Quote: "To create a more “attractive presentation,” the Badminton World Federation has decreed that women must wear skirts or dresses to play at the elite level, beginning Wednesday. Many now compete in shorts or tracksuit pants. The dress code would make female players appear more feminine and appealing to fans and corporate sponsors, officials said."
*****************
Again, the insanity! When I went to JR High & HS back east, girls still had to wear dresses to school! This is unbelievable! The more women have freedoms that we fought so hard to achieve & yes, I was an early member of NOW & marched in demonstrations for Womens Liberation: the more the conservatives are trying to turn back the hands of time!

What's next? I shudder to think, truly. To think we are still more than 50% of the population...

http://www.india-server.com/news-ima...e-lin-7918.jpg

fuck.a.skirt.

Forced Pelvic Exams on Polish Women Or NO Work For You!
 

Protest against compulsory medical exams of Polish women workers

*as many have pointed out in comments, where are the mandatory prostate exams for men?


http://www.global-sisterhood-network.../view/2600/59/ <--petition and other info

This is all the GOP/Tea Party wing has done since winning the House in 2010. They were not really about jobs and the economy- they only want to push their anti-woman, religious fanaticism agendas.

Since the House is controlled by Republicans this is what you get. However since the Senate cannot get a 60% majority, nothing is going to happen. Federal law is relatively safe right now. The 50 states are another story.

Act locally (city, county, state), think globally (everyone). City, County, State elections are critical and always have been.

Student paper publishes article advocating rape

Two male students have been forced into hiding after writing an article in a British university newspaper about the violent rape of women.

The ‘Agony Uncles’ at the Beaver, the student newspaper of the London School of Economics (LSE), responded to the concerns of an imaginary reader about his girlfriend’s fidelity by suggesting he subject her to various violent sexual acts.

They also recommended punching women in the back of the head during sex and listed a series of illegal sex acts, concluding: ‘It’s not rape if you shout “surprise’.

The university’s Women’s Society and The Feminist Society have both petitioned for the resignation of the paper’s executive editor Nicola Alexander.

The strength of anger is so extreme the paper has refused to reveal the writers’ names over ‘concerns about their safety’. And the university has been criticised for refusing to discipline the students.

The offending column appeared on November 1, with a header that boasted:

‘This week, our Agony Uncles answer your questions on fornicating with faculty, keeping your girl in check and dealing with less attractive females.’
The ‘advice’ alluded to performing a violent sexual act on a woman to ‘keep your hands full’. Much of the content was too offensive for the Daily Mail to print.

WVoN comment: Sadly there seems to be a culture of male students trying to outdo each other with more and more offensive jokes. I recently read an article in a student paper suggesting that a female comedian should be beaten with her microphone for not being funny enough; and that men should only get back with an ex-girlfriend if she agreed to a boob job.

Glad they are covering this. It's not a totally uncommon opinion in the trans community. Personally, that's one of the issues I've always had with Chaz and with his documentary, Becoming Chaz. The fact that he displays quite a few misogynist and cissexist ideas. I don't think he's a good representative for the trans community, either.

I absolutely agree with you. Chaz is not a good representative for the trans community yet he has stepped into the role. I read the blogs Stephen Ira wrote and do agree with him, not only that Stephen Ira is obviously more educated and his blogs are very well written. I also heard Chaz on Howard Stern this week. I don't know what it is, the dude just expresses things so poorly, doesn't seem to get it. I don't agree with anything much he says at all.

I really don't think he does "get it." I think that for him being a trans activist solely consists of getting the world to "accept" trans people as the same as cis people but born defectively, in much the same way that society once thought that there was only one sex and that women were just defective men rather than an entirely different sex. It seems like trans activism as embracing diversity and new ways of thinking about sex/gender aren't even on the radar for him. He essentially wants the world to pity trans people instead of hate trans people.

Not to mention his treatment of women. It seems his version of "missing out on all the things little boys got to do" consists of treating women like crap. I'm not sure he sees his own hypocrisy as a self-proclaimed LGBT activist. He seems caught in between wanting to be socially conscious and wanting to be a stereotypical guy so that American males will accept him as "normal guy." Through some of his interviews it seems he's made perfectly clear that he doesn't want to be associated with women, anyway.

Thanks for posting this. I hope more transpeople point out that he is not a great trans rep at all. And he keeps getting a lot of press as such. It is also difficult to talk about this as a non-trans person because what usually happens is that this is viewed as transphobic.

There are so many other trans men and women that have so much more substance that make far better trans activists.

