R.I.P., Bea Arthur.
The Dominican Republic passed a total abortion ban. Frau Sally Benz has been following abortion politics in the Dominican Republic, and has more.
Congres is again considering a federal hate crimes bill that applies to "crimes of violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." And on a related note, Washington state now protects against hate crimes motivated by gender identity.
Sorry gals. Cosmo sez sports are for guys!
On Gaza's female-only police force.
Why is working in the home not considered a "real job"? (Oh, and CONGRATS to Renee!)
I had no idea that Rockstar energy drinks are owned by the hatemongering radio host Michael Savage and his son. (Thanks to reader curvyglo for the tip.)
An interview with gay-rights activist Rita Mae Brown.
Autumn Sandeen on what "justice" really means for Angie Zapata.
Blogging Against Disablism Day is May 1!
Jill on Miss California and what "intolerance" really means.
These Nestea ads are really fucked up.
You know that quintessential anti-choice propaganda photo? Totally staged.
How Neko Case deals with sexist hecklers when she plays live.
An anonymous donor is giving big donations to women-run colleges.
Families that have been torn apart by US immigration law tell their stories to Congress.
New legislation might insure that domestic workers in Lebanon get fairer work standards.
G. Gordon Liddy (of Watergate fame) made some truly vile sexist comments about Salon's Joan Walsh.
Watch Secretary of State Hillary Clinton go head-to-head with anti-choice Rep. Chris Smith.
Who you callin' a "Lady Husky"?
Pedro Almodovar is adapting "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" for TV. Awesome.
Get familiar with sex and disability educator Dr. Tuppy Owens.
There's an interesting debate at Echidne's blog about the term "domestic violence."
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/13293
I had no idea. I'll never buy a Rockstar again, although I never really liked the drinks anyway.
My husband was heartbroken when I told him. He'll miss his Rockstar.
I can't believe G. Gordon Liddy would act like an asshat, seriously, he's always been such a fine upstanding little psychopath.
Back to Red Bull for me! Whoohoo!
Post on the latest casualties of the anti-gay movement
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/change-of-plans/
New FML Fail
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/fml-fail-the-new-catch-22/
this was in the nyt today. about transitioning from male to female in the context of a family.
beautiful story, i hope everyone reads it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/fashion/26love.html?em
ohh tears of joy. thank you.
That's lame Almodovar is remaking Women on the Verge for TV. Everyone really should do themselves a favor and see the original 1988 Spanish film.
At least Almodovar himself is in charge, so it might not be so bad. But I do like the original a lot.
Mambo taxi!
How can anyone say that Pedro Almodovar isn't sexist? In his 2002 movie, "Talk To Her" he shows a male nurse raping a comatose patient. She becomes pregnant and when she gives birth, she wake up. The movie portrayed the rapist as sympathetic and a hero. His friend cryed for him when he died and called him a great person. He stalked the woman (a dancer)and when he found out she went into a coma he started to take care of her and then eventually repeatedly raped her. Its all played up to be some sort of undying love for the woman who repeatedly showed that she ws frightened and wanted nothing to do with him.
The rapist certainly was not portrayed sympathetically. Almodovar goes to great length to portray him as a psychopathic creep.
Just because characters do horrible and sexist things doesn't mean the movie is propagating sexism and violence or condones it, it means that people are complex and so characters are complex. Of course there are going to be aspects of any character that is on screen for any length that have both likable and unlikable (and sometimes horrible) traits and actions(if the movie is half way decent). I know I don't want to waste my time with a film with black and white cardboard characters that hit you over the head with whether an action is moral or not.
Sorry, but I've heard this argument to condemn awesome movies before and it irritates me that all films concerning themselves with a theme are then assumed to be endorsing that theme. Besides, that character was creepy as heck as soon as he walked on screen, though Almodovar showed him the same sympathy he shows all his characters because there supposed to be human and he's an awesome directer that way.
