Feminism in News and Popular Media

[Nat]

I see feminism from my iPhone :) It's not dead and it's not relegated to the upper echelons of academia either.

JjZusoNthjc

In the LGBTQ community, it can be a little more complicated than "violence against women," but it still touched me to hear Patrick Stewart talk about this from a personal place. And it warms my heart to see him in the "this is what a feminist looks like" shirt.

[Nat]

yn0t1EkPe4c

[Soon]

Why are women scared to call themselves feminists? (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/why_are_women_scared_to_call_themselves_feminists/)

It’s a glorious time to be a declared non-feminist. This weekend, Katy Perry accepted Billboard Woman of the Year award by announcing to the world, “I am not a feminist, but I do believe in the strength of women.” Way to take home a prize for womankind there, Perry. And last month, the former supermodel/first lady of France Carla Bruni-Sarkozy declared in a magazine interview that “I’m not at all an active feminist. On the contrary, I’m a bourgeois. I love family life, I love doing the same thing every day.” Because you can’t be bourgeois, love your family, or value stability and be a feminist. It’s in the manifesto.

Bruni-Sarkozy added, “We don’t need to be feminist in my generation.” As a member of Bruni-Sarkozy’s generation, let me address that. Ha! HA HA HA! No, we don’t need feminism at all! Women over 40 are too valued and respected for that! They don’t have their looks scrutinized and mocked; they don’t face skepticism that they’re too old to do their jobs; they aren’t the punch lines of garish jokes about predatory cougars. Ha ha ha!

Perry and Bruni-Sarkozy are in esteemed company. This past summer, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer explained that while she believes in “equal rights” and that “women are just as capable,” she believes feminism itself is a “more negative word.” Academy Award winner Melissa Leo, meanwhile, told Salon back in August, “I don’t think of myself as a feminist at all. As soon as we start labeling and categorizing ourselves and others, that’s going to shut down the world. I would never say that.” And Katherine Fenton, the young lady whose presidential debate question about the wage gap triggered Romney’s absurd “binders full of women” response, told Salon she was “absolutely not” a feminist, explaining, “I’m a 24-year-old woman that lives in the United States and feels like I should be treated the same as anyone else. That makes me a normal human being.”

If you’ve given it a lot of thought and study and come to the conclusion that nope, this feminism thing really isn’t your bag, OK. Godspeed and I wish you well. Feminism is about respecting each other’s choices, after all, and as a feminist I respect yours. No, wait, come back. Are you sure about this? Really? You know, you don’t have to be some angry, man-hating termagant. In fact, if that’s your idea of what a feminist is, you may be basing your image on what the most loathsome trolls on the Internet call us. Well, not “termagant” because they can’t spell it, but you get the point. Do you trust the perception of creeps?

Let me just point out that if you believe in the strength of women, Ms. Perry, or their equality, Ms. Mayer, you’re soaking in feminism. If you’re like Ms. Bruni-Sarkozy and want to explain that “I imagine I am if feminism means claiming one’s freedom. But I am not if it means being committed in an active way to the fight that some women are still leading today I admire their bravery a lot, but I have chosen to commit myself elsewhere,” you should know that “the fight” is just being an autonomous person in the world. And if you’re like Ms. Fenton and think feminism means being treated like “anyone else,” remember that there aren’t a whole lot of “anyone else” options out there. You’re basically admitting that masculinity is the norm and that all we can do is aspire toward some kind of equitable footing in a man’s world. This sounds like a job for … feminism!

It’s not that feminism is one perfect dogma, or that those who claim participation in it have it all figured out. Feminists argue among themselves and there are some real pieces of work out there who call themselves feminists. Perhaps that’s why someone like Katy Perry, who’s incited the rage of feminist writer Naomi Wolf for her provocative “Part of Me” video, feels this a revolution she doesn’t have a role in. But when Perry, a woman who this weekend walked a red carpet for the Trevor Project holding a sign that said “Be proud of who you are” says she doesn’t want to identify as a feminist, it’s a fair to ask, who is she then?

You can call yourself or not call yourself whatever you want, but consider this. Nobody enjoys it more when a woman says she’s not a feminist than a misogynist. Nobody gets more gloatingly self-congratulatory about it, or happier about what “real” women don’t need than someone who doesn’t like women very much, especially not the uppity, outspoken, wanting pay equity and reproductive freedom types. Consider that any word that feared and derided has incredible power. And how beautiful and strong that makes it.ts/"]Why are women scared to call themselves feminists?

[Nat]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/270209_460542207328104_489163073_n.jpg

This photo was posted on STFU, Conservatives (https://www.facebook.com/stfuconservatives?group_id=0) Tumblr page last night. The reason why I'm sharing it is not because of the photo itself (which is epic in it's ow...n right), but for the comments it generated.

One person wrote, "but then again, its kind like putting a meat suit on and telling a shark not to eat you".

STFU responded (with bolded text):

"We (men) are not fucking sharks!

We are not rabid animals living off of pure instinct

We are capable of rational thinking and understanding.

Just because someone is cooking food doesn’t mean you’re entitled to eat it.

Just because a banker is counting money doesn’t mean you’re being given free money.

Just because a person is naked doesn’t mean you’re entitled to fuck them.

You are not entitled to someone else’s body just because it’s exposed.

What is so fucking difficult about this concept?"

Bravo.

(from Sluts for Obama 2012 facebook)

[Martina]

I see a lot of smart young women and men saying feminist things on the internet, and I don't spend that much time here. I don't know that they ID as feminists, but I doubt that most would baulk at the description.

I think what Katie Pery was acknowledging is that it's not a particularly cool thing to call yourself right now. But anyone serious enough to think beyond what's cool knows better. And, thank god, there are a lot of folks like that.

I don't think it matters how we market feminism, whether it is cool or not. It's a human rights issue. We are making progress on awareness of human rights issues around the world, including, maybe especially, women's rights.

Malala was not just an international cause celebre. She got a huge amount of support at home. The protests in India to the rape cases. The reaction to the Republicans candidates remarks about rape in the last election.

There were losses too -- access to abortion in the United States. But change is happening. It's not going to stop because some trendy people don't like the word "feminist."

[julieisafemme]

I am not trendy in any way and I did not like the word feminist and did not call myself one for a lot of reasons. I have changed my mind on that thanks to you and lots of other good people on this site. I don't think it's necessarily the young people we have to be concerned about, although we should think of them.
I am not super in touch with 20 somethings. I do talk to my 10 year old about feminism and use that word as well! That would not have happened 4 years ago.

Change is happening and it is because people talk about things. I am so grateful for you and the conversations I have had on this site.


I see a lot of smart young women and men saying feminist things on the internet, and I don't spend that much time here. I don't know that they ID as feminists, but I doubt that most would baulk at the description.

I think what Katie Pery was acknowledging is that it's not a particularly cool thing to call yourself right now. But anyone serious enough to think beyond what's cool knows better. And, thank god, there are a lot of folks like that.

I don't think it matters how we market feminism, whether it is cool or not. It's a human rights issue. We are making progress on awareness of human rights issues around the world, including, maybe especially, women's rights.

Malala was not just an international cause celebre. She got a huge amount of support at home. The protests in India to the rape cases. The reaction to the Republicans candidates remarks about rape in the last election.

There were losses too -- access to abortion in the United States. But change is happening. It's not going to stop because some trendy people don't like the word "feminist."

[Martina]

I don't know how these algorithms or whatever they are called work, but Gerda Lerner's death keeps coming up as trending number one on Yahoo. That is kind of mind-blowing. I guess alot of us older folks had to read one or another of her books in college.

Kind of a good sign if it truly is trending.

[Nat]

From the "Style" section of the Washington Post:

Four years later, feminists split by Michelle Obama’s ‘work’ as first lady (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/feminists-split-by-michelle-obamas-work-as-first-lady/2013/01/18/be3d636e-5e5e-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html)

By Lonnae O’Neal Parker,

Jan 18, 2013 05:09 PM EST

In the opening moments of her second turn at history, as Michelle Obama waves at celebrants along Pennsylvania Avenue, Americans will clamor to see the first lady, who remains one of the most popular public figures in the country. In the most recent poll, fully 73 percent said they approve of the way she is handling her job.

But a significant group of Americans — feminist Americans — have been vocally disappointed with her choices and feel let down by her example.
In 2008, when Obama announced her intention to be “mom-in-chief,” many feminists decried her decision to give up her career and said she had been victimized by her husband’s choices. She was regarded as one of the women feminist Linda Hirshman described as “letting down the team.”

But most black feminists and writers had a different view. Let the sister get settled, they said. Give her a minute to do a head count. And if she wanted to focus on motherhood, for black women that was more than fine. It was arguably revolutionary, because black women were long denied the right — or lacked the means — to simply care for their own.

As she begins another four years in the White House, the nation’s feminists are divided about the “work” Obama has done, and the work they’d like to see her do.

This split has bitter historic roots. It surfaced during the suffrage movement, when white women suggested their votes could counter those of “the darker races,” and again in the 1970s, when black feminists broke away over the white middle-class focus of “women’s lib.”

Now, with an African American woman in the White House, these differences have rushed back to the fore.

Last year, after Obama and Ann Romney submitted recipes for a cookie contest, Hirshman told The Washington Post that Obama’s “first mom, gardener thing” is “silly.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cookie-contest-stirs-debate-about-michelle-obamas-mom-in-chief-role/2012/07/06/gJQApnCpRW_story.html) Now, Hirshman says, “I’ve kind of lost interest in Michelle Obama. She was trapped by assumptions about race and had limited room to maneuver. Whether that was a welcome choice or she had no choice, I will never know. It’s very difficult to envision her as running for senator from the state of Illinois as you did with Hillary Clinton running for senator from the state of New York.”

“Are fashion and body-toning tips all we can expect from one of the most highly educated First Ladies in history?” asked author Leslie Morgan Steiner in an online column last January. She said she’d “read enough bland dogma on home-grown vegetables and aerobic exercise to last me several lifetimes.”

Steiner contended Obama probably had little leeway. “I’m sure there is immense pressure — from political advisors, the black community, her husband, the watching world — to play her role as First Black Lady on the safe side.”

Feminist discontent with the first lady spiked again last summer at the Democratic National Convention, after she called her daughters “the heart of my heart and the center of my world.” She then repeated her feminist crazy-maker: “You see, at the end of the day, my most important title is still ‘mom-in-chief.’ ”

-----------------------------------

My feelings on this article are basically:

Jesus Christ! Seriously?

But I'm curious - are there those of you out there who consider yourselves feminist who are critical of Michelle Obama's job as First Lady on feminist grounds?

[Martina]

I like her a lot, but if you think that she hasn't chosen issues to get involved in that keep from being a lightening rod for controversy, you would be wrong. And she still got made fun of by the far right for the childhood obesity stuff. I think she will be able to branch out more this term if she wants. She has become someone a lot of people love and don't want to hear mean talk about.

But blaming people who would like her to take a risk is not the point. The point is the radical right who talked about the size of her ass and tried to piss on everything she did at the beginning.

I am sure she cares about military families, but I am also sure she took on that project because it's pretty much unassailable from the right.

[Soon]

But I'm curious - are there those of you out there who consider yourselves feminist who are critical of Michelle Obama's job as First Lady on feminist grounds?

I think she's great. As far as feminism--it's about choice and empowerment/freedom to make those choices. If Michelle considers Mom-in-Chief to be her most important responsibility at this time, more power to her.

[Soon]

Faith Website Blocks Writer From Using That Icky Word ‘Feminism’ (http://jezebel.com/5982861/faith-website-blocks-writer-from-using-that-icky-word-feminism) by Madeleine Davies

Early in January, Minnesota playwright, Presbyterian pastor and feminist Kristine Holmgren was asked to create a website for multi faith blogging network Beliefnet. "I'm negotiating 'terms' now," she announced excitedly on Facebook. Unfortunately, the negotiations have since fallen apart after Holmgren and the Beliefnet marketing analysts got in a disagreement about including the word "feminist" in the blog's title.

Holmgren received this email from Beliefnet marketing and business analyst Sharon Kirk:

We're ready to get started on the header for your blog however first we need the title of your blog and any creative direction you may have (i.e. colors you want to include, any themes, a headshot, etc.). I believe you and Jana previously tossed around a few title possibilities including "Feminist Pulpit Notes."

While I agree that title is certainly straight forward, I think it would resonate with our readers more if the title was a bit "softer." Our readers are looking for editorial that's uplifting, motivational, inspirational, etc. and I think your blog will perform better if the title speaks to that aspect of your blog. Do you have any ideas along those lines?

Holmgren then suggested "Sweet Truth — Thoughts of a Faithful Feminist." Friendly, chipper and soft as a puppy, right?

Then came the response from Beliefnet. Kirk wrote:

I love "Sweet Truth" however I would suggest changing the tag line or deleting all together as I'm concerned about the negative connotation that our readers may associate with the word feminism. In addition, we'll want this blog to focus more on Christianity/spirituality as opposed to issues related to feminism. What do you think of simply "Sweet Truths with Kristine Holmgren"?

Sure, or why not call it "Tasty Thoughtsy-Woughtsies"? Or "Blah, Blah, Blah: Unchallenging Thoughts from a Woman Who DEFINITELY Shaves Her Legs"? (Just spit ballin,' here.)

Side note: While Beliefnet is worried that the word "feminism" might offend someone, they have no issue about running ads and advice from Focus on the Family. Neat!

Holmgren posted this update on her Facebook wall Wednesday:

I spoke a few moments ago with the contact at BeliefNet. She told me — not only can I not use the word "feminist" in my title, I cannot use it on the blog..."The word offends so many people," she said. She said I should come up with a word that was "softer." I told her I didn't think there was anything "softer" than feminism; a word that denotes equality for men and women and respect for children and families. She said "I agree, but. . . " so I told her their inflexibility on this was a "deal breaker." She regretted my "feeling" on this (by the way — this isn't a "feeling." It's a "thought system." Some people's kids!!! ) and said, "We can conclude this without rancor." I said, "Oh, no we can't." I'm writing about this one.

On one hand, Beliefnet is a private company that's allowed to associate with whatever words they like. On the other, a private company that refuses to associate with an ideology that's fundamental principle is that you shouldn't treat women like garbage is a little fucking questionable.

Strangely, Beliefnet knew what Holmgren's point-of view was from the beginning. "I said to them ‘You've got to know that I'm a Presbyterian pastor, but I come to the world as a feminist.' They said, ‘That's fabulous. We want a wide range of views on the site,'" the writer said of her first interview. Later, of course, they got scared. Scared of offending people with something that isn't even offensive. Scared of offending people with women's rights. So much for faith...

[femmeInterrupted]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/i-cant-believe-i-still-have-to-protest-this-shit.jpg

Far too recently in Canada, A motion brought before Parliament sought to have a committee examine whether a fetus should be considered a human being before it is born, and at what point exactly that designation should be given. Currently, the Criminal Code of Canada defines human life as beginning when a baby has completely emerged from its mother’s body.Canada’s Minister for the Status of Women (In a solid bitch slap to the women of Canada) joined nine other Conservative cabinet ministers and dozens of backbenchers in voting in favour of a motion to study the rights of the fetus.

In other news south of the Border:


http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/12/prenda-black-genocide/

[femmeInterrupted]

"Since her death in 1979, the woman who discovered what the universe is made of has not so much as received a memorial plaque. Her newspaper obituaries do not mention her greatest discovery. […] Every high school student knows that Isaac Newton discovered gravity, that Charles Darwin discovered evolution, and that Albert Einstein discovered the relativity of time. But when it comes to the composition of our universe, the textbooks simply say that the most abundant atom in the universe is hydrogen. And no one ever wonders how we know."

~ Jeremy Knowles

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, a truly extraordinary woman.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/556006_552953484725667_1535851870_n.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

http://nwac.ca/declaration-indigenous-women-csw57#.UT4kNv9Ri5c.facebook

FIFTY SEVENTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
From 4 to 15 March 2013, United Nations, New York

DECLARATION OF THE INDIGENOUS WOMEN OF CSW57

Reaffirming the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action Beijing, the Beijing Declaration of Indigenous Women, the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly and declarations adopted by the Commission during the tenth and fifteenth anniversaries of the Fourth World Women,

Recalling the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 22 paragraph 2, which states that States shall take measures, in conjunction with Indigenous Peoples, to ensure that Indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination,

Recalling that the Commission on the Status of Women plays a key role in monitoring, reviewing and evaluating the progress made and challenges encountered in implementing the Beijing Platform for Action at all levels, and in our regions, and the intergovernmental regional and sub-regional organizations to advance women, to ensure compliance with the commitments that governments adopt at the Commission on the Status of Women,

Considering the recommendations made in the report of the meeting of the international group of experts: combating violence against Indigenous women and girls: article 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, where they emphasized the inadequate statistical data on the extent of violence against Indigenous women and girls that are so important for the development and implementation of evidence-based policy, legislative reform and judicial training,

Stressing the need for an intercultural and situational analysis to address violence against Indigenous women, whereas studies on various aspects of identity and systems of patriarchal and colonial domination have interacted.

WE URGE ALL STATES TO:

1. Promote public policies and inter-cultural approaches to the full and effective participation of women and young people including in political processes, to eradicate and prevent violence. This includes institutionalized mechanisms in each country, specific areas or departments responsible for designing policies, programs and legislation, taking into account the multisectoral nature of the problem of women, girls and young people, aimed primarily at providing information, tools and trained professionals in the sectors responsible for justice, education, health and employment.

2. Review education systems at all levels to review and include an education based on the recognition of diversity and cultural differences, as a basis for respect between diverse and complex societies, recognized as equal in rights. The educational content should contribute to state multiculturalism, self-esteem, dignity and respect for differences as fundamental values ​​to eradicate violence and racism.

3. Establish funds and governmental agencies for research qualified to supply culturally appropriate tools and methodologies to deal with the forms and consequences of violence against women, girls and young people, including national budgets and fiscal policies aimed at the justice system to reduce or eliminate violence against Indigenous women and girls.

4. Consider and take actions to repair the negative impact that pollution, environmental destruction and development, including the extractive industries has on the lives of Indigenous women, as a form of violence from the perspective of collective rights.

5. Create mechanisms for accessibility to justice for Indigenous women, through training and awareness of staff and to reduce incarceration of Indigenous women and their contact with the criminal justice system, and administer justice in matters of individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples and women, with a focus on multiculturalism and gender.

6. Include the variable ethnic and cultural identification in all instruments that gather quantitative and qualitative information from census surveys of all kinds, in order to overcome the lack of specific and disaggregated information relating to women, children and young people to establish the necessary policies, programs and legislation.

7. Develop national action plans which include research components focusing on intercultural violence by identifying systematic, coordinated, multi-sectoral and holistic, sustainable measures to address the underlying poverty, discrimination, overincarceration and sexism.

8. Develop mechanisms of accountability to monitor government programs to combat violence against women and girls, which identifies the damage caused by discrimination and racism and promote appropriate recommendations to remedy these facts.

9. Ensure the active participation of Indigenous women in all consultation processes during the phases of development, implementation and evaluation of all programs, policy and legislation related to responses for victims of violence to government programs and strategic policy, and for anti-violence including a holistic approach for the primary prevention of violence which ensures that the underlying causes are addressed effectively.

Declared by:

Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention Legal Service of Victoria
Adivasi Women’s Network, India
Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP)
Asia Indigenous Women’s Network
Chirapaq Centro de Culturas Indigenas del Peru Perú
Conservación, Investigación y Aprovechamiento de los Recursos Naturales (CIARENA)
Consejo Regional Indigena de Risaralda Colombia
Continental Network of Indigenous Women of the Americas (ECMIA)
Coporwa – La Communauté des Potiers du Rwanda
Il’laramatak Community Concerns
Indigenous Women’s Forum for Northeast India, India
Indígnenos Youth Network
Indigenous Youth Network of Ayacucho - Ñuqanchik
International Forum of Indigenous Women (FIMI)
La Alianza de Mujeres Indigenas de Centroamerica y Mexico
La organization Wangki Tangi
Naga Women's Union, India
Mudgin-gal Aboriginal Corporation
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Alliance
National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples
Native Women’s Association of Canada
Partners of Community Organization (PACOS), Malaysia
The Sami Parliament

[femmeInterrupted]

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/omzk6.SdxCSo2vgQ5T.XTA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thelookout/sir-stewart-lg.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/patrick-stewart-million-men-violence-women-011042478.html

[femmeInterrupted]

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/11/feminist-thought-leadership-and-its-influence-on-public-policy-efforts/

[femmeInterrupted]

As I watch and read the devastating and alarming news coming out of the U.S regarding rape culture and the media's "poor perpetrator" attitude towards two young men who clearly, ARE sexual predators, and thusly deserved to be labelled as such, I had another piece of women's reality cross my path much closer to home.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2012/10/30/tby-kenora-jail-aboriginal-women-stats.html

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/thunderbay/story/2012/09/27/aboriginal-women-prison-report.html


Aboriginal women in jail
The Kenora jail has 30 beds for women.
Proportion of Aboriginal women admitted in 2011/12 — 93%
Proportion of Aboriginal women admitted l in 2001/02 — 83%
Proportion of Aboriginal women in all provincial jails in 2011/12 — 19%
Proportion of Aboriginal women in all provincial jails in 2001/02 — 11%
*source: Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

This is the result of intergenerational trauma, systemic abuse and lived experiences of violence and poverty. The wrongful incarceration of women who need access to justice, appropriate response/services, and healing.

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/72650_129946227176468_2060431375_n.jpg

It literally made me blink.
I found this in a Radical Feminist 'space'.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/550x/98/63/61/986361f165b26f0f194c28fa46eef454.jpg


TOTALLY my two favourite 'F' words!!

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-ec2.pinterest.com/736x/0e/18/47/0e1847bab50afb68b0d8080dc1095975.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/166751_514746971901037_707140222_n.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/5481_496449797083231_111276442_n.jpg

[Kobi]

I love this.


Okay, so maybe you are a man and haven't had the easiest ride in life—maybe you grew up in poverty; you've experienced death, neglect, and despair; you hate your job, your car, your body. Maybe somebody or somebodies pulverized your heart, maybe you've never even been loved enough to know what a broken heart feels like. Maybe shit started out unfair and became irreparable and you never deserved any of this. Maybe everything looks fine on paper, but you're just unhappy and you don't know why. These are human problems and other human beings feel for you very deeply. It is hard to be a human. I am so sorry.

However.

Though it is a seductive scapegoat, none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of "misandry." In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny. This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don't hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

It is nearly impossible to address problems facing women—especially problems in which men are even tangentially culpable—without comments sections devolving into cries of "misandry!" from men and replies of "misandry isn't real" from women. Feminists are tired of this endless, fruitless turd-pong: hollow "conversation" built on willful miscommunication, bouncing back and forth, back and forth, until both sides throw up their hands and bolt. Maybe you are tired of this too. We seem to be having some very deep misunderstandings on this point, so let's unpack it. I promise not to yell.

Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a "humanist." Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism has been striving for for decades!

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. It won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money, they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches.

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

Or, if you didn't like that one, here's another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like "misandry isn't real," we mean it the same way you might say, "Freddy Krueger isn't real." The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it's almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger. Additionally, it is totally possible for some rando to dress up like Freddy Krueger and start murdering teens all over the place. But that doesn't meant that Freddy-Krueger-the-dude is literally real. He is never going to creep into your dreams at night and murder you. He has the power to frighten, there are isolated forces in the world that resemble him, but he is ultimately a manufactured menace.

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn't Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

We live in a world of measurable, glaring inequalities. Look at politicians, CEOs, film directors, law enforcement officers, comedians, tech professionals, executive chefs, mathematicians, and on and on and on—these fields are dominated by men. (And, in many cases, white men.) To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping women and minorities out of those jobs is to claim that men are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favoring men, then it stands to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in nearly every high-level specialized field.

It's fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities. It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that's where we're at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.

Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that's just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It's not misandry. It is not built into our culture or codified into law, and you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against you personally that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity. That doesn't mean that there aren't isolated incidents wherein mean women hurt men on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem that results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

There are some really shitty things about being a man. You are 100% right on that. You are held up to unreasonable expectations about your body and your career and your ability/desire to conform to traditional modes of masculinity (just like women are with traditional femininity), and that is absolutely oppressive. There are radical feminists and deeply wounded women and women who just don't have the patience for diplomacy anymore who absolutely hate you because of your gender. (However, for whatever it's worth, I do not personally know a single woman like that.) That is an unpleasant situation to be in—especially when you also feel like you're being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you've never met and towards whom you feel no particular animus.

The difference is, though, that the radfem community on Tumblr does not currently hold the reins of power in every country on earth (even in nations with female heads of state, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men). You do, abstractly. No, you don't have the ability or the responsibility to fix those imbalances single-handedly, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure is a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives. You might not benefit from patriarchy in any measurable way—on an individual level your life might actually be much, much worse than mine—but the fact is that certain disadvantages are absent from your experience (and, likely, invisible to you) because of your gender.

Maybe you're saying, "Hey, but my life wasn't fair either. I've had to struggle." I know it wasn't. I know you have. But that's not how fairness works. If you present fairness as the goal—that some day everything will be "fair" for everyone—you're slipping into an unrealistic fantasy land. Life already isn't fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and the DNA you were born with, and we all have to accept the hands we're dealt and live within that reality. But life doesn't have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. We can fight against that.

Feminism isn't about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis—it's about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women's basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field. It's not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they're women. It's that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn't sexism. But she shouldn't have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).

Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

Part Five: I'm Sorry That You Are in Pain, But Please Stop Taking It Out on Women

It's not easy to swallow your own privilege but once you do, it's addictive. It feels good to open up to perspectives that are foreign to you, accept your complicity in this shitty system, and work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory. It's something I had to do as a privileged white woman, and something I still have to work on every day, because it's right. That doesn't make me (or you) a bad person—it makes me an extremely lucky person who was born into a white body in a great family in a vibrant, liberal city in a powerful, wealthy country that implicitly values white bodies over all other bodies. The least I can do is acknowledge the arbitrariness of that luck, and work to tear down the obstacles facing those who are disenfranchised by the insidious fetishization of whiteness. Blanket defensiveness isn't going to get any of us anywhere.

To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for "misandry": I totally get it. Humans are not such complicated creatures. All we want is to feel like we're valued, like we deserve to exist. And I'm sorry if you haven't found that so far in your life. But it's not women's fault, it's not my fault, and it's certainly not feminism's fault. The thing is, you're not really that different from the women you rail against so passionately in these comment threads—the women who are trying to carve out some space and assert their value in a world of powerful men. Plenty of women know exactly what it feels like to be pushed to the fringe of society, to be rejected so many times that you eventually reject yourself. That alienation is a big part of what feminism is fighting against. A lot of those women would be on your side, if you would just let them instead of insisting that they're the villains. It's better over here, and we have room for you. So stop trying to convince us that we hate you and I promise we'll start liking you a whole lot more.

http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.nurselyssie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Cureafeminist_thumb.jpg

Source: Maxim Magazine.

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/15125_449007521856666_437787869_n.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

In an atmosphere where every morning, our newspapers greet us with stories of girls being tormented, raped, killed or treated like a doormat in one way or another, trust India's “village republics” to bring in some good news from time to time.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/other-states/a-village-that-plants-111-trees-for-every-girl-born-in-rajasthan/article4606735.ece

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/04/femen-stages-a-topless-jihad/100487/

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/femen040413/s_f30_65431623.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com/736x/0c/cf/fd/0ccffd55cc12b9f801674a1ba0c92197.jpg

[Allison W]

a whole bloody lot of words

This, this is the thing. I think I wept with joy right around Part Four. These boys really need to learn that what's keeping them down isn't misandry, it's patriarchy.

(That said, I consider myself both a feminist and an egalitarian, and I don't really see any conflict between these two positions.)

evidence incriminating the folks at Maxim Magazine as people who need to be thrown off a mountain

Holy shit do these people need to be thrown off a mountain.

humourous chart

Hold on I need to post this to Facebook.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://cdn.walltowatch.com/files/0/0/1/3/00131832.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/14035_438578376223737_133860070_n.jpg

"The Gulabi Gang is an extraordinary women’s movement formed in 2006 by Sampat Pal Devi in the Banda District of Uttar Pradesh in Northern India. This region is one of the poorest districts in the country and is marked by a deeply patriarchal culture, rigid caste divisions, female illiteracy, domestic violence, child labour, child marraiges and dowry demands. The women’s group is popularly known as Gulabi or ‘Pink’ Gang because the members wear bright pink saris and wield bamboo sticks. Sampat says, “We are not a gang in the usual sense of the term, we are a gang for justice.”

The Gulabi Gang was initially intended to punish oppressive husbands, fathers and brothers, and combat domestic violence and desertion. The members of the gang would accost male offenders and prevail upon them to see reason.
The more serious offenders were publicly shamed when they refused to listen or relent. Sometimes the women resorted to their lathis, if the men resorted to use of force.

Today, the Gulabi Gang has tens of thousands of women members, several male supporters and many successful interventions to their credit.
Whether it is ensuring proper public distibution of food-grains to people below the poverty line, or disbursement of pension to elderly widows who have no birth certificate to prove their age, or preventing abuse of women and children, the Pink sisterhood is in the forefront, bringing about system changes by adopting the simplest of methods - direct action and confrontation.

Although the group’s interventions are mostly on behalf of women, they are increasingly called upon by men to challenge not only male authority over women, but all human rights abuses inflicted on the weak."

http://www.gulabigang.in/images/history_gulabi.jpg

One day when Sampat Pal Devi, a simple woman living in a village in Northern India, saw a man mercilessly beating his wife. She pleaded with him to stop but he abused her as well. The next day she returned with a bamboo stick and five other women and gave the rogue a sound thrashing.

The news spread like wild fire and soon women started approaching Sampat Pal Devi in droves requesting similar interventions.
Many women came forward to join her team and in the year 2006 she decided that the sisterhood needed a uniform and a name and thus the pink sari was chosen, to signify the womanhood and understated strength.

The Gulabi Gang kept a watch on all community activities and protested vociferously when they saw any manifestation of injustice or malpractice.
On one occasion, when Sampat Pal went to the local police station to register a complaint, a policeman abused and attacked her.
She retaliated by beating him on the head with her lathi. On another occasion she dragged a government official out of his car to show him a crumbling road that was in need of urgent repair. After all, what cannot be endured must be cured!
http://www.gulabigang.in

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/164668_486495171417287_1580754002_n.jpg

[Allison W]

the Gulabi Gang

This is pretty great. And somewhat amusingly, it's an example of problems being effectively solved through a little judicious violence. But I've long believed that the patriarchy won't come tumbling down until women take their share of ownership in the use of force, rather than violence being owned almost solely by men. So I pour a glass every time I hear of a woman, or women, giving a righteous ass-whooping. Excuse me while I go do so.

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/379865_486962251370579_1991874988_n.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

http://jezebel.com/rape-and-death-threats-what-mens-rights-activists-rea-476882099

[Kobi]

By now, you’ve likely seen the new Dove “Real Beauty” campaign, which purports to change the way women see themselves by attempting to show that women judge themselves and their appearances too harshly. Simultaneously, we have Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg promoting her new book, Lean In, touted by corporate media as the new feminist manifesto, encouraging women to “lean in” to their work environments and further their careers.

And so it appears that feminism is having a corporate moment. But rather than embrace this new feminist facade, the truth remains that when feminism becomes embroiled in corporate interests, the already-marginalized in our society are sidelined, omitted, and simply oppressed under a more progressive guise.

Sheryl Sandberg should not be excluded from feminism because she is a corporate businesswoman. That’s no different than excluding a woman on welfare from feminism because of her economic status. But Sheryl Sandberg isn’t just being included in feminism; she is largely being heralded as the face of the feminist movement. A COO of a major American corporation rapidly ascends to the forefront of feminism because of one book, while thousands of online feminists and grassroots activists have been doing community organizing and feminist theorizing for years, to little public fanfare. And it’s no wonder that Sandberg, a white, thin, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied woman of distinct economic and educational privilege, is incessantly framed by corporate media as the new feminist leader: she’s the perfect package of privilege to promote a water-down brand of feminism.

In the meantime, we see Dove seemingly challenging the hegemonic beauty norms that for years, have made their parent company Unilever (also the owner of Slimfast and Axe Body Spray) billions of dollars. The campaign reveals that “we are more beautiful than we think,” but according to whose standards? Against whose beauty standards are we measuring ourselves? We have internalized the regulatory practices perpetuated by Dove’s own advertising to the point that it is entirely naturalized, as evidenced by this campaign.

Women have been conditioned for decades to believe that they are never enough, that if you buy this cream, this pill, this soap, you will temporarily feel better until it’s time to go out and buy more cream, more pills, more soap. This new advertising campaign from Dove is simply another corporate ploy to make you spend your money on their product. Dove is not interested in your well-being; if they were, their parent company Unilever wouldn’t be promoting sexist and exploitative Axe Body Spray ads like this. Dove’s new advertising campaign is nothing more than a faux feminist bandage on a corporate exploitative wound.

So what do Sheryl Sandberg and the Dove “Real Beauty” campaign have in common? They are both mainstream, corporate visions of feminism, sidelining actual critique in place of a narrow reaffirmation of the virtues of capitalist consumerism. There is a vibrant online feminist community, dedicated to interrogating oppression and challenging the patriarchal power structures that perpetuate misogyny, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other forms of bigotry. But that community is completely absent from the mainstream corporate visions of feminism, and for good reason; much of the online feminist community exerts substantial energy to critique capitalist and consumerist oppression. Corporations hoping to profit from feminist posturing avoid the wealth of feminist work that critiques the very power systems that they themselves perpetuate.

“Corporate feminism” is an oxymoron. Feminism cannot hope to be a real movement for social change if it is pandering to the same structures it is supposed to be critiquing. Social justice movements are meant to challenge and dismantle oppressive power structures, not silently profit from them. Sheryl Sandberg may be a voice within feminism, but she cannot be lauded as the face of the movement any more than Dove can be commended for taking a stand against the very sexism and exploitation from which it profits. If we truly want a feminist movement that will work to eradicate misogyny and end patriarchal oppression, we cannot align ourselves with the corporate system that actively oppresses us every day. If we’re looking for a radical movement for social change, we need look no further than ourselves.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/37023/the-oxymoron-of-corporate-feminism

[Allison W]

So I was in the library today, and while I was there, I stopped to flip through this month's issue of The Atlantic. In it I found a rather surprising article about a study that claims to have found that female candidates are actually now coveted by both of the United States's major political parties and are no longer perceived in a harsher light than male candidates. I don't know how accurate the study itself is or exactly what it means about gender and patriarchy in our society at large even if it is true (and I'm not going to assume it's false out-of-hand just because the results are surprising), but the article was intriguing, and so I dredged up the online article to share here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/a-womans-edge/309284/

Why Both the Dems and the GOP Now Think Voters Prefer Female Candidates

A woman's edge?

Molly Ball Apr 24 2013, 9:58 PM ET

In the two-year cycle of the political calendar, it is candidate-recruitment season—the time when Washington operatives fan out across the country to size up the political horseflesh. In the months to come, they will meet with scores of state legislators, small-town mayors, community activists, and upstanding business owners, gauging which ones might have what it takes to run for a House or Senate seat, or for governor or state treasurer. These political scouts will take many qualities into account, from life story to speaking ability to baby-kissing skills. But they will be looking, in particular, for a few good women.

These days, political consultants take for granted that, all else being equal, women make more desirable candidates. Which means that Democratic and Republican operatives alike yearn for nothing more than to discover the next Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat and former natural-gas-plant director who was elected the junior senator from North Dakota last November, or Deb Fischer, a previously little-known state legislator who won a tough Republican primary and then beat former Senator Bob Kerrey on her way to the Senate last year. Democrats recently failed in their efforts to recruit the actress Ashley Judd to run against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell next year, but the 2014 election cycle will nonetheless feature a legion of eagerly anticipated female political prospects, from Pennsylvania’s Allyson Schwartz, a Democrat preparing to seek the governorship, to West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican running for Senate. “Women make wonderful candidates for Republicans,” Mike Shields, the chief of staff at the Republican National Committee (formerly the political director of the National Republican Congressional Committee), told me. “It’s no secret our party needs to make progress with women voters, and for that, we need more women leaders.” Democrats feel the same way, according to Andrew Myers, a Democratic pollster who works with an array of local, statewide, and congressional candidates. “We are always looking for more women to run,” he said.

(SIDEBAR: In one study, an inexperienced female candidate was viewed as stronger, more honest, and more compassionate than an inexperienced male candidate.)

This preference for women candidates may surprise you if you’re accustomed to thinking of female politicians in terms of the barriers they face—from Geraldine Ferraro’s being asked on Meet the Press in 1984 if “the Soviets might be tempted to try to take advantage of you simply because you are a woman,” to Hillary Clinton’s being heckled at a rally in 2008 by men shouting “Iron my shirt!” Women in politics, it has long been assumed, are trapped in a disabling web of double standards—presumed by voters to be weaker and less capable leaders, but punished for violating gender norms if they do act tough or get angry. Even though women were elected to Congress in record numbers in 2012, their representation still languishes at just 18 percent in the House and 20 percent in the Senate.

And yet the political operatives may be onto something. Evidence suggests that double standards may have once applied but don’t any longer. Shields and Myers prefer female candidates for a simple reason: voters, they say, tend to assume women are more trustworthy, less corruptible, and more in touch with everyday concerns. In a white-male-dominated political system, women are seen as outsiders. “Voters want change,” Shields said. “A woman candidate personifies change just by being on the ballot.” Myers added that, in these intolerably gridlocked times, “voters believe women are more likely to compromise and find common ground and solutions, and less likely to argue and triangulate for political advantage.” Both consultants also emphasized that women are harder to criticize than men. Sharp-edged attacks, particularly by male rivals, risk running afoul of the societal bias against, essentially, hitting a girl. The classic example: Clinton’s 2000 Senate race, in which her opponent, Rick Lazio, left his podium during a debate to demand that she sign a campaign-finance pledge. Lazio’s physically confrontational gesture was regarded as bullying, and helped sink his campaign.

In 2009, Deborah Jordan Brooks, a Gallup researcher turned Dartmouth professor, set out to investigate just how much bias female candidates still face, by conducting a series of controlled experiments with a large representative sample of American adults. As Brooks describes in her forthcoming book, He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates, she distributed an array of made-up newspaper articles about a fictional politician who, in various scenarios, ran for office, “erupted” at a colleague, cried, made threats, and got important facts wrong in a public appearance. Half the survey participants read about “Congresswoman Karen Bailey,” while the other half read about “Congressman Kevin Bailey.” Only the first names and pronouns were different, and the respondents didn’t know what the study was designed to measure. After they read the articles, the participants were asked to rate the candidate’s characteristics.

On such traits as competence, empathy, and ability to handle an international crisis, the hypothetical male and female candidates were viewed almost identically. Nor was the woman candidate held to different standards of behavior: though perceptions of Congresswoman Bailey dimmed when she cried and raged, the same was true for Congressman Bailey. “It is tough to win over the public as a candidate,” Brooks said, “but there is no indication that it is tougher for women than for men.” The only exception to this general parity was in the scenario in which “Karen” and “Kevin” were described as first-time candidates with no experience in politics (“Mrs. Bailey … has owned and operated a chain of eight dry cleaning stores located across the state for the past 10 years”). In this case, the inexperienced female candidate was viewed as stronger, more honest, and more compassionate than the inexperienced male candidate. “One potential explanation is that, as members of a group who have traditionally been underrepresented in Congress and elsewhere, women new to politics get an ‘outsider bump’ when they run that is not accorded to men,” Brooks said.

But what about the media? In describing male and female candidates identically, might Brooks’s study have failed to account for the unequal way men and women are portrayed publicly? Here, too, research fails to find evidence of any systematic bias against women. After the 2010 midterm elections, two Washington political scientists, Danny Hayes of George Washington University and Jennifer Lawless of American University, conducted a massive analysis of nearly 5,000 newspaper articles covering 342 congressional races. They found that women candidates got just as much coverage as men, and were no more likely to be described in terms of their clothing, appearance, or family life. The women were just as likely as the men to be portrayed as having leadership abilities; the men were just as likely as the women to be described as empathetic. Whatever’s hindering women, Hayes and Lawless concluded, it’s not prejudiced news coverage.

So what is holding them back? Brooks believes that women’s own perceptions haven’t caught up with reality. When women run for office, they win just as often as men do. But fewer women run in the first place, perhaps because they’re convinced they will have a tougher time, face more scrutiny, and be subjected to unfair attacks and double standards. In one 2008 survey conducted by Lawless and another researcher, 87 percent of women said they thought the electoral environment was more challenging for women than for men. “That old conventional wisdom that women are at a disadvantage really needs to be debunked if we’re going to fix the pipeline problem,” Brooks told me.

To that end, prospective female politicians might do well to take a cue from Mary Teresa Norton, who in 1925 became one of the first women ever to serve in the House of Representatives. “I’m no lady,” she said, “I’m a member of Congress, and I shall proceed on that basis.”

