"How many unfunny rape jokes lead to rape?"

I cannot tell you how often, from both men and women, I get called "uptight" or a "femi-nazi" or some equally disparaging comment for holding the belief that rape jokes (or "wife-beating" or whatever the sensitive issue is) are just not funny. No exception. When anyone steps back and realizes that to be able to make a joke about these issues is based in a disrespect for the severity of the issue/CRIME, it basically kills the humor. As far as I know, anyone well versed in sexual assault issues, who has been assaulted, or who knows someone that has been, never finds a joke about rape or assault funny--the difference between them and someone else who does probably exists in having the issue hit home. When I hear issues about wife-beating, I don't think about the joke-I think about all the bruised faces I have seen, I see victims and survivors--not objects of humor.

Moreover, as I have mentioned before, if one takes a look back on history--the issues that we have made fun of in the past often reflect society's prejudices. For example, there was a time when African-Americans were made fun of in mainstream newspapers and media and it was "only a joke" because of societal attitudes--that doesn't make it okay, and it wasn't funny then to many people and its even less funny now to most. So to me, yes, rape jokes are not jokes--they are insults to survivors of rape, victims of rape, and all women, they are indicative of the fact that crimes against woman are still not given equal weight or attention.

So, what spurred this post was my googling of an amazing woman--Sonia Ossorio, the President of NOW-NYC. I googled her and came across this video where she was debating the severity of two remarks made by radio hosts concerning raping Condoleeza Rice--how upsetting that anyone could believe that we could ever make light of that issue!...Patrice O'Neal, the comedian defending the comments asks, "how many unfunny rape jokes lead to rape?" Let me say this at the very least: its not necessarily that a rape joke directly causes a person to commit the crime. It is truth, however, that a rape joke is indicative of a societal culture and attitude that doesn't do enough to say that raping someone IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE. NEVER. and, sorry Patrice O'Neal--its NEVER FUNNY either...and, yes, I do have a sense of humor.

Women-only hours at Harvard's gym; Follow-up to MacDonald

Harvard has instituted a new policy of women-only hours at the gym, which particularly benefits Muslim women. The blogosphere has been especially critical of this policy (a lot of it has a very islamophobic slant, however), and I am wondering what you all think. From my perspective, it seems that having this sort of segregated time may only further gender and religious stereotypes and keep diverse individuals from interacting with one another. What do you think?

On another note, here's a great response to the Heather MacDonald op-ed in the LA Times.

Misogynist men and the women they kill

It is very frustrating for me to write about the issue of violence against women and how the social system fails to protect them again and again, and again, and again.

This article I was reading tells another awful story.

College rape overestimated?

LiJia mentioned Heather MacDonald's piece about the fact that college rape statistics are over-estimated. If anything, they have to be under-reported. But one of the questions that came up for me was the fact that MacDonald cited a 1980 study and blamed this over-estimate on the survey questions. Do you think such a study should be done since it has been 20 years, and my belief is that we would find many more cases of rape in college than a study 20 years ago. But then again, I'm sure Ms. MacDonald would find another argument to blame those "drunken college girls" who do this to themselves.

Is the blogosphere gendered?

I just read an article titled "The Gendered Blogosphere" by Dustin Harp and Mark Tremayne which states that according to their research, only 10% of top bloggers are women. Why do you think that is? Does it have to do with the networking that happens in the blogosphere? Or how about the way we value political blogs and personal blogs?

What do you think?

The dude vote

Here we go again! Another article, another testimony of how sexist this election is and how much more we are going to see!



Source: Salon.com

The media and girls

I came across this article that is a good follow-up to a previous post about the much more scrutinizing treatment that girls get in the media.

What a way to go

We all know that the feminist community and the gay community have had a rough relationship from the start. However, as someone who believes all oppressed peoples should stand in solidarity with each other, I would like to post the following message from Paula Ettelbrick, the Executive Director of International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

Roc Weiland was an activist during his lifetime, and left an amazing legacy after his death. His monetary gift is impressive, but it is even more impressive that he will continue funding imperative work around the world. Please take a moment to read the following excerpt and celebrate the life of someone who fought for change.

INTERNATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

IGLHRC Member Update: Ric Weiland's Bequest

To all of you who so generously support IGLHRC:

I want to let you know personally of a very generous bequest made both to the LGBTI community in general and to IGLHRC by Ric Weiland. As you can see from the attached articles published today in the Chronicle of Philanthropy and yesterday in the Seattle Times, IGLHRC is honored to be one of the designated beneficiaries of the single largest bequest ever made to the LGBT community: $65 million dollars that will be given in differing amounts to 11 LGBT groups, including the Pride Foundation in Seattle which will administer the funds.

Ric Weiland, a long time IGLHRC supporter, died in June 2006 at the age of 53. Under the provisions of Ric's will, IGLHRC will receive approximately $198,000 per year over the next 8 years, for a total bequest of just under $1.6 million dollars.

Needless to say, this is an unprecedented gift for IGLHRC, and one that could not have come at a better time for the organization. As was clear from my conversations with him, Ric understood that organizations need to be able to plan multi-year strategies. His gifts to IGLHRC, when he was alive, had evolved into 2-year pledges that allowed us the freedom to plan and strategize with our partners around the world over a period longer than a single fiscal year. He knew that decriminalizing homosexuality or fighting police violence requires that we adopt long-term strategies in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and all of the places that IGLHRC's work reaches. His approach encouraged me to ask many of you to pledge your support over the course of several years as well.

