A hahahaha!

These people truly have no shame, do they?

Clearly the IWF is trying to abuse your Colbert Bumpâ„¢.

This is really a foolish move for them as I believe this is lawsuit worthy if they deny your request.

I can't figure out what the IWF is. They reviewed Jessica's book (negatively), and their "about IWF" statement basically explains they're libertarians of some sort but it doesn't say anything about women at all. It seems to basically just be a pseudonym for some libertarian political organization.

Is this some kind of rogue IWF supporter who isn't quite clear on the concept, any concept? Because, really, is the IWF for "easy access to birth control"? Do they ever claim to be?

I'm going to report their group. Heh.

You're going to cross-stitch a lawsuit?

I couldn't find the group, it must be down already. That, or it's restricted to people in the founder's network.

Side note, I searched Facebook groups for "feminism" and there were tons of results, but it's sad how many are "anti-feminism" sites.

I'm thinking a letter from your publishers attorney would make a much nicer gift.

I'm hoping she's just a mistaken college gal who isn't familiar with the IWF. I sent her a message. The IWF's name IS very misleading...

I think it was an honest mistake. Not to shit on young women who read the book, but this sounds like a classic case of "Wheeeeee! I just discovered this political stance that makes me feel really empowered and important, and I'ma gonna buy shirts and books and posters and patches for my messenger bag and start Facebook groups to show everybody just how into this I am! Fuck doing any kind of legitimate research - let's just go out and throw hangars at pro-lifers!" I think we've all been through that phase when we first discover a political ideology we agree with - getting super amped and fucking shit up comes first, academic research about the actual meanings, implications, allies, and importance of said movement comes second.

Plus, that lady didn't seem like she was the sharpest tack in the drawer. Cold, but true.

A lot of Facebook groups can be really stupid and backwards. I had noticed a bunch of anti-feminist groups awhile ago and started my own feminist group: "If You're Not A Feminist, You Should Kill Yourself" (based on an essay by Margaret Cho). I've added a blurb about feministing and Jessica's new book to the group. I encourage anyone on Facebook to join the group (it's global) and hopefull all this works out well!

Chris, I love that essay. That's from her new book, right?

if you think anti-feminist groups on facebook are bad, scope out the anti-hillary groups. Among my favorites: "Hilary Clinton Shouldn't be
President Because she has A VAJ-J-J", "A Woman President? Not on My Watch!" and "Hillary Shouldnt Run for President, She Should just Run the Dishes."

wtfffffffff...idiots.

I think you need to contact the Facebook admins. They will straighten things out.

The vileness of who they chose to send the funds to is really secondary here.
Anyone using your intellectual property to collect money (even to donate to charity) without your express permission is just begging for a big fat lawsuit.

I can't figure out what the IWF is. They reviewed Jessica's book (negatively), and their "about IWF" statement basically explains they're libertarians of some sort but it doesn't say anything about women at all. It seems to basically just be a pseudonym for some libertarian political organization.

I'm wondering the same thing. I read a few of the articles, their mission statement, etc. And, at least from this cursory inspection, the org doesn't seem anti-feminist to me. Perhaps someone who is more familiar could tell me why this is such a heinous group?

That's really interesting. I'm guessing whomever started that facebook group never actually bothered to read the book.

It was a great book, by the way.

I did some research on IWF for Legal Momentum. The report is here: http://legalmomentum.org/legalmomentum/programs/sexualityandfamilyrights/2006/03/independent_womens_forum.php

They're an anti-feminist group originally formed as Women for Clarence Thomas. Yikes. Now they're big, powerful, and scary - they get lots of federal funding and Lynne Cheney is their Director Emeritus. The Legal Momentum report has loads of telling quotes and info if you want to know more about their agenda.

Bryan-

You mean apart from the fact that the "Independant Women's Forum" is a group of antifeminist ultraconservatives masquerading as nonpartisan feminists? Why, nothing.
Nothing at all.

This post nicely sums up some of their positions in the last 2 paragraphs, if you're really curious:
http://feministing.com/archives/005146.html

I agree that the IWF website does not make their mission clear. The tagline at the top reads, "All issues are women's issues." I'm sure that is enough to confuse plenty of people. I would liken this website/organization to a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

Also -
if you think anti-feminist groups on facebook are bad, scope out the anti-hillary groups.

My personal favorite is "Read History: Communism and Socialism DON'T WORK, Hillary Clinton!!!"

Thanks for the link, Madeline. I read through, and definitely see that they are a conservative group, but what exactly makes them anti-feminist? Is the feminist movement necessarily linked to liberalism? I realize that there are some parts that must be, but I am not so sure about others. Can a feminist not be pro-life, or for smaller government?

