and let me remind you these are all things that just happen during pregnancies; things go wrong, for no reason, all the time—the State wants to drug test you.
And let's say that they do. Let's say that you start to miscarry. You have spotting and cramping and it's pretty obvious and inevitable what's going on. Maybe you have a bottle of wine to help you through. You've just gone into labor early for no discernible reason and your fetus is dead for no discernible reason and when they drug test you, they're going to find that you've been drinking.
What do you think is going to come of that?MORE
And naturally, tis poor and minorities who will be worse hit by this BS. ( Read more... ) | |
|
Okay, so I'm probably going to come off as a neurotic, insecure girl, but I don't understand nor am fond of men staring at me. Actually, I think I'm finding myself more annoyed than confused to reasoning of why men stare at women. I sort of view at as rather objectifying really. The first occurrence of noticing and disliking men staring at me, was around the tender age of eleven or twelve-and the men were the father's of the children at the private school I attended. I'm nineteen now, and it still makes me uncomfortable when men stare.
A friend told me to stop complaining about men staring at me for I should "just accept my "beauty" and be grateful"*. But what I don't understand is how females (and I know myself in particular) do not stare(dead-on, or at all) towards any attractive male. I was brought up to believe that pointing and staring are two incredibly rude social skills that should be avoided. I know staring is something that makes people feel very uncomfortable, then why do men stare at women they find "attractive?"
I recently had a band stay overnight in my dorm-apartment, and during my short time that I hung out with them, one band member, who I'll admit was very attractive-I caught constantly staring at me, or basically "checking me out". One particular incident, and one of the last,was when I was in the elevator with them to show them out of the building. I turned around to glance around(something I do often)to the sight of him just giving me this dead-on stare- with his girlfriend standing to the right of him.
Is anyone else uncomfortable with men staring at them? Why do men find it necessary to stare at someone they find attractive in the first place?
*Really complicated subject | |
|
This is my first post, so be so be gentle with me &c! At the moment I am trying to lose some weight. As a feminist I want to feel that my decision to do this is motivated by health and how I feel about myself, rather than what is deemed an acceptable body shape by the media and society (which, as we all know, is a very unusual, very white standard of beauty). However, there is a problem. We don't seem to know what 'fat' or 'healthy' is anymore. I found a diet book in my local charity shop entitled 'Slim down to a Perfect Size 12!' The celebrity magazine we get delivered to work gives dress sizes in every article, as well as details on diet, suggesting that one celebrity shouldn't eat sushi for lunch as it's 'high GI'. Then I find this thread on the Cosmo forum whilst clicking on links. http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/chatroom/topic/64798 Now, I know I shouldn't care what arbitrary figure is deemed large, but somehow I feel aggrieved. Have I become that strongly influenced by what we are supposed to consider 'right' and 'beautiful'? When I was 18, I was a UK size 14 and felt pretty healthy - according to the posters here, this is fat. I'm now a size 16-18 after a few years, an ongoing course of medication and a broken limb - according to the posters here, at 5ft10, this is incredibly obese. As someone who already feels outsized due to my height and weight at the moment, this makes me feel very confused. (For reference, most UK high street stores stock sizes from 8-16.) so I wonder - is this because women are encouraged more and more to focus on, and criticise, the body shapes of themselves and others, or is this because they read a magazine that would lead them to believe that 'if that's the average size I'm calling fat then that's because the average person is fat?' | |
|
A few weeks ago, the New York Times magazine ran an article about unmarried women with children pooling their assets and working together. So, today, the letters to the editor appeared. And, of course, one of them is from a Nice Guy (TM). He writes: As one of the “zero” husbands, I need to take issue with single mothers espousing (pun intended) a lifestyle devoid of fathers for their children.
There are now at least two generations of sensitive and sensible men who were raised in a post-feminist world; we learned to function outside of the “traditional” gender-role models. Imagine our surprise and disappointment when we discovered that the women with whom we planned to share a lifetime of love and child-rearing decided that single parenting is easier than having to include the nurture of an adult relationship in their busy lives.Sigh. I knew that when I opened the letters page that there would be at least one MRA-type. - Mood:irritated
| |
|
Hey ya'll. I'm writing to ask for suggestions or resources with regards to how to deal with a particular theme which is reoccurring within both my personal and "volunteer" and "work" related spheres. It's really annoying and I'm having trouble articulating exactly why it sucks, which makes it more difficult to address whenever it happens in a quick and easily accessible way. It goes something like this: Person X says or does [something*] which is dominating in some way or form. Person Y objects to [something*] on the basis of [_____] Person X brushes Y and tries to accuse zem of [one thing or another**] in situation A, B, or C [project, conference call, list serve, date, political campaign, meeting, whatever.] Examples: ( contains possible rape triggers )I'm especially concerned with folks who try and insinuate that those who bring issues of domination to light are ruining "our" movement or whatever. Never mind the fact that that's a red herring from the get go, but it's also really obnoxious because there is no singular movement - feminist, environmental, progressive, or otherwise. I always get so frustrated in situations like this, and they seem way harder to try and react to when folks are trying to appropriate revolutionary ideology while being self-rightous and dominating jerkfaces. I was born and raised in the southeastern United States, and I know that my perspective is completely colored with that experience. With that said, I find that it's often more easy to deal with more "conservative" types when they do this thing, because they're often more upfront about their white supremacist tendencies [probably a vestige of that good old boy mindset.] Suggestions for ways to deal with this kind of rhetoric or resources to check out are super welcome. . . :) - Mood:okay
| |
|
After reading this alternet article about the adoption industry: Mandy Westerners Adopt Children Bought or Stolen From Their Parents I've wondered: What would a feminist, anti-colonialist, anti-racist, social-justice model of adoption look like? Is adoption inherently exploitive...especially as more women have access to more birth control options? Is surrogracy part of this model or does surrogacy also have a huge potential for exploitation? How do you balance the needs of women who cannot biologically conceive children with the exploitation of the adoption industry? I don't really know any of the answers to these questions but I think they are worth discussing. I feel like my gut instinct is to demonize people who internationally adopt....but I have the luxury of doing that because I don't have fertility problems and I don't even want children. ( full text under cut ) | |
|
I usually dread these kinds of books, but I've been thinking about picking this one up... anyone read it? Opinions from a feminist perspective? | |
|
| |
