Feminism in News and Popular Media - Page 8

Kobi · 09-16-2014, 06:58 AM

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/...?event=event25

Kobi · 09-16-2014, 07:26 AM

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.

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/cover...roger-goodell/

Kobi · 09-29-2014, 04:56 PM

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 · 10-10-2014, 05:59 AM

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.

http://womensliberationfront.org/

Kobi · 10-16-2014, 02:38 PM

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 · 10-26-2014, 08:27 AM

http://feministing.com/2014/09/29/ca...e-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 · 11-03-2014, 05:11 PM

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 · 11-03-2014, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soon

Monday, November 3rd — Thistle Interviews Sheila Jeffreys

Calling it now; this is going to be a sick, sad clusterfuck.

Kobi · 11-03-2014, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison W

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 · 11-03-2014, 07:05 PM

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 · 11-03-2014, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobi

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 · 11-03-2014, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison W

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 · 11-07-2014, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.”

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 · 11-07-2014, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentle Tiger

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 · 11-07-2014, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobi

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 · 11-08-2014, 06:31 AM

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 · 11-12-2014, 09:32 PM

Over in the misogyny thread, I've posted a lot of bad news from the gaming world, particularly that whole "Gamergate" 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. 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.

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. 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 · 11-22-2014, 10:42 PM

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, Steam Greenlight link) 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 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).

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 · 11-23-2014, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison W

< 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).

< 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 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:

Link

Link
There's this gif from the game found on the dev's Tumblr:

with the caption: "she doesn’t like having her butt slapped"
Link

---> 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:

Link
- 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:

Link
And then there's this lovely gif from the game:

Link

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. Here's a still for those who may have missed it:

From the Kickstarter 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" who have controlled "every major society and empire", even, according to the developer's page, 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 · 11-23-2014, 07:11 AM

Quote: