Change.org's Women's Rights Blog

The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough: Marriage Myths Galore

Sarah Menkedick — 2010-02-09T16:05:00-08:00

There's something tragic about Lori Gottlieb. Not the fact that she wrote an Atlantic article and later a book based on the assumption that any single woman who hits thirty is desperate to get married and start a family; not the fact that her abhorrent Atlantic piece exhorted women to settle now and start a family with "Mr. Good Enough"; not the fact that she sees herself as the only voice of reason in a sea of backwards feminist theory that harms women's innate desires for a husband and children; and not the fact that she has been justifiably vilified by feminists the world over. No.

It's the fact that her book, "Marry Him: The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough," and her whole resigned, martyred persona represent the ongoing and very much alive misconception that marriage, motherhood, and feminism are always at odds with each other.

Sure, you can see the ancient wisdom in her arguments. Of course it might be counter-intuitive to disregard a loving, passionate partner because he's named "Sheldon." Of course the search for perfection, for the (loathe saying it) "fairy tale" romantic comedy dream we're fed so often by Hollywood might not be healthy in the long term. And in the context of what the media wants to tell us about relationships -- that they are fairy tales, full of bubbly sweet passion and pseudo-disputes resolved with wine and flowers -- her argument sort of makes sense. Relationships are hard. They might not be perfect. Marriage, in particular, is a long and tricky road to navigate. As it happens, Elizabeth Gilbert manages to make this same point without pointing the finger at single women everywhere and calling them liars if they don't fess up to craving a husband and a baby.

But Gottlieb can't simply stop with exploring the intricacies of marriage and the pressure women feel related to it. She has to take on feminism as an institution, setting up the same bored false paradox between the feminist/raging/self-destructively demanding single woman and the resigned/tricked by feminism/"traditional" married mother who has seen the light.

The Guardian has gotten on board with this by reinforcing the feminism vs. Gottlieb and feminism vs. marriage dichotomy, setting up feminists as reactive raging crusaders attacking the poor Gottlieb -- who was only acknowledging the truth after all. So has the New York Times, by painting successful single women as agents of their own destruction, making themselves unmarriagable in their success. There is nothing new here, really. It's just that Gottlieb has managed to rather artlessly exacerbate the same old debates.

How long will it have to fight before it's accepted that feminists can get married and have babies and work and perhaps also look for a husband who isn't simply a prop in the "infrastructure" of a family? This isn't even "having it all," Lori Gottlieb. It's just what men have gotten for thousands of years -- the expectation of finding a loving partner, and perhaps starting a family and a life together, and getting to work and be successful and feel fulfilled as well. And it isn't inherently opposed to feminism. But damn, it does serve your book sales well to court the mainstream media and the public's anti-feminist tendencies by staking it out that way.

That's what makes this book tragic: it forces feminists to make spot-on critiques of it because it's so erroneous and ridiculous, yet Gottlieb becomes the media darling standing up to those mean feminists in denial. And the same old false are dichotomies perpetuated over and over.

Photo credit: WTL Photos

Military to Make Plan B Available in All Treatment Facilities

Brandann Hill-Mann — 2010-02-09T12:03:00-08:00

A huge victory has been won for women in uniform, and I don't mind saying that a wash of relief and satisfaction washed over me when I read the headlines.

The military is implementing the recommendation of the Pentagon's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, an advisory panel made up of medical professionals from the military services, that Plan B (the brand name for levonorgestrel, a.k.a. the "Morning After" pill) be made available in every military treatment facility.

Until now, the over-the-counter medication has been available in many, but not all, military pharmacies. Since it hadn't been made mandatory in TRICARE formularies, a servicewoman wasn't guaranteed access to emergency contraception. This has been a major issue for equality for women in the military, especially with Upper Brass making slanted policies that impact women soldiers' careers while being dismissive of the need for such medications.

This has been a champion cause of mine, for a long time. Normally I write with a feeling of grinding against an almost immovable wall, or as a role model of mine says, moving an ocean with a teaspoon. Today I write with great pride in my heart that this stride forward has been made for women in uniform.

While this is a moment of celebration, we cannot let up. We must press forward, and remind Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and other top leaders, that the victory needs to be solidified, so we don't lose this ground. Women in uniform need access to emergency contraception to ensure that when life takes unexpected turns, they still hold their options in their own hands. The military needs to take steps to ensure that each and every women has this option secured.

Photo credit: *mb**

New Hampshire Women Want to Be Included in the Constitution

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-09T09:40:00-08:00

You let women get a little power, and what happens? They want to rewrite the whole constitution!

Good for them.

In the United States Senate, women fill less than a fifth of the seats. Pitiful. On the other hand, New Hampshire broke new ground in the 2008 election by voting a female majority into the state Senate, making it the first state in the nation to upset the tradition of male dominance. And women want the state constitution to recognize that they are here: proposed legislation would replace constitutional references to men with gender-neutral language, starting at the top, with "All men are born equally free and independent," according to the Boston Globe. Seems like a reasonable request. Lets see what reason the critics come up with!

First up to bat, we have the defense of the constitution as a sacred tradition that it would be wrong to fiddle with. It's not like the writers of the constitution provided for a way in which the document could be altered to reflect changing needs and justice, right? Oh wait, did they mean the sacred tradition of institutionalized sexism?