Since when is rape or being a rapist human? Its not like having a habit for nail biting or a impulsive temper. Its rape!Theres no complexity involved and the fact that this is what comprised the main aspect of the movie says that it was indeed glorifying and escusing rape. It depicted rape as just another romantic infatuation that went 'a little too far' because the guy is a bit of a sympathetic dolt who was too lovestruck to control himself. But what came of it was that the woman awoke from her comatose state when she gave birth so its all okey-dokey. The guy was a coward and its sick how his friend remained loyal to him and allowed him to continue doing what he did to the poor woman. The rapist then went suicide because he was a coward.
One thing that Almodovar does really well is to present people as complex (and sometimes very broken) human beings.
Sorry, but you all I think ye be a little to kiss assey for your own good.
Sorry, but I think ye all be a little to kiss assey for your own good and its seriously distorting the reality of that movie. Rapists arent complex. The movie clearly protrayed him as a hero or sympathetic character in the end.
I've never seen the movie, so I can't speak as to whether or not the character is portrayed as sympathetic or not, but people are complex creatures. Just because someone commits a horrible act doesn't make them less so, and I find your assertion that "rapists aren't complex" to be rather simplistic. Rapists aren't just bogeymen whose sole thoughts are of rape. They're seemingly ordinary people with reprehensible morals.
So, if I'm a rapist I'm a complex creature?
No, if you're human, you're a complex creature, even if you're a scumbag rapist also. (A rapist being complex or even being likable at times does NOT equal rape being OK, EVER, and I don't think anyone is saying it does)
BEGIN THE ALMODOVAR SHOW TRIALS
I have to agree - Almodovar does have a tendency to present rapists with WAY too much sympathy for my taste! And if Almodovar wasn't so beloved by the arthouse movie crowd, we wouldn't even be having this debate! He'd be getting the same valid criticism that Seth Rogan and Jody Hill recieved for the pro rapist messages in Observe and Report.
First time I've ever agreed with you on this forum.
I remember (I havent watched the movie in about a year) one of the characters who is a male befriends the rapist. I think the rapist goes suicide and the woman wakes up by having a baby. The male friend cry's for his dead friend and says that he didnt know how much good he brought into the world and that he brought life in again. Now, to me, thats clearly justifying and glorifying rape. And since when is showing a man befriending and justifying his friends rape of a comatose woman justify the idea that it's complex. I just call it wrong. It also blurred the line between love and rape. The rapist was depicted as love struck by the dancer (who became comatose) and stalked her. She eventually became so freaked out by him that she tried to keep him away. Then she had an accident in which she became comatose and he became a nurse and chose her to tend to. Eventually he started having sex (rape) with her and once authorities found out he tried to deny and lie that he wasn't doing it. The 'complex' elements you descride seem to revolve entirely around this main characters (the rapist) plot and story line as this is what comprises the movie.
"The male friend cry's for his dead friend and says that he didnt know how much good he brought into the world and that he brought life in again. Now, to me, thats clearly justifying and glorifying rape."
That's a rather simplistic reading of Almodovar's intentions and assumes that the rapist's friend is either portrayed as a reliable source of information or stands in for Almodovar. However, this is pretty clearly not the case. The film ends with the rapist's friend sitting in front of the woman at the movie theater and turning to look back and smile at her. It's very stalker-esque and not particularly subtle. The rapist is initially depicted as harboring some sort of sweet, undying love for this woman, and this "undying love" is gradually revealed to be dangerously obsessive and ultimately grotesque. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the notion that directors, writers, and artists can undermine the reliability of their protagonists and various characters, and it's irresponsible and misleading to compare this film to Observe and Report.
"And if Almodovar wasn't so beloved by the arthouse movie crowd, we wouldn't even be having this debate! He'd be getting the same valid criticism that Seth Rogan and Jody Hill recieved for the pro rapist messages in Observe and Report."
Right. And what makes continuing to have sex with a near comatose woman and giving her your bipolar medication wrong, but raping a fully comatose woman after stalking her in spite of her protests okay? Because of the director? because of the cinematic photography? Because its foreign?
