While flipping through an old issue of Bitch magazine, I came across an article on a topic I have been meaning to write about for a while. I watched the film version of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and was immediately interested in exploring the roots of the exploitation film genre, specifically the rape/revenge formula. Are Feminists right to begrudgingly admit that somewhere amongst the graphic violence and disgusting gore there is cultural validity and value?
Rape revenge films are not a recent phenomenon. In 1978, "I Spit of Your Grave" displayed a new type of horror sub genre. Rape revenge or exploitation films became popular in the 70's and 80's. "I Spit on Your Grave" originally called "The Day of the Women," included a brutal gang rape lasting 25 minutes. The movies heroine, Jenifer, goes off to a secluded cabin in nowhere USA in order to write her second novel. She later goes on a killing spree after she is gang raped and proceeds to cut of the penis of one of her attackers, hang another and hacks one to death with an ax. Time magazine listed the flick in its 2007 list of the 10 most ridiculously violent films. This film was redone and rereleased in 2010. The premise is much the same, only the way in which Jenifer kills and mutilates her attackers is altered.
The movie Teeth is a slightly different take on the same genre. A young women has fictional vagina dentata (teeth in her vagina)and the story follows her as her vagina deals out a quick bite of revenge to those that think to do her wrong whilst being inserted inside of her. This film takes a much lighter look at how a women may exact revenge when sexual abused but it fails to note that while the concept is original in the film world the reality of it is that it is all too familiar in the real world. Rapex, now called Rape-aXe (a device that acts as a female toothed condom)is called the "anti-rape condom." Created to deter the high number of rapes in South Africa, rapex marketers advise women wear one "should you have to travel long distances alone, on a train, working late, going out on a date with someone you don't know that well, going to a clubs or any situation where you might not feel comfortable or even not sure." Women are the ones responsible for preventing rape while the assumption remains that all men are rapist and should be absolved of any responsibility.
So, are rape/revenge plots empowering Feminist material? Not really. Are these films purely misogynistic crap? Not entirely. Is this genre abhorrently violent and difficult to watch? Yes. Is this type of entertainment baseless and without merit at all? No, it isn't.
Obviously it would be easy to go one way or the other. "This is just pretend and we are all desensitized anyway, get over it" or "Violence and torture against women cannot be justified with violence and torture against men even if it is in the name of revenge."
I find both of these options troubling. Rape is a terrible crime. Rapists are one of the lowest forms of life in my opinion and it sickens me that we live in a rape culture where a women can never feel or be completely safe. These films create an acute awareness of what it means to have power versus what it means to be powerless. Our culture is gendered and rape victims are often left without justice or any recognition that they have suffered great indignity. Often rape victims are blamed for provoking attacks by dressing in suggestive clothing or wearing "sexy" clothes.
Without the retribution portrayed in these films one is left to wonder what exactly can a rape victim hope to achieve without seeking their own revenge? On the cover of ISOYG, the print reads: "This women has just cut, chopped, broken and burned five men beyond recognition...But no jury in America would convict her." I find it incredibly disturbing that the premise behind rape/revenge mentality is that these women rape victims need to act as violently as their attacker did in order to earn acceptable justice. On the whole men are portrayed as inherent predators who maim and rape at any opportunity. Women need to act like men in order to gain the understanding of the audience. Answering violence with violence. Powerful with powerless.
Lastly I looked at "Descent" a film that came out in 2007. Rosario Dawson stars as Maya a young multi-ethnic college student who is brutally raped by a white college frat boy, Jarred. Maya enters a downward spiral of foggy nightclubbing coke binges and eventually meets a powerful sexy DJ, Adrian. The film touches on what it is to be a women of color in the aftermath of a rape. This film ends with Maya seducing Jarred and sodomizing him after tying him up and blindfolding him. Adrian also rapes Jarred while taunting and degrading him as he did to Maya. The last moment of the film shows a single tear falling from Maya's eyes after Adrian (whilst still raping Jarred) asks her if everything is all right now.
The overarching structure of the rape/revenge genre is power and violence. Who is attacked, how, their race, socio-economic standing, education, age or gender is left up to which film you look at and what if any point lies in telling the same story over and over again expecting a new result.This obsession with normalizing and fixating on retribution and absolution seems to be a factor in the inability to break the cycle of sexual assault and violence. Preventing rape and violence should be target, not giving women victimized by sexual violence empowerment after the fact by watching them act like men.
Here is a list of some other films taking a spin on or fulfilling the traditonal rape/revenge equation.
Straightheads (2007)
Monster (2003)
Baise-Moi (2000)
Hard Candy (2005)
The Brave One (2007)
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
All I want for Christmas...Part I.
Giving gifts can be difficult. Giving responsible gifts can be really difficult. While there are many options for giving environmentally friendly and fair trade gifts, especially within the last few years; I am having a hard time coming up with gifts for Feminists.
I am not talking about a t-shirt with the ever popular "If I had a hammer...(I'd smash patriarchy") or "Pro-choice not Pro Abortion" scrawled across the chest. I want more than "The Second Sex" and a poster with a clenched fist. Don't get me wrong, there are options to purchase products that have something to do with improving the lives of women through one avenue or the other and often donations made to a cause that's pro-women can do good in a tangible manner. I have looked through web sites like Bitch or Bust magazine and they do have merchandise (mugs, t-shirts and hats) which make for a decent stocking stuffer for your favorite Feminist.
I am on the look out for the perfect Feminist gift(s). Stay tuned for detail about what I can find.
I am not talking about a t-shirt with the ever popular "If I had a hammer...(I'd smash patriarchy") or "Pro-choice not Pro Abortion" scrawled across the chest. I want more than "The Second Sex" and a poster with a clenched fist. Don't get me wrong, there are options to purchase products that have something to do with improving the lives of women through one avenue or the other and often donations made to a cause that's pro-women can do good in a tangible manner. I have looked through web sites like Bitch or Bust magazine and they do have merchandise (mugs, t-shirts and hats) which make for a decent stocking stuffer for your favorite Feminist.
I am on the look out for the perfect Feminist gift(s). Stay tuned for detail about what I can find.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Whats a Feminist to be thankful for?
It's a tough question. This year has been disheartening to say the least, what with the conservatives claiming the term "Mama Grizzlies" and Christine O'Donnell's existence. I worry everyday about the slow and sometimes not so slow erosion of what progress women have made so far. My own generation seems compliant to shrug off feminism in all its messy connotations and I myself think sometimes the harder I fight the more radical it seems to even say you're a feminist. I worry most when women conservatives talk about the women who have "hijacked" the term Feminist to mean equal rights, the right to choose, the right for safety and equal pay and the right to fight patriarchy; which is what Feminism is.
But, hopelessness is not productive and one has to believe that the movement for the rights of any oppressed group is always alive; sometimes just below the surface waiting for the spark that will ignite a collective consciousness to make actual change.
I am thankful that I was in a position to receive reproductive care when I needed it. I am thankful that I have had an education denied to so many other women just because of where they were born. I am thankful for the "right" to question authority, for the right to protest injustice and the hope that women will someday achieve the post feminist mentality when the current patriarchal society comes to an end.
But, hopelessness is not productive and one has to believe that the movement for the rights of any oppressed group is always alive; sometimes just below the surface waiting for the spark that will ignite a collective consciousness to make actual change.
I am thankful that I was in a position to receive reproductive care when I needed it. I am thankful that I have had an education denied to so many other women just because of where they were born. I am thankful for the "right" to question authority, for the right to protest injustice and the hope that women will someday achieve the post feminist mentality when the current patriarchal society comes to an end.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Bikini Barista
As the manager of a small busy coffee shop I have a plethora of stories about burning myself, spilling a latte down the front of my jeans and sticking a thermometer half an inch through my palm. These fun filled accidents all occurred while I was fully clothed and properly shod. Sorry to shock but in some places a fully covered coffee server apparently isn't a given anymore.
Besides the fact that scalding hot coffee and bare flesh don't mix; it seems that no area of service can be safe from the quick gimmick of putting women in a bikini. This current craze apparently started in Seattle (surprise) around 2007 and quickly spread to other west coast areas like L.A. and Washington State. These coffee shops are usually stand-alone shacks along roadsides or in parking lots, often noticeable for their signs and suggestive names - "some like it hot," for example at "Java Jugs."
This summer in Denver a coffee shop called "Perky Cups" drew boy cotters after the owner sent bikini clas women workers out into the shopping center that housed them. In Everett, Washington, several baristas were charged with flashing customers and striping while preparing drinks. One of the ideas behind these stands are to stand out amongst the tough competition with more traditional business models like Starbucks. These drive through shacks span a wide range of risque to down right disgusting. First of all, I am surprised that Health Inspectors or regulators have not pointed out the fact that walking around in a g-string making a latte with your long hair flowing down your back doesn't sound like a sanitary way to pull espresso shots. Far from the main point you should at the very least have your hair tied back.
Also, is it really believable that the same pick-up driving "gentlemen" pulling through the "Grab n Go" espresso stand would saunter into a Starbucks for their Au lait if not for the scantily clad female workers? I'm sure these girls are judged by the micro foam of their lattes and not the buoyancy of their upper halves.
I am not opposed to women choosing to work in the sex, stripping, pornography or adult industry if they are opting in by their complete free will. I wouldn't go so far as to say that its empowering but that is one of the reasons that I don't pursue a career in that field. I also, fortunately have a choice.I don't believe that women are so repressed as to be unable to make decisions for themselves but I do believe it is a product of supply and demand. As long as their are men who want their lattes, beer, liquor, rented movies, dry cleaning etc... served up by a barely dressed young lady, there will be women to fill those positions and make good money while working with minimal clothing. I don't believe those men are going anywhere anytime soon and I don't think the logic behind making money off of you looks from those who are willing to give can be entirely faulted.
Personally, as a barista, the idea of attracting customers by wearing a bikini makes me gag in the back of my throat. I don't think that the technical aspects of being a barista is rocket science but I do think you should buy your coffee based on taste not by the amount of flesh bared through a drive through window. Given that my trusty black tank top is the skimpiest thing I rock behind the counter, I am left to believe even in my case the new customers and regulars who don't quite look me in the eye when ordering (think lower) are there not just for the fair trade coffee. Of course, some do a better job at concealing that fact than others.
Coffee shops are one of the many places where creepy people ogle fully dressed female baristas. In the last three years I can count at least a dozen "creepers" who make transactions awkward and uncomfortable. Leering old men, assholes on their phones who literally throw money at you and sometimes ask the mind boggling question of "do you want to go out for coffee sometime?"
So boo bikini baristas, you're burning yourselves, irritating communities, getting treated like shit by some and mocked by others. Good luck with this ridiculous craze. I'm sure you're making great tips but I'd rather focus on serving great coffee.
Besides the fact that scalding hot coffee and bare flesh don't mix; it seems that no area of service can be safe from the quick gimmick of putting women in a bikini. This current craze apparently started in Seattle (surprise) around 2007 and quickly spread to other west coast areas like L.A. and Washington State. These coffee shops are usually stand-alone shacks along roadsides or in parking lots, often noticeable for their signs and suggestive names - "some like it hot," for example at "Java Jugs."
This summer in Denver a coffee shop called "Perky Cups" drew boy cotters after the owner sent bikini clas women workers out into the shopping center that housed them. In Everett, Washington, several baristas were charged with flashing customers and striping while preparing drinks. One of the ideas behind these stands are to stand out amongst the tough competition with more traditional business models like Starbucks. These drive through shacks span a wide range of risque to down right disgusting. First of all, I am surprised that Health Inspectors or regulators have not pointed out the fact that walking around in a g-string making a latte with your long hair flowing down your back doesn't sound like a sanitary way to pull espresso shots. Far from the main point you should at the very least have your hair tied back.
Also, is it really believable that the same pick-up driving "gentlemen" pulling through the "Grab n Go" espresso stand would saunter into a Starbucks for their Au lait if not for the scantily clad female workers? I'm sure these girls are judged by the micro foam of their lattes and not the buoyancy of their upper halves.
I am not opposed to women choosing to work in the sex, stripping, pornography or adult industry if they are opting in by their complete free will. I wouldn't go so far as to say that its empowering but that is one of the reasons that I don't pursue a career in that field. I also, fortunately have a choice.I don't believe that women are so repressed as to be unable to make decisions for themselves but I do believe it is a product of supply and demand. As long as their are men who want their lattes, beer, liquor, rented movies, dry cleaning etc... served up by a barely dressed young lady, there will be women to fill those positions and make good money while working with minimal clothing. I don't believe those men are going anywhere anytime soon and I don't think the logic behind making money off of you looks from those who are willing to give can be entirely faulted.
Personally, as a barista, the idea of attracting customers by wearing a bikini makes me gag in the back of my throat. I don't think that the technical aspects of being a barista is rocket science but I do think you should buy your coffee based on taste not by the amount of flesh bared through a drive through window. Given that my trusty black tank top is the skimpiest thing I rock behind the counter, I am left to believe even in my case the new customers and regulars who don't quite look me in the eye when ordering (think lower) are there not just for the fair trade coffee. Of course, some do a better job at concealing that fact than others.
Coffee shops are one of the many places where creepy people ogle fully dressed female baristas. In the last three years I can count at least a dozen "creepers" who make transactions awkward and uncomfortable. Leering old men, assholes on their phones who literally throw money at you and sometimes ask the mind boggling question of "do you want to go out for coffee sometime?"
So boo bikini baristas, you're burning yourselves, irritating communities, getting treated like shit by some and mocked by others. Good luck with this ridiculous craze. I'm sure you're making great tips but I'd rather focus on serving great coffee.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Fighting back (Hollaback NYC)
http://www.ihollaback.org/
This international movement started in New York City in 2005. Started by a group of women who were sick of being verbally harassed on their way to work or walking home at night; Hollaback, an imperfect but productive and progressive forum was born.
Emily May, executive director of Hollaback! states in the groups testimony that: "when we walked on, we felt weak. When we yelled at the guys, the situation escalated, and the police didn’t care. The most common suggestion for dealing with it was to plug our heads with earphones and pretend it wasn’t happening. But something inside us told us this wasn’t enough—we wanted to share our stories".
Hollaback depends largely on mobile technology but has other options for telling your story and getting it posted if you aren't smart phone equipped. The "harassee" is encouraged to take a picture of the harasser and send it to the site along with a description of the incident. Some of the incidents seem mild and distasteful, some are seriously terrifying and upsetting. All in all the idea of "Hollaback" is one that seeks to empower women to stand up for themselves when possible and when not possible encourages them to write about the experience. The site explains that most types of harassment has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with power.
Obviously as in most cases this site has a few questionable quirks to it. One being that they actively discourage describing the race of harassers. It is better explained through the FAQ's on the site but it seems that the idea is to keep the focus on historically marginalized groups such as women and LGBTQ individuals without replacing sexism with racism. I have mixed feelings about the outcome of this. Is the site really trying to prevent stereotypes and generalizations by asking writers to with hold statements on race? Does this feed into the already prevalent preconceived notions on the race and gender of those who harass women and LGBTQ individuals?
I still think that Hollaback! is headed mostly in the right direction. Exposing men who feel no shame in verbally, physically and psychologically damaging women is completely justified in my opinion. From my own experience I will share one recent incident. Going to the goodwill on a main street I passed two older men sitting on a bench outside. As I passed by I heard one say to the other "she has a nice big ass." Without pausing I turned around and promptly shouted "Fuck You." Passerbys looked at me and shook their heads. One of the men shouted back, "I'm homeless." I skipped my shopping trip that afternoon.
This international movement started in New York City in 2005. Started by a group of women who were sick of being verbally harassed on their way to work or walking home at night; Hollaback, an imperfect but productive and progressive forum was born.
Emily May, executive director of Hollaback! states in the groups testimony that: "when we walked on, we felt weak. When we yelled at the guys, the situation escalated, and the police didn’t care. The most common suggestion for dealing with it was to plug our heads with earphones and pretend it wasn’t happening. But something inside us told us this wasn’t enough—we wanted to share our stories".
Hollaback depends largely on mobile technology but has other options for telling your story and getting it posted if you aren't smart phone equipped. The "harassee" is encouraged to take a picture of the harasser and send it to the site along with a description of the incident. Some of the incidents seem mild and distasteful, some are seriously terrifying and upsetting. All in all the idea of "Hollaback" is one that seeks to empower women to stand up for themselves when possible and when not possible encourages them to write about the experience. The site explains that most types of harassment has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with power.
Obviously as in most cases this site has a few questionable quirks to it. One being that they actively discourage describing the race of harassers. It is better explained through the FAQ's on the site but it seems that the idea is to keep the focus on historically marginalized groups such as women and LGBTQ individuals without replacing sexism with racism. I have mixed feelings about the outcome of this. Is the site really trying to prevent stereotypes and generalizations by asking writers to with hold statements on race? Does this feed into the already prevalent preconceived notions on the race and gender of those who harass women and LGBTQ individuals?
I still think that Hollaback! is headed mostly in the right direction. Exposing men who feel no shame in verbally, physically and psychologically damaging women is completely justified in my opinion. From my own experience I will share one recent incident. Going to the goodwill on a main street I passed two older men sitting on a bench outside. As I passed by I heard one say to the other "she has a nice big ass." Without pausing I turned around and promptly shouted "Fuck You." Passerbys looked at me and shook their heads. One of the men shouted back, "I'm homeless." I skipped my shopping trip that afternoon.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Bitterness (Which backlash is this?)
The 2010 midterm elections have come and gone. The political backlash moves to the other side now. We are not safe from the tea party people, the scary Republican mama grizzlies, the even stranger Christine O'Donnell and we will never be safe from the psychotic Ann Coulter.
It's frustrating that 18-29 year old population vote the least, especially when this countries voters are so fickle. The word backlash doesn't even mean anything anymore. The actual election process is frighteningly predictable when it comes to who controls the house and the senate. It didn't take the entire first two years of Obamas term for his approval ratings to plummet. Thinking back, it must have obvious that the elation felt after his historical victory was going to disappear after awhile. The way that Obama rose to popularity hasn't changed his ability to fall from Americas graces.
The two party system does not allow for quick progress in any manner. Whenever we change from Democrat to Republican and then back to Republican to Democrats, is it not safe to say that the majority of time is spent trying to undo what the previous party accomplished? Fed up voters elect the man who will be blamed for doing nothing in six months because the last guy they put in office didn't accomplish anything.
Even the fact that America has still not had a women president is not as upsetting as it once was. Isn't the only way to get elected to become appealing to the largest amount of individuals possible thus eradicating any chance of making changes (radical or not) completely impossible? Hillary had to change her tune before she was seriously (arguably) considered as a nominee to run for President. You could never get elected into public office on a radical platform. Anything not fitting the status quo is dangerous. Okay, we passed a health care bill, super. Who did we inevitably have to sell out at the last minute in order to appease the conservatives? You got it, those damn abortion having liberals. Women are always last.
Hopefully this backlash will wake up those pacified liberals into taking back their victory. If you are doomed to failure to start with, maybe you should just go out swinging instead of inevitably conforming and selling out. Compromise is one thing but there really isn't very much that's open to discussion. There are those who believe in democracy and it sure beats the alternatives but sometimes I wonder if the short term memory doesn't have the capacity to think back more than two years at a time should we really be the ones choosing the individuals who we want to do nothing?
It's frustrating that 18-29 year old population vote the least, especially when this countries voters are so fickle. The word backlash doesn't even mean anything anymore. The actual election process is frighteningly predictable when it comes to who controls the house and the senate. It didn't take the entire first two years of Obamas term for his approval ratings to plummet. Thinking back, it must have obvious that the elation felt after his historical victory was going to disappear after awhile. The way that Obama rose to popularity hasn't changed his ability to fall from Americas graces.
The two party system does not allow for quick progress in any manner. Whenever we change from Democrat to Republican and then back to Republican to Democrats, is it not safe to say that the majority of time is spent trying to undo what the previous party accomplished? Fed up voters elect the man who will be blamed for doing nothing in six months because the last guy they put in office didn't accomplish anything.
Even the fact that America has still not had a women president is not as upsetting as it once was. Isn't the only way to get elected to become appealing to the largest amount of individuals possible thus eradicating any chance of making changes (radical or not) completely impossible? Hillary had to change her tune before she was seriously (arguably) considered as a nominee to run for President. You could never get elected into public office on a radical platform. Anything not fitting the status quo is dangerous. Okay, we passed a health care bill, super. Who did we inevitably have to sell out at the last minute in order to appease the conservatives? You got it, those damn abortion having liberals. Women are always last.
Hopefully this backlash will wake up those pacified liberals into taking back their victory. If you are doomed to failure to start with, maybe you should just go out swinging instead of inevitably conforming and selling out. Compromise is one thing but there really isn't very much that's open to discussion. There are those who believe in democracy and it sure beats the alternatives but sometimes I wonder if the short term memory doesn't have the capacity to think back more than two years at a time should we really be the ones choosing the individuals who we want to do nothing?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Ms. Magazine: The Clinic Across the Street
I don't always read Ms. magazine but will pick it up if something catches my eye. This years Fall issue is out and I quickly became absorbed in one of the cover stories about crisis pregnancy centers. A Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) is not an abortion clinic and it does not provide abortions. They do not refer women to places that provide abortions.
These aren't medical centers. Women are encouraged to make sure they are pregnant before making any decisions by coming in to take a free pregnancy test. They offer counseling, ultrasounds and adoption placement. Most CPC's set themselves in a helpful, caring and supportive light. They are run by Catholics, Anti-Choice groups and some are operated by well know anti-abortion extremists. The clinics don't say that they aren't abortion clinics but they will advertise "abortion alternatives"
In Wichita, Kansas, Dr. George Tiller was the provider of abortions at the Women Heath Care Services clinic. Dr. Tiller was shot multiple times by anti-abortionists who eventually succeeded in murdering in 2009. Tiller was killed while serving as an usher at his church.
My problems with CPCs are not particularly complicated. These are misguided, often federally funded groups that go so far as to lie in order to convince women not to have abortions. I obviously think pregnant women should be able to have every option available to them and that they should be given honest factual information. I'm sure that some CPCs don't lie to women outright but I'm also sure that they don't all tell the truth. Given the fact that they are more determined to just get women inside of their centers as opposed to providing them with quality care.
Let's look at what the names of some CPCs. Here are a few examples; First Concern, A Woman's Concern, Friends of the Unborn, Another way, A New Life, Life Saver and my favorite, Heartbeat. One CPC in Ghent, New York goes by the name We Care. Also in New York and many other states is a CPC called Birth right.
One CPC in Alaska states that while abortion may seem like the easiest way to take care of an unplanned pregnancy, "Most women who struggle with past abortions say they wish they had been told all of the facts before making their choice.” These places claim that abortion is the quickest and easiest decision to make when finding out you are pregnant unexpectedly. They also claim that moral and spiritual traumas await you if you decide to have an abortion. The contradiction of pushing "factual information" as well as biased and unfounded "truths" becomes very clear when reviewing the way CPCs advertise themselves as a caring, non judgmental place to turn to in a time of need. The CPC in Alaska tells you that while abortion seems like an easy choice (which it isn't) "most relationships don't survive an abortion". They assure that you could be making the biggest mistake of your life and not only that, you are going to be shunned by the societal stigma of being an abortion patient.
While there are states that have legal buffer zones that protect women entering clinics from being harassed by protectors many of them do not. Violence is not surprising when tensions are so high and so close. In Kansas, there exists a CPC directly across the street from one of the only late term abortion clinics in the country. Men and women calling themselves sidewalk counselors will often berate and ridicule women entering these clinics. One man can be heard shouting such disgusting things as "Mommy, I don't want to die, please don't kill me Mommy. I'll be a good child." This would be the extremist anti-abortionist Eugene Frye. This man has been arrested many times for super gluing clinic doors shut and defended Dr. Tillers assassin as a "justifiable homicide."
Legislators at all levels have begun to note how CPCs operate in deceptive advertising. Some places have succeeded in getting laws passed requiring truth-in-advertising standards. Some places are legally required to post in English and Spanish that they do not provide abortions or referrals or birth control. The organizers behind CPCs are not complying without a fight and some Catholic organizations have claimed freedom of speech and or religion infringements.
Violence follows extremists in every regard. The "solders" of the anti-abortion army are no exception. These people have planned clinic bombings, trespassed, committed acts of vandalism, attempted and succeeded in committing murder and what incites me is that they do so in the name of "protecting life."
Woman are some of the most staunch anti-abortionists and the numbers increase when religion is a factor (which it frequently is).When it come to males the reasoning is often faith based as well. I will say is that men are absolutely entitled to voice their opinion in terms of what they think about abortion. But you may not decide it; only if they have sired the fetus should they object to a woman's choice to abort because ultimately it remains the choice of the women. However you look at it no man has any experience with the potential of bearing the entire physical consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and because of that the majority of anti-choice men should mind their own damn business. They can read about, research, perform, object and even witness an abortion but you will never need one and you will never know what it feels like. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are a dangerous instrument of extremists and a wealth of federally funded misinformation. Women should be wary of where they turn for facts should they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.
The Feminist Majority Foundation runs a campaign to expose fake clinics. Check out feministcampus.org
These aren't medical centers. Women are encouraged to make sure they are pregnant before making any decisions by coming in to take a free pregnancy test. They offer counseling, ultrasounds and adoption placement. Most CPC's set themselves in a helpful, caring and supportive light. They are run by Catholics, Anti-Choice groups and some are operated by well know anti-abortion extremists. The clinics don't say that they aren't abortion clinics but they will advertise "abortion alternatives"
In Wichita, Kansas, Dr. George Tiller was the provider of abortions at the Women Heath Care Services clinic. Dr. Tiller was shot multiple times by anti-abortionists who eventually succeeded in murdering in 2009. Tiller was killed while serving as an usher at his church.
My problems with CPCs are not particularly complicated. These are misguided, often federally funded groups that go so far as to lie in order to convince women not to have abortions. I obviously think pregnant women should be able to have every option available to them and that they should be given honest factual information. I'm sure that some CPCs don't lie to women outright but I'm also sure that they don't all tell the truth. Given the fact that they are more determined to just get women inside of their centers as opposed to providing them with quality care.
Let's look at what the names of some CPCs. Here are a few examples; First Concern, A Woman's Concern, Friends of the Unborn, Another way, A New Life, Life Saver and my favorite, Heartbeat. One CPC in Ghent, New York goes by the name We Care. Also in New York and many other states is a CPC called Birth right.
One CPC in Alaska states that while abortion may seem like the easiest way to take care of an unplanned pregnancy, "Most women who struggle with past abortions say they wish they had been told all of the facts before making their choice.” These places claim that abortion is the quickest and easiest decision to make when finding out you are pregnant unexpectedly. They also claim that moral and spiritual traumas await you if you decide to have an abortion. The contradiction of pushing "factual information" as well as biased and unfounded "truths" becomes very clear when reviewing the way CPCs advertise themselves as a caring, non judgmental place to turn to in a time of need. The CPC in Alaska tells you that while abortion seems like an easy choice (which it isn't) "most relationships don't survive an abortion". They assure that you could be making the biggest mistake of your life and not only that, you are going to be shunned by the societal stigma of being an abortion patient.
While there are states that have legal buffer zones that protect women entering clinics from being harassed by protectors many of them do not. Violence is not surprising when tensions are so high and so close. In Kansas, there exists a CPC directly across the street from one of the only late term abortion clinics in the country. Men and women calling themselves sidewalk counselors will often berate and ridicule women entering these clinics. One man can be heard shouting such disgusting things as "Mommy, I don't want to die, please don't kill me Mommy. I'll be a good child." This would be the extremist anti-abortionist Eugene Frye. This man has been arrested many times for super gluing clinic doors shut and defended Dr. Tillers assassin as a "justifiable homicide."
Legislators at all levels have begun to note how CPCs operate in deceptive advertising. Some places have succeeded in getting laws passed requiring truth-in-advertising standards. Some places are legally required to post in English and Spanish that they do not provide abortions or referrals or birth control. The organizers behind CPCs are not complying without a fight and some Catholic organizations have claimed freedom of speech and or religion infringements.
Violence follows extremists in every regard. The "solders" of the anti-abortion army are no exception. These people have planned clinic bombings, trespassed, committed acts of vandalism, attempted and succeeded in committing murder and what incites me is that they do so in the name of "protecting life."
Woman are some of the most staunch anti-abortionists and the numbers increase when religion is a factor (which it frequently is).When it come to males the reasoning is often faith based as well. I will say is that men are absolutely entitled to voice their opinion in terms of what they think about abortion. But you may not decide it; only if they have sired the fetus should they object to a woman's choice to abort because ultimately it remains the choice of the women. However you look at it no man has any experience with the potential of bearing the entire physical consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and because of that the majority of anti-choice men should mind their own damn business. They can read about, research, perform, object and even witness an abortion but you will never need one and you will never know what it feels like. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are a dangerous instrument of extremists and a wealth of federally funded misinformation. Women should be wary of where they turn for facts should they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.
The Feminist Majority Foundation runs a campaign to expose fake clinics. Check out feministcampus.org
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Big Girls and Crying
The 2008 election was a historically significant one in several ways. Looking back is Rebecca Traister author of "Big Girls Don't Cry: The election that changed everything for women." A writer for Salon.com, Traister provides a thorough linear narrative of what was going on behind the scenes during her time on the campaign trail writing pieces for Salon. Traister starts out as an open minded supporter of John Edwards but by primary day the women who walks into the voting booth ends up struggling with who she is going to pull the lever for.
The book focuses primarily on Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin serve as bookends to the recounting of the fiercely fought battle for the Democratic nomination. What is obvious from the beginning is that the examples of media sexism are applicable across the board. Double standards, sexist innuendos, gender stereotypes; it's all there and it applies to all three women.
As November 2nd draws near the obvious news is that Obama has not lived up to expectations. Of course during the election is wasn't necessarily about who was more experienced or who would have the highest approval ratings two years in. Hillary Clinton had to undergo a radical transformation to even be considered as a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Women who hated her when she was first lady may have had a change of heart when she moved from the outspoken spouse that people were threatened by to the more well-behaved feminist Hillary. Her long term supporters felt alienated as she became a poster child for bipartisan cooperation.
Even if you followed the election closely this book has something you didn't catch in it. We are still living through the ramifications of the elections outcome and in hindsight it is easy to see that the 2008 election did change everything for women. What we got wasn't all positive and on the whole the problems for American women are getting more intense and more divided. Sarah Palin is not the only Republican women who has claimed that Feminism doesn't mean you need to trust other women to make there own choices.
Traisters book provides excellent insight and does so with an even handed logical mind set. Her book flows and is easy to read without becoming boring. I suggest this book for supporters of Clinton and Obama. There is also something for the Kucinch supporter, the fans of Edwards, Michelle Obama and many others. Traister gives assurance that women will undoubtedly shatter the presidential glass ceiling and that it is only a question of when.
The book focuses primarily on Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin serve as bookends to the recounting of the fiercely fought battle for the Democratic nomination. What is obvious from the beginning is that the examples of media sexism are applicable across the board. Double standards, sexist innuendos, gender stereotypes; it's all there and it applies to all three women.
As November 2nd draws near the obvious news is that Obama has not lived up to expectations. Of course during the election is wasn't necessarily about who was more experienced or who would have the highest approval ratings two years in. Hillary Clinton had to undergo a radical transformation to even be considered as a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Women who hated her when she was first lady may have had a change of heart when she moved from the outspoken spouse that people were threatened by to the more well-behaved feminist Hillary. Her long term supporters felt alienated as she became a poster child for bipartisan cooperation.
Even if you followed the election closely this book has something you didn't catch in it. We are still living through the ramifications of the elections outcome and in hindsight it is easy to see that the 2008 election did change everything for women. What we got wasn't all positive and on the whole the problems for American women are getting more intense and more divided. Sarah Palin is not the only Republican women who has claimed that Feminism doesn't mean you need to trust other women to make there own choices.
Traisters book provides excellent insight and does so with an even handed logical mind set. Her book flows and is easy to read without becoming boring. I suggest this book for supporters of Clinton and Obama. There is also something for the Kucinch supporter, the fans of Edwards, Michelle Obama and many others. Traister gives assurance that women will undoubtedly shatter the presidential glass ceiling and that it is only a question of when.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Was the 90's our Feminist glory days? Part I.
I served coffee to Susan Faludi Saturday morning and was inspired to talk about the current state of Feminism.
I found Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women when I was a teenager. I had only briefly pondered the chronology of how Feminism went from one extreme to the other between the 1960's to modern day. As a girl growing up in the 90's it seemed to me that Feminism had happened and while the mid 80's seemed like America was still trying to get the aftertaste of the prior decades out of its mouth, the 90's was when a more global Feminism began to take shape. I grew up when there was less focus on particular issues within Feminism. The cultural aspect of woman's rights were more apparent than the biological aspect. The first two waves had overarching themes that drove a particular issue to the forefront. The third wave of Feminism is about conflict and the reaction to the topics of the first and second waves. I hope to follow this post with a more in depth exploration of 90's Feminism and what is meant when the term "Post-Feminism" is used.
Faludi followed Backlash with Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male in 2000. She most recently authored The Terror Dream: Myth and Misogyny in an insecure America in 2008. She lives in Cambridge Ma. and is very polite to her albeit quirky coffee servers.
I found Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women when I was a teenager. I had only briefly pondered the chronology of how Feminism went from one extreme to the other between the 1960's to modern day. As a girl growing up in the 90's it seemed to me that Feminism had happened and while the mid 80's seemed like America was still trying to get the aftertaste of the prior decades out of its mouth, the 90's was when a more global Feminism began to take shape. I grew up when there was less focus on particular issues within Feminism. The cultural aspect of woman's rights were more apparent than the biological aspect. The first two waves had overarching themes that drove a particular issue to the forefront. The third wave of Feminism is about conflict and the reaction to the topics of the first and second waves. I hope to follow this post with a more in depth exploration of 90's Feminism and what is meant when the term "Post-Feminism" is used.
Faludi followed Backlash with Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male in 2000. She most recently authored The Terror Dream: Myth and Misogyny in an insecure America in 2008. She lives in Cambridge Ma. and is very polite to her albeit quirky coffee servers.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Women hating Women, (The A word part II)
If there was ever a time to be worried about your reproductive freedom the time is now.
If religion is your bases for your opinion on Abortion then you need to factor in two things.
Number one, separation of Church and State. Your religion can guide your political opinion and give you your political affiliation however, not if your religion takes away the personal physical rights of another good old American human being. You have freedom of religion, an extended right upon being an American citizen (at least for now). What anyone else does with their uterus is absolutely none of your fucking business. There are a lot more women who get an abortion than those who make up the self proclaimed "Anti-Life" population. You think it's murder? Fine, don't have one. You think it's taking one of Gods precious angels? Fine. Say a prayer for me. You don't want your tax dollars to go toward a foreigners life saving abortion in Sub Saharan Africa? I don't want my tax dollars going toward military campaigns killing civilians in Afghanistan that I have nothing against.
Secondly,
If you are against legal abortion then you are for the death of women by botched abortions. There have always been and will always be unwanted pregnancies. Take away safe abortions because you think it is murder and you sign the death warrant of countless women who will not be ruled by their reproductive organs. If women who choose themselves over their unborn fetus deserve the risk of death than the "pro-life" movement has an inherent conundrum. Worry about the babies who are born into crippling poverty and inadequate care. The quality of life doesn't matter at all to the pro-life, just that they enforce their way of life on others.
If religion is your bases for your opinion on Abortion then you need to factor in two things.
Number one, separation of Church and State. Your religion can guide your political opinion and give you your political affiliation however, not if your religion takes away the personal physical rights of another good old American human being. You have freedom of religion, an extended right upon being an American citizen (at least for now). What anyone else does with their uterus is absolutely none of your fucking business. There are a lot more women who get an abortion than those who make up the self proclaimed "Anti-Life" population. You think it's murder? Fine, don't have one. You think it's taking one of Gods precious angels? Fine. Say a prayer for me. You don't want your tax dollars to go toward a foreigners life saving abortion in Sub Saharan Africa? I don't want my tax dollars going toward military campaigns killing civilians in Afghanistan that I have nothing against.
Secondly,
If you are against legal abortion then you are for the death of women by botched abortions. There have always been and will always be unwanted pregnancies. Take away safe abortions because you think it is murder and you sign the death warrant of countless women who will not be ruled by their reproductive organs. If women who choose themselves over their unborn fetus deserve the risk of death than the "pro-life" movement has an inherent conundrum. Worry about the babies who are born into crippling poverty and inadequate care. The quality of life doesn't matter at all to the pro-life, just that they enforce their way of life on others.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
I'm a _______Feminist!
The phrase "I'm not a Feminist but..." is one of the most frustrating things I can ever hear coming out of someones mouth. The problem with this phrase is obvious. If you have to insert the word but after saying you're not something then odds are you have a problem with the word and not the ideology.
Part of the problem is within the overarching collection of what I call (blank)_______Feminism. Blank Feminism as I define it refers to the individuals who for all intensive purposes are Feminists (men or women) and are so turned off by the dozens of different "types" of Feminism that in their mind what they believe about Feminism is skewed by societies inability to accept overall gender equality (or in some cases neutrality).
Without going into extensive research on woman's history, the ability to define what kind of Feminist you are isn't incredibly important. As in every movement, Feminism was divided from the onslaught. Further categorization comes only after the initial realization that a collective consciousness exists among dissenters of the status-quo.
The wikipedia definition of Radical Feminism says it considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of woman's oppression and the total uprooting and reconstruction of society as necessary to achieve equality. Yes, I agree with that. I also think that gender equality is impossible while society is restricted by biological reproduction. If we don't need to reproduce naturally then I don't see why we keep doing it. Yes, that is a marginalized opinion even within the sect of Feminism deemed radical. So it goes.
You are a Feminist, if you need to say otherwise feel free to borrow the phrase (blank)______ Feminist and insert whatever you need to in order to feel okay about it.
Some things to check out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/06/feminism-gender1
http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=12661
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/mad-world-the-most-sexist-ad-in-america
Part of the problem is within the overarching collection of what I call (blank)_______Feminism. Blank Feminism as I define it refers to the individuals who for all intensive purposes are Feminists (men or women) and are so turned off by the dozens of different "types" of Feminism that in their mind what they believe about Feminism is skewed by societies inability to accept overall gender equality (or in some cases neutrality).
Without going into extensive research on woman's history, the ability to define what kind of Feminist you are isn't incredibly important. As in every movement, Feminism was divided from the onslaught. Further categorization comes only after the initial realization that a collective consciousness exists among dissenters of the status-quo.
The wikipedia definition of Radical Feminism says it considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of woman's oppression and the total uprooting and reconstruction of society as necessary to achieve equality. Yes, I agree with that. I also think that gender equality is impossible while society is restricted by biological reproduction. If we don't need to reproduce naturally then I don't see why we keep doing it. Yes, that is a marginalized opinion even within the sect of Feminism deemed radical. So it goes.
You are a Feminist, if you need to say otherwise feel free to borrow the phrase (blank)______ Feminist and insert whatever you need to in order to feel okay about it.
Some things to check out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/06/feminism-gender1
http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=12661
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/mad-world-the-most-sexist-ad-in-america
Friday, October 1, 2010
Tucker Max revisited
So tomorrow is the big day. I planned on taking a rare Saturday off in order to avoid the possibility of running in to Tucker Max at Porter Square Books but of course that wasn't possible. I am working a short 7-12p shift and then high-tailing it on out of there straight across the parking lot to the treadmill at my woman's only gym.
Though I still think out right protests are not the way to go in order to display contempt for the bottom feeding misogynist chauvinist that is Tucker Max, I have been further disheartened since writing last.
I think of young teenage boys who pick up either of Max's books, see him glorified as a huge prick and then go on thinking it's cool to be an asshole because you get laid all the time.
I admit that I have no sense of humor. I also don't think he writes well or about anything interesting. This is my opinion.
On his website he is asked why he thinks some people think he hates women. Here is the response:
"Of course not; quite the opposite, I love women. Everything I do is to impress women. Without women, I wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning. Plus, half my fans are women. If I hated women, so many women would not like me, nor should they. The people who think I hate women or call me misogynist are the ones who haven’t read or engaged my writing, and are just looking for a bogeyman to attack" (http://www.tuckermax.com/about/faq/)
Unfortunately, liking women (liking to screw them) and respecting women are entirely different entities. He could respect women without liking them but the stories about them and their pathetic existences are all about humor and marketability. If no one bought these stories or visited his website he still wouldn't respect women but he also wouldn't be lauded for his efforts to tell the world about what he can get them to do.
Free speech is free speech, you can't have it both ways.
This is one of those times when I wish (at least a little bit) that you could.
Get your book, face or breasts (not in the store of course but I'm sure you could work something out with Max) signed tomorrow at 2:00pm at Porter Square Books, 25 White St. Cambridge Ma. 02143.
Though I still think out right protests are not the way to go in order to display contempt for the bottom feeding misogynist chauvinist that is Tucker Max, I have been further disheartened since writing last.
I think of young teenage boys who pick up either of Max's books, see him glorified as a huge prick and then go on thinking it's cool to be an asshole because you get laid all the time.
I admit that I have no sense of humor. I also don't think he writes well or about anything interesting. This is my opinion.
On his website he is asked why he thinks some people think he hates women. Here is the response:
"Of course not; quite the opposite, I love women. Everything I do is to impress women. Without women, I wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning. Plus, half my fans are women. If I hated women, so many women would not like me, nor should they. The people who think I hate women or call me misogynist are the ones who haven’t read or engaged my writing, and are just looking for a bogeyman to attack" (http://www.tuckermax.com/about/faq/)
Unfortunately, liking women (liking to screw them) and respecting women are entirely different entities. He could respect women without liking them but the stories about them and their pathetic existences are all about humor and marketability. If no one bought these stories or visited his website he still wouldn't respect women but he also wouldn't be lauded for his efforts to tell the world about what he can get them to do.
Free speech is free speech, you can't have it both ways.
This is one of those times when I wish (at least a little bit) that you could.
Get your book, face or breasts (not in the store of course but I'm sure you could work something out with Max) signed tomorrow at 2:00pm at Porter Square Books, 25 White St. Cambridge Ma. 02143.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ines Sainz and the New York Jets-Part I
Women sportscasters have never been taken seriously. Couple that with the fact that they are not all the same in skill or appearance and you can begin to see at least one of the inherent problem.
For one view on women sportscasters take the fans who runs Hogwild.net; "For the most part, these women are articulate and knowledgeable about sports. But for the most part, us men don't care."
Male sportscasters can be knowledgeable and ascetically pleasing without drawing attention away from their commentary or interviews. In most areas in society men are judged on skill first and appearance second if at all. Women, not so much. If Sainz had worn a burlap sack she would still be considered attractive right? Then why are people saying that she asked to be insulted because her jeans were too tight.
Sainz isn't just attractive mind you. Other words used to describe her include smoking hot, babe, sizzler and those are just the nice ones. Really this is a lose lose situation for her no matter what she does. I don't know whether she is a stand up sportscaster or not but the deck is stacked against this women whether she knows her shit or not. Can you say that she is doing her job to the best of her ability? I don't know. Is she a respected member of the sports media and all they stand for? I doubt it. Women weren't even allowed equal access to post game interviews until a court decision in 1978.
What I do know is that any women who is above average looking instead of just regular looking on one level it all comes down to how much society can blame her because of what she was wearing. But don't worry, Sainz seems relatively okay with the incident. First she says she was harassed, then she says she wasn't harassed, says she was offended, then she says she wasn't offended and so on and so forth. The media is already placing blame on those man hating feminists blowing the whole situation out of proportion. Maybe they did. For all we know Sainz is the one to blame for looking "sexy" enough to throw those male athletes into a tizzy. Boys being boys, right? We can't expect a group of adult men to be able to control themselves in the locker room, especially baited with a women whose behind I am told has its own fan club, that would just be too much to ask. Isn't it?
My solution to this is simple. Move interviews out of the locker rooms period. In terms of professional attire we have my second solution, create a dress code for sports reporters.
If women are excluded from equal access to do their job then the problem lies in where they are trying to gain access, the locker room. It may not be fair but it clearly isn't the same thing to ask me how I would feel if a male reporter came to visit me in my woman's only gym locker room to ask me to give a quote on the days step aerobics class. That just goes to show that gender stereotypes hurt both men and women. If the fraternal culture, apparently so alive in today's locker rooms is that integral to professional male athletic teams than they need to argue that fact and conduct all interviews somewhere else. They should be able to keep their teams "boys only club" as women can opt for a girls only locker room (not that women can join male professional sports at all) as long as they don't discriminate against the sportscasters who happen to be female.
For one view on women sportscasters take the fans who runs Hogwild.net; "For the most part, these women are articulate and knowledgeable about sports. But for the most part, us men don't care."
Male sportscasters can be knowledgeable and ascetically pleasing without drawing attention away from their commentary or interviews. In most areas in society men are judged on skill first and appearance second if at all. Women, not so much. If Sainz had worn a burlap sack she would still be considered attractive right? Then why are people saying that she asked to be insulted because her jeans were too tight.
Sainz isn't just attractive mind you. Other words used to describe her include smoking hot, babe, sizzler and those are just the nice ones. Really this is a lose lose situation for her no matter what she does. I don't know whether she is a stand up sportscaster or not but the deck is stacked against this women whether she knows her shit or not. Can you say that she is doing her job to the best of her ability? I don't know. Is she a respected member of the sports media and all they stand for? I doubt it. Women weren't even allowed equal access to post game interviews until a court decision in 1978.
What I do know is that any women who is above average looking instead of just regular looking on one level it all comes down to how much society can blame her because of what she was wearing. But don't worry, Sainz seems relatively okay with the incident. First she says she was harassed, then she says she wasn't harassed, says she was offended, then she says she wasn't offended and so on and so forth. The media is already placing blame on those man hating feminists blowing the whole situation out of proportion. Maybe they did. For all we know Sainz is the one to blame for looking "sexy" enough to throw those male athletes into a tizzy. Boys being boys, right? We can't expect a group of adult men to be able to control themselves in the locker room, especially baited with a women whose behind I am told has its own fan club, that would just be too much to ask. Isn't it?
My solution to this is simple. Move interviews out of the locker rooms period. In terms of professional attire we have my second solution, create a dress code for sports reporters.
If women are excluded from equal access to do their job then the problem lies in where they are trying to gain access, the locker room. It may not be fair but it clearly isn't the same thing to ask me how I would feel if a male reporter came to visit me in my woman's only gym locker room to ask me to give a quote on the days step aerobics class. That just goes to show that gender stereotypes hurt both men and women. If the fraternal culture, apparently so alive in today's locker rooms is that integral to professional male athletic teams than they need to argue that fact and conduct all interviews somewhere else. They should be able to keep their teams "boys only club" as women can opt for a girls only locker room (not that women can join male professional sports at all) as long as they don't discriminate against the sportscasters who happen to be female.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Spike.com rates Feminists on "Cuteness"
Can Feminists be cute? Spike.com sure thinks that Feminists can be cute and in order to prove it they made up a comprehensive list of the top seven (usually it's top ten but we are talking about Feminists and should count ourselves lucky that they found seven)cutest, yes, cutest Feminists.
First, we should be thanking them for answering the age old question that asks "Can intelligent women be easy on the eyes too?"
Second we should praise the clear display of class by Spike.com for ranking these cutesy she-devils on yup, you got it, "inner beauty"
So, who had the honor of gracing the list of cute Feminists? Third-wave Feminist Jennifer Baumgardner, U.K. activist Kat Banyard, New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, Feminist porn star Nina Hartley, author of "The Beauty Myth" Naomi Wolf, Jezebel's Jessica Coen and Nicole Kidman.
Does anyone know why Nicole Kidman is on that list? I'm confused.
Does anyone see a women on this list that isn't white? No.
Sure, it's really nice of Spike.com to put anything promoting these ladies accomplishments up on their web site and acknowledging that Feminism is still a thing when some young women today would rather be called a c*#t instead of the dreaded F word.
And now for the but. BUT, this is a really idiotic thing to do. This is a really irritating and unnecessary thing to do in a really obnoxious way.
"Oh, how super that women who act like people have these cute little ideas about equality."
So, white traditionally beautiful independent women thinkers can still go ahead and sleep well at night. It's okay ladies, Spike.com thinks you have (inner) beauty and brains.
Wow.
http://www.spike.com/blog/top-seven-cutest/99982?page=1&numPerPage=1
First, we should be thanking them for answering the age old question that asks "Can intelligent women be easy on the eyes too?"
Second we should praise the clear display of class by Spike.com for ranking these cutesy she-devils on yup, you got it, "inner beauty"
So, who had the honor of gracing the list of cute Feminists? Third-wave Feminist Jennifer Baumgardner, U.K. activist Kat Banyard, New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, Feminist porn star Nina Hartley, author of "The Beauty Myth" Naomi Wolf, Jezebel's Jessica Coen and Nicole Kidman.
Does anyone know why Nicole Kidman is on that list? I'm confused.
Does anyone see a women on this list that isn't white? No.
Sure, it's really nice of Spike.com to put anything promoting these ladies accomplishments up on their web site and acknowledging that Feminism is still a thing when some young women today would rather be called a c*#t instead of the dreaded F word.
And now for the but. BUT, this is a really idiotic thing to do. This is a really irritating and unnecessary thing to do in a really obnoxious way.
"Oh, how super that women who act like people have these cute little ideas about equality."
So, white traditionally beautiful independent women thinkers can still go ahead and sleep well at night. It's okay ladies, Spike.com thinks you have (inner) beauty and brains.
Wow.
http://www.spike.com/blog/top-seven-cutest/99982?page=1&numPerPage=1
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Filler up
Writing my review on Cabaret at the Oberon starring Amanda Palmer is taking a lot longer than expected. Instead of forcing a sub-par piece I will continue to fine tune it. In the mean time I wanted to share some cool and interesting things going on in the next few weeks.
1. Park(ing)Day Friday September 17th 2010.
Park(ing) Day is a simultaneous but independent world wide demonstration that transforms metered parking spaces into temporary outdoor public spaces. Participants sign a license agreement to use the trademark on parkingday.org but otherwise the rest of it is up to you. Participants conceptualize and design their own space and invite the public to join them in enjoying the temporary "park". What's the whole point? Well as stated by the founders of this 2005 DIY experience; "The mission of PARK(ing) Day is to call attention to the need for more urban open space, to generate critical debate around how public space is created and allocated, and to improve the quality of urban human habitat … at least until the meter runs out"! Cool.
2. The Big E
Not that I would drive to West Springfield for this only but I grew up right across the bridge and have many a fond memory of times spent at the Eastern States Exposition. This year the dates are September 17th-October 3rd. If fairs are your cup of tea you should really check out New England's biggest one. Granted it comes with all of the bad things about fairs (spending a ton of money, other people's children, looking at one hundred kinds of cowboy hats, cowboy boots, engraved jewelry, leather stalls, tacky outfits, bad Christmas gifts to be, bad pop music headliners and product demonstrations that are downright frightening) but the fair does also have games and rides, animals (cows!), crazy delicious Maine baked potatoes, a strip of buildings devoted to each New England State (Vermont=ice cream and cheese!)and of course a giant slide, fudge, candy apples and perhaps most importantly Fried Dough! Check out the specifics, http://www.thebige.com/ese/index.asp.
3.Union Square Fluff Festival-September 25th, 3-7p Union Square Plaza
Yes, it's true. Fluff was invented in Somerville by a man named Archibald Query. Though that happened in 1917, Fluff festival is only in its fifth year celebration. Go join the fun and don't forget that this years homage goes out to the Whoopie Pie.
Oh and if you are super excited about that marshmallowy goodness, What the Fluff? has its own facebook page too. Rain date is the same time on Sunday, 9/26.
1. Park(ing)Day Friday September 17th 2010.
Park(ing) Day is a simultaneous but independent world wide demonstration that transforms metered parking spaces into temporary outdoor public spaces. Participants sign a license agreement to use the trademark on parkingday.org but otherwise the rest of it is up to you. Participants conceptualize and design their own space and invite the public to join them in enjoying the temporary "park". What's the whole point? Well as stated by the founders of this 2005 DIY experience; "The mission of PARK(ing) Day is to call attention to the need for more urban open space, to generate critical debate around how public space is created and allocated, and to improve the quality of urban human habitat … at least until the meter runs out"! Cool.
2. The Big E
Not that I would drive to West Springfield for this only but I grew up right across the bridge and have many a fond memory of times spent at the Eastern States Exposition. This year the dates are September 17th-October 3rd. If fairs are your cup of tea you should really check out New England's biggest one. Granted it comes with all of the bad things about fairs (spending a ton of money, other people's children, looking at one hundred kinds of cowboy hats, cowboy boots, engraved jewelry, leather stalls, tacky outfits, bad Christmas gifts to be, bad pop music headliners and product demonstrations that are downright frightening) but the fair does also have games and rides, animals (cows!), crazy delicious Maine baked potatoes, a strip of buildings devoted to each New England State (Vermont=ice cream and cheese!)and of course a giant slide, fudge, candy apples and perhaps most importantly Fried Dough! Check out the specifics, http://www.thebige.com/ese/index.asp.
3.Union Square Fluff Festival-September 25th, 3-7p Union Square Plaza
Yes, it's true. Fluff was invented in Somerville by a man named Archibald Query. Though that happened in 1917, Fluff festival is only in its fifth year celebration. Go join the fun and don't forget that this years homage goes out to the Whoopie Pie.
Oh and if you are super excited about that marshmallowy goodness, What the Fluff? has its own facebook page too. Rain date is the same time on Sunday, 9/26.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The only thing we have to fear is that crazy pastor in Flordia burning the Qur'an.
You must have heard by now, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida plans to host something he is calling "International Burn a Koran Day" on September 11th. Jones was kicked out of the last congregation he led because he used the church till to pay for his own expenses but don't let that fool you into thinking this Pentecostal pastor isn't on a mission that he has been called to by God himself. Though everyone from local to national politicians, army generals and embassies from foreign countries have spoke out rejecting the demonstration, Jones has insisted that he and his 50 person congregation will continue their plan to burn one of the most holy and revered text in the world.
Do I think he's crazy? Absolutely. Jones stated on CBS "We are definitely probably insulting all Muslims," um, yeah, you think?
Jones is not phased by offending roughly 22% of the world population because in his mind "The fact that we offend them is the lesser of two evils." You see, Jones argues that because radical Islam is going to eventually take over America we have to be even more radical in defending our American way of life from Islamic zealots. What did pastor Jones say about endangering the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan? "We understand what the general is saying, and I'm sure that it has somewhat some truth to it."
The most upsetting thing about this display comes from another quote from Jones CBS interview. He states, "We think it's time to turn the tables, and instead of possibly blaming us for what could happen, we put the blame where it belongs - on the people who would do it," he said. "And maybe instead of addressing us, we should address radical Islam and send a very clear warning that they are not to retaliate in any form."
Oh, okay. So we burn the holy text believed to be verbatim the word of God taught by the holy prophet Muhammad and then we just tell the rest of the world that they better not do anything about it. Even if we could prevent retaliation directed at America in general, the many soldiers and American diplomats scattered through the middle east are already being targeted because of Pastor John's inability to make any damn sense.
This so-called congregation reminds me more of a cult than of a group of 50 passionate Pentecostals fighting evil. Do I think this falls under the category of exercising the right to free speech? Yes, but just as much as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater falls under the good old first amendment. This time however, inciting a stampede of panicked movie goers seems a lot more amusing than furthering an agenda of violent intolerant hate. If you want to endanger yourself to make a statement then that is one thing. Taking on the role of a hateful, ignorant, crooked pastor who wants to send a message to the Islamic world while hiding behind the constitution and the FBI while safely in wherever the fuck Florida USA, is a completely different and much more gutless action.
Could we send Pastor Jones a basket full of snakes and a pitcher of red kool-aid? Maybe some white nikes? Perhaps the good pastor just needs a distraction to realize how bat-shit crazy it is to light any book, especially one with such loaded dangerous ramifications on fire to make a statement about the dangers of radical religious intolerance.
Do I think he's crazy? Absolutely. Jones stated on CBS "We are definitely probably insulting all Muslims," um, yeah, you think?
Jones is not phased by offending roughly 22% of the world population because in his mind "The fact that we offend them is the lesser of two evils." You see, Jones argues that because radical Islam is going to eventually take over America we have to be even more radical in defending our American way of life from Islamic zealots. What did pastor Jones say about endangering the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan? "We understand what the general is saying, and I'm sure that it has somewhat some truth to it."
The most upsetting thing about this display comes from another quote from Jones CBS interview. He states, "We think it's time to turn the tables, and instead of possibly blaming us for what could happen, we put the blame where it belongs - on the people who would do it," he said. "And maybe instead of addressing us, we should address radical Islam and send a very clear warning that they are not to retaliate in any form."
Oh, okay. So we burn the holy text believed to be verbatim the word of God taught by the holy prophet Muhammad and then we just tell the rest of the world that they better not do anything about it. Even if we could prevent retaliation directed at America in general, the many soldiers and American diplomats scattered through the middle east are already being targeted because of Pastor John's inability to make any damn sense.
This so-called congregation reminds me more of a cult than of a group of 50 passionate Pentecostals fighting evil. Do I think this falls under the category of exercising the right to free speech? Yes, but just as much as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater falls under the good old first amendment. This time however, inciting a stampede of panicked movie goers seems a lot more amusing than furthering an agenda of violent intolerant hate. If you want to endanger yourself to make a statement then that is one thing. Taking on the role of a hateful, ignorant, crooked pastor who wants to send a message to the Islamic world while hiding behind the constitution and the FBI while safely in wherever the fuck Florida USA, is a completely different and much more gutless action.
Could we send Pastor Jones a basket full of snakes and a pitcher of red kool-aid? Maybe some white nikes? Perhaps the good pastor just needs a distraction to realize how bat-shit crazy it is to light any book, especially one with such loaded dangerous ramifications on fire to make a statement about the dangers of radical religious intolerance.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Your back alley or mine? (or The A Word Part I)
Regardless of any argument to restrict or ban legal abortions one thing remains an absolute constant. Abortions will happen no matter what. Abortions have occurred no matter what. Even if you shut down every clinic in the entire United States (or the world), abortions will be performed, period. If you honestly think that women who need/choose/want abortions deserve to risk their life for one than you can go ahead and call yourself a misogynist but you cannot call yourself pro-life.
You can say that you would never personally have an abortion but that doesn't make you pro life. What the hell is pro life anyway? Pro choice is not pro death and anti choice doesn't say it all either. If you believe that women should be denied a safe and legal abortion you are not protecting the unborn nor the rights of said fetus. You certainly aren't protecting the life of the women who is actually a real live out of womb person.
A fetus is not a baby. It is a pre-human. It has the potential to become a human. If you believe that life begins at fertilization than to you any human cells are considered alive, scientifically and any part of the human body has the equipment of a potential human being. Author Leonard Peikoff puts it this way:
"That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.(http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/abortion-rights-are-pro-life/).
Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged was strongly against the term pro life as well as the idea that anyone except the individual women should decide whether or not to carry a fetus to full term.
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?("Of Living Death" The voice of reason, p58,59.)"
The pro life movement in and of itself is filled with lies. Worse than that are the women who actively protest and fight to deny all women safe legal abortions and then have an abortion when they find themselves in the same situation. Even typing in the phrase on google "pro life women who have abortions" you will find out several horrifying things. One is that there really are women who have chosen to have an abortion that still consider themselves pro life (their abortion doesn't count). Also disturbing is the amount of women who will tell you how much their abortion ruined their lives and thus want to deny any women from making the same decision. These are women who chose to have an abortion for whatever reason and because they regret that decision they want to take away the option for other women. Case in point, in the instance of the landmark case Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (i.e. Jane Roe) later came out as anti-abortion and wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
All in all, I don't know what possessives individuals to dedicate themselves to "saving the unborn" from the clutches of terrible evil women who want to deny their biological destiny. Imagine how much money and time is spent by organizations lobbying to take away the rights of others or printing giant posters with blown up pictures of partial fetuses. Imagine how much effort and resources are eaten up by the constant protests at any known location known to provide abortions. For now I can only offer this, perhaps it has not crossed the minds of these individuals that this general fervor on their part over "life" may well be better spent on those children who are already alive.
To be continued...
You can say that you would never personally have an abortion but that doesn't make you pro life. What the hell is pro life anyway? Pro choice is not pro death and anti choice doesn't say it all either. If you believe that women should be denied a safe and legal abortion you are not protecting the unborn nor the rights of said fetus. You certainly aren't protecting the life of the women who is actually a real live out of womb person.
A fetus is not a baby. It is a pre-human. It has the potential to become a human. If you believe that life begins at fertilization than to you any human cells are considered alive, scientifically and any part of the human body has the equipment of a potential human being. Author Leonard Peikoff puts it this way:
"That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.(http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/abortion-rights-are-pro-life/).
Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged was strongly against the term pro life as well as the idea that anyone except the individual women should decide whether or not to carry a fetus to full term.
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?("Of Living Death" The voice of reason, p58,59.)"
The pro life movement in and of itself is filled with lies. Worse than that are the women who actively protest and fight to deny all women safe legal abortions and then have an abortion when they find themselves in the same situation. Even typing in the phrase on google "pro life women who have abortions" you will find out several horrifying things. One is that there really are women who have chosen to have an abortion that still consider themselves pro life (their abortion doesn't count). Also disturbing is the amount of women who will tell you how much their abortion ruined their lives and thus want to deny any women from making the same decision. These are women who chose to have an abortion for whatever reason and because they regret that decision they want to take away the option for other women. Case in point, in the instance of the landmark case Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (i.e. Jane Roe) later came out as anti-abortion and wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
All in all, I don't know what possessives individuals to dedicate themselves to "saving the unborn" from the clutches of terrible evil women who want to deny their biological destiny. Imagine how much money and time is spent by organizations lobbying to take away the rights of others or printing giant posters with blown up pictures of partial fetuses. Imagine how much effort and resources are eaten up by the constant protests at any known location known to provide abortions. For now I can only offer this, perhaps it has not crossed the minds of these individuals that this general fervor on their part over "life" may well be better spent on those children who are already alive.
To be continued...
Friday, September 3, 2010
Day off musings, Earl and The Tin Thistles
I don't know what's worse a big hurricane coming towards the Cape and Boston-ish area or the thousands of new college students who blow in all at once?
Managing a coffee shop during the summer is grueling in actual physical labor. Once Fall nears the toll begins on in the mental side of things. The individual students themselves suck just as much as any other co-hort but there exists an added insult to injury from this particular vast temporary diaspora. Naive, youthful students who are brimming over with potential and hope dangling right in front of them are not only annoying to those of us who stayed her after college but these same students also take up a ton of space.
In theory, I think college students are supposed to exist in their microcosm of coffee shop culture. A lot of these students probably got their first laptop at age 12 and still can't leave the house without it. We may fiscally benefit from the influx of the student population but that doesn't mean we can decide where they spend their time. Cafes attract students like magnets. Think about it; Cafes have food, caffeinated beverages, tables and public bathrooms. What else does one need while writing an 18-page research paper on colony collapse disorder?
Fresh with new found freedom students get sick of their roommate or dorm surroundings and spill out into the local bars, restaurants and clubs for entertainment. The dollars start flowing into the local economy and everybody wins, right? We'll sort of. For now we must put up with crowded trains, drunken frat boys and even the occasional Frisbee to the head (keep your eyes peeled should you walk through a college quad) but you don't have to despair entirely, Winter break is a mere 3 and 1/2 months away. Until then I would suggest venturing out to explore new and different things to do and eat in Boston because chances are it will be a long time before you're able to snatch a seat in any cafe in your immediate area again.
Looking for something to do?
The Tin Thistles- Tonight at the Middle East Upstairs! Starts at 9:00pm and costs only $10 for this 18+ show. Come early the Thistles are opening. Other bands include Hot Molasses and Slow Century. For more info check out
http://www.mideastclub.com/
Managing a coffee shop during the summer is grueling in actual physical labor. Once Fall nears the toll begins on in the mental side of things. The individual students themselves suck just as much as any other co-hort but there exists an added insult to injury from this particular vast temporary diaspora. Naive, youthful students who are brimming over with potential and hope dangling right in front of them are not only annoying to those of us who stayed her after college but these same students also take up a ton of space.
In theory, I think college students are supposed to exist in their microcosm of coffee shop culture. A lot of these students probably got their first laptop at age 12 and still can't leave the house without it. We may fiscally benefit from the influx of the student population but that doesn't mean we can decide where they spend their time. Cafes attract students like magnets. Think about it; Cafes have food, caffeinated beverages, tables and public bathrooms. What else does one need while writing an 18-page research paper on colony collapse disorder?
Fresh with new found freedom students get sick of their roommate or dorm surroundings and spill out into the local bars, restaurants and clubs for entertainment. The dollars start flowing into the local economy and everybody wins, right? We'll sort of. For now we must put up with crowded trains, drunken frat boys and even the occasional Frisbee to the head (keep your eyes peeled should you walk through a college quad) but you don't have to despair entirely, Winter break is a mere 3 and 1/2 months away. Until then I would suggest venturing out to explore new and different things to do and eat in Boston because chances are it will be a long time before you're able to snatch a seat in any cafe in your immediate area again.
Looking for something to do?
The Tin Thistles- Tonight at the Middle East Upstairs! Starts at 9:00pm and costs only $10 for this 18+ show. Come early the Thistles are opening. Other bands include Hot Molasses and Slow Century. For more info check out
http://www.mideastclub.com/
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Tucker Max (or I have no sense of humor)
Many Feminists have weighed in on their opinions of Tucker Max, author of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell and the soon to be published Assholes Finish First. The deliberation is vast and divided. Some women like him and point out that his audience has a sizable female following. Some women laud the text as an instruction manual on how to avoid dating douche bags. There are women who think he perpetuates negative gender stereotypes and should be stopped. Tucker himself writes openly about taking advantage of women and has a female rating scale that labels women in the 1-star category as "common stock pig".
One thing that has tilted my own scale to neither pro nor anti Tucker Max status is that I understand he is trying to be funny. The success of his books have been based on the fact that people will buy them. It is women who put money in his pocket as well as men. People like Tucker Max and they also think he's hilarious. The reactions he elicits add fuel to any chance of long standing popularity. One way or the other Tucker Max demands attention.
If you read Tucker Max in all seriousness as I do you clearly don't think that he is funny. I think he says horrible things in vulgar demeaning language and his outlandish immature lifestyle grows boring quickly. I think he is misogynist because his defense is that women deserve to be treated like shit. Women who don't "demand respect" have target written all over them and deserve any unfortunate treatment that may befall them as a result.
The fact remains that he has every right to feel how he feels. Ardent protesters don't understand that denying Tucker Max the right to say the things he says and write the things he writes is ludricous. More than that in alot of ways it incites contradiction. Either way being an asshole is not yet a crime. I cannot say that I find his writing to be be funny and entertaining because to me throwing around the word rape and calling anyone a pig isn't funny. If you don't think Tucker Max is funny you shouldn't read his writing.
Want to decide for yourself? Tucker Max will be signing books at Porter Square Books on October 2. For more information on Tucker Max visit his website tuckermax.com. For more information on the book signing visit portersquarebooks.com
One thing that has tilted my own scale to neither pro nor anti Tucker Max status is that I understand he is trying to be funny. The success of his books have been based on the fact that people will buy them. It is women who put money in his pocket as well as men. People like Tucker Max and they also think he's hilarious. The reactions he elicits add fuel to any chance of long standing popularity. One way or the other Tucker Max demands attention.
If you read Tucker Max in all seriousness as I do you clearly don't think that he is funny. I think he says horrible things in vulgar demeaning language and his outlandish immature lifestyle grows boring quickly. I think he is misogynist because his defense is that women deserve to be treated like shit. Women who don't "demand respect" have target written all over them and deserve any unfortunate treatment that may befall them as a result.
The fact remains that he has every right to feel how he feels. Ardent protesters don't understand that denying Tucker Max the right to say the things he says and write the things he writes is ludricous. More than that in alot of ways it incites contradiction. Either way being an asshole is not yet a crime. I cannot say that I find his writing to be be funny and entertaining because to me throwing around the word rape and calling anyone a pig isn't funny. If you don't think Tucker Max is funny you shouldn't read his writing.
Want to decide for yourself? Tucker Max will be signing books at Porter Square Books on October 2. For more information on Tucker Max visit his website tuckermax.com. For more information on the book signing visit portersquarebooks.com
Monday, August 30, 2010
What about New Orleans?
August 29th marked the fifth year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Five years later as The Louisiana Weekly notes "Women of color remained, returned, or moved to New Orleans in low numbers relative to white women in the five years since Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of the city" The women they speak of are also hindered by race and gender in terms of employment, lack of public housing and higher rates of exposure to violence.
For more information visit http://www.iwpr.org/Poverty/Research_poverty.htm
For more information visit http://www.iwpr.org/Poverty/Research_poverty.htm
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The 19th Amendment
Yesterday was the ninetieth anniversary of the womens suffrage movement. The 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. It was at the behest of the Democratic New York Rep. Bella Abzug that in 1971, August 26th was given the title of Women's Equality Day.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Declaration of Sentiments.
The Declaration of Sentiments
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer. while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyrranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men--both natives and foreigners.
Having deprived her of this first right of a citizedn, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master--the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardles of the happiness of women--the law, in all cases, going upon a flase supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.
After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most homorable to himself. As a teacher of theoloy, medicine, or law, she is not known.
He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.
He allows her in church, as well as state, but a suborinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.
He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.
He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.
He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her conficence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation--in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.
from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, A History of Woman Suffrage , vol. 1 (Rochester, N.Y.: Fowler and Wells, 1889), pages 70-71.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)