Well then, what about the beautiful music of the text? Republican Representative Jordan Ulery, argues, "There is a lyric quality, a literary quality, that expresses the ideals of the founding fathers. The bland gray socialist language just destroys all that."

Sorry -- when did we go from gender equality to socialism? Seems like Republicans see socialists everywhere these day. But I think Ulery is on to something: clearly, when the founding fathers wrote about men being equal and free they were doing it primarily to fit the rhythm of the verse, not for the actual content of the statement. I guess "people" just doesn't fit the syllable count there.

A similar 2008 bill crashed and burned when critics cried "political correctness!" and claimed "that the word he is accepted as a generic term in everything from laws to the Bible." Of course, women had to fight for a century and get their own amendment to the United States Constitution before those "generic" laws were applied to their rights. And don't even get me started on the Bible. Pointing to a tradition of institutionalized sexism is not a good excuse for continuing institutionalized sexism. The fact is, male pronouns used to be used for just about everything because just about everything referred to men. (In the non-gender neutral, penis carrying sense of the term.)

The final argument: we don't have time for this, there's other shit to get done. Well, if you stopped wasting time with arguments about how pretty the constitution sounds, you could wrap this up a lot faster.

Photo credit: Mr. T in DC

On One Florida Corner, "12th & Delaware" Finds Microcosm of Abortion Battle

Ruth Fertig — 2010-02-09T07:00:00-08:00

Last week I had the privilege of watching some truly amazing documentaries at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. "12th & Delaware," directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady ("The Boys of Baraka," "Jesus Camp"), explores the battle raging on a Fort Pierce, Florida corner where an abortion clinic and a pro-life pregnancy center sit across the street from each other.

Just before daybreak, a single pro-life protester awaits the arrival of an abortion provider to the clinic. When she sees him coming -- covered in a white sheet, sitting in the passenger seat of a bright yellow Mustang -- she lets loose a steady stream of supplications and accusations that continues until the car is safely inside the garage. "You don't have to do this." "Think of your grandchildren." "Shame on you." Throughout the film, we will see different permutations of this opening scene over and over again: protesters openly accosting clinic workers and clients, who hide behind jackets, curtains, and security cameras, their safety and privacy compromised.

Inside the abortion clinic, the covered up clients become real women, each with a different story and different reasons for being there. Some feel they're too young to have a baby, others too old, others too financially unstable. As they consult with the clinic counselor, the women often agonize over their decision to end their pregnancies, even when certain it is the right decision to make.

Across the street at the pregnancy center, we find similarly conflicted women facing a different ordeal: hearing from the center counselor that their risk of breast cancer and infertility increases after having an abortion, seeing ultrasound images on top of which technicians type "hi mommy," receiving teary-eyed looks and stony silences when they express an inclination to abort. These women often come in to the center accidentally, mistaking it for the abortion clinic at which they had an appointment. The staff at the pregnancy center attempts to undermine the women's resolve to abort instead of redirecting them across the street.

I was blown away by the film's stunning access to all of this -- not only to the people who run the abortion clinic and the pregnancy center, not only to the zealous protesters who stand vigil there every day, but above all to the women arriving at 12th & Delaware seeking help. The film's power comes from its intimate -- and heartbreaking -- depiction of these women becoming, in Ewing and Grady's words, "pawns in a vicious ideological war with no end in sight." They are fed empty promises and outright lies, their private choices are publicized and judged, and strangers impede their pursuit of a perfectly legal procedure.

This documentary should serve as a wake-up call to women who take their reproductive freedoms for granted. It paints a bleak picture of crisis pregnancy centers as a dangerous front on the abortion battleground, a place where choice can be greatly diminished through inaccurate or incomplete counseling. The film begs the question, what good is the right to a legal abortion if protesters create an environment in which women are too intimidated to enter clinics and doctors are too scared to perform the procedure? We need to fight not only to increase women's access to safe abortion, but also to complete and factual information about all of their reproductive health options, in all of the places where they might seek guidance, from abortion clinics to adoption agencies to crisis pregnancy centers.

Photo courtesy of Loki Films

The Super Bowl: Double Standards and Fighting Against Choice

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-08T21:06:00-08:00

Super Bowl Sunday is over, but the advertisements live on around the internet. The misogyny certainly rolled; my fav is Dodge Charger's Man's Last Stand, which you can read a great Feministing commentary summing up. But since we've been chattering about Focus on the Family's Tim Tebow ad for a while now, I'll weigh in on that (hopefully) one last time.

The ad was surprisingly cutesy and innocuous (if also vague and confusing), but Michael Jones over on the Gay Rights blog writes that even though it turned out not to spell out the extreme anti-choice message FoF is famous for, CBS was still wrong to air the advocacy ad. From the beginning, Michael's concern was the organization behind the ad, a homophobic organization that calls same-sex marriage a perversion and thinks queer people will "destroy the Earth." The founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, has also suggested that abortion had a hand in 9/11.

With the content as aired, what still bothers me is the pesky little double standard that never went away -- in the past, CBS wouldn't add a United Church of Christ ad in support of diversity. Oh, wait, how convenient: once the network began taking heat for accepting an ad from an anti-choice, anti-queer group, they discovered policy had changed. Even Focus on the Family didn't know there had been an explicit policy change, as Dana Goldstein reported at The Daily Beast, quoting a FoF spokesperson: "It was only last week that they [CBS] indicated that they changed any policy." But, gosh, you already knew they were running your ad.

