I'm back after a nice, refreshing, internet-free vacation, so some of these links may be a bit old. Bear with me! And, as always, leave your own links in comments...
The Israeli attacks on Gaza continue, and civilians are suffering. "We were sleeping. Suddenly we heard a bomb. We woke up and we didn't know where to go. We couldn't see through the dust. We called to each other. We thought our house had been hit, not the street. What can I say? You saw it with your own eyes. What is our guilt? Are we terrorists? I don't carry a gun, neither does my girl." More on Gaza from Israelity Bites, Bitch, Feministe, Muslimah Media Watch, and our archives.
The city of San Francisco is challenging insurance companies that charge women more for health coverage.
The Boston Globe blames girls for boys' violent behavior.
Remembering Latina feminist poet, author, performer, polio survivor and disability educator, Maria R. Palacios.
What Wall Street's gender gap may have to do with the financial crisis.
On the rise in dating violence, and what we should be doing about it.
Nancy Goldstein argues that Milk sanitizes the struggle for gay rights.
A woman launches a sex discrimination and harassment lawsuit against the Halifax Bank of Scotland.
The results of a YWCA survey on what women want from the Obama administration.
One health-care reform that isn't often presented? Rely more on midwives.
Indonesia recently passed so-called "anti-porn" legislation which also bans revealing clothing, censors literature, and further curtails gay rights.
Another transwoman, Lenneshia Edwards, was murdered in Tennessee. Questioning Transphobia has an action alert.
Should the first lady get paid for her work?
Some people still refer to female college students as "coeds"?
The Nation has a stomach-turning investigative report on how white residents of New Orleans attacked black residents in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Color of Change has an action alert.
The real-life ramifications of the ridiculous portrayals of relationships in romantic comedies.
Check out the latest Carnival Against Sexual Violence.
Our Bodies, Our Blog names Women's Health Heroes of 2008.
Actions and Events
Sign the petition asking Obama to ensure his job-creation efforts include non-male-dominated industries.
A project for the new year: Call your local pharmacies and ask if they dispense emergency contraception.
Register to attend the WAM! (Women, Action and Media) conference in March!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Weekly Feminist Reader.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11216
The Boston Globe link has a lot of spin, but I don't think the program is all that bad.
The program seems to be trying to break the ccycle of violence. Usually the women aren't committing the acts of violence, but many of the incidents are about them or concern them. If these women stop supporting violent men, and asking men to commit violence, we might see less and less of these actions.
Appeals to the actual men who are likely to commit this violence don't seem very effective, it's trying a different route.
The actual program doesn't seem to be BLAMING girls for the violence at all. It seems like it's aimed towards telling them that violent actions shouldn't be answered with violent actions. That's a needed and good message.
Once again we are removing the responsibility from the men who are actually involved in the violence and putting it on the shoulders of women and girls.
As a commenter on that blog mentioned it's the same way that rape "education" is presented and opinion is held.
Boys will be boys, men can't help themselves, they just won't listen and so we won't hold them accountable or put the pressure on the source of the violence -- we'll put pressure on women. Seems to be the "natural" (sarcasm intended) way of things.
Truly. It's another dichotomy of womanhood. Society dictates that women are trying to change their men because they are nagging and over-emotional. There are pop-culture depictions left and right of this kind of woman: who can't even get her man to take out the garbage. But of course when it's something to do with violence- rape or gang involvement, women bear the burden of educating these foolish men. Which is it???? Which ridiculous notion of womanhood are we supposed to subscribe to, because the mixed messages are so f*kd?! (See virgin/whore).
They've tried outreach programs to address the male perpetrators of violence, but it hasn't helped. Not enough to satisfy this community anyway. Do you want them to keep trying methods that DO NOT work, or try a different method that might help?
It's not like these crimes are happening in a vacuum, it's not like there are NO women involved ANYWHERE in the chain of events that lead to this violence. In the article, it says that a lot of these conflicts are over a woman, or involve a woman. If the women stop expecting their men to be violent, then their men can stop being violent. They're part of the chain of events that lead to violence, and they might be the part of the chain that we can alter.
This isn't a men's problem, it's a community problem. To solve it, we are going to have to address the community. Limiting ourselves to only talking to men is a silly handicap.
Ok, I get the community problem thing, and maybe the group itself is making strides toward that, but the article misses this point. By and large it insinuates women are the cause of the problem.