I think a lot of trans people do speak out against him as a rep, especially trans people who are involved in activism. I know that quite a few of us here have mentioned it a few times. It was one of the reasons for my rather disgruntled replies in the Dancing With the Stars thread, Becoming Chaz thread and pretty much anything involving Chaz. I know some others like Corkey and Dapper I think have mentioned it as well. So hopefully this isn't coming as a surprise to people that some in the trans community aren't ok with what Chaz says/Chaz as the celebrity face of trans people.

Irl, the problem is that the media really doesn't pay much attention to trans activists who aren't the children of celebrities. I guess they have no reason to. Trying to find a media source that will accept entries from people who don't think having Chaz as a trans rep. in the mainstream isn't some wonderful advancement in trans rights is difficult. Not that that means people shouldn't try. I think it is important to, but there's still that barrier of there being little demand to hear about trans rights issues in the mainstream.

I agree with you guys. As I said in another thread, I saw him speak at a trans conference soon after "Becoming Chaz" came out. Several transguys confronted him pretty harshly about presenting as a representative of the trans community and his misogynistic statements.

Chaz truly seemed to not really "get" how his statements came across and genuinely seemed to not want the media to think that he was speaking for anyone but himself when talking about being trans. No disrespect to Chaz, but in watching the dialogue with the audience I deduced that maybe the guy just doesn't have the critical thinking skills necessary to really get it. Again, truly no disrespect to him, that is just my assessment.

P.S. I have not read/seen Chaz in any venue since the above, so I do not know what he may have said since that time (May 2011?).

Oh yes, I did see your and dapper's and Corkey's comments in other threads and was glad to you speak up. There were other posts I recall about the documentary and his treatment of his partner. I also thought a lot about transguys that I know in real-time that thought he was a very bad rep for ever speaking about the challenges of taking T. There have been many tranguys on this site as well the old one that speak frankly about some of the "excuses" around this as well as just plain sexist behavior. No discussion of the work one does on these issues as they transition- or even before making the decision to.

I think you have a really good point about how the mainstream is fixated on celeb transpeople and the fact that they would get a much more realistic idea of not only transgenderism, but gender in being exposed to organizations that represent "just people" that are trans.

I want Chaz to have a good and fulfilling life, but have to honest, even prior to transitioning as a LGBT "activist," I have never viewed him as all that enlightened just as a human being. He has never been an inspirational speaker and I don't see him as all that well read. There are quite a few trans people right here that have much more knowledge and evolvement than he does. And organizations that I feel fortunate to have in close proximity such as Colage (but there are others), could do so much positive work if they could get the kind of financial support that would enable chapters in many more states and cities. Also, there is a great need for educational curriculum development in education around gender identity.

Yes, I think many of our trans members speak out and up and certainly don't just follow the "crowd" concerning spokespeople!! Thank you all!

Have to add something-

As a non-trans person I am not unaffected by the very real need for as much research and development of gender identities and issues in order to understand myself as well. Taking into account what is now available in this field as compared to what was when I was a kid brings me a lot of satisfaction just a butch. We are finally able to see the binary and how restrictive it is for everyone. No way do I, or have I ever fit neatly into it. I see so many new horizons for future generations unlocking with what is now finally being studied and understood about gender. My hope is that kids will be able to grow up without so much of the self-loathing and shame that past generations have. I am really joyful that my 77 year old inter-gendered cousin lived long enough to be able to experience the world much differently- that is a true gift of the universe!

You're completely right, AtLast. Trans rights, development of new understandings of gender identity (and here I would add sex identities and sexual identities as well) benefits everyone in the long run. Just as women's rights, lgb/queer rights and ethnic/racial equality benefit everyone in the long run. I know I can get bogged down on how shitty things still are, that I don't always talk about the positives. But there are certainly many positives to talk about, and rights issues has certainly come along way and especially within the lgbtqi community.

I guess part of my worry is that our progress only echoes slightly in mainstream society compared with how loudly it resonates within the lgbtq community. So many people even defending Chaz against what Stephen has said, don't even seem to "get" trans rights or what being trans is. I wish that Pride and mainstream media representations of our diverse communities would display more of our diversity. Would display how we view gender and sex and sexuality. I guess it's just frustrating and it's partially my own fault in being frustrated. I just wish there was a way of entering even the research that has been conducted in the sciences into the mainstream perspective. So that people like Chaz would stop talking about being trans as though it were a "birth defect," or people like Chaz will stop talking about how he has little tolerance for women and what they have to say. So that that won't be what the mainstream preaches as gospel, cause "hey, he's a transguy/lgbtq activist and his bigoted views support our bigoted views, so let's use his ignorance to preach our own discriminatory practices!" It feels like the age old practice of using one marginalized person's limited understanding of their community's marginalization against the community as a whole. Like if one black/African American person spoke out against the civil rights movement, then that would have somehow "justified" the racist practices of the day for white Americans who opposed it. Or when one queer person speaks out against the queer rights movement, then that somehow "justifies" homophobic practices in society. Like, "oh hey one of them agrees with us, so therefore we must be right! Forget the majority who don't!"

