How the state can go wrong when it tries to "save" Muslim women.
Courtney warns, "Don't call it a he-cession."
Redefining "vagina music" as a positive thing.
Is impregnating a woman against her will a form of intimate-partner violence?
A really moving essay on Michael Jackson.
Did you know Rhode Island's official name is actually "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"? There's now a push to remove the "Province Plantations" part by folks who say it is a reminder of slavery.
The complicated history between women in Iran and women in the West.
The growing backlash against evolutionary psychology.
In Missouri, "a husband who consents to his wife's insemination with donor semen is the father of the child she conceives" -- but that rule apparently does not apply to same-sex couples.
Megan on "the dichotomy between the ways we view women in the developed world and those in the developing world who chose to sell access to their bodies."
A great post by fillyjonk on women's bodies as allegories.
The Organization of American States approved a resolution protecting human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity.
An op-ed advocating women adopt the title "Ms." -- published in 1901!
Why LGBTQ and HIV-positive voices need to weigh in on the health care debate.
A studio exec claims "women don't go to movies."
"The modern LGBT-rights movement owes its existence to the heroes of Stonewall. And while much has been gained in the intervening decades, a certain crucial something has been lost."
What have you all been reading/writing this week?
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/14622
Only two days left to enter our Juneteenth giveaway.
Stolen Bases: Why American Girls Don’t Play Baseball is as intelligent and powerful as any professional U.S. women’s baseball team would be, should be, and could be...if any were supported enough to exist. The book is a concise 180 pages, an assertive objection to the current status of baseball in the United States in its exclusion of women, and a worthwhile read for those who find themselves in the middle of the Venn diagram of athletes, spectators, and feminists.
Tapologo is a full-length documentary shot in Northwest Province, South Africa. Directors Gabriella and Sally Gutierrez Dewar chronicle a handful of the 20,000 displaced African refugees in a squatter camp called Freedom Park. Here we are exposed to life and death in a place where fifty percent of the women are infected with HIV.
Preeminent feminist Buddhism scholar Rita M. Gross’ A Garland of Feminist Reflections is an indispensable collection of her best collected writing from the past forty years. Drawing together theory, philosophy, and religious exploration, Gross’ self-selected anthology is deeply thought provoking and can serve as an introduction to her vital scholarship, or a necessary refresher on important concepts and ideas.
How to Cook a Tapir is a fascinating memoir about Fry’s experiences living in a remote Kekchi village in the rainforest. Interspersed with recipes that Fry gleaned from the generous village women, the book tells a story of a twenty-year-old woman who can barely cook and her experiences as a young wife and teacher.
Twenty-one reviews are published weekly at Feminist Review.
More from around the web...
Exploitation or Freedom of Choice?: Donna Dickenson Talks about Body Shopping: Converting Body Parts to Profit
Intimate Oppression: An Interview with Danzy Senna, Senna’s parents, an interracial couple, married in 1968 with dreams of being a part of an idyllic, multicultural family. This book is a complex blend of remembrance, internal exploration, and detective work, as Senna travels throughout the South to uncover pieces of her father’s story she never knew as a child and young adult.
From Bitch blogs this week...
Dubai is Hot, but Paris is Not!, How many cultural competency experts does it take to educate Paris Hilton? More than even she can afford!
Douchebag Decree (Dis)Honorable Mention: Burger King just keeps on pissing me off, blow job ads are just (not) sexy
Belated Father's Day post, promoting feminist fatherhood
A Different Kind of F-Word: Perez Hilton and GaySlurGate, is this really how we celebrate Stonewall?
Money Meets Maternity: Cash for your Eggs, a new NY law gives way to mo' money, mo' problems
An Artistic Path of Healing and Resistance, an online art exhibit on the way women and girls experience violence worldwide
"Is impregnating a woman against her will a form of intimate-partner violence?"
Does this really have to be phrased as a question? If so, it answers itself with the phrase "against her will".
I was just about to say the same thing. It's a gross violation of autonomy.
Ditto to these comments. I'm actually quite shocked that it's phrased as a question. Thankfully the article itself does not present it as up for debate, but as a definitive tactic used by abusive partners.
I definatley thought the article neeeded a
Trigger Warning
It is horrible phrasing... I thought that the guy had somehow poked holes in a condom or something and instead he raped her until she was pregnant.... twice.
I am a little disturbed that the researchers think that 99% of the time teenage pregnancy is the result of an abusive relationship between a teen girl and her boyfriend... The number seems extraordinarily high.
I don't know what percentage would seem like it was not extraordinarily high: 50%, 75%, but 99%?
I'm hoping the 99% was being used as an expression. That just doesn't sound right to me.
new section of FML FAIL
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/fml-fail-fatties-cant-have-a-vagina/
WOC erasure at Civil Rights game
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/woc-erasure-at-civil-rights-game/
Oh my, FML fails. My sister is a big fan of the site and it seems to be a matter of just browsing through user comments for five minutes to find some pretty crazy misogyny.
Here's what I wrote at Deeply Problematic this week:
(White) GOP sexuality and the expectations of black sexuality - in response to Pandagon's analysis
Obama brushes of LBGTQ folks
Perez Hilton: "bad for the world" in response to FourFour
Do you know what a man can give you? Analyzing a scare-tactics poster
Woman's mobiilty stolen, h/t to Renee's coverage
Euphemisms and Michael Jackson in immediate review - taking a look at the lack of mentions of Jackson's place in the cycle of abuse in the first news/blog cycle after his death
Marginalizing Thomas Jefferson's dependence on slavery, in response to a New York Times blog
Links!
