Misogyny and Sexism in the News
 

This is an article I just read in the Washington Post. I am going to post it now and come back later to comment.
_____________________________________________

The Washington Post

For women in America, equality is still an illusion

By Jessica Valenti
Sunday, February 21, 2010; B02



Every day, we hear about the horrors women endure in other countries: rape in Darfur, genital mutilation in Egypt, sex trafficking in Eastern Europe. We shake our heads, forward e-mails and send money.

We have no problem condemning atrocities done to women abroad, yet too many of us in the United States ignore the oppression on our doorstep. We're suffering under the mass delusion that women in America have achieved equality.

And why not -- it's a feel-good illusion. We cry with Oprah and laugh with Tina Fey; we work and take care of our children; we watch Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice proudly and sigh with relief, believing we've come so far. But we're basking in a "girl power" moment that doesn't exist -- it's a mirage of equality that we've been duped into believing is the real thing.

Because despite the indisputable gains over the years, women are still being raped, trafficked, violated and discriminated against -- not just in the rest of the world, but here in the United States. And though feminists continue to fight gender injustices, most people seem to think that outside of a few lingering battles, the work of the women's movement is done.

It's time to stop fooling ourselves. For all our "empowered" rhetoric, women in this country aren't doing nearly as well as we'd like to think.

After all, women are being shot dead in the streets here, too. It was only last year that George Sodini opened fire in a gym outside Pittsburgh, killing three women and injuring nine others. Investigators learned from Sodini's blog that he specifically targeted women. In 2006, a gunman went into an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania; he sent the boys outside and opened fire on almost a dozen girls, killing five. That same year in Colorado, a man sexually assaulted six female students he had taken hostage at a high school before killing one of them.

And it's not just strangers who are killing women; more than 1,000 women were killed by their partners in 2005, and of all the women murdered in the United States, about a third are killed by a husband or boyfriend. A leading cause of death for pregnant women? Murder by a partner.

In Iraq, women serving in the military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.

Even the government underestimates the crisis American women are in. Last year the Justice Department reported that there were 182,000 sexual assaults committed against women in 2008, which would mean that the rate had decreased by 70 percent since 1993. But a study by the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center showed that the Justice Department's methodology was flawed. Instead of behaviorally based questions, such as "Has anyone ever forced you to have sex?", women were asked if they had been subject to "rape, attempted or other type of sexual attack." Victims often don't label their experience as "rape," especially when someone they know attacked them. The center says the actual number of U.S. women raped in 2008 was more than 1 million.

The distressing statistics don't stop with violence: Women hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress; abortion is legal, but more than 85 percent of counties in the United States have no provider; women work outside the home, but they make about 76 cents to a man's dollar and make up the majority of Americans living in poverty.

This is a far cry from progress; it's an epidemic of sexism. So where's the outrage? When my co-bloggers and I write at Feministing.com about the hurdles American women face, a common criticism is that if we cared about women's rights, we'd focus on countries where women are actually oppressed -- that women here have it too good to complain. When I speak on college campuses, I'm sometimes asked the same question (generally by a male student): What are you complaining about? Women are doing terrific!

In her upcoming book, author Susan Douglas calls this "enlightened sexism." She writes that the appearance of equality -- from "girl power" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" -- is a dangerous distraction from the pervasiveness of sexism.

So why the blinders? Most women know that sexism exists. But between the glittery illusion Douglas refers to and the ongoing feminist backlash, it's not surprising that so many women don't realize how dire their situation is. Organizations such as the Independent Women's Forum, for example, exist to tell women that equality is actually bad for them. In a 2007 opinion article in The Washington Post headlined "A Bargain At 77 Cents to a Dollar," the forum's Carrie Lukas wrote that the wage gap is simply "a trade-off" for holding jobs with "personal fulfillment." The organization's campus program argues against Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination at educational institutions. Between pop culture and politics, women are being taught that everything is fine and dandy -- and a lot of us are buying it.

