Astraea's Scales

Blog Against Disablism Day

2009-04-29T10:08:00.006-04:00

Today is Blog Against Disablism Day. Visit Diary of a Goldfish to find all the fantastic posts that will be published today.

I have a coworker who frequently says her daughter is lazy. The girl, I'll call her Sarah, recently turned 16 and has been getting very poor grades this year. Everyone knows she's capable of more, but she just doesn't do her schoolwork without a lot of pushing and external motivation. With the motivation to get her learner's permit and start driver's ed she's pulled her grades up considerably in a short period of time.

No doubt there are a lot of people who are lazy and just don't feel like doing any work. But every time she calls Sarah lazy my hackles raise and I want to scream because she has admitted previously that it is possible that Sarah has ADHD. My coworker's husband thinks he has ADHD and has been thinking of seeking treatment, and ADD tends to run in families. Knowing first hand how damaging it can be for a person with ADHD to be treated as just lazy and unmotivated, it is all I can do not to give my coworker an angry lecture. I struggled for many years thinking I was lazy and wondering why I couldn't do all the things I wanted to do. It caused depression and occasional suicidal thoughts. Research has shown that people with ADHD who go untreated are more at risk for drug abuse and other problems such as depression and anxiety.

The problem is not just misunderstanding or denial of ADHD (though that itself is a huge problem), but the belief that people without visible and/or measurable differences in ability think the same way as the majority of people and ahve teh same needs/motivations/capabilities as, say, neurotypical people. This kind of disablism functions similarly to other privilege: the experiences of the privileged are considered the norm everyone should be expected to live up to. Just as women are expected to simply adapt to institutions and social structures that evolved out of male privilege, those with ADHD are expected to be able to succeed in education and careers designed by and for people with "normal" abilities and ways of thinking. Those who don't are called lazy and irresponsible, or are blamed for not pulling their weight at work.

This all puts a lot of added pressure on people with ADHD to function in ways that are not natural to us and do not allow us to reach our full potential. We often have to struggle so much just to keep up with daily life in a world designed for people who function very differently that we have little energy left to take advantage of the things we tend to be especially good at.

This is where the gift vs curse debate comes in. There is a lot of emphasis on ADD as a "gift" from some groups and individuals while others consider it a "curse." The characteristics of ADHD vary from person to person, but I experience it as a curse largely because of external factors and realities. conforming to a world that experiences time in a way that I understand only on a philosophical level, being expected to have social networks at work to advance my career, being expected to understand social cues that go right over my head all make it that much harder to focus on getting things done because it aggrivates my anxiety.

Diablism comes into play when people don't recognize these challenges. I know that to many my symptoms sound like I'm just being whiney and I should just suck it up and deal with it like "everyone else." I struggled for a long time because I didn't know why I couldn't deal with it like "everyone else."

My point is, there is a certain degree to which a disability like ADHD makes one's life harder. And then there is the crushing weight of the burdens that come with living in a world where people with disabilities are expected to adapt to living the model life, and that is often the worse curse of the two.

Why "reducing abortions" is a problem

2009-03-17T08:50:00.003-04:00

This is enough to give anyone chills (emphasis mine):

The Obama administration says they want to be inclusive and represent all Americans. The White House Faith Based Office is now tasked with reducing the number of abortions - something pro-life groups have very good experience in accomplishing. Pregnancy resources centers and restrictions on abortion have a terrific track record in helping women choose alternatives to abortion. Funding abortion or abortion providers is one of the worst things that can be done. What the government funds, we get more of. We hope to begin a dialogue that results in policies which actually work, not just financially benefit certain interest groups like abortion providers." --Wendy Wright, CWA

I'm not even going to touch the cognitive dissonance there. What's truly chilling is that these people very clearly are more interested in reducing abortions (however that has to be done) than reducing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

Obama has shown several times now that he likes to play the "bipartisan compromise" card until it's obvious the right wingers aren't interested. Whether this is a conscious strategy or not is moot; What Obama has given up in the name of compromise has had real consequences. He looks set to do the same here, as the quote from Kyle Right Wing Watch explains in the original post. What will Obama give up in the name of compromise with pro-life groups, only to have them continue pushing for the most extreme views? He has already given in to their framing (reduced abortions), and we see how that plays right into their hands in the quote above.