-----

I will say there's one implication the article makes that I do like, and that is that it now is the time for women to step up and take power.

[Kobi]

NEW YORK (AP) -- When Lisa Parker was new to corporate coaching, a senior-level colleague she respected brought her in as his No. 2 for a series of training seminars. Time and time again, he introduced her as smart, capable and beautiful.

"I was so uncomfortable," she said. "The first time it happened I remember standing there waiting to take the front of the room and thinking, 'Oh my gosh, I can't believe he just said that.'"

Parker asked him to stop. Embarrassed, he responded: "But you ARE beautiful." That was a decade ago and he never did it again. The two have happily worked together many times since.

Sound familiar? Fast forward to April 4, when President Barack Obama introduced California's Kamala Harris at a Democratic fundraiser as brilliant, dedicated, tough and "by far, the best looking attorney general in the country."

The remark — the two are friends — raised a few eyebrows over whether it amounted to sexism. The president, who has similarly complimented men before, called Harris and apologized. A Harris spokesman assured the world she remains an Obama supporter.

But the question lingers. Male-to-female, female-to-male, peer-to-peer, superior-to-subordinate: Are workplace compliments focused on looks or other personal details like dress ever OK? Is the alternative a more sterile professional life? When do such remarks rise to actionable harassment, or become worthy of a friendly rebuff or a trip to HR?

"If we all end up trending toward the center we become pure vanilla. It's boring and it's a huge loss," said Parker, the New York author of the March book "Managing the Moment."

Parker, compliance experts and human resource managers agree that tone, context and a pattern of behavior are everything when it comes to unwanted remarks.

"Personally I'm not offended by a compliment, but I do take the issue very seriously," said labor lawyer Ingrid Fredeen, once in-house counsel for General Mills and now a vice president for ethics and training at Navex Global, a supplier of computer-based training tools.

"Whenever you're in some kind of a male-dominated world, there are always many sides to a compliment. Some of them are just pure. They don't mean anything other than, 'You have a nice jacket on.' End of story," she said.

Others are dripping with innuendo. "They're about power, and so using a compliment is a way to change the power dynamic between two individuals, and there's some tension there. That happens very frequently."

According to the nonprofit group Catalyst, which works to expand opportunities for women in business, sex discrimination charges amount to about 15 percent of allegations handled by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2011. That includes sexual harassment, defined as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" that unreasonably affects employment or a work environment.

Nearly all large employers in the U.S. had harassment grievance policies in 1998 and 70 percent of U.S. companies provided training related to sexual harassment, according to research published in 2007 in the American Journal of Sociology by Frank Dobbin of Harvard University and Erin L. Kelly of the University of Minnesota.

But where does that leave the casual remark? "If it's made in public, laugh it off in the moment and then privately speak to the person," Parker counsels.

Fredeen notes: "When you're thinking about the legal landscape, compliments alone don't typically constitute unlawful sexual harassment."

Donna Mazzola, who recently retired after 30 years in HR in the banking and insurance industries, said the way codes of conduct are enforced is important. Even then, atmosphere from department to department, floor to floor, is everything.

"In the sales office, the women gave it right back to the guys and you would almost never have a complaint," she said of one large insurance company where she worked. "It's very common to have a sales guy say, 'Gal, were you out drinking, what the hell are you wearing today? Jeez, your dress is awful short.' In corporate you would have never said something like that."

Much also depends on personal relationships, Mazzola said. "Is this someone you hang out with in the lunch room? Or is this a more senior person or a colleague who you're not that close with?"

Such remarks are definitely not restricted to men, she said, recalling a female senior executive who once hauled a female vice president into her office to chide her about the way she dressed.

"'You dress way too sexy for this company and for your role,'" Mazzola recalled. "The VP said, 'Well, have there been complaints?' And this woman said, 'No, but I see the way men look at you in training sessions.'"

The vice president's response? "Well, if there are no complaints, I don't understand."

Parker said appearance can indeed be a legitimate target of complaints if a person creates a distraction.

But falling short of that, is it OK to compliment an outfit or a coworker's new hairdo? Why risk a compliment or a casual remark if the intent is innocent? Why not stick with ball scores, the weather or the latest movie?

"We're human and we form close bonds with the people we work with and we care about them," Fredeen said. "At the end of the day, for most, nothing bad is going to come of me telling you, 'Gee, you look terrific.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/ever-ok-compliment-appearance-job-155428104.html

[Kobi]

Ford Motor Company and the advertising firm WPP have issued apologies after mock ups of ads for the Ford Figo, a hatchback made in India, were posted online last week, Business Insider's Laura Stampler reports.

While three posters were uploaded to (and removed from) Ads of the World, the one that has perhaps received the most attention features caricatures of three scantily-clad women with their hands and feet bound and their mouths gagged. In the driver's seat -- looking back and flashing a peace sign -- is a grinning man who looks a lot like Silvio Berlusconi, the embattled former Prime Minister of Italy. (Berlusconi is, of course, not only known for throwing wild "bunga bunga" sex parties, but is facing charges of paying for sex with an underage woman.)


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2013/03/ford-figo-sexist-print-ad-silvio-berlusconi-628.jpg

----------------

Apparently sensibilities in India, at least in the case of some Ford marketing partners, are downright lascivious at times. Case in point are a new series of print ads, presumably touting the vast cargo capacity of the Ford Figo hatchback, that involve more than a whiff of T&A, S&M and other sexy abbreviations.

In all seriousness, the advertising campaign is taking some major heat in the Indian press for being outrageously sexist. All three images – which seem to be produced by a graphic artist with some Heavy Metal work in his/her portfolio – show bound and gagged people stuffed into the Figo's boot. With a tagline reads, "Leave Your Worries Behind." one version features a peace-sign throwing Silvio Berlusconi holding hostage three buxom and barely clad women, all wearing ball gags with hands and feet bound. Charming. Another version shows Paris Hilton ­similarly kidnapping a trio of Kardashians, while a third (tame in terms of the clothing at least), has Michael Schumacher toting Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso, and Lewis Hamilton.

Clearly in bad taste, at least, the Indian source also questions the timing of these risqué Ford ads, as the follow by days new anti-rape legislation passed by the Indian Parliament. Ford has responded in a statement, that it and its advertising partner (JWT India) "deeply regret" the ads, and claim that they "never should have happened."

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/22/ford-of-india-in-hot-water-for-figo-celebrity-bondage-ads/

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/28/us/mary-thom-death/index.html?sr=reddit

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130428012035-mary-thom-left-tease.jpg


(CNN) -- Journalist Mary Thom, a prominent feminist who was an editor of Ms. magazine in its early years, has died. She was 68.
Thom was killed Friday when she crashed her motorcycle on a highway in Yonkers, New York.
She helped found Ms., an influential feminist magazine, and served as an editor there for 20 years.
After leaving in 1992, she worked as editor in chief of the features section of the non-profit Women's Media Center, which works to raise women's visibility in the media.
"Mary was and will always be our moral compass and steady heart," said the center's co-founders Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda in a statement.
"Wherever her friends and colleagues gather, we will always ask the guiding question: What would Mary do?"
Thom had picked up her 1996 Honda Magna 750 from winter storage when she veered into traffic upon entering a highway in Yonkers, north of New York City.
She struck a vehicle and was struck by another, according to her nephew Thom Loubet.
The nephew's account was conveyed to CNN by Women's Media Center spokeswoman Cristal Chancellor.
The Westchester County police said it could not make the incident report available until later Sunday.
Born in Akron, Ohio, Thom spent all but 20 years of her life in Manhattan. As a result, her interests straddled the two.
She was an avid fan of comedian Jon Stewart, and she rooted for the Cleveland Indians.
In addition to her work with the magazine and the Women's Media Center, she consulted for several nonprofit women's organizations, including the National Council for Research on Women.
Among the books she authored was one on the history of Ms. Among those she edited was a history of feminist leader Bella Abzug.
"In Mary Thom's accidental death, Ms., the Women's Media Center and U.S. journalism suffer a huge loss," Morgan of the Women's Media Center said in a statement. "And I grieve for a wry, ethical friend."
Thom leaves behind her nephew, her sister Susan Thom Loubet, her niece-in-law Mariko Silver, and her grand-niece Kumi Silver Loubet.
"She was the source of our joy and our edits," the family said in a statement. "She charged through life with a generous and compassionate strength and wisdom, and that is how we will forever remember her."

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/603740_476312585772708_2085772860_n.png

[Kobi]

At the kickoff of a six-figure campaign to elect America's first female president in 2016, Emily's List President Stephanie Schriock addressed the question on everybody's mind: Will Hillary Clinton run?

"There is one name that seems to be getting mentioned more than others," Schriock told reporters at the National Press Club Thursday. "We do not know if Hillary is going to run. But we're hopeful that she may."

Schriock, whose group (the name stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast") works to get pro-choice Democratic women elected to office at the local, state and federal levels, noted there are other women who could run for president in 2016, but that she believes Clinton currently has the best chance to win.

"I think it’s clear if she decides to take this on, she’s in an incredible position," Schriock said in response to a reporter's question. "[But] for us, it’s not about one particular candidate."

Emily's List's effort—which will utilize its network of 2 million members—is called the "Madam President Campaign." It will focus on battleground states such as Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire, and will include town hall meetings, online events, ads and Internet engagement.

The group says it's armed with data commissioned from political pollsters Anzalone Liszt Grove Research that shows America has reached a "tipping point" and is ready to see a woman as president.

According to the poll, conducted April 3-9, 86 percent of battleground voters in Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina believe the U.S. is ready to elect a woman as president. Nine percent of respondents said America is not ready, and 5 percent were unsure.

Seventy-two percent of those surveyed believe it's likely America will elect a woman as president next cycle, and 24 percent percent say it's unlikely.

At the news conference, Schriock and the pollsters said the polling suggests more voters feel a female president would do a better job at, among other things, bridging partisan politics, and would better understand the challenges facing the middle class. Eighteen percent of respondents said a woman would be better at ending partisan bickering and 6 percent said a man would be better, according to the polling data.

(The data not noted at the conference, shows that a whopping 74 percent of respondents said that overall gender didn't make a difference on ending partisanship, and the same was true for understanding the middle class.)

The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Schriock also noted that the fact that a historic number of women were elected to office in 2012 is evidence of America's readiness for a female president.

Having a female perspective in the nation's highest office, Schriock emphasized, will be helpful to all: “We really want to ignite this national conversation about how it is going to be beneficial to all Americans to see a woman in the White House."

Schriock on Thursday publicly asked polling firms to conduct research on potential female candidates for president as way to drive the conversation about having a woman in office and grant greater visibility to the available bench of female candidates.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/emily-list-launches-effort-elect-female-president-hopes-145716477.html

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homeward-bound/201304/are-you-cupcake-feminist

http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com/files/imagecache/article-inline-half/blogs/119614/2013/04/122838-121276.jpg

Homeward Bound
Why women are embracing the new domesticity
by Emily Matchar



And the essay the article is based on:


http://thequietus.com/articles/07962-cupcake-feminism

http://quietus_production.s3.amazonaws.com/images/articles/7962/Teeth1_1329133333_crop_550x367.jpg


Half Baked: The Trouble With Cupcake Feminism

[femmeInterrupted]

http://thequietus.com/articles/10179-naomi-wolf-vagina-feminism

Fave Part:

"If you're wondering what the sound you can hear after reading that little snippet is, it's Andrea Dworkin turning so hard in her grave that she's almost tunnelled her way to Tartarus."

[Allison W]

http://thequietus.com/articles/10179-naomi-wolf-vagina-feminism

Fave Part:

"If you're wondering what the sound you can hear after reading that little snippet is, it's Andrea Dworkin turning so hard in her grave that she's almost tunnelled her way to Tartarus."

I got to "gender essentialist" and realized that nothing she writes is going to be worth the paper it's written on right there.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/21381-women-active-in-feminist-causes-harassed-more-at-work


"Women openly engaging in activism for women's rights may pose a more obvious threat to the existing gender hierarchy—a hierarchy that grants more power to men than women."

The article is supported by this Psychology of Women article:

When Sexism and Feminism Collide: The Sexual Harassment of Feminist
Working Women
Kathryn J. Holland1 and Lilia M. Cortina1
Abstract
Psychology of Women Quarterly 00(0) 1-17

The current study examined how feminism relates to women’s experiences of sexual harassment—that is, unwanted sexual and sexist conduct in the workplace. We posited that feminism would have both costs (e.g., increasing exposure to har- assment) and benefits (e.g., decreasing harassment-related outcomes). We assessed two indicators of feminism: self- identification as ‘‘feminist’’ and engagement in feminist activism. We also measured two subtypes of sexual harassment: sexual-advance and gender harassment. According to survey data from 424 working women, feminist identification predicted fewer gender harassment experiences; once harassed, however, feminist-identified women reported the greatest decrease in job satisfaction and increase in turnover intentions. In contrast, feminist activism related to greater experiences of both kinds of harassment, and activism attenuated some negative outcomes. We further found that (regardless of feminist identification or activism) women who had faced sexual-advance harassment were over 7 times more likely to attach the ‘‘sexual harass- ment’’ label to their experiences, compared to women who had experienced gender harassment alone. In light of our findings, we recommend that sexual harassment laws, policies, and trainings be broadened to encompass all varieties of sexual harass- ment, including non-stereotypical, non-sexual conduct. Organizations would also benefit from interventions that reduce bias against undervalued persons, including feminists.


The article is too long to re-post, but if anyone is interested in the read, message me and I can email it to you :)

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40049/nra-sells-an-ex-girlfriend-target-that-bleeds-when-you-shoot-it


NRA Vendor Sells Ex-Girlfriend Target That Bleeds When You Shoot It

http://media1.policymic.com/site/articles/40049/1_photo.jpg
*Trigger warning*

Sometimes I feel like the NRA is actively just trying to lose all the credibility it has left in this world.

Just when you thought the NRA's annual convention in Houston this weekend couldn't draw any more negative attention, it goes out and casually promotes a company selling a product that can help you practice shooting your ex-girlfriend. You know, just in case you need that to defend yourself one day. We all know them ex-honeys be crazzzzy.

The target, which is delightfully called "the ex," is sold by a vendor who was present at the convention. The company goes by the name of Zombie Industries and market themselves as the maker of "life-sized tactical mannequin targets." It bleeds heavily when you shoot it and eventually looks like this.

http://media2.policymic.com/e919811a747bf5c07d64defbc674eefd.png

Cowboy hat not included, but the promotion of men's violence against women is.

The company has a line of 15 zombies (one of which resembled President Obama so much that it was pulled by the NRA) and only one is a female mannequin. "To discriminate against Women by not having them represented in our product selection would be just plain sexist," the website says. YES, because having the only female character in your line of mannequin targets be "the ex-girlfriend" doesn't reinforce sexist and fatally dangerous stereotypes.
I'm not even sure how to begin unpacking this, so let me start with some stats. Men's violence against women is not a small pickle, it's a huge problem. Not just all over the world and in every society, but particularly here in the United States where "domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women — more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined." One third of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner.

Gun violence is a gendered issue since it impacts women and men in very different ways. Because women are more vulnerable to violence within the home than men (and men are most often the perpetrators of violence against women), the presence of a gun makes females less safe, not more. How do we know? A woman's likelyhood of a violent death within the home actually increases by 270% when a gun is kept inside the house. Homicide figures don't lie. Having a gun within their possession didn't protect women from murder. In fact, it accurately predicted their higher likelyhood of death.

"Women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide."

Giving women guns will not solve domestic violence. Normalizing men's violence against women with an ex-girlfriend mannequin will not solve domestic violence. It can only make the problem worse.

Every day, at least three women are killed by an intimate partner in the US alone. Let's make sure those numbers go down, not up. Let's make sure companies like Zombies Industries know that we're not buying it.

Let them know what you think on Twitter by pinging them at @ZombieInd and don't forget to use the hashtag #NotBuyingIt. Here's a sample tweet, but feel free to make up your own.

@ZombieInd Stop promoting men's violence against women. 1 in 3 women women murdered were killed by an intimate partner. #NotBuyingIt.

[Kobi]

The above has left me speechless and that isn't easy to do.

[femmeInterrupted]

The above has left me speechless and that isn't easy to do.


I hear you. I don't actually know where to begin either. Just the representation ( notice, her tits are ALSO hanging out! ) of a bloodied woman is brutal. The normalization of violence against women that this brings is astonishing. Of course, being able to 'purchase' an otherwise already commodified female 'ex-girlfriend' embodies and solidifies that ongoing notion and reality already too.

It's just fucking unbelievable.

This brings to mind the whole https://www.realdoll.com thing from years back.

Shitballs.

[CherylNYC]

I hear you. I don't actually know where to begin either. ...

Shitballs.

The place to begin is signing this petition:

http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/amazon_zombie_target/?akid=435.12420.xQG3VQ&rd=1&t=1

No, I don't think it's pointless to sign a petition. It doesn't have as much weight as a court order, but there is strength in numbers.

[femmeInterrupted]

The place to begin is signing this petition:

http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/amazon_zombie_target/?akid=435.12420.xQG3VQ&rd=1&t=1

No, I don't think it's pointless to sign a petition. It doesn't have as much weight as a court order, but there is strength in numbers.

Signed!!!!

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/321485_455714251179744_584759635_n.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

The place to begin is signing this petition:

http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/amazon_zombie_target/?akid=435.12420.xQG3VQ&rd=1&t=1

No, I don't think it's pointless to sign a petition. It doesn't have as much weight as a court order, but there is strength in numbers.

No only was it NOT pointless-- it WORKED! :)


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/08/1981721/amazon-pulls-bleeding-ex-girlfriend-shooting-target-after-outcry/?mobile=nc

[femmeInterrupted]

Have you ever wondered why Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't stock XL or XXL sizes in women's clothing?

Well, CEO Mike Jeffries can put an end to your curiosity, though his response may make you never want to shop at the teen retail store ever again.

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he told the Salon. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely."

Teen retailer Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't stock XL or XXL sizes in women's clothing because they don't want overweight women wearing their brand.
They want the "cool kids," and they don't consider plus-sized women as being a part of that group.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/abercrombie-wants-thin-customers-2013-5#ixzz2SvUPwh1e

[CherylNYC]

Have you ever wondered why Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't stock XL or XXL sizes in women's clothing?

Well, CEO Mike Jeffries can put an end to your curiosity, though his response may make you never want to shop at the teen retail store ever again.

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he told the Salon. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely."

Teen retailer Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't stock XL or XXL sizes in women's clothing because they don't want overweight women wearing their brand.
They want the "cool kids," and they don't consider plus-sized women as being a part of that group.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/abercrombie-wants-thin-customers-2013-5#ixzz2SvUPwh1e

Now I'm speechless.

[Allison W]

Have you ever wondered why Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't stock XL or XXL sizes in women's clothing?

Well, CEO Mike Jeffries can put an end to your curiosity, though his response may make you never want to shop at the teen retail store ever again.

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he told the Salon. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely."

Teen retailer Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't stock XL or XXL sizes in women's clothing because they don't want overweight women wearing their brand.
They want the "cool kids," and they don't consider plus-sized women as being a part of that group.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/abercrombie-wants-thin-customers-2013-5#ixzz2SvUPwh1e

...But I bet they stock XL and XXL in men's sizes. (I'd have checked the article, but I can't get it to load. It seems that my neck of the woods has been having DNS problems for the past several days.)

[Allison W]

It's too late to edit my last post, but I just looked it up from a Facebook link and they do carry XL and XXL in men's sizes, but "only to appeal to large athletes."

What about women who are large athletes?

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak1.pinimg.com/550x/9e/f4/88/9ef4885313eb219c0caf3e185a9e8f40.jpg

“There are a million rules for being a girl. There are a million things you have to do to get through each day. High school has things that can trip you up, ruin you, people say one thing and mean another, and you have to know all the rules, you have to know what you can and can't do.”

Elizabeth Scott, The Unwritten Rule

[femmeInterrupted]

It's too late to edit my last post, but I just looked it up from a Facebook link and they do carry XL and XXL in men's sizes, but "only to appeal to large athletes."

What about women who are large athletes?

I'm guessing that there are NO large athletic women 'COOL' enough to wear XL clothing.

The whole thing just feeds into SO many terrible and damaging sexist, sizeist, bullshit misogynistic messages and attitudes it makes me nuts.

[femmeInterrupted]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/960293_446615168763301_315917212_n.jpg


Why are you taking this so personally?

This entire piece is an answer to that last question.

When women are bombarded every day from every direction with questions and statements that lessen their worth as human beings, question their judgement, undermine their experiences,
and collectively make the very loud statement that what women say and experience matters far less than how women look and what men think of women, it's damned hard NOT to take it personally,
or to not get upset at yet another person cracking sexist jokes without thinking them through.

[Kobi]

I'm guessing that there are NO large athletic women 'COOL' enough to wear XL clothing.

The whole thing just feeds into SO many terrible and damaging sexist, sizeist, bullshit misogynistic messages and attitudes it makes me nuts.


Abercrombie & Fitch are well known for their bullshit.


Abercrombie criticized for selling push-up tops to little girls


By the CNN Wire Staff

March 27, 2011 -- Updated 0154 GMT (0954 HKT)\

CNN) -- No stranger to controversy, U.S. retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has come under fire for offering a push-up bikini top to young girls.

Its "Ashley" bikini -- described as "padded" and a "push-up" -- was posted on the Abercrombie Kids website earlier this week.

The company declined to comment Saturday but noted it has since updated the description of its bikini online.

The product is now being offered as a padded, "striped triangle." Bottoms are sold separately.

"How is this okay for a second-grader?" asked Rebecca Odes in a recent post on the Babble parenting blog.

"Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up. But there's a difference between exploring these ideas on your own and having them sold to you in a children's catalog," she wrote.

Gail Dines, a sociology professor at Wheelock College in Boston, similarly slammed the top, saying it would encourage girls to think about themselves in a sexual way before they are ready.

"It (also) sends out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects," she told CNN affiliate WHDH.

This is not the first time the company, known for its sexy style of marketing campaigns, has found itself in hot water with consumers.

In 2002, the retailer pulled controversial T-shirts after complaints they were racially insensitive. One shirt showed Chinese laundry workers with conical hats and the phrase, "Wong Brothers Laundry Service: Two Wongs Can Make It White."

In 2003, the company -- under pressure from some consumer groups -- said it would stop issuing racy catalogues and halt the publication of its holiday book, which featured nude young adult models in sexually suggestive poses.

[femmeInterrupted]

Abercrombie & Fitch are well known for their bullshit.


Abercrombie criticized for selling push-up tops to little girls


By the CNN Wire Staff

March 27, 2011 -- Updated 0154 GMT (0954 HKT)\

CNN) -- No stranger to controversy, U.S. retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has come under fire for offering a push-up bikini top to young girls.

Its "Ashley" bikini -- described as "padded" and a "push-up" -- was posted on the Abercrombie Kids website earlier this week.

The company declined to comment Saturday but noted it has since updated the description of its bikini online.

The product is now being offered as a padded, "striped triangle." Bottoms are sold separately.

"How is this okay for a second-grader?" asked Rebecca Odes in a recent post on the Babble parenting blog.

"Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up. But there's a difference between exploring these ideas on your own and having them sold to you in a children's catalog," she wrote.

Gail Dines, a sociology professor at Wheelock College in Boston, similarly slammed the top, saying it would encourage girls to think about themselves in a sexual way before they are ready.

"It (also) sends out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects," she told CNN affiliate WHDH.

This is not the first time the company, known for its sexy style of marketing campaigns, has found itself in hot water with consumers.

In 2002, the retailer pulled controversial T-shirts after complaints they were racially insensitive. One shirt showed Chinese laundry workers with conical hats and the phrase, "Wong Brothers Laundry Service: Two Wongs Can Make It White."

In 2003, the company -- under pressure from some consumer groups -- said it would stop issuing racy catalogues and halt the publication of its holiday book, which featured nude young adult models in sexually suggestive poses.

Wow.

It's nice how they manage to throw in a healthy dose of racism as well. More bang for the consumers buck, I suppose.

Asshats.

The sexualization of young girls ( and boys) is sickening. I understand the instant 'blaming' of the parents, but the truth is, those parents have already drunk the Kool-Aid-- and have swallowed and internalized the normalization of the sexualization and commodification of females along the continuum of our lives. All of those beauty pageant mom and daughter duo's spring to mind.

There seems to be little or no thought to the messaging (both external and internal) happening when they are buying their 8 year daughters bedazzled g-strings from "Junior lingerie" shops, and heavily sexualized clothing/make up etc.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/comment-page-1/#comments

http://liberationcollective.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/cisgender.jpg

Consistent with common usage of the term “cisgender,” the graphic below explains that “…if you identify with the gender you were assigened [sic] at birth, you are cis.”

Another Trans 101: Cisgender webpage describes cis this way: “For example, if a doctor said “it’s a boy!” when you were born, and you identify as a man, then you could be described as cisgender.” [i] Likewise, girl-born people who identify as women are also considered cisgender. WBW are cis.

Framing gender as a medically determined assignment may seem like a good start to explaining gendered oppression because it purports to make a distinction between physical sex and gender. Feminism similarly understands masculinity and femininity (e.g., gender) as strictly enforced social constructs neither of which are the “normal” or inevitable result of one’s reproductive sex organs. Feminism and trans theory agree that coercive gender assignments are a significant source of oppression.

On closer inspection of the concept of “cisgender,” however, feminism and trans theory quickly diverge. Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation. Feminism claims that gender is a much more complicated (and sinister) social phenomenon than this popular cis/trans binary has any hope of capturing.

First, “masculinity” and “femininity” are not monolithic, static concepts that are wholly embraced or wholly discarded. Socially assigned gender roles encompass entire lives’ worth of behaviors and expectations, from cradle to grave. Most people’s identification with their “gender” assignment is not a simple Y/N. One may be aesthetically gender conforming, but at the same time, behaviorally non-conforming. Or vice versa. Or some combination of both. Most of us are not walking, talking stereotypes. It is unusual for a person to both appear and behave in unmodified identification with their assigned gender at birth. For example, a female-born person might wear pink dresses and lots of makeup, but behave in an assertive, detached, and highly intellectual manner. Or a female-born person might appear very androgynous, without any feminine adornment at all, but express herself gently, quietly, and with graceful concern for those around her. What about a female who is aggressive and competitive in her professional life, but submissive and emotional in her personal life? Who decides whether an individual is sufficiently identified with to be considered “cis”? Or sufficiently non-identified with to be “trans”? “Cis” and “trans” do not describe discrete social classes from which political analysis can be extrapolated.

Additionally, one’s identification with their “gender” may change over time. Gender is not an immutable characteristic. While some people argue that “gender identity” is a deeply felt, unchanging personal quality;[ii] the existence and prominence of late-transitioning[iii] trans people drags this claim into very questionable territory. One may be gender conforming for many years, then slowly or suddenly reject the characteristics of their assigned gender. How an individual identifies in reference to their gender, whether it be masculinity or femininity, is not necessarily stable, nor should it have to be.

The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;” nor does it address people with hostile relationships to gender in general. As a woman-born-woman who rejects femininity as females’ destiny, I surely do not identify with my assigned gender in the way that “cis” describes. Indeed, no one holding radical feminist/anti-essentialist views about gender could be considered “cis” because, by definition of these views, we reject gender as a natural social category that every person identifies with. Feminists do not believe that everyone has a “gender identity,” or that we all possess some kind of internal compass directing our identification with “gender.”

Identifying with something is an internal, subjective experience. Self-assessments of gender do not equal self-awareness, nor do they provide insight as to how gendered oppression operates in the broader, external social sphere.

By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as “normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other.

See graphic, above. The cis/trans* binary does not break down any structures of normalcy because it doesn’t describe how such systems operate. It doesn’t explain how a person will be treated by society or what kind(s) of power they hold relative to others. External observers cannot reliably determine whether someone considers herself “cis” or “trans;” they simply pass judgment by categorizing superficial expressions of masculinity or femininity as appropriate or inappropriate. In reality, any person who significantly defies the gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not. Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were “trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years.

“IT’S A GIRL!” (see graphic above) means something in regard to that baby’s life. Assuming she makes it to adulthood, that is.[iv]

For “It’s a girl!” to make sense, it must refer to a long string of gendered words that help the community understand what to expect out of babies called “girls.”

…

The single utterance, “It’s a girl!” does not a baby girl make. The drama of gender is a repeat performance—it must be reenacted continually to form a pattern. Butler writes, “the body becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time.” 273 She explains, “[t]his repetition is at once a reenactment and reexperiencing of a set of meanings already socially established…[v]

The pattern of gender, constituted through gender’s repeated performance on the stage of life, demonstrates that males and masculinity are institutionally dominant over females and femininity. Gender is not just a fun dress up game that individuals merely identify with in isolation from all contextual and historical meaning, but the most powerful tool of structural oppression ever created by humans.

Notwithstanding variations caused by intersecting factors such as economic class, national jurisdiction, and cultural differences; the collective female social location is consistently less than similarly situated males in terms of: (i) material resources received as an infant and child, (ii) respect, attention, and intellectual encouragement received as an infant and child, (iii) risk of being sexually exploited or victimized, (iv) role within the hetero family unit, (v) representation and power in government, (vi) access to education, jobs, and promotions in the workforce, (vii) property ownership and dominion over space.[vi]

Recognizing this, feminism understands gender as a powerful– but not inevitable– tool of organizing social relations and distributing power, including physical resources, between the sexes. The near-universal quality of life disparities enumerated above are created, enforced, and replicated through the enforcement of gendered difference and the meanings assigned to these differences. Being born with female appearing genitals and, as a direct result, being coercively assigned the feminine gender at birth, is clearly not a (cis) privilege, nor is it socially equivalent to males’ masculine gender assignment. Female-bodied people and male-bodied people are not similarly situated persons in regard to gender based oppression. Gender is not simply a neutral binary. More importantly, it is a hierarchy.

Cis privilege does not exist, man-privilege does.

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or not) from gendered oppression. While a man’s gender conformity with masculinity—both aesthetic and behavioral— will substantially insulate him from sex and gender motivated oppression and violence, a woman’s appropriate conformity to stereotypical femininity does not. The 2011 SlutWalk campaign (hopefully) served as a grave reminder that victim-blaming, woman-blaming rhetoric is alive and well in mainstream social discourse. The perception that women “bring it on ourselves” or “ask for it” when we dress in certain, undeniably feminine ways is very wrong, but also very real. Some predators are even documented as specifically targeting conventionally “attractive” women.

The first good-looking girl I see tonight is going to die.

Edward Kemper, serial killer.[vii]

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard of beauty for women, feminine-appearing women (trans or not) will be eye-catching targets for misogynistic violence because of their perceived “beauty.” In other words, because they are feminine-conforming.

Further, socially defined feminine behaviors such as hospitality, care-taking, and a socially structured desire for male sexual attention contribute to women’s vulnerability to exploitation. When a woman’s social performance (trans or not) is consistent with feminine subordination to male authority, rapists and other abusers may target these women as easy victims on the assumption that they will be less likely to resist unwanted advances.

Rapists often select potential victims using gut feeling. Subtle attempts to invade our personal space and to force conversation with us are tests of our boundaries used by rapists to confirm their gut feeling. We send a strong message when we enforce our limits and preferences for touching, revealing personal information and feelings, and having people in the space that surrounds us.[viii]

Feminine socialization conditions women to be accommodating to others, listen politely and attentively, and express emotional concern for those who appear downtrodden. As a result, women still make up the majority of workers in underpaid “caring professions” such as social work, teaching, and nursing. This tendency towards altruism and giving of trust allow feminine-behaving people to be taken advantage of by those who recognize it as an opportunity to leverage their “feminine” generosity for personal gain.

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard of appropriate behavior for women (trans or not), we will continue to struggle not only with setting boundaries against others’ predatory and/or exploitative intentions, but we are also doomed to walk uphill against the professional double standard recognized in the groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins:

An employer who objects to aggressiveness in women but whose positions require this trait places women in an intolerable and impermissible Catch-22: out of a job if they behave aggressively and out of a job if they do not. [ix]

The behavioral characteristics of femininity are economically and intellectually devalued as compared to the traits of masculinity. Power is gendered. As a result, males continue to control almost all of the world’s resources and power, including the positions of institutional authority required to direct social reform. Within this patriarchal context, women’s compliance with feminine behavioral norms simply does not result in social empowerment. It can’t. And it won’t. Because “gender” isn’t designed to work that way.

Eliminating sex-based gender assignments, while leaving hegemonic masculinity and femininity intact,isn’t going to rectify this imbalance. The cis/trans* binary is a gross oversimplification of the gendered dynamics that structure social relations in favor of male-born people. Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing.

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”

up [i] http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/

up [ii] Levi, Jennifer L., The Interplay Between Disability and Sexuality: Clothes Don’t Make the Man (or Woman), but Gender Identity Might. 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 90 (2006).

up [iii] http://ensuringfairness.wordpress.com/statistics/

up [iv] Femicide is real. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/femaleinfanticide.html

up [v] Clarke, Jessica A., Adverse Possession of Identity: Radical Theory, Conventional Practice. Oregon Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2005.

up [vi] Special thanks to Virginia Brown for articulating these disparities.

up [vii] http://www.examiner.com/true-crime-in-los-angeles/the-cold-blooded-killer-part-2-serial-killers

up [viii] http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?a=61860&c=35911

up [ix] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (490 U.S. 228, 251).

up [x] Here is an example of a trans woman listening, understanding, and incorporating feminist critique of gender into her work. It is possible.

___________________

[Sweetfeme]

The other day I was listening to a very interesting interview on CBC Radio 2 about the effort the American Military had made to reduce the incidents of rapes in the military. The interview panel discussed the concept of "toxic masculinity".
Has anyone else heard of this term? I thought it was fascinating the way they talked about how men really feel entitled to having a women's body. That they are somehow entitled to take a woman's body and do with it as the like, as a matter of right.
This then got me thinking about the whole butch/femme dynamic and made me wonder if this notion of entitlement is alive and well in our communitiesl?
Could it be...I am interested in everyone's thoughts.

[CherylNYC]

http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/comment-page-1/#comments

... by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation. ...


The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;”...


By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as “normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other....

In reality, any person who significantly defies the gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not. Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were “trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years...


Cis privilege does not exist, man-privilege does.

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or not) from gendered oppression. ...

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”



___________________

Brilliant. The term 'cis' annoys the f**k out of me for all the above mentioned reasons, plus a few more. My first point is briefly touched upon in the above article, but isn't given nearly enough space. In the overly simplistic version of gender theory that renders a person as either 'cis' or trans, a butch woman would be labeled as 'cis' regardless of whether or not she identifies with butch AS A GENDER! This invisibilises butch women, and that's NOT OK with me.

Second, simplistically reducing the world into two choices of either 'cis' or trans leaves intersex people out altogether, as well as running roughshod over the IDs of Two Spirit Native people. That shouldn't be OK with anyone, and it's certainly not OK with me.

Finally, it creates a permanent division between women who have transitioned and those who have never been trans. One of my closest friends is a trans woman who is infuriated by the term 'cis'. She finished transitioning years ago, and is now a woman. Period. She does NOT wish to append either 'trans' or 'cis' to her or anyone else's identity of woman. She sacrificed a great deal to become a woman, and all she wants is to be recognised as a woman with no qualifications attached.

[femmeInterrupted]

Brilliant. The term 'cis' annoys the f**k out of me for all the above mentioned reasons, plus a few more. My first point is briefly touched upon in the above article, but isn't given nearly enough space. In the overly simplistic version of gender theory that renders a person as either 'cis' or trans, a butch woman would be labeled as 'cis' regardless of whether or not she identifies with butch AS A GENDER! This invisibilises butch women, and that's NOT OK with me.

Second, simplistically reducing the world into two choices of either 'cis' or trans leaves intersex people out altogether, as well as running roughshod over the IDs of Two Spirit Native people. That shouldn't be OK with anyone, and it's certainly not OK with me.

Finally, it creates a permanent division between women who have transitioned and those who have never been trans. One of my closest friends is a trans woman who is infuriated by the term 'cis'. She finished transitioning years ago, and is now a woman. Period. She does NOT wish to append either 'trans' or 'cis' to her or anyone else's identity of woman. She sacrificed a great deal to become a woman, and all she wants is to be recognised as a woman with no qualifications attached.

Cheryl,

I couldn't agree more with your post! Women who have had the experience of transitioning are WOMEN. Calling them Transwomen keeps them othered, and reinforces the hierarchy of 'born' woman/female vs. 'other female/woman. It's completely unacceptable. The Transgender movement ( rather than the movement created by the experiences of intersex and Transsexual people) has caused great harm to women with transsexual experiences and history by its insistence of blurring gender lines. Women with Transsexual histories didn't struggle their whole lives, have expensive and often inaccessible surgeries to come out as some 'other/third/fourth/fifth gender' They transitioned to become what they are, and always were, Women. Before anyone jumps on this as an anti trans-gender post, please don't-- I'm not talking about keeping the gender binary as it is, or suggesting that gender in and of it's self isn't fluid-- but women who are looking for community with women, services for women, health care for women, are interested in being seen, and included as a woman. This is why it's a deeply feminist issue. As always, when you boil it down, it's the voices of women in our most marginalized locations that get silenced and attacked.

"Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing."

Love. It.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/02/feminism-trashing-shulamith-firestone?utm_content=bufferba25e&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer

'Sisterhood is powerful. It kills sisters,' noted a friend of Shulamith Firestone. In fact, we fight because we're not powerful enough

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/5/1/1367437140371/Shulamith-Firestone-femin-008.jpg


Shulamith Firestone, in 1997: according to Susan Faludi, the vicious enmities within radical feminism pushed Firestone toward mental and physical breakdown.
Photograph: courtesy of Lori Hiris

Is sisterhood sacred or soul-crushing?

Within the feminist movement, the answer is less clear than one might hope. Trashing each other and exclusion have been hallmarks since the movement began, and each generation of feminist activists seems to suffer the same in-fighting. But contrary to simplistic ideas about catty, back-stabbing women, feminists don't fight each other because women are uniquely competitive or cruel. Though we care about the movement, it happens because we've internalized a narrative of scarcity: we act as though we're fighting for crumbs.

In her recent New Yorker article about the life of the feminist pioneer Shulamith Firestone, Susan Faludi details how the Women's Liberation Movement of the 1960s and 70s fractured. She quotes a line from Ti-Grace Atkinson's resignation from a New York feminist group:

Sisterhood is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.

It seems that no one walked away unscathed, and today, little has changed. Online feminism faces many of the same challenges our foremothers faced: not enough support, too much attention for the dominant groups, vicious internal attacks, and bitter frustration and disillusionment. The same dynamics of "trashing" that Jo Freeman wrote about in 1976 are alive today. Trashing, she says, is not about opposition or critique:

"It is not done to expose disagreements or resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy."

That dynamic is, of course, not unique to feminism. Is there any social movement that hasn't had splits, arguments and active dissent?

Disagreement that escalates into attacks should be expected on the left, where we value dissent and diverse opinions. The right, too, sees its fair share of in-fighting, but – being conservative – it can be somewhat insulated from it by a resistance to change and a cultural deference to authority. Progressive movements lend themselves more readily to discord – which, in the big picture, is a good thing.

Identity-based movements may be particularly susceptible, precisely because of our personal investment in them. Feminism isn't just a general ideology for making the world a better place: it's a very specific ideology of liberation for the actors of the movement. It is personal by definition. Challenges to the movement, or the sense that other women are somehow doing feminism wrong, can feel like personal affronts. For feminists, your work often feels like a reflection of who you are, and the critiques even more so.

That passion and deep concern for a social movement are strengths. But women make up half the world – of course, our ideas vary wildly about what a representative movement should be. And while nearly all of us have good intentions, intentions don't make perfect outcomes. Feminist movements have, too many times, perpetuated existing hierarchies and certain bigotries – often lifting the experiences of the most powerful (usually upper middle-class, straight, white American women) while steamrolling the perspectives of the many women who don't fit that mold.

In a more perfect world – or at least, a more perfect movement – we could have a variety of feminisms, each serving a variety of women, and all recognizing the fact that "woman", as a category, encompasses all sorts of different human beings with different needs. We wouldn't need to draw exact lines around who is or isn't an acceptable feminist. "Feminism" would be big-tent: so long as you work to promote social, political and economic gender equality, you're in.

No one would be expected to speak for all of womankind. Sheryl Sandberg could write a book about gender in the business world without facing attacks from other feminists, criticizing her for having a nanny, for talking to male CEOs more than female domestic laborers, or for not representing working-class women – the takeaway being that Sandberg isn't enough of a caretaker, and therefore not sufficiently feminine. And in a more perfect world (or movement), a feminist book written by a female domestic laborer would get as much traction as one penned by the COO of Facebook.

The solution to those imperfections, though, is not to attack the women who do succeed or stand out. That only creates a movement of knee-jerk critics, who, when presented with a piece of feminist work, engage the "find what's wrong with it" mode.