Part of this unwillingness to see misogyny in America could be self-protection -- perhaps the truth is too scary to face. Or maybe American women are simply loath to view themselves as oppressed, and it's easier to look at women in other countries as the real victims. This isn't to say that international misogyny isn't a problem; of course it is. And many women in America do have it easier than women in other parts of the world. But this isn't a zero-sum game, and we can fight for our rights while fighting for women internationally as well.

In fact, our successes could help women abroad. The recent increase in the number of female ambassadors globally has been dubbed the "Hillary effect" -- the idea that our secretary of state's visibility has opened doors for women in other countries. And perhaps if the pay gap here were closed, women would have more money to spend on causes overseas. It's time to do away with the either-or mentality that surrounds domestic and international women's rights.

Fortunately, a vibrant feminist movement is still at large in the United States, taking on issues from reproductive justice and racism to pay equity and motherhood. But feminists cannot pick up the sexist slack on their own, and recent mainstream conversations -- such as when singer Rihanna was assaulted by her then-boyfriend Chris Brown, or when Clinton and Sarah Palin were the targets of sexism during the 2008 campaign -- have been far too civilized for the mess that we're in.

We act as if the hatred directed at women is something that can be dealt with by a stern talking to, as if the misogyny embedded in our culture is an unruly child rather than systematic oppression. Yes, women today fare better than our foremothers. But the benchmarks so often cited -- the right to vote, working outside the home, laws that make domestic violence illegal -- don't change the reality of women's lives. They don't prevent 1 million women from being raped, female troops from being assaulted or the continued legal discrimination against gay and transgender people. And seriously, are American women really supposed to be satisfied with the most basic rights of representation? Thrilled that our country has deigned to consider us fully human?

There is so much more work to be done. The truth is, most women don't have the privilege of being able to look at gender justice from a distance; they have no choice but to live it every day. Those of us who are lucky enough not to have to think about sexism, racism, poverty and homophobia on a daily basis -- those of us who have the privilege of sending money to an international cause via e-mail while ignoring the plight of women here at home -- have a responsibility to open our eyes to the misogyny right in front of us. And then to stop it.

Jessica Valenti is the author of "The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women" and the founder of Feministing.com.

Greyson thanks for posting this. I am not sure what to think of the basic premises and am pressed for time right now, but will say I personally have never ignored the oppression of women in this country, nor been under the mass delusion that women in the US have achieved equality. I wonder if this is a widespread assumption? Also I was struck by the phrase feminists can't pick up the sexist slack on their own. Anyone can be a feminist so this puzzles me.

I shall return later when I have more time. Thanks again.

Very interesting article Greyson!

I don't know that I agree that Clinton and Palin were targeted just for being women, but otherwise I agree with much of what is said.

Will be back to discuss!

This morning as I was partaking of my 90 minute commute to work, I was listening to the Local Talk Radio AM Station and then to NPR. Here are some stories that I heard that are directly impacted by misogyny and sexism.

• The Navy is going to allow women to now serve on submarines.

• Crime On College Campuses. The rape and assault of women.

Regarding the story about women serving on submarines, the radio host a heterosexual male spoke of how our laws, policy and practices are set up to serve the fears, concerns, behavior of heterosexual men. For example, DADT.

The second story, a young woman was raped while intoxicated by two male friends on a college campus in Wisconsin. She did not report the rape, initially. In fact it took her I believe over a year to report it.

Basically nothing came of the report and following investigation. One student had already graduated and the other denied it. He said it was consensual and he was allowed to remain on campus and finish his degree.

I am meandering a bit here because I am thinking out loud. Many of you know that I have been in the process of "transitioning" for a few years now. This transition, for me has begun my questioning my beliefs, values, and motives.

I do know that I want to consciously be a part of redefining masculinity. Masculinity does not exclude, nor elude women and/or femininity. I think this process of redefining masculinity must include looking at my life, my world, my actions, my beliefs through the lens of my entire life experience. In other words, my experience and history as a cisgendered woman, perpetrator and victim of patriarchy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fa...07campus.html?