Dollhouse

2009-03-17T07:14:00.004-04:00

I am done with Dollhouse. I have given it more chances than it deserves, and even though I hate to give up watching a show with Eliza Dushku and Amy Acker (and now I love Dichen Lachman), it is just pissing me of more than it's entertaining me. Maia has some good points about how sexual assault is treated on the show at Alas, a Blog. (Can't say I agree with her on the rest of her post, though. She's enjoying the show more than I am.)

I was relieved that we seemed to be free of the icky rape issues in Epsidode 5. Then we get, as Maia pointed out, rape as character development/plot point without actually dealing with rape as an issue. BOO!

And then we get the male active who gets hard in the showers when he is with Sierra. Of course it has to be about how a woman is ultimately responsible. Are we supposed to find it romantic that his attraction to one woman is so damn powerful that it overrides his programing and despite his childlike state he really really wants to fuck her. Barf.

A few big problems here.

1. The actives shower together because they are supposed to be in a completely innocent, blank state. There is no risk to them of assault or violence because none of them is capable. Now we have a man who is sexually aroused and women who may or may not be (so inscrutable, those wimmins without obvious arousal), but are definitely not supposed to be sexual. This is not interesting or cute or amusing to me. It is damn creepy. The women may not have the bodies of children, but they have no autonomy, no sexual desire, no way to understand or deal with sexuality. And we are shown a scene in which one of those women is in the shower with a man who is looking at her sexually.

2. This development perpetuates the framing of sexuality as actively sexual man and passively sexual woman.

3. The trope of the Asian woman who is beautiful and alluring and innocent, arousing men's sexuality without being sexual herself.

Local idiocy

2009-03-09T12:54:00.003-04:00

I feel the need to share a lovely letter to the editor published in my local paper:

DON'T LET SIN RULE IN CHURCH

In response to Marlene Bomer (letter, March 4), let's see what God has to say about women in the church.

In 1 Timothy 2:12,14 it says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence... And Adam was not deceived, but the women being deceived was in the transgression." It also says in Colossians 3:18, "Wives, submit yourself unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

A bishop refers to a man with and over one wife. There are to be no women clergy of any kind; this is unbiblical. It is nothing more than the feminist movement, the same movement that works to promote abortion, to rule over man in the church, our government and everywhere else that society will allow them to rule. They hate the fact that men were disciples and have gone so far as to try to say God is really a woman. What nonsense! These same women who want it all cry when they get it all.

Sin, whatever it is, must not be allowed to rule in the church. That includes things like rock and roll, to which some have put Christian lyrics and called it God honoring. Others, with greed, have tried with their prosperity gospel to turn God into a lottery. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples were rich on earth.

Others do such things as "holy laughter" or "spiritual dancing" or even "spirit slaying," which Jesus himself never did, nor the apostles. Some have watered down the message of Jesus Christ and his gospel so "people could be at ease with Jesus." They apparently have forgotten that not everyone was comfortable with Jesus when he was on the earth the first time.

It is high time for the church to be the salt of the earth like it was meant to be. People will know when this happens, for the lost will come looking for Jesus Christ, and then they will be able to find Him.

You got that? Women are sin! Like rock and Roll and laughter.

Net Neutrality

2009-02-27T07:47:00.004-05:00

The left needs to be just as loud about this as they were about Social Security. The last thing this country needs is yet another way to grow the gap between those with money for access to information and power and those without.

Heroes continues to disappoint

2009-02-26T09:16:00.004-05:00

I have to agree with the general feeling of the Heroes panel at Racialicious that this season of Heroes started bad and is going further downhill fast. I was a big fan of the first season of Heroes, and even the second season had it's good points. The third? I barely remember except for the Irish woman who provided Peter with what he needed, then was promptly rid of never to be discussed again. This season, however, is nothing but disappointment after disappointment. When the highlight of several episodes is seeing a psycho killer dealing with a difficult teenager, your series is in trouble. I am calling the big reveal of Matt's painting of DC on the floor the jump the shark moment of the series.