Because some things just have no human side, and are wholly inhumane I think the only way of showing humanity from those that do inhumane things is to show the effects of the injustice on the people. The woman was never shown being upset about being raped and then made to forcefully have a baby (which is weird, because why wouldnt they giver her an abortion?). She was shown simply resuming her dance studio and it made it seem as if somehow she would resume her dance studio without knowing the 'hero' who helped bring her back to life. Like she should've been grateful or something!
I mean, whats the human side to a nazi, a genocidist or a father that kidnapps his daughter and traps her inside a little enclosed attic space and forcefully rapes her for 20 years and makes her have his kids?
Over on my pop culture blog, in honor of Shakespeare's birthday, I wrote about the six best (IMO) Shakespeare films and eight more I love in spite of their flaws (many of them having to do with gender). I also blogged about the connection between media objectification of women and the Advil-strip-search debacle and complained about a classist car ad.
And finally, on a political note (because it's another horrible “man has argument with wife, opens fire on crowd” story) and a personal one (I knew one of the victims, Ben Teague, one the kindest and best people I'll ever know): Georgia professor sought in shooting death of wife, two others. Please keep the victims' families in your thoughts. Our community is really shaken up by this.
My condolences to you and yours Sherunslunatic; I'm in Athens also, and while I didn't personally know any of the three victims, they were all friends of a friend. My heart goes out to you.
All respect and solidarity to the struggles against ableism... but no to this US-centric blogging day: In all of the rest of the world (and for a lot of immigrants and some non-immigrants within the US) May 1st is the international workers' day. It has been since 1886 where it started in the US as the struggle for the 8-hour day and spread to the rest of the world where it remained while Labor struggles and histories got dismantled in the US. It is also for disabled workers! It is also a good day for focusing on the most important (IMO) and neglected part of feminism: equal pay and other feminist issues within the workplace and the social/economic system.
According to Cosmo, women also aren't interested in military history. Because seriously, why would anyone with a vagina be interested in large-scale conflicts that have altered the course of human history? You're only into that to impress a hot guy, right?
Seriously they had a line like that in a past issue of Cosmo, and it was that line that made me lose my shit completely and swear never to purchase an issue of Cosmo ever again.
Oh and RIP Bea Arthur. Thanks for everything.
If the Cosmo editors can't wrap their minds around women being interested in sports, we're not surprised that military history was way too much of a stretch for them. We bought the May issue for entertainment on a long train ride (and even then we had to justify it by saying we'd blog about it), but I don't think we'll be subscribing any time soon.
Thanks for the link love. Renee deserves the recognition for the double award win.
Wrote a post on why cisgender people feel they have the right to disrespect transgender people self-choices of names.
http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2009/04/you-respect-cispersons-right-to-choose.html'
Link's borken. :(
Extra quote at the end, try
http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2009/04/you-respect-cispersons-right-to-choose.html
Thanks for the linky love
Women as a tool to justify transphobia: New England is currently working on House Bill 1728 which bans discrimination based on gender identity or expression in the areas of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and public education. In order to defeat this bill opponents have chosen once again to raise the supposed dreaded spectre of “men in womens bathrooms”.
Russell Simmons New Rush Card akin to pimping black people: Despite calling himself a philanthropist Russells new card is filled with predatory fees.
Matthew McConnaughey on Black Women: The star seems to believe that not only are black women fat we are not cover worthy.
Mammy Lives For Michael Kors: The mammy image is being used to sell watches.
Wow - I did not know that Matthew McConnaughey was such a massive racist asshole!
I'll make a point of never paying money to see a movie that he's in ever again!
Thanks for the link! While I know for sure that I was far from the only woman watching the NFL Draft yesterday, I think I may have been the only one watching it while blogging about Cosmopolitan.
my mom's been the illest football fan for a minute, too... not so much with cosmo, though, so i think you might have that one nailed.
@EvilSlutClique...my mom was a bigger football fan than my dad was, and he did college and HS football play by play.
Not to get wanky but I really can't stand when people pull out the "this is what they'd be making with paying jobs doing these things."
No..just..no.
CEOs, presumably, have gone to school for business or something of the sort. Cooks have probably gone to culinary school. Nurses certainly go to nursing school. Realistically they should be looking at the pay of nannies. It often glazes over the fact that women with jobs do these things too since they're often targeted specifically at stay at home moms.
