March 2005 Archives

Never been quite the fan of Slate’s advice column Dear Prudence, but this latest bit of crap really got to me.

A 22-year-old lesbian wrote in asking about appropriate levels of public displays of affection, stemming from frequent arguments with her mother. One of her mother’s concerns was that her daughter and girlfriend were “inviting trouble, perhaps even physical trouble.”

Check out Prudie’s response:

Dear Polite,
Prudie's opinion about the ongoing head-butting is that anybody's PDA (hetero and gay) should be within the bounds of restraint. Handholding in public is fine, necking is not. (For everyone.) A spontaneous expression of love—a brief one—is fine if it's not for effect and there would be no consequences … for example, if you're in an environment known to be homophobic, you would be asking for trouble. If you know someone who might be discomfited by seeing two girls display physicality, skip it. As the erudite Roger Rosenblatt has written, "If you find yourself making accommodations, that does not make you a hotel." In this case, it just makes you thoughtful.

Um, what the fuck?

Under Prudie’s oh-so-PC veneer of “necking isn’t cool for anyone,” is a really disturbing message: it’s your fault if you’re a victim of violence based on your sexual orientation. Yeah, yeah…she said if “you’re in an environment known to be homophobic.” But the last time I checked, pretty much the whole fucking country is known to be homophobic. Are there any completely safe spaces to be gay?

Not to mention, her advice sounds way too similar to the common (bullshit) argument that sexual assault victims were “asking for it” by wearing certain clothes or walking alone late at night. But I doubt Prudie would ever write that…much easier to blame the victim when they’re gay.

On a smaller scale of annoyance: the advice to forego physical affection in front of someone who “might be discomfited” by it is pure shit.

Rant over. Whew.

Back in my Women's Studies undergrad, I remember reading about a group of women who formed an alliance in India to fight sex offenders on gender divided trains. I guess at the time there had been a lot of men breaking into the women's cars and engaging in acts of sexual violence. Not only did these women form a group, but they armed themselves with bats and when the men would break in, they would beat the crap out of them! Aight.

Following in this tradition, the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India just created the first the Tamil Nadu Special Forces Fifth Battalion: the world’s first all-female battalion.

Ms. Magazine reports:

Tamil Nadu has always been progressive regarding women, electing the first female chief minister (a state chief minister holds the power of a U.S. state governor). It boasts the first women’s university, first women’s engineering college, first female-staffed police station, first all-female police commando company, and now the first women’s special-forces police battalion.

Historically, women were allowed in police forces, but they were usually relegated to administrative positions. India’s first elected female chief minister, J. Jayalalitha believes that if 1/2 the population is women, then perhaps the police force should not only be representative of that, but sensitive to the needs of crimes against women. Prior to the creation of women's battalion, Jayalalitha had created the All Women's Police Station (AWPS), which were staffed by about 15 women, trained in crimes against women.

AWPS has been extremely successful.

Today, there are 188 AWPS, one in each Tamil Nadu district, along with two toll-free help lines — Woman in Distress and Child in Distress — through which anonymous complaints are pursued at the same priority level as regular complaints. The result: a 23 percent increase in reporting of crimes against women and children — and a higher conviction rate. Several other states have started pilot AWPS.

Finally, Kalpana Nayak, battalion commandant says, that “policewomen are equally motivated and fit to be on a par with their male counterparts. Before this program, the male-female ratio was 42 to one; it’s now 12 to one [85,000 men, 7,000 women], the highest in India.”

Following a historical legacy of warrior women in India, this is pretty rad. I definately support large groups of women trained to defend the needs of other women.

Not long ago, the Boston Globe featured an article, Step off, about "the objectification of black women -- both visually and lyrically --" in contemporary rap music and videos. Old news, right? Not so fast. Apparently, "as this years-old aesthetic reaches a crescendo, a rumble of complaint is emerging from black men and women."

As the article reports, students at Spelman College in Atlanta organized a protest of a campus fund-raiser by Nelly after getting a look at his ''Tip Drill" video, which shows the rapper sweeping a credit card down a black woman's buttocks. In January, Essence began a "Take Back the Music" campaign that was initially scheduled to last a year, but it will now ''go on until we see change." The magazine featured stories on the subject in its January and March issues, spearheaded a national weeklong campaign to write letters of complaint to programming directors at BET, MTV, and Fuse, and, last month, held a packed town hall meeting at Spelman to discuss the subject with six panelists, including representatives of BET and of TVT Records, the Atlanta-based home of hit crunk acts the Ying Yang Twins and Lil Jon. Next month the issue takes on a scholarly tone when the University of Chicago brings in more than 1,000 people to a three-day conference where professors, artists, and activists will talk about feminism's place in hip-hop.

And (though not mentioned in the article), let's not forget Sarah Jones.

The author of the article was careful to point out that these campaigns are not about indecency, but are a legitimate fight against (and examination of) the intersection of racism and sexism in our culture.

''While there's sexism out there in society," says Cathy J. Cohen, director of the University of Chicago's Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture, "we have to be especially concerned with media images [of black women] because, in fact, that's how most people understand and interact with black communities. We live in a segregated society. People generally don't interact." And, the potential political implications are huge. ''Hypersexual deviance," says Tricia Rose, author of the seminal 2003 book on black women's sexuality Longing to Tell "has been associated with black women historically for a very long time. It's tied to the logic that cuts welfare policies for black women, right? The idea that they're promiscuous, they're irresponsible, or they're emasculating -- all of those kinds of representations impact policies."

Thank god people are rallying around these issues. Anyone still want to claim that "feminism is only for white women" or that "feminism is dead"?

Not really a choice I’d like to make. And certainly not one I should have to make.

But that’s exactly the “choice” that was given to Debora Hobbs of North Carolina when her boss found out that she was living with her boyfriend.

A former sheriff’s dispatcher, Hobbs was told by her employer “to get married, move out, or find another job,” supposedly because of the state’s law against cohabitation. Cause those who live in sin don’t really have the time for work.

Hobbs quit last May, and luckily got the ACLU on the case. Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the ACLU-NC Legal Foundation, said that “the government has no business meddling in the private relationships of consenting adults.”

I agree, but it hasn’t exactly been the precedent set as of late. Just look at Bush’s marriage promotion programs for women on welfare. Who needs a job when you have a man? Ugh.

Clearly this specific case is just about some guy using a decrepit law to justify his blatant discrimination, and it probably won’t hold up in court. But taken in context with all the other crazy misogynist shit that’s been happening, it’s not something that should be dismissed too quickly.

Via Pandagon.

According to the New York Observer, tensions between Ms. Editor in Chief Elaine Lafferty and the magazine’s owner and publisher, the Feminist Majority Foundation, led to Lafferty’s recent resignation. Hmm…

Lafferty announces her resignation in the latest issue of Ms., due to hit newsstands this week, saying “in the last two years, I believe Ms. has been lively, provocative, thoughtful, and a fierce feminist example of advocacy journalism at its best…I wish the magazine’s owners all the best as they move forward with the kind of publication they envision.”

President of Feminist Majority Eleanor Smeal said of the resignation, “She resigned and that’s where it is. Change is constant and we know that, and we thought it had to happen at this stage, and we’re now onto another stage.” Sounds like she’s real broken up.

Apparently the main dispute was over control over content and the overall vision of the magazine. Lafferty said that the Feminist Majority Foundation “did not suggest any particular demographic or vision, other than very political and very narrow in their definition of a feminist… My vision of Ms. was that it would be a thinking woman’s magazine—a feminist magazine for sure, but my vision of feminism is a big…As the original Ms. was; they didn’t check membership cards at the door. I don’t believe in dogma, in exclusion or rhetoric. I thought it could be a magazine that invites women into the conversation about how we live today.” Wow…

Infighting and politics is certainly nothing new over at Ms.; they’ve gone through numerous owners, publishers and editors. But this recent debacle brings up an important question: can an activist organization with a specific political strategy successfully manage a magazine? Now, clearly Ms. is a feminist publication with a strategy of its own, but does that mean that it should compromise editorial control for (perhaps) more limited organizational goals? Any thoughts?

Definitely check out the whole piece, it gives an interesting inside look at this recent controversy, as well as some background on the mag that you may not have heard before.

Make sure to check out this piece from The Chicago Tribune, Plan B for pharmacists.

A snippet:

To dwell on the intricacies of the law is to lose sight of a larger point. Turning customers away is bad for business. Pharmacies are in business to sell drugs. It's not good enough to tell a customer to call back tomorrow when a different pharmacist is on duty, or just go somewhere else. That may be relatively easy in a big city, albeit a good way to lose that customer's repeat business. But in some rural areas, the next pharmacy isn't a few blocks away, but many miles.

...Pharmacists must be free to exercise their professional judgment.
Good business practice dictates that employees' moral qualms cannot be ignored. But in respecting one set of concerns, pharmacy owners need to make sure another doesn't get trampled.

Firstly, if you haven’t already seen NARAL’s new flash film, “You’ve come a long way baby! But how much farther do you still have to go?” go check it out...very nice stuff.

And then when you realize how much work still needs to be done, go and take action against the assholes who want to keep women from obtaining birth control and emergency contraception.

As you well know, in as many as 20 states pharmacies can refuse to fill women’s prescriptions for contraception. You know shit is getting ridiculous when you need a cop to help you get your BC pills.

So to take on this craziness, NARAL Pro-Choice America is telling the nation’s biggest pharmacies (Wal-Mart, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Eckerd) not to stand between a woman, her physician, and her reproductive health choices. Send a letter now!

The Supreme Court ruled today that Title IX not only protects against discrimination, but also protects people from retaliation. Yay!

It was a close one, with a 5-4 vote.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that “reporting incidents of discrimination is integral to Title IX enforcement and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished,” and that if there weren’t protections against retaliation, “individuals who witness discrimination would be loathe to report it, and all manner of Title IX violations might go unremedied as a result.”

The not-so-surprising dissenting judges, Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy argued that “retaliatory conduct is not discrimination on the basis of sex.” I call bullshit.

The ruling came from a case brought by a girls’ high school basketball coach in Alabama who after complaining about unequal treatment and funding lost his coaching position.

A program in Alaska which trains women in the construction trades just received an award from the US Dept. of Labor. (Now if we could only get them to continue reporting on women’s wages...but that’s a gripe for another day.)

Alaska Works Partnership Inc. received the 2004 Exemplary Public Interest Contributions Award from the DOL for efforts to promote equal-employment opportunities:

The program began in summer 2003 with a program that included 15 women. For five weeks, they were given hands-on experience and exposure to various construction trades, including operating, electrical, plumbing, pipe fitting, sheet metal and carpentry.

...Beginning later this spring, the program will conduct training in Anchorage. Fifty-one women attended the first orientation for the Anchorage program. Another 41 are expected this week for a second orientation.

Love it. Nontraditional employment for women is something that isn’t often discussed in feminism, but it’s a necessary workplace issue. Construction and other nontrad jobs pay great money and have flexible schedules, but women are often steered away from them.

Check out Legal Momentum’s Women Rebuild Program and Nontraditional Employment for Women (NEW) for more.

I was going to write about yesterday's wage gap story, but Amanda and Sheezlebub have already done an amazing job...I'm not into reinventing the wheel.

I've got to say though, as soon as I saw the headline, College-educated white women earning less, I knew the piece was going to piss me off. Why report on institutional sexism when you can just try and create competition among women?

According to ProudParenting.com, the conscience clause laws that pharmacists have been using to deny women birth control and emergency contraception prescriptions could also be used by doctors to refuse treatment to gay and lesbian patients. Looks like these laws are just chock full of discrimination. Jeez.