This season has also been the worst from a feminist perspective. A declining role for women culminated in the latest episode that revolved entirely around a group of men. The women who appeared served only as motivators for the men.

As for Angela Petrelli, I have gradually turned from finding her intriguing to disappointment that the treatment of her character stems from one of the strongest, most enduring misogynist ideas about women: that women wield a great deal of power invisibly from behind the scenes. That their motivations are mysterious and unfathomable, and their power of manipulation almost unlimited.

A cave of one's own

2009-02-19T09:33:00.003-05:00

Can the idea of the "man room" or "cave" or whatever the fuck they want to call it just die already?

Apartment Therapy has a post up about this growing "phenomenon" asking readers their thoughts on the idea of a "man room." My thoughts are laced with obscenities, but I'll attempt to be more articulate.

First, any talk about a "man room" is bound to be heterocentric because of course it is men who live with women who supposedly need this dudely retreat from the taint of femininity. In this post I am going to focus on the supposed need for a boy's only room for grown male adults who are married to women. The heterocentrism and reliance on stereotypes deserve their own post, along with the class issues (this is primarily a middle class issue). There is another aspect I am going to explore here.

The attention given to the man-cave reflects the idea that men are especially in need of and deserving of space for relaxation that is suited to their interests and comforts. Why don't we think women need a women's room? Because the rest of the house is considered her space. The thinking goes that women are so dominant in the home, that they are so in-charge of that space, that it is their space. I think we're all familiar with the popular complaint that women will decorate and make spaces more feminine, thus ruining them for the men. (If you're not, just watch a week's worth of American sit-coms from the 90's).

What those complaints ignore, of course, is the fact that women are judged differently for their homes than men are. There are pressures on women, especially middle class women, that don't exist for men. Many men claim, for example, that they don't care about mess or clutter, and yet still expect their wives to keep a neat house for their comfort. At the least, they often expect to have clean dishes as they need them, clean and dry towels, clean clothes. This means that women are maintaining "their" space in part for the benefit of others: guests and family both.

The fact is, men do less work in the home while increasingly women do as much work outside of the home. And yet they are still considered more in need of their own space and time to relax, to have their comforts catered to. While space considered belonging to women involves work and stress, and is shared with others, space men supposedly need is centered completely around their needs. (I wonder who cleans up the man cave after the big game?)

A room of one's own is still out of reach for many married women. Men get all kinds of attention for their supposed need for space dedicated entirely to their needs and comfort. But women, whose lives and identities are often erased by their family role, are not expected to need any space dedicated to their comfort. Women who do desire space of their own are considered selfish or silly. A room of one's own for women is still a radical idea.

More on the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships

2009-02-09T08:47:00.003-05:00

Francis Kissling provides more information on the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on RH Reality Check. The information continues to be troubling.

Obama has named 15 of 25 Council members, whom Kissling characterizes as "mostly male, mostly 60-and-over clergy." Most, she reports, are anti-choice, a handful with no record, and only one is pro-choice.

Head on over to the full post for pro-choice, anti-poverty people who Kissling believes should be among the remaining 10 Council members. If you still have any motivation to contact the President, demand a full representation of pro-choice women for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It is absolutely unacceptable to have an office tasked with reproductive choice issues sacked with anti-choice men.

Is your abortion government-approved?

2009-02-05T12:06:00.004-05:00

It was painfully obvious during the primaries and election that Obama either did not really understand the issues behind the reproductive justice movement, didn't care, or didn't think that authentically pro-woman framing of the issues would get him elected. Like too many people, Obama overlooked the obstacles women face in truly controlling our reproductive lives. He continued to present the debate as centered around judging women's choices. His framing often suggested that we have already won our rights, that we simply need to defend where we are, and move on to a next stage.

Today, Cara has pointed out the continuing efforts in South Dakota to make abortion inaccessible, while technically legal.

This is going on around the country. Millions of women already have no access to safe, legal abortion even in the first trimester.

And of course, reproductive justice isn't just about abortion. It's about the right to fully control our lives, including whether to have children, when to have them, and how we have them. Women are still fighting tooth and nail for control over our own bodies, from access to contraception, to education, to being treated with respect and not coersion by medical professionals.

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings." This sounds like such a simple statement. Many quote it as such, sometimes as proof of their feminism because they think they believe women are human beings. But the corellary is what makes feminist awareness so powerful and painful; feminists recognize that most of the world does not treat women as human beings. When it comes to reproductive justice in the United States, women as human beings is still a radical notion.

And in the midst of a strong backlash against women's right to abortion, the Obama Administration has taken a stand on the wrong side:

We already know that Obama plans to officially announce Joshua DuBois' appointment to be director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships tomorrow, as well as the unveiling of his newly-formed Presidential Advisory Council of the same name. But I'm told by a religious leader who will be part of the Council that the president also plans to lay out four priorities for the Council. They will include focusing on global poverty (not surprising), the impact of economic recovery plans on low-income Americans (ditto), the faith-based initiative (OF COURSE), and...abortion reduction.

This comes from Amy Sullivan, who is not exactly the best source, but she's quoted by Emily Douglas at RH Reality Check.

This is no surprise. It's exactly the way he talked about the issue during the election. But it's still chilling to see reducing abortion as a top priority of a faith-based governmental council.

It's dangerous and irresponsible, in my not so humble opinion.

ETA An excellent comment on the TIMES site:

plukasiak Says:
Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 5:44 am
This post illustrates the kind of unproductive politicization of the abortion issue that Obama is talking about.
_
uh, its not the media who is politicizing abortion here, its Obama. He's the one calling a reproductive planning initiative "abortion reduction". (and lets not call it "family planning"; we're not talking about whether to take the kids to the beach or to Disneyworld for vacation, we're talking about sex and reducing unintended pregancies.)
_
And there is a danger in this, because the focus of reproductive planning cannot and should not be abortion reduction; reducing the number of abortions is just one of the inevitable by-product of a successful reproductive planning initiative.
_
"abortion reduction" isn't about healthy babies and prepared parents, "abortion reduction" is a phrase that comes right out of the "life begins at conception, and ends at birth" handbook. And whether we like it or not, abortion remains an important aspect of family planning -- while we can reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies with a reproductive planning initiative, we can't eliminate the need for abortion services, or the need for reproductive planning services to include abortion as an option for women who do not feel ready to be bear children.

An Update

2009-01-31T16:35:00.002-05:00

myiq2xu, the man who posted the gossip about Ali Campoverdi on The Confluence, has shown himself to be a complete douchebag of the what about teh menz variety since he was challenged by some actual feminists. In part because he has recently insisted that people can not unilaterally decide someone is not a feminist for any reason, shortly after declaring Campoverdi could not be a feminist because she did something he didn't approve of. Apparently soon we're going to be told how we are hypocrites by this guy. ha!

His attempts to "clarify" what his original post meant have pretty much been shallow, defensive statements. He refuses to look at the implications of what he's saying, which is that it is no surprise that Jon Favreau would be attracted to "that kind" of woman.

What "kind" would that be, myiq?

You see, this is exactly what slut-shaming is: making a judgment about and categorizing a woman based on a) a sexual act, b) sexual activity, c) attitude towards sex or d) the way she dresses, among other things. Basically, it revolves around a woman's sexuality and whether she has done something the shamer believes a woman shouldn't do.

Of course, we don't have to approve of everything every woman does; but it is anti-feminist to reduce a woman to our perceived notions of her sexuality.

Thank Bush for keeping us safe from zombies

2009-01-30T16:20:00.003-05:00

Read this, especially if you need a good laugh for the weekend.

A sample:

The call has gone out to the Republican Establishment Media that it is only through Bush’s vigilance that any of us are alive today. Just take a look at the record:

No terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Bush kept us safe from terrorists.
No hurricanes in New Orleans since Katrina. Bush kept us safe from nature.
No comets have hit Earth since Tunguska, 100 years ago. Bush kept us safe from celestial collisions.
No #1 albums from Creed since Weathered (2001). Bush kept us safe from Power Ballads.
No reanimation of serial murderer and cannibal, Jeffrey Dahmer. Bush kept us safe brain-devouring zombies.
No sightings of the Four Horsemen on the Interstate. Bush kept us safe from the Apocalypse.
When you think about all of things that didn’t happen during the Bush years, you can’t help but be grateful for the omnipotent scope of his protective embrace.