And there's the problem of scarcity. Feminist work is rarely paid, and when feminist writers and activists are compensated, it's not usually with much. In their new FemFuture report about online feminism (pdf), bloggers and activists Courtney Martin and Vanessa Valenti detail what they call a "psychology of deprivation":

"[It is] a sense that their work will never be rewarded as it deserves to be, that they are in direct competition with one another for the scraps that come from third-party ad companies or other inadequate attempts to bring in revenue. As a result, they are vulnerable, less effective, and risk burn out. Under these conditions, online feminism isn't being sufficiently linked to larger organizational and movement efforts and/or leveraged for the greatest impact at this critical moment."

As such, feminists routinely see their work immediately picked apart by other feminists. Much like the trashing Jo Freeman and Susan Faludi detail, inter-feminist discourse often dips into character assassination. But there's also personal attack masquerading as critique, and it's nearly impossible to draw a line separating the two (although Ann Friedman does a good job with this handy chart).

Thoughtful criticism meant to improve a project is a good thing. The explicit intent of finding fault in a work is not. Going a step further, and suggesting that a project's flaws and gaps reflect the motives of its creators – they're corporate sellouts, don't care about X group of women, just want to promote themselves – is what kneecaps activism. Why act at all if the social norm in your group is to chew up and spit out every new idea?

Unsurprisingly, the FemFuture report was met with the usual criticism-for-criticism's-sake – but also, thankfully, some thoughtful and cogent suggestions for improvement. Within the feminist blogosphere, though, a paper meant to make our work more sustainable was only lightly promoted. There was little recognition of its many strengths, and even fewer pledges to help make sustainable online feminism real. It's not because supporters don't exist. It's because many of us were scared to wade into a sudden conflict. We didn't want to be perceived as insufficiently critical, sellouts, or too aggressive. You know, not sufficiently accommodating. Too ambitious. Not sufficiently feminine.

That has real consequences. I have spoken to countless women who have ideas for books, blogs, campaigns or other projects, but are terrified to carry them out, lest they make a misstep and be branded a bad feminist, unworthy of support. They'd rather keep their heads down than put out new ideas. Better to join the chorus of critics, and position oneself as a "good" feminist, in opposition to those other, "bad" feminists.

That's not the sign of a healthy movement, but it is how one earns credibility in online feminist circles today – nothing looks better than pointing out how everyone else is doing it wrong. Bonus points if those other feminists have had a modicum of success, like a book, a highly-trafficked website, or getting paid for their work.

But it's not because we're catty or mean or somehow predisposed to cliquishness and competition. It's because we're starving.

Which is why I hope, despite the initial pushback, that the many suggestions for online activism presented in the FemFuture report materialize. I hope that the report is only one small piece of an enormous global movement of women, online and off, taking a look at their own communities and asking: "What do we need here? How can we make our work sustainable?"

There isn't a set pie of feminist support, attention, money and influence. The more wide-reaching our movement is, the more opportunities there will be for everyone in it. Most of us never chose feminism as a career choice; most feminists earn their salary in other ways. Even those of us who are paid for feminist work aren't exactly in it for the big bucks. But we all need some sort of support, whether it's financial, emotional, structural or something else. And too few of us receive it.

It's time we learned lessons that are now decades old, and have been faced by many other political movements. Feminism must be more genuinely egalitarian and representative. We need to understand that womanhood means very different things to the billions of different women on this planet. We must work against perpetuating the same inequalities we fight against.

And we need to do that not in competition with each other, but with the shared goal of improving the movement and world. We need to do it with the recognition that no perspective or solution will be universal, and no single woman will be anywhere near a perfect feminist.

Then, we can stop fighting for scraps, and instead, work on making a feast.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/california-daughter-rape-alimony/2143027/

Ex-husband who raped stepdaughter wants more alimony


http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/155299/mom_divorces_man_who_molested

Mom Divorces Man Who Molested Her Daughter & Now She Owes Him Alimony!
by Jeanne Sager Wednesday at 11:58 AM

Usually alimony claims are pretty cut and dried. A judge said you have to pay, so you have to pay. But a California mom fighting for the right not to pay her ex-husband spousal support has one heckuva case. Carol Abar divorced Ed Abar because he'd been raping her daughter, his stepdaughter, since the girl was just 9 years old.

Can you blame her for not wanting to send him a check every month? It's like handing him an award for abusing her child.

The twisted case is working its way through the courts where Ed Abar is asking a judge to force Carol to resume $1,300-a-month alimony payments she was making before he pleaded guilty last year to one count of rape (he was facing additional charges but pleaded down to avoid a harsher sentence). He even wants back support for the time period when he was in jail -- when a judge gave her permission to stop the checks.

What will happen is up to a judge, but it's sure to have repercussions for other divorce cases in the state, if not the nation.

Should criminal activity in the marriage make spousal support null and void? Should criminals be due money from their spouse simply because she (in this case) earned more during the marriage?

Traditionally, judges in family court look into claims of domestic abuse in marriages when determining alimony, but that hardly seems like enough. A rape of a child is beyond the pale and clearly impacts her mother.

In the Abars' case, it's why Carol says she filed for divorce. It took her 16 years to kick him to the curb because Ed Abar threatened the girl that he'd kill her mother and stepbrothers if she told on him, but as soon as Carol found out, she did what any mother would do: she got the sicko out of her house ASAP. How unfair is it that being a good mother is being held against her? That she's being punished when it was he who destroyed her family?

Cases don't even have to be this heinous. Surely when a spouse turns out to be a crack dealer or something equally illegal and harmful to a family, the responsible spouse who leaves to escape criminal activity should be given a chance to truly break free.

These cases can't be allowed to happen. Victims shouldn't be re-victimized because the law is inflexible.

[CherylNYC]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/california-daughter-rape-alimony/2143027/

Ex-husband who raped stepdaughter wants more alimony


http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/155299/mom_divorces_man_who_molested

Mom Divorces Man Who Molested Her Daughter & Now She Owes Him Alimony!
by Jeanne Sager Wednesday at 11:58 AM

Usually alimony claims are pretty cut and dried. A judge said you have to pay, so you have to pay. But a California mom fighting for the right not to pay her ex-husband spousal support has one heckuva case. Carol Abar divorced Ed Abar because he'd been raping her daughter, his stepdaughter, since the girl was just 9 years old.

Can you blame her for not wanting to send him a check every month? It's like handing him an award for abusing her child.

The twisted case is working its way through the courts where Ed Abar is asking a judge to force Carol to resume $1,300-a-month alimony payments she was making before he pleaded guilty last year to one count of rape (he was facing additional charges but pleaded down to avoid a harsher sentence). He even wants back support for the time period when he was in jail -- when a judge gave her permission to stop the checks.

What will happen is up to a judge, but it's sure to have repercussions for other divorce cases in the state, if not the nation.

Should criminal activity in the marriage make spousal support null and void? Should criminals be due money from their spouse simply because she (in this case) earned more during the marriage?

Traditionally, judges in family court look into claims of domestic abuse in marriages when determining alimony, but that hardly seems like enough. A rape of a child is beyond the pale and clearly impacts her mother.

In the Abars' case, it's why Carol says she filed for divorce. It took her 16 years to kick him to the curb because Ed Abar threatened the girl that he'd kill her mother and stepbrothers if she told on him, but as soon as Carol found out, she did what any mother would do: she got the sicko out of her house ASAP. How unfair is it that being a good mother is being held against her? That she's being punished when it was he who destroyed her family?

Cases don't even have to be this heinous. Surely when a spouse turns out to be a crack dealer or something equally illegal and harmful to a family, the responsible spouse who leaves to escape criminal activity should be given a chance to truly break free.

These cases can't be allowed to happen. Victims shouldn't be re-victimized because the law is inflexible.


I say we activate the women's mafia. Dead people can't collect alimony.

[Kobi]

I say we activate the women's mafia. Dead people can't collect alimony.


This is one of those news stories that makes me go hmmm. It also makes me have to separate out emotion from logic.

I understand when his lawyer says....

"Under the law, he is entitled to some relief from the higher income producing spouse, so that the marital standard of living can be maintained."

I also understand why the ex-wife would say.....

"The law makes no sense. He victimized a little girl all these years and I have to pay him for that behavior," she said.

My dilemma is alimony is about a financial obligation to a former spouse as part of a binding marriage contract which entitles them to compensation to maintain their style of living during the marriage. It is not about rewarding him for sexually abusing a child well into adulthood.

I am also concerned when there is talking about "conditions" whereby this marital obligation can be removed.

Remember the history of how alimony began....."Divorce law in the U.S. was based on English Common Law, which developed at a time when a female gave up her personal property rights on marriage. Upon separation from marriage, the husband retained the right to the wife's property, but, in exchange, had an ongoing responsibility to support the wife after dissolution of the marriage.

British law was amended by legislation including Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882 which reformed females' property rights relating to marriage, by, for example, permitting divorced females to regain the property they owned before marriage."


Alimony was a hard fought right.

As societal circumstances changed so did the alimony laws. Amounts and duration limits have been enacted which have been sometimes a help and sometimes a hindrance for women. Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.

Alimony is taxable for the recipient, a tax deduction for the payer. Who makes more money? Who is the likely recipient?

I am reluctant to say criminal activity should factor into alimony. Most recipients of alimony are still women.

This gets to be tricky shit.

In this particular case, at 1:30 in the morning, I am thinking this woman is not potentially going to be paying alimony to her ex-husband victimizing her child for 16 years. She would be paying alimony as it is prescribed by law. It is unfortunate she chose to marry a douchebag.

He pleaded guilty. He served his time under the law. Society says he paid his debt.

On the other hand, her daughter, who is now an adult, should have legal recourse to file a civil suit against her stepfather who pleaded guilty to raping her.

[femmeInterrupted]

This is one of those news stories that makes me go hmmm. It also makes me have to separate out emotion from logic.

I understand when his lawyer says....

"Under the law, he is entitled to some relief from the higher income producing spouse, so that the marital standard of living can be maintained."

I also understand why the ex-wife would say.....

"The law makes no sense. He victimized a little girl all these years and I have to pay him for that behavior," she said.

My dilemma is alimony is about a financial obligation to a former spouse as part of a binding marriage contract which entitles them to compensation to maintain their style of living during the marriage. It is not about rewarding him for sexually abusing a child well into adulthood.

I am also concerned when there is talking about "conditions" whereby this marital obligation can be removed.

Remember the history of how alimony began....."Divorce law in the U.S. was based on English Common Law, which developed at a time when a female gave up her personal property rights on marriage. Upon separation from marriage, the husband retained the right to the wife's property, but, in exchange, had an ongoing responsibility to support the wife after dissolution of the marriage.

British law was amended by legislation including Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882 which reformed females' property rights relating to marriage, by, for example, permitting divorced females to regain the property they owned before marriage."


Alimony was a hard fought right.

As societal circumstances changed so did the alimony laws. Amounts and duration limits have been enacted which have been sometimes a help and sometimes a hindrance for women. Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.

Alimony is taxable for the recipient, a tax deduction for the payer. Who makes more money? Who is the likely recipient?

I am reluctant to say criminal activity should factor into alimony. Most recipients of alimony are still women.

This gets to be tricky shit.

In this particular case, at 1:30 in the morning, I am thinking this woman is not potentially going to be paying alimony to her ex-husband victimizing her child for 16 years. She would be paying alimony as it is prescribed by law. It is unfortunate she chose to marry a douchebag.

He pleaded guilty. He served his time under the law. Society says he paid his debt.

On the other hand, her daughter, who is now an adult, should have legal recourse to file a civil suit against her stepfather who pleaded guilty to raping her.



There’s a problem with Societies definition of ‘paid his debt’.
The gender-based inequalities are blatant, because yes, you are quite right—Most recipients of alimony/child support are women, which nicely supports the tax break (for mostly males) AND tax payable (mostly women—and mostly women in precarious tax brackets to begin with).
This particular story has the smack of a double handed bitch-slap.

The reward that he received for sexually abusing a child was exactly in society claiming that his ‘debt was paid’. Did he have to cough up a few cows or a flock of sheep or an acre of land? In what way has his debt been paid? That’s what makes me nuts.

As for her daughter’s recourse: Shitballs.

Other than the recourse of dealing with the residual and long lasting effects of sexual abuse in childhood, and into her adult life, I suppose she could set forth the arduous task of squeezing blood from a stone. I’m sure Mr. Ed is in the perfect position to set immediately forth amassing a fortune, of which his daughter can see the ‘justice’ of via a civil suit against said Asswipe. THIS is also what makes me nuts.

Abuse, including Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, Sexual Abuse, (Woman Abuse) are all criminal activities. Assault, n’est- ce pas? At that point, all bets should be off. As a Perpetrator you (should) immediately loose all rights to any assets associated with the victim/spouse/non-offending parent, all rights to the matrimonial home, all rights to any possible support of any kind, of any nature. Let’s just go so far as to say “All rights rescinded on account of your undeniable, sociopathic, sadistic sad shit”. And since I’m now in the land of Unicorns fluffing out the skittles of restorative justice, it wasn’t the State nor the Crown that got raped for 16 years of her of her quarter century of age. Three quarters of her life experience spent being abused. It was a nine year old girl .

And filed under things that make me go “Huh?” is : Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.

It should be the DUTY of the State to see her transition from abuse (victimization) to supported survivor, without forcing her into contact for the 200.00 bucks a month the court would order he pay. Child support comes first. (Is that stone bleeding yet??? ;) This should not be the community’s answer to violence against women and children. “If you break, you bought it—we ain’t takin’ care of anything” mentality. If you want to send him the bill via an asshole tax for the rest of his life, great.

Crime and Punishment, right?

[Allison W]

I think what Kobi was getting at is that provisions for nullifying alimony could be used against women, and by his "debt being paid," she's not referring to actual payment but to him having served his sentence for the crime.

Though IMO, rape/abuse absolutely should be grounds for nullifying alimony, even if it were, say, a female rapist/abuser and a male victim/payer--the crime is heinous no matter the genders of the perpetrator, victim, or payer, and no one should have to pay alimony to someone who abused them or their children.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html?_r=2

"Breast cancer alone kills some 458,000 people each year, according to the World Health Organization, mainly in low- and middle-income countries. It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women."

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak1.pinimg.com/550x/ae/6b/94/ae6b94f15a24f4367c86d8bb516aceb7.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-ec2.pinimg.com/736x/f7/87/d4/f787d4e44a09f1693eb20561074211e0.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-ec4.pinimg.com/736x/3f/3b/6e/3f3b6efc55f4c772576a6043143a95ba.jpg


Yes, that’s right. Thank you, Mr. Paul Kramer. It’s not enough to have a poor body image and an eating disorder when you’re a teenager... Now they want to get one before you’re out of pigtails. Notice the image is not of an active healthy strong girl, rather, of a chubby girl looking at her thinner reflection, and a pretty dress.

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (AP) — As senior military leaders and government officials grapple with how to reduce sexual assaults in the military, a Pentagon report provides details of the problem. The numbers may not add up in all cases due to rounding or smaller categories that were not included.

Key findings:

—Overall, there were 3,374 reports of sexual assault during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

—Based on that number and anonymous surveys of service members, the Pentagon estimates that as many as 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year.


Breaking the numbers down:

—Of the 3,374 reported sexual assaults, there were 3,604 victims, because there often is more than one victim or more than one crime in a report. Of those victims, nearly 3,000 were service members.

—Nearly 800 cases involved victims who did not file complaints against their alleged attackers but simply sought help.


Victims in the 2,558 reports that triggered complaints were:

—88 percent women

—66 percent between 20 and 34 years old

—Mostly low-ranking service members

—More than 1,100 were in the Army, the largest military service; nearly 600 in the Navy; nearly 300 in the Air Force and 239 in the Marine Corps.

—573 were not members of the U.S. military.


The suspects:

—90 percent were male; 2 percent were female; others were unidentified.

—36 percent were between 20-24 years old; 30 percent were 25-34 years old. In two cases the suspect was 65 or older.

—Most were in the lower to middle enlisted ranks.

—More than 1,200 were Army; about 550 were Navy and more than 330 were either Air Force or Marine.


Alleged crime:

—Rape, 27 percent; aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault 28 percent; aggravated or abusive sexual contact, 35 percent; nonconsensual sodomy, 6 percent

— More than 2,100 cases involved a male suspect/female victim; in 194 cases both were male; in 23 cases it was a female suspect/male victim and in 26 cases they were both female

—The alleged attack took place most often on a Saturday or Sunday, in the very late night or early morning hours.


Judgment:

—1,714 suspects’ cases were resolved in the last fiscal year

—880 faced sex crime charges; 240 faced charges for another offense, such as adultery or underage drinking.

—In 509 cases commanders could not take action because there was insufficient evidence, the victim declined to participate or the statute of limitations had expired.

—In 81 cases, commanders determined the charges were unfounded.

—Of the 880 suspects facing sex crime charges, 594 were referred to court-martial. Of those, 302 went to trial, 238 were convicted and 64 were acquitted. Seventy were discharged or resigned; 88 had charges dismissed and 133 are still pending court action. The disposition of one case was not available.


___


Online:


The full report: http://bit.ly/143raa2

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/05/17/military-sexual-assaults-the-numbers/Uph6pgYbBVVrEQpMvudMEO/story.html

[Allison W]

"The Princess and the PR," about the protagonist of Brave, Merida, getting a makeover for her addition to the Disney princess lineup. Or, to quote the Daily Show site's description of the clip, "The hero of Disney's 'Brave' gets a controversial makeover, threatening a longstanding arrangement with America's parents."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-16-2013/the-princess-and-the-p-r-?xrs=synd_facebook

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/41583/crying-rape-on-innocent-men-doesn-t-happen-as-often-as-you-might-think


How often do women falsely accuse men of rape? Often? Sometimes? Almost never? And, how often do women falsely accuse men of domestic violence? The actual numbers might surprise you and may help change the way our culture views sexual violence allegations.

In a recent report published by the United Kingdom's Crown Prosecution Service, it was found that a mere 35 out of 5,651 or .6% women falsely accused men of rape, and only 6 women out of 111,891 or .005% falsely accused a man of domestic violence during the 17-month-long study.

The study was conducted in response to a 2010 court appeal in which a woman pleaded guilty to falsely retracting true accusations of rape she had made against her husband and was sentence to 8 months in prison for "perverting the court of justice."

Now, why is the study significant? Well, for starters, the low number of false accusations helps to undermine the myth that women are vindictive shrews who will lie about an act of sexual violence in order to get revenge on a man who treats them poorly, didn't call after a one night stand, or breaks up with them. One of the easiest ways for rape apologists to turn the tables on a sexual violence survivor who files criminal charges against her assailant is to exaggerate the prevalence of false rape allegations or attack the survivor's credibility.

In a world where women are threatened and slut-shamed for speaking up about sexual assault and for seeking justice for the crimes committed against them it is important for our society to support survivors. The report's findings serve as a supportive, factual counterpoint to any rape apologist who uses false statistics to claim that survivors "lie" about or "exaggerate" what happened to them in order to get revenge.

The report is also important because it highlights the reality that false allegations are often complicated by outside factors, such as:

Mental health issues: 18% of all the rape and/or domestic violence allegations examined by the study were made by someone with a mental health issue as assessed by a health professional. All but one of the accusations made by someone with a mental illness proved to be false or grossly exaggerated.

Some person other than a possible victim makes a false accusation: in one instance, a father reported that his daughter had been raped by her older boyfriend and pressured her to substantiate his claim by providing false information to the police.

An accuser is pressured to recant their statement: despite having visible injuries, one woman said she lied about her original assault accusation, but later claimed she recanted her statement because of threats of future violence made by her partner.

These outside factors must considered when allegations of sexual violence are examined because they are realities that the judicial system must deal with, and because we cannot allow the blame and shame game to morph into an even bigger monster. We cannot permit mentally healthy survivors to be called mentally ill, crazy, or nuts, simply because they make an allegation of sexual assault. We also cannot discount an accusation of sexual violence by a bystander who may be able to provide critical information in a criminal investigation. And we need to ensure that survivors aren’t pressured by police, lawyers, assailants, family members, or friends to recant true allegations, as the failure to prosecute an offender may lead to future abuse.

While the study reveals that there were a small number of false allegations over a 17-month-long period, we as a society need to stop unabashedly questioning the validity of rape, domestic violence, and sexual assault allegations as doing so only serves to silence, ostracize, and shame survivors. Just as men do not want to be judged or stereotyped because of the actions of one rapist, survivors do not want their very true and painful experiences to be invalidated by a handful of false sexual violence allegations.

Picture Credit: Riemann

[femmeInterrupted]

Image removed by Admin - Against TOS for Nudity/Dead Body

New York Coroner's picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973. When Gerri's picture appeared in MS, no one knew her name or all the circumstances that surrounded her death from an illegal abortion.

Gerri Twerdy Santoro was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him.
Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon's baby she was carrying, he would kill her.
She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy.
Santoro was 6 1/2 months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri's boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment.
They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion.
When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room.
She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn't.
She was found like this, on her stomach with her knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude, alone and dead.

There are times when I wish I could see the world in a different way.
That I could reclaim an earlier less sentient state before my consciousness was raised.
But my reaction to this photo is visceral and profound.
The control and commodification of women's reproductive lives is still an oppressive and dangerous reality for ALL women.
This woman died before I was born, but she, and our other fallen sisters, are not forgotten.

[Medusa]

FemmeInterrupted -

I have removed the photo that appeared in your post. It is against the TOS to post images of nudity of any kind or dead bodies.

If you would like to LINK to the photo, that is fine but please put a warning up that the image is graphic so that more sensitive types aren't accidentally subjected to an upsetting image.


Thanks!

[femmeInterrupted]

Image removed by Admin - Against TOS for Nudity/Dead Body

New York Coroner's picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973. When Gerri's picture appeared in MS, no one knew her name or all the circumstances that surrounded her death from an illegal abortion.

Gerri Twerdy Santoro was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him.
Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon's baby she was carrying, he would kill her.
She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy.
Santoro was 6 1/2 months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri's boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment.
They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion.
When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room.
She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn't.
She was found like this, on her stomach with her knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude, alone and dead.

There are times when I wish I could see the world in a different way.
That I could reclaim an earlier less sentient state before my consciousness was raised.
But my reaction to this photo is visceral and profound.
The control and commodification of women's reproductive lives is still an oppressive and dangerous reality for ALL women.
This woman died before I was born, but she, and our other fallen sisters, are not forgotten.

Sorry for blanking on the TOS. My intent wasn't anything other than what I said in my post...but I apologize for the TOS violation. Mea Culpa .

[stepfordfemme]

Can you blame her for not wanting to send him a check every month? It's like handing him an award for abusing her child.

Should criminal activity in the marriage make spousal support null and void? Should criminals be due money from their spouse simply because she (in this case) earned more during the marriage?

Traditionally, judges in family court look into claims of domestic abuse in marriages when determining alimony, but that hardly seems like enough. A rape of a child is beyond the pale and clearly impacts her mother.


Cases don't even have to be this heinous. Surely when a spouse turns out to be a crack dealer or something equally illegal and harmful to a family, the responsible spouse who leaves to escape criminal activity should be given a chance to truly break free.

These cases can't be allowed to happen. Victims shouldn't be re-victimized because the law is inflexible.

I am sorry to snip a brilliant post but this is something really interesting and relevant to what I am involved with personally and professionally.

I am also only going to post from a Canadian perspective as that is the nature of my knowledge.

In Canada, spousal support (aka alimony) is used to adjust for "standard of living", based on disparity in income for two former domestic partners. For the most part, it can be a fairly dated law-- it was *mostly* used in circumstances where there was a partner that did not work outside the home.

Please keep in mind that there are many circumstances where spousal support is necessary to offset a difference in income due to such instances as long term disability, chronic health issues (ie big medical expenses),inability to find full time employment, students...

To say that spousal support is an "award for abusing her daughter" also lends itself to the logic that "spouse x is a cheater/liar/lazy/uneducated/scumbag/drug addict/etc" and therefore should not receive spousal support.

I don't agree that the guy should receive it, the thought makes me *CRINGE*--but I also don't want to see spousal support be attached to conditions.

In an already patriarchal malfunctioning system to tie more caveats to spousal will only harm people (particularly women) already with economic disparity and often people with disabilities.

Put women further into further into economic stratification post divorce? Lower their standard of living? No, thank you. It's a slippery slope I want to avoid.

I also would like to point out that spousal support in Canada is never punitive or based on criminal activity. It's a calculation based on previous three years of taxes. If a judge ever made something like that punitive , it would be a case for appeal and a miscarriage of justice.

I also want to speak finally to parental alienation:

Parental rights are linked/tied to all legislation around Divorce Acts/Family Law Acts. With support ($) there is also a tie to custody/access/parental time. These are usually "rights" (I use that term loosely) that people view around both divorce and parenting.

Ask any mental health/ social worker/ social justice professional that works with families frequently and they will likely tell you that children will *WANT* and *NEED* attachment to both parents developmentally. (Barring extraordinary cases of neglect) I can probably provide 100s of sources on this. Parental loyalty and attachment is REAL. Foster parenting is a prime example, children often can be moved into "better" homes and would still choose and love their attached/bio parents unquestionably. Age of the child and trauma are two easy factors to point out.

There are shades of grey and factors--please do not read this as an absolute. But we try to act in the best interest of children. I realize in THIS case --the system is failing this poor traumatized girl and I would never advocate for re-victimization. Gosh, talk to me for five seconds and you will know my stance.

But I also look at it from family justice as I work for children's rights. And in that circumstance, I don't want parental rights (whether they be $ or access to children) --to be tied to criminal activity. Sometimes supervised visits are mandatory. Sometimes it is letter writing/phone calls only. But criminals can be good parents. People with criminal records can be good parents. People with a history of domestic violence can be good parents.

Parents are gods/goddesses in the eyes of children and no matter how immoral or wrong their actions are-- their children often love without that societal judgment. Try and protect children and victims to the best of society's ability.

Justice is flawed, but I don't see the need to "throw the baby out with the bath water" for lack of a better phrase.

Does there need to be change in the family justice system? Oh heck yeah!!!!
Is there always a need for change in child protective custody? Oh heck yeah!!
Do we always need to be vigilant and advocate for women and children's rights?
Core value for me right there.

The MAJOR problem for the law is *CASE LAW & PRECEDENT*
In most circumstances this becomes the basis for future law, decisions and legislation.

If the courts rule, against this awful heinous abuser, it can be a future slippery slope for the law to be twisted against women again and promote further power loss for those already victimized by a system that works against them.

I would love to share more thoughts on this subject

[Kobi]

CINCINNATI (AP) — For more than 100 years, the Anna Louise Inn in downtown Cincinnati has been a safe, serene place that thousands of struggling women came to know as home.

But after losing a two-year fight with a Fortune 500 company determined to buy their beautiful, 104-year-old property and turn it into a boutique hotel — even though it wasn't for sale — the women of the Anna Louise Inn have to leave the neighborhood.

While most of the 60 women living there are relieved that the fight with Western & Southern Insurance Group appears over, they can't help but also feel sad and angry.

"I'm upset with them that they would be that greedy to take away what's been here for so long for women," said Robin Howard, 55, who has lived at the Anna Louise for more than two years after fleeing an abusive relationship. "We have rights, too. This is home. It's a safe haven."

For Wendy Gonzales, 25, the Anna Louise has allowed her to escape an addiction to methamphetamine and an abusive husband who she said forced her into prostitution.

"I thank God for the Anna Louise Inn. Without it, I don't know where I would be," said Gonzales, who now works as a housekeeper at a hotel within walking distance. "It's quiet, it's peaceful. Looking out here, you don't see your average thugs walking down the street. ... It's just nice to walk out and know that you're safe."

The Anna Louise has been housing women since 1909 in the same charming, dormitory-style building that looks like a plantation home. Although it began by helping young, ambitious types who were pouring into then-booming Cincinnati, it later became geared toward women who needed a fresh start; some have left abusive husbands, others are transitioning from foster care to adulthood while others are recovering prostitutes and drug addicts.

The historic downtown Cincinnati neighborhood where the women live, known as Lytle Park, became an important part of their recovery, since most were coming from dangerous parts of the city where it'd be easier to slip back into their former ways of life.

Western & Southern executives, whose headquarters sit across a park from the Anna Louise, offered to buy the Anna Louise for $1.8 million several years ago, less than half its value. The Anna Louise declined and won $12.6 million in federal and state tax credits to renovate the home, where some rooms are smaller than 100 square feet and all the women have to share bathrooms and one kitchen.

Days before the renovation was to begin, Western & Southern sued over a zoning issue and a judge ordered an immediate construction halt until the legal fight was resolved. The Anna Louise and its supporters didn't back down, vowing to fight Western & Southern with everything they had — until last week when they inked a deal with the company to sell the home for $4 million.

Leaders at Cincinnati Union Bethel, the nonprofit that runs the Anna Louise, said they sold reluctantly because they couldn't afford to fight any longer.

Under the deal with Western & Southern, the women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. It will be located in a shabby neighborhood on a busy street 2 miles north of where they are now. The nearest park is a 1.5-mile walk away, over a freeway.

"Western & Southern had the money to fight and the Anna Louise Inn didn't," said Howard, who is about to receive a degree in social work, which she wants to use to help women flee abusive relationships. "When you have that much money and you want something, eventually you're going to get it."

The Anna Louise will now be among a bevy of properties in the neighborhood owned by Western & Southern, which developed Cincinnati's tallest building in 2011 and has renovated a handful of historic properties in the area, including an upscale hotel.

Company CEO John Barrett has long said it was time for the women at the Anna Louise to leave the neighborhood to make way for economic development. He plans to turn the building into a boutique hotel and envisions transforming the neighborhood into a hub of activity with restaurants and bars.

"This truly is a win for everyone and will make Lytle Park a destination like no other," Barrett said in a Monday news release announcing the Anna Louise sale.

Barrett, who has repeatedly declined requests for an interview, has become a loathed figure at the Anna Louise, not only for his tireless efforts to acquire the property but also for the way he has talked about the women living there, repeatedly referring to them as recovering prostitutes and saying they just don't belong in the neighborhood.

"That hurt. To be categorized," said Sherene Julian, 48, who escaped decades of drug addiction and prostitution when she moved to the Anna Louise. "It made me feel that I was lesser than."

Julian, who recently moved in with her boyfriend but still gets medical services at the Anna Louise, said a part of the women's home will always be with her.

"To me it's sacred ground because that's where I was able to turn my life around," Julian said. "I know for a fact if the Anna Louise did not intervene in my life I would probably be dead."

Tatiana McCormick, 24, who lived at the inn after leaving Ohio's foster care system six years ago, said she's angry about the home's sale.

"A lot of these ladies now have to worry about their living situation," she said. "This was something that was going well for people and it's been there for three generations. To have it happen like this, it's just outrageous."

http://news.yahoo.com/women-sad-angry-over-sale-nonprofit-ohio-home-152229520.html

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400772/Mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-who-is-the-sleaziest-of-them-all

http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/mirror-400772.jpg

http://www.express.co.uk/search/Paula+Murray?s=Paula+Murray&b=1

The recently-opened Shimmy Club has installed the spyglass – normally associated with police interrogations – in two of its £800-a-time private function rooms.

A spokesman for the Glasgow venue, owned by millionaire entrepreneur Stefan King’s G1 Group, insists it does not allow male or mixed-sex groups to hire the rooms.

However, the Scottish Sunday Express has seen photos showing a group of young men with a clear view of women using the bathroom.

There is no sign in the toilets or anywhere else on the premises alerting female clubgoers to the fact they can be observed.

One horrified young woman contacted this newspaper to complain about the venue, saying: “I was completely shocked to discover that the mirror in the ladies’ bathroom is a two-way mirror facing out onto the club.

“I find it absolutely outrageous that a club can get away with this, it is a complete invasion of privacy of the unsuspecting girls.

“Nowhere is it made clear that this is the case so when visiting the bathroom for the first time, there are women bending over the sink, pouting into the mirror to redo their lipstick, adjusting themselves whilst unknowingly being watched by people on the other side.”

The clubber, who asked not to be named, said she was “deeply disappointed and disgusted” when she discovered what was happening.

She added: “The fact that these two-way mirrors only look into the ladies’ bathrooms and not the men’s makes it clear that the intention is to sexualise women as objects, allowing men to make inappropriate gestures and leer disgustingly at them.

“It is completely sexist and immoral that this is allowed in a club and it is evident that they have a complete lack of respect for women and their privacy.”

Another two female clubgoers also separately confirmed they had come across the “strange system” during a night out.

When the Sunday Express contacted the venue posing as potential clients, we were told the ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ booths, which can cost up to £800 to hire, had two-way mirrors into the bathrooms.

We were advised that “for the time being” the rooms were not available for male only or mixed groups.

I find it absolutely outrageous that a club can get away with this, it is a complete invasion of privacy of the unsuspecting girls.
An outraged young woman
However, a photograph on the venue’s own Facebook site shows two young women in a bathroom while a man looks on from the other side of the mirror.

Women’s organisations were aghast to learn about the “perverted” gimmick and also questioned its legality.

In the past clubs in Estonia, Austria and the USA have also fitted mirror glass into the ladies’ bathroom but it is believed this is the first example in the UK.

Because the venue, which opened earlier this month, has no seating apart from the private booths, revellers queue up to hire them for the night.
On Thursday, its Facebook site read: “Booths are nearly full for this weekend so get your requests in quick.”

Ellie Hutchinson, chair of the Scottish arm of sexual harassment group Hollaback, said: “We’re so shocked to hear that a club in Scotland thinks this sort of thing is acceptable – andthe fact that it’s up and running shows there’s a demand for it.

“At Hollaback, we know that every day so many women are subjected to being watched, judged and having their personal space invaded without their knowledge or consent.

“The fact a club is profiting off this often intimidating and frightening behaviour is gob smacking. You have to ask, why on earth would anyone think this form of non-consensual voyeurism is OK?”

Women’s charity Object was also shocked and called for the club to be reported to the police.

Last night Gary Hall, of G1 Group, said it was “definitely not the case” that the women’s toilets were fitted with two-way mirrors.

However, he asked us to email our enquiry to his colleague, who failed to respond. Our subsequent phone messages were also left unanswered.

There was nobody at the club who could comment either, and we were referred back to the group’s head office.

[Hollylane]

CINCINNATI (AP) — For more than 100 years, the Anna Louise Inn in downtown Cincinnati has been a safe, serene place that thousands of struggling women came to know as home.



It probably won't amount to a hill of beans, but I just sent Western & Southern a scathing email...

[Sweetfeme]

http://media-cache-ak1.pinimg.com/550x/ae/6b/94/ae6b94f15a24f4367c86d8bb516aceb7.jpg

This picture illustrates the point perfectly raised in the interview on CBC, how man have a sense of entitlement to a woman's body!
When I first saw the picture I thought it was romantic because I thought it was her husband coming home from the war, when I read it was a stranger it just makes me shake my head!!

There is still so much work to be done, and I feel it needs to be done not just by women but also by men educating other men!!

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ec3.pinimg.com/192x/17/4d/07/174d07e9d261aae70e9d9e74c73d638b.jpg


At the risk of sounding like I left my brain on the Vineyard, wtf is this supposed to mean?

[Allison W]

http://media-cache-ec3.pinimg.com/192x/17/4d/07/174d07e9d261aae70e9d9e74c73d638b.jpg


At the risk of sounding like I left my brain on the Vineyard, wtf is this supposed to mean?


It's one more item in a list of things I've been thinking about. Along with once having read in a history textbook that prior to Confucianism establishing influence in Japan and turning it towards patriarchy, Japan was a matriarchy; having once read that the reason--in legend, at least, I don't know if there's any evidence of it being the case in reality--that the Greeks played their great sports competitions in the nude was because once a woman had disguised herself as a man and won; having read in an anthropological study on differences between traditional tribal societies that permit female warriors and hunters and those that don't, that one severs the index fingers of its girls so that they will never be able to wield a bow.

What I'm starting to see is that patriarchy is in no way based on the idea that women are weak or unintelligent or otherwise unable. Not even remotely. It is only a symptom that appears after patriarchy has become established--after all, no society that thinks women are unable to be warriors would ever feel any need to sever their fingers to keep them from becoming warriors. Patriarchy originates from the knowledge that women absolutely are able, and the pants-shitting fear of that fact. I would not be surprised if that fear is exactly what Socrates is expressing in that statement.

It's a frightening thing to consider, though, as it means that patriarchy does not occur because of stupidity or ignorance, but very, very specifically because of evil. It is unpleasant enough to imagine that much ignorance in the world, and to be honest, I have enough trouble sleeping at night as it is.

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (AP) — America's working mothers are now the primary breadwinners in a record 40 percent of households with children — a milestone in the changing face of modern families, up from just 11 percent in 1960.

The findings by the Pew Research Center, released Wednesday, highlight the growing influence of "breadwinner moms" who keep their families afloat financially. While most are headed by single mothers, a growing number are families with married mothers who bring in more income than their husbands.

Demographers say the change is all but irreversible and is likely to bring added attention to child-care policies as well as government safety nets for vulnerable families. Still, the general public is not at all sure that having more working mothers is a good thing.

While roughly 79 percent of Americans reject the notion that women should return to their traditional roles, only 21 percent of those polled said the trend of more mothers of young children working outside the home is a good thing for society, according to the Pew survey.

Roughly 3 in 4 adults said the increasing number of women working for pay has made it harder for parents to raise children.

"This change is just another milestone in the dramatic transformation we have seen in family structure and family dynamics over the past 50 years or so," said Kim Parker, associate director with the Pew Social & Demographic Trends Project. "Women's roles have changed, marriage rates have declined — the family looks a lot different than it used to. The rise of breadwinner moms highlights the fact that, not only are more mothers balancing work and family these days, but the economic contributions mothers are making to their households have grown immensely."

The trend is being driven mostly by long-term demographic changes, including higher rates of education and labor force participation dating back to the 1960s women's movement. Today, more women than men hold bachelor's degrees, and they make up nearly half — 47 percent — of the American workforce.

But recent changes in the economy, too, have played a part. Big job losses in manufacturing and construction, fields that used to provide high pay to a mostly male workforce, have lifted the relative earnings of married women, even among those in mid-level positions such as teachers, nurses or administrators. The jump in working women has been especially prominent among those who are mothers — from 37 percent in 1968 to 65 percent in 2011 — reflecting in part increases for those who went looking for jobs to lift sagging family income after the recent recession.

At the same time, marriage rates have fallen to record lows. Forty percent of births now occur out of wedlock, leading to a rise in single-mother households. Many of these mothers are low-income with low education, and more likely to be black or Hispanic.

In all, 13.7 million U.S. households with children under age 18 now include mothers who are the main breadwinners. Of those, 5.1 million, or 37 percent, are married, while 8.6 million, or 63 percent, are single. The income gap between the families is large — $80,000 in median family income for married couples vs. $23,000 for single mothers.

Both groups of breadwinner moms — married and unmarried — have grown sharply.

Among all U.S. households with children, the share of married breadwinner moms has jumped from 4 percent in 1960 to 15 percent in 2011. For single mothers, the share has increased from 7 percent to 25 percent.

Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University, said that to his surprise public attitudes toward working mothers have changed very little over the years. He predicts the growing numbers will lead to a growing constituency among women in favor of family-friendly work policies such as paid family leave, as well as safety net policies such as food stamps or child care support for single mothers.

"Many of our workplaces and schools still follow a male-breadwinner model, assuming that the wives are at home to take care of child care needs," he said. "Until we realize that the breadwinner-homemaker marriage will never again be the norm, we won't provide working parents with the support they need."

Other findings:

—There is a gender gap on attitudes. About 45 percent of women say children are better off if their mother is at home, and 38 percent say children are just as well off if the mother works. Among men, 57 percent say children are better off if their mother is at home, while 29 percent say they are just as well off if she works.

—The share of married couples in which the wife is more educated than the husband is rising, from 7 percent in 1960 to 23 percent in 2011. Still, the vast majority of couples include spouses with similar educational backgrounds, at 61 percent.

—The number of working wives who make more than their husbands has been increasing more rapidly in recent years. Among recently married couples, including those without children, the share of "breadwinner wives" is roughly 30 percent, compared with 24 percent of all married couples.

The Pew study is based on an analysis of census data as of 2011, the latest available, as well as interviews with 1,003 adults by cellphone or landline from April 25 to 28. The Pew poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

http://news.yahoo.com/mothers-now-top-earners-4-10-us-households-040224109.html

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/550x/8f/71/0a/8f710aae5bba431b5146dcde198dedde.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-ec2.pinimg.com/736x/71/86/a2/7186a2c7b78e2244fbbd0975fdcd7b36.jpg

[DapperButch]

http://media-cache-ec3.pinimg.com/192x/17/4d/07/174d07e9d261aae70e9d9e74c73d638b.jpg


At the risk of sounding like I left my brain on the Vineyard, wtf is this supposed to mean?