The ProudParenting piece specifically discusses Michigan’s law, which Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) notes “doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.” The legislation prohibits racial discrimination.

This isn't the first law as of late that discriminates against more than who it was intended for. Are these overlaps simply disturbing coincidences? Or is creating legislation that can be used against all kinds of us crazy "sinners" a deliberate strategy? Yes, perhaps slightly paranoid...

Via Lab Kat

So after a lot of thought (and talking through what exactly constitutes "selling out...") we've decided to take ads on the site.

As traffic has increased for Feministing, we've had to upgrade numerous times and it's all out-of-pocket costs. We're hoping that taking on ads will let us continue the site without going totally broke!

So if you want an ad up, or know someone who might, we would really appreciate the support! (And frankly, they're not very expensive....)

The ever-classy lad magazine Maxim is “pranking” the Bush twins in the April issue by featuring a heavily doctored photograph of the twins in lingerie. The faces are theirs, the bodies…not so much.

Now, I hate Bush as much as the next feminist and I’m not exactly a fan of the twins either. But “pranking” Jenna and Barbara this way seems more like total humiliation than a harmless jab. (Did they take a cue from She's All That? I wonder...)

Should the Bush twins decide to bare all themselves, I'd be fine with it; but Maxim ripping their clothes off (i.e. doctoring a bunch of photos) is just plain degrading.

And this is a minor point, but the cultural fetishism of twins and sisters has got to stop, too. Hello, it’s frigging incest!? Actually, Shari Waxman did a piece for Salon on the twin fetish via that gross Coors advertisement a while back…good stuff.

Any thoughts?

Contributed by Jess Wakeman

Dads and Daughters, a national nonprofit org committed to providing "tools to men to be better fathers and advocates for their daughters," just put out a great action alert: Get the White House to Value Achievement Over Looks in Female Officials.

The "Dads" are justifiably pissed that in discussing the appointment of Dina Powell to Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Cultural Affairs, White chief of staff Andrew Card and budget director Joshua Bolton essentially focused on how cute she was.

So they want Dads across the country to send a letter to Pres. Bush; here's my favorite part of their sample message:

The first words that your chief of staff, Andrew Card, used to describe Ms. Powell were “extremely attractive.” Before articulating Ms. Powell’s numerous achievements, your budget director Joshua B. Bolten described her as “young, attractive.”

We doubt that you or your staff ever promoted a senior male appointee because he was “extremely attractive.” Such a double standard seems to reveal ignorance of an essential truth: a person’s value is in what she can think and accomplish, not in how she looks.

Thanks to Rebel Dad for the link.

Make sure to check out this article on Speak Out: I Had an Abortion, by none other than our fab contributor Jessica Wakeman.

The film--by Jennifer Baumgardner and Gillian Aldrich (above)--features women talking about their experiences with abortion, in part to end the bullshit stigma surrounding the procedure.

Also read Karen Rosenberg's take at Alternet.

Similar to Phill Kline’s nonsense in Kansas, Attorney General Steve Carter in Indiana is seeking women’s private’s medical records to look for “evidence of abuse.” Yeah, sure.

Luckily, pro-choice forces are coming out to fight against this obvious privacy violation (and not so obvious anti-choice maneuver).

What makes me crazy though is those who would fools themselves into thinking that this search is really about protecting women. All I need to know about this one column defending Carter’s actions is that the author put the phrase ‘protecting privacy’ in quotes. Cause, you know...privacy isn’t a real right or anything....

Now let's let her rest. Just a quick update on the Schiavo case, her family has asked for protesters to chill. Also, Jeb Bush is saying that he can do no more, because he cannot violate a court order. This is after the Florida Supreme Court denied both his petitions: 1) To make Ms. Schiavo a ward of the state, and 2) to have her feeding tube reconnected. But clearly, this was not really about Terry Schiavo.

What do you think? Was this a political move and ultimately will this actually help good ole' Jeby and Georgey?

As many of you know, sex trafficking has been an ongoing problem throughout much of the world. Recently, Asmita Women's Publication Group conducted a study that found at least 17,000 Nepalese women forced into prostitution in four of India's major cities.

In an effort to combat this, the US has demanded that India make dramatic changes in its attempts at curbing the trafficking of sex workers. If India fails to comply they will be subject to economic sanctions in June.
An article in Hindustan Times reads:
Ministry sources said US Ambassador to India David Mulford met Home Minister Shivraj Patil over a week ago and conveyed to him that under the US's Victims of Trafficking and Violence Act, India's position could be downgraded for not doing enough to curb trafficking. If this happens, the US will be bound to vote against loans to India from international financial institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank.

An article on CNN reports that three times more women then men were killed by the tsunami on December 26th, 2004. As a result, there have been many reports of rape and forced marriage upon the female victims of the tsunami. The male to female ratio in Indonesia is currently 10-1 and it appears that 80% of the victims were women. A report done by Oxfam International, a British based charity, stated that the reason for the disproportionate number of victims was due to difficulty outrunning the waves or because they were at home and the men were out on the field.

The article states,
As a result, men now far outnumber women in crowded camps and scattered settlements where they are vulnerable to a range of abuses, the report said.

Indonesian women, according to Oxfam and women activists, are being sexually harassed in camps, forced or rushed into marrying much older men and victimized by abusive Indonesian soldiers who reportedly have strip searched them.

There aren't too many official stats at this point, but Becky Buel, Oxfam's policy director says that this will be a problem for years to come, unless the international community and aid efforts focus and address this problem immediately.

South Dakota Governer Michael Rounds signed four intensely anti-abortion laws last week that will seriously restrict a women's right to choose.
Ms Magazine reports, the four Bills include:

*The first requires doctors to inform women who seek an abortion that they will be terminating the life of “a whole, separate, unique, living human being” with which the woman has “an existing relationship."

*The final bill signed creates a state task force intended to study the history of abortion since it became a constitutionally protected right in 1973.

This is wonderful, really wonderful.

The overly publicized case of Terri Schiavo has become the new face/case to truly highlight the extent to which right to life religious fundies will go to prove a point. We get the message(albeit wack), Ms. Schiavo should be granted the right to life, but at what cost. This woman has been suffering for fifteen years and for the purposes of some inequitable political agenda or the "culture of life," must suffer more.

It is important to note that her parents have been spearheading this issue and as reported in the NYT yesterday,
[They] have been backed by an ad hoc coalition of Catholic and evangelical lobbyists, street organizers and legal advisers like the Rev. Frank Pavone, the Catholic priest who runs a group called Priests for Life and evangelical Protestants like Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, and the Rev. Pat Mahoney of the National Clergy Council.This is a pretty scary alliance. The article goes on to talk of how this alliance has extended to "promoting sexual abstinence education and opposing stem-cell research and euthanasia." Hello, SCARY!
This case has been voted down by Congress and is back in State courts, but as said in another NYT article,
At times this week, it almost seemed as if the Bush brothers were working in tandem; the governor's decision to re-enter the case once the White House had dropped it in the face of repeated judicial rebuffs may have saved the president criticism from the right.

Shocker. I know this issue has been going on for a while and getting way too much publicity, but we gotta pay attention. Many folks have argued that this is not in fact a political move on behalf of Jeb Bush, but that he actually cares. Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear.

Also check out this column about it in NYT by Maureen Dowd. She points out how awesome it is that we are warring in Iraq with fear of religious fundamentalists detering democracy, when, well...you get it!

I recently heard American Idol winner Fantasia Barrino's new song, "Baby Mama", and was curious to find out what kind of press it was getting.

Barrino won the ridiculously popular karaoke contest last year, and felt it was appropriate to give single mothers -- like herself -- their own personal anthem in her new album, Free Yourself. Yet the song, while quickly climbing up the Billboard R&B chart, has (unsurprisingly) received more criticism than praise.

For example, this article in USA Today scrutinizes the song. The author gives numerous statistics on single-parent households as her proof, claiming that the media shouldn't be portraying a woman's "poor choice" as a "badge of honor." (In the song, Fantasia says single mothers should have one.)

The song brings up a number of different issues that many single mothers have to deal with, including the shittiness of the welfare system and struggles with employment. I may just be a sucker, but I started tearing up when I heard the song for the first time. Single mothers are stigmatized enough as deviants, continuously shamed for their own "poor choices" and blamed for their economic struggle. The general theme of the song seems to totally subvert that idea. To me, this song is quite due.

Thoughts?

You must check out this awesome analysis by Legal Momentum of George Bush's potential Supreme Court nominees. The introduction of the report, "The Future of the Supreme Court", was written by president Kathy Rodgers, who gets the reader pumped before the good stuff:

"We need a massive public awareness effort to build the grassroots support to defeat ideologically motivated nominees. Our fundamental rights are at stake. We must be as determined as the opposition. But together, we can do it."

Word.

While the FDA stalls on making a decision of whether emergency contraception should be made available without a prescription, New Jersey has joined the short but increasing list of states that require hospitals to offer EC to rape victims. Good job, Jers!

The five other states -- New York, California, Washington, New Mexico and Illinois -- have had the requirement for all hospitals to, at the very least, offer information about EC and tell them where they can obtain it, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer (subscription). Colorado has just passed a similar bill as well, but needs to be signed by the governor.

The Department of Justice has actually been getting quite a lot of shit for omitting EC from the national protocol for treating sexual assault victims. A 141-page protocol was released in September after three years of work, but with not one reference of the method. Only four months later, a letter was sent out from a coalition of medical and advocacy groups requesting a correction for the “glaring omission.” The department hasn’t responded as of yet.

I guess we’ll just have to sit and wait on that one as well, won’t we. Sigh.

The new BUST magazine is out...How I love Amy Sedaris. And the interview is done by Maya Rudolph! I think I just messed my panties.

You would think it couldn’t get much better than having the lovely Ms. Sedaris in the mag, but it does. They have fucking Francine Pascal of Sweet Valley High fame featured as well. Love it.

Ok, but back to Amy Sedaris. Quick story: my boyfriend and I totally sat next to her at a restaurant in Woodstock, NY. The waitstaff—generally unimpressed by celebs cause Liv Tyler, Uma and Ethan (pre-breakup) and the like all have houses in the area—were completely freaking out that she was there. It was genius.

Last month, Feministing reported that a lower-than-low Ohio lawyer was trying to get his client out of domestic violence charges by using the state’s gay marriage ban. He argued that his client, who was not married to the victim, “cannot be charged with the felony because domestic violence charges should be reserved for married couples under the state's law defining marriage.”

I never really thought this argument would stick, but it seems that Judge Stuart Friedman—who ruled yesterday that domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people—found it compelling enough to screw unmarried women across the state:

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest, would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

…Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

Un-fucking-believable.

I would say more, but I think Media Girl’s analysis sums up my sentiments exactly:

At least the battered unmarried women of Ohio can find solace in the fact that their suffering is for the noble cause of preventing gays from marrying. Here's to black eyes against gays. Here's to broken ribs to support heterosexuality. Here's to rape in the name of straight pride.

In the recent Salon.com article, “Adventures in the skin trade,” Priya Jain reviews The Other Hollywood: The Uncensored Oral History of the Porn Film Industry, a book by Nina Hartley, and raises the age old feminist question: “Does pornography empower or degrade women who appear in it?”

I really appreciated this article – I am glad it was written and I think it does a fairly good job of identifying the insanely complex issues involved. Read it, in entirety. And when you do, consider the following, and then comment. I’d love to know your thoughts.