Multiple births and hypocrisy

2009-01-30T14:13:00.003-05:00

Public womb #239487235.. oh, wait, I mean a woman who recently had octuplets is the target of a round of pearl-clutching because she didn't have a gazillion children in the approved way. Instead of having child after child while preaching Christian Quiverfull values and letting a man prove his virility by getting her pregnant each time, a young woman apparently used fertility treatment which resulted in eight embryos that all survived to be born. And now people are looking into every detail of her life so that they can heap their judgment onto her. She "already has" six kids! The family filed for bankruptcy! Where did the money come from? ZOMG THERE IS AN IRAQI IN THE FAMILY.

The difference between how the media has treated this woman and how they portray a family like the Duggars is stunning.

For example, take a look at this media coverage of the Duggars:

The Discovery Health channel has an entire television show devoted to the Duggars, and on the website you can "Name that Duggar!" and leave well wishes for the newest baby.

MSNBC has an article that is positively glowing, in which they quote Ann Curry referring to the family as "very traditional, even old-fashioned."

Of course, the Duggars are still targetted for ridicule and derision, but the mainstream media has, for the most part, embraced them.

Not so the mother of the octuplets.

Zuzu posted about the octuplets after I'd started writing this, and she has some very interesting things to say, as well:

The problem is, we’re not supposed to judge women who want to have lots of children, we’re supposed to look at every birth as a “miracle” and as desirable, we’re supposed to ooh and ahh over the vast medical team assembled for the delivery, we’re supposed to find it heartwarming that government resources are used during a massive disaster to save frozen embryos rather than finding and rescuing real live people, we’re supposed to say that isn’t it great that she was pro-life, had a choice, and refused a selective reduction that would have resulted in fewer, but healthier, and possibly full-term babies.

I think that looking at the issue from the point of view of what pressures are put on women and how a subset of women respond (and whether that is healthy for all involved or not) is not the same as judging women. It's important to point out the hypocrisy of the culture that sentimentalizes babies and multiple births, but condemns women who don't give birth in perfect circumstances.

Julie Shapiro at Feminist Law Professors also puts this in the larger context of whose right to parent is questioned.

And finally, I find it simply amazing that a woman could find a doctor willing to implant several embryos in a fairly young woman with six children, yet it is nearly impossible for a woman of the same age or younger to find a doctor willing to perform a tubal ligation.

True spirits told me to post this

2009-01-30T11:19:00.005-05:00

I have to share a letter to the editor published in my local newspaper:

FALSE SPIRITS SPEAK TO PSYCHICS

In response to Pauline ------ (letter, Jan. 28) —

I was warning this young man of this evil practice, which was and is the issue.

It is written, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

Of this matter of fear in God's people, it is written, "For God hath not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 2:7)

In regards to men writing the Bible, it is written, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

As for New Age, God is in everything. It is written, "Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

Romans 1:16-32 speaks of those who worship Earth and think God is in everything. Plants and animals are incapable of knowing God. Not every spirit is from God.

In 1 John 4:1 it is written, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but rather try the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

These demons who speak to psychics are false and need exposing for the sake of the souls of others. The devil will always tell people what they want to hear, and he is a spiritual being. Choose God, choose life. John 3:16 still works!

Because nothing proves your point like random quotations from the Bible.

ETA: Unfortunately I don't have immediate access to the other two letters leading to this one, but here is the snippit that was available from the first letter written by the same religious wacko as the one above:

Courier promoted necromancy

I was greatly saddened and disturbed by the Jan. 26 article, "Psychic gets into the spirit of new job." I was even more disappointed at the Courier's promotion of necromancy and consulters of familiar spirits.

In the article, this young man stated that he was a Roman Catholic. Most Roman Catholics today follow their priest, their pope, and the canon laws of the Catholic church, which have replaced the Bible and...

Thank you, Lilly Ledbetter...

2009-01-29T14:09:00.003-05:00

...and all the other women who have fought for so long for equal pay for women. Passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is only one victory in the war, but I hope that it will make it easier for the many women who have lost thousands of dollars due to discrimination to seek justice. As RKMK has reminded me, those women included Congresswomen who broke party ranks to support this bill.