The most egregious part to me is "The hard bottom line to these conflicts is that if abortion is legal and ultimately a woman's decision, then supporting the child should ultimately be the man's decision...". Wow, Ok, I don't agree, but from a very detached legal standpoint, I at least understand where they come from: If the father has no say over whether the child is born, he should have no obligation if it is born against his wishes.

Vervain,

I don't disagree that this is a conservative group, I just don't see why women can't be conservative.

As far as the post you linked, it would seem to me that there is a difference of fact in the discussion. They argue that there isn't a wage gap, you argue that there is. Both sides site studies, opinions, circumstantial evidence, but never agree on the state of fact. The intention, however, is the same. Both sides believe genders should be equal, one simply thinks they already are.

These kind of disagreements exist in all sorts of situations. Bill Cosby made a quite famous speech a few years ago deriding the black culture for their actions in keeping the races separate, while many blacks in less fortunate positions insist it is outside societies fault. Both have different viewpoints, but I doubt anyone would call either a racist.

Both sides believe genders should be equal, one simply thinks they already are.
Yeah, problem is that they aren't.
I don't want to start a flame war, but I don't think that you can be anti-choice & a feminist. No one that really cares about women would force one to give birth to an unwanted child. There are some issues of conservatism that are just antithetical to feminism, mainly, the delusional Horatio Alger lift yourself by the boot-straps b/c we all have equal chances of success & if you fail well you're just inferior. That, & the whole conservatives cutting money for Head Start, welfare, their anti-gay legislation (Although, admittedly, Clinton played a big role in the anti-gay & anti-welfare legislation), their fight against the ERA, & their rejection of hate crime legislation. Plus, there's their ties to religious terrorists & religious hate-groups like Focus on the Family.
Aside from that, conservatism & feminism are completely compatible.
/sarcasm

IP person here:

This group isn't necessarily infringing on Jessica's copyright of the book. It's a weird situation that isn't really covered under the law.

The only violation I see is the right to display the work publicly (if this doesn't make intuitive sense, realise that you're giving the right to bookstores to display it):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html

There is a right of attribution and integrity, which is not violated here (it is limited to "visual works," and the point is that you can't do something like tear a painting into pieces - we do this to be consistent with international law).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106---A000-.html

I'm not sure I see a lot of difference between libertarian feminism and lifestyle or pop feminism. Both tend to favor individual rights over group allegiance, which is a conservative point of view. I also agree with those who are saying that conservative doesn't necessarily equate with anti-feminist. Those lines aren't as clearly drawn as some may like to believe.

My issue with IWF isn't the fact that they're conservative or anti-feminism, it's the fact that they're deceitful and disingenuous. They deliberately present themselves as the opposite of what they are.

It seems fairly evident that their goal is to trick those who would oppose them into supporting them. If they truly believed in their positions, they would present them openly rather than trying to disguise or sugarcoat them to make them more palatable, and they wouldn't need to lie to gain support. The fact that they don't makes it obvious they know perfectly well just how full of shit they really are.

Whoever it was upthread who compared them to a CPC was dead-on.

While they certainly came out of the Clarence Thomas support movement, that was sixteen years ago, and I am not certain it was the institution it once was.

There have been many movements, theories and philosophies to feminism, it's never been clear to me how one philosophy gets labeled as anti-feminist.

I don't think it's the case at all that the IWF's brand of "equity feminists" belief that there is no longer any sexism or discrimination. I believe they have a different focus for their efforts and what they believe is the way forward. I don't think they are saying that women should be barefoot and pregnant.

I object when Republicans claim that Democrats are traitors. I object when DLC Democrats say us netroot Democrats are communists. I object when free traders call fair traders protectionist.

I am not sure that the IWF are anti-feminists, nor what that means.

For that matter, I believe many father's rights activists are not anti-feminists either and are in fact, pro-feminist in many many ways.

I am.

The irony is, they're exactly the kind of people who'd crow that feminism is dead, but then feel the need to piggyback on Jessica's success.

It's actually quite clear that "IWF's brand of "equity feminists" belief that there is no longer any sexism or discrimination"

Christina Hoff Sommers (patron saint of so-called "equity feminism") at an IWF sponsored event said, "I do not believe that women in contemporary American society are oppressed; they do not constitute a subordinate class. I believe American women are among the freest and most liberated in the world. It is no longer reasonable to say that as a group women are worse off than men."

Can't get much clearer (or anti-feminist) than that.

Madeline,

I'm not sure if it's anti-feminist so much as illogical. Consider this statement (and consider it said in 1850): "Our slaves are among the healthiest and most free in the world. They do not constitute a subordinate class and it is not reasonable to say that they are worse off than whites."

Obviously, the suffering felt by other people does not mitigate the suffering felt by a slightly more privileged group. I do think that American women in 2007 have it much better than women in almost any other part of the world or at almost any other point in history... but that doesn't make us equal. The relevant standard is not other women in other places/times, but contemporary American men.