Jain talks about “the sort of mantra for pro-porn feminists everywhere”: “if I want to have sex on camera, who are you to stop me? My body, my choice, damn it!” She then raises a “gut-wrenching story” of a porn actress who was raped on the set “while the crew watche[d] in complicity” and continued filming.

Jain admits to being unable to reconcile these intense discrepancies, and reports that Hartley, and the women featured in the book, can’t either. She tries to find the positive and writes, “if the porn industry had been shut down, we…wouldn't have had the wonderfully sex-positive stars like Hartley, Seka and Sprinkle, all of whom found a form of expression that provided more than just a job, and a fulfilling life.”

Now, I haven’t read the book, but I have read a ton of theory on this and there are some things not mentioned which I think are interesting parts of the debate:

1) In our culture, sex is often used as an oppressive force. Women are the overwhelming victims of rape, incest, sexual harassment, genital mutilation, etc. When we, as women, support commoditized images of women being “fucked” and dominated (as is common in porn), are we allowing the women as fuck-ee, men as fuck-er paradigm to flourish?

2) Legal protection of pornography is premised on the idea that some level of social equality exists among the actors involved – that there is agency, free will, and liberty being exercised. But when we know that equality between the sexes doesn’t exist, can we really say that women are “freely choosing” this lifestyle? What about economic hardship that puts them there?

3) Is the ultimate goal for women to be empowered or equal, or for women to be happy? If women enjoy having sex for money, or if they enjoy the money it makes them/the status is gives them, should we deny them that?

This stuff comes from MacKinnon and Robin West. There is a lot out there on this topic and I think it’s essential for women to consider. Let me know what you think…

From the Chicago Tribune:

Nearly 100 people held a peaceful protest at lunchtime Tuesday outside a Loop drugstore where a pharmacist has refused to fill prescriptions for birth-control pills.

In a scenario reminiscent of the 1960s, protesters chanted, "What do we want? Access! When do we want it? Now!" and carried placards reading, "Your religion does not belong in my health care."

Check out the whole article...these conscience clause laws are unbelievable. When your pharmacist can tell you that you're "killing babies" when you try to get emergency contraception, something is seriously fucked up.

Check out this editorial from The Capital Times, Shameful women. Yeah, I know it's kind of old. But I don't care, read it anyway; take a look at the first bit:

Ellen Sauerbrey, Patricia Brister, Susan Hirschmann, Janet Parshall - are you familiar with these leaders in the women's movement?

Don't worry, neither is anyone else - because the foursome have absolutely no experience working for women's rights.

Nice...

Oh please. Columnist Kathryn Lopez (who is coincidently also an editor of the National Review Online) would have us believe that W does, in fact, stand for women.

However, Lopez doesn't really posit an argument for the validity of Bush's barf-inducing campaign slogan as much as she scoffs at those who would question it (including Feministing's parody). Apparently she also thinks the biggest problem facing women is cloning. That's right, cloning. See, so W really does stand for women, cause he wants to ban cloning!

I don't know what the frigging point of this article was...even her hook is a little late. I mean shit girl, the campaign is over. The fact that you're still trying to convince women that Bush is good for us tells me all I need to know!

I guess the abstinence-promoting clothing company Wait Wear didn’t hear the latest news about virginity pledges.

So really, shouldn’t that pink shirt say “Virginity Lane: Enter when married; until then take the back road”?

Via Nerve.

The Education Department has just made it easier for schools to meet Title IX regulations.

Currently, schools that receive federal financing must demonstrate their compliance with Title IX by either: (1) showing that the proportion of female athletes is comparable to the number of women in the student body; (2) proving that their sports programs for women is growing; or (3) demonstrating that their women's sports program "fully and effectively" meets the interests of female students.

Well, now, the NY Times explains that: "Under the new clarification, colleges can demonstrate that they are satisfying the demand for women's sports by taking an online survey showing that female students have no unmet sports interests. The Education Department says they may use e-mail to notify students of the survey...But, the department said, even if the nonresponse rate is high, nonresponse will be interpreted as a lack of interest."

While the Education Department claims that the change does not weaken the law's requirements, they are facing *a lot* of disagreement.

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, explains that: "The new guidance changes the whole landscape. It's like you have three ways to comply, and first is to really comply by giving equal opportunities, and the second way is to keep trying, and the third way is to call your mother every week and tell her you love women's sports. They've made the third test so easy to comply with and so undemanding, and then set up the presumption that if you do the window-dressing efforts they call for, the government will presume you are in compliance and not investigate." (sigh).

For more analysis from NWLC, click here. And check out Ms. Musing's What's Up With Title IX?

This is just too upsetting:

When she learned that she was carrying a baby with almost no brain and no chance of survival, a devastated young Navy wife from Everett pleaded with a federal court in Seattle to force her military medical program to pay for an abortion...

She won her case and had the abortion. But more than two years later, the federal government continues to fight her, trying to get the woman and her sailor husband to pay back the $3,000 the procedure cost and trying to cast in stone a ban on government-funded abortions.

The government is doing no more than using this woman’s tragedy as a way to enforce a larger anti-choice agenda; it’s totally reprehensible.

Apparently this is being seen as a bit of a “sleeper case,” no one is paying attention now but when it hits it’s going to be huge--so make sure to check out the whole article.

Not exactly a holiday, but Back Up Your Birth Control Day is a damn good time to raise awareness about emergency contraception (EC).

At a time when EC availability is so tenuous—with these bullshit conscience clause laws and Bush’s overall rollback of repro rights—we need to ensure that this safe, effective method of back-up birth control is fought for.

This year especially, with the FDA still stalling on making EC available over-the-counter, we need to take action.

Some things you can do:

Encourage your local pharmacy to stock EC – send thank you letters to those who do and let those that don’t know that they’ll lose your business.

Create a resource guide for your community, listing area pharmacies that stock EC.

Click here for more ideas for action.

The Associated Press reports that a Harvard librarian has brought race and sex discrimination charges against the University, claiming that she has been repeatedly passed over for promotion because “she is black and is perceived as just a ‘pretty girl’ whose attire was too ‘sexy.’”

Since completing her MA in library science in 1999 (she also has a master's degree in English literature and seven years of experience in the library of Boston College), Desiree Goodwin says she’s been rejected for 16 jobs at Harvard:

“I feel no matter how much education I achieved or how many contributions I made, there was nothing I could possibly do that would impress them so that they would open the door for me to allow me to advance,” Goodwin said during a court recess.

She said she was shocked when, in late 2001, her supervisor told her she would never be promoted at Harvard. In court documents, Goodwin said her supervisor told her she was “a joke” at the university's main library, where she “was seen merely as a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits, low cut blouses, and tight pants.”

Multiple degrees be damned…wear a low cut shirt and you’re just a “joke.” Lovely.

The pervasiveness of feminist backlash never ceases to amaze me. Apparently men in Mexico are planning a rally to “demand their rights.” Ok…what rights are those? I’m game…

Lorenzo da Firenze and his followers, a group called the Masculine Circle, say the arrival of feminism is making wimps out of the modern Mexican man. They are calling for the men of Mexico City to take to the streets…

“It's time to stop the belligerent stand women have taken against men,” says da Firenze...

Firstly, I’m not going even to touch the “Masculine Circle” thing…it’s just too easy. I just like how this guy’s version of standing up for men’s rights has nothing to do with elevating men in some way and everything to do with putting women “back in their place.”

But wait, it gets better:

…da Firenze insists that men are the victims. “The Feminist Conspiracy” is the title of his latest book, which he hopes will lay the foundation for a movement to reclaim men's rights. Subtitled “Encyclopedia of the Third World War: Women Attack Men,” the cover features a series of female figures with the heads of animals, including snakes and alligators.

Oh my god. I want a cool animal head!

But da Firenze’s talents don’t stop at the Doctor Moreau-like fantasies of a worldwide gender war. He also has the amazing ability to explain violence against women…

“Why are women so quick to (unleash) verbal and psychological violence on men?” he said. “When a woman goes to trial and tells the jury her husband hit her, O.K., what came before that? It's what we would classify as female verbal violence.”

Hear that ladies? If you don’t want to get hit, you just shouldn’t talk—it’s as simple as that!

Luckily, this total nutjob isn’t being taken very seriously by the lady-folks over in Mexico. I love the response of Angeles Mendoza from Mexico City when asked about men trying to get back their rights: “It sounds illogical to me…When did they lose them? Where did they leave them?”

Women's rights activists in Iraq say they worse off than ever before, with increasing threats against their safety:

Women activists have been suffering since the last war in Iraq because of calls for improved rights and equality with men in this Muslim country, according to a report by the local Women's NGO association.

Islamic militants have killed 20 women in the northern city of Mosul and a dozen more in Baghdad since the beginning of this year according to local authorities. All of the victims were women who were looking forward to a better future. They include three gynaecologists, two pharmacists and students.

Let freedom ring.

I know it's not exactly news that “virginity pledges” don’t work, but the fact that it actually makes kids more likely to have oral and anal sex is just priceless. The folks at True Love Waits wanted to keep the kids from being fornicating heathens, and instead they turned them into sodomites! Love it.

Clearly I’m not pleased that teenagers (who have been given bogus info and unduly pressured) are taking part in high-risk sex. Especially since a 2004 study reported that “pledgers were much less likely to use contraception the first time they had sex and also were less likely than other teens to have undergone STD testing and know their STD status.” But you have to admit, this latest study definitely unleashes a nice dose of poetic justice on the sex-haters.

The report, After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges, is published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health and notes that "advocates for abstinence-only education assert that premarital abstinence and post-marital sex are necessary and sufficient for avoiding negative consequences of sexual activity, such as STDs...This assertion collides with the realities of adolescents' and young adults' lives." No shit.

Lead author and Yale prof Hannah Bruckner said in the Toronto Globe and Mail that "eventually, even the most abstinent adolescents, the great majority of them will have sex. ... We need to provide education that helps in dealing with it when they do it."

Tell that to Bushie. Who knows, maybe the idea of good Christian girls taking it in the ass will motivate him to provide some real sex education. Wishful thinking, I guess.

Also check out Feministe and Pinko Feminist Hellcat.

$pread, a magazine by and for sex workers, launched this weekend in New York and San Francisco.

The mission of the mag reads:

$pread is a unique new magazine by and for sex workers of all genders, sexualities and backgrounds, and their allies, across the globe. Including writing by professionals in all areas of the sex industry, with a focus on personal experience and political insights, the magazine aims to provide a forum for marginalized voices and a sense of community and support among sex workers, as well as a balanced and honest view of the sex industry. $pread will also contain practical information, news and resources relevant to those working in the sex industry. Through this publication the editors hope to confront the various stigmas surrounding sex work, to raise awareness of the legal and political issues affecting sex workers and to encourage support for the improvement and working conditions and worker’s rights for all sex professionals.

While sex work as an issue gets pretty contentious, I think we can all agree that providing a new space for dialogue is never a bad thing…

Many thanks to my old high school bud Michelle for filling me on this one...

As an update to the incredibly long struggle of Barr Laboratories, who have been trying to get Plan B emergency contraception over-the-counter access, a new voice of the FDA gives us some optimism.

Check out the article from the Washington Post last week where the nominee to be the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration indicated that the drug will soon be approved for sale without a prescription.

Acting commissioner Lester M. Crawford implied the same at his Senate Committee Confirmation hearing last week. "The science part is generally done. We're just now down to what the label will look [like]. This is going to be a very unusual sort of approval."