Great article by Courtney in Prospect..
I posted this earlier, but this article in the DoG Street Journal is partly thanks to the kind, encouraging words from readers on the Feministing community site, where I posted to ask what should be done about sexual health education on college campuses.
Let me know what you think.
Also, for any francophone readers, Le Monde has some interesting coverage on the burqa debate.
Here's the president of the Conseil Français du Culte Musulmane talking about the group's view on the burqa, saying, for example, that it's nowhere in the Koran.
Here's an article which culls a lot of different people's opinions on it, including several female readers who say they aren't forced into wearing the burqa/niqab.
Holly at Feministe blogged about the tranny-alert.com debacle, Iliza Shelsinger's transphobic and bigoted standup material, and why reclaiming the word 'tranny' is something for trans women to do, no one else.
Seeing trans women (and trans women of colour!) prominently featured as writers at other feminist blogs makes Feministing's lack of trans women contributors all the more frustrating. Come on, Feministing, you can create inclusion if you choose to, and not just keep it at the forefront of your minds.
Throwing a five-day old statement back in feministing's teeth with the implication that they aren't moving fast enough on their promise to work towards more inclusion and diversity in the writing staff (a promise that was made less than a month ago) seems premature.
I understand that there is still a lot of work to be done to make this an inclusive and trans-safe space, but doesn't it seem like the commitment is indeed there, and that the changes are being made?
Please, this has a history a lot longer than five days. I wasn't "throwing that back," but I was pointing out a pretty flat response. At the forefront of your minds sounds a lot like "we're busy with other things, we'll get to this when we have time." I'll believe the commitment is there when I see actual change.
I guess trans women should just sit back and wait for cis people to grant us equality? We've been waiting for a long time, and any equality we've got has come from us engaging inequality and pointing it out. If that makes cis people uncomfortable, well, that's probably something cis people need to sort out on their own, then.
Seriously, would you suggest the same thing to women of colour, women with disabilities, or any other group of women? Different 'rules' for trans women is just another form of transmisogyny.
No, I don't advocate different rules for trans people (and I think that that is a baseless assumption to make). And I'm not saying you should sit back and do nothing. I'm also not saying that you're making me uncomfortable.
I am saying that what I've seen so far on feministing is A) people pointing out that there is transphobia and transmisogyny on the site, especially in the comments, as well as erasure of trans voices, especially in the articles; followed by B) feministing acknowledging this problem; followed by C) feministing stating that changes would be made (they even gave a time frame, that being within six months). This seems reasonable to me.
Obviously it does not seem reasonable to you, and that is your prerogative. How fast should they be implementing these changes though?
I would also respectfully request that you don't accuse me of transmisogyny based on your assumptions of how I would treat this situation differently if we were talking about women of color or women with disabilities rather than about trans women. I understand that you do not owe me the benefit of the doubt, and you are under no obligation to assume good faith on my part, but I make the request nevertheless.
You forgot D) Meanwhile, they sit back and forget about trans people entirely while simultaneously continuing to post problematic material, and then getting defensive when trans people and trans allies have objections.
Honestly, while I do see that the editors are doing better at stopping blatantly transphobic commenters, I don't see any other changes or improvements. The editors themselves can't even seem to manage basic trans-101 ettiquite (such as putting the space in trans woman or trans man).
This may sound kind of pissy but I'm really disappointed in Feministing when it comes to trans issues. I realize changes can't come instantly; that doesn't mean everyone should just sit around, patiently trusting that the changes will come and not just be delayed perpetually.
For some reason my reply posted at the end of the page. You can find it here.
I absolutely completely 100% fucking agree with gudbuytjane. One day they're all "We care, we care" and the next it's all "Let's put up a post about trans, fail to moderate it, let a trans community member take the hits, and send tumbleweed blowing through its archive instead of addressing what happened". It's this kind of shit over and over. I can't imagine how it takes six months of gestation to stand the fuck up and act like an ally. Do you need six months to not say racist shit? If it takes that long, why not spend two weeks hiring a trans moderator?
Here's what I wrote at After cancer, now what? this week.
Healthcare for all, my argument
North Carolina's Uninsured a look at Senator Kay Hagan's indecision on the public option.
And an announcement
Oops, the announcement didn't come up
Sorry, not trying to be annoying but for some reason the link is not working.
"What have you all been reading/writing this week?"
I went to a movie. I'm sorry you ladies don't know what that's like.
Nice.
Was the "ladies" directed at the mods or both the readers and the mods?
Unless you link to a YouTube video or something, it would be a little hard to share a move you saw.
This week in Evil Slutopia:
~We took on another conservative lie about the hate crimes bill.
~We're still talking about our amazing trip to the International Women's Writing Guild summer conference - we rounded up our 'you had to be there!' moments, and had a conversation with someone who had some...misguided notions about a book written by one of the awesome women from the Guild called Married Women Who Love Women.
~We took a screenwriting class and had some issues with the way the teacher interpreted the message of Juno. And speaking of teen pregnancy, we're also still talking about the misguided conservative protests of The Secret Life of the American Teenager.
