In DC and nine other states, insurance companies have claimed that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition.
What is the role of privileged white women in the reproductive justice movement?
Sean Lennon defends that Purple magazine photo.
Even Kleenexes are gendered now?
Cara and Amanda write about Tucker Max so we don't have to.
Does parenthood make women more liberal and men more conservative?
How the coverage of Chris Brown is bad for understanding abuse.
A new documentary on water rights and access in Michigan.
On the unconventional anti-sex-tourism activism of FEMEN, a women's rights group in Ukraine.
A Florida group wants to outlaw birth control, and the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the criminalization of sex toys.
Renowned coach C. Vivian Stringer enters the Basketball Hall of Fame.
Should the people who killed a white man for dating a black woman be charged with a hate crime?
A high school in Iowa strip-searched five teenage girls.
Tami on youth, aging, beauty, and the folly of chasing perfection.
What if colleges treated sexual assault as the public health epidemic it is? (And more from SarahMC.)
Hanging on to housing in one of New York's foreclosure-ridden neighborhoods.
The United Nations tackles the issue of financially surviving divorce.
How the Associated Press stylebook fails transgender people.
Did you know blogging is dominated by old men? Er, well Technorati says so.
Butch is "back"? Did it ever go away?
When you realize a historical feminist hero performed in blackface, can you still be inspired by the positive parts of her story?
Two new studies examine home birth vs. hospital birth.
Michelle Dean pleads, let Peggy be Peggy! (And, I might add, let Carla be Carla! And let Betty be Betty!)
On racial anxiety and right-wing opposition to Obama.
After 4 years of gay marriage, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
Newsflash: Women directors exist.
Submit to the Carnival of Feminists!
What are you all reading and 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/15972
Reminder: Adventures of a Young Feminist has MOVED! I can now be found at http://adventuresofayoungfeminist.com
Dollhouse on DVD: why I think Dollhouse is a feminist show.
Why I Don't Listen to Theory of a Deadman: a guest post from Miss Wizzle at feministhemes.com about the misogyny behind the band Theory of a Deadman.
An Observation: a guest post from Chally at Zero at the Bone about what her racial identity means to her and others.
In the Name of Honor: book review for Women's Studies Wednesday by Miss Wizzle of feministhemes.com.
Bones Examination: before the new season of Bones starts next week, I wanted to share my thoughts on the show.
A Watchmen Concern: a guest post from Amanda at The Undomestic Goddess about her reactions to the graphic novel of Watchmen prior to seeing the movie. Look for her reconceptualization after seeing the movie tomorrow for Movie Monday!
Glee: Series Premiere: my reactions to the series premiere of Glee.
I Want to Believe [Feminist Flashback Friday]: a look back at the feminism behind Dana Scully from the X-Files.
Great article on Dollhouse! Did you get a chance to watch the unaired pilot that was scrapped (it's on disc 4 under the extras link)? I thought it was far better because a) it did not contain that gratuitous opening scene with Echo in a too-short-to-be-real dress, and b) a lot of the ethical themes were actually voiced by the characters to get the ball rolling on how we're supposed to engage with this story, something that didn't really happen in the actual aired episodes until the episode Man On The Street. I also really liked the idea of the pro bono outings, and I thought that the episode answered many questions that the aired episodes never really did.
I don't listen to Theory Of A Deadman because they're a poor man's Nickelback.
And Nickelback already sucks.
Seriously, I like the occasional Nickelback song, but there is not a ToaD song in circulation today that will not get me out of bed to turn off my clock radio and start my day.
I read a new article today, about Diablo Cody's views on Jennifer's Body and how it deals with female sexuality and teenaged girls.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN1232783320090913
re: liberal moms and conservative dads
The answer is simple: being a Dad means being a provider for his family, therefore any resources that he earns himself, he would like to go to his own family, not someone else's family.
Athenia,
That is the most bizarre comment I've read here in a while.
I'm a mom and 90% of my earnings, if not more, go to the raising of my child. Food, shelter, clothing, future education-
it takes up most of my earnings.