Saying the young women have an influence over the problem takes the responsibility off the young men (more deeply off the society [patriarchy] that puts them ALL in this situation, but I'm not going there right now- maybe later). Historically, you can't change a person, and historically women are given this ridiculous responsibility. So unless you're being a patriarchy-apologist, then the argument you present doesn't really make sense.
And yea, I'd like them to use methods that DO work, but if it's blaming women for the problem, well that doesn't work either.
I found the actual Boston globe article much clearer than the summary posted.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/Massachusetts/articles/2008/12/28/girl_power/?page=1
It seems to me like the best way to fix this is to break the mindset of "an eye for an eye", to stop people repaying violence with violence. As an example, the 'play' used in the program. A woman's boyfriend is abusive, so she complains to one of her friends. That friend gets her boyfriend to take revenge on the abusive boyfriend, and it is implied that it ends very badly. The appropriate response in that situation would be to get the abused woman out of that situation (possibly somewhere safe from her abuser) and perhaps inform the police.
I suppose the sub-culture they are in values the "take revenge" option. That is the root of the problem. They need to change the preferred option to a non-violent one using whatever means they have available.
I do see the "blaming women" aspect though, take this line from the first page of the Globe article: "During school assemblies, the girls are told to realize that fights among themselves, spats with their boyfriends, even idle gossip or a dirty look can spark a chain reaction that leads to bloodshed. "
That is blaming women for the violence. Unfortunate.
However, the program organizers seem to be aware of the issue. From further down the front page:"
There is a fine line that we ask everybody to be mindful of, between empowering victims and placing the responsibility on them to end the violence," said Toni Troop, spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc., a statewide coalition of organizations that combat domestic violence. "Ultimately that responsibility is on the entire community. Raising awareness, empowering young girls to believe in themselves, in each other, has to go hand in hand with . . . talking to the young boys who are primarily the perpetrators of this violence."
Overall, I think the program will be helpful, and I think it is a lot more complicated than the summary "The Boston Globe blames girls for boys' violent behavior."
The appropriate response in that situation would be to get the abused woman out of that situation (possibly somewhere safe from her abuser) and perhaps inform the police.
Hey Lilly, thanks for that advice! Nobody here has ever thought of such a simple, easy to implement solution before. We'll get right on it.
I think the problem is that the program doesn't seem to have presented that advice. They had the role play and said it was the wrong way to handle it, but they didn't (as far as the article mentions) say anything about what a good alternative would have been. That way it comes off seeming like they might be saying "don't tell anyone if you're being abused" rather than "go ahead and tell your friends and teachers, but make sure you and they deal with it in a way that doesn't escalate violence."
It seems to me that there might be good ways to present something like this, but I read the whole article and most of it left a bad taste in my mouth.
No, the problem is leaving an abuser is difficult, sometimes impossible, and women are elevated risk of more, and possible deadly, violence when they do leave.
"Saying the young women have an influence over the problem takes the responsibility off the young men"
Non sequitur.
I don't agree that the program is putting the responsibility on women to stop violence. It seems to be helping young women examine their own actions and how they contribute to a violent culture. The program isn't all about dating violence. It's about youth violence in general. This quote from the second page of the article is telling:
Most [young women] rely on men to settle their feuds because they do not know who else to go to for help, said Allen. Many girls could use the guidance the campaign organizers are trying to provide, she said.
Girls grow up in the same violent culture that boys do, and they learn the same lessons about violence being the solution to problems. Girls need the same lessons on non-violent conflict resolution and anger-management that boys do.
i do love the girls in the front row who look like they're thinking "is this for real!?"
I call bull on the "not enough space!" headline defense. Know why?
Parents of slain UW coed ask judge not to release 911 call
Parents of slain UW student ask judge to withhold 911 call
Parents of slain UW student request 911 call be withheld
Notice something about these alternate headlines? Namely, that they take up the SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE? I'm sure that given more time I could come up with more.
Not to mention that the AP stylebook outright says that "coed" isn't the preferred term for female students.
It's so "fun"/interesting to move to a different culture. Even though I speak, read, and write English reasonably well I don't always see the subtleties that are not technically part of the language in the dictionary sense but rather cultural extra-meanings.