February 5, 2010
The New Math on Campus
By ALEX WILLIAMS
CHAPEL HILL, N.C.

ANOTHER ladies’ night, not by choice.

After midnight on a rainy night last week in Chapel Hill, N.C., a large group of sorority women at the University of North Carolina squeezed into the corner booth of a gritty basement bar. Bathed in a neon glow, they splashed beer from pitchers, traded jokes and belted out lyrics to a Taylor Swift heartache anthem thundering overhead. As a night out, it had everything — except guys.

“This is so typical, like all nights, 10 out of 10,” said Kate Andrew, a senior from Albemarle, N.C. The experience has grown tiresome: they slip on tight-fitting tops, hair sculpted, makeup just so, all for the benefit of one another, Ms. Andrew said, “because there are no guys.”

North Carolina, with a student body that is nearly 60 percent female, is just one of many large universities that at times feel eerily like women’s colleges. Women have represented about 57 percent of enrollments at American colleges since at least 2000, according to a recent report by the American Council on Education. Researchers there cite several reasons: women tend to have higher grades; men tend to drop out in disproportionate numbers; and female enrollment skews higher among older students, low-income students, and black and Hispanic students.

In terms of academic advancement, this is hardly the worst news for women — hoist a mug for female achievement. And certainly, women are primarily in college not because they are looking for men, but because they want to earn a degree.

But surrounded by so many other successful women, they often find it harder than expected to find a date on a Friday night.

“My parents think there is something wrong with me because I don’t have a boyfriend, and I don’t hang out with a lot of guys,” said Ms. Andrew, who had a large circle of male friends in high school.

Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.

Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at the table, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”

These sorts of romantic complications are hardly confined to North Carolina, an academically rigorous school where most students spend more time studying than socializing. The gender imbalance is also pronounced at some private colleges, such as New York University and Lewis & Clark in Portland, Ore., and large public universities in states like California, Florida and Georgia. The College of Charleston, a public liberal arts college in South Carolina, is 66 percent female. Some women at the University of Vermont, with an undergraduate body that is 55 percent female, sardonically refer to their college town, Burlington, as “Girlington.”

The gender gap is not universal. The Ivy League schools are largely equal in gender, and some still tilt male. But at some schools, efforts to balance the numbers have been met with complaints that less-qualified men are being admitted over more-qualified women. In December, the United States Commission on Civil Rights moved to subpoena admissions data from 19 public and private colleges to look at whether they were discriminating against qualified female applicants.

Leaving aside complaints about “affirmative action for boys,” less attention has been focused on the social ramifications.

Thanks to simple laws of supply and demand, it is often the women who must assert themselves romantically or be left alone on Valentine’s Day, staring down a George Clooney movie over a half-empty pizza box.

“I was talking to a friend at a bar, and this girl just came up out of nowhere, grabbed him by the wrist, spun him around and took him out to the dance floor and started grinding,” said Kelly Lynch, a junior at North Carolina, recalling a recent experience.

Students interviewed here said they believed their mating rituals reflected those of college students anywhere. But many of them — men and women alike — said that the lopsided population tends to skew behavior.

“A lot of my friends will meet someone and go home for the night and just hope for the best the next morning,” Ms. Lynch said. “They’ll text them and say: ‘I had a great time. Want to hang out next week?’ And they don’t respond.”

Even worse, “Girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with, to lock it down,” Ms. Lynch said.

As for a man's cheating, "that's a thing that girls let slide, because you have to," said Emily Kennard, a junior at North Carolina. "If you don't let it slide, you don't have a boyfriend." (Ms. Kennard, however, said that she does not personally tolerate cheating).

Faculty members and administrators are well aware of the situation. Stephen M. Farmer, North Carolina’s director of admissions, said that the university has a high female presence in part because it does not have an engineering school, which at most schools tend to be heavily male. Also, he said, more young men than women in the state opt to enter the military or the work force directly out of high school.