When he was in primary school, my clothing choices were affected as well, so really, more than 90% if you look at the indirect as well as direct spending.
I'm a mom, I earn money and spend it, it does not make me a political conservative. Being a parent has made me realize how much we are all connected. The butterfly effect is more obvious to me now and that feeds my commitment to the (liberal) cause.
As for the article and the men it speaks of, I think it is an opinion, not a scientifically researched fact. I also speculate that it is about "white" middle class men.
I couldn't get to the article due to Salon's ridiculous ad that wouldn't go away when I clicked the x.
Middle Class "white" men tend to revert to how they were raised, once they leave college.
Hence the term "commitment to the cause"
It was started in the 60's when many who left college also left their liberal beliefs and lifestyles behind. they weren't committed, so when family pressure leaned conservatively, the fell back into it.
to paraphrase John Sinclair, Activist, Poet, Musicologist, "...not everyone was a real hippie in the activist sense of the word...a lot of 'em were there for the sex, drugs n rock n roll..."
Well, that's what I mean. These white middle class men's identity as Dad is wrapped up in a traditional definition of a provider---I worked for it, it's my money and I'm the best person to spend it, not the government. That's the conservative creed. And having kids kicks in that tradtional definition....which is probably not be the same for working women.
I suppose I gave it a biological evolutionary spin to it which is always a gray area---I didn't mean it as completely cut and dry despite my "simple answer" cavet.
Then you're not talking about all"dads" - just upper class White dads.
It would help if you were clearer, rather than just projecting you're opinion of the attitudes of that narrow male demographic onto all men, of all races and classes, who have children.
The 1950's "provider dad" thing is not the reality of how most men live today - most married guys have wives who work and who are as important a "breadwinner" as the husband is.
Any comment that starts off with "the answer is simple" makes me raise an eyebrow and boy did this one not disappoint.
As an anecdote, my sister and brother-in-law were the exact opposite once they had their kid. And he is the bread winner in that union.
Considering that the majority of the married men in the United States are not stay-at-home Dads (although I don't know that as a fact, just an educated guess), that might have something to do with the studies' results.
Not sure what the studied said about the differences about the differences in politics between stay at home parents in regards to gender--but the article suggested that working moms would see the benefit in day care or government assistance--which I'm guessing the men are working as well or not helping enough.
But I'd even argue even if the mom is the breadwinner of the family---her identity isn't necessarily wrapped up in being the "provider" just the ambiguious "being a good mom." Perhaps something different about experence depending on the gender.
Yes, generalizations do not account for every individual.
Hence, the concept of generalizations.
Duly noted. :)
My husband is a stay-at-home Dad. I am the working parent. 100% of my earnings go to my family. I have not become more conservative. Of course, based upon your comment, I am a man and my husband is a woman. Funny thing is, I'm still the one that got pregnant.
Athenia was trying to think of an explanation why the researcher showed what it did.
A phenomenon can be described as being made up of 'factors'. There can be many factors that describe the causation of a phenomenon. Some are synergistic, some are antagonistic.
There are also several 'causal mechanism' that could be at play. Also they can be synergistic, antagonistic, or even spurious.
When you put it all together you try and create an academic model to describe what is going on. With some math you can say your model describes 85% of why something happens, or sometimes 50%, sometimes the model needs to be junked.
So supposing Athenia model describes 85% of the variation in political views of working fathers... you could still have your views... because you are not a working father, and Athenia made no comment about working mothers.
You might need a different model to describe the beliefs of working mothers.
Thanks Steven, I couldn't have said it better myself!
Yeah, that's the funny thing about generalizations and trends---it explains a *trend* (which isn't a certainty at it is) for A LOT of people, but it doesn't take into account for every individual.
My comment was caught up in SPAM for so long that the original commenter's intent was clarified long before it showed up. Apologies...
What?? 100% of your earnings go to your family??
You don't pay taxes?? Where do you live! I must move there!
Actually, I was surprised the study didn't have the same results for women---women becoming more conservative. I thought as everyone gets older, everyone gets more conservative.