If you follow the commercial's goal and go to Focus on the Family's website, you can see a follow-up to the ad, where Mr. and Mrs. Tebow talk about praying for "Timmy," promising God they would raise him to be a preacher man to fight for aborted fetuses. Pam Tebow urges pregnant young women to go to (lying) crisis pregnancy centers, who will "encourage" them to make God's "choice." Bob Tebow tells women outright, "Don't kill your baby."

I truly appreciate one commentor's thoughts on Jezebel: "What bothers me is that the women who did not make it through a high-risk pregnancy can't come speak to us about that decision. ... Of course a success story means your decision was right - but those who weren't so lucky, are they satisfied with that outcome? Would they do it differently? We'll never know, will we? "

While I respect Pam's individual decision not to have an abortion, I also kind of think, how dare she and her husband tell other women what to do?

I don't respect the Tebows' decision to give support to an anti-choice organization, and thereby give support to taking away a woman's right to choose. It doesn't matter how overtly mild the ad on CBS was: Focus on the Family's intent is to turn back Roe v. Wade. Supporting them doesn't mean being pro-life; it means being anti-choice. If a woman in Pam's situation -- already a mother to four children, facing a life-threatening pregnancy -- chooses to have an abortion and not risk being taken away from her kids, that seems pro-family and pro-life to me. Who has the right to condemn or deny her choice?

Photo credit: acaben

Abercrombie and Fitch Dislikes Disabled, Non-White, Non-Thin Women

Sarah Menkedick — 2010-02-08T13:07:00-08:00

Here's to hoping that Abercrombie and Fitch is on the verge of a quick spiral into oblivion. The brand has earned a lovely reputation as a discriminator against Hispanics, Asians, African Americans and people with disabilities, and has been forced to settle lawsuit after lawsuit for its discriminatory and unfair unemployment practices.

It's hard to think of a store that more faithfully celebrates white, blond, excessively thin WASP-iness as a superior aesthetic and, indeed, a superior racial category. It does so with a "look policy" that stipulates how long employees' nails should be, how they should wear their hair, and how they should best represent the all-American (read: white, non-disabled, thin, young, blond) image.

Such a policy has been called out in a 2003 lawsuit by employees whose minimum wage earnings didn't allow them to buy Abercrombie clothes (Abercrombie settled for 2.2 million), in a 2005 lawsuit on the part of racial minorities discriminated against by the chain's hiring practices (Abercrombie settled for 50 million) and in a 2009 lawsuit by an employee who was spirited away to the stockroom because her disability wasn't all-American enough. In the last case, Riam Dean, a British law student taken off the shop floor after her prosthetic arm was discovered, won a whopping 25,000 pound lawsuit.

Where women are concerned, Abercrombie is all about perpetuating the unhealthy pursuit of thinness. A Jezebel writer talks about being in the inpatient unit of a hospital in treatment for anorexia next to a woman who was 40 lbs underweight and so ill she needed to be tube-fed 24 hours a day. This woman confessed to the writer that she'd been recruited by Abercrombie and Fitch a week before being admitted to the hospital : she went to an Abercrombie store where the manager told her she had the ideal look the store was after. (Desperately ill and eating disordered? Ah, we love that look.)

Oh, Abercrombie. If you're not making racist t-shirts ("two wongs can make it white") you're busy perpetuating the same harmful myths that not only make any non-thin, non-white, and disabled women feel bad about themselves, but encourage a whole cultural viewpoint that celebrates "all-American" as "all-white, all-thin, all-perfectly abled, all the time." It's encouraging to see TIME call Abercrombie out as "the world's worst recession brand" but it'd be even greater to see women call it out as the world's most unfriendly, body and diversity-hating brand.

Photo: Sgd

Johnny Depp Defends Rapist

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-08T09:30:00-08:00

Johnny, you make such a sexy Captain Jack Sparrow. And there will always be a special place in my heart for Edward Scissorhands. I have to admit, your version of Willy Wonka was just a little too creepy for me, but that didn't make me cherish your pirating days any less. Unfortunately, you've lost all your charm (and your place in my fantasies) with your defense of a child rapist.

It doesn't matter that you've joined a chorus of celebrity voices defending Roman Polanski for raping a 13-year-old. It doesn't excuse your comments that Whoopi Goldberg claimed what happened to the girl wasn't "rape-rape," although I don't know what else you would call it when a middle-aged man pleads guilty to statutory rape -- and the other charges of rape, sodomy, and drugging are only dropped to protect the victim from a having to undergo a painful and sensationalized trial. Where, apparently, a chunk of Hollywood would have come to her rapist's defense.

Depp thinks that, even though Polanski fled the country three decades ago to escape sentencing, now that we've finally convinced a country to arrest him so the United States could actually hold him responsible for his crime, we should let it go. And why? Well, because Depp thinks that his former director "is not a predator. He's 75 or 76 years old. He has got two beautiful kids, he has got a wife that he has been with for a long, long time. He is not out on the street." Um ... wait, if you don't want him in jail for his crime, doesn't that mean he is out on the street?