I, for example, had no idea that "coed" was specifically used for female students. I thought it was just another weird journalistic word (they seem to me to be making up their own rules for grammar and words) for "student" coming from "co-student", which should be used by a student to refer to her/his fellow students like the words colleague or "co-worker".
Well, you learn every day. I guess no amount of studying and reading etc can really teach you the full extend of a language.
It comes from back when a lot of universities which had formerly been all-male started admitting women. The schools that had both male and female students were called co-educational schools, and thus the female students, started being known as coeds, since it was their presence that made the school co-educational. It sometimes has the sense of implying a female student who spends a lot of time going to parties and out on dates, but that's kind of subtle and not always the implication.
I'd say it's a stylistic choice. Coed apparantly means "female student" and that is how it is used here. The journalist gets to write his/her own headline. The term isn't insulting or anything, just a little dated.
(Oh, in both counterexamples you loose the information that the slain student was female, and in the second one you loose who they are asking (judge), so they are not exactly equal. I think general practice is to make the headlines as information-dense as possible. 'Coed' is 4 letters and accurate)
Actually, the journalist usually doesn't get to write his or her own headline. Copyeditors usually do that.
And more to the point - Why the hell does it matter that the student was female?
Thanks for correcting me about the copyeditors, I didn't know that.
As to why it's important - it's important because it is part of the news. News without any details would be incredibly boring and unhelpful.
The term isn't insulting or anything, just a little dated.
I just did a quick google, and just about all the hits using it as a noun, rather than an adjective, were either beauty pageants or porn.
You'll get the same result for "girl", "woman", "female", or nearly any female name.
You'll get the same result for "girl", "woman", "female", or nearly any female name.
Yeah, I have only ever heard that term in reference to porn...
"The term isn't insulting or anything, just a little dated."
The main problem about the term co-ed for me isn't that it's used for porn, it's that it defines male students as regular students while women will forever be something else. it normalizes men and is othering to women. (surprise)
Correct.
Lilly, why is this not apparent to you?
I get that it is "other-ing" women, but I don't think it's a major concern in a country where over 60 percent of college students are female, and that number has been growing for some time.
The word has a history, but then so do all words. It doesn't seem to me that this word's history is so unpleasant that it shouldn't be used anymore.
In any case, the newspaper took down this article a while ago. Maybe they agreed with you about 'coed'. I couldn't find another usage of it in that context in their recent archive.
It might be accurate, but it's also offensive. There's no reason why they couldn't include "female" in the first sentence of the article, rather than using a word that has been mostly relegated to bad porn.
If it's relevant, yes, use "female" or "woman."
But in many cases there's no reason to include "female" either. For example, a current headline on news.com.au:
"Female officer 'drove police car drunk'"
What could the gender of the officer have to do with driving drunk? Nothing.
I can think of a couple of reasons it's mentioned anyway:
1. It's so weird that a woman is an officer that you have to mention it so no one gets the idea this officer is a man.
2. A woman, already assumed to be a bad driver because women are supposedly bad drivers, is now drunk, so she's an even worse driver. Har har.
3. Comeuppance for the woman who thought she was so powerful because she was an officer, which is a man's job.
4. Rape fantasy -- drunk women are delicious targets. Maybe if you were her superior officer, you could grope her or force sex onto her, especially if she's going to get into trouble for being drunk, because she's on duty. She probably wouldn't complain.
i finally finished reading Twilights and hav eposted my final thoughts about the book and Female Desire
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/wrapping-up-twilight/
In our Dumb Things Guys Say series, we finished off the year with The "Happy Holidays" Debate.
We took a look back at our best, worst, favorite, and most popular with The ESC 2008 Year in Review.
We poked a little fun at Kay Jewelers and their cheesy advertising.
And we noticed that Amazon's top 100 books of 2008 list is a little light on women writers. We also posted about this on the community blog, and there are some great book suggestions in the comments.
Milk was sanitized? It did show violence, it did show men fucking, it just did it in a tasteful way instead of a pulpy way. To do as Nancy Goldstein suggests would have been to create a completely different tone for the film, one that I think would have been completely wrong for it.
About the Washington Post article, "One Gender's Crash," I wholeheartedly agree that diversity (of all types) in realms of power would result in less of the abuses we see. I am also extremely sorry to see the American financial crisis dragging much of the rest of the world down with it, through no fault of theirs.