Whatever that means. All I know is that I refuse to do any celebrating until it's officially approved and everyone has access.

For someone who is supposed to uphold the law, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline certainly seems to revel in breaking it...

Not only has Kline continued on his crusade to obtain women’s medical records, but now it seems he’s being accused of violating the gag order associated with his search.

Kline is accused of holding press conferences and giving interviews on his investigation while the order was still in place--it was lifted after a fight by pro-choicers who wanted to make sure that patients would be informed that their records were being sought.

At the end of the day, what really kills me about this guy is that he won’t even admit what this “investigation” is all about--to try and push his anti-choice agenda under the guise of protecting children. Grrr.

A new American Civil Liberties Union report was released Thursday on the drug war on women. Statistics show that women drug-offenders are being harmed a great deal, and in some cases, more than men, reports the Associated Press.

The report, “Caught in the Net”, was based on a national conference in New York where sentence-reform activists, criminal justice officials and others to review proposed policy and legislative changes. In result, the report is calling for an increase in treatment programs for women, says that incarceration should be a last resort, and recommends more efforts to maintain ties between mothers in prison and their children. In the report, they also show that:

-Many women are ensnared in drug investigations despite peripheral involvement, sometimes solely because they failed to turn in their partners to police. Sentencing laws fail to consider factors such as physical abuse or economic dependence that may draw women into drug abuse or deter them from notifying authorities of a partner's drug activity.

-Black and Hispanic women are imprisoned for drug offenses at higher rates than white women even though their rates of illegal drug use are comparable. Factors include prosecutors' decisions, policing tactics and selective testing of pregnant minority women for drug use.

Particularly concerning mothers, drug offenders are typically viewed harshly by lawmakers. Shocker.

"It's not just an issue of drugs, but of embedded moral values," says Bruce Bullington, a Florida State University criminologist. "We demonize these women, and it comes back to haunt us in a variety of ways."

Let’s hope that the report will lead to some changes in this fucked up system.

The NY Times Business feature this weekend is, The Pregnant Job-Seeker: What to Say, and When? While this piece does not place enought emphasis on the *illegality* of employer's discriminating against pregnant women, it is still worth a read if you are a pregnant job-seeker.

So, I've been wondering how to frame the new study from Duke University on the wonders of the X chromosome--but luckily, I didn't have to. Maureen Dowd did it for me. Her satiric piece on the study is definitely worth a Sunday read...

Some teasers:

"Alas," said one of the authors of the study, the Duke University genome expert Huntington Willard, "genetically speaking, if you've met one man, you've met them all. We are, I hate to say it, predictable. You can't say that about women. Men and women are farther apart than we ever knew. We poor men only have 45 chromosomes to do our work with because our 46th is the pathetic Y that has only a few genes which operate below the waist and above the knees. In contrast, we now know that women have the full 46 chromosomes that they're getting work from and the 46th is a second X that is working at levels greater than we knew."

Any my personal fave -- "The discovery about women's superior gene expression may answer the age-old question about why men have trouble expressing themselves: because their genes do." Ha!

Reuters reports on a very cool movement aimed at providing a retirement home for aging sex workers in Mexico City. The Mexico City government provided an abandoned building for the project, and with funds collected from private donors, organizers are well on there way to providing a home for at least 65 sex workers.

At a recent benefit for the retirement home, one young sex worker explained that: "Other people pay taxes and can retire with a pension. We are exploited by society then thrown away when we get old." Because sex work is illegal in Mexico, much of the income made by the workers is used to pay off local police or pimps.

Emilienne de Leon, head of a local women's rights group, Semillas, echoed this sentiment: "Sex workers are doubly marginalized. They are rejected by society and by their families. When they get old, either they sell themselves very cheaply or they don't have enough to eat. It's a very difficult world."

One 74 year-old sex worker explains that her clients often refuse to pay her, so she is forced to work for food.

While the retirement home is just a band-aid on a *much* bigger problem, I think it's great that there is a movement aimed at addressing the plight of these women. Click here, to find out about a movement to take of retired geishas in Kyoto. So when do you think the Bushies are gonna take up this cause? Ummmm, yeah...

The AP reports that a new Defense Department study found that women at military academies have faced 302 incidents of sexual assault since their enrollment.

The good news is that this study was done as a part of a new initiative to provide confidential reporting for victims of sexual assault. The bad news is that the Defense Department responded to the findings by noting that, "We are about where college campuses are, tragically. That's not, frankly, terribly surprising. These young men and women come from civil society." Wow, talk about outrage. (sigh).

In the study, 97% of female cadets and midshipmen at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy were surveyed. Approximately 30% of men at these academies were surveyed.

The overall numbers aren't pretty--16% of the female respondents admitted to having been sexually assaulted, and 50% reported having been sexually harassed. The report also found that 2% of male respondents had been sexually assaulted, and 11% sexually harassed.

In a memo sent by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz yesterday, he told the other service branches that because, "a mandate of complete reporting may represent a barrier for victims to gain access to services when the victim desires no command or law enforcement involvement, there is a need to provide an option for confidential reporting." Finally!!! The AP reports that the schools have until mid-June to implement the policies.

From The Capital Times:

A Republican legislator says he is "outraged" that the University of Wisconsin student health service provides prescription birth control, especially the so-called morning-after pill.

LeMahieu criticized advertising by the student health service in student newspapers. The ads urged women going on spring break to "stock up" on emergency contraceptives.

"I am outraged that our public institutions are giving young college women the tools for having promiscuous sexual relations, whether on campus or thousands of miles away on spring break," he said.

Funny, my tools for having promiscuous sex generally require batteries, not a prescription. (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself…)

And I love the idea that there wouldn't be wanton spring break sex if campus health centers didn't provide birth control. I can see it now: Girls Gone Wild...because they had birth control! "I was going to just catch up on my studies, but now that I have emergency contraception I feel the sudden urge to enter a wet t-shirt contest..."

A Texas lawmaker is trying to put an end to "sexually suggestive" cheerleading performances. Under legislation filed by Rep. Al Edwards, if a school district knowingly permits performances deemed too suggestive, funds from the state would be reduced.

I can just see the movie now...a combination of Footloose and Bring It On.

I mean seriously, let's compare (and try and get past the hilarity of a 26-year veteran of the Texas House saying "breaking it down."):

Rep. Al Edwards: It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down...And then we say to them, 'don't get involved in sex unless it's marriage or love, it's dangerous out there' and yet the teachers and directors are helping them go through those kind of gyrations.

Reverend Shaw Moore: If our lord wasn't testing us, how would you account for the proliferation, these days, of this obscene rock and roll music, with its gospel of easy sexuality and relaxed morality?

Add Kirsten Dunst to this mix, and we've got ourselves a hit...

Cause assholes like this still exist:

Before anybody gets too het up over the resurrection of the ERA, let’s give this some thought. In the first place, I can’t believe the old girls are that bored they’d bring up something that would be so damaging to their cause of female supremacy. It’s true, you know. An ERA would toss most of their manipulative anti-male, anti-family laws right out the window. This would include the wicked stepmother of them all, VAWA.

You think that's bad? Just wait till you read the whole post, especially the part about the attention the ERA is getting from "lots of minor feminist bloggers and silly girl(s)."

And you have to love a blog whose sub-head is STOP the Violence Against Women Act! Unabashed misogyny at its best. Fantastic.

Lots of great stuff out right now.

Katha Pollitt takes on the supposed lack of women columnists and bloggers in Invisible Women;

Anna Quindlen reminds us that We're Missing Some Senators;

and Ellen Goodman tells it like it is in Abortion's elusive middle ground.

Got to love that weekend reading...

Reuters reports that the Dems’ prevention amendment was defeated 53-47 in the Senate last night. I just don’t get it.

How can anyone not want a measure that seeks to limit the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions?

The amendment would have increased funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs, expanded health insurance coverage for birth control, and increased education about emergency contraception.

Real terrible, huh?

According to New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg, the measure would block funding to abstinence-only sex ed programs. You mean the programs that have been shown to be ineffective, misleading and dangerous? Yeah, that would be a real loss.

Clearly this is shitty news, but at least it shows the true colors of anti-choice Senators—their supposed concern over preventing abortions is nothing more than show.

Check out this article by The Guardian on a new study that revealing that a longer maternity leave in the UK would decrease the infant mortality rate.

"Boosting paid leave for new mothers in the UK from the current six months to a full year would cut the infant death rate by 6.8%, according to the study. The infant mortality rate - deaths of babies up to a year old - in England and Wales was 5.2 deaths for every 1,000 live births in 2002, according to the Office for National Statistics, with 563,000 babies delivered in England in 2002-03.

The research, conducted by the academic Sakiko Tanaka of Columbia University in the US and published yesterday, underlines the importance of moves to extend statutory maternity leave. The UK government has pledged to increase paid leave to nine months from 2007, and aims to pay the full year's leave entitlement by the end of the next parliament - promises the Conservatives have not matched."

That's a shocker. Now only if we would get a hint.

Those of you in the Boston area might want to check out photographer Lauren Greenfield’s amazingly brilliant Girl Culture exhibit, on display until April 5th at the Tufts University Art Gallery in Medford, MA.

The exhibit, and much of Greenfield’s other photography as well, seeks to capture and illuminate the ways in which girls and women use the body as a site for the creation and performance of identity. As Greenfield states in her synopsis of the work:

The body has become a primary expression of individual identity for girls in contemporary American culture. Girl Culture investigates girl's relationships to their bodies and the ways in which they use body projects to establish their identities. The photographs explore the relationship between girl's inner lives and emotional development, and the material world and popular culture. They also reveal the exhibitionist nature of modern femininity through moments of vanity and performance in everyday life.

For some analysis of the themes of Greenfield’s work (as well as discussion of pieces by the gallery’s other featured artists, Alex McQuilkin and Barbara Zucker), check out Cate McQuaid’s review from the Boston Globe (again).

-- by Lauren

I’m a bit late on this, but there was a good debate last week on Democracy Now between NOW president Kim Gandy and Communications Director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Phil Singer. You can guess what it was about.

As an update to previous coverage on talk of Democrats considering putting reproductive rights on the side (or I should say entirely out of the agenda) in order to obtain more conservative votes, we find that Pennsylvania and Rhode Island are showing signs of the Democratic Party’s support of this “big tent” approach.

Pennsylvania Democratic State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. has recently announced his decision to run in the 2006 U.S. Senate race. Casey happens to be an abortion rights opponent, and has also happened to have been courted to run by senior member of the democratic party for the previous weeks before his announcement. Former State Treasurer and pro-choice supporter Barbara Hafer had made it clear she intended to run, but the governor asked her to step down so Casey could take the reigns. In the meantime, Rhode Island Secretary of State and pro-choicer Matt Brown has been planning to run in the race, but now the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is urging anti-choicer Rep. Jim Langevin to run. Gandy and Singer take on these recent cases in their debate.

While Singer tries to assure Gandy that this is merely a strategy that will put more Dems in Senate seats and actually help women’s reproductive rights, Gandy doesn’t buy it:

“One of the primary issues that energized the Democratic base was the issue of Roe v. Wade, the issue of the Supreme Court. It's what brought millions and millions of people to the polls. One point one five million of them came to Washington, D.C. last April to march for women's rights, and women's lives and reproductive freedom. That energized the Democratic base all over the country; and now the leadership of the party is slapping all of those people in the face and saying, ‘You know what? We don't really care about your rights. We're willing to throw your rights overboard so that’ – so that for what reason?”