Not only does Polanski's current position fail to negate the crime he never served a sentence for, but, as a blogger points out on Shakesville, neither his age, wife, or status as a father mean that he won't rape again, or that it won't be another child. The Shakesville guest blogger writes, "The second man who raped me had a wife and children. ... While he was married. While his two young daughters were sleeping in the next bedroom." Depp is not only a rapist apologist, he also brushes off the rapes of women by married or older men as impossible occurrences, adding insult to injury for too many survivors. It's really the cherry on top of a constantly sickening situation.

Looks like I won't be watching Pirates of the Caribbean for the umpteenth time next weekend. It's just not as much fun when I can't get Depp's rapist-supporting remarks out of my head.

Photo credit: ATempletonPhoto.com

Stop the Cutting: Why Muslim Imams Are Against Female Genital Mutilation

Aimee Sea — 2010-02-08T07:25:00-08:00

"Are there texts in the Koran that clearly require that thing? They do not exist." With these words, a group of 34 Muslim religious leaders and scholars in Mauritania issued a fatwa (a religious edict) against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The Mauritania government and UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Fund) supported the leaders' statement, although they all have their work cut out for them in a country where UNICEF estimates that over 70 percent of women ages 15 to 49 have been subjected to FGM. Excuse me for a moment while I cross my legs and give thanks that my WASPy New England family doesn't believe in attacking my vagina with the nearest sharp object.

So what exactly is "that thing" that has been condemned? The World Health Organization can explain it better than I can, but be warned: the key words are "genital" and "mutilation," and it only gets worse. Definitely a trigger warning. Negative health effects of FGM range from infection, pain, and bleeding to recurring bladder or urinary tract infections, infertility, and increased risk of childbirth complications, including newborn deaths. There's also no medical reason for it, but you probably figured that out on your own.

FGM is a cultural practice most prevalent in the Saharan countries of Africa. It is often associated with Islam, but as our Mauritanian friends pointed out, there is nothing in the Koran prescribing it. In fact, a 2005 UNICEF report found that it wasn't possible to link religion with FGM and that ethnicity was actually the strongest determining factor.

Despite such pesky facts, a quick google search shows that FGM is frequently linked to Islam -- which is why when Muslims condemn the practice, it should be broadcast on every blog and newspaper from Los Angeles to Libya. Why isn't it? Probably because blaming FGM on backwards Muslims makes a better story than a thoughtful analysis of the ethnic, cultural, social and religious factors contributing to FGM.

So why are Muslim imams against FGM? Because they know it's a harmful practice and not a requirement of Islam. Now you do too. Spread the word.

Photo from wikimedia commons

Did Candy Crowley's Weight Loss Play a Role in Her Promotion at CNN?

Roxann MtJoy — 2010-02-07T16:18:00-08:00

Award-winning CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley took the reigns of the weekly show "State of the Union" today. I am particularly proud that she will be the only female in the formerly all-boys club of Sunday morning political shows because she and I share an alma mater, Randolph-Macon Woman's College. Thus, I am also particularly annoyed with how much attention her weight, not her illustrious career and stellar qualifications, is receiving this week.

Crowley, 61, lost a significant amount of weight since covering the last Presidential election and isn't sure whether or not she would have received this latest promotion if she hadn't. "Would I have gotten the job without having lost the weight? I don't know. That's an X factor," Crowley says, adding, "I readily admit I'm not the most obvious pick, from a purely cosmetic point of view."

We're talking here about a woman who has covered all but one political convention since Carter's nomination, contributed to Emmy and Peabody Award-winning news teams, and covered stories from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the U.S. bombing of Libya to Ronald Reagan's trips to China. How and why does weight even enter into the conversation? Crowley herself has commented on the issue, saying, "It's stunning to me that something I consider so separate and apart from what I do for a living has taken up so much space in some people's thoughts. I am a hard-news journalist. That is what I do."

It is stunning and -- I hardly think I need to point this out -- quite a double standard. When was the last time you heard the weight of, say, Bill O'Reilly or David Gregory, discussed? My guess is probably never. I suppose it is best to take this for what it is -- a great moment for Crowley and for women journalists. While it is incredibly frustrating that weight has entered the conversation, Candy Crowley's promotion is a step in the right direction and should be celebrated. But I will really break out the champagne the day a woman's looks aren't even mentioned as a potential job qualification.

Photo credit: Hymiegladstone

Women and Girls in Haiti Face Violence, Loss of Key Advocates

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-06T18:29:00-08:00

As expected, the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti has left women in a particularly precarious position.

The Washington Post reports on men stealing women's food coupons at knife point, fears regarding the violent prisoners who escaped during the quake, rape and the potential for the spread of HIV/AIDS, and sexual intimidation of women and girls while bathing. The fact is, Haiti's women were in a vulnerable position before the disaster -- for instance, rape was only recently criminalized in 2005, and 72% of women and girls reported being the victims of rape before the catastrophe -- and things have quickly gone downhill from there. Some efforts had been made by the government to improve women's rights in the country, but the new Women's Ministry is one of the buildings that went down in the quake.