It's one more item in a list of things I've been thinking about. Along with once having read in a history textbook that prior to Confucianism establishing influence in Japan and turning it towards patriarchy, Japan was a matriarchy; having once read that the reason--in legend, at least, I don't know if there's any evidence of it being the case in reality--that the Greeks played their great sports competitions in the nude was because once a woman had disguised herself as a man and won; having read in an anthropological study on differences between traditional tribal societies that permit female warriors and hunters and those that don't, that one severs the index fingers of its girls so that they will never be able to wield a bow.

What I'm starting to see is that patriarchy is in no way based on the idea that women are weak or unintelligent or otherwise unable. Not even remotely. It is only a symptom that appears after patriarchy has become established--after all, no society that thinks women are unable to be warriors would ever feel any need to sever their fingers to keep them from becoming warriors. Patriarchy originates from the knowledge that women absolutely are able, and the pants-shitting fear of that fact. I would not be surprised if that fear is exactly what Socrates is expressing in that statement.

It's a frightening thing to consider, though, as it means that patriarchy does not occur because of stupidity or ignorance, but very, very specifically because of evil. It is unpleasant enough to imagine that much ignorance in the world, and to be honest, I have enough trouble sleeping at night as it is.

I agree with what I highlighted in red above. I think what was being said is that if women are allowed true equality, they will quickly rise above men due to their inherent superiority. I admit it gave me a big smile.

[femmeInterrupted]

reSOAiDIM-w

Cuntry Living played word association with people on the streets of Oxford, using terms pertaining to feminism, and got some really interesting responses

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-ak2.pinimg.com/736x/31/ff/97/31ff97600160a8dbeb6e80277a0bf625.jpg

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak1.pinimg.com/736x/b1/90/8c/b1908c737f106359340c59efff9be8e7.jpg

[Allison W]

http://media-cache-ak1.pinimg.com/736x/b1/90/8c/b1908c737f106359340c59efff9be8e7.jpg

This. People keep telling me I'm a broken record and looking for something to be offended about and making mountains out of molehills all the time.

[femmeInterrupted]

This. People keep telling me I'm a broken record and looking for something to be offended about and making mountains out of molehills all the time.


Other often heard 'favourites'"

"It's not as big a problem as you're making it out to be."

"I don't like your tone/Don't be so strident/Why do you have to sound so bitchy?/Angry/Lighten up!"

Insisting that people only discuss indelicate issues in a tone which you find appropriate is a great way to silence people. That one annoy's the shit outta me because it insinuates a few social cues that are highly gendered. First, that as a woman I should be somehow accommodating of someone's 'sensitive nature' and secondly, that I should 'down grade' or 'soften up' my delivery. I'm sorry I can't talk about the rape and degradation of women and children in soft hushed whispers. If it sounds like it all really bothers me, it's because HEY! it REALLY BOTHERS ME!

"Stop blaming the patriarchy"

"Well, what about.... (insert other issue...global warming, the economy, etc etc)
This diversionary tactic seeks to become a game of upsmanship, but in actuality it's just a way of trying to change the topic or shut someone up when the topic itself is upsetting/uncomfortable.

That whole "you're just looking to be offended....." is both silencing/shaming and of course, resistant. It's used to subdue/stop/create tension.
Know your truth and live it :)
F*ck 'em.


Don't Be

http://media-cache-ak1.pinimg.com/736x/bd/90/5e/bd905eb3e26607c49448751d5ccac08f.jpg

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak2.pinimg.com/736x/aa/6a/95/aa6a95f593243251e03f7ec901e63f11.jpg

[femmeInterrupted]

http://media-cache-ec3.pinimg.com/736x/8b/b1/d7/8bb1d79a95bd550e6ee0b1de07eea49f.jpg

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ec3.pinimg.com/736x/a5/03/1d/a5031db1eafb153c4755c351771d4473.jpg

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak2.pinimg.com/736x/6a/c2/48/6ac24881f43b271df6e16552c531cd3e.jpg

[Kobi]

The questions Ontario's Kathleen Wynne has faced since becoming premier have been tough and sharp and often focus on misspending and various controversies, and what her role in those might be.

It is good to see that we still have time to ask the real tough questions, like: What are you wearing?

The Toronto Sun's Christina Blizzard dedicated 759 words to Wynne's makeover on Sunday, expounding on her geek-to-chic (my words) transformation, hinting that her legs were her best asset (her words) and not for a second suggesting the whole piece was some understated work of satire.

I've read the piece three times. It's not satire, its Cosmo for poliwonks.

Blizzard writes:

Now, as premier, keen-eyed observers have noted she’s shown up in short skirts, sleeveless tops and softer colours.

She showed up to one recent news conference in a shocking pink sleeveless dress with a puffy skirt.

It showed off perfectly her best features — her legs and her arms.

...

The new premier’s make-over is so apparent, in an interview with Sun Media last week, I asked Wynne if she’d consulted with an image-maker.

She seemed taken aback.

Others reacted similarly to the piece. The Globe and Mail's Steve Ladurantaye and CBC's Matt Galloway were among those perplexed by the article, specifically one passage about Wynne "slowly emerging from a pantsuit chrysalis."

"Is there a dangerous limit to how long one can remain in a pantsuit chrysalis, I wonder?" Ladurantaye wrote.

“Shallow? I think not,” Blizzard wrote in her article. “On royal tours, the most important e-mail for reporters is the one telling them what the Queen or the Duchess of Cambridge is wearing that day.”

Right or wrong, female politicians continue to be pulled into the world of fashion. Male politicians wear a suit and limit the gossip to the colour of their tie (Harper's in red today, what does it mean?) but women are either wearing dresses or not wearing dresses, baring leg or not. They are either freshly made over or in desperate need of one.

Even if they choose to go the route of the simple pantsuit, they risk being assessed as a utilitarian caterpillar waiting for their own rebirth.

In the U.S., Hillary Clinton faced constant comment and criticism on her appreciation of pantsuits.

“Would you ever ask a man that question?” she once shot back at an interviewer who was interested in her favourite designers.

And that is only the tip of the battle she has faced with the fashionrazzi.

Now, the issue hasn't entirely been contained to female leaders. Justin Trudeau was recently razed for wearing cargo shorts in a video to Liberal supporters. Stephen Harper was mocked in 2005 for the unfortunate cowboy hat and leather vest ensemble he wore to the Calgary Stampede.

Those were one-off wardrobe malfunctions, however. Not critiques on their entire closet.

The writer of the article in question opines frequently on matters related to Queen’s Park, so perhaps it comes from watching the progression of Wynne’s wardrobe over time. Perhaps the underlying suggestion is that Wynne is transforming her look for political gain. (It does happen: read this recent New York Times article on the use of handbags)

Perhaps Wynne’s wardrobe became fair game when she instituted a dress code for her Queen’s Park office staffers earlier this month.

Or maybe it’s fair game because everything is fair game. In which case the bar should be higher.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/ontairo-premier-kathleen-wynne-giddy-girly-makeover-gets-155517521.html

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON — Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, was sitting in her large, sunny office recently, riffling through the contents of her black leather purse.

After several moments, she laughed and produced a neon-pink earplug.

“Here’s an earplug from the helicopter,” she said, still searching through the bag she had bought from Ilze Heider Leather Design in Lanesboro, Minn. “That is not a normal thing that a woman might have in her purse. That is a military earplug from a Blackhawk.”


Ms. Klobuchar had just returned from a national security trip and was in the middle of what she jokingly said was a “post-recess-organize-the-purse-mode,” transferring the contents of a brown leather backpack that she had carried on her Middle East tour into her everyday carryall.

The Congress of yore might conjure images of spittoons and old male politicians with briefcases, but the 113th has ushered in a historic number of women — 20 in the Senate, and 81 in the House — and with them a historic number of handbags. In some ways, the female legislator’s purse or bag has become one of the most outwardly physical manifestations of the nation’s changing deliberative body.

“What a woman senator slings over her shoulder is the next tangible and Technicolor proof of how the esteemed body has changed and is changing,” said Tracy Sefl, a Democratic strategist. “Today’s purses and bags are as new and interesting of a visual as the red power suit once was. They pop on the C-Span cameras, they serve a purpose and — intentionally or not — they make a statement.”

Or, as Bethany Lesser, a press secretary to Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, pointed out, “The cloakroom is no longer just for coats.”

Margaret Thatcher, the first female prime minister of Britain, wielded her handbag like a cudgel, a potent mix of femininity and her famed iron will. To be “handbagged” by Ms. Thatcher even became a verb, well known to rivals, journalists and political bumblers alike who all found themselves ruthlessly dismissed by her when they displeased her. (In 2000, a black Salvatore Ferragamo bag of hers sold at a London charity auction for roughly $130,000.)

But until recently, at least, Ms. Thatcher’s ability to elevate her purse into an object of both fame and fear was the exception. For many female politicians, a purse was seen as more of a nuisance and even a possible sign of weakness; Geraldine A. Ferraro, the first female vice-presidential nominee for a major political party, garnered attention for the mere act of handing her pocketbook to an aide before she took the podium.

“Historically, bags were, quite literally, unwanted baggage in the halls of Congress and Parliament,” Robb Young, the author of “Power Dressing: First Ladies, Women Politicians and Fashion,” wrote by e-mail.

On the HBO series “Veep,” the general absence of a purse is even a punch line: Julia Louis-Dreyfus instead relies on an aide, who carries around his own giant bag (nicknamed the Leviathan), so he is always ready with eyedrops, lipstick or even a Fig Newton.

But Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been much scrutinized over the years for her pantsuits and her changing hairstyles, professed her love of a great handbag in a 2011 interview with Harper’s Bazaar.

“I have this Ferragamo hot-pink bag that I adore,” she told the magazine. “I mean, how can you be unhappy if you pick up a big pink bag?”

Many female politicians, though, would prefer to tout practicality over labels.

“Frankly, my purse selection is more about utilitarian than how it looks,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, explaining that her bags are always “big enough to carry one or two iPads, an Air book, a Hotspot, and a little bit of extra reading for irritating times I have to turn off my devices when we take off and land.”

“I think most of us, while we may look at the cute little purses, our lives don’t fit a cute little purse,” she said. “Our lives fit something that is in between a purse and a briefcase, and that’s what I carry.”

Their bag, female lawmakers said, might help add a splash of fun and fashion to what can be a tedious daily routine. But it must befit a member of Congress. Meaning: appropriately modest. Even the classic Birkin, for instance, would likely draw unwanted attention to its owner because of its five-figure price tag.

“There’s no magic formula, because looking glamorous or elegant for some political women in certain circumstances can be an advantage, while looking more demure, matronly or even dowdy can be an advantage for others,” said Mr. Young, the author. The one universal rule, he said, is “being able to anticipate what a broad base of her constituents find appropriate and authoritative while still looking distinctive.”

“What that looks like as a handbag,” he said, “is probably going to be a very different thing if you’re a grass-roots congresswoman from rural Missouri or if you’re representing city dwellers in New England.”

Still, some basic trends have emerged on Capitol Hill.

Clutches are frowned upon. “It has to go over my shoulder, so my hands are free,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, toting a very sensible-looking black purse while waiting for the subway recently.

Representative Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois, said she has upgraded her purse size three times so far, ending up with a green-and-blue checked Franco Sarto, in order to fit all of her Congressional needs into one bag: a pager, two phones (“my official and my personal”), a voting card, a spiral-bound briefing book, white notecards with a summary of coming bills and how she plans to vote, and makeup for unexpected television appearances. “I have to have concealer, I have to have the powder, I have to have the lipstick,” Ms. Duckworth said.

Ms. McCaskill owns both a bright orange and a bright green purse.“It’s a little daunting sometimes how discouraging you get about making real progress on problems you care about, so I’m always like maybe just subconsciously looking for a little dose of cheer,” she said.

Perhaps no model of purse, however, can signify status as much as having someone willing to carry it.

When Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, represented Texas in the Senate, she had her purse trotted through the Capitol by a rotating cadre of young male aides, to some raised eyebrows.

But now some version of the so-called “purse boy” is almost commonplace.

On the first day of this session, a young male aide to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat and House minority leader, juggled the coats of female members as he tried to snap a group photo. And on the night of President Obama’s State of the Union address, Representative Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, was trailed through Statuary Hall by a male staff member holding her bag.

After expertly picking her way through the crowd, Ms. Sinema turned to her aide and asked, “Do you have all of my stuff?”

He did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/fashion/purse-politics-tote-and-vote.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

----------


I think it is so cool for women in politics to be addressing fashion preferences.

We have been socialized to judge a persons competence and personality based on their manner of dress. So many women in power have had to adhere to a conservative style in order to be taken seriously and to not undermine people's impressions of them. Seems they may have had to do be careful of what they wore to also not "distract" their male colleagues.

It is a huge boost to women, to feminism, to impressionable young females, and to society at large for women in power to be able to embrace their own individual styles and preferences.

And, I am liking that it is getting a positive spin. Or, maybe it is just me seeing it as a positive spin.

Hillary and her hot pink Ferragamo bag? I love it!

[Kobi]

Andrea Nerone lost her home and later was denied welfare to support her family after her husband abandoned her and their four children late last year.

Unemployed and no longer able to pay the rent on their previous home, Nerone crowded with her kids into a modest house owned by her mother and collected welfare for a few months. But the payments were cut off when the government determined that the children's father was employed and thus able to support them.

The big problem: the family was no longer in contact with him and he wasn't giving them any money.

A decree recently issued by Argentina's female president could help keep other women like Nerone from falling into similar straits if their partners leave. After spending billions on welfare to families that keep kids vaccinated and in school, President Cristina Fernandez has made a key change: From now on, mothers will collect welfare payments instead of fathers.

The measure announced last month is a victory for the Argentine housewives union, underscoring the growing role of women in a patriarchal society while also trying to resolve the financial problems caused by profligate fathers. It is also the first major change in the country's per-child welfare payments, a cash transfer program similar to those that have brought millions out of poverty across Latin America.

Nerone welcomed the decision to put government aid into the hands of women.

"It's a desperate situation because the father of my kids sold even their bed," Nerone, 46, said in her current home in the Buenos Aires suburb of Villa Adelina. She shares one room with her children: Candela, 10, Malena, 9, Sebastian, 6, and Ailen, 17, who recently had a baby of her own. "The government assumes that if the father is working then you have an income," she said.

Fernandez said in a speech announcing the change that it is not designed to punish men, but rather to protect women.

"We have many complaints by women who are abandoned by their husbands but the guys keep on collecting" welfare payments, Fernandez said. "So we want the mother to always get the money, except in cases where courts give legal custody to the father. This is fair."

Unemployed Argentine families get 460 pesos ($85) per child and 1,500 pesos ($278) per disabled child through monthly payments. Adults receive 80 percent of the funds directly deposited into a bank account. The remaining 20 percent of the allowance is paid to families once annually after they prove they got their children vaccinated and kept them in school.

"It's well-known that transferring the resources to women results in a greater empowerment for them inside the household and a better use of resources, including food and clothing for their children," said Nora Lustig, professor of Latin American economics at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Lustig said Argentina would do well to follow the example of countries like Mexico, which delivers social aid for families to mothers rather than fathers through its Plan Progresa.

Argentina's state pensions agency estimates that the conditional cash transfer program Fernandez created by emergency decree in October 2009 has grown into a nearly $3.5 billion a year transfer of wealth to Argentina's poor. It benefits 3.3 million children.

The new decree giving the aid directly to women "is the guarantee that the money will go to the child and recognizes the work of stay-at-home moms," said Carmen Flores, secretary of the Argentine housewives union.

Giving women control over their household finances could prove critical to poor families in Argentina, where inflation is eating away at earnings. Officially, inflation remains under 10 percent, but few Argentines trust those statistics and instead accept the 25 percent estimate by private analysts.

The World Bank recognizes the key role of women in Latin America's economic development. In a report last year, it said that their participation in the labor market rose 15 percent from 2000-2010.

"The reduction of poverty in the region might be due to the fact that more low-income women joined the workforce than those of higher income," the Bank said in its report, "The Effect of Women's Economic Power in Latin America and the Caribbean."

The recent presidential decree will especially help Argentine women who are victims of domestic abuse because they will no longer be dependent on their husbands, said Flores, of the housewives union. She said it should also reduce the number of lawsuits filed against fathers for child support claims.

Under the new measure, Nerone's welfare payments are to resume in July.

Critics argue that the cash-transfer programs have been corrupted, and some Argentine opponents say that low-income women get pregnant to benefit from welfare.

Even a proponent such as Lustig said "they need to be complemented with other initiatives to create transformative processes and avoid creating cultures of dependency."

But such programs have helped pull millions of people from poverty in 18 Latin American nations. Brazil's Bolsa Familia program alone has helped about a quarter of that country's more than 190 million people.

"Conditional cash transfers are the most important social innovation of the last 15 years," Lustig said. "They have allowed millions to live a little better, they have redistributed income and helped combat poverty where the market fails."

[Kobi]

The Founding Fathers lorded it over the Founding Mothers in a million ways, but none annoyed Abigail Adams more than the legal degradation that 18th-century women faced the moment they got married.

A spinster or widow had essentially the same property rights as a man. But once women married, their property was "subject to the controul and disposal of our partners, to whom the Laws have given a soverign Authority," as Adams complained to her husband John in a June 1782 letter.

But Abigail didn't simply complain about the government's denial of married women's property rights. She also defied it. Around the time of the Battle of Yorktown, in 1781, she started setting aside a portion of her husband's property and declaring it her own.

"This money which I call mine," as Adams called it, came from some surprising sources.

During the American Revolutionary War, Abigail had persuaded her husband, who was serving as an American diplomat in Paris, to send her textiles and other merchandise to sell. On several occasions, John got cold feet, and with good reason. The British navy ruled the waves, and King George III was bent on choking off trade between his French and American enemies. Abigail conceded that some of the packages that John sent her would be captured, but she emphasized that "If one in 3 arrives I should be a gainer." High risks meant high rewards.

Abigail took great pains to keep her second major enterprise secret, and it is easy to see why.

To an even greater extent than later conflicts, the War for Independence had to be fought on credit. Overborrowing led to runaway inflation that explained why the paper dollars that George Washington distributed to his soldiers on payday were "not worth a Continental." So Congress paid the soldiers again at the end of the war -- but not with real money. Instead they got "final settlement certificates," which were government securities that weren't too different from modern savings bonds. Congress promised the soldiers that some day their certificates could be exchanged for real money.

The soldiers' problem was that they couldn't wait to eat or clothe their families "some day." They needed real money right away. Many had to sell their bonds to speculators at a fraction of their face value. One veteran, Joseph Plumb Martin, had served in the Continental Army throughout the war. But he received only enough money for his final settlement certificates to finance a new suit of clothes and his trip home to Connecticut. His experience wasn't unusual. It was a terrible betrayal of the men whose sacrifices had set the country free.

For Abigail Adams, it was also an opportunity. During the deep recession that followed the war, few Americans had what Abigail's import business had given her: "Cash to spare." She bought bonds yielding 6 percent interest for as little as one-fourth of their face value, which meant her annual rate of return was 24 percent. Eventually she was able to redeem them at 90 percent of their face value.

Adams steadily increased the size of her "pocket money," as she sometimes called her private stash, and by Nov. 11, 1815, when she turned 71, it had grown to more than $5,000 -- about $100,000 in modern currency.

On the morning of Jan.18, 1816, having contracted a severe illness, Abigail became convinced that she was dying and sat down to write her will. Today that would be considered the responsible thing to do. But during the founding era -- and right up until the middle of the 19th century -- married women like Adams weren't allowed to make wills.

Adams wrote one anyway. All but two of her children had died by this time, but four had lived long enough to have children of their own. None of Abigail's children had married money, and by 1816 her grandsons were mostly poor. Most of her nephews had likewise fallen on hard times.

She gave these impoverished nephews and grandsons . . . nothing. She bequeathed all of her property to her granddaughters, her nieces, her daughters-in-law and her female servants.

Adams never said why she had decided to give all of her money to women. But here's one clue: Many of her heirs were, like her, married. Under the legal proscriptions placed on married women, they were no more entitled to receive this money than she was to give it.

Perhaps that was just her point. Having spent the previous 30 years asserting ownership of property in defiance of the law, she now wanted to give these other women the opportunity to make the same bold claim.

Adams began her will by affirming that she was distributing this property "by and with the consent" of her husband. Actually, though, John Adams's signature doesn't appear anywhere on the document. Abigail died on Oct. 28, 1818. When John found "Abigail Adams's Distribution of Her Property" (as she called it) among his deceased wife's papers, he would have been well within his rights in simply casting it into the fire.

Instead, Adams complied with his wife's will to the letter. In doing so, he turned a worthless sheet of paper into a legally binding document. Married women were allowed to give, receive, buy and sell property with their husbands' consent. By complying with Abigail's property distribution, John made it, in the eyes of the law, his own.

During their 50-year marriage, the Adamses had worked together on a variety of important projects. But this collaboration -- in which the wife, not the husband, took the leading role -- may have been the most extraordinary one of all.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-16/abigail-adams-s-secret-business-ventures-echoes.html

---------------------------------------


This woman just freakin fascinates me. Amazing couple.

[Kobi]

http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/lifestyles/2013-07-18/55c15099-4b08-41e0-8ae1-3c32e833f163_receipt.jpg

Jackie Johnson-Smith, 33, a stay-at-home mother from Ankeny, Iowa was celebrating her 33rd birthday on Sunday at Fong’s Pizza in Des Moines with her husband and their three kids, ages 4, 3, and 12 months, when her youngest started fussing. “I usually don’t go downtown for dinner because lots of places aren’t family-friendly but I had heard good things about Fong’s,” Johnson-Smith told Yahoo! Shine. “It was chaotic—I had one kid licking the honey container on the table, another standing on his chair, and my baby was fussing.”

So Johnson-Smith threw on a nursing cover and began discreetly breastfeeding her 12-month-old. “I usually don’t like to breastfeed in public because people can be judgmental,” she says. “The waitress kept walking by, and I was worried she didn’t want me nursing in the restaurant.” Eventually, worried that her baby would continue crying, Johnson-Smith left the restaurant and finished nursing in the car.

Shortly after, Johnson-Smith’s husband walked out with a huge smile on his face. “He handed me the dinner receipt and at first I was confused—why is he showing me how much my birthday dinner cost?” said Johnson-Smith. To her surprise, there was a handwritten note on the paper: ‘I bought one of your pizzas. Please thank your wife for breastfeeding!’

“I was in total shock and started tearing up,” said Johnson-Smith. “After dealing with people’s reactions for so long, it was like the universe was giving me a pat on the back. I was too stunned to go back inside and thank the waitress.”

When Johnson-Smith got home, she posted a photo of the receipt to her Facebook page with the message: “I have breastfed three children... I have breastfed them in a countless number of places both pleasant and unpleasant, discreetly and out in the open. I have gotten many looks and stares, but tonight erases any negativity I have ever received. I ate at Fongs for the first time tonight. Having a fussy baby I nursed him for awhile in the booth and eventually left the table early as to not disrupt the restaurant. The waitress gave this receipt to my husband. I was speechless and emotional. Although I don't need a pat on the back for feeding my child, it sure felt amazing. It is amazing how we women can make each other feel when we empower each other."

As of Thursday morning, the photo has been shared over 2,000 times and received more than 100 likes on Facebook.

Waitress Bodi Kinney, 33, told Yahoo Shine, “I noticed Johnson-Smith nursing and was so thrilled she did it. I tried not to stare because I didn’t want to seem creepy or make her feel uncomfortable, but I felt like doing jumping jacks.”

Kinney, a mother herself, is familiar with the burden of breastfeeding in public. “Although I nurse my baby no matter where I am—at the supermarket, in clothing stores—people often react negatively. Recently, I had to leave my daughter’s school play to nurse my 8-month-old for fear of offending someone. I wanted to let this woman know in some shape or form, that she was doing the right thing.”

That meant to the world to Johnson-Smith. “She has no idea what that note meant to me,” she said. “I just want her to get the recognition she deserves.”

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/breastfeeding-note-from-pizza-waitress-pays-it-forward-164047499.html

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/2f/74/d32f745a6aed7062b10f46b53a53f033.jpg

[Cin]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/2f/74/d32f745a6aed7062b10f46b53a53f033.jpg

Nah, it was just nonconsensual sex.

[Cin]

http://www.alternet.org/judge-calls-13-year-old-girl-who-was-sexually-assaulted-41-year-old-predatory

Judge Calls 13-Year-Old Girl Who Was Sexually Assaulted by a 41-Year-Old "Predatory"

This week in the UK, Judge Nigel Peters gave a suspended sentence to 41 year-old Neil Wilson after he pleaded guilty to “making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity” with a 13 year-old girl. The judge explained his leniency as stemming from the fact that “the girl was predatory and was egging you on.” During the trial, the prosecution had declared the girl was “sexually experienced” and that “She appeared to look around 14 or 15 and had the mental age of a 14 or 15 year old despite being younger than that. There was sexual activity but it was not of Mr. Wilson’s doing, you might say it was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her.”

[Kobi]

This weekend we celebrate the anniversary of the 19th Amendment (ratified on August 18, 1920). Here’s what you need to know:

WHAT IT DOES

The 19th Amendment guarantees women the right to vote.

WHY IT WAS ADDED

Although women were active participants in America’s fight for independence, in the abolition and temperance movements, and in many aspects of political life throughout history, they they did not achieve a guaranteed right to vote until almost 150 years after the nation’s founding. By 1920, “We the People” included women at last.

The deciding vote to ratify the 19th Amendment was cast by a young Tennessee assembly member named Harry Burn, whose mother encouraged him to “be a good boy” and vote for suffrage.

----------------------------


It still astounds me to think how recent 93 years is in the scheme of things.

It also astounds me to think of the lives of women, known and unknown, who paved the path to the vote. These were women who first had to get the patriarchy to see them as people rather than the property of their fathers and then husbands. These were women who were unable to own or inherit property, who were not entitled to keep their wages if they worked outside of the home, who had no right to their children in a divorce, who had no right to alimony or child support, who had no right to advanced education, who could not enter into legal contracts i.e. make a will without their husbands approval, who had no legal protections against rape (including marital rape), domestic violence, and reproduction.

It also astounds me that, in spite of their own hardships, these women continued to fight for the rights of other oppressed people, believing the more inclusive the struggle, the greater the opportunity for equal rights for all.

These are the women who demanded that the amendment giving the right to vote to recently freed slave males also include women. These are the women who were betrayed by the very men they fought to free, being told..."they had the vote through their husbands" and "they would have to wait their turn". Their turn came 50 years later.

These are the women who envisioned a different kind of life for women in this country and in the world. These women fought and sacrificed for the life we have come to know and sometimes take for granted.

These are the women who didn't live to see the fruits of their labor come true.

These are my heroes.

[LeftWriteFemme]

Can a spoon end forced marriage?
A simple trick is calling attention to a massive problem for UK girls and women


http://s2.thejournal.ie/media/2013/08/spoon-3-390x285.jpg

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/can_a_spoon_end_forced_marriage/?upw

[Cin]

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/314801/slide_314801_2852310_free.jpg?1377724389437

Cliteracy 101: Artist Sophia Wallace Wants You To Know The Truth About The Clitoris


New York artist Sophia Wallace wants you -- and everyone you know -- to be cliterate.

"It's appalling and shocking to think that scientifically, the clitoris was only discovered in 1998," Wallace told The Huffington Post from her Brooklyn studio last week. "But really, it may as well have never been discovered at all because there's still such ignorance when it comes to the female body."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html

[Hollylane]

I found this part of the article completely and utterly AWESOME!!!!

"One of the most fascinating of Wallace's "100 Laws" references the story of a French doctor named Pierre Foldes who, thanks to recent research into the anatomy of the clitoris, came up with a method of repairing the damage caused by female genital mutilation. By removing scar tissue from the vulva and lowering -- and revealing -- a portion of the internal clitoris, he has been able to restore pleasure to thousands of women who have been circumcised."

[Cin]

Why I Won’t Call Myself a 'Slut'

I am black, I am a woman and I am a feminist. In private, I often refer to this trifecta as the holy trinity. My biological, social and chosen identities shape how I move, how I am perceived and how much space I am allowed to take up in a white-male-dominated world. In trying to put my feminism into practice, I do not always stand behind every so-called feminist issue that is mandated by mainstream white feminists. For example, feminists have made a big push to critique what is termed “slut-shaming” and to reclaim the word “slut.” They have organized nationwide marches and written hundreds of blog posts in an effort to take back the term and subvert it.

“Slut-shaming,” the act of negatively judging and policing women who take full control of their sexual agency, is an act deeply rooted in sexism and misogyny, all things feminists should be against. It seeks to demean women who carry their own condoms, who initiate conversations about sex, or who negotiate their sexual wants and desires openly. The mere act of seeing oneself as a sexual being and being proud of it makes you a target for being “slut-shamed.” All the things that society commends men for doing and measures their masculinity against, society also condemns in women.

I am all for marginalized groups reclaiming words that were once used to shame and dehumanize them. I stand firmly behind the reclaiming of the term “queer,” especially as a verb. Queering languages, queering spaces, and queering understanding is something that I am politically committed to doing in my life, but as a black woman I have no desire to reclaim the term “slut.” My act of resistance in not wanting to reclaim the word “slut” does not mean that I advocate for “slut-shaming.” I do not agree with the sexual policing of women no matter their race, class, gender presentation, body size or ability. But one of the major flaws of mainstream feminism is the propensity to generalize about the lives of women, treating women as though they all face the same threats, and therefore can only be liberated through a one-size-fits-all model.

Racism is ubiquitous and I am keenly aware of how race and class impact different women differently. If we are going to advocate against “slut-shaming,” and for owning the word “slut,” we cannot do so without paying attention to the facts. We must ask, who are the women being defended against “slut-shaming,” and who are the women being left to defend themselves? Only white women have the privilege of reclaiming the word “slut” without facing any real social penalty. Miley Cyrus, for instance, is being hailed as a woman who is in control and liberated, unlike her black counterpart Rihanna. Rihanna does not get worshiped for owning her sexuality or her agency. Rihanna gets pity, scathing criticism, and popular feminist magazines wanting to “save” her from exercising choices they do not agree with. Many mainstream feminists feel entitled to police Rihanna’s black female body; evenLena Dunham could not resist. However, if you look closely you can see that Miley has been feverishly studying and has been influenced by the Rihanna’s bad girl playbook.

White women may also be allowed to transcend their “sluttiness” when they feel the need to do so. Both Angelina Jolie and Madonna have been able to shed their past bad girl images seamlessly. Whiteness affords white women the ability to try on different identities while their racial privilege remains intact. Because in a society that values whiteness over all else, to be white is to be human and all non-white persons must audition for their humanity.

The bodies of black women are highly politicized and critiqued no matter who they belong to, from the first lady to “the help.” The physical movements and choices of black women are always viewed through a filter of suspicion. In order for me to claim my right to be a “slut,” I first must win the battle to be able to fully claim my humanity.

Black women have always been labeled as hypersexual beings unworthy of respect, love and justice. “Slut” is the default position of black women, so attempting to subvert the word or own it would only further root the false stereotype in place. “Slut-shaming” black women has not just been common practice — it’s been entrenched in public policy. Members of the Tea Party are still looking for the nefarious “welfare queen” that President Reagan created 30-plus years ago. Compulsory state sterilizations of black women, unequal incarceration rates and even the way we decide who receives welfare benefits are all rooted in “slut-shaming.”

The majority of white feminists who advocate for reclaiming the word “slut” also fail to defend all women against “slut-shaming.” When Rush Limbaugh “slut-shamed” Sandra Fluke swaths of white feminists came to her defense, and rightfully so. But I question whether the feminist infantry would have been so zealous if Sandra Fluke looked like Rachel Jeantel. Trans* women of color are frequently stopped and frisked and arrested for having a condom on their person. They are wrongly imprisoned for standing their ground and placed in prison with men, and murdered for daring to be seen in public. These injustices happen constantly, without any marches or much fanfare from the mainstream feminist establishment.

The social and political ramifications of policing black women cannot be solved by simply taking back the word “slut.” If there are no real policies put in place to protect and defend women of color and trans* women from compulsory “slut-shaming,” then once again I must ask: Who are mainstream feminists truly invested in protecting from “slut-shaming”? Policymakers and media must stop pathologizing the behaviors and relationships of black and trans* women of color. Trans* women must be given full rights and recognition on par with cisgendered women. White feminists who have large platforms and access to large platforms must make a real effort to include women of color and trans* women, and allow them to speak for themselves. As a black woman, I won’t be concerned with reclaiming my inner “slut” until white women show more interest in being in solidarity with me.

http://www.alternet.org/gender/why-i-wont-call-myself-slut?page=0%2C1&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

[Allison W]

This may not have quite the... well... cachet(?) of some of the articles in this thread, and I won't pretend I don't find the construction worker to be attractive, but oh well. If men can do it women should be allowed to do it, too. The whole thing about women's chests being legally regarded in so many jurisdictions as inherently sexual in ways that men's chests aren't is a crock.

Uncovered
Posted by Vera on 19 Oct 2013

Many people don’t know this, but it is completely legal for women to go topless in New York! Great news for advocates of equal rights and women who just want to know what that kind of liberation feels like!

Photographer Jordan Matter has based his project and book titled “Uncovered“ to document women’s exploration of the New York law. Inspired by the ‘Nipplegate’ scandal of 2009 involving Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, “Uncovered” is a collection of over 100 women who have posed topless on New York City streets.

“There was so much hoopla around it and I got to thinking about our culture of covering up. In New York, it’s legal for a woman to be topless in public — so I decided to document what happens when a woman bares her breasts.”

At first, Jordan felt the project would be making an important political statement, however it became more about the individual women he was photographing as time went on. Jordan’s subjects, all volunteers of different ages, body types and socio-economic backgrounds, were asked to confront their feelings about their bodies in order to pose in public. Shame and inadequacy were common themes among the women, but eventually Jordan describes that the women felt “euphoric” being photographed.

“The photo subjects found the option of not covering up to be incredibly liberating.”

Article link (all of these include pictures, by the way; the article links are "safer" content-wise than the book site, but I would still recommend the book site): http://www.beautyexists.net/art/uncovered-women-celebrate-their-right-to-not-wear-shirts-in-nyc/

Another article link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2466891/Women-celebrate-going-topless-posing-photographer-New-York-streets.html

Book site link: http://www.uncoveredbook.com/index.php

[Soon]

The 24 Pieces That Should Be Required Reading For Women From 2013 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/23/required-reading-2013-women_n_4473740.html?ir=Women)

[Allison W]

(my apologies if someone else already posted this in another thread)

http://static03.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/01/bechdel_724196827221.png

In 2013, Failing the Bechdel Test Was Bad for Your Movie’s Bottom Line

by Susana Polo | 11:21 am, January 2nd, 2014

Ahh, it’s good to see The Bechdel Test used where it is most applicable: as a lens through which to expose a misrepresentational trend in modern film overall rather than specifically. Vocativ took nearly fifty of this year’s top grossing blockbusters, sorted them by whether they failed or passed the test. Turns out movies that passed were significantly more financially successful than not.

This is merely correlation between having movies make sure that their female characters, even the secondary ones, are shown to have thoughts and feelings that revolve around something other than male characters. What’s much more likely to be the causation, though, is that effective writing means you get good female characters, and effective writing produces successful movies.

http://www.themarysue.com/2013-bechdel-test-infographic/

[Kätzchen]

RE: The Bechdel Test


In a graduate level class on Film Studies, we had a spirited discussion among grads and undergrads about the so-called percieved litmus test of applying The Bechdel Test. Our professor interjected with the idea the test itself is a limited means of detecting gender bias. Moreso, the creator of "Dykes To Watch Out For" - Alison Bechdel - said herself that she created The Bechdel Test as "a tigger to a punchline in her comic strip" and that she has "always felt ambivalent that the test is associated with her name" (See Link provided at the end of this post).

I think I am more likely to appreciate film critic Robbie Collins (author of the article in The Telegraph) take on The Bechdel Test: "I suspect that many critics and bloggers are happy to overlook the test’s flaws because the conclusion it seems to lead us to is one that they want to hear: cinema is perilously lacking in well-drawn female characters. Well, if that’s true – and it obviously is – can’t we just forget about the test and talk about that?"
Link to article found ~~>>> Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10450463/Bechdel-test-is-damaging-to-the-way-we-think-about-film.html).

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama shone a light Wednesday on a college sexual assault epidemic that is often shrouded in secrecy, with victims fearing stigma, police poorly trained to investigate and universities reluctant to disclose the violence.

A White House report highlights a stunning prevalence of rape on college campuses, with 1 in 5 female students assaulted while only 1 in 8 student victims report it.

‘‘No one is more at risk of being raped or sexually assaulted than women at our nation’s colleges and universities,’’ said the report by the White House Council on Women and Girls.

Nearly 22 million American women and 1.6 million men have been raped in their lifetimes, according to the report. It chronicled the devastating effects, including depression, substance abuse and a wide range of physical ailments such as chronic pain and diabetes.

The report said campus sexual assaults are fueled by drinking and drug use that can incapacitate victims, often at student parties at the hands of someone they know.

Perpetrators often are serial offenders. One study cited by the report found that 7 percent of college men admitted to attempting rape, and 63 percent of those men admitted to multiple offenses, averaging six rapes each.

Obama, who has overseen a military that has grappled with its own crisis of sexual assaults, spoke out against the crime as ‘‘an affront on our basic decency and humanity.’’ He then signed a memorandum creating a task force to respond to campus rapes.

Obama said he was speaking out as president and a father of two daughters, and that men must express outrage to stop the crime.

‘‘We need to encourage young people, men and women, to realize that sexual assault is simply unacceptable,’’ Obama said. ‘‘And they’re going to have to summon the bravery to stand up and say so, especially when the social pressure to keep quiet or to go along can be very intense.’’

Obama gave the task force, comprised of administration officials, 90 days to come up with recommendations for colleges to prevent and respond to the crime, increase public awareness of each school’s track record and enhance coordination among federal agencies to hold schools accountable if they don’t confront the problem.

Records obtained by The Associated Press under the federal Freedom of Information Act illustrate a continuing problem for colleges in investigating crime. The documents include anonymous complaints sent to the Education Department, often alleging universities haven’t accurately reported on-campus crime or appropriately punished assailants as required under federal law.

A former Amherst College student, Angie Epifano, has accused the school of trivializing her report of being raped in a dorm room in 2011 by an acquaintance. She said school counselors questioned whether she was really raped, refused her request to change dorms, discouraged her from pressing charges and had police take her to a psychiatric ward. She withdrew from Amherst while her alleged attacker graduated.

Among the federal laws requiring colleges to address sexual assault are: Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination in education; the renewed Violence Against Women Act, which was signed into law last year with new provisions on college sexual assault; and the Clery Act, which requires colleges and universities to publicly report their crime statistics every year.

The Education Department has investigated and fined several schools for not accurately reporting crimes. Most notably was a 2006 case at Eastern Michigan University, in which the government eventually fined the school a then-record $357,000 for not revealing a student had been sexual assaulted and murdered in her dorm room.

Violent crime can be underreported on college campuses, advocates say, because of a university’s public-image incentive to keep figures low, or because crimes can occur off campus and instead investigated by local police. Other times, schools put such suspects before a campus court whose proceedings are largely secret and not subjected to judicial review.

Students Active for Ending Rape, a nonprofit group that works with student activists to push for sexual assault policy changes on their campuses, said in a report last year that schools often do not fully address the problem. The report gave more than 80 percent of college policies a grade C or below, an F to nearly one-quarter and said one-third don’t fully comply with the Clery Act.

The White House report also declares that the criminal justice response to sexual assault broadly is too often inadequate and lays out a goal of increasing arrest, prosecution and conviction rates without any specific targets.

The report blames police bias and a lack of training to investigate and prosecute sex crimes for low arrest rates and says the federal government should promote training and help police increase testing of DNA evidence collected from victims.

The report mentions sexual assaults in the military — Obama last month directed the Pentagon to better prevent and respond to the crime within its ranks or face further reforms. White House officials say they want to set the example by turning around the sexual assault problem in the military. ‘‘I've made it clear I expect significant progress in the year ahead,’’ Obama said.


http://www.boston.com/news/education/2014/01/22/obama-targets-college-sexual-assault-epidemic/XU2ugbbBm3iAPCZcmL3vMO/story.html

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/736x/47/7a/15/477a15a5d0a4badd8e262bc5ecca0f6b.jpg

Janet Louise Yellen (born August 13, 1946) is an American economist. She is the Chairman-designate of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and current Vice-Chairman.

Previously, she was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, and Professor Emerita at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business. On January 6, 2014, the United States Senate confirmed Yellen's nomination to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Yellen is slated to be the first woman to hold the position, taking office February 1, 2014.

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

^ Kicked and Recommended

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

"Kicked and Recommended"

That means the person kicking and recommending wants the op to stay front and center due to what they believe is important and germane. Hence, I want to keep the thread alive. :)

[Kobi]

By the end of this week, half of the nation’s state legislatures will be back to work for the year, but don’t expect to see a lot of women on the floor of state legislatures.