Thank you.

Where is this common ground you speak of?

2009-01-29T10:55:00.003-05:00

The efforts by Republicans and the media to ridicule family planning help for low income women proves what a lie any "common ground" is between the pro-choice movement and the conservative forced birth lobby. All the big talk - mostly by men - about how pregnancy prevention is a place where the two sides can come together in agreement has been shown to be complete bullshit. As most reproductive justice advocates already knew. This is what many Obama crticis and Clinton supporters tried to point out over and over during the primaries when we were all being told to shut the fuck up and think of the party/think of Roe.

Thank god Roe is safe because some women are gonna need it if they can't afford birth control! Oh wait, they can't afford or get access to abortion, either. Well, I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats will at least help them get pre-natal care, right? If not, we can all agree on the common ground that women should just not have sex unless they are middle class or wealthy. Change you can believe in.

BIMA

2009-01-28T19:58:00.004-05:00

BIpartisanship my ass

My less eloquent response to this whole thing:

Fuck Obama, fuck the Democratic Party, fuck the Republicans. You all fucking suck! Along with NARAL, Ms Magazine and NOW.

Women deserve better 2

2009-01-28T08:32:00.005-05:00

Sometimes the problem with all the ways to communicate... e mailing my cronies, sharing on Google reader... is that I forget I haven't railed against something here as well. I could have sworn I talked about the way Obama pulled the rug out from under subsidizing birth control under Medicaid.

Some hero.

This isn't a shock. Obama's made it clear over and over again that when it comes time to "compromise," those icky women's issues will be the first to go. And Democrats have made it clear that they're all too happy to go along with it.

Which is why I am bewildered by so many feminists falling over themselves to praise every tiny little thing he does... even when he hasn't actually done anything. Are we really so battered from 8 years of conservative rule that we are grateful for the smallest, emptiest gestures?

Is this what victory looks like to Naomi Wolf?

ETA: Great post on Alegre's Corner highlighting statements from NOW-New York State and Planned Parenthood calling out Obama. Alegre rightfully calls out Kim Gandy of NOW for her silence. I also ask, where is NARAL? On their front page they still show Thank You Obama for repealing the Global Gag Rule. I can't find anything in their press releases or news. NARAL chose to endorse Obama and now they are silent when he abandons poor women for political expediency.

Underwear models are obviously just dumb bimbos, according to some "feminists"

2009-01-27T10:45:00.005-05:00

Is Amy Compoverdi being punished for her apparent-boyfriend Jon Favreau's misogyny, and by feminist bloggers of all people?

Both Tennessee Guerilla Women and The Confluence have posts up about rumors taht Favreau is dating Campoverdi, and focus on the fact that she modeled for Maxim, reducing her to nothing more than a pretty body in order to make the connection to Favreau's misogyny. Which makes them little different from all the other sexist reporting on the gossip.

A few select headlines (all linked above):

Ali Campoverdi: Obama Hottie, Feminist Paradox (Gawker)
Ali Campoverdi: White House Maxim Model (Right TV)
Report: Girlfriend of Obama's Speechwriter Is a Maxim Model (Fox News)
Meet the new girl at the White House (good job Clinton's not still President!) (Daily Mail, UK)
Meet Obama's sexy Maxim aide (Metro, UK)

It's almost a side note that Campoverdi has education and has been pursuing graduate level education, something not even mentioned by the two feminist bloggers who oh so helpfully provide a picture of her from the Maxim shoot. The posts both seem to imply (as do many of the sexist headlines coming from such upstanding organizations as Fox News) that Campoverdi doesn't deserve to work at the White House because she posed for Maxim. If it's true she has no qualifications, then talk about that. Don't slyly imply it just because she's worked in a profession you don't approve of.

As TinfoilHattie commented in response to The Confluence:

I don't know. This doesn't sit well with me. First of all, why the lingerie shot? To show that Campoverdi was an underwear model? Then talk about that. Should she have been one? Are underwear models "bad"? Does Ms. Campoverdi purport to be a feminist, making her career selection as an underwear model fair discussion fodder?
Or are you trying to show that someone like Favreau would OF COURSE date an underwear model, because … underwear models are … fill in the blank for me, please. Do you object to his dating an attractive woman? Do you object to his dating an underwear model? Because I don't think you can object to Favreau's choice here without maligning the woman. The message seems to be, "Look what kind of woman HE dates! Doesn't it figure! HE dates a (slut? bimbo? what?)"