Plus, I'm talking more fiscally conservative. I wonder if the study was talking more socially conservative.
100% of my take home pay, thank you. The original entry seemed to say...well, it's been clarified since I posted. I am going to assume you are being funny, not snarky. You have to admit that the original posting seemed to be making a sweeping generalization that ignored many people's actual reality. If my comment had showed up when made, it would not have seemed so odd. Thanks.
If only being fiscally conservative and socially liberal were possible in this political climate (or at all). In my humble opinion, true social liberalism is not possible without fiscal liberalism. Without the support from the state for low-income mothers to get an education or start a career, many simply won't, not because they don't want to. I despise the term "nanny state" being used as an insult to liberals. Conservative and conservative-leaning men would understand that the "nanny state" isn't such a bad thing if they had to do all the nannying while receiving no thanks or support from the state.
I've gotten a lot more radical as I got older (I'm a lot further to the far left now at 41 than I was at 17 or 25 or 30) - and I don't think I'm the only person who's like that.
So no, not "everyone" gets more conservative as they get older!
And, as a rule, it's a really bad idea to think in broad brush stereotypes.
"I'm still the one that got pregnant."
The study didn't mention if they looked at couples who adopted, and if their attitudes matched that of biological parents.
Every biological mother I have ever met always linked parenting to pregnancy, to them it's the biggest "investment", not the monetary support. As opposed to conservative fathers who consider providership their greatest contribution/investment.
We also have an adopted child and I don't think it's changed how either of us thought of things. Being a stay-at-home Dad has definitely made my all ready liberal husband more so. But being the "bread winner" has had no effect on my beliefs. Then again, I was not RAISED to define myself through that. As panned out in the clarified comments, there is little info here and the issue is much more complicated than what was presented.
Tyra, Natural Hair Does Not Include A Relaxer: Looking at Tara's pronouncement that she would reveal her natural hair to the world.
Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Have Sex: AIDS is a Mass Murderer: Looking at a safe sex campaign in Germany.
Women workers are powerful: Looking at how the economy has effected women workers.
Caster Semenya Has Been Declared Intersex: Looking at the ways in which the media has treated Caster.
I keep thinking that it's impossible for Tyra to be more delusional and yet she meets the challenge again and again...
1) Caster Semenya has not yet been 'declared' anything. The rumors out there are just that - rumors.
2) IF ( and again I stress the IF) this is a medical situation of 'retractile testis' or 'cryptorchidism' - as opposed to other more complex biological situations - then this is not by itself an intersex condition. Cismales with these conditions are no less male than any other male.
3) Given that 'cryptorchidism' is not all THAT rare - or hard to diagnose - unless accompanied with the statistically rarer biology of hypospadias or micropenis (which may be considered intersex - although given the range of biology individuals may vary) I personally suspect the situation is more complex. But I also KNOW that the situation is none of my business.
4) Caster Semenya has also made no personal declarations as to her ( or perhaps his - we must wait and see) individual choices or sex and/or gender.
5) IMO? Declaring that Caster Semenya MUST identify as female is as much an imposition as declaring that she( currrently and legally she) can not be a woman. It's an individual choice, that is going to be made by the individual.
6) If there is a problem here it is that of very dubious medical care. I would have thought that such a physical profession would have come with better medical oversight. Now I wonder what other conditions are ignored or waved away because the 'performance' is all that matters to the coaches/managers/promoters.
Not that Kind of Fundamentalist Memoir
Carlene Bauer lost her faith, but it wasn’t because she was raised on the far-right fringe of fundamentalist religion—it was more that she thought God deserved better than the clichés of modern evangelicalism.
India’s Most Fatal Cancer is Preventable
Taking the lives of 75,000 women each year, cervical cancer is the leading cause of death for women in India. This number accounts for a third of all cancers that affect women in India and a fifth of the total cervical cancer related deaths worldwide. With 132,000 new reported cases in India annually, this disease is having catastrophic effects on the developing world.
The parenthood article doesn't make it clear if they found a correlation or a causal relationship.