Is that article here as an example of feminism or non-feminism pretending to be feminism?
I mean, it's entirely about gender stereotyping which I thought is what we were trying to get away from? Of the women I know who work in finance none of them are exactly shrinking violets...
Couldn't you use the same logic the article uses to say that crappy standards in public education are the fault of women as they represent the vast majority of teaching staff?
Not really. She says, "Although the Y-chromosome is undeniably overrepresented along all tiers of finance, it is particularly overrepresented at the highest levels of power". Though it's changing, who makes up more of the principals, people in the school board, and politicians who have power over education? Men. I must say Ontario currently has a female Minister of Education and I have never seen so much done about issues like bullying, sexual harassment in schools etc until she came in. And one could argue teachers will teach better if they are given the resources they need.
But yeah, the article does do a lot of gender stereotyping. Even if women on average are different from men, are the women in finance different from men?
I liked the midwife article. It lead me to research and find out that 8% of births in Ontario are attended by midwives and there aren't enough midwives currently to meet demand. Something seems to be changing here.
There was a great article in Maclean's about midwives in Canada recently:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/20/a-midwife-crisis/2/
Also, about the YWCA survey which found for example,
Three-quarters (77%) of young women (aged 18-29) say that “civil rights and racial justice” should be a top priority for the new administration to address in the first year, compared with half (54%) of older women (aged 30-70).
I know that it was not up to date, but still, I find the economy more important, if I had to choose a "top priority." Keeping my job (I'm out one week from today), staying out of bankruptcy, paying for insurance, sending my children to school, buying a home and retiring are much more important to me than being respected or treated like a white person.
Of course, 92% of women (all ages) said the new administration should make solving the current financial crisis a top priority in the first year.
So yeah, reading before commenting might be good.
Why simply correct an oversight when you can correct an oversight in a condescending tone?
Please show me where "What Women Think, What Women Want from the Obama Administration" talks about the economic crisis. No, the writer chooses their highlighted blue section and states, "Short version: Gen Y gets it and wants an active administration including a First Lady who’s a real leader to create change we can see in our everyday lives — Including on the subjects of fair pay and racial justice." Nor is that post an accurate reflection of what the OP calls "The results of a YWCA survey on what women want from the Obama administration."
It's not poor reading, it's faulty or incomplete reporting. If I wanted to write about "The results of a YWCA survey on what women want from the Obama administration" I'd link to the YMCA survey itself, not "What Women Think, What Women Want from the Obama Administration."
Even the original 52 page YWCA report chooses to categorize the economic crisis among "other key findings" in its summary, putting "Generation Y is unique" first. No,
"Nine in ten (92%) American women aged 18-70 say that the new administration and Congress should make solving the financial crisis in the U.S. a top priority in the first year of their administration. Women of all generations, from the youngest in Generation Y to the older women, agree about this issue."
sounds more like issue number one to me, across all reported age groups. And by percentage who consider it a top priority, it was. "American women deem many issues top priorities worthy of immediate attention. First and foremost, nine in 10 American women say the financial crisis in the U.S. should be a top priority." That does not sound like "other."
The financial crisis in the U.S. 92%
Terrorism and national security 86%
Unemployment 84%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 80%
Health care reform 79%
Poverty in the U.S. 79%
“Civil rights and racial justice” was not on the top five list. Nor do I see discrimination, or anything about the First Lady.
I'm glad to see that 92% of people aged 18 to 70 can agree that the financial crisis is so important. I am surprised to see that so many consider "terrorism and national security" at "top priority" level, ahead of unemployment and health care reform.
That midwives deliver article is wonderful. So is the book she wrote, Pushed. I used that article as support for the health care community discussion recommendations we collaborated on at a local birth center and mailed off to the Obama Biden team.
I wrote a post called I heart midwives commending the recent editorial in the Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health" elaborating on the amazing pro choice position of the American Academy of Nurse Midwives.
I also have a ranty reply I tried to post on that midwives deliver article linked to in the main weekly reader above. Not ranting at the original article, which is brilliant, but to some not so brilliant commenters.
And finally, someone please sponsor me to go to the breastfeeding and feminism symposium. Pretty please!
The reply section of that post spawned two more posts, one explaining, contrary to a commenter's wish, that abortion and midwifery cannot be separated, and the other discussing the reality of how refusal of care does really put women's lives in danger.