There are exactly 5,600 male lawmakers, compared to 1,783 female lawmakers, according to a new count from the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. That means that just under one in four state legislators is a woman. And there hasn’t been much progress in gender parity over the past year — the ratio today is the exact same as it was five years ago. Arkansas saw the most growth since 2009, with women now accounting for 23.7 percent of state lawmakers, up from 17 percent. Alaska saw the biggest decline. There, women now make up 20 percent of the legislature, down from 28.3 percent in 2009.

Just four states can claim to have more than one in three female lawmakers: Vermont (41 percent), Colorado (41 percent), Arizona (36 percent) and Minnesota (34 percent). In the four states with the lowest share of female legislators, women make up less than 15 percent of the legislature. Their share is smallest — about 12 percent in Louisiana. Next is South Carolina, followed by Oklahoma and then Alabama.

Women make up nearly one in every three state Democrats, compared to about one in six Republicans. Among female state lawmakers, 1,134 are Democrats while 634 are Republicans.

There are also few women in leadership. In only nine states does a woman serve as the Senate president or president pro tem, according to NCSL. Six states have a female House speaker. Overall, there are just 62 women in major positions in the states.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2014/01/womenleg1.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/14/a-fourth-of-state-lawmakers-are-women-a-stat-that-hasnt-changed-in-five-years/

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6c/7a/59/6c7a5911cc79c348d66ef8c8d577eb1d.jpg

[Kobi]

Do not bother to call. She’s planning to celebrate in Botswana. “I thought: ‘What do I really want to do on my birthday?’ First, get out of Dodge. Second, ride elephants.”

Gloria (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/collins-this-is-what-80-looks-like.html?_r=1)

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7c/97/9b/7c979b33e9203f3e58860c1aac6bb05f.jpg


Wed. May 14th
5:00 PM Pacific / 8:00 PM Eastern
Participate LIVE and have full access to download the
webinar at any time.

Something big is happening for us as women. We’re on the brink of an evolutionary shift with the potential to alter the course of history. Millions of us around the world are feeling a calling to reclaim the feminine, and in so doing, to awaken our authentic power to co-create the future of our lives and shape the future of our world.

You may be experiencing it as an impulse to evolve yourself, to realize the potential of your creative gifts and talents and to make your greatest contribution. You may yearn for deeper experiences of love, intimacy and connection and feel a longing to come more fully alive. You may even intuitively sense that you have a unique purpose and a critical role to play in shaping the future of our world. And you may well be right.

Never before have we, as women, been holding so much power to shape the future.

For the first time in history, women outnumber men as graduates from American colleges. Over 40% of women in the US are also the primary breadwinners in their households, and as of January this year women outnumber men in the work force. In October 2012, CNN declared that women would become the “saviors of the global economy” and the Dalai Lama prophesized that “the world will be saved by the Western woman.”

Paradoxically, studies show that we’ve never been more unhappy.

Yet, despite the amazing success and privilege we’ve gained over the past 50 years, numerous studies continue to reveal a startling truth: that women’s overall sense of happiness and well-being has actually been on a significant and steady decline since the early 1970s.

For all the amazing benefits that feminism has brought us, its fruits have not necessarily included personal or spiritual fulfillment. If you’re feeling subtle, yet persistent anxiety or depression in spite of the possibilities for greatness you can sense, you’re not alone.

In fact, the majority of women today experience a profound and painful gap between the highest potentials we intuit for our lives and the way that our lives actually show up on a day to day basis.

We sense the possibility for so much more….

While we’ve gained the freedom to do, be and have anything we want, we haven’t necessarily cultivated the power to cause our lives to flourish and thrive.

Rather than having arrived in the land of milk and honey, as we’d hoped we would, we now find ourselves wrestling with a new kind of discontent—a new “problem that has no name.”

We’ve been cultivating a masculine version of power.

By wholeheartedly embracing a masculine version of power (that was so necessary to level the playing field 50 years ago), we’ve dramatically elevated our standard of living, while at the same time, severely diminishing our quality of life.

We now have more freedom, money, education and opportunity than any other generation of women in history. Yet we often feel powerless to create those things we most value and care about: love, intimacy, connection, belonging, creativity, self-expression, aliveness, meaning, purpose, contribution and a brighter future for generations to come.

We think our struggle to create these things we long for is a personal failure—but it’s actually a collective problem, symptomatic of our larger evolutionary journey as women. The restlessness we’re feeling is actually a critical calling, an impulse to evolve.

Awakening a new, co-creative feminine power holds the key to our personal and planetary potential.

The good news is that there is a vibrant, life-enriching alternative to masculine power that is fully within reach for every awakening woman. We call it “feminine power”–and it has the power to transform your life from the inside out.

Unlike masculine power, which is the power to create things that can be controlled, feminine power is the power to manifest that which is beyond our control, including those things that our heart most yearns for–intimacy, relatedness, creative expression, authentic community and meaningful contribution.

Through our pioneering research and intensive work with thousands of women from around the world, we’ve identified the specific principles, processes and practices by which women can awaken this new, co-creative feminine power in their lives.

We’ve discovered that there are three very distinct sources of feminine co-creativity that give access to three different kinds of power: the power to change your life, the power to realize your destiny and the power to transform the world. We call them “the three power bases of the co-creative feminine.”



The Keys to Awakening Power Base #1:
THE POWER TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE

Why most popular approaches to transforming core beliefs don’t work for women, and the brand new, leading edge process that really does
Liberate yourself and others from the tyranny of old disempowering patterns, graduating forever from the dynamics of the past
How to have a generative, empowered relationship with your feelings and emotions, and why you absolutely must know how to do this in order to realize your greater potentials

The Keys to Awakening Power Base #2:
THE POWER TO REALIZE YOUR DESTINY

Experience the joy of being radically alive and dynamically engaged in the co-creative process of life
Master the ability to discern your inner guidance such that you begin navigating life from an assured sense that you are on your “destiny path”
Learn how to access the unlimited support and resources of All of Creation to cause the full flourishing of life everywhere you go

The Keys to Awakening Power Base #3:
THE POWER TO TRANSFORM THE WORLD

Learn why we cannot be become ourselves by ourselves, and how to create evolutionary partnerships that will unleash the full realization of your unique gifts and contributions
How to harness the power of the collective field to cause unprecedented transformations in our lives and in our world
How to become a powerful agent of change and consciously join with others to co-create the future of our world

We can’t wait to be with you for this Global Online Webinar &
Gathering on Wednesday, May 14th!

http://femininepower.com/online-course/free-online-class/fbpost/

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/67/dc/25/67dc25e952af9b49948f0ce9c739e24f.jpg

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — In the male-dominated world of horse racing, Anna Rose Napravnik (nah-PRAHV'-nik) figured she'd have better luck if nobody noticed a woman's name in the track program.

She started out her career disguising her gender, riding under the initials A.R. Napravnik.

Nine years later, Rosie Napravnik is one of the rising stars in the sport, having long ago discarded her ruse. Now the 26-year-old from New Jersey will try to make even bigger history and become the first woman to ride a Kentucky Derby winner.

She's achieved firsts before. She was the first woman to win the Louisiana Derby, and did it twice. She also was the highest-placing female rider in the Kentucky Derby.

http://news.yahoo.com/rosie-napravnik-chasing-history-kentucky-derby-202651757--spt.html

[Kobi]

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/gQylHXC8REhePKRh5HSIMA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTY0MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9Nz U7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/19bf1a2e303e0211530f6a7067001752.jpg

POKHARA, Nepal (AP) — When Lucky, Dicky and Nicky Chettri tried to break into Nepal's male-dominated trekking industry 20 years ago, competitors tried to run them out of business. They say men threatened them, harassed them — even filed bogus police reports against them.

"The men said this is a business for the men and we should leave it alone," said Lucky, the eldest Chettri sister in the 3 Sisters Adventure Trekking Company. "They would even accuse us of trying to take away food from their table."

Now the sisters have a booming business and a waiting list of Nepalese women who want to join their six-month training program for mountain guides.

The rise of the Chettri sisters' business in many ways reflects the increasing clout of women in Nepal, which remains in most ways a deeply patriarchal country.

Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay first climbed Mount Everest in 1953, but it was another 40 years before the first Nepali woman reached the peak. Since then, women have made progress in politics, education and business.

About 5 percent of Nepali politicians were female in 1990, but women won a third of the seats in the 2008 parliamentary election. Some discriminatory laws have been changed, including one that allowed only sons to inherit parental property.

Shailee Basnet, who led a 10-member Nepali women's team to Everest in 2008, said the number of women in trekking and mountaineering has risen as well, and she gave credit to the Chettri sisters.

"They have started a trend for women to take up this profession. Women guiding foreign trekkers in the region has become a normal thing now," she said.

The Chettris came up with the idea of opening a woman-run trekking agency when they heard from foreign female travelers who were harassed, even sexually assaulted and threatened by their own male guides while trekking remote mountain trails.

"These girls were really afraid and felt insecure," said Lucky, 48, at their office next to the picturesque Phewa lake.

The sisters once led trips themselves, but had trouble finding more women who knew trekking, spoke English and were willing to spend days walking with the foreigners away from home. Their solution was to bring the women to Pokhara and train them for months.

"At the beginning it was very unusual for the women to join our program because they had to leave their homes for many days, working with Westerners," said Nicky, the youngest of the sisters. "Some thought it was against our culture because women are expected to be at home doing household work."

But soon the word spread. "These women began to like the idea that they don't need to depend on their husbands for money," Nicky said.

Gam Maya Tilicha, 25, once planned to become a teacher but is now a full-time guide at the agency.

"I never imagined that I would be a trekking guide. But the income is very good and I like what I am doing — meeting people from all over the world and traveling to new places in Nepal," she said.

The sisters take in 40 students every six months, giving them free housing, food and clothing. The money earned from the trekking agency supports the training.

Once they graduate, they make about $3,000 a year from guiding tourists, a better-than-average salary in this poor Himalayan nation. Monika Rai, a 19-year-old student, hopes it leads to something better.

"I am here to learn the skills of trekking and English language so that I can become a guide and make more money than in any other jobs," she said.

The Chettris have 150 women guides who lead close to 1,000 foreign trekkers a year. They cater to those who travel the lower mountain trails, not the mountaineers who go beyond Everest's base camp and up to the world's tallest peak.

Mountaineering and trekking is a big business in Nepal, where half the foreign visitors come to explore the mountains. According to the Nepal Mountaineering Association, some 340,000 foreign tourists ventured on treks last year.

Many of the visitors are single women who prefer to have female companion, including Sophie Whitwell, a 25-year-old marketing executive from London who signed up with 3 Sisters.

"I would definitely want a female guide. I am sure it would be fine if you went with a male guide but you just don't know, and you are walking with them potentially alone for several hours a day," she said. "If you are in a scenario where you need a rescue ... a female guide is just as capable of walking to the next town to get help or make a phone call."

http://news.yahoo.com/women-reach-top-nepals-trekking-industry-105449701.html

[Kobi]

The most common criticism of radical feminist theory is that we are gender essentialist because we believe that women’s oppression, as a class, is because of the biological realities of our bodies.

Radical feminists define sex as the physical body, whilst gender is a social construct. It is not a function of our biology. It is the consequence of being labelled male/female at birth and assigned to the oppressor/sex class. The minute genetic differences are not reflected in the reality of women’s lived experiences.

Gender is the coercive process of socialization built upon a material reality that constructs women as a subordinate class to men. As such, radical feminists do not want to queer gender or create a spectrum of gendered identities; we want to end the hierarchical power structure that privileges men as a class at the expense of women’s health and safety.

This assumption is based on a misunderstanding of radical feminist theory, that starts from the definition of “radical” itself, which refers to the root or the origin: that is to say, the oppression of women by men (The Patriarchy). It is radical insofar as it contextualizes the root of women’s oppression in the biological realities of our bodies (sex) and seeks the liberation of women through the eradication of social structures, cultural practices and laws that are predicated on women’s inferiority to men (gender).

Radical feminism challenges all relationships of power that exist within the Patriarchy including capitalism, imperialism, racism, classism, homophobia and even the fashion-beauty complex because they are harmful to everyone: female, male, intersex and trans*. As with all social justice movements, radical feminism is far from perfect. No movement can exist within a White Supremacist culture without (re)creating racist, homophobic, disablist, colonialist and classist power structures. What makes radical feminism different is its focus on women as a class.

Radical feminists do not believe there are any innate gender differences, or in the existence of male/female brains. Women are not naturally more nurturing than men and men are not better at maths and reading maps. Men are only “men” insofar as male humans are socialized into specific characteristics that we label male, such as intelligence, aggression, and violence and woman are “woman” because we are socialized into believing that we are more nurturing, empathetic, and caring than men.

Women’s oppression as a class is built on two interconnected constructs: reproductive capability and sexual capability. In the words of Gerda Lerner in The Creation of Patriarchy, the commodification of women’s sexual and reproductive capacities is the foundation of the creation of private property and a class-based society. Without the commodification of women’s labour there would be no unequal hierarchy of power between men and women, fundamental to the creation and continuation of the Capitalist-Patriarchy, and, therefore, no need for gender as a social construct.

Radical feminism recognizes the multiple oppressions of individual women, whilst recognizing the oppression of women as a class in the Marxist sense of the term. Rape does not require every woman to be raped to function as a punishment and a deterrent from speaking out. The threat therein is enough. Equally, the infertility of an individual woman does not negate the fact that her oppression is based on the assumed potential (and desire) for pregnancy, which is best seen in discussions of women’s employment and men’s refusal to hire women during “child-bearing” years due to the potential for pregnancy, which is used as a way of controlling women’s labour: keeping women in low-paying jobs and maintaining the glass ceiling. Constructing women as “nurturers” maintains the systemic oppression of women and retains wealth and power within men as a class.

Even something as basic as a company dress code is gendered to mark women as other. Women working in the service industry are frequently required to wear clothing and high heels that accentuate external markers of sex. Sexual harassment is endemic, particularly in the workplace, yet women are punished if they do not attend work in clothing that is considered “acceptable” for the male gaze. The use of women’s bodies to sell products further institutionalizes the construction of women as object.

There is a shared girlhood in a culture that privileges boys, coercively constructs women’s sexuality and punishes girls who try to live outside gendered norms. The research of Dale Spender, and even Margaret Atwood, dating back to the 1980s has made it very clear that young girls are socialized to be quiet, meek and unconfident. Boys, on the other hand, are socialized to believe that everything they say and do is important: by parents and teachers, by a culture which believes that no young boy would ever want to watch a film or read a book about girls or written by a woman. Shared girlhood is differentiated by race, class, faith and sexuality, but, fundamentally, all girls are raised in a culture which actively harms them.

Radical feminists are accused of gender essentialism because we recognize the oppressive structures of our world and seek to dismantle them. We acknowledge the sex of the vast majority of perpetrators of violence. We do so by creating women-only spaces so that women can share stories in the knowledge that other women will listen. This is in direct contrast to every other public and private space that women and young girls live in.

Sometimes these spaces are trans-inclusive, like A Room of our Own the blogging network I created for feminists and womanists. Sometimes these spaces will need to be for women who are FAAB only or trans* women only, just as it is absolutely necessary to have black-women only spaces and lesbian women-only spaces.

There is a need for all of these spaces because socialization is a very powerful tool. Being raised male in a patriarchal white supremacist culture is very different to being raised female with the accompanying sexual harassment, trauma and oppression. The exclusion of trans* women from some spaces is to support traumatized women who can be triggered by being in the same space as someone who was socialized male growing up. This does not mean that an individual trans* woman is a danger, but rather a recognition that gendered violence exists and that trauma is complicated.

It is our direct challenge to hegemonic masculinity and control of the world’s resources (including human) that makes radical feminism a target of accusations like gender essentialism. We recognize the importance in biological sex because of the way girls and boys are socialized to believe that boys are better than girls. As long as we live in a capitalist-patriarchy where boys are socialized to believe that aggression and anger are acceptable behaviour, women and girls will need the right to access women-only spaces however they define them.


- See more at: http://www.feministtimes.com/the-problem-is-capitalist-patriarchy-socialising-boys-to-be-aggressive-not-radical-feminism/#sthash.hrv9wRr6.dpuf

[Kobi]

Capital New York reports on Thursday that feminist writers Rebecca Traister and Amanda Fortini will be joining Elle as contributing editors. Last month, Cosmopolitan hired longtime Feministing blogger Jill Filipovic to cover politics on the website. It seems the hot trend this season is political awareness.

Cosmo, especially, has come a long way from oral sex tips. The magazine's web presence is now decidedly feminist — the leading story as of this writing is about Columbia University's sexual assault problem. Ex-Jezebel blogger Anna Breslaw is now the sex editor at the site. In a Reddit AMA earlier this year, she wrote "I was hired to make the site funnier, more feminist and less about creepy servile blowjob magic." It seems to be working. As Capital's Nicole Levy notes, NARAL Pro-Choice and the National Institute for Reproductive Health honored Cosmo and editor-in-chief Joanna Coles this year "for their roles in shaping public discourse in favor of women’s reproductive health and rights." Coles herself asserted back in December that the magazine is "deeply feminist."

Elle's EIC, Robbie Myers, seems eager to hop on the bandwagon. She said in a statement today,

[Traister and Fortini] were both strong voices in the cultural conversation that erupted surrounding sexism during the 2008 presidential election, and their work continues to push the feminist reawakening we are experiencing in this country forward. I think the next few years are going to be a groundbreaking time for women in our culture, and in politics in particular, so I’m excited to have Rebecca and Amanda on board to interpret that for our readers.

Here's hoping the feminist reawakening stays in style for years.

http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/05/hot-spring-trend-hiring-a-feminist-blogger-at-your-womens-magazine/370964/

[ProfPacker]

http://www.lostateminor.com/2014/04/08/fed-gender-inequality-artist-casts-penises-women-everywhere/

[Kobi]

http://www.lostateminor.com/2014/04/08/fed-gender-inequality-artist-casts-penises-women-everywhere/



Ok, a female artist who is tired of gender inequality in the arts, decides to "create" mini penises so women can take their "dicks" to the table.

What am I not getting here? Seriously, I dont get how this is suppose to be empowering to women.

[Kobi]

Over the past few weeks, the meme "not all men" — meant to satirize men who derail conversations about sexism by noting that "not all men" do X, Y, or Z sexist thing — has exploded in usage.

But, it would appear that not all men (and not all people generally) are fully caught up on the meme, where it comes from, and the point it's getting across. Here's a brief history of the term, and why it's taken on such resonance lately.

1) What is a man?

Might as well start here. A man is an adult male of the species homo sapiens. To clarify, "adult" here does not mean someone who's able to pay their own rent, or treat others with respect. Adult simply means that this male has gone through puberty and is no longer a boy.

Some additional notes about men:

A man is someone who pays his female employees less.
A man is someone who interrupts a woman when she's in the middle of saying something.
A man expects his wife to do all the cooking and cleaning.

What's that you say? Not ALL men pay their employees less? Not ALL men interrupt women?

Thanks for pointing that out. You're who this meme is about.

2) What is "Not all men"?

Let's say a post is written on the internet about how men do not listen to women when they speak and interrupt them more often than men, an observation borne out by empirical research. At a blog or site of sufficient size, it's practically inevitable that a commenter will reply, "Not all men interrupt."

This phrase "Not all men" is a common rebuttal used (most often) by men in conversations about gender in order to exempt themselves from criticism of common male behaviors. Recently, the phrase has been reappropriated by feminists and turned into a meme meant to parody its pervasiveness and bad faith.

3) How did "Not all men" start?

The exact origins of "not all men" are muddy at best. As Jess Zimmerman noted in Time, "'not all men' erupted in several places on the Internet simultaneously and independently, like the invention of calculus."

"Not all men" may be a shortened version of "Not all men are like that" or NAMALT, which appeared on the chat forum eNotAlone as early as 2004. The Awl's John Hermann traced mentions of "Not all men" back to 1863.

The first use of "Not all men" in a popular medium is what Shafiqah Hudson calls her "tweet heard round the world," which she published in February of 2013.

4) What's so bad about "Not All Men"?

When a man (though, of course, not all men) butts into a conversation about a feminist issue to remind the speaker that "not all men" do something, they derail what could be a productive conversation. Instead of contributing to the dialogue, they become the center of it, excluding themselves from any responsibility or blame.

"Men who just insist on you having that little qualifier because it undermines your argument and recenters their feelings as the central part of the dialogue," Hudson says.

On a very basic level, "not all men" is an interruption, and interrupting is rude. More to the point, it's rude in a very gendered way. Studies have shown that not all interrupting is equal. The meta analysis by the University of California at Santa Cruz was conducted on 43 studies about interrupting. It was found that men interrupted more than women only marginally, but they were much more likely to interrupt with an intention to usurp the conversation as a sign of dominance, or intrusive interrupting. Additionally, a study of group conversation dynamics showed that the gender combination of a group affects the method of interrupting. In an all-male group, the men interrupted with positive, supportive comments, but as women were added to the group, the supportive comments dwindled.

"Not all men." Fine. But pointing out individual exceptions doesn't help us understand or combat behaviors that really are mainly committed by men, from small things like interruptions up to domestic violence and rape. Not all men beat their partners, but people who beat their partners are mostly men. Pointing out that you're not one of them doesn't help us figure out how to understand and deal with that problem.

5) Wait. So how is "Not all men" different from "mansplaining"?

Mansplaining is a term used to describe an explanation that is given in a condescending, patronizing tone. Though a woman could be guilty of mansplaining, the idea originated from men talking down to women in order to explain things, often things the women in question understand better than the mansplainer does.

The "not all men" interruption could be considered a subset of mansplaining, because it attempts to redirect a current conversation in a way that privileges mens' perspectives over women's. Also, like mansplaining, it's rude.

6) How does "Not All Men" fit into the history of feminism?


"Not all men" is just the latest iteration in a long tradition of feminists pointing out the ways in which language can be used by men to defend practices that benefit them and harm women.

"The very semantics of the language reflects [women's] condition. We do not even have our own names, but bear that of the father until we change it for that of a husband," the second-wave feminist activist Robin Morgan wrote in her book Going Too Far. She cited seemingly innocuous examples of sexism in language with words like "chairman" and "spokesman," and problematic language differences like a single male being called a "bachelor" while a single woman is called a "spinster" ("bachelorette" was only coined in the 20th century, while "spinster" and "bachelor" are both from the 14th century). The way we think and deal with gender gets expressed in language — and that includes, say, interrupting someone with a corrective "not all men."

Some analysts, like Sara Mills, have drawn a distinction between two forms of sexist language: overt and indirect. Overt sexism is embodied in hate speech, when a person is actively trying to hurt someone because of their gender. Indirect sexism includes things like gender stereotypes, misogynistic humor, and conversation diversion. Mills argues that overt sexism has been driven underground, only to create an environment where indirect sexism flourishes. And derailing tactics like "Not all men" are a prime example of indirectly sexist language.

Unfortunately, identifying indirect sexism in practice is hardly enough to stop it. When asked how the "Not all men" phenomenon has influenced her conversations on the internet about sexism, Hudson said that it hasn't. "I can't even talk about sexism without this ridiculous interrupting," she said.

7) So what can I do?

You can not interrupt, because interrupting is rude, and use that time instead to think about whether or not injecting "not all men" is going to derail a productive conversation.

You can also try making a "Not all men" joke with your favorite pop cultural shows like "Not all Aquamen".

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/15/5720332/heres-why-women-have-turned-the-not-all-men-objection-into-a-meme

[Kobi]

****Trigger Warning****


This article is amazing in its clarity, theoretical analysis, and sociological perspective. It is in the first half and end of the article.

Midway thru, the author clearly warns readers of potential trigger stuff before it occurs.

The trigger stuff is very graphic, and in your face.

Your choice to proceed or not.


--------------------------------------

I have been a radical feminist for as long as I can remember. As I witness the marginalisation of radical feminism in the cultural discourse, in publishing, and in women's studies programs, I see the feminist movement I once loved become powerless to explain what is happening to women -especially the horrific levels of violence against women.

This failure has reached a new level following the massacre by Elliot Rodger of students at UC Santa Barbara. The media is on fire with women, and some men, writing about misogyny as the cause, as if that explains why Rodger targeted young women and rambled on about "sluts" refusing to date him.

Misogyny is not something created out of thin air, to be caught much like a cold, that drives those infected to commit horrendous acts of violence. It is an ideology produced and disseminated by social and cultural institutions that work seamlessly together to create a social reality that normalises, legitimises and glorifies violence against women.

Karl Marx was one of the first theorists to explain that ideology is not a free-floating set of ideas, but rather a coherent system of beliefs that are purposely and carefully created by the elite class to promote their interests. Using their ownership of key cultural institutions, the elite then set about distributing these ideas until they become the dominant ways of thinking.

Misogyny has now become the catch-all term to explain why men murder women, and that explanation is true as far as it goes. But if we see misogyny as an ideology, then the key question--too rarely asked - is where the norms, values and beliefs that constitute misogyny come from. Unless we believe that men are born misogynists, however - and feminists know only too well how dangerous the "biology is destiny" argument can be - then it is incumbent upon us to explain why some men hate women enough to rape, maim, and kill us. Blaming misogyny without delving into its aetiology is lazy social theory, and it does not cast any light on the specific institutions and processes that result in mass murders like Rodger's.

The more I read about Rodger's unspeakable acts, the more enraged I become with the unwillingness of the mainstream feminist movement to take on the elephant in the room: a well resourced, multi-billion dollar a year industry that doesn't just produce misogyny, but actually ties it to male arousal and ejaculation. Mainstream porn has now become so violent that when radical feminists describe it in debates and presentations, we are accused - including by other feminists -of exaggerating and only focusing on the very worst of porn.

In the best case scenario, this is because most mainstream feminists have never actually spent time on the most traveled porn sites, and in the worst case, it is a wilful desire to not rock the boat with boyfriends, husbands, brothers, publishers, and tenure committees.

So here is a test, and one that comes with a trigger warning because trigger warnings are not some right wing plot, as recent media stories would have us think, but ways to avoid re-traumatising victims of violence. I am going to quote extensively from a popular website that was made even more popular by the outing of Duke student "Belle Knox" as a porn performer.

We all know her name, - or at least her porn name - but does anyone know the name of the porn site where she was gagged almost to unconsciousness, smeared with semen to the point that she couldn't open her eyes, slapped, and penetrated so roughly that she was gasping in pain and sobbing? At one point she was pushing the male performer/abuser away because she couldn't breathe, and in typical porn-sex behaviour, he dragged her closer to his penis by yanking her hair, spitting in her face and screaming at her to shut up.

The site is called Facial Abuse, and the images and videos that populate it can only be described as torture. With no pretence that this is about consensual or mutually enjoyable sex, the text describes, in unbearable detail, what they are doing to the women:

" Big Tits. Check. Airhead. Check. Daddy Issues. Check. Brook Ultra has all the makings of being the next big deal in big tit porn. I can totally see the LA companies gobbling up this cunt, but we had her first. Today, she was trained to be a submissive little whore, taking cocks in all three holes. Pauly Harker blew her asshole out with his giant knob. We shot some great fucking anal gapes with this pig... so much that you could see what she had for dinner last night. Another well rounded scene with a model who's top shelf. Enjoy this... and when you see her all over the place, remember who taught that cunt the ropes . "

While most social and political institutions create woman-hating ideology, name one other that delivers it in such a crisp, succinct, unambiguous manner. Name one other cultural institution that prides itself on torturing women as its raison d'être. Porn is now the major form of sex education in the western world, and it produces an ideology that makes women seem disposable "sluts" who are undeserving of dignity, bodily integrity, or the slightest shred of empathy. Whatever psychological disorders Rodger had, he was sane enough to internalize the pornographic ideologies so perfectly embodied in Facial Abuse and the thousands of other websites that tell the same story.

Mainstream commentators and feminists tie themselves in knots trying to avoid any discussion of the way porn is implicated in violence against women. They talk about porn as empowering, as fun, as a celebration of women's sexual agency, and then express outrage when men act out the woman-hating messages that are the constituent elements of porn.

Radical feminists who make porn a central part of our activism are not (pick your slur) anti-sex, prudish, man haters, censors or ugly bitches who are jealous of porn stars. Rather, we fight the porn industry because we know that as long as this tsunami of woman-hating ideology continues to shape masculinity, there will be a never-ending supply of Elliot Rodger laying in wait for their next batch of victims.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gail-dines/porn-industry-and-misogyny_b_5427951.html

[Kobi]

It was a key match in the World Cup of Ideas. The teams vied furiously for the ball. The all-star feminist team tried repeatedly to kick it through the goalposts marked Widespread Social Problems, while the opposing team, staffed by the mainstream media and mainstream dudes, was intent on getting it into the usual net called Isolated Event. To keep the ball out of his net, the mainstream's goalie shouted “mental illness” again and again. That “ball,” of course, was the meaning of the massacre of students in Isla Vista, California, by one of their peers.

All weekend the struggle to define his acts raged. Voices in the mainstream insisted he was mentally ill, as though that settled it, as though the world were divided into two countries called Sane and Crazy that share neither border crossings nor a culture. Mental illness is, however, more often a matter of degree, not kind, and a great many people who suffer it are gentle and compassionate. And by many measures, including injustice, insatiable greed, and ecological destruction, madness, like meanness, is central to our society, not simply at its edges.

In a fascinating op-ed piece last year, T.M. Luhrmann noted that when schizophrenics hear voices in India, they’re more likely to be told to clean the house, while Americans are more likely to be told to become violent. Culture matters. Or as my friend, the criminal-defense investigator who knows insanity and violence intimately, put it, “When one begins to lose touch with reality, the ill brain latches obsessively and delusionally onto whatever it’s immersed in -- the surrounding culture's illness.”

The murderer at Isla Vista was also repeatedly called “aberrant,” as if to emphasize that he was nothing like the rest of us. But other versions of such violence are all around us, most notably in the pandemic of hate toward and violence against women.

In the end, this struggle over the meaning of one man’s killing spree may prove to be a watershed moment in the history of feminism, which always has been and still is in a struggle to name and define, to speak and be heard. “The battle of the story” the Center for Story-Based Strategy calls it, because you win or lose your struggle in large part through the language and narrative you use.

As media critic Jennifer Pozner put it in 2010 about another massacre by a woman-hating man,

“I am sick to death that I have to keep writing some version of this same article or blog post on loop. But I have to, because in all of these cases, gender-based violence lies at the heart of these crimes -- and leaving this motivating factor uninvestigated not only deprives the public of the full, accurate picture of the events at hand, but leaves us without the analysis and context needed to understand the violence, recognize warning signs, and take steps to prevent similar massacres in the future.”

The Isla Vista murderer took out men as well as women, but blowing away members of a sorority seems to have been the goal of his rampage. He evidently interpreted his lack of sexual access to women as offensive behavior by women who, he imagined in a sad mix of entitlement and self-pity, owed him fulfillment.

#YesAllWomen

Richard Martinez, the father of one of the young victims, spoke powerfully on national TV about gun control and the spinelessness of the politicians who have caved to the gun lobby, as well as about the broader causes of such devastation. A public defender in Santa Barbara County, he has for decades dealt with violence against women, gun users, and mental illness, as does everyone in his field. He and Christopher Michaels-Martinez's mother, a deputy district attorney, knew the territory intimately before they lost their only child. The bloodbath was indeed about guns and toxic versions of masculinity and entitlement, and also about misery, cliché, and action-movie solutions to emotional problems. It was, above all, about the hatred of women.

According to one account of the feminist conversation that followed, a young woman with the online name Kaye (who has since been harassed or intimidated into withdrawing from the public conversation) decided to start tweeting with the hashtag #YesAllWomen at some point that Saturday after the massacre. By Sunday night, half a million #yesallwomen tweets had appeared around the world, as though a dam had burst. And perhaps it had. The phrase described the hells and terrors women face and specifically critiqued a stock male response when women talked about their oppression: “Not all men.”

It's the way some men say, “I’m not the problem” or that they shifted the conversation from actual corpses and victims as well as perpetrators to protecting the comfort level of bystander males. An exasperated woman remarked to me, “What do they want -- a cookie for not hitting, raping, or threatening women?” Women are afraid of being raped and murdered all the time and sometimes that’s more important to talk about than protecting male comfort levels. Or as someone named Jenny Chiu tweeted, “Sure #NotAllMen are misogynists and rapists. That's not the point. The point is that #YesAllWomen live in fear of the ones that are.”

Women -- and men (but mostly women) -- said scathing things brilliantly.

-- #YesAllWomen because I can't tweet about feminism without getting threats and perverted replies. Speaking out shouldn't scare me.

-- #YesAllWomen because I've seen more men angry at the hashtag rather than angry at the things happening to women.

-- #YesAllWomen because if you're too nice to them you're "leading them on" & if you're too rude you risk violence. Either way you're a bitch.

It was a shining media moment, a vast conversation across all media, including millions of participants on Facebook and Twitter -- which is significant since Twitter has been a favorite means of delivering rape and death threats to outspoken women. As Astra Taylor has pointed out in her new book, The People’s Platform, the language of free speech is used to protect hate speech, itself an attempt to deprive others of their freedom of speech, to scare them into shutting up.

Laurie Penny, one of the important feminist voices of our times, wrote,

“When news of the murders broke, when the digital world began to absorb and discuss its meaning, I had been about to email my editor to request a few days off, because the impact of some particularly horrendous rape threats had left me shaken, and I needed time to collect my thoughts. Instead of taking that time, I am writing this blog, and I am doing so in rage and in grief -- not just for the victims of the Isla Vista massacre, but for what is being lost everywhere as the language and ideology of the new misogyny continues to be excused... I am sick of being told to empathize with the perpetrators of violence any time I try to talk about the victims and survivors.”

Our Words Are Our Weapons

In 1963, Betty Friedan published a landmark book, The Feminine Mystique, in which she wrote, “The problem that has no name -- which is simply the fact that American women are kept from growing to their full human capacities -- is taking a far greater toll on the physical and mental health of our country than any known disease.” In the years that followed, that problem gained several names: male chauvinism, then sexism, misogyny, inequality, and oppression. The cure was to be “women’s liberation,” or “women’s lib,” or “feminism.” These words, which might seem worn out from use now, were fresh then.

Since Friedan’s manifesto, feminism has proceeded in part by naming things. The term “sexual harassment,” for example, was coined in the 1970s, first used in the legal system in the 1980s, given legal status by the Supreme Court in 1986, and given widespread coverage in the upheaval after Anita Hill’s testimony against her former boss, Clarence Thomas, in the 1991 Senate hearings on his Supreme Court nomination. The all-male interrogation team patronized and bullied Hill, while many men in the Senate and elsewhere failed to grasp why it mattered if your boss said lecherous things and demanded sexual services. Or they just denied that such things happen.

Many women were outraged. It was, like the post-Isla Vista weekend, a watershed moment in which the conversation changed, in which those who got it pushed hard on those who didn’t, opening some minds and updating some ideas. The bumper sticker “I Believe You Anita” was widespread for a while. Sexual harassment is now considerably less common in workplaces and schools, and its victims have far more recourse, thanks in part to Hill’s brave testimony and the earthquake that followed.

So many of the words with which a woman’s right to exist is adjudicated are of recent coinage: “domestic violence,” for example, replaced “wife-beating” as the law began to take a (mild) interest in the subject. A woman is still beaten every nine seconds in this country, but thanks to the heroic feminist campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, she now has access to legal remedies that occasionally work, occasionally protect her, and -- even more occasionally -- send her abuser to jail. In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported, “Studies of the Surgeon General's office reveal that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44, more common than automobile accidents, muggings, and cancer deaths combined.”

I go to check this fact and arrive at an Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence website that warns viewers their browsing history might be monitored at home and offers a domestic-violence hotline number. The site is informing women that their abusers may punish them for seeking information or naming their situation. It’s like that out there.

One of the more shocking things I read recently was an essay in the Nation about the infamous slaying of Catherine “Kitty” Genovese in a neighborhood in Queens, New York, in 1964. The author, Peter Baker, reminds us that some of the neighbors who witnessed parts of her rape and murder from their windows likely mistook the savage assault by a stranger for a man exercising his rights over “his” woman. “Surely it matters that, at the time, violence inflicted by a man on his wife or romantic partner was widely considered a private affair. Surely it matters that, in the eyes of the law as it stood in 1964, it was impossible for a man to rape his wife.”

Terms like acquaintance rape, date rape, and marital rape had yet to be invented.

(continued)

[Kobi]

Twenty-First Century Words

I apparently had something to do with the birth of the word “mansplaining,” though I didn’t coin it myself. My 2008 essay “Men Explain Things to Me” (now the title piece in my new book about gender and power) is often credited with inspiring the pseudonymous person who did coin it on a blog shortly thereafter. From there, it began to spread.

For a long time, I was squeamish about the term, because it seemed to imply that men in general were flawed rather than that particular specimens were prone to explain things they didn’t understand to women who already did. Until this spring, that is, when a young PhD candidate at the University of California, Berkeley, told me that the word allowed women to identify another “problem with no name,” something that often happened but was hard to talk about until the term arose.

Language is power. When you turn “torture” into “enhanced interrogation,” or murdered children into “collateral damage,” you break the power of language to convey meaning, to make us see, feel, and care. But it works both ways. You can use the power of words to bury meaning or to excavate it. If you lack words for a phenomenon, an emotion, a situation, you can’t talk about it, which means that you can’t come together to address it, let alone change it. Vernacular phrases -- Catch-22, monkeywrenching, cyberbullying, the 99% and the 1% -- have helped us to describe but also to reshape our world. This may be particularly true of feminism, a movement focused on giving voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless.

One of the compelling new phrases of our time is “rape culture.” The term came into widespread circulation in late 2012 when sexual assaults in New Delhi, India, and Steubenville, Ohio, became major news stories. As a particularly strongly worded definition puts it:

“Rape culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety. Rape culture affects every woman. Most women and girls limit their behavior because of the existence of rape. Most women and girls live in fear of rape. Men, in general, do not. That’s how rape functions as a powerful means by which the whole female population is held in a subordinate position to the whole male population, even though many men don’t rape, and many women are never victims of rape.”

Sometimes I’ve heard “rape culture” used to describe specifically what’s called “lad culture” -- the jeering, leering subculture in which some young men are lodged. Other times it’s used to indict the mainstream, which oozes with misogyny in its entertainment, its everyday inequalities, its legal loopholes. The term helped us stop pretending that rapes are anomalies, that they have nothing to do with the culture at large or are even antithetical to its values. If they were, a fifth of all American women (and one in 71 men) wouldn’t be rape survivors; if they were, 19% of female college students wouldn’t have to cope with sexual assault; if they were, the military wouldn’t be stumbling through an epidemic of sexual violence. The term rape culture lets us begin to address the roots of the problem in the culture as a whole.

The term “sexual entitlement” was used in 2012 in reference to sexual assaults by Boston University’s hockey team, though you can find earlier uses of the phrase. I first heard it in 2013 in a BBC report on a study of rape in Asia. The study concluded that in many cases the motive for rape was the idea that a man has the right to have sex with a woman regardless of her desires. In other words, his rights trump hers, or she has none. This sense of being owed sex is everywhere. Many women are told, as was I in my youth, that something we did or said or wore or just the way we looked or the fact that we were female had excited desires we were thereby contractually obliged to satisfy. We owed them. They had a right. To us.

Male fury at not having emotional and sexual needs met is far too common, as is the idea that you can rape or punish one woman to get even for what other women have done or not done. A teenager was stabbed to death for turning down a boy's invitation to go to the prom this spring; a 45-year-old mother of two was murdered May 14th for trying to "distance herself" from a man she was dating; the same night as the Isla Vista shootings, a California man shot at women who declined sex. After the killings in Isla Vista, the term “sexual entitlement” was suddenly everywhere, and blogs and commentary and conversations began to address it with brilliance and fury. I think that May 2014 marks the entry of the phrase into everyday speech. It will help people identify and discredit manifestations of this phenomenon. It will help change things. Words matter.

Crimes, Small and Large

The 22-year-old who, on May 23rd, murdered six of his peers and attempted to kill many more before taking his own life framed his unhappiness as due to others’ failings rather than his own and vowed to punish the young women who, he believed, had rejected him. In fact, he already had done so, repeatedly, with minor acts of violence that foreshadowed his final outburst. In his long, sad autobiographical rant, he recounts that his first week in college,

“I saw two hot blonde girls waiting at the bus stop. I was dressed in one of my nice shirts, so I looked at them and smiled. They looked at me, but they didn’t even deign to smile back. They just looked away as if I was a fool. In a rage, I made a U-turn, pulled up to their bus stop and splashed my Starbucks latte all over them. I felt a feeling [of] spiteful satisfaction as I saw it stain their jeans. How dare those girls snub me in such a fashion! How dare they insult me so! I raged to myself repeatedly. They deserved the punishment I gave them. It was such a pity that my latte wasn’t hot enough to burn them. Those girls deserved to be dumped in boiling water for the crime of not giving me the attention and adoration I so rightfully deserve!”