It would be interesting to know if they established that individuals who had children actually developed more conservative attitudes or if people with children were just more liberal or conservative than their childless counterparts.
It could be that liberalism makes women want to have children and conservatism makes men want to have children. It could also be that having money makes men more conservative and makes them have more children.
I don't think the article did anything beyond describing that the phenomenon exist.
Sometimes the research process is
1) Prove some phenomenon exist... to jusify future research and a larger source of money.
2) Find out why the phenomenon
Right now, with no longitudinal (time) component to the study, no demographic, martial status, religiosity, or regional breakdown of the sample population we have know idea what the rival plausible explanations would be.
There could be a lot of liberal women that happen to marry conservative men. Maybe liberal men don't marry their partners. Maybe since the study was done by a North Carolina university the population examined was only North Carolina voters.
We don't know, because we don't have the whole article.
There is room for every tin-hat theorist with a pet cause to throw in their two cents.
This week at the Bitch blogs...
Fashion and Fundraising with The Uniform Project, one Indian woman is drawing attention to the need for quality education for children living in the slums of her homeland with one little black dress
Are They God?, Caster Semenya's situation highlights the absurdity of discreet gender categorization
Lost In Space, the plight of Papercut Zine Library's unfortunate loss of space due to the poor economy
Three Times the Fun? Or Just Sloppy Thirds?, thoughts about threesomes
Sally Potter is All the Rage, the creation of "naked cinema"
Will Ellen DeGeneres Make "American Idol" A Gayer Place?, the impact of queer visibility
Chesapeake Necklace: Moonrise Jewelry had me at hello. The woman-owned and operated, Virginia-based, eco-friendly company doesn't simply produce amazing jewelry; they "design, manufacture, and sell high-quality handmade jewelry while adhering to values that contribute to a stronger and healthier global community." Are you in love yet? Because it gets better.
Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes: I know a man who wears boots, shaves his face, urinates standing up, fucks women (his term), and still sometimes menstruates. In Between XX and XY independent researcher Gerald N. Callahan briefly and tidily introduces the flaws, silences, and prejudices of the Western sex-binary system expressed as male:masculine:man::female:feminine:woman.
The Women's Room: Marilyn French’s The Women's Room, first published in 1977 and republished this year (a re-release ironically in the works before French’s death last May), has been touted as one of the most influential novels of the second wave of feminism. The book reads like a combination of a personal journal and a traditional novel. It is the most intense, real, and painful story I have ever read.
This week in Evil Slutopia:
~September's issue of Marie Claire has a short fluff piece about a "modesty" and "character formation" group for teen girls called Pure Fashion. They don't mention how problematic the "purity" aspect of the program is for young women, or the fact that the Catholic group that backs Pure Fashion is pretty controversial, especially where its dealings with young people are concerned: "Pure" Fashion?
~Lots of sex talk, mostly thanks to reading Cosmo's goofy sex advice - we're talking handjobs and learning about how to touch him there...and there. We've also got a roundup of Cosmo Quickies for September.
~Our True Blood obsession continues: Bloody Love and Twilight Ruined Everything!
~Our tale of attending Kathy Griffin's packed NYC signing for her new book Official Book Club Selection.
Interesting article on an original approach to anti-sex-tourism in Ukraine. Though this disappointed me:
Natalia: Would you describe yourselves as a feminist organization?
Anna: No. We use eroticism in our approach and our dress. That’s not sanctioned by feminists
Its frustrating how the stereotype still exists that feminism constitutes a certain rigid, unchangeable set of principles. Liberals will disagree with liberals and still call themselves liberals, same with conservatives, why should it be any different with feminism?
I actually liked that interview. I think they have the right idea over all and find the use of their bodies as protest fine because it is directly related to one of their main points, that a person has a right to dress how they want without harassment or abuse from another person.
GREGORYABUTLER10031-
I don't think they are saying that people can't look at or appreciate someone else when they are dressed provocatively or otherwise, just that that doesn't give anyone the right to be rude or treat less then human.