I'm with Madeline here. While there are many different ways to define feminism, justify a belief as feminist, or do feminist activism, it all hinges on the idea that there is remaining inequality between men and women. Example: Feminists for Life, a "pro-life" (ahem, anti-choice) "feminist" group, base their message on the idea that "women deserve better than abortion" (this is their soundbite), implying that abortion is oppressive towards women. While I think this view is backwards and wrong, wrong, wrong, it still relies on the idea that women are being oppressed by a patriarchal system of power, which is what makes them claim the feminist moniker. I may not agree that an anti-choice group can "truly" be feminist (I don't), but at least they admit that women may actually still be unequal (They are). A group that is based on the belief that women are not oppressed is not feminist. Period.

Also, the wage gap is not theory, it is reality.

Sedmunds,

We agree. I was not opposing Madeline - just pointing out IWF's logical error.

I do think there will always be a need for feminism, even when (optimistically!) we achieve equality. Feminism is the belief that women and men should be socially, economically, and politically equal. We shouldn't toss that idea out the window if/when we achieve equality.

An honest question, if you don't mind my asking: what do you think of Linda Hirshman? (She recently wrote an article in the Washington Post about women's majors and career choices, stating that a lot of the income gap is due to the fact that women choose majors like psychology, which pay poorly; even when men major in the classics, they tend to go onto law school with the view of earing money. Not a great summary, but there it is.) Her basic thesis is that women can change the way that THEY act to help achieve equality.

The premise is that men and women are not equal; the theory is that women's own actions (albeit as the result of socialisation) contribute to that inequality.

Re the legal question. Most states have some form of a right of publicity statute and/or common law cause of action. Basic idea is that someone cannot appropriate your image/name/likeness/persona/etc. for monetary gain (specifics vary from state to state -- which one you use will depend on where you could sue this person, although I assume the point is more to just get her to take down the reference to the book, which would probably just require a scary-sounding letter from a lawyer if reasoning with her personally doesn't work). Also may have a weak copyright claim as they're using the image of your book, which you or your publisher own(s).

Also may have a weak copyright claim as they're using the image of your book, which you or your publisher own(s).

You're right - which I mentioned. My guess, though, is that the publisher owns the copyright to the image of the book. The claim isn't great, and it's certainly undermined by fair use.

You are right about laws varying by state, but, arguably, Jessica can sue under California law (which is probably most favourable to her). It would be almost impossible to figure that the Facebook group was not viewed by anyone in this entire state.

Thanks for the link, Madeline. I read through, and definitely see that they are a conservative group, but what exactly makes them anti-feminist?

They use the word "feminist" as an insult. That suggests a certain hostility to me.

Christina Hoff Sommers (patron saint of so-called "equity feminism") at an IWF sponsored event said, "I do not believe that women in contemporary American society are oppressed; they do not constitute a subordinate class. I believe American women are among the freest and most liberated in the world. It is no longer reasonable to say that as a group women are worse off than men."

And Christina Hoff Summers is actually a perfect example of the IWF bait-and-switch tactic. She's one of the right-wing "feminists" heavily bankrolled by the GOP to create the image of a right-wing "mainstream feminist" movement (Susan Faludi discusses this at length in Backlash). It's really something when a woman who opposes just about everything about feminism can, without the slightest twinge of irony, write a book called Who Stole Feminism?

Of course, there's no better way to get away with larceny than to cry "thief".

As far as the misappropriation of someone's name or likeness to (falsely) suggest that they support a particular organisation or opinion, there are also the "moral rights" enshrined in the Berne Convention to take into account. Under this doctrine, an author has a right to control the use of her name

Count me in as queasy when we get into the issue of "who is a real feminist?"

I don't think that libertarianism and feminism cannot co-exist; in fact, libertarianism can be used for feminist ends (for example, by boycotting sexist industries or companies - they have the right to be sexist and we have the right to boycott them for it).

==

I don't have my international IP law notes handy, but, as I recall, there are some things that are incorporated into US copyright law so that it complies with Berne. If I recall correctly, Art. 6bis only applies to non-US nationals under US law.

I don't have my international IP law notes handy, but, as I recall, there are some things that are incorporated into US copyright law so that it complies with Berne. If I recall correctly, Art. 6bis only applies to non-US nationals under US law.

That's why it's nice to have Australia. The Federal Court there has held that one non-resident can sue another non-resident for a tort committed online (defamation in that case) provided that the plaintiff has at least some reputation interest at stake within Australia.

Okay, Jessica, forget Cali: you're going to sue Down Under. ;)

Here's the case:
Dow Jones v Gutnick
[2002] HCA 56
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html

I'm not sure it's worth the time of effort to sue over something like this, but that's not legal advice and I'm not a lawyer... just a person who think there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits. I say ride out the publicity for all it's worth.