Domestic violence, mansplaining, rape culture, and sexual entitlement are among the linguistic tools that redefine the world many women encounter daily and open the way to begin to change it.

The nineteenth-century geologist and survey director Clarence King and twentieth-century biologists have used the term “punctuated equilibrium” to describe a pattern of change that involves slow, quiet periods of relative stasis interrupted by turbulent intervals. The history of feminism is one of punctuated equilibriums in which our conversations about the nature of the world we live in, under the pressure of unexpected events, suddenly lurch forward. It’s then that we change the story.

I think we are in such a crisis of opportunity now, as not one miserable, murderous young man but the whole construct in which we live is brought into question. On that Friday in Isla Vista, our equilibrium was disrupted, and like an earthquake releasing tension between tectonic plates, the realms of gender shifted a little. They shifted not because of the massacre, but because millions came together in a vast conversational network to share experiences, revisit meanings and definitions, and arrive at new understandings. At the memorials across California, people held up candles; in this conversation people held up ideas, words, and stories that also shone in the darkness. Maybe this change will grow, will last, will matter, and will be a lasting memorial to the victims.

Six years ago, when I sat down and wrote the essay “Men Explain Things to Me,” here’s what surprised me: though I began with a ridiculous example of being patronized by a man, I ended with rapes and murders. We tend to treat violence and the abuse of power as though they fit into airtight categories: harassment, intimidation, threat, battery, rape, murder. But I realize now that what I was saying is: it’s a slippery slope. That’s why we need to address that slope, rather than compartmentalizing the varieties of misogyny and dealing with each separately. Doing so has meant fragmenting the picture, seeing the parts, not the whole.

A man acts on the belief that you have no right to speak and that you don’t get to define what’s going on. That could just mean cutting you off at the dinner table or the conference. It could also mean telling you to shut up, or threatening you if you open your mouth, or beating you for speaking, or killing you to silence you forever. He could be your husband, your father, your boss or editor, or the stranger at some meeting or on the train, or the guy you’ve never seen who’s mad at someone else but thinks “women” is a small enough category that you can stand in for “her.” He’s there to tell you that you have no rights.

Threats often precede acts, which is why the targets of online rape and death threats take them seriously, even though the sites that allow them and the law enforcement officials that generally ignore them apparently do not. Quite a lot of women are murdered after leaving a boyfriend or husband who believes he owns her and that she has no right to self-determination.

Despite this dismal subject matter, I’m impressed with the powers feminism has flexed of late. Watching Amanda Hess, Jessica Valenti, Soraya Chemaly, Laurie Penny, Amanda Marcotte, Jennifer Pozner, and other younger feminists swing into action the weekend after the Rodgers killing spree was thrilling, and the sudden explosion of #YesAllWomen tweets, astonishing. The many men who spoke up thoughtfully were heartening. More and more men are actively engaged instead of just being Not All Men bystanders.

You could see once-radical ideas blooming in the mainstream media. You could see our arguments and whole new ways of framing the world gaining ground and adherents. Maybe we had all just grown unbearably weary of the defense of unregulated guns after more than 40 school shootings since Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, of the wages of macho fantasies of control and revenge, of the hatred of women.

If you look back to Betty Friedan’s “problem that has no name,” you see a world that was profoundly different from the one we now live in, one in which women had far fewer rights and far less voice. Back then, arguing that women should be equal was a marginal position; now arguing that we should not be is marginal in this part of the world and the law is mostly on our side. The struggle has been and will be long and harsh and sometimes ugly, and the backlash against feminism remains savage, strong, and omnipresent, but it is not winning. The world has changed profoundly, it needs to change far more -- and on that weekend of mourning and introspection and conversation just passed, you could see change happen.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24082-our-words-are-our-weapons-the-feminist-battle-of-the-story-in-the-wake-of-the-isla-vista-massacre

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON — It was, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg later said, “such a delightful surprise.”

In a 2003 Supreme Court opinion, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist suddenly turned into a feminist, denouncing “stereotypes about women’s domestic roles.”

Justice Ginsburg said the chief justice’s “life experience” had played a part in the shift. One of his daughters was a recently divorced mother with a demanding job.

Justice Ginsburg’s explanation in 2009, though widely accepted, was but informed speculation. Now there is data to go with the intuition.

It turns out that judges with daughters are more likely to vote in favor of women’s rights than ones with only sons. The effect, a new study found, is most pronounced among male judges appointed by Republican presidents, like Chief Justice Rehnquist.

“Our basic finding is quite startling,” said Maya Sen, a political scientist at the University of Rochester who conducted the study along with Adam Glynn, a government professor at Harvard.

The standard scholarly debate about how judges decide cases tends to revolve around two factors: law and ideology. “Here, we’ve found evidence that there is a third factor that matters: personal experiences,” Professor Sen said. “Things like having daughters can actually fundamentally change how people view the world, and this, in turn, affects how they decide cases.”

The new study considered about 2,500 votes by 224 federal appeals court judges. “Having at least one daughter,” it concluded, “corresponds to a 7 percent increase in the proportion of cases in which a judge will vote in a feminist direction.”

Additional daughters do not seem to matter. But the effect of having a daughter is even larger when you limit the comparison to judges with only one child.

“Having one daughter as opposed to one son,” the study found, “is linked to an even higher 16 percent increase in the proportion of gender-related cases decided in a feminist direction.”

The authors also looked at the same judges’ votes in a separate set of 3,000 randomly chosen cases. There was no relationship between having daughters and liberal votes generally. Daughters made a difference in only “civil cases having a gendered dimension.”

Researchers have found similar “daughter effects” in other areas. Members of Congress with daughters are more likely to cast liberal votes, particularly on abortion rights, one study found. Another study showed that British parents with daughters were more likely to vote for left-wing parties, while ones with sons were more likely to vote for right-wing parties.

The new study on judges considered some possible explanations. Perhaps judges wanted to shield their daughters from harm. But the voting trends showed up in only civil cases, like ones involving claims of employment discrimination, and not criminal ones, including rape and sexual assault.

Or perhaps daughters tend to be liberal and succeed in lobbying their parents to vote in a liberal direction. But the judicial voting trends were limited to civil cases in which gender played a role.

The study was lukewarm about the possibility that judges acted out of economic self-interest — to avoid, say, having unemployed daughters.

The most likely explanation, Professor Sen said, was the one offered by Justice Ginsburg. “By having at least one daughter,” Professor Sen said, “judges learn about what it’s like to be a woman, perhaps a young woman, who might have to deal with issues like equity in terms of pay, university admissions or taking care of children.”

In the 2003 decision that so delighted Justice Ginsburg, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Supreme Court considered whether workers could sue state employers for violating a federal law that allowed time off for family emergencies. Chief Justice Rehnquist, who had long championed states’ rights, had not been expected to be sympathetic to the idea.

Instead, he wrote the majority opinion sustaining the law. It was, he said, meant to address “the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist was 78 when he wrote that. He died a couple of years later, in 2005. In the term he wrote the opinion, he sometimes left work early to pick up his granddaughters from school.

“When his daughter Janet was divorced,” Justice Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon in the 2009 interview in The New York Times, “I think the chief felt some kind of responsibility to be kind of a father figure to those girls. So he became more sensitive to things that he might not have noticed.”

I asked Professor Sen what her study suggested about how to think about the Supreme Court.

“Justices and judges aren’t machines,” she said. “They are human, just like you and me. And just like you and me, they have personal experiences that affect how they view the world.

“Having daughters,” she said, “is just one kind of personal experience, but there could be other things — for example, serving in the military, adopting a child or seeing a law clerk come out as gay. All of these things could affect a justice’s worldview.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/us/judges-with-daughters-more-often-rule-in-favor-of-womens-rights.html?_r=2

[Kobi]

Did you know there are only 13 feminist bookstores left in North America?


1. Antigone Books* (Tucson, AZ) Established in 1973, Antigone Books is the oldest feminist bookstore in the country.

2. Bloodroot (Bridgeport, CT) Selma Miriam and Noel Furie co-own Bloodroot, a vegetarian restaurant and bookstore.

3. Bluestockings (New York, NY) Kathryn Welsh founded Bluestockings, a collectively owned and volunteer-run bookstore and cafe, in 1999.

4. BookWoman* (Austin, TX) opened in December 1974 and will celebrate its 40th anniversary at the end of this year. Current owner Susan Post, who started out as a volunteer, has been with the bookstore since its inception.

5. Charis Books and More* (Atlanta, GA) Sara Luce Look and Angela Gabriel co-own Charis Books and More, which will celebrate its 40th anniversary in November.

6.Common Language* (Ann Arbor, MI) Opened in 1991. Common Language’s biggest sellers include lesbian fiction, gay studies, trans studies, women’s studies and children’s books, particularly those children’s books that spread a message of diversity.

7.In Other Words (Portland, OR) was founded in 1993 by Johanna Brenner, Kathryn Tetrick and Catherine Sameh. (It’s also where the feminist bookstore sketches are filmed for the TV show Portlandia.)

8. Northern Woman’s Bookstore (Thunder Bay, ON) Margaret Phillips is the owner of Northern Woman’s Bookstore, the only feminist bookstore in Canada.

9. People Called Women* (Toledo, OH) Owned by Gina Mercurio , People Called Women opened in 1993. The bookstore specializes in multicultural children’s books, non-fiction, memoirs, lesbian fiction and romance in addition to mainstream books.

10. A Room of One’s Own Books & Gifts* (Madison, WI) Owned by Sandy Torkildson, A Room of One’s Own offers new and used books in conjunction with Avol’s Bookstore.

11. Wild Iris Books* (Gainesville, FL), which opened its doors in 1992, is co-owned by Cheryl Krauth and Lylly Rodriguez.

12. Women and Children First* (Chicago, IL) Established in 1979, Women and Children First was listed for sale by owners Linda Bubon and Ann Christopherson last October. (They are currently in negotiations with a buyer and anticipate a seamless transition.)

13.Womencrafts (Provincetown, MA), which opened its doors on the tip of Cape Cod in 1976, is owned by Kathryn Livelli.

http://feminismandreligion.com/2014/08/22/feminist-bookstores-and-the-disappearance-of-sacred-space-by-marie-cartier/

[vagina]

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country


Iceland has just banned all strip clubs. Perhaps it's down to the lesbian prime minister, but this may just be the most female-friendly country on the planet.


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/3/25/1269538099615/Icelands-Prime-Minister-J-001.jpg


The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday 27 March 2010

Iceland's prime minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, was wrongly credited with being the country's first female head of state. That honour goes to Vigdis Finnbogadottir, who served as president from 1980 to 1996

Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.

While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs – the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade – Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."

The news is a real boost to feminists around the world, showing us that when an entire country unites behind an idea anything can happen. And it is bound to give a shot in the arm to the feminist campaign in the UK against an industry that is both a cause and a consequence of gaping inequality between men and women.

According to Icelandic police, 100 foreign women travel to the country annually to work in strip clubs. It is unclear whether the women are trafficked, but feminists say it is telling that as the stripping industry has grown, the number of Icelandic women wishing to work in it has not. Supporters of the bill say that some of the clubs are a front for prostitution – and that many of the women work there because of drug abuse and poverty rather than free choice. I have visited a strip club in Reykjavik and observed the women. None of them looked happy in their work.

So how has Iceland managed it? To start with, it has a strong women's movement and a high number of female politicans. Almost half the parliamentarians are female and it was ranked fourth out of 130 countries on the international gender gap index (behind Norway, Finland and Sweden). All four of these Scandinavian countries have, to some degree, criminalised the purchase of sex (legislation that the UK will adopt on 1 April). "Once you break past the glass ceiling and have more than one third of female politicians," says Halldórsdóttir, "something changes. Feminist energy seems to permeate everything."

Johanna Sigurðardottir is Iceland's first female and the world's first openly lesbian head of state. Guðrún Jónsdóttir of Stígamót, an organisation based in Reykjavik that campaigns against sexual violence, says she has enjoyed the support of Sigurðardottir for their campaigns against rape and domestic violence: "Johanna is a great feminist in that she challenges the men in her party and refuses to let them oppress her."

Then there is the fact that feminists in Iceland appear to be entirely united in opposition to prostitution, unlike the UK where heated debates rage over whether prostitution and lapdancing are empowering or degrading to women. There is also public support: the ban on commercial sexual activity is not only supported by feminists but also much of the population. A 2007 poll found that 82% of women and 57% of men support the criminalisation of paying for sex – either in brothels or lapdance clubs – and fewer than 10% of Icelanders were opposed.

Jónsdóttir says the ban could mean the death of the sex industry. "Last year we passed a law against the purchase of sex, recently introduced an action plan on trafficking of women, and now we have shut down the strip clubs. The Nordic countries are leading the way on women's equality, recognising women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale."

Strip club owners are, not surprisingly, furious about the new law. One gave an interview to a local newspaper in which he likened Iceland's approach to that of a country such as Saudi Arabia, where it is not permitted to see any part of a woman's body in public. "I have reached the age where I'm not sure whether I want to bother with this hassle any more," he said.

Janice Raymond, a director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, hopes that all sex industry profiteers feel the same way, and believes the new law will pave the way for governments in other countries to follow suit. "What a victory, not only for the Icelanders but for everyone worldwide who repudiates the sexual exploitation of women," she says.

Jónsdóttir is confident that the law will create a change in attitudes towards women. "I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale."

[Kobi]

http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2014/08/12/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/kreiter_barassoc3_biz.jpg

As one of the few African-Americans in her law school class, Paulette Brown noticed career counselors steering her and other black students toward legal service or public defender jobs assisting the poor, instead of more prestigious jobs in big law firms. But she refused to go down that path, eventually serving as in-house counsel for several Fortune 500 companies.

Since those law school days, Brown, a partner in the Boston law firm Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, has fought against subtle racism, discrimination, and small slights known as “micro-inequities.” For much of her career, she has pressed firms to hire and promote more women and minorities; mentored hundreds of lawyers, mostly women of color; and trained many others on diversity in the workplace.

Now Brown, 63, has a platform to expand her mission even further. Last month, she became the first black woman elected to lead the 400,000-member American Bar Association, which, until 1943, did not allow African-Americans to join.

In a profession where only 7 percent of partners are people of color and the number of female associates has fallen for the past five years, Brown is focused, among other things, on raising awareness about implicit bias in law offices, the legal system, and American society. How is it that defendants of different races who commit the same crime get different sentences, she asked. Why are more black and Latino children suspended from school?

“Once you recognize that it’s a possibility that you could have some unconscious bias, then it hopefully will adjust your behavior. You will take a second to say, ‘Wait a minute, am I reacting this way because I could have some sort of bias in this situation?’ ” Brown said. “As a result, I think that you will be more fair in any kind of deliberation that you are engaged in.”

Brown grew up attending segregated schools in Baltimore, the fourth and youngest child of a truck driver and a stay-at-home mother, who later did clerical work. As with others who have had to overcome obstacles in order to succeed, she is tough — and persistent.

Once, when a judge kept telling her to be quiet, Brown slammed her checkbook down on the table and said, “You can fine me whatever you want, but I am talking today.” And the judge left her alone.

Her son, Dijaun, now 30, whom Brown adopted out of foster care on her own when he was 8, recalled his mother sneaking into his fifth grade class to teach him a lesson. Brown slipped into the desk behind him, caught him reading an Easy Rawlins mystery tucked inside his social studies textbook, and tapped him on the shoulder: “Why are you not paying attention?” she asked.

At the same time, friends and colleagues describe Brown as a warm, engaging woman who wins people over wherever she goes — even those on the other side of her legal cases. Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, she was taking a deposition from a state trooper in a whistle-blower case. During a break, they got to talking about whether she could take a pecan pie through security for Thanksgiving.

The trooper later called her at her office — even though contacting opposing legal counsel is forbidden — to tell her he checked with the Transportation Security Administration and her pecan pie would be just fine.

Brown is also a notorious prankster. Her son recalls going to the airport with his mother to send her off on a three-week trip to conduct mediation training in Ghana. When Dijaun, who was 11 at the time, started to cry, his mother revealed her surprise: “You’re going with me!”

“The seriousness she brings to her work, she brings that same dedication to her jokes and trying to make people smile,” Dijaun said.

Paulette Brown has pressed law firms to hire and promote more women and minorities.

Neither of Brown’s parents went to college, nor did her siblings. But Brown was determined to go. She studied political science at Howard University in Washington and earned a full scholarship to law school at Seton Hall University in New Jersey. She began her career doing health and pension plan work at a steel company in Wayne, N.J., then served as in-house counsel for Prudential Insurance Co. of America and other Fortune 500 companies.

Later, she opened her own firm, focusing on employment, civil rights, and product liability law, and served as a municipal court judge. She joined Edwards Wildman as a partner in 2005.

Along the way, she successfully defended companies in discrimination cases involving sexual harassment, age, race, and wage and hour claims, while working to make her profession more diverse. In 2006, Brown helped the bar association produce a study showing that a growing number of minority women were leaving the country’s biggest law firms. Women of color make up less than 2 percent of partners nationwide; at Edwards Wildman, it is 1 percent.

In 2008, Brown was named one of the National Law Journal’s “50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America.”

When she takes the helm of the American Bar Association next summer, her already full plate will get even more crowded. Brown, who specializes in labor and employment law, practices mainly out the firm’s location in Morristown, N.J., although she keeps an office in Boston. She is the firm’s chief diversity officer, requiring her to travel around the world to Edwards Wildman’s 16 offices to conduct trainings.

In between all this, she monitors elections in low-income communities to ensure that they are conducted fairly.

As busy as she is, Brown turned down Edwards Wildman’s offer to put aside her legal practice and devote herself to diversity training full-time. “Contributing in more than one way provides you with more credibility,” she said.

As a result, Brown’s free time is scarce — and not exactly leisurely. She has done five 60-mile walks to raise money for breast cancer research. They aren’t races, but she checked the time of her last event anyway: She finished 22d out of 4,000 participants.

Cooking is a big hobby, including the peach cobbler she makes for her secretary every summer and the pumpkin bread and pickled tomatoes she brought from New Jersey for a dinner party at the home of Matt McTygue, the partner in charge of the Edwards Wildman Boston office.

Brown is a “classic example of somebody who has succeeded through her own will and an amazing amount of effort,” McTygue said. “I don’t even know if she sleeps at all, but if she does it’s very little.”

The women who Brown mentors say she has had a strong influence on their lives. Courtney Scrubbs, a first-year associate at the Boston office of Edwards Wildman, said while most people tell Scrubbs she’s doing fine, Brown pushes her to work harder. People in corporate America normally do a “a lot of smiling and nodding,” to keep from offending others, Scrubbs said, but not Brown.

“It’s helpful,” she said, “to have someone who’s just going to give it to you [straight].”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/09/06/paulette-brown-become-first-african-american-woman-head-american-bar-association/dFc460FXfVoONC0AAcAWWJ/story.html?event=event25

[Kobi]

CoverGirl's easy, breezy, beautiful ad campaign has undergone a shocking makeover at the hands of Roger Goodell protestors who are adept at Photoshop.

The "official beauty partner of the NFL" launched a football-themed ad series recently, touting eyeshadows and makeup looks to coordinate with teams' colors.

But over the course of the past several weeks, the NFL's image has been severely tainted, mainly by the video leaked by TMZ showing Ravens running back Ray Rice knock out his then-fiancée Janay Palmer in a hotel elevator.

The ensuing backlash against NFL Commissioner Goodell — and his failure to handle the Rice situation (initially, he only issued a two-game suspension) — has been swift. One form that such backlash is the doctoring of a CoverGirl "Get Your Game Face On" ad to show a girl with a bruised eye in a display of domestic violence.

The image took off on Twitter this weekend with the hashtag #GoodellMustGo. Goodell has not been fired from his position, nor has he stepped down.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxcpJJ-IcAE77IE.jpg:large

Women's advocacy group Ultraviolet also plastered the hashtag on banners that were flown over several NFL stadiums during Sunday's games. Ultraviolet has not come forward as the creators of the Photoshopped CoverGirl image, nor has the group responded to Mashable's request for comment.

CoverGirl has not specified if their "Get Your Game Face On" campaign will be pulled. The brand's website was down on Monday, stating the site was currently under maintenance.

As of Sept. 10, however, CoverGirl seemed to still be shooting ads for the "Game Face" series.

Last week, CBS restructured its Thursday night pregame footage, pulling a theme song sung by Rihanna. CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus said in light of the Rice incident, the song — and additional lighthearted pre-game elements — would not be the appropriate "because of time or tone." Rihanna has experienced domestic abuse; in 2009, the singer's then-boyfriend Chris Brown assaulted her.

http://mashable.com/2014/09/15/covergirl-ad-nfl-roger-goodell/

[Kobi]

NEW YORK (AP) — An all-women sports show premieres Tuesday night with perfect timing.

NFL domestic violence cases have dominated the headlines for weeks. A core panel of a dozen female commentators will appear on "We Need to Talk," which airs on cable channel CBS Sports Network. The weekly, hour-long, prime-time show is the first of its kind.

CBS executives say it will be a traditional sports program offering a different perspective. The main panelists are a mix of veteran broadcasters and former pro athletes.

CBS has shown its commitment to the show by promoting it during hugely popular NFL and SEC broadcasts. The audience for "We Need to Talk" will be limited, though, by the distribution for CBS Sports Network, which is in fewer than half of the country's homes with televisions.

http://www.cbssportsnetwork.com/weneedtotalk

[Kobi]

Radicals react to the sex-based gender hierarchy by seeking to destroy gender.

Liberals react to the sex-based gender hierarchy by seeking to destroy (the concept of) sex.

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10301355_711431815618013_8126285850445701722_n.png ?oh=01be11c8d4f9423a977b014bbfe8e763&oe=54CC3A9F

http://womensliberationfront.org/

[Kobi]

Feminism is about inclusion. It is about ensuring no woman is marginalized as a result of gender and other oppressions which intersect with it.

Feminism is also about exclusion. It is about safeguarding a woman’s right to set her own physical and mental boundaries, and about defending her right of refusal against anyone who seeks to overstep them.

These two principles should not contradict one another. A fully respected human being should be able to defend his or her own personal space while also sharing communal space and rights of recognition with others. That it has not been easy for feminists to achieve this is a measure of just how regressive our beliefs about “what women are” remain.

Time after time, wave after wave, feminists are accused of being exclusive and bigoted simply for defending the space that each woman should have for herself – the mental and/or physical room of one’s own. We make demands that would never be made of men, whose boundaries remain inviolable. It is only women – and to be specific, female women – who are expected to include and include to the point of self-abnegation. We are told what we are, how we think, what we should call ourselves. Our inner lives – experiences of our own bodies, our female socialization, the discomforts we have suffered from birth – are considered accessible and transparent. We are permitted no complexity. We are the opposite, the complement, the helpmeet, the foil that grants definition to anyone who is not us. We exist, but not as complete entities in our own right.

For all our talk of the need to challenge cis norms, we have reached a point where it is expected that all those born female will enter into feminism as “traditional” women – those flexible, juggling, accommodating, motherly creatures who put everyone else’s needs before their own. That is how we are socialized to think of ourselves and, like it or not, that is what we demand of others. It is antithetical to a social justice movement which priorities a woman’s right to active consent, but we do it anyway. We demand that gender norms are questioned while at the same time expecting females to perform in the same way as always: giving, giving, giving, never making their own imprint but always bearing that of others. For that is inclusion, is it not? Never daring to be so fickle, so mean, so exclusive, as to say “no – that is where you end and this is where I start”.

It does not surprise me one bit that an increasing number of young women declare themselves genderqueer or non-binary. It has become the one remaining get-out clause for consent. As an older woman who is a mother, it has been made clear that such a get-out clause is not available for the likes of me, regardless of what I know my relationship with gender to be. Someone has to be Cis Woman™, on hand to do the ideological equivalent of wiping arses, scrubbing floors and shutting the hell up. Widespread terror at the thought of not having such a person – the SWERF, the TERF, the whorephobe, the pearl-clutcher – available as a means of deflection is palpable. Now that we no longer do witch trials it’s fair to say that if the TERF did not exist, patriarchy would have to invent her (oh look! It did!). She is woman at her most hollowed out, a blank screen for projection, the cause of original sin – otherwise known as male violence – and a vessel to contain all bile.

It is true that if some women have to be positioned as the TERF, others may feel they don’t have to. It grants the latter a temporary place of safety. This is not the same as self-definition – the number of defensive contortions one has to go through in order not to be tarred with the TERF brush increases by the day. To give up on words – woman, man, female, male, gender – which describe the fundamentals of one’s own oppression is no small sacrifice. To do so because one has effectively been coerced, due to a culture of fear and misrepresentation, is nothing short of an intrusion on women’s mental, linguistic and psychic space.

This matters to me because the feminism that is exclusion – being able to close the door and say “this is MY understanding of what I am” – is just as important as the feminism that is inclusion. Like most women I know what it is to experience sexual and physical abuse. I know how hard it can be to feel safe within one’s own body and I don’t think we should underestimate how much this matters as regards one’s own mind. A feminism that is forceful and intrusive, denying swathes of women the right to their own inner lives, is no feminism at all. A feminism that dismisses reproductive difference and denies women the basic tools with which to describe what happens to people like them is worse than no feminism at all.

It is easy to make the majority of women say yes when they want to say no. It is easy to make them acquiescent and self-effacing. It is easy to make them consent to things they do not feel and say things they do not believe. Patriarchy has been doing this for millennia, using fear and coercion. Feminism should be granting us a safe space in which we can finally say no. This is not about whether you agree with me on gender or sex work or any other specific issues; I just want you to know that you, as a woman – any woman – should have the right to define your own body, your own experiences and your own internal boundaries.

http://glosswatch.com/2014/10/16/an-unspeakable-post/

[Allison W]

http://feministing.com/2014/09/29/california-now-has-the-nations-first-affirmative-consent-law/

By MAYA | Published: SEPTEMBER 29, 2014

We’re giving a very enthusiastic “hell yes” to this news. The so-called “yes means yes” bill passed by the California state legislature last month, which establishes a standard of affirmative consent on college campuses in the state, has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.

Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed a bill that makes California the first in the nation to define when “yes means yes” and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.

State lawmakers last month approved SB967 by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. Campus sexual assault victims and women’s advocacy groups delivered petitions to Brown’s office on Sept. 16 urging him to sign the bill.

De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”

This paradigm shift has been a long time coming and is desperately needed. The idea that mutual desire, not the mere absence of “no,” should perhaps be the standard for an activity that’s generally agreed to be pretty fun hardly seems radical. And there’s nothing that makes me sadder about the state of our sexual culture than the fact that this bill was met by such resistance.

Hopefully the affirmative consent standard will extend to college campuses in other states and, as Alexandra suggests, eventually to civil law suits for sexual assault as well. Above all, I look forward to the day when the proposal that we should only be having sex with people who are clearly excited about having sex with us is considered so obvious it doesn’t even need to be said.

-----

Really, I think this should be the legal standard everywhere, and not just California college campuses.

[Soon]

Monday, November 3rd — Thistle Interviews Sheila Jeffreys

TUESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2014 | ACCESS HOUR
Thistle Pettersen conducts a live interview with controversial feminist Sheila Jeffreys. 7 PM Wisconsin time, the time of the radio show, is 10 AM the next day in Melbourne, the time zone that Sheila is in.

Air Times:

US: 7pm Central, 11pm Pacific, 8pm Eastern

UK: 1am

AU: 10am Perth, 1pm Canberra

------------
From the Event Page:

“Last spring, I invited Sheila Jeffreys to engage me and the Madison community (and beyond) in an hour-long discussion of women’s liberation and transgender politics. She accepted and I have been formulating questions for our radio show ever since.

Jeffreys is Professor of Feminist Politics in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She recently released the book “Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism”

We will also be speaking with Elizabeth Hungerford, Lesbian Feminist lawyer who co-penned the infamous “Letter to the UN on the Status of Women” in 2011. She will talk about changes to current laws that are pushing back women’s rights and protections.

In addition, Blake Abney will join us with her perspective as a detransitioning woman. She was transgender until she realized the harms it was doing to her body and her mental health. She will tell some of her story and provide information for people who are considering transgendering.

Tune-in on the internet LIVE the night of the show: http://www.wortfm.org/ Just click on the right-hand side at the top of the page to the orange bar that says “Listen Live”

We will discuss the term “transphobic” and examine how it is used to shut-down and silence feminist discourse and organizing. In addition, we will talk about the harms of transgendering to those who do it and to their family and friends.

Call the station the night of the show at 608 256 2001 or toll free at 866 899 9678 to let them know you support giving lesbian feminist women a platform to talk about feminism and that you would like future programming to include lesbian feminist perspectives.”

[Allison W]

Monday, November 3rd — Thistle Interviews Sheila Jeffreys

Calling it now; this is going to be a sick, sad clusterfuck.

[Kobi]

Calling it now; this is going to be a sick, sad clusterfuck.


I'm not sure what your definition of a sick, sad, clusterfuck is.

My definition of this is when trans activitists and their allies descend on radical feminist space, calling biological women derogatory names, and threatening them with bodily harm, violence and rape for having a different point of view.

By that definition, the clusterfuck began this weekend.

This is just typical entitlement and privilege behavior designed to bully and silence women who do not agree with them and have the audacity to speak their own truth. It is very threatening, for them, to have biological women who refuse to be intimidated and silenced.

[Soon]

Tune-in on the internet LIVE the night of the show: http://www.wortfm.org/ Just click on the right-hand side at the top of the page to the orange bar that says “Listen Live”

[Allison W]

I'm not sure what your definition of a sick, sad, clusterfuck is.

Sheila Jeffreys, for starters. As someone who has never descended upon TERF space or threatened a woman with death or rape--and I will say right now, I wholeheartedly condemn the threats of violence, rape, and death being alleged and would not stand for anyone I associate with, trans or ally or otherwise, sending them--and who has been pushing back against Gamergate in no small part because of its campaign of exactly that kind of behaviour--I nonetheless get upset when accused of being the second coming of Hitler, particularly when I'm already in a vulnerable population frequently under attack by the mainstream. It's not the idea that sometimes FAB-only space is important and justified. It's not even her just being angry and lashing out at trans people; if that were something she did on the spur of the moment under stress, I could understand it in the context of getting defensive and angry when under attack. It's the part where she actively attacks the identities and rights of all trans people, and where this is going to be an hour-long rant about how trans people are the Devil and the worst thing in the world today and laws need to be passed banning them right now because she's decided her politics should be put before actual medical knowledge. That is what I take exception to, and what she does that I condemn.

[Kobi]

Sheila Jeffreys, for starters. As someone who has never descended upon TERF space or threatened a woman with death or rape--and I will say right now, I wholeheartedly condemn the threats of violence, rape, and death being alleged and would not stand for anyone I associate with, trans or ally or otherwise, sending them--and who has been pushing back against Gamergate in no small part because of its campaign of exactly that kind of behaviour--I nonetheless get upset when accused of being the second coming of Hitler, particularly when I'm already in a vulnerable population frequently under attack by the mainstream. It's not the idea that sometimes FAB-only space is important and justified. It's not even her just being angry and lashing out at trans people; if that were something she did on the spur of the moment under stress, I could understand it in the context of getting defensive and angry when under attack. It's the part where she actively attacks the identities and rights of all trans people, and where this is going to be an hour-long rant about how trans people are the Devil and the worst thing in the world today and laws need to be passed banning them right now because she's decided her politics should be put before actual medical knowledge. That is what I take exception to, and what she does that I condemn.


Sometimes, I think it is a matter of perspective.

I didnt hear Jeffreys lashing out at anyone. I heard a well spoken, soft spoken, well informed academic, theorist, lesbian and feminist dealing with overall issues.

I heard someone speaking to a different point of view. I saw someone being very clear that others wish and do use questionable methods including threats of violence and rape to stop points of view from being brought to the forefront and to stop any form of debate or examination.

I found it to be very informative. And given the behavior radical lesbian feminists have to endure, I thought it was very civilized. No threats. No name calling. No calls for physical violence. No calls for rape. Just the facts and the theories.

[Gentle Tiger]

Monday, November 3rd — Thistle Interviews Sheila Jeffreys

TUESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2014 | ACCESS HOUR
Thistle Pettersen conducts a live interview with controversial feminist Sheila Jeffreys. 7 PM Wisconsin time, the time of the radio show, is 10 AM the next day in Melbourne, the time zone that Sheila is in.

Air Times:

US: 7pm Central, 11pm Pacific, 8pm Eastern

UK: 1am

AU: 10am Perth, 1pm Canberra

------------
From the Event Page:

“Last spring, I invited Sheila Jeffreys to engage me and the Madison community (and beyond) in an hour-long discussion of women’s liberation and transgender politics. She accepted and I have been formulating questions for our radio show ever since.

Jeffreys is Professor of Feminist Politics in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She recently released the book “Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism”

We will also be speaking with Elizabeth Hungerford, Lesbian Feminist lawyer who co-penned the infamous “Letter to the UN on the Status of Women” in 2011. She will talk about changes to current laws that are pushing back women’s rights and protections.

In addition, Blake Abney will join us with her perspective as a detransitioning woman. She was transgender until she realized the harms it was doing to her body and her mental health. She will tell some of her story and provide information for people who are considering transgendering.

Tune-in on the internet LIVE the night of the show: http://www.wortfm.org/ Just click on the right-hand side at the top of the page to the orange bar that says “Listen Live”

We will discuss the term “transphobic” and examine how it is used to shut-down and silence feminist discourse and organizing. In addition, we will talk about the harms of transgendering to those who do it and to their family and friends.

Call the station the night of the show at 608 256 2001 or toll free at 866 899 9678 to let them know you support giving lesbian feminist women a platform to talk about feminism and that you would like future programming to include lesbian feminist perspectives.”

As a Transman, I am having iissues with this post. While I have seen "transphobic" loosely thrown around and even misused, This part bothers me:

"In addition, we will talk about the harms of transgendering to those who do it and to their family and friends."

This to me is transphobic. I do not think folks would be ok if "transgendering" was replaced by "lesbian" or "becoming a lesbian" and referred to as being harmful.

[Kobi]

As a Transman, I am having iissues with this post. While I have seen "transphobic" loosely thrown around and even misused, This part bothers me:

"In addition, we will talk about the harms of transgendering to those who do it and to their family and friends."

This to me is transphobic. I do not think folks would be ok if "transgendering" was replaced by "lesbian" or "becoming a lesbian" and referred to as being harmful.




There are at least two different threads in the FemmeZone that address the ways in which a partner transitioning has caused different types problems for female partners. They have also addressed how they have felt silenced or unable to speak to the changes this poses for them and why.

Theo has spoken to how it is not unusual for relationships to not survive the transition.

I think it is unfair to Femmes to label the impact of transitioning on them as something transphobic.

To do so is to deny their experience, the difficulties they speak of, the internal discourse they go thru, the challenges the transition poses to their own identify, and the lack of support they feel for what THEY are going through.

Transitioning does not occur in a vacuum. It impacts partners, children, parents, siblings, friends, coworkers etc.

This is also not unique to transpersons. People coming out as homosexual also impact those around them as well. Seeing most of us started there, it is or should be something we are very familiar with.

I think to label this very human reaction to a big and perhaps unexpected and unwanted change as a "phobia" is wrong. At times like this, people are struggling, questioning, feeling very alone and very unsupported. What they need is to be able to talk and share and not have to filter what they are going thru for fear of being called some kind of phobia.

[Gentle Tiger]

There are at least two different threads in the FemmeZone that address the ways in which a partner transitioning has caused different types problems for female partners. They have also addressed how they have felt silenced or unable to speak to the changes this poses for them and why.

Theo has spoken to how it is not unusual for relationships to not survive the transition.

I think it is unfair to Femmes to label the impact of transitioning on them as something transphobic.

To do so is to deny their experience, the difficulties they speak of, the internal discourse they go thru, the challenges the transition poses to their own identify, and the lack of support they feel for what THEY are going through.

Transitioning does not occur in a vacuum. It impacts partners, children, parents, siblings, friends, coworkers etc.

This is also not unique to transpersons. People coming out as homosexual also impact those around them as well. Seeing most of us started there, it is or should be something we are very familiar with.

I think to label this very human reaction to a big and perhaps unexpected and unwanted change as a "phobia" is wrong. At times like this, people are struggling, questioning, feeling very alone and very unsupported. What they need is to be able to talk and share and not have to filter what they are going thru for fear of being called some kind of phobia.



Ok, here we go. You have swept a really broad brush and I feel the need to deal with this paint job.

1. To me, as a Transman AND a feminist, the statement that I had an issue with was transphobic. I stand by that. What post is in what thread and by whom does not change my opinion. Kobe, I of all people know what transitioning entails and the impact it can have when not handled with sensitivity to all parties involved. I also know that when handled well, while it may be difficult transitioning doesn't always lead to harm.

I prefaced my comment, with an acknowledgment that "transphobic" has been at times misused. A person, no matter how they identify has a right to express an opinion. And another has a right to agree or respectfully disagree.

2. The part that I called out struck me as coming from a negative starting point. I am keenly aware that everyone connected with the person transitioning will be affected in some way. Of course it doesn't happen in a vacuum. But to see that the focus is on the harm we do to ourselves and bring to others does not sit well at all, especially on a site that includes and welcomes us.

3. I am pretty sure it would not sit well with you if you came and saw a post dealing with the harm femist/feminism bring to themselves and their families and friends.

4. I am all for discussion. And I believe that all involved should work it through. Part of what makes the transition difficult or easier is when there is the presence or absence of honest dialogue. But please do not refer to transgendering or transitioning as if it were harmful. That is where I take issue. Therefore, I took issue with the part I called out.

5. What is unfair is when transitioning is considered harmful. Transitioning can be painful. That doesn't make it harmful. There is loss. That doesn't make it harmful. The difficulty, the struggles, the raw emotions does not mean the process is harmful or that the transgendered person brought harm. There may be individuals who handle the journey of transitioning poorly. And in those cases harm may have been done. I acknowledge that. But my issue is the broad generality of harm being equated with transitioning.

There is more I could say on this but I will stop here.

[Kobi]

Malcolm, I appreciate us having this conversation even if it is over the wording used on a public broadcast blurb which neither of us had control over. The word harmful does have negative connotations to it, thus I can understand why this might be problematical. I didnt write the blurb.

Like you, I think it is important to have these discussions, to share ideas, to clarify and address points of view, to argue language. I think it helps to look at anything from more than one point of view and to find similarities which bring us together as well as the differences which keep us apart. Learning and understanding comes in odd ways sometimes. What is important is that the dialogue continue.

In your original post, you said , " I do not think folks would be ok if "transgendering" was replaced by "lesbian" or "becoming a lesbian" and referred to as being harmful."

Honestly, I have no problem replacing transgendering with lesbian in this situation because it is opposite sides of the same coin. If I were a married hetero woman who came out 20 years later, I expect my husband would have some issues with it. The divorce and separation of property might cause issues for both of us. My kids might be taunted on the playground for have a lezzie as a mother. If I worked for a catholic school system, my lifestyle might cause me to be fired without recourse. On a personal note, my mother is still agonizing over what she did wrong to have not one but two gay kids.

Whether something is "harmful" per se is up to the person who is experiencing it. Their experience, their decision, their wording, their process, their right to speak to their experience without judgement or attempts to silence them.

Again, I didnt use the word. I spoke to the impact of life changes on us and those around us.

In spite of our best intentions and best preparations, we cant always mitigate everything and turn it into a positive experience. As you said, "There may be individuals who handle the journey of transitioning poorly. And in those cases harm may have been done. I acknowledge that."

Point taken and understood.

You also said in you latest post, "I am pretty sure it would not sit well with you if you came and saw a post dealing with the harm femist/feminism bring to themselves and their families and friends."

I actually have no qualms with this either. There is an ongoing war on women which is becoming very threatening to those of us who speak up. Thus, being a feminist, especially a radical feminist, is indeed, very harmful to oneself and to those around us.

If you look at the articles in the Misogyny thread about GamerGate, the dangers of women speaking out are very clear. Women addressing the misogyny, the sexism, the violence, the rapes in viedeo games are being threatened publicly. They are being threatened with violence to themselves and their families. They are having their names, addresses, and photos distributed almost like wanted posters. They are being forced from their homes and into hiding because of the threats. Their livelihoods are being threatened. The venues where they are to speak are being threatened with violence if they take the stage, forcing them to decide if they are going to risk the lives of those in the audience. Malcolm, this is over video games.

Sheila Jeffreys, the woman who was interviewed on this radio program is a radical feminist who speaks to the ways of the old where women organized giving their names, addresses, phone number, and holding meetings in their homes. This is no longer doable because of the threats of violence. Jeffreys cannot even have her name on the door to her office at the university because security decided it was not safe.

I know the harm that comes along with being an outspoken feminist. I know the threats come directly from males. I know the intent is to bully women into silence, so we will not rock the patriarchal boat.

What is kind of odd, to me, is the silence of men/transmen/ transgendered about these threats to women. Plato said, "Silence implies consent."