ETA:
Been going around and around with a few people who seem to think that this is appropriate because certain women who participate in the patriarchy should be condemned. ("She's asking for it," anyone?)
Funny thing, though, those women who deserve to be condemned and criticized (even 5 years after their supposed offense) happen to work in - go on, guess - the sex industry (which includes sexy modeling of the Maxim variety)! However, this is apparently not slut-shaming because the word slut does not actually appear.

How not to report about rape

2009-01-24T21:16:00.003-05:00

[TRIGGER WARNING}

A 33 year old man was arrested for rape when his 11 year old victim became pregnant. This seriously abysmal article about it not only describes what happened as the alleged rapist having sex or intercourse with the victim. It also describes events in a way that communicates absolutely nothing and most likely glosses over forcible rape.

The 11-year-old girl told investigators Dyson several times attempted to have sex with her while the two were residing at a residence along East Larwill Street, said Merillat, adding the girl said Dyson was successful in having intercourse with her twice.

Of course it doesn't matter if the girl said yes, it is still rape, and a 33 year old man has absolutely no excuse for raping an 11 year old. I can think of a few scenarios in which actions can be described as above that aren't violent or forceful that involve the girl changing her mind, being physically unable, and the man actually listening. But somehow that doesn't seem the most likely.

If he did indeed try to force the girl violently against her will, it is unconscionable to write about it in this way. It trivializes rape and makes it sound as if the girl was willing, as if at 11 she could be capable of meaningful consent.

Not just "another woman"

2009-01-23T09:08:00.005-05:00

I very strongly believe in trying to get more women into all levels of politics on both sides of the aisle. I think that the new organizations The New Agenda and 51% are doing very important work. Even though I personally might have trouble supporting or voting for a conservative woman over a progressive man, it is crucial to work on increasing women's representation. A perfect illustration of this is the Senate vote on the Ledbetter bill. All four Republican women Senators voted for the bill. That's not to say that Republican women will always do what I believe is best for women, but it does show that women are needed to represent women's interests.

So even though the woman I preferred is not going to be Secretary Clinton's replacement in the Senate, I am very pleased that Patterson did choose a woman. Making note of this shouldn't be problematic, but I was still uncomfortable with the way that NPR promo'd their news piece about the appointment. I heard it in my car, so this isn't quite an exact quote, but the pertinent words are correct: "Gov. Patterson chooses another woman to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat."

I've been trying to piece out exactly why this bothered me. First of all, no one in the mainstream media was talking about how Blagojevic appointed "another man" to replace Obama. Just like no one in the MSM is going to talk about how another white person has been selected in Colorado. White men are the default, anyone else is a special case.

I think that I wouldn't have such a problem with this if the MSM put it in the context of representation. Instead, the way it's mentioned just serves to make women and minorities the non-default, the other. What do you all think?

Women deserve better (Updated)

2009-01-22T18:23:00.004-05:00

Women suffer and they die because their bodies are considered teh property of others. Sometimes a specific man, sometimes just society as a whole.

Women suffer and they die because they are not given the power over their own lives, treated as children who can't decide what's best for them or their families.

Women suffer and they die because people in power yield authority to religious ideology over rights of bodily autonomy and real world results.

Women suffer and some die because doctors' convenience outweighs how they would choose to give birth.

Women die. Because we're still fighting the people who put their religion, their misogynist "morality" above women's well-being.

This isn't an intellectual debate. It's not a disagreement between two reasonable positions. There is no fucking common ground. Women are dying.

ANd all Obama can give us is an equivocating statement that's nothing more than platitudes.

Women fucking deserve better.

UPDATE:
Apparently, I am not supposed to be so emotional about this. And making a gesture to the anti-choicers is more important than a gesture to the base of the Democratic party.

And don't call a character "wheelchair guy"

2009-01-21T10:37:00.006-05:00

Cheney is a morally bankrupt man who contributed to who knows just how much suffering in America and abroad. Everything about him is reprehensible.

