Feminism in News and Popular Media

[Medusa]

FemmeInterrupted -

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

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


Thanks!

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

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

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

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

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

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

[stepfordfemme]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also want to speak finally to parental alienation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would love to share more thoughts on this subject

[Kobi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://news.yahoo.com/women-sad-angr...152229520.html

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400...st-of-them-all



http://www.express.co.uk/search/Paul...ula+Murray&b=1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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

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

[Sweetfeme]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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

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

[Kobi]

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

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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

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

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

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

[Kobi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other findings:

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

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

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

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

http://news.yahoo.com/mothers-now-to...040224109.html

[Kobi]

[femmeInterrupted]

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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

Originally Posted by Allison W

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

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

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

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

[femmeInterrupted]

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

[femmeInterrupted]

[Kobi]

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Allison W

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

Other often heard 'favourites'"

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

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

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

"Stop blaming the patriarchy"

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

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


Don't Be

[Kobi]

[femmeInterrupted]