The deaths of three women considered key players in the fight against sexual violence have also dashed many hopes for gender justice. Myriam Merlet, chief of staff for the Ministry for Gender and the Rights of Women, founded Enfofamn, which collects and promotes women stories, fighting for women's rights through the media. Anne Marie Coriolan, the founder of Solidarity with Haitian Women, was a driving force behind finally getting rape treated as a crime. And Magalie Marcelin, the founder of a domestic violence services organization, once kept an abusive husband from walking free by calling on women to fill the court, staring down the judge that might give into the man's political clout.

With these setbacks, a close eye will need to be keep on the situation of women in Haiti -- not just now, at the height of the emergency, but also once the last of the media attention has found something new to fill the headlines.

Photo credit: USAD_IMAGES

The Illusion Of The "Fitness" Magazine

Sarah Menkedick — 2010-02-06T12:32:00-08:00

Katharine McPhee's January Shape cover stirred up debate in the blogosphere about whether or not celebrities can be positive body image role models, and whether "fitness" magazines are doing anything other than promoting the same unhealthy obsession with thinness that dominates the mainstream media.

McPhee (of American Idol fame) was interviewed in Shape talking about her struggle with bulimia. According to the piece, she used to vomit up to seven times a day and has been obsessed with thinness since a young age. Supposedly, she's become "more forgiving" of her body and this is what the piece is celebrating. On the Shape cover, she looks like just about every other Shape cover model (read: thin, white, young, smiley, bikini-ed) -- no sign of struggle there, just the predominant image of female beauty reinforced once again. The subtext here is that of course she'd be forgiving of her body, since she looks absolutely no different from any of the other models who fitness magazines hold up to be our thinness idols.

Of course McPhee deserves credit for talking about her struggle and her steps towards recovery. But putting her on the cover of a magazine like Shape doesn't really do any of that struggle justice -- especially when the feature article on her highlights the workout that made her a "lean, strong singing machine." Well, thanks Shape, for helping people recovering from eating disorders find ways to stay lean.

The mixed messages here are dismaying. Supposedly we're meant to think that Katharine McPhee is inspiring girls to seek treatment for eating disorders and acknowledge they have a problem. At the same time, magazines like Shape are what Katie Drummond calls "heroin for the eating disordered." They are little more than article after article on how to lose that extra ten pounds, get tighter abs, eat less, eat healthier, eat light, try such and such miracle diet food ... and especially when the recommendations change randomly from one week to the next (in January it might be almonds and pilates that'll shave off those last five pounds, in February its dark chocolate and surfing). All focus on the one narrow goal of thinness it seems these magazines aren't about fitness or health at all. They're about reinforcing the same, singular standard of beauty our society revolves around: thinness.

Putting Katharine McPhee on the cover in a bikini and doing a photo shoot that emphasizes her body and how she got lean does not seem to have much to do with eating disorder recovery. In fact, it has everything to do with inciting girls to disordered eating: encouraging an obsession with body image, with staying thin, with having the perfect (lean) bod.

Photo credit: Kindofadraag

Teen Buried Alive for Chatting with Boys

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-05T19:53:00-08:00

The dead body of a 16-year-old girl was found buried near her house in Kahta, Turkey. An expert testified, "The autopsy result is blood-curdling. According to our findings, the girl –- who had no bruises on her body and no sign of narcotics or poison in her blood –- was alive and fully conscious when she was buried." It's chilling to think about what panicked thoughts must have gone through her head.

Sources allege that she was murdered by her father and grandfather, as punishment for her "crime" of having male friends, which she had been beaten her before. They are now awaiting trial for the crime. It's hard to understand how a man could take his daughter, or his granddaughter, and murder her in such a cruel method.

I say murdered, but this tragic death is, of course, counted among the thousands of so-called "honor" killings that are committed by girls' family members every year around the world. Offenses that families -- usually the men in the family -- consider worth killing over can be something as minor as talking to boys. Extreme victim-blaming culture also means that these "honor" killings perpetrated as a "punishment" for girls who have been raped, since somehow murdering the young girl who was already sexually violated removes the shame she brought on her family. (The rapist doesn't have to worry about things like shame, of course.)

It seems, however, disrespectful to the victim of this horrifying crime to refer to it as an "honor" killing. How about a misogyny-fueled murder?

Photo credit: Tom (hmm a rosa tint)

How Women's and LGBT Rights Are Intertwined

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-05T15:47:00-08:00

In August, Michael Jones reported on Change.org's Gay Rights blog on the disturbing practice of "corrective rape" -- also known as trying to rape a queer person, most often a lesbian, straight. Because all a woman really needs is a real man between her legs to realize what she's missing out on, the reasoning goes.

In South Africa, it has been an epidemic, with hundreds of queer women reporting corrective rape every year -- and many more silent in the shadows. The rapes are fed by a deadly cocktail of misogyny and homophobia; as this phenomenon makes all too clear, women's and LGBT rights are intertwined.

Yesterday, Abbie Kopf blogged on the Gay Rights blog, "Why Every Gay Rights Advocate Should Be a Feminist." And the sentiment goes both ways.

As Abbie points out, both women and queer people not only suffer from high levels as violence, they suffer from a rigid sense of gender roles. There's the "man-hating lesbian feminazi" trope, which simultaneously equates a woman loving other women with a man-hating agenda (because it's all about them), and makes judgments -- meant as an insult -- about a feminist woman's sexuality. And as long as a gay man can be insulted for being too "effeminate" or a "nancy," or a "butch" woman is considered not a "real" woman, we're reinforcing disparagement against the female sex.