But can we cut out the comments about how he looked extra evil in a wheelchair at the inauguration? I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as I should be to talk about the imagery of people in wheelchairs, but all the snarky comments smack of ableism. This has nothing to do with Cheney and everything to do with the way people who use wheelchairs are Othered.

Warning: Contains acrimonious sarcasm

2009-01-17T11:40:00.004-05:00

OHNOES! Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors and Amy Siskind of Radical Leftist (and The New Agenda) have been ridiculed by the notoriously hard core feminists at XX Factor, Jezebel and Stalknblog for criticizing the Ms. Magazine Super!Obama cover.

I hope you two have learned your lesson, you silly PUMA women. Feminism is for everyone! Who are you to insist that a feminist actually lives feminist values or even feels comfortable saying they are a feminist in public? And OMG, how dare you apply feminist criticism to the cover of a feminist magazine? YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES.

WTF Ms.?

2009-01-14T10:23:00.005-05:00

Yes, I'm wading into the Ms. Magazine Super!Obama cover mess. I hate it. I'm not too impressed with the rather shallow analysis of feminists who approve, either. Ellie Smeal's reasoning is especially galling (h/t Feministe):

And better yet, he ran on the strongest platform for women’s rights of any major party in American history. Feminist Karen Kornbluh, the platform’s principle author, ensured women’s rights, opportunities, advancement, and issues were addressed throughout the historic document.

Obama didn't run on a very strong platform for women's rights during the primary, despite the presence of Karen Kornbluh. On the contrary, he was weak in his support of many issues important to feminists, and used sexism to his advantage. The insistance that the strong women's rights positions in the Democratic platform in the presidential election is thanks to Obama is exactly why we absolutely cannot forget or get over the Democratic primaries. History is being rewritten, and the women who refused to simply give silent support to Obama have been forgotten. Hillary Clinton's role is being forgotten.

To give Obama credit for the role of women in the Democratic platform and presidential campaign is to buy into the notion that while he has not played a leadership role in women's issues and did not give strong support to feminist issues in his primary campaign, he is secretly a feminist who is just hiding it for political purposes and he actually pushed for the "strongest platform for women's rights of any major party in America's history."

It boils down to one more man given credit for the work of thousands of women, and women's leadership being undervalued. A man can be a feminist superhero just for saying in private to feminists that he is a feminist. Meanwhile, he leaves all the actual work of supporting women's issues and leading the fight against misogynist policies to the women.

Superman Returns with an impossibly young Lois Lane

2009-01-10T11:17:00.006-05:00

Spoilers ahead!

Second caveat: I'm much more into superhero movies than comic books, so I haven't read the Superman comics. I can't compare the characters to the more "authentic" comic book characters.

I was desperate enough to rent Superman Returns several days ago and my initial intention not to see the movie was pretty well validated. I don't understand why it received such positive reviews from many critics. It was long and boring and I couldn't figure out wtf was the point other than to indulge in a nostalgic need for continuation of the Christopher Reeve movies.

Much of the way the movie was made was not very updated from the 70's and 80's films. Even the music was used in the same ham-handed beat-the-viewers-over-the-head way.*

But Lois Lane has been de-aged to the point of ridiculousness. But 23-year-old Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was the biggest turn-off in the movie. We're supposed to believe that her romance with Superman happened before she was old enough to graduate college, and that by 23 she had won the Pulitzer Prize?

I suspect we aren't supposed to believe any such thing, but that we're supposed to accept that the very young pretty actress is believable as an older professional woman. In contrast, Margot Kidder was 30 when the first Superman movie premiered, and 39 when Superman IV came out. I guess audiences just wouldn't be able to handle a woman in her 40's as the romantic interest in a comic book movie. Older women are so icky! They're much more appropriate to play aging witches who will do anything to stay young, like the OMG 49 year old Michelle Pfeiffer in Stardust.

*What's also not updated? Sexism! Woohoo! The weird not-earth timeline setting was disorienting, with new technology and cars but old-fashioned costumes and attitudes. Including openly acknowledged lack of women working for the Daily Planet, and regressive roles for women. mmm, nostalgia.