The interviewee definitely had some mis-perceptions about western feminists and some xenophobic attitudes about men from other cultures as well but I think overall, she had the right idea and all it would take for her to change her mind would probably be a little exposure real feminists. I think it is great that these women are being activists to address some very serious problems, and I think it is also good that they're solution isn't to shame the sex workers.
Interesting article on an original approach to anti-sex-tourism in Ukraine. Though this disappointed me:
Natalia: Would you describe yourselves as a feminist organization?
Anna: No. We use eroticism in our approach and our dress. That’s not sanctioned by feminists
Its frustrating how the stereotype still exists that feminism constitutes a certain rigid, unchangeable set of principles. Liberals will disagree with liberals and still call themselves liberals, same with conservatives, why should it be any different with feminism?
They come across like a Ukrainian version of PETA.
It's counterintuitive in the extreme for them to protest against sex tourism while wearing lingerie.
Apparently, the "logic" at work here is that it's OK for them to wear sexualized clothing in public, but it's forbidden for male tourists to have a sexual reaction to them (especially Turkish men - the FEMEN spokeswoman seemed to be really offended at the thought of men from Turkey reacting sexually to Ukrainian women - a bit of anti Islamic racism at work, perhaps?)
Apparently, FEMEN is against sex work and is opposed to male tourists being sexually active in their county - but it's OK for them to parade around flaunting their sexuality in the faces of those men, who are not supposed to react.
That totally makes no sense at all to me.
???????????: new awareness campaign shames women, and for some reason uses having sex with murderous dictators as an analogy of contracting AIDs.
When gender is enforced: more on Semenya's makeover.
Fuzz Therapy: this week i demonstrate the proper technique.
Dead bodies having sex--oh noooeeesss!: Body World's latest exhibit is drawing harsh criticism.
Over at After cancer now what I posted my bitchy response to the Independent Women's Forum . And I would like to complain about their name too. Sounds like a groups that readers of this blog would love but it's a scam!
There's also Health Care and Firefighting which has been more popular than I expected.
Thanks for everything you do here!
There's a woman from the Independent Woman's Forum that is a regular on the liberal Thom Hartmann show (he always has on a conservative to debate). She is a very right-wing person. Good pointing out that this organization is the opposite of what you'd think it is.
Does anybody seriously believe that 15 black guys beating a white guy with the intention to kill him because he is dating a black woman ISN'T a hate crime?
I think part of the problem is some have adopted the rational that
racism = prejudice + power
So minority groups cannot be racist.
Which is a sentiment I completely disagree with.
It is an intellectual slight of hand that allows some to justify or minimize their own hatred and racism.
Because if you strip away all of the social, a racist white person and a racist anything else in this country have a lot in common when it comes to whats in their heads and hearts.
Well, racism does = prejudice + power.
Outside of a few exceptional circumstances like this, when do Black men ever have power over White men as a group?
Never.
Sorry Steven, your race privilege is showing.
No, racism is discrimination based on race. There are black racists, just as there are female sexists. Unless you would like to argue that only the dominant group can be discriminatory?
Racism doesn't exert much power or change coming from someone whose position puts them on the bottom, but that doesn't preclude them from being discriminatory.
It's hardly an example of privilege to point out that the definition you're using is incorrect.
It isn't incorrect, it is a different and much debated definition of racism.
At first I too was uncomfortable with the idea that minorities could not be racist, as I have seen many minorities act hateful towards another person for no real reason other than their race. But when I researched this definition more (the racism = prejudice + power definition) I started to understand.
I wouldn't call one definition incorrect and the other correct. Like I said, it is a heavily debated topic.
I think there is a important distinction between saying something is the definition of racism and something is a definition of racism.
(but I am still opposed to the definition racism = prejudice + power. I reiterate... there is a natural human reaction to adopt belief system or philosophical position that legitimize, justifies, or minimizes someones faults, and this definition of racism does that all to well).
Black men are not a unified group, nor are white men, I have no idea why that is difficult for people to understand. Whats more racism doesn't even require power, it only requires bigotry. You could find the most powerless person in the entire world, and that person could still be a bigot whether they're a racist, a sexist, etc.