~And speaking of conservatives, we discussed Meghan McCain's recent appearance on Bill Maher's show, and the post-press conference Governor Sanford lovefest on MSNBC.
I find the "women don't go to movies" statement interesting and contradictory especially because of all the romantic comedies. Apparently I was mistaken and it's only men going to see all the movies about women who exist solely to get married.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good "chick-flick" but these days most are formulaic. I think Sarah Haskins says it best: http://current.com/items/89225444_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-chick-flicks.htm
Sunday Shame Literary Edition: Going over some embarrassing reading that I did in the past. Come by and share your bad reading faux pas.
Another Trans Woman Joins The Remembering Our Dead List: Looking at the death of Kamilla in Russia and the victim blaming that followed.
Khadijah Williams: Homeless Teen as American Bootstrap Success Story: Looking at the why the media chose to promote this story of a struggling teen WOC and ignore the ways in which the system let her down.
Rape In Prison Should Not Be Part Of The Punishment: The moment someone becomes part of the prison system rape is seen as normal even tho0ugh it is one of the grossest of violations.
For Abercrombie & Fitch A Prosthetic Arm Just Is Not Fashionable: Looking at the case of a young girl who was ordered off of the sales floor because she has a prosthetic arm.
On the "Women don't go to movies" story:
Just e-mailed my local Marcus movie theater and asked them to play Vardalos' movie. "My Life In Ruins" wasn't playing anywhere within a 200-mile-radius of my home city!(!)
This post about prostitution rubbed me the wrong way.
Read your blog on this and I totally agree.
Work is work and should be judged on the basis of relative value and pride in craft.
There is no more "honor" in being a good hair-stylist who takes pride in the craft and hones their skill than a pro who offers the same level of professional courtesy.
I don't care at all for the way Megan Carpentier writes about sex work (but then I don't care much for the way Jezebel handles anything)...
The last line of the article you've linked ("If you work for minimum wage, you might live hand-to-mouth, but at least it's only your hand, and you don't have to risk your relationships, your health or your (clean) record to feed the mouth.") is pretty judgmental and nasty. It's obviously drawing on the most basic stereotypes about sex workers to imply that 1) they're all diseased or will become diseased and 2) are incapable of carrying on with "relationships" of all types. Really, Megan? Even the girl working on a webcam alone in her bedroom is going to contract an STI? The girl who strips? What a charming point of view.
But then, as with the article linked in the main post here, she sometimes likes to come across as compassionate and progressive. I'm not into it.
"Is impregnating a woman against her will a form of intimate-partner violence?"
Well the article was pretty clear that both actual traditionally recognized physical force and the threat of more were a part of the dynamic involved.
How about a more ambiguous example (like the article mentions):
B/C sabotage. Poking holes in condoms or in a diaphragm?
Is that sexual violence? And is it sexual violence when the female partner does it or lies about taking contraception as well?
I'm inclined to think that any lie or act of deception on the part of either partner that results in pregnancy is some form of transgression on the part of the person doing the deceiving (obvious, right?).
Is it violence? Well it may be easy to say that it is violence when a male partner does it because of the gross effects on the woman carrying the kid she didn't ask for or the abortion she may choose to have. Well how about when it is reverse? Seems like there are less physical effects, at least no stretch-marks or pain of birth, etc. However, his free-will was violated as well, and certainly the law can dictate his future in an economic sense.
I just don't feel comfortable calling it violence only in one direction M-->F. I'm more inclined to think of it as something akin to kidnapping; which seems more true no matter what the sex of the person being the shitheel.
There is a serious qualitative difference between being forced to carry a fetus in your body that you didn't want (or being forced to purge a fetus from your body that you did want), and being legally forced into financial obligations toward a child (or out of potential fatherhood of the fetus). The roles that men and women play in pregnancy are objectively different, to say the least, and we can't just say "but what if it were reversed!!" unless men too can become forcibly pregnant.
In other words, sometimes violence can exist in a unidirectional fashion. For example, it would be very difficult for a two-year-old kid throwing a tantrum, crying and kicking at his father, to actually qualify as "violence". But one could easily categorize a father kicking his two-year-old son as violent. The fact that violence doesn't always translate from F to M as easily as it does from M to F in a given situation doesn't mean it doesn't count as violence.
Deceiving your partner is in many cases an abusive act, but for the woman it can be physically abusive - a.k.a. violent. It would not be physically abusive - violent - for the man. You seem to be saying, however, that because it doesn't work vice versa, it doesn't count as violence - and I don't get that argument.
It's also worth noting that while men can certainly feel a severe financial impact when they have to pay child support, that child support is rarely intended to cover all the costs of raising a kid. It's support money, not a grant - the woman is going to take a serious financial hit for the kid as well. However, if a man forcibly impregnates a woman, he isn't gonna carry half the child. Unlike child support, pregnancy can't be split equally. I'm not using this example to suggest that deception is okay if it's a woman doing it, just that there are some pretty significant differences between physically carrying a fetus and having to partially provide for one if it ends up a kid.
Also, regarding free will - abuse is not just the violation of free will. What I think you're referring to is choice - if a woman deceives the guy and intentionally gets pregnant knowing he doesn't want a kid, his choice to not have a child was violated. The only problem is that while a woman and man's choices will ideally be aligned on the matter of pregnancy, her choice trumps his. That's not unfair or hypocritical; that's acknowledging the quantitative difference between being the mother and being the father that I mentioned earlier.