Check out the full transcript, audio or video of the interview here.

It always shocked me that having an Equal Rights Amendment would be controversial. But apparently having constitutional rights is quite contentious.

Scripps Howard reports that Phyllis Schlafly said the ERA would require taxpayers to pay for abortions, make homosexual rights part of the Constitution and take away a woman’s special position as emotional nurturer in the home. Ahh, Phyllis. Always so logical.

From Rep. Carolyn Maloney's office:

Text of the Equal Rights Constitutional Amendment

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Real radical, huh?

Also check out: Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy; Pseudo-Adrienne; and
ms. jared.

Pic of Kim Gandy and members of Congress from NOW.

Yeah, I know--real cheerful.

The increasing sexualization of adolescent girls has been much in the news of late. From NBC’s embarrassingly-named special “The 411: Teens and Sex” (which treated viewers to the hilarious experience of hearing Katie Couric utter the term “man-ho”) to, more importantly, a recent action-packed Law & Order: SVU in which fifteen year-old girls gave blowjobs in exchange for free clothes and Christopher Meloni nearly lost his shit, girlhood and sexual behavior have been the topics of much discussion.

The Boston Globe has been all up on this cultural trend, with several articles in the past few weeks addressing different aspects of it. The attention was sparked in part by an incident at prestigious private school Milton Academy in which five male students were suspended after they, as the Globe put it, “requested and received oral sex” from a sophomore girl in a school locker room. The most recent, from Saturday’s Globe, is entitled “The Disappearing Tween Years” and focuses on parents’ and psychologists’ attempts to make sense of middle school age girls’ widespread exposure to sexual imagery in the media and the behaviors and self-image that such exposure seems to be engendering in them. Among other examples of the changing nature of adolescence, a mother laments the fact her 13-year old daughter and her friends wear belly shirts; a group of 7th and 8th grade girls remarks that everyone they know wears thongs.

I don’t necessarily take issue with the observation that girls today are being exposed to sexual imagery to an extent that women my age weren’t. But I wonder if, beyond the mere suggestion of sex, the actual content of the imagery is really what’s disturbing. I think I would be far less unsettled by these discussions of modern girlhood if they didn’t seem permeated by the conclusion that what young girls are learning these days is that their place in society is in a subservient position, as sexual objects.

Seeing the ways in which such cultural messages are shaping girls’ adolescent experiences today, I feel totally ancient. Maybe it’s just because I was a huge tomboy, but it makes me sad to think that girls today are increasingly being deprived of the chance to have a period in their early teenage lives when it’s still fly to be dorky, asexual and not totally confined by adult gender roles. I think that time is so important to the development of their own intellect and subjectivity, a sense of their worth as people and as girls that isn’t entirely defined by sex.

Is it possible to find a way to show girls different models of what it means to be a woman in our culture, to teach them that they should strive to create their own ideal of femininity, one not characterized by objectification and subservience? Or am I just a dowdy old prude who wants to fight a losing battle against unstoppable cultural forces?

Thanks to my mum for the article.

Contributed by Lauren Steele

I know it’s annoying to post events that are limited to certain geographical areas, but I live in Williamsburg. So there.

NYC-rapemap.org (unfortunate name, I know) is having a fundraiser tonight. If you’re in the area, make sure to go and show your support.

The organization is aiming to:

• Create a multi-lingual information-sharing resource that is free and open to everyone where women can exchange safety information about their streets.

• Create a visual representation in the form of a map of where reported rapes are occurring in Williamsburg and Greenpoint areas.

• Encourage local businesses to put our bright yellow whistle in their windows to indicate that they are a haven for women and pedestrians. This project is called Safe Streets.

Here’s the info:

Join us for the Safety Dance!
March 16, 2005 : 8 PM
Union Pool
484 Union Ave, Williamsburg
By Subway: L at LORIMER, G at METROPOLITAN, X-street: MEEKER
$15
ALL PROCEEDS GO TO BUILDING A SAFER CITY
Decadent raffle prizes! Featuring music by Les Sans Culottes, the Hazzards, Xavier with Comandante Zero, and DJ Shotnez
Download a flyer (PDF)

Women’s Enews reported yesterday that the new version of the SAT (it has higher level math, more writing, and no analogies) could close the previous gender gap in the test.

According to the article, the average SAT score for high school seniors last year was 1049 for males, 1005 for females out of a possible 1600.

Viji Sathy, a research scientist at the College Board, argues that because the revised test has a new writing section “a subject in which on other standardized tests females are known to outperform males—female scores might benefit.” Am I supposed to be super-excited over something women “might benefit” from?

I’m not sure how I feel about this whole thing. I used to teach SAT classes for The Princeton Review, and if I learned anything it was that a standardized test—writing section or not—is not a good indicator of how smart you are or how you’ll do in college. Don’t get me wrong, I think including writing is a necessary thing; there are way too many people who can’t even put a frigging sentence together. But to imply that somehow all the problems with the test will disappear with some revamping of structure is a little short-sighted. Cause besides the gender gap, let’s not forget about the race and class issues that surround the SAT. (I mean, come on—taking a prep course will run you at least $1000. How many people can afford that shit?)

Who thought that at 26 I’d still be thinking of that goddamn test!

Cause being a teenager just isn’t hard enough--let’s add some humiliation and rescind privacy rights while we’re at it!

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

A bill that seeks to overhaul Missouri's child abuse reporting laws could require teachers, doctors, nurses and others to report sexually active teenagers and children to the state's abuse hot line...

...Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said the bill, as written, could stifle the ability of teachers and counselors to speak candidly to teens about sexual activity. Fajen said that by forcing teachers to always report sexual activity as abuse, the law removes sound professional judgment of what constitutes abuse.

I’ve always had an issue with consent laws; not that they exist, but how they’re implemented and the implication that young women can’t make decisions concerning their sexuality.

But this goes beyond any theory arguments on women and agency; it’s a straight up violation of privacy shrouded in rhetoric about protecting kids. Is this a trend? Number one asshole Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who is seeking the medical records of women who’ve had abortions, claims that he’s just looking for evidence of child rape.

Wow I’m sure glad all these big, strong government men are protecting us! Puh-leeze.

Go to Feministe and Bitch Ph.D. for more.

Got to love that good news!

A Michigan law that could potentially outlaw all abortion has been delayed (it was supposed to go into effect March 30) until a federal court can hear challenges its constitutionality.

The Legal Birth Definition Act is one of the most extreme anti-choice laws the U.S. has seen since Roe. It redefines “birth” in an attempt to ban all abortion in the state – and it doesn’t even have an adequate exception to protect women’s health. Shocker.
 
Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Michigan, Rebekah Warren, said that “by using an obscure political process to pass this draconian law, Michigan is forcing a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade - a challenge that could succeed if President Bush is able to add just two new anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court." Eek.

The San Francisco Chronicle writes this morning,

A San Francisco Superior Court judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Monday, saying it violates the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice.''
More than a year after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples at City Hall, Judge Richard Kramer gave legal vindication to Newsom's rationale: that the state's 28-year-old law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is arbitrary and unfair.

Kramer wrote in his decision that, "No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners." He also cited in his ruling a precedent setting decision, when the state Supreme Court decided in 1948 to strike down California's law against interracial marriage.

Of course the gubernator (Arnold) is against this ruling saying, he does not believe in gay marriage and was hoping the court would uphold Proposition 22 (which says marriage is a union between a man and a women). The gubernator, among others, believe that domestic partnership is good enough. But judge Kramer compared this to the notion of "seperate but equal," which is tragically outdated.

There is still a significant portion of Californians that are against this.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families (the folks reponsible for the Prop 22 measure), denounced Kramer's decision as "a crazy ruling by an arrogant San Francisco judge who apparently hates marriage and hates the voters.". Yes, clearly that is exactly what is going on here!

This is only the beginning of a long battle, but today is one of those days that I am glad to live in San Francisco! Plus it is 70 degrees and sunny...

Now you can let the whole world know by purchasing "truck nuts," whose website thoughtfully asks: Does your truck got balls? Nothing like a well placed grammatical error to emphasize your manliness.

Also sold as "bumper nuts," these lovely accessories come in a variety of colors--even blue. Sigh. What ever happened to good old-fashioned bumper stickers? Shit, I'd even settle for a Jesus fish...

Via Nerve.

Remember those dolls with the string on the back that when you pulled it, the doll spoke? I have an idea for a new one; Contradicting Condi speaks when you pull her string, but she doesn’t necessarily make much sense. OK, cheesy example. But the sentiment is far from.

Condi was on Meet the Press yesterday, where she spoke briefly on abortion:

MR. RUSSERT: You told the Washington Times on Friday you were mildly pro-choice. What does that mean?

We do so much to support women around the world, including supporting family planning efforts around the world. We spend a lot of money on -- almost $400 million we've spent on family planning opportunities on trying to help women with these difficult choices. And so I'm perfectly comfortable with where we are in this project.

Eh? I’m sorry...but if Condi wants abortion to be “as rare as possible,” but is “perfectly comfortable” about global gag rule? Yeah, mildly pro-choice my ass.

Looks like bucks for babies is the new trend! But in this case, it isn't just the amount of kids you have, sex is a factor too.

The Indian government is giving a cash incentive (100,000 rupees/approximately 2000 dollars) to couples having baby girls. As long as the family only has one child and has gone through a birth control operation. The daughter recieves the money when she is 20 years old.
Reuters reports,
In India, where millions of couples still hanker for a male child, the overall sex ratio is 927 females to 1000 males, down from 945-to-1000 more than a decade ago. It has one of the lowest female-to-male ratios in the world.

Many couples see the boy as growing up to be a bread-winner and providing for them in their old age, unlike a daughter who will be married off and become part of her husband's family.

This is a really interesting strategy in an attempt to save the girl child. According to the article sex determination tests and female infanticide are still very common in village areas. It will be interesting to see how people respond to this legislation.

Short on cash? Just have a kid!

Last month we reported on a survey which found most single Japanese women would prefer not to marry, much to the chagrin of a local newspaper. Like many in Japan, the folks at the Yomiuri were concerned about Japan's decreasing birthrate.

I guess editorials didn't quite do the trick, because now a town in Japan is taking more drastic measures--they're paying women who have a third child:

To combat a shrinking population, a small town in northern Japan has decided to give a cash award worth about $9,600 to each female resident who has a third child, an official said Friday.

Yamatsuri will hand mothers a lump sum of $4,800 within three months after giving birth to a third baby. The women will then be given $480 each year between the child's second and 11th birthday, Takanobu said.

I'm all for providing more day care options and promoting paternity leave, but the "lump sum" thing freaks me out. Especially considering you're only worthy of it if you pop out three kids! I know some ladies in my old Women's Studies grad program who would argue that this is just paying women for traditionally unpaid labor (dumb pun not intended)--reproduction and care taking.

Any thoughts?

If you didn't catch Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Sunday editorial, make sure to read it ASAP. Abortion: Assault from the right breaks down the right's continuing efforts to end choice on a national and international scale.

But perhaps even more importantly (cause I'm sick of hearing about fucking anti-choicers all the time) it discusses what pro-choicers have been doing to battle this rollback of rights, namely the Prevention First Act:

The proposal, from anti-abortion Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid of Nevada, would provide women greater access to contraception while increasing funds for sex education. A variety of studies suggest that both comprehensive sex education and contraception, including emergency contraception, reduce pregnancies without creating other problems.

...If there's enough willingness to meet in the middle on legislation like Reid's, however, the political equation could create productive rather than frightening decisions for the country.