I guess on the one hand I want to give Chaz a break because he's a transguy. On the other hand, he's an extremely privileged transguy who's words have really negative reprecussions for the trans community that doesn't have his social privilege. Would I be giving him a break if he were a cissexed male? No, I wouldn't. So while on the one hand I feel badly for him because he doesn't seem to "get it," but is also a transguy who has to deal with transphobia, on the other hand being trans doesn't exempt him from being transphobic or misogynist. And it's just as serious coming from his as from a cissexed person.

And I'm aware that I'm probably preaching to the choir here...but well...I guess I'm a bit of a natural ranter or something, lol.

Certainly the commentary for each of the photos has a sexist, sexual nature to it, however many of those photos are deliberately sexual in nature. They were intentional.

The question in my mind has to do with what actually makes them inherently sexist? Is it wrong for a beautiful (or not beautiful) woman to intentionally have that type of photo made and published?

Maybe some of them have an exhibitionist streak in them.......and there is nothing wrong with that. Every one of us has looked at sexy photos of women (and men) and liked the photos and imagined all kinds of things while doing so. Does looking at pictures of almost to totally naked women, while thinking about all kinds of things, make me a sexist?

Certainly the radical feminists think so and they also are most certainly sex negative.

Fox News', Monica Crowley
 

huh???? I'm lost.........no link to click on.......

These days, Misogyny and Sexism in the News is the focal point of the GOP- via candidates for president and all other offices, as well as in Congress. Since the big "red" take over in 2010 by the extreme right wing of the Republican party, mysogyny & sexism has been rampant.

I'm gonna say this belongs in this thread

Scandal highlights lack of women in Secret Service
By ERIC TUCKER Associated Press
The Associated Press

Saturday, April 28, 2012 5:04 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secret Service agents are often portrayed in popular culture as disciplined, unflappable, loyal — and male. A spiraling prostitution scandal that has highlighted the dearth of women in the agency that protects the president and dignitaries has many wondering: Would more females in the ranks prevent future dishonor?

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.p...org%3E&ps=1018

This story is disturbing on so many levels. I hope this DJ loses his job.

He actually said that this father should get a friend to screw his daughter straight.


http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio...pe-for-lesbian

I just want to point out the broad generalization in this statement.

Not all radical feminists think so and not all are "sex negative".

I, personally, identify as a "radical feminist" and certainly am not sex negative.

Just sayin'.

It always bothers me when I read broad, sweeping statements that lump everyone, no matter how we identify, in the same bucket.

What the Rest of the World is Like for Women
 

During the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing, more than 100 countries expressed their commitment “to advance the goals of equality, development and peace for all women everywhere in the interest of humanity.” Since then, the United Nations has been tracking the plight of women, at times demanding international attention. To make the problems clearer, it helps to express them as a chart — as the Guardian did last June — or as a list of the worst places in the world for women, as the Independent did in March, as part of an investigation in tandem with the 101st International Women’s Day.

But one of the most complete pictures of the plight of women worldwide emerged earlier this week. Valerie M. Hudson, a Texas A&M University professor, analyzed information from the WomenStats Project and mapped the data in cooperation with Foreign Policy. Exploring nine factors, including physical security, maternal mortality, government participation and educational disparity, the data visualization corroborates aforementioned findings from the Independent and the Guardian: that Afghanistan is among the worst countries in the world for women, where 87% are illiterate, more than 70% face forced marriages and expectant mothers have a 1 in 11 chance of dying during childbirth. There are other areas of concern as well: For example, central and southern Africa appear to have more than a 20% difference in male and female secondary education level. Maternal mortality levels are also shockingly high in the region, with approximately 75% of the continent reporting more than 300 maternal deaths per 100,000 births.

According to additional statistics from the United Nation’s latest World’s Women publication, women are also legally disadvantaged in accessing land ownership, inheritance and other forms of property in 45 out of the 48 African countries reviewed and in 25 out of the 42 reviewed in Asia. Though the continent is home to the most dismal numbers overall, one problem that did not surface in Africa, is that of sex ratio and son preference in children. According to the research, Africa had normal sex ratios, while India, China and Vietnam had “extremely abnormal sex ratios favoring males.”