I am most specifically excluding cases where actual force/violence is used. Just read my comment, I'm quite clear on this articles explicit description of violence and the threat of violence and how that is a clear-cut matter and I took pains to differentiate that from a case of subterfuge and birth-control sabotage.
When you remove the use and threat of physical violence you have three things:
1) the pregnancy
2) The outcome of the pregnancy
3) how the pregnancy came about
Is an accidental pregnancy an act of violence? No.
Are the outcomes of an accidental pregnancy and an intentional pregnancy (even if intentional only on the part of one party ala sabotage) the same? Possibly, depending on a) who is carrying, if a man pulls this shit she at least has the option to terminate (again we're talking about a non-force situation), whereas if a woman does it once conception happens then she is in full control (barring natural intervention). Thus all agency of one individual is stolen.
This is why I compare the act I describe as more akin to a kidnapping. Someone stepping between you and your own ability to try and exercise precaution or free will.
I read your comment. I'm saying that a man, let's say, poking holes in a condom, is quantitatively different from a woman doing it, although neither is certainly anywhere near ethical. The man's actions will have serious undesired ramifications on the woman's body, which is why I would classify that act as physical abuse. The woman's actions, at most, will have ramifications on the man's emotions and finances, which I do not consider physical abuse.
And I do not consider a woman having the option to abort her pregnancy equivalent to a man having the option to withhold child support payments. Yes, they are both "options", but that's all they have in common, and I don't consider that commonality sufficient for comparison. A woman who gets impregnated against her will through a deceptive partner and is forced to choose between abortion, adoption, or raising the child does not necessarily have more agency than a guy who may end up making child support payments should the woman pursue it and the court agree with her. I'm not ranking the two situations on a scale of suffering - that differs for every person and situation - I'm saying that they aren't really comparable.
When it comes to the option to abort or give birth there actually is an option in the hands of the affected party.
This is not the case with the "option" to pay support, not to mention if the male parent is actually a decent human being and wants to be a parent someday but is self-aware enough not to want to do so right now. So you've left the transgressing party in control of both of those "options".
Deceiving your partner is in many cases an abusive act, but for the woman it can be physically abusive - a.k.a. violent. It would not be physically abusive - violent - for the man. You seem to be saying, however, that because it doesn't work vice versa, it doesn't count as violence - and I don't get that argument.
Forcing a legally-backed financial obligation onto somebody is exactly as bad as violence, because it is violence. You yourself use the phrase "legally forced" to describe child support obligation, but what do you think legal force actually entails? It means that the people with badges can capture and confine you if you don't pay it. If you defend yourself from them, you can be legally killed. You seem to have forgotten the violent nature of all state action because it is much more often threatened than actualized.
The particular level of unpleasantness experienced by those subjected to different sorts of violence is irrelevant; the violation of rights is exactly the same.
I disagree that forcing a legally-backed financial obligation onto someone is tantamount to violence. I think that's quite a stretch in this case. If someone purposely jumps in front of your car just to sue you for damages, they've been an asshole and committed fraud, but I'm not going to say they've been violent just because the police could potentially hurt you while you're in custody. That's the police being violent, not the person who jumped in front of your car.
It violates your bodily autonomy to have some guy impregnate you deceptively. It does not violate your bodily autonomy to make child support payments.
You can argue that the father could potentially face greater risk from the state as a result, but I could just as easily argue that the mother could potentially face greater risk from males as a result, since pregnant woman are disproportionately victimized. But I'm not talking about potential violence enacted by third parties in unlikely situations here (I think you overestimate how militantly the cops pursue fathers who don't pay child support). I'm talking about the actual people involved.
I want to reiterate that because I classify one case as "violence" and not the other, I am not saying one is worse, I am saying they are in different and incomparable categories entirely.
I'm not talking about potential violence, but the violence inherent in the concept of legal obligation. A legal obligation essentially constitutes holding a gun to somebody's face and instructing them to do something, albeit in a socially legitimized way and with enough common background for the parties involved to understand the nature of the situation without somebody having to actually violate a cardinal rule of firearm safety by physically doing so.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, this fact is a major justification for legal system's existence: to give people a controlled way of appropriating what is rightfully theirs by violence what cannot be appropriated any other way, and by doing so with such an overwhelmingly powerful force, the state, that most people simply give in rather than violently resist. But this also means that using legal means to appropriate things that are not rightfully yours is equivalent to armed robbery, pure and simple.
By the same token, a man who deceptively impregnates a woman is forcing her into legal obligation to have a legal adoption, legal abortion, or raise the child according to various laws. If that's the "violence" you're talking about, I'm talking about a different kind of violence, and this discussion is purely a semantic one.
This is why I feel that acts of pure subterfuge are more akin to kidnapping.
In both cases someone's freedom is being taken away from them.
If a woman got knocked up by accident would it be considered violence?
O.k. flash forward to a deathbed confession by the guy who knocked her up where he admits to poking a hole in the condom. Now it's violence?
No way. It's kidnapping.
I'll explain why using another analogy.
I come to you in a panic and tell you to pack your bags because the Mafia is going to kill us both and we have to run for the hills.
After 25 years of living in a cave hiding from the Mob I confess that I was full of shit the whole time.
Kidnapping.
I don't get the kidnapping thing. Nobody's getting abducted here. And I'm not sure how violence and kidnapping are mutually exclusive categories.