Ms. Magazine reported last week, "Prominent women's rights activists are increasingly being killed by Islamic extremists in Iraq. Twenty women have been killed in Mosul alone and a dozen more in Baghdad, reports Newsweek. As a result, women are living in fear, attendance by female students in school has declined, and more and more women are choosing to wear the hijab (headscarf) to avoid harassment and violence."

This hostile environment has made it increasingly difficult for women's rights activists to go out to the streets and protest.
Despite these challenges, 94 percent of Iraqi women want legal rights, according to a poll commissioned by Women for Women International.

How is the US involved in this? This reminds me of the notion of bootleg masculinity, when men feel oppressed, they oppress what is threatening, what they CAN oppress. In the building of a nation, historically, women have been in disadvandaged places, and often suppressed by the men that are trying to "create" that nation. Is history just repeating itself?
Shout out to the women's rights activists in Iraq! This is some scary stuff.

As we talked about last week, the US anti-abortion stance at the UN conference, was totally a time suck and truly situated us in the international context of women's rights. As Ellen Sauberay presented, the US desire was to make explicit that no more rights could be created under the Beijing Platform, including the right to abortion. South Africa managed to include the language of repro rights within the text of an amendment with regard to the economic empowerment of women. An article on MSNBC(from Reuters) states,
In particular, South Africa had proposed saying that ``the neglect of women's reproductive rights severely limits their opportunities in public and private life.'' That language was lifted directly from the Beijing declaration.

Sauberay was totally pissed about this, but had to concede and sign the amendment.
Concerning the issue of sex traffiking, the UN declared, demands governments take measures to eliminate the demand for trafficked women and girls ``for all forms of exploitation.''
It also asks nations to raise awareness of the consequences of sex trafficking, including its links to commercial sexual exploitation.
Among the other amendments passed, one discussed the global AIDS epidemic and emphasizes that ``the advancement of women and girls is key to reversing the pandemic'' and urged governments ``to take all necessary measures to empower women and strengthen their economic independence ... to enable them to protect themselves from HIV infection.''

I feel like this conference may have brought up a lot of issues, but I am not totally certain what it has done. It seems like all the back and forth debate confused the real reason that they were there and the US was able to perpetuate its clearly anti-abortion stance.

In a report presented last week by New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) Commissioner Dr Thomas R Frieden, titled "Women at Risk: The Health of Women in New York City," it was found that there is a connection between race and socio-economic status and health behavior, health care access and health outcomes.

An article in Medical News Today gives us an overview of some of the findings:
-- The health of women in New York City has greatly improved over the past decade, but some groups of women - particularly black, Hispanic, and low-income women - still experience poor health.
-- Many women in New York City do not receive appropriate levels of preventive care, including regular cancer screenings and immunizations.
-- Women lag behind men in heart disease prevention efforts, such as exercising regularly and maintaining a healthy weight.

And some more specific stuff:
-- Women in New York City's poorest neighborhoods have a life expectancy 5 years shorter than those who in the highest income neighborhoods. Black women have a life expectancy almost 5 years shorter than white women.
-- Hispanic women and women with low incomes are less likely than most other women to have health care coverage.
-- Black women are more than twice as likely as white women to die from pregnancy-related complications.
-- Among women, 27% of years of potential life lost are due to cancer, while cancer is responsible for only 17% of the years of potential life lost among men.
-- Nearly one-quarter of women age 40 and older have not received a mammogram in the past two years; fewer than half of women age 50 and over have ever had a colon cancer screening; and 1 in 5 women have not had a Pap test in the past three years. Asian women are least likely to receive colon cancer screenings and Pap tests.
-- The rate of new AIDS diagnoses is 11 times higher among black women than white women and the rate of AIDS deaths is 7 times higher.

Interesting stuff. This really got me to thinking about cultural perceptions of health care and how that also affects frequency of doctor consultations. Any thoughts?

A new survey of women undergoing fertility treatment, found that nearly half of the female respondents would opt for preimplantation sex selection if it was available as a no-cost option. Half of those respondents said that they would be willing to pay extra to be able to choose the sex of their child. Interestingly, the 561 respondents split evenly over desires for boys and girls.

Dr. Tarun Jain, lead author of the study, noted that: "One of the fears is that sex selection will drive patients toward a certain sex. And the presumption is a preference for boys. But our study did not show that. In fact, in patients who did not have children there was no greater desire for boys over girls."

Other interesting findings:
* Non-white racial groups had a stronger preference for sex selection.
* Women who were older and women who were not religious were more likely to want a daughter.

Dr. Jain also discussed the importance of the study as a policy tool. She noted that: "Sex selection is a topic that's almost taboo for physicians to talk about. Yet it's important to understand patient interest in nonmedical sex selection and adequately address the ethical and social implications before the cat is out of the bag. Prior to this study, there has been no data to indicate what the demand might be."

According to Medical News Today, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics oppose sex selection for nonmedical reasons. However, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine supports sex selection as a tool for "family balancing" (i.e. allowing families with daughters choose a son, or vice versa). It's clear that as reproductive technology progresses, it's going to become a more pressing issue. Any thoughts?

Check out Sheryl McCarthy's piece on the US delegation to the UN Commission on the Status of Women last week--In U.S. World Policy, Women Lose Out.

"It's a sad commentary that a government that's willing to sacrifice lives to protect human rights in Afghanistan and Iraq won't insist on women's right to vote, to run for office, drive, and to be free of court-imposed sentences of gang rape in the countries we call our friends."

After receiving some critical words from Norway's prime minister, Ikea has agreed to feature more pictures of women assembling furniture in its catalogues.

While I'm happy for the change, I'm not quite sure what to make of Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik's remarks. He claimed that Ikea failed to picture more women out of fear of upsetting Muslim consumers--"It's important to promote attitudes for sexual equality, not the least in Muslim nations." Ikea countered that they already included women in their catalogues, but chose not to feature women assembling furniture in short skirts "to avoid giving offence in some parts of the world." Ummm, what? I don't know about you, but *I* would be offended by a manual filled with ladies in short skirts putting together furniture. grrrr...

Regardless, Ikea acknowledged that men are disproportionately featured in their catalogue and have already submitted some new sketches of female assemblers. Ikea's spokesperson assured that, "Ikea places great stress on being open for all and equality is important in the Ikea catalogue and in every other form of communication." I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm shopping for some cheap DIY furniture.

Last month I posted on a Washington legislative campaign to overturn a state statute used to deny the divorce petitions of pregnant women.

The movement was sparked after Spokane Judge Paul Bastine refused to grant Shawnna Hughes a divorce from her abusive husband, because "the paternity hadn't been established." Bastine held that "it was the policy of the state that marriages can't be dissolved when one of the parties is pregnant."

Well, yesterday the ACLU & Northwest Women's Law Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case to remind the Court that: "Rights should never be based on a person’s reproductive choices. A woman’s ability to divorce simply should not depend on whether she is pregnant." Pretty scary that something so basic needs clarifying, huh?

Click here, for more info on this frightening appeal.

I just had to share this one. It was too good (I especially like the faux-politeness at the end):

I’m sorry if this seems rude but its true. Why are almost ALL feminists either lesbians or physically unattractive heteros. Its true! Isn’t feminism really just about ugly women who hate men trying to get some kind of sick revenge? It even starts in high school. The feminists were always the fat ugly chicks who were upset because they couldn’t get a date to the prom.

Clarice O’Hearn

They can't drive, they can't vote - nope, not American 13-year-olds, but grown women in Saudi Arabia.

But Saudi women can do, however, is control their own finances. A Saudi bank, Banque Saudi Fransi, is planning an advertising campaign promoting women's management of their own finances, or "ladies' banking," as they call it. "You have your dreams. You have your ambitions," says the commercial voice-over - a little odd in a country that restricts women's participation in public life, no?

The campaign is "daring," according to the Times for a country in which a man interviewed for the article noted the role of women remains "highly sensitive."

Any thoughts?

Contributed by Jess Wakeman

I’ll admit it—I am obsessed with Law & Order. All of them. So much so that I think I actually squealed with excitement when I saw that there was to be yet another spinoff, Law & Order: Trial by Jury. Terrifying, I know.

Disappointingly, I lasted about fifteen minutes watching the first episode. It was just borrrinng. What I failed to notice however, was the female factor on the show. Fortunately, Dahlia Lithwick of Slate was more observant:

It's probably a coincidence that the first legal show featuring almost universally unlikable attorneys is also the first legal show that features almost universally female attorneys. Trial by Jury scuttles the Law & Order casting formula (grizzled veteran cop/foxy male cop plus grizzled veteran prosecutor/foxy supermodel assistant prosecutor) to bring you a gaggle of cynical female defense attorneys, judges, prosecutors, and assistants. The show stars Cheers veteran Bebe Neuwirth as Assistant District Attorney Tracey Kibre ("Let's get someone bitter and emasculating. Like Lillith." "I know! Let's just get Lillith!"). Amy Carlson plays bored ADA Kelly Gaffney, and in last week's premiere, Annabella Sciorra was a defense attorney who nodded serenely as her client described strangling his pregnant girlfriend and chucking her down a well.

Yes, I've been spoiled rotten by the soft-spoken genius of Michael Moriarty in the first four seasons of Law & Order and by the controlled intensity of Sam Waterston in the seasons since, but why fall back into clichés of bitter '80s ballbusters?

Personally, I would love to be a bitter ‘80s ballbuster. I could even wear shoulder pads…hot.

Women’s eNews has an unfortunate story about a design for a statue honoring the female veterans of West Virginia. West Virginia’s Division of Culture and History commissioned Charleston artist Joe Mullins to sculpt a work recognizing the state’s 7,000 women veterans. He is a renowned artist in the state, and has created four other statues for a war memorial at the state Capitol Complex.

Although the agency approved the design in 1999 and Mullins has already been paid $50,000, the State Division of Veteran Affairs Director Larry Linch announced on Tuesday that a poll of women veterans opposed the design. The reason? They complained that the figure of the woman in military fatigues and a t-shirt “lacks femininity” and the statue was scrapped. Sigh.

The Division of Culture and History officials claim that they are no longer involved in the project, except to give the $100,000 to have the work installed on the Capitol grounds. What the final design will look like is unknown. It may not be a statue at all anymore; a living memorial or garden is a possibility.

I don't know about you, but the statue doesn't look very masculine to me. Yet 'tis the ladies' decision. I guess they think some pretty flowers will signify them more accurately.

It looks like Minnesota has joined the war on reproductive rights.

A new bill dubbed the “Positive Alternatives Act” passed the House Health Policy and Finance Committee yesterday with an 11-5 vote. Its plan is to supply $2 million to anti-choice pregnancy crisis centers that will urge women to refrain from having an abortion. And it looks like the bill’s passage is pretty much guaranteed at this point, reports the Star Tribune.

That also means that the bill will bar money from centers offering abortions, like Planned Parenthood, Minnesota’s largest provider of family planning services. Tina Smith, a spokesperson from Planned Parenthood who is in the committee, apparently got quite a lot of shit for not supporting the bill:

“They asked questions about Planned Parenthood's mission, how it counsels pregnant women who come to its clinics seeking abortions and how much state funding it gets...Rep. Tim Wilkin, R-Eagan, asked why more pregnant Planned Parenthood patients don't choose to have children and give them up for adoption.”

Um, maybe because finding a clinic that offers abortion is extremely difficult to begin with, and Planned Parenthood is one of the most reliable and popular services of choice?