And, the post further notes, for many right-wing groups (like Focus on the Family, which has been going so much attention of late), it is women's rights and LGBT rights that will destroy the world! Don't forget what led to 9/11, according to Jerry Falwell: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... 'I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

My one major point of disagreement with the post is that it upholds a recent article's distinction between the right to same-sex marriage and abortion, saying one is about fairness and the other is about privacy and morality. I believe that is inaccurate and devalues both issues. Both are about human rights, and confront what is presented as a moral opposition, but has its roots in sexist and homophobic beliefs.

At their core, feminism and queer rights are both a matter of fundamental human rights, of gender justice, of bodily integrity. Nobody has the right to violate your body or inflict violence because of your gender, sex, or sexuality. Nobody has the right to control what you do consensually in the bedroom with your body, or what decisions you make in your doctors office about your body. Nobody has the right to deny you employment, marriage, life, liberty, or the pursuit of individual happiness because you're female or queer. It's a fatal flaw of our society, and societies around the world, that we pretend otherwise.

Photo credit: bobster855

Spirit Airlines Fail: MUFF Diving and MILF Specials

Sarah Menkedick — 2010-02-05T12:39:00-08:00

Relying on crude frat boy slang that treats women like sex toys to sell airline tickets is just about as idiotically pathetic as it gets. Spirit Airlines' recent ad campaign for MUFF Diving (they claim "MUFF" refers to "Many Unbelievably Fantastic Fares" -- do you want to vomit as much as I do?) is so bad, and so gross, that it nearly defies analysis. But, simply because I hope to encourage you all to never fly with Spirit, I'll give it a go.

First off, in case you think the whole brilliantly conceived "Muff Diving" campaign was just a bizarre fluke, in which a 16 year-old boy drunk on "American Pie" and porn sent in an idea for a super funny ad, dude, and got it accepted, let me clarify that Spirit Airlines has been there, done this before.

There was a "MILF" campaign in early 2009 that encouraged passengers to take advantage of MILF fares (That's "Mother I'd Like To Fuck" for those of you who don't keep up with the latest women-as-sex-objects-for-our-amusement lingo) and -- even better -- to check out the flight attendants' DDs. If you are gaping in horror right now, you're not alone: the flight crews on Spirit Airlines had to go to their union to demand these ads be pulled, to which Spirit Airlines management responded that the DD refers to "deep discounts" and "MILF" is obviously "many islands low fares."

Does this make you want to slap some fresh-faced 24-year-old marketing misogynist across the face? Yeah, me too.

It's really nice that Spirit Airlines can inspire people to get a kick out of treating women like dumb, passive sex toys for "clever" marketing purposes, and can use women's boobs and vaginas as funny, crude jokes for men to elbow each other with a little guffaw and sign up for a Spirit flight. It's sweet that they can use their flight attendants as punch lines in a man-to-man chuckle about Double D boobs. It's charming that their idea of a good publicity stunt is to drum up the most sexist term possible for a woman's vagina, exploit it in the crassest way possible, and then play dumb saying "oh, no, it means 'Many Unbelievably Fantastic Fares.'" Cute.

Would this ever be acceptable if they'd exploited race or ethnicity or sexual orientation in a similar way, using similarly insulting and offensive terms? Why is this okay when it comes to women? We're supposed to laugh it off as an edgy publicity campaign and not as a reinforcement of deeply messed up societal treatment of women with real consequences (objectification of women, sexual harassment, rape)? Because it might not be acceptable to play around with cheap and harmful stereotypes of other groups, but it's A-O.K. to sell an airline ticket with boob jokes.

You can take action and tell Spirit Airlines to pull these offensive ads now by signing this petition.

Photo credit: Skampy's Photostream

Where NARAL Pro-Choice America Stands on the Tebow Ad

Nancy Keenan — 2010-02-05T09:28:00-08:00

I'm a big football fan, and I'm really looking forward to the Super Bowl. Spending time with family and friends, eating good nachos, maybe having a beer - you really can't beat it.

But this Super Bowl is going to be different.

Unfortunately, it looks like CBS is going ahead with Focus on the Family's ad.

The ad likely will focus on the story of Pam Tebow, the mother of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow.

We've heard from a lot of supporters - asking where we stand on all of this - so we put together this short clip about our support for a woman's ability to make the choice that's right for her and her family:

Anti-choice politics have no place in the Super Bowl, so when the ad runs, focus on something else - anything else - besides Focus on the Family.

Go to ProChoiceAmerica.org/SuperBowl to find out how to use Facebook, MySpace or Twitter to tell the truth about Focus on the Family's agenda, and what you plan to focus on instead when the ad runs.

Me? I'm going to focus on... our great, pro-choice activists!

As a proud progressive, I know I don't have to convince you that Focus on the Family wants to take choices away from women, including the choice to use birth control or access abortion if necessary.

So I wanted to leave you with a few facts and outrageous claims the group has made, so that you will be ready to tell your friends the true agenda behind the Focus on the Family ad when your friends ask:

Its web site urges women facing unintended pregnancy to seek "wise advice" because "the hormones and extreme emotions of pregnancy make reasonable decisions more difficult."