If a woman gets pregnant, thinking it was by accident, and later discovers that it was an intentional deception, yes, it is an act of violence. I might pretend to hit you by accident, and you might very well believe me, but that doesn't absolve the act of violence.
O.k. flash forward to a deathbed confession by the guy who knocked her up where he admits to poking a hole in the condom. Now it's violence?
It was violence all along.
If the man petitioned the state to, say, prevent her from aborting, then yes, he would be a fully culpable partner in that crime, in addition to his role in the initial crime of deceptive conception, in the same way that a woman would be a partner to the crime if she petitioned the state to rob a man on her behalf by suing for child support.
So if I impregnate someone and then threaten to have a third party force them to carry the thing I'm off the hook on the whole violence deal?
Paying the money isn't violent. You do that to avoid the consequences like incarceration which is enforced through violent means.
By your logic so long as the female party in a violent relationship goes along with the commands of her abuser she's not in a violent relationship.
I don't really understand your argument here. I'm saying that I don't think it's violent for someone to be required to pay child support, any more than it's violent to be required to pay for a bag a chips you take from a store. You can say the latter two examples are "violent" because they can be enforced violently, and in response I'm saying: we are talking about completely different kinds of violence from completely different sources.
So if I impregnate someone and then threaten to have a third party force them to carry the thing I'm off the hook on the whole violence deal?
I'm saying the impregnation is an act of violence.
By your logic so long as the female party in a violent relationship goes along with the commands of her abuser she's not in a violent relationship.
Could you explain how this is my logic? I'm honestly not following here.
I'm saying that I don't think it's violent for someone to be required to pay child support, any more than it's violent to be required to pay for a bag a chips you take from a store.
Well, those are both implicit violence. Any form of "requirement" is violent because force is the only ultimate authority, but I think there's some misunderstanding. I've been using "violence" per se in a value neutral sense. It sounds like you're using it to mean aggressive or otherwise unjustified and therefore immoral violence, which is always a violation of somebody's rights.
The difference between the examples given is that, while they are both enforced by violence, the latter is done in the protection of someone's rights from aggression, and therefore justified violence, while the former is itself an act of aggression, against which defensive violence is justified.
Re: Women Don't Go to Movies
And does it ever occur to these studios that if women DO go to movies less, it might be BECAUSE there are so few movies with female leads or designed from a female perspective or produced by women?
Nah, that would just require to much sense.
Do they also never consider that women have been forced to learn to sympathize with male protagonists because of their prominence, historically in all narrative forms?
I totally agree with you. Studios look at the failure of a movie with a female lead, as well women don't go to the movies, but failure of a movie with a male lead, as the movie was bad. Women don't exclusively attend romantic comedies, wedding flicks, or even movies with women leads. The success of the movies with male leads is in part because women attend those movies. And the failure of the movies with female leads is in part because men don't go to see those movies. Women go to the movies for the same reason men go to the movies: to escape and be entertained. And OFTEN men and women go to the movies together! Beyond even heterosexual dating (movies- a popular date), people, especially teenagers (major movie going group), often go to the movies with groups of friends. It's sexist and incorrect to assume that women only hang with women and men only hang with men.
I haven't seen the evidence that overall female lead movies do so much worse than male lead movies, except to say there seem to be more male leads than female leads and therefore more box office successes of male lead movies (but also, probably more forgotten failures). But If I had to venture a guess as to why some movies with female leads do so poorly, I would say its because the female leads are poorly written. Most female leads are not flawed enough (and I don't mean damaged, need to be rescued- I mean with human flaws) see: The Changeling (no flaws). Most female leads are too perfect- an immediate turn off. We don't see them as down in the first act, so we don't sympathize with them and as a result the stakes are low and the climax unrewarding. Without significant flaws to overcome, their success doesn't provide any satisfaction and that thrill is the escapism we seek. Think of great movies, great female leads etc: Silence of the Lambs, All About Eve, Million Dollar Baby... leads aren't nice, pretty people. Even in Sex and the City, which I didn't see, but I'm familiar with TV series, those characters have flaws, which makes them interesting. Just my thoughts...
From Women's Glib this week...
On the ongoing and childish fight in the New York State Senate.
Ann Coulter waxes poetic on the topic of Dr. Tiller's murder.
UK doctor claims abortion clinic TV ads promote promiscuity by Alison
Russian Trans Woman Kamilla Murdered by Elizabeth
Veronica Lario, Silvio Berlusconi, and "Standing By Your Man" by Thomas
Burqa: sign of religion or subservience? A deeper look into secular France by Emily
Celebrating the Legends-From Michael Jackson to Benazir Bhutto by Maria
Bank of America is Being Sued for Gender Bias by Emily
Kathryn Bigelow, and Why Gender Matters by Carrie
Birth control sabotage is unfortunately commonly present in a surprisingly (or maybe not so...) large number of abusive relationships.
It is so frustrating that the tone of these discussions always seem to go back to trans women wanting things unfairly, trans women being demanding and unrealistic in our expectations, trans women being mean and trying to ruin everyone else's fun...
I cannot speak for anyone else (as I respect the individual lived experiences of trans women too much to erase them with my version) but the reason why I am here at Feministing is because I am a feminist. Feminist discussions, issues, and politics are important to me. I am not just a feminist in the comments section of this website, being a feminist is how I live my life, how I approach my politics, and it provides the analysis that frames so much of my experience. The discussions I take part in are not just about trans issues, not at all, but I think the only threads in which trans women are ever given any visibility are on trans topics (and then it seems only when we're correcting cis people who are walking all over our experiences and being offensive).