At the end of the article, the authors says:

“The approach is a new tactic from anti-abortion groups. Instead of focusing on outlawing abortions and making it harder for women to get them, they're trying to reduce demand for the procedure.”

Reduce demand? What a nice way to put it.

Right Wing Eye for the Left Wing Guy

Check out Jessica talking with Ben Carter of BlueGrassRoots yesterday on WRFL (Radio Free Lexington).

The AP has a nice roundup of actions surrounding International Women’s Day.

Check it:

In Bangladesh, hundreds of men joined protests against acid attacks that disfigure scores of women every year.

Some 3,000 supporters of ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, including mothers dressed in white who claimed police killed their sons, marked the day at a rally in the capital, Port-Au-Prince, to protest alleged police killings.

Reuters has some great pics as well.

If you can’t make the Massachusetts conference on Women and the Media next weekend, don’t despair—two more feminist conferences are on their way.

The Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA is having their annual Reproductive Rights conference from April 1-3 with some great speakers and workshops including Women of Color Organizing for Reproductive Justice; Knowing Your Body: Gynecological Self Help; and Criminalization of Sexuality.

And the Feminist Majority Foundation (perhaps taking a cue from NCWO?) is holding a National Collegiate Global Women’s and Human Rights Conference from April 8-11 in the DC area.

Kind of shitty that these are both in the northeast…any one know of conferences in other areas?

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, the "main" Atlanta newspaper, reports that First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that human rights in Iraq stand a better chance because women hold nearly one-third of the seats in the interim assembly that will oversee drafting a constitution.

Right on.

The article continued quoting Mrs. Bush in saying that her husband's democracy program was part of a larger effort to support women across the Middle East and North Africa, and quoted Condoleezza Rice as saying, "We are hoping to create opportunities for all Muslim women to participate fully in the lives of their nations."

Now, don't get me wrong. This is necessary, encouraging, comendable and well-overdue. But I can't help thinking it's ironic (in a pathetic, not humorous way).

The Bush administration has been atrocious to women domestically, but even worse in the international sphere. Bush cut funding for the United Nations Population Fund which funds maternity hospitals, family planning, emergency birth kits for refugees, and other international women's issues (not necessarily related to abortion). The Fund even tried to help decrease the number of abortions under China's restrictive family planning policy.

And that's just one example.

Maybe next time Mrs. Bush gives a speech about the importance of women's rights, it should be to her husband.

Just when I thought there was no hope left for the world...

In the midst of my recent CSW craziness, I came across this children's book published by the Kitakyushu Forum on Asian Women and the Japanese Association of International Women's Rights (JAIWR): Princess Sunflower, A Picture Storybook Based on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Long name, amazing book.

Not that every five year old needs to know about international commitments made to women, but this book is just fantastic. Check out some excerpts:

In the nation where Princess Sunflower lives, there are rules to allow her to grow up free and independent. The whole nation joined together to make those rules, so that girls wouldn’t suffer from discrimination any more, the way their mothers and grandmothers did…

Princess Sunflower can become class president like Prince Sesame, or she can ride a motorcycle. She can be a carpenter or a Shepard. She can do karate, or play the drum. Are you aware of your own wonderful possibilities? It’s the job of the nation to protect each citizen so we can all do what we like, and shine more brightly day by day.

The rest of the book is just as wonderful and even contains the text of CEDAW in the back! So it's definitely a book that adults can enjoy as well. (Perhaps it's easy enough even for Bushie to read...someone should order him a copy.)

You can order the book by email info@kfaw.or.jp or snail mail:

Kitakyushu Forum on Asian Women
Kitakyushu Otemachi Building 3F
Otemachi 11-4, Kokurakita, Kitakyushu, 803-0814 JAPAN
PHONE +81-93-583-3434/FAX+81-93-583-5195

That’s real encouraging…jeez.

A report put out by the Women and Work Commission, set by Tony Blair, said that “differences in earnings will always be there because some mothers want to stay at home to bring up their children.” Way to take on the system, guys!

I guess victim-blaming is the theme of the day…

Reuters reports that South Africa's female football (soccer to us Yanks) team will be “coached in etiquette and given tighter T-shirts in a drive to soften their image and attract sponsorship ahead of a 2007 World Cup bid.”

Yeah, I know. But wait, it gets worse:

A top women's football official said on Wednesday that female players who dressed and acted like men were giving women's football a bad name and needed to nurture their feminine side by wearing more shapely kit and sitting like ladies.

...“We need to teach them etiquette and the importance of being a role model,” said Ledwaba.

I guess being talented isn’t enough to make you a role model. What you really need is a skirt and to keep your elbows off the table. Good to know.

I'm glad that the Texas press took some action on the disgusting “Pimp My Ride” radio contest we reported on last week, but the inability of columnist Jacquielynn Floyd to “to work up a full boiler of feminist outrage” concerned me.

Floyd’s article, KDGE spins golden oldie: misogyny, certainly faults the radio station for the misogynist contest (and mentions Feministing’s take on it!), but also blames the women who chose to participate:

As for me, well, I wasn't able to work up a full boiler of feminist outrage. The best I could muster was a sad sigh and a snort of bitter contempt.

For the willing victims, I'm just sad.

Ok, I can understand being disappointed that women would subject themselves to this kind of thing. But Floyd fails to see the larger connection between this contest and what she sees as more “serious” issues worthy of her concern.

The societal misogyny and dehumanization of women that is behind rape and violence is also a tremendous part of women’s self-image and the idea that our only worth is through our bodies.

I’m not going to say that a woman who chooses to take part in a demeaning contest is a victim in the way that a sexual assault survivor is (or a victim at all)—but recognizing the common cause of these issues is necessary for fighting sexism. In whatever shape it takes.

A 53-46 vote in the Senate today defeated Schumer’s bankruptcy amendment. Ugh.

The amendment would have stopped anti-choicers from using bankruptcy as a way to avoid paying fines incurred from blocking clinics:

The provision's inclusion in a Senate-passed bill two years ago led to the bankruptcy bill's downfall in the House of Representatives…

"This amendment is not about abortion. It's about holding those responsible who commit violent acts and believe they are above the law," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

How true. But apparently not convincing enough.

To update on Jessica's post from last week, the United States dropped the anti-abortion issue, after making it clear that they were only doing so because they felt the international community agreed with them.

The LA Times writes....
"We think we have really accomplished what we set out to do," said Ellen R. Sauerbrey, chief U.S. delegate. "We have heard from countries that our interpretation is their interpretation."

The United States may face more opposition next week during the debate over two resolutions it has proposed. One resolution proposes a global ban on prostitution to help stop trafficking of women and sexual tourism.

We are such a good model! The US wasted four days on this crap, like they said detracting from other important issues that needed to be discussed at the conference. Nice work Ellen Sauberay.

Eww. Found this lovely product via Nerve.

Busty Mousepads are described as "a clever ergonomic wrist rest on a pair of gel boobs." Classy.

Make sure to check out the other pic on the website...it was too creepy for me to put up. And I'm not easily creeped out.

Nothing quite like anti-feminist women.

The Concerned Women for America (CWA), who aim to “bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy,” have been lurking around CSW lately.

Check out some gems from their most recent assessment of the process:

Radical feminists have blatantly distorted the intent and reality of the Beijing PFA to say that a woman's "right" to an abortion is a basic human right, as delineated in Beijing, the Cairo +5 conference and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)…

Those same special interest groups are also using the U.S.'s principled stands as a means of stirring up international anger against our country. The goal is to use opposition to the United States' pro-life position in order to legalize abortion around the world…

Principled stands? Ah yes, the Global Gag Rule is super principled. (And no offense ladies, the U.S. doesn’t need any help “stirring up international anger.”

The CWA not only think that us crazy radical feminists are rabble rousing baby-killers, but apparently we’re also elitist:

They underhandedly manipulate language at international conferences to establish "laws" that would never pass if put up for a vote among people of the affected nations. That is the mode of operation for those who seek to impose their views on others. But then, those who believe that they are "elites" have always thought that they know what is best for the "masses."

Sadly, while these privileged few scheme at the United Nations for so-called "women's rights," women around the world are left needing basic health care, safe water, decent housing, personal safety, educational and economic opportunity, political empowerment and freedom.

The bullshit factor is so high here I can’t even handle it. I wasn’t aware that the majority of women participating at CSW (from all around the world) could count as a “privileged few.” Seems to me that’s a description more appropriate for a group of white American conservatives trying to push their “Biblical principles” on the rest of the world. But what do I know? I’m just a radical feminist.

Click here for background on the holiday and here for related events around the world.

For women at war, the “enemy” is often within their own ranks. The Sacramento Bee's Women at war: Sexual combat takes on this disappointing, but not surprising, prevalence of sexual harassment and assault against women stationed in Iraq.

Some highlights from the piece:

Sgt. Yolanda Medina, doing her second tour in Iraq, says: “I think every female (soldier in Iraq) has been sexually harassed.”

A study by Department of Veterans Affairs found almost 75 percent of women who said they had been assaulted did not tell their commanding officer.

Gina W, a former Army specialist, says of her male counterparts, “They can't go to the bar on weekends to let off steam, so they look to the female soldiers. (But) I wasn't exactly in the mood to be picked up. I was in a war zone."

My personal favorite (and the one that made me cringe the most) was from Sandy Moreno who served in Iraq as psychiatric technician: “A lot of the (harassment complaints) we took with a grain of salt…We would ask the women, 'What do you think happened? How do you think you could have changed things? I'd say to them, 'Because of the situation we're in, maybe you shouldn't smile at him.’”

Didn’t you know? It’s your responsibility to make sure you don’t get harassed. Ugh.

Make sure to check out the full article.

Pretty controversial, but I like it…

On Friday, the state House in Washington approved an “all-or-nothing” sex education proposal which would require school districts to adopt state Department of Health guidelines for comprehensive sex education in addition to teaching abstinence. But the proposal goes even further, mandating that the school districts adhere to the comprehensive sex ed programs or not teach sex education at all.

Personally, I would rather my kid not learn anything about sex in school if all they're going to get is bullshit abstinence-only education.

So is this a good strategy to take on those who would have kids believe that HIV can be tranismitted through tears? Or does it risk too much?

This is just appalling:

Turkish police have detained dozens of protesters after using pepper spray, batons and boots to break up a demonstration by women's rights supporters, news reports said.

Television pictures showed riot police charging protesters, beating them with batons and kicking them on the ground. One police officer beat a woman to the ground with his baton, then another ran up and kicked her in the face.

I'm speechless.

Click here to see the full ad. Apparently women's bodies are "inappropriate." Watch out for those ovaries; dangerous stuff!

Thanks to Heidi for letting us know about this one...

For the lack of posts today. Jessica is sick and things are quite hectic for the rest of us.

We'll be back on track tomorrow!

As an update to the hundreds of women that have been kidnapped, raped and murdered over the past decade in Ciudad Juarez, the Mexican government has announced that they will be giving $2.7 million (25 million pesos) to the families of the deceased as compensation for their loss, reports BBC News.

It seems to me that for the past ten years, the government has attempted to appease the families in one way or another without getting even close to what has actually happened to these young women. I highly doubt that this will make the families feel any better about the fact that justice has still not been met.

On top of the ridiculous anti-choice bill passed in Georgia last week, the Kansas City Star reported (free subscription) that it looks like the movement is working on a new project in Florida -- taking taxpayers’ money to support their right wing agenda. Yay!

Unsurprisingly, it’s Governor Jeb Bush who is pushing for the $4 million program, which would set up hotlines across the state, directing pregnant women to anti-choice organizations “informing” them of various alternatives to abortion.