Thus, with Ric's example in mind, IGLHRC will be using this unexpected funding in two primary ways. First, to build the next five-year vision and strategy for IGLHRC's work around the world and at the United Nations. That strategy will incorporate a plan for building multi-year support from our individual supporters through our Global Dignity Fund (GDF). As with Ric's bequest, which will be paid out quarterly, having GDF monthly funds to rely on increases our capacity to sustain ongoing work with grassroots groups and respond to human rights emergencies as they occur.

Second, in light of Ric's specific desire to help build strong community groups, IGLHRC will use a portion of the bequest to establish a paid annual fellowship program in one of our regional offices. The program will allow LGBT activists in Africa, Asia, Latin America or the Caribbean to apply for a fellowship to work with our staff on a project to promote LGBTI human rights advocacy in her/his home country.

Ric's death was a painful and difficult loss for so many. There is nothing any of us would have preferred than to have him with us, working in his very gentle way and witnessing the successes that his generosity has provided to our entire movement in the United States for so many years. Yet, in death he acts as he did in life - encouraging long-term vision, trusting our groups' leadership to know how to do that, and contributing to a grassroots-based movement. There is no individual in the world who has given as generously to the goal of global equality for LGBTI people as Ric Weiland. The lives and work of LGBTI activists in Kenya, Thailand, Chile, China and elsewhere around the world will benefit from Ric's generosity to IGLHRC, and we are truly honored.

We thank you, too, for your extraordinary commitment to fighting for the rights of LGBTI people where ever they live and for your faith in IGLHRC. By building on Ric's generosity, we move closer each day to a world that understands that human rights are the entitlement of all people.

Sincerely,

Paula L. Ettelbrick
Executive Director

Why we should settle?????

Have any of you read the piece by Lori Gottlieb titled "Marry Him?" The piece says that despite the fact that we call ourselves feminists we still need a man - otherwise sudden panic and desperation ensues as we age. So basically, instead of searching for Mr. Perfect or even being self-reliant, Ms. Gottlieb suggest we settle for Mr. Good Enough because otherwise our lives will be incomplete come 30 years and over. I have issues with this piece, first because of the obvious implication that our own personal security rests on the fact that we need a man in our lives, but also because of the concept of "settling." What does this mean and what do you think?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

Women deserve to be raped?

I found out about this outrageous article via Feministing that was posted in the LA Times. It reminds me so much of the woman-blaming that occurs when it comes to rape. Over the summer, I overheard a conversation between three male students at Georgetown that made me sick to my stomach. The Georgetown student who dominated the conversation was recounting the story of a murder of a girl at Texas A & M that was committed by her boyfriend. He commented that "you know, she was probably one of those girls that loves to date sketchy guys. She probably deserved it." He continued by stating that, "you know what, it's the same with girls that go to sketchy frat parties and get raped. I don't even feel bad for them. They deserve to be raped."

It is incredulous to me that ANYONE, much less a student at my own university, could believe that ANYONE DESERVES TO BE RAPED OR KILLED. Why is he blaming the victims in these situations instead of the perpetrators? Why didn't he blame the person who committed the murder or individuals who commit rape instead?

Let's think about this logically. So, we make the assumption that women who go to sketchy frat parties have some awareness of the risk they are exposing themselves to. We can also make the assumption that soldiers going to Iraq are aware of the risks they are exposing themselves to. Or people that decide to go into surgery. Or people who are walking alone late at night. Do those people deserve to be killed in battle, die on an operating table, or be mugged? Why is it that these women "deserve to be raped" then?

Sex worker murderer gets glory in the New York Times

*cross-posted on ChoiceUSA

And the New York Times article announcing the verdict could not be shorter.

This is just painfully indicative of how violence against women, NO MATTER THEIR OCCUPATION, is not only acceptable but commonplace.

This man killed five women! FIVE. And they get two sentences in the Times.

I was disgusted until I found this article by Bloomberg.com, a United Kingdom and Ireland online publication that humanizes these women:

Adams spent her childhood in a suburban home, playing the piano, riding horses and going to Girl Scouts, according to U.K. media reports. Clennell was the daughter of a civil engineer and a nurse. Alderton wanted to be a model and spoke fluent Greek. Nicholls studied to become a beautician, while Nicol trained as a hairdresser.

The article isn't perfect, but at least it gives us their names. Shame on you New York Times.

Power Grandmothers - A generation of women who did it all

Today's 50-60 year old women are truly the first generation of women who did it all, or at least tried to. They built successful careers, had families, raised children and created interesting lives for themselves.


Here is the Guardian article talking about the generation of power grandmothers.

Boys Will Be Boys, Girls Will Be Hounded by the Media -NY Times

This article in the NY Times talks about the different portrayal/degree of coverage of troubled male and female celebrities in the media, particularly tabloids.
According to the article (and we all can probably testify to it) female celebrities get more bombastic, dramatic coverage than their male counterparts do.
An interesting point, I find, is the fact that about 70% of the tabloids' readership are women and stories of troubled female celebrities seem to be more appealing to them than the stories of the male celebrities.
Now, I wonder why this is. Is it because women having been historically the obedient, less rebel members of society find it fascinating to see other women break out of the social norm and rebel? Any thoughts?

Two Iranian sister face death by stoning for adultery

The case of the two Kabiri Sisters has drawn quite a bit of attention from activists across the world. The two women have been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, after already having been punished with ninety nine lashes.

Amnesty International has an Urgent Action for the case so please send your appeals as soon as possible.

Amnesty Urgent Action pamphlet

More white babies wanted, especially in Europe

The Nation featured a long article about reproductive patterns in Europe and that how old white Europe is not producing enough white babies. The shift in demographics has been a concern for religious leaders especially.

The policies adopted in certain countries(especially Poland being a leader) are really disturbing as they are blatantly racist, violating human rights.

Bill Clinton is wonderful

We disagree with you. You want to penalize women and their doctors.

'Yours, Rose"

An article about a transsexual Indian talk show host.

The article makes points about the perceived hypocrisy of American Society regarding attitudes toward sexual minorities as well as presents interesting questions that will arise as Rose tries to balance audience appeal with pushing societal boundaries.

I often hear the opinion that America criticizes other countries for being closed-minded while simultaneously trying to dictate the sexual values of its citizens. I wonder what others think about this statement?

Girls suck at math

I was very inspired by the quote Aartie sent out to everyone,

"Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, 'she doesn't have what it takes.' They will say, 'women don't have what it takes.'" ~Clare Boothe Luce

Inspired enough to put it up as my Gchat away message. Ha! Anyway, I got this cartoon in response. Figures.

Rights for Sex Offenders

A New York Times article that discusses a proposed Massachusetts ordinance that would bar sex-offenders from many public spaces. While my initial reaction was excitement to see the issue being discussed and to see a legislative body taking accountability, I am uneasy about taking away rights of persons when so many grey areas exist as to when a place becomes considered a public gathering place for children and etc. To me, that means the ordinance needs to be clearly defined and tailored and it does NOT mean that the ordinance should be eliminated...but I am interested to see how others feel about it?

Whom Is the Law Structured to Protect?

An op-ed from Bob Herbert that discusses, amongst other issues, imprisoning young children who have been forced into prostitution while letting the people who took advantage of them go free.

The op-ed starts out by discussing a POLICE DETECTIVE and his girlfriend who allegedly "bought" a girl for $500 and forced her to perform sexual acts at parties. A police detective?!? Many victims of violent crimes often express hesitation to call the police or to reach out for help from law enforcement agents. These people are often then blamed for not doing so by others who claim "if they really wanted out of the situation they would have done something about it"--well, when a police detective is prostituting a 13-year-old girl it may have the effect of making others slightly uneasy about the extent to which they can trust officers. Not to mention the other point that the article goes on to make which is that too often the real victim of the crime gets put behind bars. I have to admit, however, that I know a few people who would say that anyone put into prostitution can run, can hide, can call the police and his or her reluctance to do so equates content with that aspect of their life. That opinion paints a horribly simply picture of a crime that has many more aspects and complications as this article exemplifies.

quote

“When we see a woman standing on a table or amid the tumultuous throng of a demonstration, she will have lost all her charm. The day the gentlewoman becomes a conservative, the cook a socialist and the housekeeper an independent socialist, we will have created chaos in the home.”

José F. Uriburu, Argentine politician, 1929

Mao's view of women

Chairman Mao in addition to many interesting ideas he had, he seemed to have had a very particular view of women.

The State Department released transcripts of conversations between Mao and Kissinger, quoting the Chinese leader saying that women could quite as well be the dismay of his country.

BBC article.

Banda sisters

Indian women in the region of Banda are challenging the status quo and protesting against violence and corruption.

Here is the story.

Broken by Shy Keenan

I came across the story of Shy Keenan and was left with a feeling of disgust, disappointment and anger, especially towards a system that could fail children to that degree.

Shy wrote a book about her life called Broken:

CUNT offends Today Show Audience

A video showing Meredith Viera apologizing for Jane Fonda's use of the word "cunt" on the TODAY show. Mind you, the word was in the context of the play. I wonder what other people think--inappropriate or innocuous?

WAR, WHAT'S IT GOOD FOR?

A NYT article connecting the war to domestic violence. Another reason that war IS a feminist issue.

On a lighter note...

Eve: "New Orleans is the vagina of America, if you think about it." Jane: "Yes. It's Moist. It's a place where people come for fun!" - Eve Ensler and Jane Fonda discussing why the big V-Day celebration will be held in New Orleans this April, on Today.

For those of you who love the vagina monologues as much as me...

"That Would be Putting Women in a Position of Authority Over Boys."

A woman in Kansas was prevented from officiating a boys basketball game because she is a woman. The situation presents an example of blatant discrimination during an era where many discriminatory actions tend to take more subtle forms.

One of the reasons given for not allowing a woman to officiate the game is that it would be putting a woman in a position of authority over boys--can you imagine?! I mean how would the world ever recover from having female teachers, bosses, politicians, and, oh, I don't know...MOTHERS. Good Grief.

M. Dowd Op-ed: A flawed feminist test

I have serious issues with what Maureen Dowd considers to be her feminist ideas but my idea of feminism is an embracive movement... so here is an article from her about this year's elections and the female candidate for president.

Axe effect on Hillary Clinton

This is outrageous!
The degrees of sexism in this election are unimaginable. I just don't get it!!!

Competitiveness in men and women

This article in the NY Times Freaconomics blog talks about a study done to observe competitiveness in men and women in patriarchal and matriarchal societies.

The questions raised in the study made me think about my own experience. I went to an all girls high school and I felt like I owned the place, literally. Nothing seemed impossible or difficult and never did I feel intimidated or as if I could not make it. In college, I was at a co-ed institution and I did not always have the feeling I described above. I often felt a little intimidated because of the cultural differences,I thought. A part of me, always knew that I just did not want to lose with embarrassing results, in public.
The cultural barrier worked though. I was after all in a different country.
I love my alma matter and I would have never changed my experience there, but I always wonder how would have things been had I gone to Wellesley for example. I wonder how the Wellesley me would have been.

Sexualizing girls for a good cause - Salon.com

A PSA campaign to raise awareness about statutory rape has chosen an interesting way to go about it...

Salon.com, Carol Lloyd

Retch. Gone are the days when public service announcements were an earnest G-rated branch of advertising. Between lurid pictures of drunken women crouching on bar bathroom floors to warn against excessive drinking to Alicia Silverstone emerging naked from a swimming pool in the name of vegetarianism, serving the public now increasingly means shocking, offending or sometimes simply confusing people into noticing.

This year's award for most controversial PSA has got to go to a series of ads (via CopyRanter) that never got launched at all. Late in January three PSAs began appearing on advertising sites and blogs designed by Serve, a Milwaukee ad agency, and attributed (falsely it turns out) to the Family Violence Partnership in Milwaukee. The ads were geared toward raising awareness of statutory rape -- which according to Heather Aldrich, executive director of Serve, has been identified as a huge problem among Milwaukee's inner-city youth. She cited statistics that 71 percent of all the children born to teen mothers were fathered by men over 20. "It's unacceptable for a young girl to go out with a 23-year-old man," she said, when I reached her by phone.

The issue of statutory rape is a sticky one. I dated a 24-year-old man briefly when I was 17, then dropped him because he seemed too naive and returned to my 16-year-old boyfriend. But in a culture where little girls are getting pregnant with men's babies, it's worth raising some eyebrows (and even some bile) to get people talking about the problem.

The ad was so unsettling that its appearance in the blogosphere put the kibosh on the plans for the large outdoor campaign. Frankly, when I first saw the images I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Offensive, disturbing, obscene -- give me an adjective of moral outrage and I will use it. The ads took little girls' heads (not teenagers') and Photoshopped them onto women with giant breasts spilling out of cocktail dresses. In the background in large block but not always legible letters are various warnings: "If you see a child as anything more it's wrong," or "When you look at a young girl as something more you need help," or, behind the picture of the African-American girl, the unfortunate line: "Just because she has the body doesn't mean she has the brain." At the bottom of the page comes the official message: "If you're over 18 and having sex with an underage girl it's statutory rape."

At best these images are confusing. The faces are of children, I would guess, 8 to 11 years old; they are not the faces of victims of statutory rape but of pedophilia. On the other hand, the bodies are obviously those of grown women, dressed seductively with painted nails -- these bodies don't really evoke the teen victims of statutory rape either. At worst the images -- of sexy, smiling child/women who appear ready for anything -- are titillating in a bad way. One commenter nailed it: "There are much better ways to raise awareness than Photoshopping some pervert's fantasy."

But according to Aldrich, who graciously agreed to speak to me, I was not the intended audience. "It was never for Caucasian women," she said. "It was for the largely African-American and Hispanic inner-city youth -- ages 15 to 25."

The campaign was also not created for the Family Violence Partnership, a former client of Serve, but for the United Way of Greater Milwaukee, which has now pulled the ads in the wake of the controversy. Aside from being posted in a few bathroom stalls, Aldrich says, the ads never saw the light of day (only the flicker of the Internet). The confusion arose when a volunteer designer (Serve is a nonprofit that uses volunteer designers to help other nonprofits get out their message) enthusiastically posted the PSAs and mistakenly named the Family Violence Partnership as the client.

Aldrich said it's a shame the ads never got a chance to find their intended audience, which didn't find the images offensive in the least. What's perhaps more important is that focus groups (some of which are now posted on YouTube.com) suggest that the PSAs might have successfully raised awareness about statutory rape. To prove her point, Aldrich has posted videos of the focus group members discussing how the ads will make their peers rethink their choices.

But does the end always justify the means? Should we use images that are appalling to one demographic because they effectively serve another? It's an interesting question and one that PSAs increasingly raise in the battle for catching our jaded eyeballs and then touching our hearts.

Girls abusing alcohol? Blame feminism!

The Washington Post has a study about girls abusing alcohol as they are being given the same opportunities as boys.

Salon.com has a commentary of the article which I agree with.

Happy V-week!

She called the police and was left NAKED in a cell for SIX HOURS

This video ties into the post that Evis wrote about why its important to be a feminist in the present day. The video as well as the posts from Evis and Eileen's post below especially speak to that question...eh, actually, the entire blog speaks to that question!

When I worked for a domestic violence organization, I remember women saying they felt as if no one could help or WOULD help--sometimes the police ignored their complaints, took too long to respond, or seemed to take the side of the offender. Officers are citizens and until ALL citizens become aware and educated, until they decide to treat women with due respect, until they decide its not just important but imperative to give women their DUE RIGHTS (six hours naked in a cell?...a woman stripped by male officers?), then people who are supposed to enforce the law will sometimes undermine it. For this reason, feminists must ALWAYS be around to raise awareness, to speak out (and, dare I say, they should be around even after...but that just me), and TO BLOG! (WOO HOO!!!!)

The video may be disturbig--side effects may include nausea, anger, and destruction of any happy sentiment you may be feeling at the moment.

my dysfunctional but lovely Peruvian mom

I know that I live with a dysfunctional family but its all good. Every day is an experience.

Let's see, pretend names....Maria and Jack. hehe.

Since I moved into their apartment and starting renting a room Maria and Jack didn't sleep together. Maria slept in the same tiny room as her young son and Jack in another. Their relationship was most like friends than anything else. No kisses no touching, nothing. But still, it seemed to work for them. A couple months living there, I overheard a fight between them, having to do with the fact that Jack wasn't spending enough time with their son (Jack always came home from work late and just watched tv at home, he would take the family out on Sundays sometimes. p.s. Maria knew that Jack had another son from a different woman that he would often visit).

Everything fine. Then, I don't know what sparked it, but they had a huge fight in the middle of the night. Maria laid into him, like, it wasn't worth having him around a few minutes here and there and not paying for a single thing, while she is trying to make ends meet for her son, living in a tiny bedroom. ANDATE, she told him. Leave, basically. (p.s. Jack has left before, sometimes for months at a time. He has gone on vacation without them and Maria never questioned him...all positive energy is her philosophy I think, not worth fighting over, my love for him is already dead, I just want the best for my kid).

In the meantime everyone found out (don't know how) that Jack has two other kids from another woman. One kid is a year old, the other just a few months.

Two wednesdays ago Jack left. The following Sunday, he came back. He "needed" to ask Maria to accept the fact that he is a "normal" guy who cheats on his wife, and she should accept him like that. (I am telling this story impartially, but ESPECIALLY HERE I WOULD INSERT A BILLION EXPLETIVES). Maria told me all this, and that she told him, "Geez Jack, what bad luck you have, to have married a women who isn't going to accept that fact. Leave us, my son and me, in peace. I am not oging to ask you to pay for a thing. Not a cent. Just let me start working, give us peace. (Jack makes enough money, doesn't share a thing).

Jack has come back one more time, saying that he left is bathing suit and needed it. His son said to him, "Dad, no discussions today, we have visitors". The Dad said, "No I am not going to discuss anything with your mom, I am already living in a new place".

Maria is still cordial to him, and I guess it is better that way. I mean, i have a new found respect for her. We talked about how, if there aren't more Latinas like her, every man is going to keep doing what he learned from this dad. lovers and families all over the place.

The classic disease that Jack has is that he is perpetually unsatisfied. He doesn't know a wonderful family situation even when he has it. WHY do people cheat? WHY do some women accept this? Jack is bored, well Jack, I have ZERO sympathy for you. Maybe if you got to know your son instead of watch tv, you would realize he is a great kid and needs a dad.

Word to the blogasaurus

This is going to be disorganized, I can feel it already. Bare with me.

Just throwing a few things out there: I don't think anyone mentioned the fact that your same sex marriage in Canada for example, must now be recognized in da BIG APPLE state. Word.

Also, across the ocean, Evis you know more than I do, but as far as I understand higher education in Turkey has now (officially) banned the head scarf law. This law prohibited women who wear the head veil for attending higher education institutions. Article in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08feldman.html?ref=todayspaper

This is an article (español, but worth it) from this outspoken gay man. My friend told me here was at Georgetown last semester as a visiting fellow in the Spanish department.
http://www.correoperu.com.pe/paginas_columna.php?columna_autor=Jaime%20Bayly&seccion_nota=8
I don't know that much about what his deal is, but at least this article was interesting. Its about a man and woman, once in love, seem to have fallen out of love (or rather he cheated on her) and only now, later on does he realize how much he loves her. Not in the wife-way but as a "sister" or "best friend". The sad part of the article is that she does all these spectacular things for him because she knows him so well. I wonder...would it possible to see where is the line beyond which women do "wonderful things" because they enjoy the pain (i.e. they do wonderful things knowing their love is unreturned but continue doing wonderful things because it makes their "person" happy). I guess I don't truly believe that this woman did all these wonderful things because she was being masachistic (spelling?) but just because she recognized the un-reparable nature of their relation but she isn't about to make it unbearable for the both of them.

Another post on the idea of unreparable relationships but making them bearable. Is it "okay"?

Why do I need to be a feminist?

From my guy friends, I often hear the same question about why do I feel this need to talk about feminist issues, about violence against women, sexual harassment, unequal treatment in the work force and many more. They put the question in perspective by saying that women have achieved so much in the past century and the trend of women catching up is ever rising. There are more women in colleges, medical schools and they are doing better than men.

Inside me, I want to say "Are you really asking me this question? Are you serious? How is not obvious to you that we have so much more work to do when women daily face so much violence in the household, workforce, war zones, peaceful areas, developed economies, not so developed economies, to name a few?
How can you not know that women are the face of poverty all over the world and thus their children are forced into poverty, destined to live in a cycle of never ending poverty? How can you not see that women are so unrepresented in politics and business ,i.e. in the decision making on policies and the economy when they are more than 50% of the world population?
I do not understand how it cannot be clear. I guess this is one reason why feminists like me and the women in this blog need to keep the conversations going...

My usual answer to this repetitive question is that women would not have made so much progress the last century had they not actively been involved in a movement that wanted to fundamentally change the world women were living in and in which they were raising the new generations. Not doing something, now, during my time, would mean to let all that progress slide back and not react to the problems we have now.

Speaking of problems, here is a story from the NY Times:

As Greek scandals go, it started as a trivial but titillating tale -- a ministry official jumps from his balcony after being blackmailed by an angry lover.

Many Greeks yawned. Few suspected that what would soon be known as the "sex, lies and DVDs scandal" would effectively freeze planned reforms, push the conservative government closer to snap elections, and shake the foundations of Greek society.

The DVD scandal has overshadowed the government's economic achievements, bringing its popularity to the lowest point since 2004, under 30 percent, a recent poll showed.

According to the Greek press, it started when a young woman slept with her boss, who promised her a permanent ministry job. When he did not deliver, she taped their private meetings in an attempt to blackmail him.

Then she went to Greek media with her DVD. Most sent her away, but one journalist has been accused in the media of making a copy and delivering it to the prime minister's office.


So far, the only person to get into trouble over the scandal is the woman, 35-year-old Evi Tsekou. She has been charged with blackmail and is held pending trial. Zachopoulos has not been charged over his sexual relationship with an employee.

"The woman was the object of abuse of power and sexual harassment by a superior, even if she consented, according to Greek law," said Sissy Vovou, a member of the Athens Feminist Center. "It is unacceptable she is held in jail. The only reason she is in is to keep her mouth shut."

For the many Greek women struggling to make it in a largely male-dominated society, she is an example of someone who took the easy way up and paid the price.

"You study, you work hard and still you have to let someone grab your butt to rise," said Maria Saratsi, 38, a former manager at a construction company.

When women rule- NY Times article

Here is another article reiterating the same old point of double standards.
Good follow-up to three earlier posts: one and two for the double standards and three for women presidents around the world.

Your choice of president?

A few days ago CNN (Showbiz) ran a poll asking people which of the following celebrities they would vote for to become president:

Angelina Jolie (white female)
George Clooney (white male)
Oprah Winfrey (black female)
Will Smith (black male)

The winner was George Clooney. I was excited at first, I love George Clooney as an actor and deeply admire his work with Darfur. But then I thought to myself, this is interesting, both Angelina Jolie and Oprah Winfrey have done some serious humanitarian work and Will Smith has been active through the Will and Jada Smith Family Foundation. In fact, Angelina and Oprah have done as much humanitarian work as George Clooney has. Is there a pattern of the white male being voted as the most preferred person for president? Again, interesting!

Vagina monologues and the word Vagina

I am not sure why I felt that the word Vagina in the title, and here needed to be capitalized but for some reason it felt right, although not so much in proper English. Oh well, MY English professor would not care, he would say whatever feels right!

As part of my weekend routine, I was reading the Guardian and came across this article about the Vagina Monologues. So, I decided to post it! Here it is to you, Aartie!


Tyranny of the invisible

Ten years after the first Vagina Monologues, the V-word is still abhorrent to contemporary culture
Libby Brooks
The Guardian

On a recent trip to New York, I passed a pleasant afternoon watching a series of unsavoury males being violently separated from their penises. The movie Teeth, which will be released in Britain later this year, is an entertaining enough comedy-horror update of the myth of vagina dentata, or the toothed vagina. It tells the story of the teenaged Dawn, leading light of her local chastity chapter but struggling to contain her burgeoning desires, who discovers when an encounter with a suitor turns violent that she possesses a unique method of dealing with rapists.
It's certainly not recommended viewing for anyone with a castration complex, nor would I lead a stampede to claim it as a work of feminist consciousness-raising. But what's interesting about Teeth - incidentally, written and directed by a man - is what it doesn't say. For all the gorily chopped cocks, by my count the word "vagina" is uttered only twice, both times as part of the Latin term. Even in a film that's all about one, vagina remains a dirty word.

Next week sees the 10th anniversary of V-day, the international Valentine's fundraiser founded by Eve Ensler, the writer of The Vagina Monologues. Since its inception in 1998, the campaign has raised more than £25m for local groups working to end violence against women and girls, and has held events in more than 120 countries. This year there are 38 scheduled in England alone.

I saw The Vagina Monologues in the late 90s. Based on interviews with women, the pieces range from the dippy (if your vagina got dressed, what would it wear?) to the devastating (a survivor of a Bosnian rape camp). The premise was that women were uncomfortable talking about their genitalia, were encouraged to believe that they were ugly or smelly or shameful, and that this evening would allow them to reclaim a sense of sexiness and pride. It went on to become a global phenomenon.

Like most women I talked to at the time, I had mixed feelings about the enterprise. There was something terribly depressing about the idea that women's sexual confidence had advanced so little that we still got a thrill out of hearing the word spoken in public. Was this sanctioned naughtiness the best corrective for sexual shame? Wasn't it all too American, too 70s?

But I also found Ensler's Monologues incredibly endearing. As well as being schmaltzy, they were wry, and unapologetic, and often moving. There was a generosity in those voices that was - and still is - entirely absent from the shaved bare, surgically enhanced, pornified ideal of the vulva. And perhaps it's more of a comment on contemporary culture than on the work itself that the Monologues have always seemed at once dated and ahead of their time.

Ten years on, their enduring popularity tells its own tale. Nor is this a purely western peccadillo: Unicef is coordinating a V-day event in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and clandestine readings have been held in Saudi Arabia. Ensler also appears to have inspired a fresh wave of activism in the allegedly postfeminist generation: most of the English events this year are organised by college and university groups.

It seems absurd, in these sexually saturated times, that the nomenclature of women's genitalia remains problematic. In an interview a few years ago, Ensler claimed that before her monologues, nobody said the word vagina openly. In many ways, though, vagina is besides the point. More troublesome are its colloquial sisters. There is still no playground equivalent of willy, no descriptive that isn't clinical, coy or misogynistic. Fanny is too twee, pussy too porny - and cunt remains the most shocking word in the English language. Were there not vastly more important questions to address, there's an interesting piece of research to be done on the impact of growing up knowing the most intimate part of your body is also the grossest insult you can use.

Ensler has described vagina as an "invisible word", yet it's the visible one that's in need of reclamation - which is why the most memorable moment of her show is when she gets the inevitably largely female audience to shout "cunt" at the top of their voices. Given the impetus, in all parts of the world, to tyrannise women's bodies, it's not surprising the Monologues still resonate. As for Dawn in Teeth, if her vagina got dressed, would it wear a mouthguard?

Female President?! Not such a novelty...

I love elections and I love reading about them. It fascinates me how people are so amazed by the fact that the prospects of female president are so real, and it is not really that much of a new development for the world.

See here!

Add your name: Say NO to violence against Women

With the Vagina Monologues being performed around the country/world at this time, and the campaigns to raise awareness becoming more unified, here is another opportunity to say no to violence against women:

http://www.saynotoviolence.org/

Make sure to watch the movie!!

It's coming!

California Marriage Equality Case Oral Arguments to Begin March 4

Thought you would be interested. My office is going to be crazy busy.

Super Bowl Follow-UP

Molly posted earlier this week a disturbing ad from the Super Bowl. Perhaps one of the most upsetting elements--that many people watching the Super Bowl never even pick up on the objectification of females because they are so used to it. (But not if we can help it!...world, here we come.)

To evidence and follow up on Molly's Post, I wanted to link this article from the New York Times that is asking for readers' comments on whether they were offended by Super Bowl ads. The only ad gaining attention is one about Pandas talking in Chinese accents (which, yes, I found offensive). I also found it offensive that NO ONE talked about ads and their depiction of females or female sexuality.

One NYT reader made this comment and I wanted to re-post it. Its apparently from MIKE in NYC...

THANK YOU, 'MIKE IN NYC'

"The racial stereotypes were so overwhelmingly offensive and obvious. I'm surprised that no one has commented on the fact that female sexuality was so overtly on display as a given in many of the ads. Perhaps this is because the exploitation of women is so inherent to our culture particularly the advertising culture that few recognize it for what it is." Mike, NYC. (February 6th, 11:32 A.M)

The Supreme Court and Women's Rights

The Supreme Court of the US has decided to take a very important case for domestic violence victims. Defendants have the right to confront their accuser, despite the trauma this may cause to the victim of abuse. Rape and abuse cases are frequently dismissed because the victim is too traumatized to testify. The case that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear is that of a man who cannot confront his victim because HE KILLED HER. I have attached the official blurb I was sent at work, but I just wanted readers to dwell on this. An abuser kills his victim and then cries "unfair" when he cannot confront her. I hope the Supreme Court decides that if you kill your accuser, you give up your right to confront him or her, but I am pretty disgusted that this case is even being heard.

Here is the official blurb:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could clarify the Sixth Amendment's “confrontation clause.” It may have implications for victims of domestic violence.

Giles vs. California is an appeal brought by Dwayne Giles, a California man accused of shooting and killing his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie. Several weeks before the murder, Avie told police that Giles was threatening to kill her. At issue is whether the police officer's testimony about what Avie told him is admissible, since Giles cannot now face Avie in court to challenge her claim that he was threatening her life.

This is not a new issue for the Supreme Court. Its 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington emphasized the right of defendants to confront a state's witnesses. In that case, the Court ruled unanimously that statements from witnesses who do not come to court and thus cannot be confronted by their accusers should be excluded. It was, at that time, a significant change to existing law.

The issue arose again in 2006, but the Court only partially answered it. At that time, the New York Times reports, “Justice Scalia addressed concerns that victims of domestic violence, who are often afraid to testify in court, might suffer from such a rule. Defendants who 'seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims' would forfeit the protection of the confrontation clause.”

“It is therefore likely that the justices accepted the new case, Giles v. California, to make it clear that as long as the victim's unavailability as a witness was a foreseeable consequence of the murder, the Sixth Amendment does not require the state to prove the actual motive for the murder was to make the victim unavailable,” the New York Times reports.

Giles vs. California is likely to be argued in April, with a ruling expected this summer.

"When you open up your mouth to speak, could you be a little weak."

Madonna must be on my mind for some reason or another--I try not to question good things :) If anyone has any ideas on why Madonna made the video in this fashion--I would love to hear them. Otherwise, the lyrics are powerful.

UN call for Saudi women's rights

While most certainly I am no specialist on Sharia law, I get annoyed when every action gets to be justified by Sharia. Depriving of any human right,abusing,even killing comes to be accepted way too easily, when you throw in the "Sharia" word.
By no means, do I think that a certain culture's social norms are better than others, but I do believe that certain rights transcend any cultural relativism.

BBC article

As if I weren't already grumpy enough in the morning...

About a week ago (I know...I am late posting...), as I was rushing into the subway I spilled half a cup of coffee on my gloves and pants. NOT-TO-WORRY, as I was listening to Madonna 'What it Feels Like for A Girl' and therefore little could have interrupted my moment. Just for fun--lets review a Madonna quote. In response to being called a 'bitch' she once said:

"I'm tough, ambitious and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, okay."

Oh the glory of Madge! --anyway, back to the post...

So, there I am--blissful with my bagel, a half a cup of coffee, and now listening to 'Hung Up' when I glance over to the lady next to me who is reading the New York Post and all of a sudden --

SHOCK. HORROR. APPALL. The New York Post has a headline that reads:

"EVIL LESBIAN MOM LEFT TODDLER TO DIE A SLOW DEATH."

As I have mentioned in prior posts, I believe subtle signs speak volumes. If the mother had been straight, would the newspaper headline have read: 'EVIL STRAIGHT MOM LEFT TODDLER TO DIE A SLOW DEATH.' Hmm--something tells me NO.

I know that GLAAD and other LGBT organizations raised awareness about the headline and I am of course grateful for their vigilance and responsiveness. Yet, GOOD GRIEF NEW YORK POST--what in the world were you thinking?!...or NOT thinking... How many eyes proofread that headline and did not see what inevitably many LGBT readers did--a BLATANT association between EVIL and LESBIAN.

Its unfortunate to think about the amount of LGBT youth who face not only outright hostility but also subtle insinuations about what being LGBT means for other aspects of a personality. We must be more vigilant. While we can carefully plan rallies and major events, being just as meticulous in every day conversation is supremely important. It may be an obvious point but one well worth stating--the subtle messages that society sends are particularly insidious for youth who, instead of creating themselves, are instead being told what they should be...sometimes those insinuations discourage and delay many from self-actualizing. I really could write volumes on this...but I have a cold, am aching to go watch LOST on my laptop, and Evis is playing way too much Celine Dion to entice me to stick around :)

Happy Super Tuesday. Exercise the right.

I could go on forever...

I like to think of my generation of women as not really treated and perceived differently (you could call it discriminated against). Unfortunately, that is not quite true. In my current field, finance, heavily dominated by men, women have made so much progress, and yet the number of female executives is very low. Wonder why?
We all know very well that there are strict laws against gender discrimination, but somehow those laws do not work when some obnoxious guy blatantly offends YOU, the "opinionated" girl and when you respond to him, that fact that YOU dare to respond, raises many eyebrows and many ouches are whispered, unfortunately by both men and women (the less "opinionated" ones).

In my very short 6 months of working, sadly I could quote a good number of similar incidents.

This article in the Guardian talks about what the now is, but it gives us hope about what the then will be.

Forwarded E-mail

It's hilarious.

One morning, the husband returns the boat to their lake side cottage after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, puts her feet up, and begins to read her book. The peace and solitude are magnificent. Along comes a Fish and Game Warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?" "Reading a book," she replies (thinking "Isn't that obvious?") "You're in a Restricted Fishing Area," he informs her. "I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading." "Yes, but I see you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up." "If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman. "But I haven't even touched you," says the Game Warden." "That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment." "Have a nice day ma'am," and he left.

MORAL: Never argue with a woman who reads. It's likely she can also think.

Super Sexism at the Super Bowl

Even though I was on a high from the Giants playing so well, I was lucid enough to know that this commercial was so incredibly misogynistic and disgusting. I even announced to my fellow Super Bowlites (Super Bowlians?) that, make no mistake, I would be blogging about this tomorrow! And here I am.

Let me preface this by saying that I watch the Super Bowl expecting sexism in the form of burping men complaining about their nagging wives while chugging cheap lite beer. I get that. It’s gonna happen, and for some reason or another, it sells that cheap lite beer. But this ad totally offended me. It was basically an ad for internet porn, at Danica Patrick’s expense. I know that she probably reaped in the cash for this ad, as well as for the hits the site received immediately following the ad. But it was so tasteless. This woman could not have been less respected and more objectified. It made me incredibly uncomfortable and embarrassed that this was one of the Super Bowl ads (ads that are supposed to be the best of the best).

Simply put, they were selling male orgasms. Ew.