In 2008, Focus on the Family endorsed a divisive anti-choice "personhood" ballot measure in Colorado that would have banned abortion and threatened birth control. Fortunately, pro-choice Coloradans, led by NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, resoundingly rejected this measure.

Focus on the Family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support California's discriminatory Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. The organization's founder, James Dobson claimed that gay marriage will "destroy the Earth."

It's important that, as pro-choice Americans, we support every woman's ability to make the decisions that are best for her and her family - but Focus on the Family wants to take options away from women.

So please Go to ProChoiceAmerica.org/SuperBowl to find out how to use Facebook, MySpace or Twitter to give your friends and tens of thousands of football fans a way to tell the world that they disagree with Focus on the Family's agenda, and that they plan to focus on something else when the ad airs.

Photo credit: Open Sports

Baby Cyrus To Hock Kiddie Lingerie

Whitney Teal — 2010-02-05T07:34:00-08:00

As if television shows like "Toddlers and Tiaras" weren't bad enough, reckless mothers intent on sexualizing their young daughters have new levels of disgusting to ascend to: kiddie lingerie. Noah Cyrus, nine-year-old sister to Miley, is helping Hannah Montana: The Movie actress Emily Grace Reaves, eight, launch a line of provocative clothes aimed at the pre-pre-teen set. Feel free to join us in a groan of disgust.

Thought it's been called lingerie, "The Emily Grace Collection" isn't exactly thongs and bustiers, but it's certainly the little kid version of come-hither wear with fishnet stockings, short "French Maid" skirts, and fingerless gloves. The line's distributor, Oh La La, describes the pieces as "trendy, sweet yet edgy." Obviously in their attempt to stand out from the racks of mundane playground frocks (skirts that reach an 8-year-old's knees? Too prudish!), they failed to realize that their target demographic should be more concerned with family, friends, and school, not bringing all the boys to the yard with pink-clad cleavage.

While we know where Noah's parents stand on the "my daughter's virtue vs. bringing home the bacon" debate (her dad watched as 16-year-old Miley posed nearly nude for Vanity Fair magazine), I'm not sure why Emily Grace's parents are so chill with her immature sexuality. But they certainly aren't alone. Whether it's bite-sized pageant contestants being made to look like baby-faced Lolitas, chain retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch thinking it's okay to sell kiddie thongs emblazoned with "eye candy," or child stars hocking hooker-wear, the sexualization of underage girls is standard, yet despicable, practice.

Defenders of pageants and child stars often point out that their kids love to dress up and win the attention. And I can certainly see how that can be true: My sister and I loved playing with my mom's makeup and wearing her heels when we were young. The big difference is we were prancing around our living room, not in front of an audience. We didn't feel sexual while we did it, we knew it wasn't acceptable to go out in public donning the get-ups, and, at the end of the day, we weren't doing it to satisfy anyone's urges but our own -- and there certainly wasn't a winner or loser. I fear that the same is not true for the Noahs, Emily Graces, and pageant girls of the world. Of course there's nothing wrong with makeup or revealing clothes ... if you are mature enough to own your sexiness and your image. When young girls are trotted out in French Maid costumes they will always be leasing sexual behavior; someone else owns it.

Adult women spend our lives battling the patriarchal value system that correlates our worth with our cup size. It's high time little girls be left out of it, at least until they actually need to wear bras.

Photo: benyupp

Victim-Blaming Dressed Up as Sexual Assault Prevention

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-04T18:50:00-08:00

There's nothing quite like victim-blaming dressed up as sexual assault prevention tips. Listen, lady: if you get raped, it's your fault! Hey, I'm just looking out for your best interest.

Amanda Hess at The Sexist has a post on "The Worst Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Ever." The tips come from the Valdosta State University Police Department -- which shouldn't be much of a surprise, given how bad most colleges are at preventing sexual assault and actually blaming the rapists for their crime. The Sexual Assault Prevention page at the VSU police's website now appears suspiciously blank (I guess they got wind of the criticism), but luckily Hess has reprinted the worst of the so-called tips.

These include never walking around outside after dark (too bad if you live in up north where the winter sun goes down even before the workday and most school activities are over). Then there's this one: "Never let yourself or anyone that you know be a [sic] in any type of business (bar, store, restaurant, gas station)." Ah typos -- Hess indicated that the source material made no sense, but I think we can guess that the message is to never go out to eat or shopping "alone." Ever. Tips like this sound more like ways to disempower women, keep them locked at home in fear, waiting to be taken out to the store, than ways to prevent rape. I guess if you get raped going out for a carton of milk, it's your fault for not protecting yourself.

Then we have a tip that sounds like a great way to get yourself killed in a crash, and explicitly goes the victim blaming route. "If he’s driving, find the right time, and stick your fingers in his eyes. ... While he is in shock, GET OUT. (This sounds gross, but the alternative is your fault if you do not act.)" I really appreciate the idea that someone about to be raped wouldn't go for the eye-gouge because she's worried about it being "gross." You know how squeamish us women are about icky things. Oh, and if she doesn't give this a go -- maybe she's in shock, or worried about causing a fatal crash -- the rape is now her fault. I mean, she would have done it if she really didn't want to be raped.