If I seem frustrated and impatient, it is because I am. I have been around queer feminist scenes a very long time and I have heard the same answers again and again, for well over a decade. The fact I still am expending energy on trans inclusion feels like a tragic waste of time to me, as I think of how much it takes away from my other political and activist work (which is about things like campaigning for social housing for homeless women, or dismantling misogyny in activist communities, or supporting programs for girls to have access to areas usually dominated by boys; you know, the same stuff many of you work at, I am sure). I'd much rather be spending my efforts at making the lives of women - all women - better.
So, six months? A year? Why so long? Is it so incredibly hard for the editors to find trans women who write well about feminism? If so, then why aren't they reaching out to trans women for help? I know quite a few. The "we just don't know any!" excuse has long been used as a smokescreen for exclusive communities.
Right now when I think of Feministing's editors I think of a door slammed in my face. I have no clue what discussions go on about trans women, if any. If they want respect for their efforts to include the voices of trans women then they should make the process transparent and engage us to find a solution.
...
OT: I didn't call you transmisogynist, I was pointing out a cisscentric/transmisogynist system. To bring that up as you did feels privileged, and to preemptively deflect the idea of transmisogyny feels a lot like a tone argument.
Ugh, this was a reply to this comment, and not meant to be taken on its own.
If they want respect for their efforts to include the voices of trans women then they should make the process transparent and engage us to find a solution.
That definitely seems both fair and called for. If the primary complaint is that feministing isn't being transparent about their attempts (if any) to include trans women, that's a totally different thing than what I understood your first comment to mean.
I didn't call you transmisogynist, I was pointing out a cisscentric/transmisogynist system. To bring that up as you did feels privileged, and to preemptively deflect the idea of transmisogyny feels a lot like a tone argument.
Again, I appear to have misunderstood your meaning. When you said "Seriously, would you suggest the same thing to women of colour, women with disabilities, or any other group of women? Different 'rules' for trans women is just another form of transmisogyny." I took that to mean that you believed I would not suggest the same thing for other groups, and that my holding you to a different standard constituted transmisogyny. So on this end, it was not intended to be a pre-emptive deflection, but rather a response to what it seemed like you were saying. Apologies.
Thank you for this response, I do appreciate it.
As a trans woman I feel particularly sensitive to tone arguments, as they have historically been used to other us with insinuations that when we are being passionate (and I am passionate about this topic) we are scaring people or giving off some never-quite-explained "male energy" (and if that is "male energy" I don't know what the toughass feminist cisgender women in my family are supposed to be, because next to them I look meek). It is such a frustrating silencing technique, so I am always on the watch for it.
The thing I worry I am not conveying is not that I think feminism is some massive fucked up place, but rather that I hate being at times at cross-purposes on this issue with women whom I would otherwise be marching beside or working with. I don't think the editorial staff are jerks, rather I think they are amazing women who write things that inspire me, educate me, and engage me in valuable discussions. On this issue, however, they drop the ball more often than not. I find often the cis women I connect with most easily are cis women of colour, because we can connect on that very specific kind of hurt, when you see your community so consistently fuck up things that are so core to your experience.
Feminism's central bias about trans women is that ultimately our lives cannot really be that relevant to the lives of cisgender women. This bias was given credibility by academia in Janice Raymond's transphobia, has made male privilege an accusation instead of a conversation, and in thirty years we haven't done much to move from that. Instead, we are stuck in a cycle of:
1. Having no spaces for the voices of trans women.
2. People justifying the lack of those spaces because trans women's experiences aren't really that relevant, based on their impressions of trans experience, which has been written and continues to be enforced by transphobic cisgender people and functionally transmisogynist communities.
3. The experiences of trans women that cisgender women might find relevant and even a shared experience are never heard, because there are no trans women to tell them.
4. Repeat.
The only way you break that cycle is to break that cycle.
* To clarify, I mean male privilege in relation to the identities of trans women. I think there are valuable conversations for cis and trans women about things like space and privilege and how we negotiate our ways through the world and our senses of ourselves, but I wouldn't trust having that conversation in a public place like a blog because I know there are those who would use the opportunity to say hateful things about trans women.
Are there no trans women who write for Feministing? I only ask because I thought one of the editors mentioned in another thread that not everyone who writes for Feministing is cis. Am I misremembering?
No, I think you are remembering correctly, but I think it was mentioned that one of the editors is not cis, but also not trans-identified. I could also be misremembering.
As far as I know, Miriam is genderqueer, but I don't know if she identifies as transgender. I haven't heard anyone on Feministing, to the best of my recollection, identify explicitly as trans.
I see. Well, I understand why the frustration, then.
Argh, I keep submitting too soon. As I meant to continue: I don't know the statement that this blog specifically made about transgender issues, or how they would solve the problems that seem to have arisen. But I can see that it must feel bad to think you don't have a voice here. I think the editors do try though.