Supporters of the proposal claim that health clinics give biased information, offering abortion as the only option, while adoption should be supported as well. Another shocker -- the program would also urge abstinence in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Actually, Planned Parenthood and other health centers offering abortion services do offer information about all of the options that a woman has, including adoption, says Stephanie Grutman, executive director of the Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates. “We would never provide women with one-sided information. That’s what the governor wants to do. That’s what the President wants to do. That’s what Congress wants to do.”

Meanwhile, this was the governor’s response to a 7 percent increase in abortions over the past four years in Florida: “ It does trouble me that in a state as compassionate and caring as ours...the number of abortions that take place in our state grows.”

And they insist we have a biased agenda. Right. Can I go fucking scream now?

There's an interesting piece by Reuters on a new beauty pageant that has taken over Botswana. The typical scene of a pageant covers the site -- media, beauty specialists, a catwalk -- with one exception that you wouldn’t expect: every contender is HIV positive.

In the capital of Gaberone, twelve women compete this weekend for the winning title of “Miss HIV Stigma Free.” The reigning Miss HIV, Kgalalelo Ntsepe, explains what these women are trying to get across. “We are saying here we are, we are HIV positive and it doesn’t mean it’s the end of the line.”

Botswana has one of the highest HIV rates in the world -- an estimated third of the population is infected. As the largest diamond producer, the government has been using its wealth to provide anti-retroviral medication to people. The problem is that many don’t know of their status or refuse to come forward for treatment, so an aim of the pageant is to challenge the stigma that comes with having the virus and encourage people to seek help and overcome their pessimism.

"We are trying to say there is life with this medication. Some don't believe I'm HIV positive because I'm so healthy." says Ntsepe.

Brad Ryder, spokesperson for the African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Programme says that it’s much more than just a pageant; it’s a way to reach out to HIV-positive people. “They need support, they need to come out and get acceptance for their condition.”

This is the one beauty pageant I can actually support.

More women depend on Medicaid to pay for contraceptives… and Bush proposes major cuts to Medicaid. Why am I not surprised?

Uninsured women are having a hard time getting the government to help pay for their birth control pills. New research shows that more and more women of childbearing age are living without health insurance (a 14% increase between 2001 and 2003). That means they turn to Medicaid and other government programs to help pay for their pills.

But Bush is proposing major cuts to such programs. In fact, his $60 billion Medicaid cut was the single largest reduction in his FY2006 budget. Sure, there’s still some non-Medicaid federal funding available for contraception. But partisan debates in Congress have tangled that funding with federal funding for abortion. As conservative legislators restrict spending on abortion, they’re increasingly cutting off funding for contraception and other reproductive health services as well.

For those of us who are lucky enough to have health insurance, coverage of contraceptives still isn’t guaranteed. Only 21 states mandate that insurance companies cover birth control costs. Insured women can visit Cover My Pills for updates and actions on the fight for full coverage.

Contributed by Ann Friedman

From Reuters:

The United States signaled it may drop a demand for anti-abortion language that raised hackles at a U.N. women's conference, but the top U.S. delegate insisted on Wednesday that many nations agree with Washington.

"We are hearing from many delegations that they agree with us and they advise us that the amendment is therefore not needed," Grenell said.

Yeah, sure. It's just not needed cause everyone loves the U.S. position so much. It has nothing to do with the insane amount of work women having been doing all week to make sure this amendment wouldn't get adopted. Nah...

Check out Women’s eNews’ article on how groups of teen girls from Montana and California have been organizing to fight the $35 million cosmetics industry “one eyeliner at a time.”

For the past month, the girls have been traveling to stores and schools in their areas, educating girls and boys their age about the health dangers of cosmetics. The national campaign, “Operation Beauty Drop,” urges the public to drop questionable beauty products into their bins.

It was reported by the Environmental Working Group in 2004 that one-third of all cosmetics contain one or more ingredients that are classified as possible carcinogens. Some of these ingredients can cause reproductive harm, birth defects and cancer.

For more info, check out the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

So as most of my friends know already (since I've failed to call anyone back in weeks!) my life recently has been completely caught up in this publication I've been doing at my day job. But it's done. Thank fucking the lord.

The book, Beijing Betrayed: Women Worldwide Report that Governments Have Failed to Turn the Platform into Action, actually turned out pretty good! Here's some info:

Prepared by WEDO in collaboration with women's groups around the world, "Beijing Betrayed" looks at governments' successes and failures in implementing the Beijing Platform for Action. Women's voices from nearly 150 countries in every region of the world are presented in 17 sub-regional reports, documenting the experiences and status of the world's women today. "Beijing Betrayed" stands in stark contrast to the reports by governments submitted to the UN and describes women's lives and experiences in their own words.

If you don't know that much about UN processes, it's cool--the overview of the book gives you some background. But essentially Beijing Betrayed documents women�s progress worldwide over the past ten years in women's own words.

The book won't be released until tomorrow (to coincide with the UN�s Commission on the Status of Women), but you can check out an advance copy here. (Or a short version here.)

And now back to my life�

Well, not really. But since the Summers controversy, I've seen way too many fucking articles on this stuff. (Including a piece in the Boston Herald that makes the jump from Summers to the “opt-out” nonsense that I thought we had gotten past months ago.)

But it was today’s article in Salon that really pissed me off. Lorraine Dusky's crap-ass argument is thrown together and actually uses the supposed popularity of Carol Gilligan’s “In a Different Voice” as proof that women want it both ways—apparently we’re only cool to admit differences when it’s in our favor somehow. And by the way, I say “supposed popularity” concerning Gilligan’s book because I know plenty of feminists who weren’t into it, but Dusky says the book was “largely embraced.”

So go read the article. Then go check out Mouse Words' excellent take on it. Cause I'm too sick of this shit to write anymore on it.

Love this.

The New York Times reports today on the failed attempt to repeal a Topeka city ordinance that protects gays from discrimination. What kind of asshole would want to repeal an ordinance like that, you ask? Oh, just the lovely Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. (known for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims).

Phelps wanted to remove a city ordinance that bans discrimination against gays in municipal hiring. But challenging an ordinance wasn’t enough; Phelps also got his granddaughter, Jael Phelps, to run against a lesbian councilwoman, Tiffany Muller, in a nonpartisan primary. Muller was a driving force in getting the antidiscrimination ordinance passed.

The ever-articulate Rev. Phelps commented on his non-stop gay bashing, “that's my job - to preach this stuff and to strive against sin.” Yeah, good job on the preaching “stuff.”

Luckily, Jael Phelps didn’t even come close to getting a spot on the ballot; she received just 202 votes. Eat that.

The U.S. administration has been sinking to new lows during the United Nations CSW. As I mentioned on Monday, the U.S. has proposed an amendment to CSW’s political declaration saying that reaffirming the Beijing Platform “does not create any new international rights and does not include the right to abortion.”

But instead of standing by their anti-choice actions, the U.S. has accused women’s advocacy groups of bringing up the abortion issue. The Associated Press notes that the U.S., specifically U.S. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey, is claiming that the proposed amendment was just a response to organizations’ attempts to “hijack the term ‘reproductive health services’ in the document and define it in as a guarantee of the right to abortion.”

And while Sauerbrey has said that the U.S. is not looking to reopen negotiations of the Beijing Platform, many women’s and human rights organizations know that this amendment is just an indication of the administration’s plan to scale back its support.

In fact, over 150 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have released a statement concerning the U.S.’s actions and the need to affirm the platform fully.

Thankfully the amendment needs the consensus of all delegations in order to be adopted (which is set to be discussed on Friday); the U.S. is taking no chances however, and has been busy lobbying other countries—particularly Latin American countries—for support.

Let’s be serious here, the U.S. administration has a clear anti-choice agenda at this meeting. "Blaming" their actions on organizations that have worked so hard to ensure women’s rights at the UN is just reprehensible.

A Texas radio station, KDGE-FM (The Edge) has taken the fucking cake on gross misogynist behavior. You know the MTV show “Pimp My Ride” where you get your broken down car all fixed up? Now switch the car for a woman and you have an idea of what this contest is about. Yes, I’m serious.

Similar to the story Vanessa reported on back in December about Clear Channel’s “The Breast Christmas Ever,” this (Clear Channel-owned) station is giving away extensive plastic surgery to the winner. Check out some of the lovely language from the contest website:

Our top 10 finalists include a mother of 3, a bride hoping to fill out her wedding dress, a girl who “used to be hot,” and one who’s been wishing for “bigger tits!” Vote for your favorite!!!!

And don’t you just love their artwork?

A Feministing reader let me know about this, and she’s been diligently trying to get the station to stop the contest. She hasn’t had much luck. But she was able to get the Program Director’s email address: duane@kdge.com. So make sure to let him know how you feel about being “pimped.”

The winner is set to be announced this Friday morning, so there’s not any time to waste on this one…

The New York Times reports today that Ivy League schools are all-around pretty shitty when it comes to hiring women and people of color.

Shocking, I know.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened up the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) with strong remarks on all fronts. Noting that “no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women,” Annan called for reaffirmation and implementation of the Beijing Platform and recommended looking to the seven priorities of the Millennium Project Task Force on Education and Gender as guideposts.

Annan was criticized however, for using the term “sexual rights.” It seems that the U.S. says there’s no such thing. Ellen Sauerbrey, the U.S. delegate to the CSW said that there “is no fundamental right to abortion.”

I wonder if there’s a fundamental right to thinking Sauerbrey is an asshole.

Annan's full statement here.

The Center for New Words and the Women’s Studies program at MIT are hosting a conference in Cambridge, Women and the Media: Taking Our Place in the Public Conversation.

The event, which takes place from March 18-20, will feature some amazing keynote speakers and panelists. (There’s even a breakout session on how to use blogs for feminism!)

I’m definitely going to try and make over there. Should be fun stuff…

You can register for the conference here.

Say hello to Jess Wakeman, Feministing’s newest contributor. Jess is a 21-year-old senior at New York University where she is majoring in journalism and minoring in women's studies.

She wrote a weekly column for the NYU newspaper about women's political issues and was also secretary and president of the National Organization of Women at NYU. Jess has previously interned at New York magazine, and is currently interning at both Legal Momentum and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). If she passes her math requirement, Jess will be looking for a job someplace where she can be both a feminist and a journalist after she graduates in May.

Finally some good news coming out of my home-state of Connecticut (for the bad news – and a primer in white-collar crime - just Google “Governor John Rowland” or “Joe Ganim”): last Wednesday the State Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would establish civil unions.

But the news is not as good as it could be: LGBT and other human rights activists had been pursuing nothing less than marriage. However, civil unions have more support and have a better chance of passing when the bill is voted on early this summer.

Love Makes a Family, the most prominent LGBT rights advocacy group in CT, has been adamant that civil unions are not enough. According to LMAF, civil unions provide only one-third of the rights to same-sex couples that heterosexual couples enjoy.

There might, however, be one more hurdle: Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Rell has spoken in favor of civil rights for same-sex couples but has spoken against same-sex marriage. Bloomberg-ian nonsense, I say. Equality is not separatism and human rights are not making do with table scraps: only marriage will do.

Two state newspapers have also come out in support of same-sex marriage over civil unions: The Norwich Bulletin implored, “Do it right or not at all” and The Hartford Courant argued, “Why should they settle for less?” Although being the only the second state to legalize civil unions is something to be proud of, really, we can do better.

Contributed by Jess Wakeman