But Valdosta State University isn't today's only victim-blaming campus in the news. After the rape of a student at Montgomery College, Hess indicates that the Dean of Student Development sent out a campus-wide e-mail stating, "This unfortunate event reminds us all of the importance of remaining vigilant when it comes to safety," with tips including looking out for "anyone hanging around campus," awareness of surroundings, and traveling in packs at night.

But, as a student pointed out in response, "Publicly responding to a rape with general safety recommendations ignores the status of rape as a hate crime. It also is victim-blaming, because it suggests that by complying with any of the recommendations (which vary in uselessness from getting into a car 'confidently' to being wary of people 'loitering' on campus which is practically the school sport) one can avoid being raped." The "tips" also had nothing to do with the conditions surrounding the rape -- the student was attacked in a women's bathroom in the middle of the day.

If you want actual good advice on how to combat sexual assault and rape on campuses -- minus the victim-blaming -- you can go to the SAFER (Students Active for Ending Rape) website.

Photo credit: CitySkinImages

Congress Considers Fighting International Violence Against Women

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-04T15:36:00-08:00

Who doesn't support ending violence against women across the world?

Today, the bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) was reintroduced to both the House and the Senate. Last time around, Congress didn't get around to passing this vital piece of legislation before the end of the session. That can't happen this time.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of the bill's co-sponsors, said in a press release: "Every day, too many women and girls across the globe endure horrific acts of violence. They are disfigured by acid, raped and beaten, or they are denied the opportunity to see a doctor." One in three women around the world have been physically or sexually abused in their lifetime. Women disproportionally fill the ranks of the poor and are often denied education or political power. This legislation seeks to have the United States step up its game in fighting against these abuses and inequities.

IVAWA would streamline operations in the battle against violence by combining the various women-related offices into one superhero central. It would mark $1 billion for a five-year strategy to reduce violence in 10-20 key countries around the world with the most severe levels of abuse against women and girls, funding health and survivor services, and economic and educational access projects. IVAWA would further target issues ranging from "honor killings" to child marriage to rape to HIV/AIDS to employment opportunities to changing social norms.

Tell Congress to Pass the International Violence Against Women Act today.

Photo credit: Meanest Indian

Republican Party: Women Need Handholding

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-04T08:44:00-08:00

The Grand Old Party is worried: it has been having a little trouble with the ladies. RNC co-chair Jan Larimer recognizes that nearly a century after women finally received the right to vote, the Republican Party still looks like a sausage fest. But Larimer says that, while women may have been largely missing from their ranks in the past, the Republicans are "not going to miss them anymore." Target locked.

Now, what on earth could be turning women off from the right-wing? Could it be Republicans' desire to control women's bodies when it comes to reproductive health? Could it be conservative pundits' constant attacks on successful female politicians for not being bablicious enough, or Republican operatives who bash women as "bitches" for being high-powered? Perhaps it's the little things, like Rush Limbaugh -- recent Miss America judge and the radio host right-wingers are listening to -- saying, "I love the women's movement -- especially when walking behind it." Oh, hilarious, see what he did there? He took a statement in support of women's rights and turned it into a sexist objectification joke. Excuse me while I catch my breath from laughing.

Oh, never mind, I'm good. No, no, none of these are the reason for the GOP's failure with the female sex. Larimer knows the answer: fewer women vote Republican or run as conservative candidates because they need some "handholding." Kind of like a little kid crossing the street. And, well, you know, we just can't make our own, individual decisions either -- women "need their friends to help them make a decision." Or their husbands, perhaps?

Maybe comments that disparage women's ability to make decisions on their own are factoring into the lack of female support? I'm not sure, let me go check with my friends.

Photo credit: Matt McGee

Scott Brown's Looking a Little Hotter to Women

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-03T21:47:00-08:00

No, I'm not referring to the fact that I finally saw the Massachusetts senator's nude Cosmo centerfold. I'm less concerned with his new nickname, Scott Six-Pack, more with his stance on women's reproductive rights.

Brown's not going to help women secure health care reform that covers all aspects of our health, without creating restrictions on abortion. He's certainly not going to help us repeal the Hyde Amendment. But he has voiced his disagreement with the rest of the Republican Party on repealing Roe v. Wade, and says that he considers himself pro-choice: "because I feel this issue is best handled between a woman and her doctor and her family." So maybe we can call him mostly pro-choice most of the time, except when it actually comes to giving a woman the ability to access an affordable medical procedure. Hmm.

So he doesn't get total high marks there, and obviously his Democratic opponent would have been significantly better on reproductive justice. But seeing as we're stuck with him, what's really fun is how deeply this moderate, not all that liberal stance has pissed right-wing extremists off. Now that's hot.

Right Wing Watch reports that Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue who called Dr. George Tiller a "mass-murderer" after his death and refused to moderate his dangerous hate-filled rhetoric, considers Brown a "phony" who supports child murder. He also compares Brown's win to using Stalin to beat the Nazis. What inflammatory rhetoric? The right-wing publications World Net Daily and Townhall.com share the dismay over Brown's election, his "indefensible" stance on abortion and civil unions.

The enemy of my enemy is ... well, not exactly my friend. But an example of how far careening to the right the Republican Party has gone, and maybe a more reasonable official who there's an actual chance to work with on women's rights. Fingers crossed; we could use some no-so-bad news.

Photo credit: Dexta32084