One of the most striking findings, was that of sex trafficking. According to Foreign Policy‘s map, it appears that nearly 75% of the world has lax trafficking laws. Almost all of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia fall into one of three categories: “Trafficking is illegal but still practiced,” “Trafficking is limitedly illegal but is still practiced,” or “Trafficking is not illegal and is commonly practiced.”

Circumstances seem dire when looking at Foreign Policy‘s map, and they should. According to the United Nation’s review of 33 countries with available statistics, the proportion of women who will be exposed to physical violence in their lifetime ranges from 12% in Hong Kong to 59% in Zambia. In a related survey, the U.N. found that nearly one-third of women worldwide agreed that being hit by a husband in an argument is justifiable, and in Mali, 74% of women say they believe it’s acceptable to by punished for refusing sex.

On the upside, the U.N. has reported some bright spots in the last 20 years: Female genital mutilation is decreasing slightly among younger generations, literacy among adult women and men around the world has improved, albeit slowly, and enrollment of girls in schools in increasing across the world.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/28/...ike-for-women/

While female genital mutilation may be decreasing slightly, it is now increasingly being performed in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada, due to immigration. FORWARD (The Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development) estimates that as many as 6,500 girls are at risk of FGM within the UK every year.

From the guardian:

"As many as 100,000 women in Britain have undergone female genital mutilations (FGM) with medics in the UK offering to carry out the illegal procedure on girls as young as 10, it has been reported.

Investigators from the Sunday Times said they had secretly filmed a doctor, dentist and alternative medicine practitioner who were allegedly willing to perform FGM or arrange for the operation to be carried out. The doctor and dentist deny any wrongdoing.

The practice, which involves the surgical removal of external genitalia and in some cases the stitching of the vaginal opening, is illegal in Britain and carries up to a 14-year prison sentence. It is also against the law to arrange FGM.

The procedure is widespread across parts of Africa. Victims are rarely given anaesthetic and frequently suffer long-term damage and pain.

Research suggests that every year more than 22,000 girls in the UK and up to 6,000 in London are at risk of the potentially fatal procedure.

The Metropolitan police said that since 2008 it had received 166 reports of people who feared they were at risk of FGM. Across all 43 forces in England and Wales, no one has ever been convicted of the offence, according to the Sunday Times."

more here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ap...ics?CMP=twt_gu

and if you can stomach it, here is more from FORWARD:
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm

I quoted the whole post for clarity. I should have said 'certainly many/most radical feminists think so'. What I think of when I say 'radical feminist' is the anti-porn, no penetrative sex, no adornment (make-up etc), no males over 5 yrs old, separatist lesbian kind of femininst.

So what do you think about the questions I asked? Is porn inherently sexist?

I also Identify as a radical feminist and I don't think I'm sex negative. I'm positively positive about sex and naked people in general. And looking at pictures of almost totally naked women (and men too) while thinking about all kinds of things doesn't make someone sexist in my radical feminist opinion. However the way that women and their bodies are sometimes used is at the very least sexist.

I guess what is sexist can occasionally be a difficult call to make. When misogyny is rearing its ugly head may be open to interpretation. Yet when is a decision not influenced by society's sexist and misogynistic opinions and expectations of women is perhaps an arguable never. It's impossible to live in our society and not have cut your teeth on sexism and misogyny.

a link to US laws:

http://reproductiverights.org/sites/...fgmlawsusa.pdf

What is interesting to me is that it is legal (under federal law) for a woman over 18 to have this done. This practice is cultural and not religious.

And then there is the other big can of worms about male genital circumcision/mutilation. This originated as a religious practice and became the norm (a non-religious practice) in the US. It is automatically done to all baby boys before they go home.....parents are not asked unless something has changed in hospitals. It is now being justified as necessary for health reasons.

When my ex partner and I were deciding whether or not to circumcise our son we believed that having it done would have benefits for him, health and other. One friend that had not been circumcised always believed sex would be more pleasurable if he had been. Although looking back I don’t know how he could possibly know that since he never was. But being the radical feminist lesbian that I am, I wanted to make sure my son had the opportunity for as much sensation and sexual pleasure as possible. I know I never wanted to genitally mutilate my son, my choice was with his best interest as my only catalyst.

I don’t think that is generally the case with female genital mutilation. And while I don’t want to minimize the pain and suffering that circumcision may have caused any male I also don’t think it is comparable to the dangers that genital mutilation causes young females. Not only is the best interest of the girl not of much concern, in many cases the mutilation is done to the girl child to increase pleasure for males.

i think these powerful pictures of women can be a very positive reflection as long as it was/is women friendly/controlled from start to finish. i do think that some women oppress their own. It is no longer a silent standard that women have to out perform, out work, out think, and behave more financially fiscal in order to create close to but never equal standards men have in this world when it comes to living and working.

i think that porn is inherently sexist only because my imagination concludes that the percentage would be so small it doesn't make a dent in the sexist damage that may come with the industry. Human trafficking is/has been an epidemic and provides many workers for the porn/sex worker industry globally.

i am not sure sexism is subjective and in my Household it is not gender specific due to its femme led nature.