Yeah, I was told that an editor identified as not-cis. Ideally this all would not matter, honestly, but the truth is that "we have trans people on our board" or "trans and genderqueer is hot!" kind of sentiments almost always mean NO TRANS WOMEN/FEMALE-ASSIGNED ONLY. Even if that is not explicitly stated, it is often implicitly observable (pay attention to the corners of the room at 'inclusive' women's events, there are probably trans women standing alone, trying to decide if they should just go home or not).
Amid the drama about the top butches list last week it was hard to overlook that there was ONE trans woman on the list, from the 1990's no less. We're just not used to seeing genuine representation, so comments like that usually feel like we're being brushed off. Heck, it was Michfest's favourite argument for a lot of years: Look, we love the transfolk! Bitch and Animal are playing!
I don't doubt that the editors on some level are trying, too (I think it is too easy for this to become adversarial, and that only works for the purposes of maintaining transmisogyny). Really, though, if they were going through the same issues with, say, representation of race, or of addressing ableism, they would reach out, I would hope, to women in the community who can speak to those issues first hand. The lack of any movement or open discussion of including trans women as equal members of this community makes me feel like that idea scares them and they're hoping we'll go away.
Gudbuytjane,
I'm in board with everything you are saying and agree with the sentiment of your tone except for one thing. Please do not use woc as a comparative. I'm sure you do not mean it to be offensive but is is offending me. With respect, you have no idea what feministing would or would not do wrt POC issues on this site. Plenty of WOC feel plenty of frustration over threads, issues and comments on feministing and within the wider feminist community.
Saying things like 'they would deal with it if it was a race issue' is basically silencing all of the frustrations that many WOC constantly feel and deal with. You actually don't have the right to do that. It's also getting a bit close to the oppression olympics - again, you don't speak for WOC or their experiences, or the feministing editors to be honest so I think you should stick to your (excellent) point without coopting and potentially misrepresenting other marginalised groups.
If you want to compare specific events - they did x and not y, then fine. Otherwise please be as sensitive to other people's identity as you would like people to be with your own. Irony is that your post is (correctly) identifying the need for people from a particular group to be representing that group's experiences.
I haven't heard it called "vagina music" before, but I have heard it referred to as "Title IX Music".
On the other hand, I think most of the hostility is towards the singer/songwriter style of music, since dude who call Tori Amos (for example) "Title IX Music" also hate James Taylor, Air Supply, boy bands and Coldplay.
http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll54/lamfarts/?action=view¤t=8319bb23.flv
However they do like Heart, Pat Benatar and Garbage because they "rock".
That Newsweek article on evolutionary psychology is GREAT, thanks for sharing it!
I agree. As a scientist I appreciate how hard it can be to write on science topics for the general public but I thought this was very well done.
There was only one small thing that bugged me. And it really is small. "women mature earlier than men" this (according to a New Scientist article I read circa about 2003) is true in terms of physical development but not mental development. Men's and women's brain development occurs at the same rate on average. The differences in apparent maturity of boys and girls can be ascribed to the rest of us treating them differently based on their appearance.
What have you all been reading/writing this week?
Oh my goodness PLEASE FELLOW FEMINISTS>>someone else has to check out the worst book I have ever read in my life "The Lie." by Chad Kultgen. He is a master of descriptions of spermatozoa. Author of "The average American Male" which I can only imagine.
I would return it but for two reasons: I want to write an equivalent novel entitled "the fact" because my guess is that ANYONE can have their books published (apparently...) AND also I'd devised a little game when reading every third chapter--narrated by the female character--where I circle and then tally how many many times the word "Like" is used. Try to beat my high score: Like 109 in like less than like ten like pages! No lie!
So, I guess I'm the only one who thought the "vagina music" article was going to be about queefing. I'm gonna go ponder what that says about me...
I'd like to make a comment on this one: "In Missouri, "a husband who consents to his wife's insemination with donor semen is the father of the child she conceives" -- but that rule apparently does not apply to same-sex couples."
I'm not sure this is so clear cut. I have no issue with adoption of children by gay couples but the idea of using science to grant women a privilege over men that nature doesn't afford them doesn't sit right with me.
We are in an age where we are fighting to involve fathers more in the lives of their children and have them take responsibility. In this climate is it really good to pre-emptively reduce the role of men in a child's life to that of 'anonymous sperm donor'?
If a gay couple (or a single man, etc.) want to have a child then they have to engage with a surrogate on a personal level, and at the end of the pregnancy there is no guarantee that the mother will be held by most legal systems to any prior agreement.
Yet, reproductive technology designed to help couples where one partner has a physical medical condition is allowing an erasure of any father in the child's life without any contact between the biological parents.
I understand that these men have donated their sperm freely but should they be allowed to under these circumstances? After all it takes relatively few men to agree to these circumstances for it to become a realistic option for the majority of women. In any other circumstance a man is held accountable for the child that is his. The only exception being where another male takes that responsibility, or where legal adoption takes place. Allowing men the opportunity to biologically father a child without any measure of responsibility to be taken by men seems to set a dangerous precedent - one that we are desperately fighting in other areas.
I don't know. I know this is a tricky issue, I just can't get my head around the inhumanity of a societal validation of eliminating men from the child rearing process pre-emptively. It seems like we are artificially giving women more power in the one area where they already have institutionalised power.
Would someone care to comment? Has this been covered before somewhere?
Eeek. Sorry about the triple post. It just wouldn't come up on my browser. If a moderator would care to fix that, I'd be grateful. Post a reply to the first one btw.
the idea of using science to grant women a privilege over men that nature doesn't afford them
What? The article is saying that men have the right to legally choose to support children of inseminations, but women don't and male samesex couples don't. Where's the privilege?