That being said, that superintendent is daffy.
Many CEOs haven't gone to school, and the same goes for cooks. You'd be surprised. You make a decent point--but at the same time, there's no denying that a stay-at-home mother preforms that job, regardless of her training.
Yes but thats like saying I'm a mechanical engineer simply because I perform one of the simple tasks that is commonly performed by a real engineer. Or that I'm a teacher because I help people with math.
My problem with the faux-salary thing is two things. First, it is very easy to dismiss, as you just did; single guys with a jobs do a lot of the things on the list, but no one suggests they aren't being taken care of, so to me, it actually trivializes SAHMs- like giving a child a jr. police officer sticker and pretending he's a police officer.
Second, it is not ever going to be used for any serious activism- it just gets trotted out every mothers' day to smugly pat moms on the head, and everyone gets to pretend to acknowledge how much mothers do, then the next day forget about.
SAHMs don't need to be paid, because obviously that isn't going to happen. But how about some social security benefits- SAHMs are greasing the wheels of the economy by filling the job of child care workers. How about stopping the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle- conservatives who want women to stay home but would never provide any sort of support, and liberals who are demanding fair wages for child care workers but demean SAHMs. How about job training child care support for them if something happens to the person providing financial support or they decide they don't want to stay at home any more. How about parenting training and support centers so everyone has the skills that make parenting doable for everyone?
(I'm currently working from home, but identify primarily as a SAHM)
This is from "The Feminine Mystique" Chapter 2 page 41:
"....They usually begin with a woman complaining that when she has to write "housewife" on the census blank she gets an inferiority complex.....Then the author of the paean who somehow never is a housewife (in this case, Dorothy Thompson, newspaper woman, foreign correspondent, famouse columnist, in Ladies Home Journal March 1949) roars with laughter. The trouble with you she scolds is you dont realize you are expert on a dozen careers simultaneously. "You might write: business manager, cook, nurse, chauffeur, dressmaker, interior decorator,accountant, caterer, teacher, private secretary-or just put down philanthropist.....All your life you have been giving away your energies, your skills, your talents, your services, for love." But still, the housewife complains I'm nearly fifty and I've never done what I hoped to do in my youth-music- I've wasted my college education. Ho-ho laughs Miss thompson arent your children musical because of you, and all those struggling years while your husband was finishing his great work, didnt you keep a charming home on $3000 a year and make all your childrens clothes and your own and paper the living room yourself and watch the market like a hawk for the bargains?....."But all this vicarious living-through others," the housewife sighs. "As victorious as Napolean Bonaparte," Miss Thompson scoffs "or a Queen. I simply refuse to share your self-pity. You are one of the most successful women I know."
-So after reading this in the "Feminine Mystique" I think saying a stay at home mom is like a CEO or would be paid millions for the work she does is ludicrous. It stems from the 50's and seems to me to be very infantilizing. I hope I'm not trespassing any laws, by writing that blurb on this blog, but its relevent to the discussion-
Do all working women get social security benefits?
Ignore the social securitys question. I already looke dit up and I got it confused with something else.
I dont get it, are you saying a stay at home mom is doing the same job as a CEO/ That seems highly exaggerative. I've read on motherhood blogs in whihc a homemaker will say that and a woman who was a top executive or something like it will say that being a homemaker (whic she was) is much easier than being a executive or having her former job. And anyways, if that is the case, then what is a working mother? A double CEO?
The reason that the work of housewives* is undervalued is precisely because it doesn't get paid for.
Housework happens outside the framework of the capitalist mode of production, and therefore is not valued by that system.
Also, in this society, anybody who is economically dependent on another person is going to have a low status - so a housewife who is dependent on her husband's wages or salary is automatically going to have a lower status than him, just because of the fact that she does not have her own money.
Beyond that, I've always thought that choosing to become a housewife is a rather nonselfprotective lifestyle choice - being totally dependent on another person's wages seemed to be a dangerously dependent position for an adult to put herself in.
