Feminism in News and Popular Media

[Kobi]

[Kobi]

[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/daily...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/fa...anted=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/2012-0...es-echoes.html

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


This woman just freakin fascinates me. Amazing couple.

[Kobi]

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/bre...164047499.html

[Kobi]

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Nah, it was just nonconsensual sex.

[Cin]

http://www.alternet.org/judge-calls-...-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://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/can_..._marriage/?upw

[Cin]

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/2013/0...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...age=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/unco...shirts-in-nyc/

Another article link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...k-streets.html

Book site link: http://www.uncoveredbook.com/index.php

[Soon]

The 24 Pieces That Should Be Required Reading For Women From 2013

[Allison W]

(my apologies if someone else already posted this in another thread)



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-bechd...t-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.

[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...vMO/story.html