You also said, "But to see that the focus is on the harm we do to ourselves and bring to others does not sit well at all, especially on a site that includes and welcomes us."

I understand this too. The focus of the radio program was not on the “harm”. It was just one of the topics covered. The other topics were womens liberation, transgender politics, current laws pushing back womens rights and protections, a personal perspective from a detranstioning woman speaking to the harm (their words not mine) to her body and mental health, discussion of the term “transphobic” and examine how it is used to shut-down and silence feminist discourse and organizing. In addition, we will talk about the harms of transgendering to those who do it and to their family and friends.

Lesbians are also included and welcome here. You might want to visit the thread in the Red Zone entitled "Lesbian Love/Hate in our community". Just as you offered me the opportunity to substitute lesbian and feminist for trans, I invite you to substitute the word trans every time you see the word lesbian. Im curious as to how it will make you feel. Same coin, different sides. :)

Thank you for dialogue. My brain is appreciating being challenged and learning new stuff.

Have a good weekend.

[Allison W]

Over in the misogyny thread, I've posted a lot of bad news from the gaming world, particularly that whole "Gamergate (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=943447&postcount=542)" thing. So over here I'm going to post some good news, feminism-wise, from the gaming world. Tabletop gaming rather than video gaming in this case, but still.

First off, the Night Witches kickstarter (http://kck.st/1wb2Z9t). Description from the page itself:

"There was a night bomber regiment in World War Two composed entirely of women. Natural-born Soviet airwomen.

"These 200 women and girls, flying outdated biplanes from open fields near the front lines, attacked the invading German forces every night for 1,100 consecutive nights. When they ran out of bombs they dropped railroad ties.

"To each other they were sisters, with bonds forged in blood and terror. To the Red Army Air Force they were an infuriating feminist sideshow. To the Germans they were simply Nachthexen—Night Witches.

"Night Witches is a tabletop role-playing game about women at war. As a member of the 588th Night Bomber Regiment, you'll answer the call of your Motherland in her darkest hour. Can you do your duty and strike blow after blow against the Fascists? Can you overcome discrimination and outright sabotage and rise above your sexist comrades? Are there limits to patriotism - or endurance? Play Night Witches and find out!"

It's only open to pledges for a few more days, should you want to take a look and maybe kick in (I did, in no small part as a way to vote with my wallet for pro-woman games and against anti-woman voices in the tabletop scene like James Desborough), but it's already made several times the original goal, so it's doing quite well. It's by Bully Pulpit Games, whose previous works include such titles as Grey Ranks, which was about teenagers in the Warsaw Uprising, and which has received multiple awards and also the praise of the Warsaw Rising Museum (http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/grey-ranks/).

Next up is an article from Go Make Me a Sandwich, which describes itself as "a (mostly) humorous look at how not to sell games to women." The article itself is about the portrayal of women and people of colour in the artwork of the 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook (http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/dd-5e-why-so-many-wimmenz/). It includes a lot of direct reactions to particular images in the article, so most of it doesn't "quote" well, but I'll give you a taste that communicates the tone of the article and the author's feelings about the artwork fairly well:

"WUT. Fully-clothed, actively posed, heroic looking women? Brown people? Heroic looking brown women? NO BOOBPLATE??? [swoon]"

[Allison W]

Two things at least semi-related to feminism and specifically feminism in gaming, again.

First off, given all that's been posted about misogyny in gaming (like Gamergate) and feminism in gaming, would anyone here be interested in me gathering up a list of video games with female protagonists, indie games by female devs, or otherwise pro-woman games? Titles like Depression Quest (a free nontraditional game by Zoe Quinn, a female dev recently targeted by Gamergate), or Gone Home (a nontraditional game about a young woman who's returned home from a year abroad in college to an empty home filled with signs of family drama, particularly centered around her younger sister and her sister's best friend). Relevant to this is that some major Steam sales are coming up shortly--the fall sale is supposedly in a few days, and the (big-ticket event) winter sale is generally around Christmas, so prime time to actually pick up some of these titles is coming up. So if there's an interest in this, I'd prefer to do it soon.

Second is something I didn't actually want to post here at all, particularly given recent topics in this thread, due to the controversial political content involved. But if I don't, there's a chance that someone else here might hear about it from entirely the wrong source first and bring a lot of misinformation here, which I definitely don't want. So the only reason I'm posting about this is because if you hear of it at all, it should probably be from me first. Forgive me.

It's about a controversial video game in development named Aerannis (kickstarter link (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ektomarch/aerannis), Steam Greenlight link (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=334030576)) by Ektomarch, whose previous title was Subbania, a game about a closeted gay Nazi submarine captain and his crew fighting demons in the lightless depths of the ocean. So the developer is no stranger to playing Will It Blend with sensitive topics, but I'm still rather frightened to delve into this, as it is a god damn powderkeg of topics I'm afraid to have in close proximity all rubbing up against each other and ready to blow. If you just read the description without reading any of the posts the developer has made on what politics and intentions are going into the game, you could easily get the wrong idea about the developer's intent given all the scary words being thrown around--I actually did, at first, and was quite horrified, until the developer actually realised it was important to clarify the game's politics because god damn powderkeg. Gamergate also got the wrong idea at first; they apparently mistook its politics for being antifeminist, before the developer actually spoke up and said that if that's what they were expecting they would be disappointed (the dev also specified that third-wave intersectional feminist politics were a significant inspiration for the game's themes).

The kickstarter page (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ektomarch/aerannis) explains what the game is about, though I don't know that it does it very well, in no small part because of the desperate need for the creator's politics to be disclosed when dealing with such sensitive topics. I actually did read the developer's statements, so I'll try to clarify what's actually going on here:

The developer clarified that "post-feminist dystopia" specifically refers to Plovdiv's leaders claiming that since only women are left to hold the pieces of the oppression pie, that feminism's goals have been achieved, when they haven't and inequality, marginalisation, unrest, and violence still plague the city. (Read: it is not a dystopia because feminism happened; it is a dystopia because it still needs feminism but the leaders claim it doesn't anymore.)

The dev also said that they weren't making a goal of stumping for or against any specific political philosophy, but I'm nonetheless smelling a bit of a knock at the libertarian-feminist crowd, as well as a certain allegory for the people who claim that patriarchy is no more and that feminism's work is done today. Similarly, the dev is going whole-hog on the wacky lizard-people-grade conspiracy-theory thing, but this, too, smacks of a metaphor (I'm still not a fan of crazy over-the-top metaphors) for a certain flexible, ever-adapting institution that runs our society that many people claim no longer exists (patriarchy), though I might think of different metaphors to use for it. In that light it sounds almost like "Yo dawg I took the real world and added a Boss Rush mode."

My concern there is that for all the dev loves the juxtaposition of ridiculousness and seriousness, and for all that gamers love any excuse for awesome boss fights like a giant crab monster that chases you up stairless chasms while verbally harassing you in your proverbial sore spots (I am guilty as charged), I'm still not sure I'd want to mix that kind of wackiness with holy shit serious political topics like these. Perhaps a little more pressing is that while I usually like antiheroes it almost seems like adding more tinder where the tinder index is already dangerously high, particularly given that the protagonist is a trans woman in an all-woman society. And, it's said that great writing makes the specific universal and the universal specific, but therein lies all the trouble: given the intense focus on themes both political and personal, the story writing and dialogue writing are both going to have to be excellent to pull this off. Better than the first-draft writing so far, and it definitely better be a damn sight better than the word salad you've been getting from me.

For those who are still freaked out about this (I wouldn't blame you; those were some pretty scary words and hot political tomatoes), the developer finally felt the need to make a rather lengthy post, containing some plot spoilers, about the nature of what is actually happening in this game and the nature of the violence in it and whom that violence can be done against (short version: not civilians) (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/103193803928/attempting-to-clear-up-misunderstandings).

Also, the dev isn't trans, despite some people making that assumption. I have no clue where they got that idea.

I just felt a need to get all of that out there before someone here heard about this from the wrong source. Now I'm gonna have a daiquiri and see if I can't calm down a bit. Let me know if you want me to put together a list of games for you folks to check out in the upcoming days and weeks.

[Femmadian]

< snip>

Second is something I didn't actually want to post here at all, particularly given recent topics in this thread, due to the controversial political content involved. But if I don't, there's a chance that someone else here might hear about it from entirely the wrong source first and bring a lot of misinformation here, which I definitely don't want. So the only reason I'm posting about this is because if you hear of it at all, it should probably be from me first. Forgive me.


< snip >


For those who are still freaked out about this (I wouldn't blame you; those were some pretty scary words and hot political tomatoes), the developer finally felt the need to make a rather lengthy post, containing some plot spoilers, about the nature of what is actually happening in this game and the nature of the violence in it and whom that violence can be done against (short version: not civilians) (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/103193803928/attempting-to-clear-up-misunderstandings).

< snip >

I just felt a need to get all of that out there before someone here heard about this from the wrong source.


I've seen this floating around online for the past few days. While the information available about the game is still somewhat limited, there are a few things one could touch on with this...


Yes, it's true the game developer is not a trans woman. Only the game's protagonist is. The game developer is a man (http://bluebirdplays.com/post/102640050036/leap-into-the-world-of-aerranis-game-developer) and is writing a game about a fascist woman-only dystopian society.
The society is described by the developer ("dev") as "post-feminist."
The protagonist, a hired assassin, uses female bodies as human shields:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/2fe08d1de3b8c398e957531b7e6234f6/tumblr_ncjtmn2rJ71sil96do1_1280.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/98531474503/human-shields-people-wont-shoot-if-youve-got)
http://38.media.tumblr.com/5b0ffbbcfbcbfbcf828dbf7399f4e224/tumblr_nea14qFNqK1sil96do3_500.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/101366221048/so-uh-heres-my-kickstarter-for-aerannis)

There's this gif from the game found on the dev's Tumblr:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/be300f1546604260f45da292a13a33fd/tumblr_n6xgejvP6d1sil96do1_400.gif
with the caption: "she doesn’t like having her butt slapped"
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/88325076908/she-doesnt-like-having-her-butt-slapped)
---> Note: another game developer [username: sokuzah] then jokingly comments on the original developer's page: "she should stop dressing so provocatively then"; zero response or reaction from the game developer or other supporters of the game

And then there's this:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/6b37abe41e2ec89e74a09bcb1033624b/tumblr_n4wav3gqey1sil96do1_400.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/84417534908/finally-getting-some-good-work-done-on-aeranniss)
- are these meant to be civilians... the overweight, ugly, and perpetually dour feminists?
Oh, wait, yep, our thin, perky protagonist is going to use the large, mohawk-sporting, cigarette-holding lady in blue as a human shield now:
http://38.media.tumblr.com/56441490a234b44309060158f75eccd4/tumblr_n4bkosoueM1sil96do2_r1_500.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/83284659516/just-started-work-on-the-hostage-human-shield)
And then there's this lovely gif from the game:
http://i.minus.com/ib21c61vDAoJ7C.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/79816574951/spent-the-weekend-working-on-this-city-i-think)


In case you didn't catch it at the end, the vaguely dive bar-looking grey building in this feminist dystopia is called Dworkin's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin). Here's a still for those who may have missed it:
http://i.imgur.com/aeXkNcY.png?1


From the Kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ektomarch/aerannis) page:
"While carrying out some routine assassinations, Ceyda becomes aware of something: these assassinations are anything but routine. All of these missions involve an organized revolt against the government and foundations of society. As she becomes aware of the force behind it, an ancient organization of otherworldly beings who've guided humanity's advances (and downfalls) since the dawn of time, there's one question lingering in the back of her mind: in a society where being a woman is a prerequisite for being human, does someone who's often not considered a 'whole woman' have any duty to save those who hate her? And would they even believe her if she told them?"

Also from the same source under "Gameplay" offerings:

MEAT SHIELDS: Sometimes running in guns ablaze isn't a good idea. In these situations you can grab civilians or unaware enemies and use them as a human shield. Note that this doesn't work on enemies that lack human empathy! Hostages are also beneficial for gaining access to restricted areas. Just find the right person and make them open the door.

Charming.

The game pits the protagonist against cis/AFAB/bio women and asks "in a society where being a woman is a prerequisite for being human, does someone who's often not considered a 'whole woman' have any duty to save those who hate her?"

Notice, no distinction or implication that any of the women in this "post-feminist" society acknowledge her humanity. Nope, apparently the women in this society are all trans-hating bigots (by virtue of their being born female? By living in a woman-only society?) and it follows that their own humanity is perhaps not a thing worth saving... or is at least a concept needing some armchair philosophizing first.

Spoiler: this dystopian feminist society is actually controlled by "demons," a sort of "illuminati" (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/103193803928/attempting-to-clear-up-misunderstandings#notes) who have controlled "every major society and empire", even, according to the developer's page (http://ektomarch.com/aerannis/), Nazis. I'm assuming the developer is referring specifically to Nazi Germany circa roughly WWII but he never quite makes that clear...

"The fate of Plovdiv [the fictional society the game is set in] hangs in the balance as Ceyda [the protagonist] navigates the layers of a conspiracy: Every major society and empire–from the Akkadians to the Shang, from the Romans to the Nazis–has been guided by one immortal force. Plovdiv is now another link in the chain. But how?"

Alrighty then...

I think people can have deep, valid objections to and concerns about this game and they should not be dismissively glossed over as illegitimate or misplaced fears as a result of reading some "scary words" or getting their information from what someone else proclaims to be the "wrong source." I have some pretty serious reservations about what this game purports to be and represent and it has nothing to do with my delicate sensibilities being exposed to scary words or being too stupid or unaware to be able to discern the difference between the credible commentary and the inflammatory (and to be able to decide for myself which is which).

[Allison W]

I've seen this floating around online for the past few days. While the information available about the game is still somewhat limited, there are a few things one could touch on with this...


Yes, it's true the game developer is not a trans woman. Only the game's protagonist is. The game developer is a man (http://bluebirdplays.com/post/102640050036/leap-into-the-world-of-aerranis-game-developer) and is writing a game about a fascist woman-only dystopian society.
The society is described by the developer ("dev") as "post-feminist."

I suspect you did not read my post. The developer actually weighed in on this: it is "post-feminist" in the sense that the leadership claims that feminist ideals are no longer necessary, when they still are. Take it from the developer: (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/102301125383/about-aerannis-being-about-a-post-feminist-dystopia)

"I’m using “post-feminist” to mean that the government within this universe claims that feminism’s end goals have been attained and everybody is equal and happy and so there’s no more need for feminism. That is, of course, not true..." (emphasis mine)

Like I said. If you've ever heard the saying "I'll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy," that is exactly what is being referred to here: the government claims feminism's goals have been reached when they have not, and that is straight from the developer.

The protagonist, a hired assassin, uses female bodies as human shields:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/2fe08d1de3b8c398e957531b7e6234f6/tumblr_ncjtmn2rJ71sil96do1_1280.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/98531474503/human-shields-people-wont-shoot-if-youve-got)
http://38.media.tumblr.com/5b0ffbbcfbcbfbcf828dbf7399f4e224/tumblr_nea14qFNqK1sil96do3_500.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/101366221048/so-uh-heres-my-kickstarter-for-aerannis)

This is one of the parts I dislike, but "human shields" is an extremely common mechanic. I've seen it in several games, including non-stealth games--it's a staple of the genre.

There's this gif from the game found on the dev's Tumblr:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/be300f1546604260f45da292a13a33fd/tumblr_n6xgejvP6d1sil96do1_400.gif
with the caption: "she doesn’t like having her butt slapped"
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/88325076908/she-doesnt-like-having-her-butt-slapped)
---> Note: another game developer [username: sokuzah] then jokingly comments on the original developer's page: "she should stop dressing so provocatively then"; zero response or reaction from the game developer or other supporters of the game

Which was inappropriate of that commentator, but I'm actually not seeing where she's dressed provocatively. I also never saw the comment to begin with, because I didn't go digging through that post's mentions; I don't imagine many people did. It's fairly probable that the developer himself did not see the comment. Would you feel better if I asked the developer to publicly inform sokuzah that this is inappropriate? I don't know him, but there are ways to get ahold of people over Kickstarter or Tumblr.

And then there's this:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/6b37abe41e2ec89e74a09bcb1033624b/tumblr_n4wav3gqey1sil96do1_400.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/84417534908/finally-getting-some-good-work-done-on-aeranniss)
- are these meant to be civilians... the overweight, ugly, and perpetually dour feminists?

Uh, yes, there are fat women in the game, just like there are thin and ordinary-weight women.

Oh, wait, yep, our thin, perky protagonist is going to use the large, mohawk-sporting, cigarette-holding lady in blue as a human shield now:
http://38.media.tumblr.com/56441490a234b44309060158f75eccd4/tumblr_n4bkosoueM1sil96do2_r1_500.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/83284659516/just-started-work-on-the-hostage-human-shield)

That's the developer testing the mechanics in the downtown area, where there are no enemies around.

And then there's this lovely gif from the game:
http://i.minus.com/ib21c61vDAoJ7C.gif
Link (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/79816574951/spent-the-weekend-working-on-this-city-i-think)

In case you didn't catch it at the end, the vaguely dive bar-looking grey building in this feminist dystopia is called Dworkin's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin). Here's a still for those who may have missed it:
http://i.imgur.com/aeXkNcY.png?1

I'm actually not seeing how just naming a bar after a feminist figure is offensive. Was Dworkin an anti-alcohol activist? If so, I could let the developer know; the game is still in development, so he might edit it.

From the Kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ektomarch/aerannis) page:
"While carrying out some routine assassinations, Ceyda becomes aware of something: these assassinations are anything but routine. All of these missions involve an organized revolt against the government and foundations of society. As she becomes aware of the force behind it, an ancient organization of otherworldly beings who've guided humanity's advances (and downfalls) since the dawn of time, there's one question lingering in the back of her mind: in a society where being a woman is a prerequisite for being human, does someone who's often not considered a 'whole woman' have any duty to save those who hate her? And would they even believe her if she told them?"

Also from the same source under "Gameplay" offerings:

MEAT SHIELDS: Sometimes running in guns ablaze isn't a good idea. In these situations you can grab civilians or unaware enemies and use them as a human shield. Note that this doesn't work on enemies that lack human empathy! Hostages are also beneficial for gaining access to restricted areas. Just find the right person and make them open the door.

Charming.

Not especially charming, no, but it is a staple of the genre and not unique to this game in any way. Probably the first game I recall playing where human shields are a mechanic is Saints Row 2, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't even the first game to do it--and unlike games like Saints Row 2, you can't kill the civilians afterwards in this one. I myself would have used a different genre for something so politically sensitive.

The game pits the protagonist against cis/AFAB/bio women and asks "in a society where being a woman is a prerequisite for being human, does someone who's often not considered a 'whole woman' have any duty to save those who hate her?"

Notice, no distinction or implication that any of the women in this "post-feminist" society acknowledge her humanity. Nope, apparently the women in this society are all trans-hating bigots (by virtue of their being born female? By living in a woman-only society?) and it follows that their own humanity is perhaps not a thing worth saving... or is at least a concept needing some armchair philosophizing first.

I'm going to quote the developer directly. You can read for yourself here (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/103193803928/attempting-to-clear-up-misunderstandings).

(begin quote)

"One note I’d like to make: you can’t kill civilians in the game. You can only kill robots, monsters, and other assassins/people who’ve killed. Some civilians are nice, some are mean; you can’t kill any of them, no matter how they treat you. Some people have said “she’s angry and killing people who don’t see her as a real woman!” That literally never happens in the game."

"Another note: some people are claiming it’s a game about a trans woman “getting revenge and killing (their words) ‘real’ women.’” No. You’re taking down the government that’s oppressing and killing its own people of any and all types."

[ . . . ]

"The game is not about portraying cis women as enemies. It’s about a trans woman who realizes that both cis and trans women are being manipulated and controlled by gooey monsters who can change form at will and have been controlling every society since the dawn of time..."

(end quote)

So, uh, it's a game about a government conspiracy vs. the people, with a protagonist who, while there are people who treat her as human, is still a second-class citizen in her society and has internal conflicts about defending a society where she's a second-class citizen along the way to making the choice to defend that society, which is about the most normal thing to feel ever. I am also pretty sure the "second-class citizen defending their society while having internal conflicts about defending a society in which they are a second-class citizen" is kind of an established trope and the only thing new here is the exact category to which it is being applied.

Spoiler: this dystopian feminist society is actually controlled by "demons," a sort of "illuminati" (http://fffbbb.tumblr.com/post/103193803928/attempting-to-clear-up-misunderstandings#notes) who have controlled "every major society and empire", even, according to the developer's page (http://ektomarch.com/aerannis/), Nazis. I'm assuming the developer is referring specifically to Nazi Germany circa roughly WWII but he never quite makes that clear...

Given the developer's previous game was about a closeted gay Nazi submarine captain and his crew fighting demons in the lightless depths of the ocean, I'm going to guess it's referring to Nazi Germany. That's the only Nazi society we've had: neo-Nazis exist, but a "society" they are not.

"The fate of Plovdiv [the fictional society the game is set in] hangs in the balance as Ceyda [the protagonist] navigates the layers of a conspiracy: Every major society and empire–from the Akkadians to the Shang, from the Romans to the Nazis–has been guided by one immortal force. Plovdiv is now another link in the chain. But how?"

Alrighty then...

I think people can have deep, valid objections to and concerns about this game and they should not be dismissively glossed over as illegitimate or misplaced fears as a result of reading some "scary words" or getting their information from what someone else proclaims to be the "wrong source." I have some pretty serious reservations about what this game purports to be and represent and it has nothing to do with my delicate sensibilities being exposed to scary words or being too stupid or unaware to be able to discern the difference between the credible commentary and the inflammatory (and to be able to decide for myself which is which).

You can, but I do nonetheless expect you to actually investigate the material before passing judgment. My initial reaction was very similar to yours until the developer actually posted about the concerns others were raising about the game (things that should have been clarified from the start, honestly; the developer did not handle the topics as delicately as he should have, and that is on him) and I read them, rather than sticking to previous assumptions based upon limited information.

Can I please get you to read what I am saying? I'm not telling you to have no problems with it--I still do, like the decision to use one of the more disturbingly violent genres in this kind of proximity to such sensitive political issues, as well as the fact that the developer seemed to be caught unaware by just how politically sensitive this entire thing is when he ought to have been prepared for that from the start--but will you read what I am saying?

(Also, thank you for not threatening to come to my house to do a murder over this discussion. Basic civility is in short supply on the Internet these days.)

[Femmadian]

Allison, what makes you think I haven't read your post or "investigated" the issue? Because I don't agree with you?

I actually linked to the same developer explanation in my post that you are now telling me to read. For the record, I've read all five pages on his Tumblr, his Kickstarter, the site for his game development portfolio and presskit, Ektomarch, this (http://bluebirdplays.com/post/102640050036/leap-into-the-world-of-aerranis-game-developer) interview with Blue Bird Plays, and have researched on my own his relatively short history as a game developer to familiarize myself with his work (such as his work on Subbania). The implication that the only reason I (or anyone) could possibly disagree with you is either through intellectual laziness or ignorance is incredibly insulting and patronizing.

I am well aware of how he he said he was using the term "post-feminist" as it appears we've read the same page. I have a different take on it. That doesn't mean I did not understand it or that I haven't read it.

I don't think the developer is a feminist from what I've read in interviews and on his pages and I don't think that the game captures any of the nuances of the subject matters he is attempting to tackle.

I've actually been mulling the matter over for a few days now and (not that it should matter) the response to your post was composed over the span of roughly two hours wherein I read and re-read your post several times. I would ask that you not insinuate knowledge about my level of comprehension or activity that you know nothing about.

I am well aware that the developer purports that the game is to be one dealing with government conspiracy vs the people but I have serious concerns with its execution and whether that message is evident in the game without the benefit of the developer having to explain himself ad nauseam.

I am also quite aware of the use of "meat shields" in the gaming industry. I still find them distasteful and given the highly sensitive nature of this specific game, I think it's a poor choice.

I find it disingenuous that you seem to not want to comment on the history of Andrea Dworkin being demonized by anti-feminists and hailed as some sort of "angry," catch-all mouthpiece for the entire movement by those who look to discredit it. I don't know if the developer is intending for that building to be a bar, a warehouse, a store, whatever, and I don't think it really matters. The point is that I find the inclusion of the name as background noise in this game to be, given the context, highly suspect and it raises feminist red flags for me.

Similarly, you can't just explain away overweight characters as simply being neutrally overweight or "fat" without talking about the context of stereotypes and the shaming of feminists as fat, ugly, and/or angry, which it is implied that these characters are. Do I think it's a coincidence that a game which depicts a woman-only post-feminist dystopia has its citizens alternately being portrayed as overweight or angry women? Absolutely not. You're supposed to sympathize with the protagonist who is thin and attractive (by game animation standards) and the civilians and/or fascist feminists are fat and ugly and shout things at the protagonist such as "get outta my face" as she walks by. It's about one step away from putting the good guys (gal) in a white hat and the bad ones in black hats and not subtle at all.

By the way, what exactly is a "normal-sized" woman? Are fat women and thin women by definition considered abnormal? Sounds like body shaming to me.

Moving on to the comment about slapping a female character's posterior:

Which was inappropriate of that commentator, but I'm actually not seeing where she's dressed provocatively. I also never saw the comment to begin with, because I didn't go digging through that post's mentions; I don't imagine many people did. It's fairly probable that the developer himself did not see the comment. Would you feel better if I asked the developer to publicly inform sokuzah that this is inappropriate? I don't know him, but there are ways to get ahold of people over Kickstarter or Tumblr.

So, if the developer had put her skirt/lab coat a few pixelated inches higher, that comment would have been okay to you...? Saying that you don't see her as dressing provocatively is completely missing the point. And I didn't go "digging" through the post to find something to be offended about. It's fairly close to the top of the post's notes and the developer would have been notified on Tumblr that someone commented on it. It's both indicative of and a larger part of an overall air of subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) feminist- and woman-shaming that I see with this game. Do you think a feminist would create the option or even the gif from one of their games with the main character non-consensually slapping the ass of a woman (which is assault...) with the simple caption "she doesn't like having her butt slapped"?

Would I "feel better" if you contacted the gamer on my behalf...? No. I'd "feel better" if the developer actually showed any feminist behaviour without first having to be prompted or called out on it. This isn't about someone's delicate little feelings being hurt (and it's really minimizing and condescending to suggest that my objections on that point amount to little more). It's about thinking critically about a subject which proclaims to be feminist and around which there is a fair amount of debate and conflicting opinion.

People are allowed to disagree with us and we don't get to decide for other people what is and isn't a significant enough level of research into a topic before they get to form an opinion about it and have it be one which we'll accept as valid and worthy of respect. I have to say that your post came off as incredibly patronizing, disrespectful, and insulting and assumes a lot about what I've personally read or think about this topic.

Furthermore, the idea that other members should be given news about this game by you first... why? Why do you place yourself as having intellectual or explanatory authority over anyone else? And what are "wrong sources" and who are you to decide for someone else what those might be?

Frankly, I'm not sure why you felt the need to edit your post to add that little parenthetical aside about thanking me for not threatening bodily harm to you...? I have never done anything of the sort to anyone and I don't know why you felt the need to include it. It feels unnecessary and gross and honestly, it goes a way towards painting those who disagree with you on this issue as raging, irrational "harpies" who cannot have a logical debate. That sounds pretty sexist to me and I'm not okay with being praised (even backhandedly) by virtue of insulting other women in the process. That's not something I ever agreed to.

Ultimately, I hope that people are able to make up their own minds about this and really, anything else which may be in this thread. We are not and do not have to be of a hive mind here and we are allowed to form our own opinions without the sanction of someone else. The diversity of thought and expression is one of the incredibly positive aspects of this community and one of the main reasons I continue to come here. I think that if that is to continue (and there's no reason to think it won't) then there is a need for respect for the difference in opinions as well as the people holding them by all members and for all members, even if you don't understand or particularly care for either it or them.

[Kobi]

I am not a gamer but I, too, have seen the concerns raised about this "game" for several weeks.

From the developer (http://ektomarch.com/aerannis/):

In 2XXX, women from around the world migrated to central Bulgaria to escape centuries of oppression. In an attempt to halt its rapid decline, Plovdiv was restructured as a bastion of feminist ideals. Twelve years later, Plovdiv became the last remaining city on Earth. The city flourished into a haven for women and its pride became its stability, proof of the success of its founding females' principles.

And yet, society became apathetic to its fellow citizens' discontent.

Government and private individuals soon hired assassins to resolve their “problems”, and this underground system became the replacement for due process. It was a necessary reality in a system that came to shut out the concerns of its women. It was well accepted that the state's alleged political ideals were sufficient for guaranteeing absolute peace and security. The only solution was to resort to "alternative methods", which increasingly became common practice in a society who praised a good image as being next to godliness.

Our heroine is Ceyda Farhi, a twenty-something Bulgarian Turk, trans woman, and assassin. Her willingness to put a job ahead of her own life gives her steady employment. While the bulk of her jobs entail grudges or handling problematic no-names, she starts to notice traces of interconnectedness in each of her jobs, having far grander repercussions than she could've ever imagined. The fate of Plovdiv hangs in the balance as Ceyda navigates the layers of a conspiracy: Every major society and empire–from the Akkadians to the Shang, from the Romans to the Nazis–has been guided by one immortal force. Plovdiv is now another link in the chain. But how?

While fearing the rapid decline of her mental state and feeling the world of unbelievable conspiracies spiraling around her, she knows that she must tell the world the truth before it's too late for her and womankind. Two problems stand between her and alerting everyone of the truth: who could ever believe her? And in a society where being a woman is being human, does Ceyda--a trans woman who's often not regarded as being a "whole" woman--have any responsibility to save those who look down on her?

Aerannis hopes to give players an insight into the struggles of gender identity and empowerment in an oppressive world without in any way sacrificing the intensity of 2D action games.



Even tho I have been unable to track down the sex of the developer(s), what I see in their "explanation" is a lot of man speak i.e. believe our intent as opposed to what we actually developed.

I also see a gross misunderstanding of what feminism is, thus the portrayal of a feminist society gone bad looks just like the patriarchy i.e. same power dynamics, same oppression, same violence, same isms.

And, the developers stated goal is about the struggle for gender identity and empowerment....which apparently can only be achieved thru violence.

To me, this is just the same crap, different game.

[Allison W]

Femmadian: Indeed we are allowed to disagree, and for all that there are concerns that we actually do share, I'm going to invoke exactly that right here. We don't agree and aren't going to.


Even tho I have been unable to track down the sex of the developer(s), what I see in their "explanation" is a lot of man speak i.e. believe our intent as opposed to what we actually developed.

He's a man, though he's not the only person on the writing team, and it does include a trans woman. (Had she been given more control over the publicity, this might have gone better.)

I also see a gross misunderstanding of what feminism is, thus the portrayal of a feminist society gone bad looks just like the patriarchy i.e. same power dynamics, same oppression, same violence, same isms.

I'm still pretty sure that the conspiracy at the top is a metaphor for patriarchy, but obviously I can't make anyone agree with me on that.

And, the developers stated goal is about the struggle for gender identity and empowerment....which apparently can only be achieved thru violence.

To me, this is just the same crap, different game.

I'm resisting the urge to get into a dissertation about how the fact that men have been permitted almost sole ownership of violence is what's enabled patriarchy to run rampant throughout virtually every society and that nothing short of women's violence will change that, but pacifism is fashionable and so I don't really expect a lot of agreement.

[Kobi]

I'm resisting the urge to get into a dissertation about how the fact that men have been permitted almost sole ownership of violence is what's enabled patriarchy to run rampant throughout virtually every society and that nothing short of women's violence will change that, but pacifism is fashionable and so I don't really expect a lot of agreement.


Can you explain this , minus the dissertation? Not sure what this actually says.

[Allison W]

Can you explain this , minus the dissertation? Not sure what this actually says.


I get this warm and fuzzy feeling in my chest whenever I hear of a woman who beat the shit out of a man who thought he could victimise her because he thought violence belonged to him and not her and learned otherwise.

I suppose if I wanted to put it in more academic terms, I could say that I think a lot of the fundamental power imbalance between men and women in our society is that women are taught that they don't own violence (whereas men are taught that they do own it), and that nothing else will fix that fundamental power imbalance until women get that same tacit message that they own their share of the use of force, because at the end of the day, whether it's an "acceptable" form of power or not, it is absolutely a form of power. Peace, on the other hand, is pleasant, and non-threatening, and exactly what the patriarchy expects of women. It might be a controversial opinion, but I've stated it more than once on these fora.

[Kobi]

I get this warm and fuzzy feeling in my chest whenever I hear of a woman who beat the shit out of a man who thought he could victimise her because he thought violence belonged to him and not her and learned otherwise.

I suppose if I wanted to put it in more academic terms, I could say that I think a lot of the fundamental power imbalance between men and women in our society is that women are taught that they don't own violence (whereas men are taught that they do own it), and that nothing else will fix that fundamental power imbalance until women get that same tacit message that they own their share of the use of force, because at the end of the day, whether it's an "acceptable" form of power or not, it is absolutely a form of power. Peace, on the other hand, is pleasant, and non-threatening, and exactly what the patriarchy expects of women. It might be a controversial opinion, but I've stated it more than once on these fora.


Ahhh ok, now I am following your train of thought. This explains why we disagree on the methodology and message of this game. It also explains why this was topic was put in the feminism thread as opposed to the misogyny and sexism thread.

As a point of reference, feminism is about the eradication of power, control, and violence which are the hallmarks of a patriarchal framework and mindset.

And, feminists tend to get warm and fuzzy feelings from justice, not violence. :)

[Allison W]

Ahhh ok, now I am following your train of thought. This explains why we disagree on the methodology and message of this game. It also explains why this was topic was put in the feminism thread as opposed to the misogyny and sexism thread.

As a point of reference, feminism is about the eradication of power, control, and violence which are the hallmarks of a patriarchal framework and mindset.

And, feminists tend to get warm and fuzzy feelings from justice, not violence. :)



I appreciate that this particular line of discussion has remained civil (for some values of civil, I suppose), but I have absolutely no faith in it ever being remotely feasible to completely eradicate power, control, and violence. They can be reduced, they can be managed, they can be distributed in patterns that result in fewer people getting ground in the gears, but humans are still animals. Endurance predators, to be specific, with some degree of predator instincts inherent to us. Good is possible, better is possible, but perfect just isn't an option. I'm not about to turn down "better" because it wasn't the "perfect" I wanted. Perfect is a pipe dream and that way lies madness.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't presume to define your brand of feminism as the only one. I know you don't care for liberalism any more than I care for radicalism, but that was kind of patronising.

[Kobi]

I appreciate that this particular line of discussion has remained civil (for some values of civil, I suppose), but I have absolutely no faith in it ever being remotely feasible to completely eradicate power, control, and violence. They can be reduced, they can be managed, they can be distributed in patterns that result in fewer people getting ground in the gears, but humans are still animals. Endurance predators, to be specific, with some degree of predator instincts inherent to us. Good is possible, better is possible, but perfect just isn't an option, and be mindful that you don't turn down a better world because it wasn't the perfect world you wanted.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't presume to define your brand of feminism as the only one. I know you don't care for liberalism any more than I care for radicalism, but that was kind of patronising.


Obviously, we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I dont see people as predatory animals in an endurance contest. To me, thinking that way means humans are slaves to animalistic impulses and incapable of change. To me, this is a hopelessness about human nature and the human condition.

My beliefs are contrary to that. I believe in people. I believe human beings have the capacity of higher levels of thought, feeling, reasoning, leading to the capacity to change. I have hope.

We can agree to disagree on that point.

The basic tenets of feminism have not changed since their inception. What I am speaking to has nothing to do with liberal, conservative, or radical ideology.

We can also agree to disagree on this.

Have a good evening.

[Kobi]

Robin Morgan is an author, activist and feminist. She is also a co-founder, with Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda, of the Women's Media Center

I know, I know, TIME’s annual word-banning poll is meant as a joke, and this year’s inclusion of the word feminist wasn’t an attempt to end a movement. But as a writer — and feminist who naturally has no sense of humor — banning words feels, well, uncomfortable. The fault lies in the usage or overusage, not the word — even dumb or faddish words.

Feminist is neither of those. Nevertheless, I once loathed it. In 1968, while organizing the first protest against the Miss America Pageant, I called myself a “women’s liberationist,” because “feminist” seemed so 19th century: ladies scooting around in hoop skirts with ringlet curls cascading over their ears!

What an ignoramus I was. But school hadn’t taught me who they really were, and the media hadn’t either. We Americans forget or rewrite even our recent history, and accomplishments of any group not pale and male have tended to get downplayed or erased — one reason why Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda and I founded the Women’s Media Center: to make women visible and powerful in media.

No, it took assembling and researching my anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful to teach me about the word feminism. I had no clue that feminists had been a major (or leading) presence in every social-justice movement in the U.S. time line: the revolutionary war, the campaigns to abolish slavery, debtors’ prisons and sweatshops; mobilizations for suffrage, prison reform, equal credit; fights to establish social security, unions, universal childhood education, halfway houses, free libraries; plus the environmentalism, antiwar and peace movements. And more. By 1970, I was a feminist.

Throughout that decade, feminism was targeted for ridicule. Here’s how it plays: first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then prosecute you, then try to co-opt you, then — once you win — they claim they gave you your rights: after a century of women organizing, protesting, being jailed, going on hunger strikes and being brutally force-fed, “they” gave women the vote.

We outlasted being a joke only to find our adversaries had repositioned “feminist” as synonymous with “lesbian” — therefore oooh, “dangerous.” These days — given recent wins toward marriage equality and the end of “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military, not to mention the popularity of Orange Is the New Black — it’s strange to recall how, in the ’70s, that connotation scared many heterosexual women away from claiming the word feminist. But at least it gave birth to a witty button of which I’ve always been especially fond: “How dare you assume I’m straight?!”

Yet in the 1980s the word was still being avoided. You’d hear maddening contradictions like “I’m no feminist, but …” after which feminist statements would pour from the speaker’s mouth. Meanwhile, women’s-rights activists of color preferred culturally organic versions: womanist among African Americans, mujerista among Latinas. I began using feminisms to more accurately depict and affirm such a richness of constituencies. Furthermore, those of us working in the global women’s movement found it fitting to celebrate what I termed a “multiplicity of feminisms.”

No matter the name, the movement kept growing. Along the way, the word absorbed the identity politics of the 1980s and ’90s, ergo cultural feminism, radical feminism, liberal/reform feminism, electoral feminism, academic feminism, ecofeminism, lesbian feminism, Marxist feminism, socialist feminism — and at times hybrids of the above.

Flash-forward to today when, despite predictions to the contrary, young women are furiously active online and off, and are adopting “the F word” with far greater ease and rapidity than previous feminists. Women of color have embraced the words feminism and feminist as their own, along with women all over the world, including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

As we move into 2015, feminism is suddenly hot; celebrities want to identify with it. While such irony makes me smile wryly, I know we live in a celebrity culture and this brings more attention to issues like equal pay, full reproductive rights, and ending violence against women. I also know that sincere women (and men of conscience), celebs or not, will stay with the word and what it stands for. Others will just peel off when the next flavor of the month comes along.

Either way, the inexorable forward trajectory of this global movement persists, powered by women in Nepal’s rice paddies fighting for literacy rights; women in Kenya’s Green Belt Movement planting trees for microbusiness and the environment; Texas housewives in solidarity with immigrant women to bring and keep families together; and survivors speaking out about prostitution not being “sex work” or “just another job,” but a human-rights violation. From boardroom to Planned Parenthood clinic, this is feminism.

The dictionary definition is simple: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Anyone who can’t support something that commonsensical and fair is part of a vanishing breed: well over half of all American women and more than 30% of American men approve of the word — the percentages running even higher in communities of color and internationally.

But I confess that for me feminism means something more profound. It means freeing a political force: the power, energy and intelligence of half the human species hitherto ignored or silenced. More than any other time in history, that force is needed to save this imperiled blue planet. Feminism, for me, is the politics of the 21st century.

http://time.com/3588846/time-apologizes-feminist-word-poll-robin-morgan/

[Kobi]

DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT

Feminism seems to be the scariest word in the English language. But not for those of us who experienced the game-changing awakening that was the Women’s Movement of the 1970s. Growing up in the fifties and sixties meant not only second class citizenship legally, but 2nd class human being-ship: not invited to the party of medicine, art, law, education, science, religion, except maybe as the secretary. Our film, FEMINISTS: What were they thinking? digs deep into our personal experiences of sexism and of liberation, and follows this ever-challenging dialogue right into the 21st century. We are taking it personally.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/1399645/photo-main.jpg?1413859021

Link To Film Page (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/342423718/feminists-what-were-they-thinking)

[Kobi]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Gina_Raimondo.png

Gina Marie Raimondo (born May 17, 1971) is an American politician, businesswoman, and venture capitalist, and the Governor-elect of the State of Rhode Island. Raimondo, a member of the Democratic Party, will become the first woman to serve as Governor of Rhode Island. [1]

She has served as the General Treasurer for the State of Rhode Island since 2011. She is the second Rhode Island woman to serve as Treasurer. She was selected as the Democratic Party candidate for Rhode Island Governor in the 2014 election. Raimondo won the election with 40% of the vote on November 4, 2014.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo

[Kelt]

German cabinet approves gender quota law (http://www.dw.de/german-cabinet-approves-gender-quota-law/av-18123764)

"After years of debate about its effectiveness, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet has now approved legislation for more female representation in top boardrooms. If it's passed by parliament the new law will come into effect in 2016. Currently less than one in five members of supervisory boards in Germany is held by a woman."

The new law will require large corporations to have a 30% representation of women in top positions. Follow the link to see the video as it aired today on DW news.

[Kobi]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/ce/2f/c1/ce2fc1359c63b15bbf2eb23b91cd4772.jpg

[Kobi]

VATICAN CITY (AP) — A sweeping Vatican investigation into Roman Catholic nuns in the U.S. that began amid fears they had become too feminist and secular ended up praising the sisters for their selfless work caring for the poor — a major shift in tone that reflected the social justice mindset of Pope Francis.

The overwhelmingly positive report Tuesday also promised to value their "feminine genius" more, while gently suggesting ways to serve the church faithfully and survive amid a steep drop in their numbers. It was cheered by the American sisters themselves, dozens of whom swarmed the Vatican news conference announcing the results in a rare occasion of women outnumbering men at the Vatican.

"There is an encouraging and realistic tone in this report," Sister Sharon Holland told reporters. "Challenges are understood, but it is not a document of blame, or of simplistic solutions. One can read the text and feel appreciated and trusted to carry on."

The report was most remarkable for what it didn't say, given the criticism of American religious life that prompted the Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI to launch the investigation in 2009.

There was no critique of the nuns, no demands that they shift their focus from social justice to emphasize Catholic teaching on abortion, no condemnation that a feminist, secular mentality had taken hold in their ranks.

Rather, while offering a sobering assessment of the difficult state of American congregations, the report praised the sisters' dedication and reaffirmed their calling in a reflection of the pastoral tone characteristic of history's first Jesuit pope.

It was a radically different message than that of another Vatican office that investigated an umbrella group of the sisters' leaders.

That investigation, conducted by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, resulted in a Vatican takeover of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in 2012. The doctrine office determined that the LCWR, which represents the leaders of 80 percent of U.S. nuns, took positions that undermined church teaching and promoted "radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

The Vatican's congregation for religious orders has long sought to distinguish its broad investigation into the quality of life of American sisters from the more narrow doctrinal assessment carried out by the orthodoxy office.

But both investigations began within months of one another and resulted in tremendous feelings of betrayal and insult from the sisters.

The probes also prompted an outpouring of support from rank-and-file American Catholics who viewed the investigations as a crackdown by a misogynistic, all-male Vatican hierarchy against the underpaid, underappreciated women who do the lion's share of work running Catholic hospitals, schools and services for the poor.

Theological conservatives have long complained that after the reforms of the 1960s Second Vatican Council, women's congregations in the U.S. became secular and political while abandoning traditional prayer life and faith. The nuns insisted that prayer and Christ were central to their work.

Holland, who heads the Leadership Conference, acknowledged that the investigation was initially met with apprehension and distrust, particularly among elderly sisters who "felt that their whole lives had been judged and found wanting."

But she said the results showed that the Vatican had listened and heard what the sisters had to say.

Asked if the change in tone reflected Francis' new leadership, Holland said "I'm willing to give him all sorts of credit."

"He's been a great encouragement and hope to a lot of us," she said.

The report outlined the bleak reality facing American women's congregations now: The current number of 50,000 U.S. sisters represents a fraction of the 125,000 in the mid-1960s, although that was an atypical spike in U.S. church history.

The average age of U.S. nuns today is mid-to-late 70s. They are facing dwindling finances to care for their sisters as they age and haven't had much success in finding new vocations. The report asked the sisters to make sure their training programs reflect church teaching and ensure their members pray and focus on Christ.

It stressed an appreciation for their work and expressed hope that they take "this present moment as an opportunity to transform uncertainty and hesitancy into collaborative trust" with the church hierarchy.

The report noted many sisters have complained that their work often went unrecognized by priests and requested improved dialogue with bishops to clarify their role in the church and give them greater voice in decisions.

The report noted that Francis, who has pledged to bring more women into decision-making positions in the church, has recently asked the Vatican to update a key document outlining the relationship between bishops and religious orders.

Given that the report didn't find any major problems or recommend any major changes in the way U.S. religious live out their vocations, the question arose about whether the tensions the investigation produced — not to mention the time, cost and effort involved — were worth it.

"I would say it was worth it," Holland said. "We benefited in ways we didn't know we would benefit."

Signaling that the change in the Vatican's tone might also extend to the LCWR crackdown, Holland said she was "working hard and working well" with Vatican-appointed delegates who took over the Leadership Conference and that the process might end sooner than originally expected.

"We're moving toward resolution of that," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-praises-thanks-us-nuns-olive-branch-112527933.html

[Kobi]

Last Saturday, about 600 volunteers in 31 venues around the globe engaged in a collective effort to change the world, one Wikipedia entry at a time.

In the United States, Canada, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, in nonprofits and art schools, in museums and universities, these people—mostly women—set out to write entries, uncredited and unpaid, for the fast-growing crowd-sourced online encyclopedia.
Editors working around the resource table, Wikipedia Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon, at Eyebeam in New York City.

They had answered a call for the Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon, a massive multinational effort to correct a persistent bias in Wikipedia, which is disproportionally written by and about men.

The event, whose epicenter was the New York art and technology center Eyebeam, is part of a larger movement, only now reaching the art world, to upload content to Wikipedia in a proactive manner.

At a time when Wikipedia is becoming increasingly influential, “it’s really tangible to be able to fix something that is visibly wrong,” says Jacqueline Mabey, a co-organizer of Saturday’s Edit-a-Thon with Siân Evans of the Art Libraries Society of North America’s Women and Art Special Interest Group, Michael Mandiberg, an artist and associate professor at CUNY who teaches with Wikipedia, and current Eyebeam Fellow Laurel Ptak.

More than 150 people crowded into Eyebeam’s Chelsea headquarters during Saturday’s event, while satellite venues reported turnouts ranging from 6 to 60.

Volunteers versed in the process, protocol, and ethic of Wikipedia gave tutorials to the newcomers, who were mostly artists, activists, students, and scholars. They learned what constitutes a proper reference, how to create external links, and when and where to put footnotes. They learned that people can’t write about themselves, and what kind of sources are acceptable.

By the end of the day, around 100 new entries were up (around 80 more were enhanced). The new pages, devoted to figures ranging from Australian modernists Ethel Spowers and Dorrit Black to Catalan painter Josefa Texidor i Torres to contemporary artists including Mary Miss, Xaviera Simmons, Audrey Flack, and Monika Bravo, vary widely in scope, grammar, and quality of content. But the Wikipedia team expects that blips will vanish as the hive mind has its work on the entries.

“You have someone you know a lot about? It takes ten minutes,” says Ximena Gallardo C., a gender and film scholar at LaGuardia Community College. “This is the world brain. It’s just starting.”

Nicole Casamento, a former ARTnews intern who runs the website Culture Grinder, attended the Brooklyn Museum meetup, where she created the first Wikipedia page for the artist Senga Nengudi.

“The event seemed like a new kind of consciousness raising that was very goal-oriented,” says Casamento, a masters student in American literature at Brooklyn College. “It was aimed at writing women into history in a new way for the digital age—by giving more women the awareness and tools to take matters in their own hands.”

The National Museum of Women in the Arts, Wikimedia DC and the Smithsonian’s Archives of American Art have scheduled the next Women in the Arts edit-a-thon for March 30.

- See more at: http://www.artnews.com/2014/02/06/art-and-feminism-wikipedia-editathon-creates-pages-for-women-artists/#sthash.bwXfHsL6.dpuf

[Kobi]

STOCKPORT, England (Reuters) - The Church of England appointed its first female bishop on Wednesday, overturning centuries of tradition in a Church that has been deeply divided over the issue.

It named Reverend Libby Lane, a 48-year-old married mother of two, as the new Bishop of Stockport in northern England.

After long and heated debate, the Church of England governing Synod voted in July to allow women to become bishops and formally adopted legislation last month.

Women have served as priests in the Church since 1994, a decision that prompted some 470 male priests to leave in protest, many for the Roman Catholic Church.

“It is an unexpected joy for me to be here today," Lane said in her acceptance speech. "It is a remarkable day for me and I realise an historic day for the church."

She added: “I am conscious this morning of countless women and men who for decades have looked forward to the time when the Church of England would announce its first woman bishop.”

The issue of women bishops has caused internal division ever since the Synod first approved female priests.

It has pitted reformers, keen to project a more modern image of the Church as it struggles with falling congregations in many increasingly secular countries, against a conservative minority which says the change contradicts the Bible.

Two years ago, opposition from traditionalist lay members led to the defeat of a vote in the Synod to allow women bishops, to the dismay of modernisers and the Church hierarchy.

Women serve as bishops in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand but Anglican churches in many developing countries do not ordain them as priests.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/church-england-appoints-first-woman-bishop-101027972.html

[Kobi]

3HoLpdHpQQQ&app=desktop

[Kobi]

Tens of thousands of women participated in the March on Washington on Aug. 28, 1963. But none of the female civil rights leaders marched in the procession with Dr. King, nor were any of them invited to speak to the enormous crowd.

Instead, these women were asked to march on an adjacent street with the wives of the male leaders and to stay in the background.

The small role allowed female civil rights leaders in the activities of that day was the exact opposite of the central role these women played in planning the strategies, tactics and actions of the movement — including the march itself!

In fact, many of the most iconic campaigns of the civil rights movement were coordinated by women, including nonviolent sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, forced integration of Central High School by the Little Rock Nine, and the voter registration drives of 1964's Freedom Summer.

Let's celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King by learning about and remembering the overlooked women leading the struggle for equal rights right by his side.

Daisy Bates (1914 – 1999) was the force behind the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. She recruited, organized and supported the nine teenagers — six girls and three boys — and their families who were chosen to desegregate the school under court order.

White mobs rallied at the school in the early days, hurling insults and threatening violence. Ultimately, it took the U.S. Army to escort the black students to school and keep them safe, which showed the nation that the federal government was serious about enforcing integration.

It was Daisy Bates and the local NAACP who planned, coordinated and executed the Little Rock Nine strategy. Bates was rewarded for her efforts with rocks thrown through her windows, a cross burned on her roof and the financial demise of the newspaper she and her husband owned.

Pauli Murray (1910 – 1985) was a groundbreaking legal scholar, lifelong activist for civil rights and women's rights and, in her later years, the first African-American woman ordained as an Episcopal priest.

In 1950, Murray published a legal study of the segregation laws in the states. In it, she argued that civil rights lawyers should stop taking a gradual approach to changing segregation and should instead argue straightforwardly that segregation itself violated the U.S. Constitution. Thurgood Marshall, lead counsel in Brown v. Board of Education and later, a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, called this book the "bible" of the Civil Rights movement.

Murray also turned her sharp legal mind to gender discrimination. In 1961, as a member of the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women, she wrote a memo arguing that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed gender discrimination as well as race discrimination. In 1963, she became one of the first to criticize the leaders of the civil rights movement for its overt sexism.

In 1966, she became a co-founder of the National Organization for Women.

Fannie Lou Hamer (1917 – 1977) was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and deeply committed to helping African-Americans gain their voting rights. In the deep south at that time such activity was often met with violence. She was well known for singing hymns to keep up the spirits of the people who were putting themselves in danger to register themselves or others to vote.

In July 1963, she and a group of activists were returning by bus from a workshop when they were stopped, arrested and then savagely beaten. Despite this ordeal, Hamer continued her advocacy work, including organizing the Freedom Summer campaign in the summer of 1964.

Also in the summer of 1964, Hamer attended the Democratic National Convention as the vice chair of the Mississippi "Freedom Democrats." Their goal was to challenge the all-white, anti-civil-rights Mississippi delegation to the convention as not representative of Mississippi Democrats. Their challenge drew national attention, and a speech given by Hamer was seen on national television. Her eloquence and passion changed the tenor of the debate at the convention.

Dorothy Height (1912 – 2010) was a social worker, educator and activist for civil rights and women's rights. Among Height's achievements was coordinating the integration of the facilities of the YMCA in 1946. She also co-founded the Center for Racial Justice in 1965. She served as president of the National Council of Negro Women from 1957 to 1997. During the 1960s, she organized "Wednesdays in Mississippi" to bring together white and black women for conversation and to increase understanding. She has been described as one of the "Big Six" in the civil rights movement.

Height described her experience of the sexism of the March on Washington as an "eye-opening experience." She turned at least some of her attention to women's rights, and in 1971 she helped found the National Women's Political Caucus with Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Shirley Chisholm.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/speak-easy/item/77522-the-invisible-women-of-the-civil-rights-movement

[Kobi]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/09/9d/d7/099dd78a71f3a4d6c4ae152fe6efd942.jpg

[Cin]

This article by Emer O’Toole made me smile, a sad smile, but definitely a smile.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/20/ten-things-feminism-has-ruined

[*Anya*]

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2015 BY HEATHER

Performance Reviews: The Hurdle that Keeps Getting Higher

A NEW study by the linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder, done for Fortune.com, found two differences between workplace performance reviews given to men and women. Across 248 reviews from 28 companies, managers, whether male or female, gave female employees more negative feedback than they gave male employees. Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included a personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.

Why?

Why is this the case in 2015? Why are women getting more negative feedback than men on personality traits and finding gender bias in performance reviews? I refuse to believe that women are truly under performing as a gender. In 2013, Women in STEM careers consistently reported feeling like females have to perform better than men to be judged equally competent (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, & Huge). So women feel as if they have to go above and beyond yet still get more negative feedback.

Women report that their mistakes are noticed more, and remembered longer (Bauer & Baltes, 2002). So, women are faced with the pressure of being perfect. A female can’t make a mistake or have a bad day because it will linger longer than their male contemporaries. There is simply no room for error if you are a female.

Why are women given more negative managerial feedback about their personality?

Behavior and emotional intelligence are playing a larger role in performance evaluations these days. I would think this would be where women would win the day. After all, many women are instinctively nurturing, yet instead of being a big, gold star it is a source of criticism.

What to do?

How can women fight back against this injustice? Here are a few ideas.

Keep records of what you do.

This can be something as low tech as keeping a notebook at your desk. Before you leave at the end of the day, write the date at the top, and then list everything you accomplished. An electronic calendar is another good way to document what you do daily. Put anything outstanding in bold so that you can be sure to include it in your discussion with your manager.

Develop your network.

Having a group of cheerleaders that get out the positive word about your performance and reputation will offset any negative statements in your annual review. Just remember to do the same for them, and they will totally appreciate the gesture. My rule of thumb is to always “talk up” my team. You would think my team is the best and brightest of the entire company based on what I say about them.

Pay it forward by supporting other women.

Mentor those below you, and sell the sponsor above you. Yes, I said sell your sponsor. Ensure you always speak of the positive aspects of your sponsor. Remember, he or she is giving feedback to the succession planning of the company. If you want a slot to open for you, the best way is to help someone above you get a promotion. If you can, try to find ways to help other women find success. Over time, women will rise to the top of the pile and truly be an equal part of the workplace!

If you know of any other strategies to help women get past the gender bias issues inherent in performance reviews, let us know!

We’d love to hear from you and keep the discussion ongoing!


Heather graduated from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte with an Electrical Engineering degree, and later received her MBA. She first worked as an engineer designing sub-stations for a regional power company.
She is now an engineering project manager for an international company specializing in smart grid technology.

http://leanedon.com/gender-bias-in-performance-reviews/

[DapperButch]

I didn't know where to post this, I just knew I wanted to post this somewhere.


http://www.alternet.org/gender/what-happened-when-i-posed-man-twitter

[Kobi]

I didn't know where to post this, I just knew I wanted to post this somewhere.


http://www.alternet.org/gender/what-happened-when-i-posed-man-twitter


This article is about male privilege and entitlement, misogyny and sexism. It is appropriate for the misogyny and sexism thread.

[DapperButch]

This article is about male privilege and entitlement, misogyny and sexism. It is appropriate for the misogyny and sexism thread.


Ummm, thanks.

Hopefully, it can still be appreciated here.

[*Anya*]

I didn't know where to post this, I just knew I wanted to post this somewhere.


http://www.alternet.org/gender/what-happened-when-i-posed-man-twitter


This article is about male privilege and entitlement, misogyny and sexism. It is appropriate for the misogyny and sexism thread.


Ummm, thanks.

Hopefully, it can still be appreciated here.

I actually do not think that it is out of place in either thread.

The following quote encompasses both:

"It turned out I hadn’t gone from woman to man, but from object to human.

I spent the week discussing systemic oppression and race. An intersectional feminist, I dove into rape culture. I talked about the need for police accountability, condemning domestic violence and amplifying other voices. It was almost always without interruption. My voice felt so unrestricted. How beautiful it felt to speak without fear of retribution. I felt such freedom."

[DapperButch]

I actually do not think that it is out of place in either thread.

The following quote encompasses both:

"It turned out I hadn’t gone from woman to man, but from object to human.

I spent the week discussing systemic oppression and race. An intersectional feminist, I dove into rape culture. I talked about the need for police accountability, condemning domestic violence and amplifying other voices. It was almost always without interruption. My voice felt so unrestricted. How beautiful it felt to speak without fear of retribution. I felt such freedom."

Thanks, Anya. My goal was to post it in the forum that the largest number of people who would be interested in it would read it. This thread gets a lot of readers.

It's interesting. I am wondering if my inclination to look for the feminism thread because the energy behind the article to me (and the energy I felt she was putting out...maybe because that was what I wanted to read in it) was her sense of power as a women (feminism), rather than her writing from a place of defeat (misogyny and sexism...but which of course the article is about).

This would all be unconscious, of course, but is interesting to think about.

[Kobi]

Thanks, Anya. My goal was to post it in the forum that the largest number of people who would be interested in it would read it. This thread gets a lot of readers.

It's interesting. I am wondering if my inclination to look for the feminism thread because the energy behind the article to me (and the energy I felt she was putting out...maybe because that was what I wanted to read in it) was her sense of power as a women (feminism), rather than her writing from a place of defeat (misogyny and sexism...but which of course the article is about).

This would all be unconscious, of course, but is interesting to think about.


Different perspectives render different analysis.

To me, the gist of this article was how this woman discovered that when she "posed as a male" she had a totally different experience than that which she had as a woman.

Being perceived as a male, her opinion counted more, she was validated, she was heard and seen.

As a woman, her experience was to be ignored, insulted, dismissed, and devalued.

To me, this is sexism and misogyny in action. It is where perceived sex leads to a different experience and a different sense of importance.

Feminism is about women being empowered because they are women. It is about their presence, their opinions, their views are valuable simply because they are valued as a people within society.

The empowement this woman felt didnt come from being seen as and appreciated as a female. The empowerment came from being perceived as and validated as a male. Not the same thing.

[DapperButch]

Different perspectives render different analysis.

To me, the gist of this article was how this woman discovered that when she "posed as a male" she had a totally different experience than that which she had as a woman.

Being perceived as a male, her opinion counted more, she was validated, she was heard and seen.

As a woman, her experience was to be ignored, insulted, dismissed, and devalued.

To me, this is sexism and misogyny in action. It is where perceived sex leads to a different experience and a different sense of importance.

Feminism is about women being empowered because they are women. It is about their presence, their opinions, their views are valuable simply because they are valued as a people within society.

The empowement this woman felt didnt come from being seen as and appreciated as a female. The empowerment came from being perceived as and validated as a male. Not the same thing.



I wasn't saying anything about what the article was about. It was clearly about misogyny and sexism. This is why I said "misogyny and sexism...which of course is what the article was about".

I was making comment on how I felt the woman viewed herself...that it didn't knock her down any.

[BullDog]

Thanks for posting the article Dapper.

I think it could be posted in either thread or both, and I'm not sure why the need to nit pick where it goes.

She chose to experience something and then speak out in a strong and clear voice afterwards. To me that is feminism in action.

[Allison W]

CASTRATOR'S BRUTAL 'NO VICTIM' EP IS A PERFECT FEMINIST DEATH METAL REVENGE FANTASY (http://noisey.vice.com/blog/castrator-interview-stream)

By Kim Kelly

When I first saw the name Castrator, I hoped in my heart of hearts that I'd somehow stumbled across some kind of badass feminist death metal killing machine. How awesome would that be, right? Given death metal's traditional approach towards the concept of feminism (and women in general—that's a whole 'nother thinkpiece right there), though, I wasn't banking on it. With a name like that, it was probably just another pornogrind slamfest hoping to one day secure a coveted opening slot for Cemetery Rapist or Prostitute Disfigurement.

Imagine my surprise and delight, then, when I got a promo email from their label, Horror Pain Gore Death, revealing that my initial hunch had been correct and that Castrator was in fact the band of my dreams. Not only is the fledgling supergroup a self-described all-female band, it's an international effort—women from established underground bands in Colombia, Florida, Mexico, Massachusetts, Sweden, and Norway had come together to write brutal death metal songs about chopping off dicks and stabbing rapists. Before you go crying "misandry," keep in mind the astonishing glut of metal songs that celebrate graphic, gory violence against women. It's about time someone stepped up to level the playing field, and Castrator's knives are sharpened and at the ready.

The band's members prefer to remain semi-anonymous, but a little sleuthing pointed me towards vocalist M.S. and nabbed Noisey the chance to premiere the vicious, life-affirming title track for the band's new EP, No Victim.

M.S. was also kind enough to answer a barrage of my excited questions via email, and to tell us exactly why a band like Castrator is so much fun—and so necessary.

Castrator is a confrontational band, from the name to song titles like "Honor Killing," "The Emasculator" —hell, all of them read like a feminist revenge fantasy. Is Castrator the first overtly feminist death metal band?
M.S.: You could call us that. We are unapologetically strong, independent, and pissed-off females. We aren’t asking for equality, we’re taking it. Not all of us choose to carry the flag of feminism, though I most certainly do. We are five women who love death metal, who like jamming with other like-minded women, and we feel like we have some ideas worth expressing. People will label us how they will, we aren’t concerned about it. We are going to make the music we want to make, and we are having a great time doing it!

What brought you all together in the first place? You're all part of your own established projects all over the world—would I be remiss to think that Castrator was born from your collective frustration at the bullshit you've had to endure as female musicians in a brutal genre?
C. Perez and I got to know each other through the NYC metal scene when playing shows with our other bands. She expressed the desire to form an all-female band, and I was really into it. I had an all-female project once in the past, but it fell apart after a year. I still had a lot of ideas for lyrics and themes that I wanted to get out in this kind of band. I have to say, yes, it has been really nice to vent amongst other ladies all the bullshit we deal in the metal scene. It’s also something fun, it’s a much different vibe then writing with my other bands that contain only male members besides myself. I still love my other bands too, this is just something different and refreshing for me.

What do you aim to accomplish with this band? Have you encountered any pushback or hate from other death metal fans?
We aim to write some killer music, play some aggressive shows, and take no prisoners! So far we have had nothing but great support from the scene, male and female fans, and other bands. Some of our biggest supporters are men. Yeah, some guys out there are a little afraid of us, they cup their balls, hehe. I’m sure we’ll eventually run into some haters… but we aren’t concerned about that. We do what we like, we’re having fun and we don’t give a fuck who doesn’t like it.

The album title, No Victim, is so powerful—can you tell me a little more about it? The lyrics for the song itself resonate so deeply.
The idea behind that song and album title is highlighting the fear all women deal with walking alone at night- the fear of being attacked and raped. Yes, it’s so easily relatable to any woman! It’s something guys don’t usually think about, and it’s really not fair. It’s something we should talk about more in society, and change the whole predator-victim scenario. We also want to empower women to realize their own strength and ability… to fight their attackers when possible. That same old story of a rapist attacking a woman in a dark alley can have a different ending.

All your lyrics are intense, especially on "Honor Killing," whose horror is ripped from the headlines. Given your own half-Indian background, what was it like to write and sing these words?
I think now more than ever, it’s important to bring up the issues and struggles, especially in particular parts of the world where women’s rights are far behind. Definitely this song has some personal connection for me. I really feel for those who are suffering violence, rape, and murder in India and other countries. This has got to stop. When writing this song, I researched and read countless news story after news story and documentaries of individual cases of honor killings (there are so many)! It’s so hard to look at, it’s disgusting. Even so, I made myself look straight at it, get pissed off, and turned those feelings and thoughts into lyrics.

"Brood" is deliciously creepy, but also sobering when you remember that so many people still think of women as broodmares - baby machines with no other value. Did any specific situation inspire the lyrics for this one?
Yes, you are right. In a way it’s about that, how our own bodies and sexual reproduction don’t “belong” to us anymore. Women’s bodies and rights are so often controlled by men, the law makers, boyfriends, husbands in this patriarchal system. It’s also about how this unbalanced system is allowed by or continued by women, by accepting it and not fighting it or rising above it. It was inspired by the case of Octomom, she wanted to seek fortune and fame through having an unnatural amount of children. The song takes the idea that a woman’s value is determined through childbirth and her ability to please men, but this theme on steroids. I feel she is a victim of our disturbed society, and not necessarily a monster in and of herself.

Where is the sample on "The Emasculator" from? It's rad to see you turning the tables on the countless brutal death, goregrind, and pornogrind bands that litter their records with sample after sample of women in sexual distress or death throes.
The sample is from Hostel 2. I found it while searching for a good castration audio sample, haha! That’s exactly it. We are turning the tables on what you usually see in brutal death metal that focuses on rape and torture of women. We are doing what the guys do but from a female point of view, and in doing so making a critique of the whole genre. In some of our themes, a woman is the powerful one, the victor. If someone has a problem with our lyrics and samples, they should frown equally upon misogynistic themes. We ourselves are pretty laid back about all these things. We aren’t going to tell people what kind of music they should or shouldn’t write, or listen to; I believe in artistic expression and freedom of speech. But if there will be anti-female themed bands out there, I believe there should also be anti-male or at least pro-female bands out there too. I suppose that is a goal, to add some balance to the male dominated metal scene, and to the male-dominated world.

I don’t have a serious problem with people who joke about those things; I don’t like it, but I have more of a problem with musicians and fans that take anti-women themes seriously, and there are many of those out there. There are men out there that genuinely disrespect women and I would go so far as to say, they hate women. They take out their own frustrations of their own shortcomings and dissatisfaction with their lives and relationships, and they turn it outward at all women. We deal with these attitudes on a daily basis, in the scene and in our daily lives. I’m all about changing people’s perspectives or making them think a little bit.

You're in a few other brutal bands of your own, and write lyrics with traditional gory (though genderless) violence, or sociopolitical screeds. How much do you think is too much in terms of fantasy violence in extreme metal lyrics?

I believe strongly in freedom of expression. I wouldn’t support people with sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs, but I also don’t believe in censorship or banning. As long as you aren’t hurting, someone you should be able to create whatever art or music you like. I think it’s just important to speak truth and try to change people’s ideas and opinions through what you do and what you create, using educated and evolved ideas. When I see bands with the same rehashed violence fantasy lyrics, I just think, "Booooring. Those themes have already been done a thousand times over, is this band doing anything creative or new?"

Given Castrator's members' far-flung geographical locations, do you intend to do any touring or at least more live shows to support No Victim?
We are getting together next week to shoot a music video and play a small tour including Philthadelphia Infest, Brooklyn NY, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. We’re excited to get out there and emasculate!

'No Victim' is out May 5 via Horror Pain Gore Death Productions.

[Allison W]

So Hillary Clinton announced her presidency (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-announces-2016-white-house-bid/) and I'm not seeing a lot of posting about it around here. Did I kill the thread that badly?

[Kobi]

The Roman Catholic Womenpriests is a renewal movement within the Church that began in Germany with the ordination of seven women on the Danube River in 2002. In 2003, Gisela Forster and Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger (two of the original Danube 7) were ordained bishops and in 2005 Patricia Fresen from South Africa (who currently lives in Germany) was also ordained a bishop. Womenbishops ordained in Apostolic Succession continue to carry out the work of ordaining women in the Roman Catholic Church. In 2006, Ida Raming was ordained a bishop and in 2008 Dana Reynolds of California became the first American Roman Catholic Womanbishop. These women and those who have come after them continue to carry on the pastoral work of ordaining women to the priesthood. Currently there are over 145 Roman Catholic women worldwide who are reclaiming their ancient spiritual heritage and are re-shaping a more inclusive, Christ-centered Church for the 21st century. We advocate a new model of priestly ministry united with the people with whom we serve. We are rooted in a response to Jesus who called women and men to be disciples and equals living the Gospel.

Homepage (http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/NEWhistory.htm)

Portraits From the Forbidden Priesthood of Women (http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/13/portraits-from-the-forbidden-priesthood-of-women/)

[Cin]

"Sophie Thomas wore a black t-shirt with the word ‘feminist’ printed in white lettering to school on the day that school photographs were being taken. When Thomas received the printed photograph last week, she and her mother Christine discovered that the school had erased the word completely without their knowledge."

Ah plus ça change. Feminist is still a dirty word. So many women don't want to be seen as feminists. Nothing new here. Still it's sad to see a female who has power over so many young minds making the choice to step on this girl's attempt to express herself.

"School principal Kendra Young said she had made the decision to remove the word because it is “offensive to some people”.

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/top-stories/feminist-is-so-offensive-and-unflattering-it-was-removed-from-a-schoolgirl-s-t-shirt/201504205624#.VTW8DmNFCM8

[Kätzchen]

I have several long time friends in my metro area who are senior executive librarians who posted this article on Facebook. All of them support the choice made by former U. S. President Jimmy Carter. I've always thought he was a decent person, fair and deeply humanitarian. I couldn't be happier that he is leading by example and reusing himself from religious politics in favor of strong political efforts in favor of lifting women to a more rightful place in American society and to help lead the way for tremendous social reform across gender identity divides. While this article was published back in 2009, it is in recirculation as of tonight.

(Please see article below).

____________________________


Losing my religion for equality.

July 15, 2009 - 12:00AM


By JIMMY CARTER

Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I HAVE been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.

The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.


Copyright © 2015 Fairfax Media The Age

(Link: http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?stb=fb)

[Soon]

Progressive

Let’s start, this time, with a story. This is about Hillary Clinton – everything I write seems to be about her these days – but it’s about me, too. It’s about what it means, to be a feminist, or a woman on the left, and whether it matters. So before I get to her, let’s give you a good look at me.

I’m at a job interview. It seems like I actually have a shot at this one. Someone who likes me knows the boss here, and has talked me up to him in person. I can show him my most recent performance review, in which I’m described as “a joy to work with,” that “my editors fight over who gets to edit my pieces,” and where the “places for improvement” section mentions they actually have to “wrack their brains for something I could do better.” I’ve come prepared to talk about my strong, built-in reader base, which I built from the ground up; the fact that I’ve led several social media campaigns that received national or international press attention and raised substantial funds, one of which was enthusiastically endorsed by several pro-choice members of Congress; my award for social media activism, from a prestigious women’s media organization, which I won by popular vote; the fact that I wind up at or near the top of my magazine’s “most-read” traffic list every time I publish a new piece.

I can mention other things, basic work-ethic things. I can mention that I have not voluntarily taken a vacation day or a sick day for the past 18 months, and that the last sick day I took was only because I was hospitalized. (I do have to take the day off on federal holidays, but on those days, I usually write for fun.) I can mention that I have never been late filing a piece. I can mention that the copy comes in clean, doesn’t require much editing, and gets turned around quickly, with maximum co-operation. I can talk about all that, at my job interview. Those are the questions I’m prepared to answer.

I’m not prepared for the question they ask.

“We’re a progressive site,” the man across the table begins, “And our readership, as with most progressive sites, is mostly men. You’ve focused a lot on women’s issues. Would you be comfortable writing something that men would be able to read?”

I’m silent for a second. I keep smiling — always smile at the job interview — but I cannot speak. Largely because I believe that what I just heard cannot possibly be what he really said. I misinterpreted something. I missed a word, misheard a word. He can’t actually be telling me that I would have to stop being so feminist to get a job at his “progressive” site. Or that “progressive” media is mostly for men.

“I read your most recent article,” he adds, helpfully. “That seemed very sympathetic to the male character.”

Okay. So I heard him right.

I keep smiling. It’s a test, I tell myself, he wants to see if you’re an angry feminist. I tell him that I pride myself on my versatility, having covered everything from campaign finance reform to reproductive rights to television. I tell him that many of my long-time readers are men, in fact, and I appreciate them very much; I’m confident that I would be able to deliver a diverse and substantial reader base to his publication. I mention the “most-read list” factoid. I keep smiling....



....

....Hillary Clinton lets them insult her with a smile on her face, because she wants the job. Because there is no way to just flip a table, throw the coffee, walk out of this bitch in protest, and get the job she wants. There never is. Not for her, not for me, not for any of us. She smiles.
Yeah, I’m voting for her. Not “because of her gender.” Because of this really basic, stupid belief I have that the most qualified person should be the person who gets the job....


(post too long / link below for full read)

http://sadydoyle.tumblr.com/post/138860699828/progressive

[homoe]

Any opinions on the op ed piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times entitled " When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism"?

[homoe]

Any opinions on the op ed piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times entitled " When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism"?

I thought it made some valid points!

[DapperButch]

Here is the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/when-hillary-clinton-killed-feminism.html?_r=0


I thought it made some valid points!

Homoe, what did you get out of the article...what were the "valid points"?

[Cin]

The New Chauvinists Try to Defend Women – But Who Will Defend Us from Them?
by
Laurie Penny

It’s a miracle. All over the world, conservatives and curtain-twitching bigots have taken up the cause of fighting violence against women. From Donald Trump, vowing to protect white Americans from “rapist” Mexican migrants, to European far-right groups that are mustering against the supposed Muslim threat to “their” wives and daughters, conservatives are rebranding themselves as the defenders of women and girls. But who will defend us from them?

The idea that Western men must shelter “their” women from a terrifying mass of foreign masculinity has been around for a very long time. It was used to justify the murder of black men in the US from the slave era onwards, even as black women were abused in their millions by white landowners. It is used to excuse state surveillance and militarised policing around the world, and by the new right to rationalise its bigotry. Following the mass sexual assault of women at the New Year’s Eve celebrations in Cologne, groups such as the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – a neo-fascist group currently polling at around 15 per cent in Germany – have taken up the old banner of chaperoning white womanhood.

The phrase that I have been using to describe this line of argument is “the New Chauvinism”. Chauvinism is commonly understood in the context of male chauvinism, which most people think is all about holding open doors and getting shouted at by feminists. But it is described by the Oxford English Dictionary as “exaggerated or aggressive patriotism”, with the secondary definition of “excessive or prejudiced support for one’s own cause, group, or sex”.

The New Chauvinism is about both of those things. It uses crude, nationalist sentiment to cast white men in the roles of heroes, protecting “their” women from hordes of, variously, migrants, Muslims and transsexual people.

On behalf of white women everywhere, allow me to say how much safer I don’t feel. It would be easier to believe in the AfD as a defender of women, for example, if it were not also campaigning to ban abortion and gay marriage, undermine the right to div­orce, close kindergartens and strip single mothers of state funding – all in the name of protecting the “traditional family”.

Fundamentalist throwbacks of every sort have remarkably similar ideas about how to protect women, so it is no surprise that the AfD echoes the philosophy of many hard-line Islamist groups on the role of women in society. If anyone wants to turn western Europe into a patriarchal religious police state, it is the far right and not migrants fleeing violence – but irony, to these people, is probably a small town in the Middle East that should be flattened with cluster bombs to protect Christian women everywhere.

You might think that it is nice of them to care. However, I don’t see these self-appointed defenders of women volunteering at domestic violence shelters or donating to rape crisis hotlines. Instead, they hold racist demonstrations in multicultural communities and harass women on the internet, which is a curious way to demonstrate your commitment to public safety.

Across the Atlantic, the American Family Association – a Christian fundamentalist organisation recognised as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre – has admitted to sending men into women’s bathrooms in branches of the retail chain Target to “test” its policy of allowing transsexuals to use the lavatory of their chosen gender. Unable to prove that this policy will allow “men in dresses” to abuse “their” daughters, the association became the creeping queer threat to American womanhood that it wished to see in the world.

These New Chauvinists, who are mostly men, want to protect women from violence – as long as they are the right sort of women. Trans women, queer women, immigrant women and women of colour are nowhere in the sticky mass of stereotypes and dog-whistle racism that passes for their analysis. The Christian groups who claim to want to protect “their daughters” from trans women in the ladies’ loos seem unbothered by how some of their daughters may well be trans – and trans women face violence in huge numbers.

This sort of chauvinism has always been racist and classist, because it is all about men deciding who gets to be treated like a lady – protected, treasured and infantilised – and who gets treated like chattel. As for ungrateful social justice warriors like me, we deserve to be oiled up and thrown to the Taliban: I’m told as much every day by white men who claim to abhor Islamic-coded violence against women but seem to have an erotic fascination with its details.

The New Chauvinism functions on two levels: it stokes up the fear of outsiders by casting foreign, black or queer masculinity as the real threat and it undermines feminist activism by claiming that women just don’t know what’s good for us. Here we are, iron-knickered harpies, making a fuss about equal pay and domestic violence and rape culture, when if we would only shut up and listen to men like we’re supposed to, we would know that the real threat comes from outside.

The New Chauvinists must not be allowed to co-opt feminist rhetoric. These people are not defenders of women. They are the ones who seek to put women in their place, substituting genuine respect for female autonomy with patronising “protection”, which is conditional on our good behaviour and only available if we are white.

Misogyny is not the preserve of any one group. It is a structural, cultural problem that exists in every nation on earth. The vast majority of Western feminists are not fooled by those who seek to undercut our cause to rationalise their racism: but who cares what we think? We’re only women, after all.

http://commondreams.org/views/2016/05/13/new-chauvinists-try-defend-women-who-will-defend-us-them

[homoe]

HBO's beloved series "Sex and the City" was groundbreaking in its day, showcasing women in their 30s and 40s who were single, sexual and stylish. But looking back on the show more than 20 years after it premiered, actress Cynthia Nixon can see that it also had "a lot of failings of the feminist movement in it."

Nixon noted what hindsight has brought to light. “One of the hardest things for me...is looking back and seeing how much of it centered around money, right? And how, Steve, my (character’s) husband, was like the closest we got to a working class guy, you know? Never mind a working class woman, right?”

She made A LOT of money from that show and it sure didn't seem to bother her so much back then! And actually if you think about it, the same could be said of the Sex and the City movie franchises! Again she didn't turn down the big bucks she made from those as well!

In all fair honestly since she came out and got married to a woman she's made several comments that have irritated me to no end!

[C0LLETTE]

I've never seen a complete episode of "Sex and the City" but I'm fairly certain few of us ( if any ) were born with an Amazon shield on our arm, a sword in our hand and a copy of "Feminine Mystique" under the other arm.

Getting imperfectly to Stage 2 is still a lot better than never even getting to Stage 1.

[C0LLETTE]

Saint Amy Of The Blessed Senate

You might think, watching the confirmation hearings for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that she was auditioning for a role on Modern Family and not on the U.S. Supreme Court. Six of her seven children sat behind her in a freakishly fidgetless row. They were, in the words of Inside Edition, “impeccably behaved.”

The Democratic questioners on the committee wanted to know Justice Barrett’s stand on abortion rights, climate change and the limits of presidential power. The Republicans, in contrast, had a little mom pedestal ready (Justice Barrett, a practising Catholic, would be familiar with this pedestal, which is usually occupied by a certain mother in blue). One senator wanted to know who did the laundry in her house. Another called her “a legal titan who drives a minivan.” Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney tweeted a picture of the Barrett brood piling into that minivan with the hashtag #momsrule.
.........

Feminism freed women to make choices about motherhood their mothers and grandmothers didn’t have (and also to exercise their rights to reproductive freedom, which Justice Barrett will hopefully honour, even though the prospects don’t look good). You can choose to have a fur baby, or an actual human baby, or no baby at all. None of those decisions make you a saint or a demon, just a person like everyone else.

Elizabeth Renzetti
Globe and Mail
October 16

[Kätzchen]

To leave a link to an online blog/web zine for news and training around feminism.

LINK : https://everydayfeminism.com/

This website is updated frequently with all kinds of news articles that teach a person about feminist values (…).

Enjoy ☺️ 🌷🦋🎁

[Kätzchen]

Here’s a great news article from Germany (DW) on how women in South Korea are practicing a form of resistance against Asian Patriarchy: No dates, No sex, No marriage and No children. They’ve been practicing this for a few years now but when Roe vs Wade was overturned in our country, their feminist version of resistance went viral. You can click on the link below to see how South Korean women are protesting and resisting patriarchal misogyny in their Asian country.

LINK: https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-united-states-4b-movement-explained-sex-strike-mysogyny-feminism-v2/a-70857508