Also, I've always been very uncomfortable with the idea of a grown adult not earning their own money, and instead living off of somebody else's income - it just doesn't seem particularly egalitarian or just to me.
I know that it was the social norm for 500 years or so for men to have jobs and women to be homemakers - but that doesn't mean that's a good way to run a society.
* Yeah, I know I'm going to get flack for using that word - but I prefer to write in plain English rather than Politically Correct euphemisms
I agree. It also seems like being a housewife is a subversive way for a woman to say that she cant be both a mother and have a career at the same time and that if any woman works while having kids, she's neglecting them or being selfish, or____(sexist accusation). I also think women become housewives to compensate for a lacking partner at home.
I'm not sure there is much point in responding, but there were two things that seem worth addressing here. First, suggesting SAHMs are doing it in a subversive way is assigning a lot of malicious intent to a diverse group of people. The ones who think working women are automatically bad moms are not subversive about it. They say it right out, making themselves representatives for people they don't represent.
Let's say a woman decides she wants to write a novel at this point in her life, and has saved money towards focusing only on that for a period of time, forgoing paid work for a period of time for a very uncertain payoff. The woman next door is also an excellent writer but only writes when she gets home from work. Do you assume that the full-time writer is subversively telling the other woman she is a crappy writer? Of course not. That would be dumb.
On top of that, just because one person may not be able to imagine enjoying childraising for a period of time, and they may not think it could possibly be a creative outlet for anyone, that doesn't mean there are no intelligent, liberated people who do find this to be true. I don't personally imagine selling real estate as very fulfilling, but I can understand how someone else might.
As for the term "housewife", anytime a conservative says they are not going to use "Politically Correct euphemisms", what they are really saying is "I plan on insulting you, and it is your own fault if that upsets you." The same is true if a liberal says it. Housewife was intended here as an insult.
I get my opinion of SAHM's from blog posts on amazon.com's forums and other websites for SAHM's. On a forum like this, an SAHM is likely to be less misogynistic and more worldy about issues affecting women. On those sites (for example the "Should Mothers Work or Not" under the parenting forum of amazon)I've read many replies by women who say that they stay at home because they feel that its best for the kids because they dont believe you could be both a worker and a mother. Other posters have outrangeous views about day-care saying that it causes delinquency in kids. One poster even said that she wanted to be a SAHM because her husband wasn't helping her out and that when she'd come home after work he'd expect her to do everything. Others of course are your average religious nutto's that I typically dismiss. But there seems to be a general consensus that SAHM is the best (and ONLY the mom) because they theorize that a SAHM spends more time with her kids than a non-SAHM.They also like to claim that a woman is greedy if she works and doesn't have to. I.e, if they could survive on one income (preferably the fathers) then they should or else she's being materialistic and perpetuating the need for two parents to have to work. Its all non-sense and very judgemental torwards working mothers.
"On top of that, just because one person may not be able to imagine enjoying childraising "
Why doesnt a working women enjoy child raising? Theyre both doing the same thing, only one doesnt have to stay home to do it. The working woman can see it as a creative outlet as well. That sentence seems to perpetuate the ideas about working moms and not being able to be proper mothers that I wrote about above.Its also not like staying home from full-time work to write a novel is the same thing. She's still working, but she needs time to concentrate and make it work. She's not really quitting her career, she's starting a new one. I also think it a bit ridiculous to say that writing and child rearing are both creative outlets. The writer is doing something with her creativity, shaping something. The SAHM isnt transforming the society her kids will inherit, but just shaping them in a one-dimensional manner within the home. The argument that raising kids is a creative outlet seems to me to be a subversive way of saying that a woman cant be both a worker and a mother.Why is it you have to quit work in order to shape them like they are a creative outlet? Dont kids go their own way anyways? And wouldnt shaping the world be shaping your kids? It seems it would all be the same. Oddly, the same 'creative outlet' argument was used in the 50's as I'm reading about it in "The Feminine Mystique."
And technically I dont see whats wrong with the term housewife. Its like she's saying that she's married to her house and family and is 'married' to her kids and the taking care exclusively of the domestic domain of things. Its not much different than SAHM. Stay at home mom means that she revolves mainly around the home so she can execute her philosophy of parenting. Its the same thing.