You might need some manner of power to transform racism into discrimination, but to suggest that there needs to be some broad based power is ridiculous. Localized power and individual power are quite real and quite capable of causing discrimination and in this case, hate crimes.
The ability to beat someone down does not constitute an 'exceptional circumstance.'
It really is not that hard just one person (never mind 12) to grab a bat and run up on someone.
Also, it does not take 'exceptional' circumstances for someone to use their racism for the worst.
A supervisor that is racist could make someones life hell. Women in the feministing community report being cat-called then called stuck up white bitches.
One should not get fixated on 'exceptional' racism... there is enough 'mundane' racism out there as it is.
My brother is engaged to a black woman. People that know the the bride to be laugh and wish they could have seen her fathers face when 1)she started to date that white boy and 2) when he found out they were getting married.
I have had breakfast or lunch out with them and seen black men just staring at us, obviously pissed off that she is going out with him.
I have gone out shopping with her to help her buy stuff for him and have got the same thing.
There are a lot of racist black dudes out there.
I'd imagine a lot of people do.
My standard is: if it's considered a hate crime when X does it to Y because of who/what they are, Y doing it to X for the same reasons is just as much a hate crime...
I feel that this comment posted over at Danielle Belton's The Black Snob needs repeating; "black women are not the property of the community".
The bigot's traditional war cry of "but *they're* taking *our* women" is just so much racism/prejudice wrapped up in misogyny, a sense of entitlement to "their" women (and by extension their bodies) and topped off with the view that women are objects available to be taken, apparently incapable of acting under their own agency.
i agree completely. i'd just add that in the black community the ownership factor is stronger among black women, who proclaim black men are theirs more vocally than black men claim blk women belong to them
the ownership factor is stronger among black women who proclaim black men are theirs more vocally than black men claim blk women belong to them
Well at least there is some logic and data behind this. Black women have the lowest marriage rates of all hetero demographics, even lower than black men who have increasingly opted to partner with other ethnic groups. And with 70% of kids born to single mothers, whose partners chose or are unable to stick around (jail or dead), I think some griping is understandable.
And to really understand ownership from a woman's perspective, we should go to the source---the patriarchal church.
This week on Gender Across Borders:
Impoverished Men Sell Wives in Uttar Pradesh
Men aren’t the only ones maximizing their reproductive fitness…or are they?
Sleepless and Childless in Seoul—Persistent Birthrate Decline Calls For New Approach
September's SRHR (Sexual and Reproductive Health Report): Abortion in the Dominican Republic
Are home births safe?---What do you think?
Sex, Gender, and the Non-Elite Athlete: some thoughts about what it might mean to those of us who were never champions if they stopped dividing sports by gender.
Well, I gotta say, the author of that Sean Lennon bit wrote some pretty vague, useless questions: “People are saying that that photo of you and your girlfriend in Purple is offensive.” “A lot of people said some really hurtful things about you.” Um, no, people were criticizing him for very specific reasons, such as that his photo simply follows in the footsteps of the sexist visual tradition of the naked available woman, but your dumbass questions about how “people thought the photo was offensive” are so un-specific that anyone reading this brief interview would never know.
I agree. He didn't actually defend the photo at all, really. He just said what we already know: that he thinks it's fine and doesn't think people should get upset about it. He didn't give any actual reasons though, and with the questions the interviewer asked, I can see how he managed to evade any specificity whatsoever.
Is there anything we can do to stop the classification of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition in the 9 states? Are there any groups working around this issue?
This is something really important to me and I want to take action ASAP.
I have no doubt that Obama's reforms would try to rectify this in the future, but for many women who need healthcare now, it will come too late.
I'm getting really tired of the frenzy surrounding strip searches. If it was reasonable for me to think that someone stole $100 from me, I'd sure as hell make sure no one was hiding it in her bra. Furthermore, I have never seen an article bemoaning the humiliation that a male endured because he had to remove his clothes in front of a bunch of men...seriously, it's like people think young girls are so pure and modest that being naked in front of other women will somehow scar them.