Usually, (I would think) men who donate, probably go into it with no intent upon parenting that child.
We are in an age where we are fighting to involve fathers more in the lives of their children and have them take responsibility.
>>>Isn't that tragic that we are having to fight? Or as you put it: "HAVE THEM take on responsibility" Can't men be expected to take their own responsibility for actions anymore?
I live in St. Louis I think it is another normal day in the family courts of missouri. This might be one of the last states to institute any gay rights pro-family initiative, it is very sad to say.
It's equally true to say we are fighting for fathers to help them become more involved in the lives of their children. Both groups exist. But really it's one and the same thing, the problem as I see it is that parenting is not socialised in men to the same degree as it is in women. Different men react to this in different ways. Some accept their programming and skip out on children. Some reject it, and fight their employers and in the courts for a lifestyle more entwined with parenthood.
That men are able to consider playing a part in conceiving a child with no intent to parent is part of the problem. Usually anyone with this attitude must at least consider that they will be held financially responsible. No where else is this an option, legally, for anyone male or female.
There are other problems too. The men who go into these programs are usually told that they are helping a couple with a physical incapacity. Rarely is it suggested to them that they are playing a part in annexing men from the parenting process. Even when they do consider this possibility, is it acceptable to them because they think women are intrinsically capable of being parents?
Biologically a female and a male are required to conceive a child. The privilege I was thinking of is in this context. Lesbian women and gay men are perfectly acceptable adoptive parents. The problem isn't with who adopts but how the conception is managed. A mother who wants to give her child up for adoption first has to see it, yet there is no equivalent for males who artificially inseminate. They are given no chance to identify with their child and indeed encouraged not to ever think of the child as theirs, worse not even told they have one, encouraged not to think they do.
It's the combination of the impersonality of the male role in this process along with the reinforcement of the idea that women are default parents that I find difficult to accept.
That should be ...more intrinsically capable...
I'd like to make a comment on this one: "In Missouri, "a husband who consents to his wife's insemination with donor semen is the father of the child she conceives" -- but that rule apparently does not apply to same-sex couples."
I'm not sure this is so clear cut. I have no issue with adoption of children by gay couples but the idea of using science to grant women a privilege over men that nature doesn't afford them doesn't sit right with me.
We are in an age where we are fighting to involve fathers more in the lives of their children and have them take responsibility. In this climate is it really good to pre-emptively reduce the role of men in a child's life to that of 'anonymous sperm donor'?
If a gay couple (or a single man, etc.) want to have a child then they have to engage with a surrogate on a personal level, and at the end of the pregnancy there is no guarantee that the mother will be held by most legal systems to any prior agreement.
Yet, reproductive technology designed to help couples where one partner has a physical medical condition is allowing an erasure of any father in the child's life without any contact between the biological parents.
I understand that these men have donated their sperm freely but should they be allowed to under these circumstances? After all it takes relatively few men to agree to these circumstances for it to become a realistic option for the majority of women. In any other circumstance a man is held accountable for the child that is his. The only exception being where another male takes that responsibility, or where legal adoption takes place. Allowing men the opportunity to biologically father a child without any measure of responsibility to be taken by men seems to set a dangerous precedent - one that we are desperately fighting in other areas.
I don't know. I know this is a tricky issue, I just can't get my head around the inhumanity of a societal validation of eliminating men from the child rearing process pre-emptively. It seems like we are artificially giving women more power in the one area where they already have institutionalised power.
Would someone care to comment? Has this been covered before somewhere?
I'd like to make a comment on this one: "In Missouri, "a husband who consents to his wife's insemination with donor semen is the father of the child she conceives" -- but that rule apparently does not apply to same-sex couples."
I'm not sure this is so clear cut. I have no issue with adoption of children by gay couples but the idea of using science to grant women a privilege over men that nature doesn't afford them doesn't sit right with me.
We are in an age where we are fighting to involve fathers more in the lives of their children and have them take responsibility. In this climate is it really good to pre-emptively reduce the role of men in a child's life to that of 'anonymous sperm donor'?
If a gay couple (or a single man, etc.) want to have a child then they have to engage with a surrogate on a personal level, and at the end of the pregnancy there is no guarantee that the mother will be held by most legal systems to any prior agreement.
Yet, reproductive technology designed to help couples where one partner has a physical medical condition is allowing an erasure of any father in the child's life without any contact between the biological parents.
I understand that these men have donated their sperm freely but should they be allowed to under these circumstances? After all it takes relatively few men to agree to these circumstances for it to become a realistic option for the majority of women. In any other circumstance a man is held accountable for the child that is his. The only exception being where another male takes that responsibility, or where legal adoption takes place. Allowing men the opportunity to biologically father a child without any measure of responsibility to be taken by men seems to set a dangerous precedent - one that we are desperately fighting in other areas.
I don't know. I know this is a tricky issue, I just can't get my head around the inhumanity of a societal validation of eliminating men from the child rearing process pre-emptively. It seems like we are artificially giving women more power in the one area where they already have institutionalised power.
Would someone care to comment? Has this been covered before somewhere?
Sharon Begley absolutely smashed that evo psych article out of the park. I have not seen a more well-researched, thoughtful, and accessible takedown of evo psych.