Thanks for including the link about Bea Arthur, I hoped you'd include her.
I grew up watching Maude, All in the Family, & The Golden Girls and I think they influenced me a lot. They seemed so much deeper than today's sitcoms and dealt with a lot of issues that we don't want to think of. I especially loved The Golden Girls, and as the tall, geeky girl I feel like I've lost a friend. Thank you for being a friend, Bea!
My roommate and I LOVE "The Golden Girls!" I still watch the reruns!
Boyfriend University: Take Advantage of Your Man and Learn While You Can: By Jennifer Sander & Lynne Rominger The premise is both insulting and intriguing: “Take advantage of your man and learn while you can.” The authors offer details of their personal dating history and all of the invaluable information they gleaned from the men they spent time with. Auto repair, how to smoke a cigar, how to play beer pong, kick in a door, fix a clogged toilet, and barbeque anything.
Wannabes, Goths, and Christians: The Boundaries of Sex, Style, and Status is about the ways in which three groups of young adults in the United States test, push, and break the boundaries of an identity that paradoxically remains largely invisible, yet overwhelmingly dominant: "Whiteness." The self-described “freaks” of Goth, the members of a Christian organization at a large university, and the Puerto Rican "wannabes" are each given their due in a book that creates connections between seemingly disparate groups.
Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery: In one of the most devastating passages of the book, Kara locates sex slavery at a “massage parlor” in Los Angeles. The young woman he meets was trafficked from Thailand with promises of a job as a waitress. Once in the U.S., she was told that she owed $20,000 to the “massage parlor” owner she was sold to, which she would earn by having sex with several men a day. At first she refused, but was beaten and raped into submission.
Handmade Nation: The Rise of DIY, Art, Craft, and Design: Levine gives a brief introduction and makes some intriguing statements that piqued my curiosity about the history of this movement and the idea of thinking about craft as a politicized feminist phenomenon. From a feminist perspective it was interesting to read that ninety-five percent of the crafters Levine interviewed were women.
LOVE LOVE LOVE the Hillary Clinton video!!! Thank you for the link! I truly hope that she is able to do lots of good while she is our Secretary of State.
I posted the link to the Rockstar article on my Facebook page, and saying 'Time to switch to monster or red bull..." I got a couple of somewhat surprising comment responses.
"Well if your going to be silly like that then I guess you better stop drinking or eating Gatorade, Aunt Jemima, Cap'n Crunch,King Vitaman, Life, Cheetos, Doritos, Fritos, Mountain Dew AMP, Mountain Dew, Crush, Mug Root Beer, Sierra Mist because he works for Pepsi and Im sure he uses his money to donate to "right wing causes".
While your at it I wouldnt give their partnering companies any money either
# Starbucks DoubleShot
# Starbucks Iced Coffee... Read More
# Mandarin (license)
# D&G (license)
# Lipton Brisk
# Lipton Original Iced Tea
# Lipton Iced Tea
# Ben & Jerry's Milkshakes
# Dole juices & juice drinks (license)
# Sunny Delight
I love rockstar because it tastes great."
and...
"i think it is silly to be narrow about a brand, rather than the broad issue. red bull instead? where's the solution here? throw shit ina different direction instead? it's like fighting 'creationism', it's the smallest facet of an unfathomable problem. what good is done? don't get me wrong though. like smoking in front of kids, and then raging the tobacco company. everything is everything."
Researching what effect the things we buy as consumers has on other people, the environment, etc. can be a lot of work, but it certainly isn't "silly" to be concerned about. Why would being concerned about the broad issue and also specifically choosing not to purchase a specific brand have to be in conflict with each other? The switching to monster or red bull comment I made was more or less a joke, but as far as i am aware their founders don't have direct quotes like, "Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig, how's that? " Please, if they do, fill me in. Because choosing as an individual to not contribute to certain companies by buying their products does not have any substantial impact on their profits, does that mean that it is then acceptable to buy them? Personally, i don't think so.