Honestly I have no idea what the risks or consequences of male circumcision are, but I do know they are routinely (though I just read a report from 2009 that said only about 60% of male babies are circumcised, a decline from the 1970s when the number was around 90%) performed in hospitals by doctors.

Female genital mutilation however is "traditionally carried out by an older woman with no medical training. Anaesthetics and antiseptic treatment are not generally used and the practice is usually carried out using basic tools such as knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass and razor blades. Often iodine or a mixture of herbs is placed on the wound to tighten the vagina and stop the bleeding."

Consequences:
severe pain and shock
infection
urine retention
injury to adjacent tissues
immediate fatal haemorrhaging

Long-term implications can entail:

extensive damage of the external reproductive system
uterus, vaginal and pelvic infections
cysts and neuromas
increased risk of Vesico Vaginal Fistula
complications in pregnancy and child birth
psychological damage
sexual dysfunction
difficulties in menstruation

Justifications of FGM

The justifications given for the practise are multiple and reflect the ideological and historical situation of the societies in which it has developed. Reasons cited generally relate to tradition, power inequalities and the ensuing compliance of women to the dictates of their communities

Reasons include:

custom and tradition
religion; in the mistaken belief that it is a religious requirement
preservation of virginity/chastity
social acceptance, especially for marriage
hygiene and cleanliness
increasing sexual pleasure for the male
family honour
a sense of belonging to the group and conversely the fear of social exclusion
enhancing fertility

http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm

I'm glad I never had a son..........I have no idea what decision I would make. I think everyone makes the best decision they can for their own son.

I am clear about FGM. No way No how for girls. I think maybe perhaps it might should be illegal for adult women. However that eliminates choice for women and could drive the practice further underground (which is true for girls also). I dunno.....I hate crap like this.....

I worked maternal-child health for many years. Never did I see a circumcision performed without written consent from a parent. To do so would have been a risk management nightmare and a breach of medical ethics.





The original quote of "radical feminist" was disturbing. Trying to tone it down by adding "many/most" didnt make it easier to swallow.

As others have addressed, both forms are generalizations which negatively sterotype a group with misperceptions of what a radical feminist stands for.

I, too, consider myself to be a radical feminist. I am not against porn per se. I am against the sexual exploitation of women within a patriarchal society. In such a society, with the unequal power between the sexes, females are socialized to be objectified for the pleasure of the members of the partiarchy in many different ways. Doesnt seem to matter if that objectification is in the form of the sexual abuse of children, the sexualization of breastfeeding, sexual harrassment in the workplace, cat calls walking down the street, or even in porn.

It is difficult to sort out if behavior is really consensual or if it is adhering to expectations. That is a troublesome dilemma.

okie dokie here ya go...........

'certainly many/most of the radical feminists I have encountered think so'. What I mean when I say 'radical feminist' is the anti-porn, no penetrative sex, no adornment (make-up etc), no males over 5 yrs old, separatist lesbian kind of feminist.

I stand by the above. I don't think (as it is now written) it over-generalizes or stereotypes radical feminism as I have defined it.

I don't think clarifying what I said is 'toning it down'. I do get what you mean about the original statement, but if you still think that after clarification..............shrug.......we will just have to disagree

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

Til now I had never run across anyone who claimed 'radical feminist' who did not fit the above description. Certainly, one can say it is a radical idea that the patriarchy is the root of oppression of women and 'radical feminism' as a big picture concept is fitting. I was thinking that within self identified feminists the ones that are radical are those who are separatist, anti-porn, sex negative, no penetration sexually, no males over 5 yrs old, etc.....we all know who I am talking about....

I did a bit of research and came across this basic definition of 'radical feminism' (I took Wiki's cuz they all say about the same thing):

Radical feminism is a current theoretical perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on an assumption that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1]

Wiki defines feminism as:

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."[3]



I personally don't think it's a radical idea that the patriarchy is the root of oppression and the 'isms' in the world. Nor do I believe it's radical to think gender roles are harmful and we need to re-order society. I thought that was just part of plain old garden variety feminist thought.

Seems to me the reason we need feminism is the patriarchy so I have trouble understanding why that is defined as radical.

just nit-picking over semantics in some ways, I guess....

Your mileage may vary.......