And the university feels obligated to admit the most qualified applicants, regardless of gender, Mr. Farmer said. “I wouldn’t want any young woman here to think that there’s somebody we’d rather have here than her,” he said.

The phenomenon has also been an area of academic inquiry, formally and informally. “On college campuses where there are far more women than men, men have all the power to control the intensity of sexual and romantic relationships,” Kathleen A. Bogle, a sociologist at La Salle University in Philadelphia, wrote in an e-mail message. Her book, “Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus,” was published in 2008.

“Women do not want to get left out in the cold, so they are competing for men on men’s terms,” she wrote. “This results in more casual hook-up encounters that do not end up leading to more serious romantic relationships. Since college women say they generally want ‘something more’ than just a casual hook-up, women end up losing out.”

W. Keith Campbell, a psychology professor at the University of Georgia, which is 57 percent female, put it this way: “When men have the social power, they create a man’s ideal of relationships,” he said. Translation: more partners, more sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message.

Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said. In this way, some colleges mirror retirement communities, where women often find that the reward for outliving their husbands is competing with other widows for the attentions of the few surviving bachelors.

“If a guy is not getting what he wants, he can quickly and abruptly go to the next one, because there are so many of us,” said Katie Deray, a senior at the University of Georgia, who said that it is common to see six provocatively clad women hovering around one or two guys at a party or a bar.

Since that is not her style, Ms. Deray said, she has still not had a long-term relationship in college. As a fashion merchandising major, she said, she can only hope the odds improve when she graduates and moves to New York.

At colleges in big cities, women do have more options. “By my sophomore year, I just had the feeling that there is nobody in this school that I could date,” said Ashley Crisostomo, a senior at Fordham University in New York, which is 55 percent female. She has tended to date older professionals in the city.

But in a classic college town, the social life is usually limited to fraternity parties, local bars or coffeehouses. And college men — not usually known for their debonair ways — can be particularly unmannerly when the numbers are in their favor.

“A lot of guys know that they can go out and put minimal effort into their appearance and not treat girls to drinks or flatter them, and girls will still flirt with them,” said Felicite Fallon, a senior at Florida State University, which is 56 percent female.

Several male students acknowledged that the math skewed pleasantly in their favor. “You don’t have to work that hard,” said Matt Garofalo, a senior at North Carolina. “You meet a girl at a late-night restaurant, she’s texting you the next day.”

But it’s not as if the imbalance leads to ceaseless bed-hopping, said Austin Ivey, who graduated from North Carolina last year but was hanging out in a bar near campus last week. “Guys tend to overshoot themselves and find a really beautiful girlfriend they couldn’t date otherwise, but can, thanks to the ratio,” he said.

Mr. Ivey himself said that his own college relationship lasted three years. “She didn’t think she would meet another guy, I didn’t think I would meet another girl as attractive as her,” he said.

Several male students from female-heavy schools took pains to note that they were not thrilled with the status quo.

“It’s awesome being a guy,” admitted Garret Jones, another North Carolina senior, but he also lamented a culture that fostered hook-ups over relationships. This year, he said, he finally found a serious girlfriend.

Indeed, there are a fair number of Mr. Lonelyhearts on campus. “Even though there’s this huge imbalance between the sexes, it still doesn’t change the fact of guys sitting around, bemoaning their single status,” said Patrick Hooper, a Georgia senior. “It’s the same as high school, but the women are even more enchanting and beautiful.”

And perhaps still elusive. Many women eagerly hit the library on Saturday night. And most would prefer to go out with friends, rather than date a campus brute.

But still. “It causes girls to overanalyze everything — text messages, sideways glances, conversations,” said Margaret Cheatham Williams, a junior at North Carolina. “Girls will sit there with their friends for 15 minutes trying to figure out what punctuation to use in a text message.”

The loneliness can be made all the more bitter by the knowledge that it wasn’t always this way.

“My roommate’s parents met here,” said Janitra Venkatesan, a student at North Carolina. “She has this nice little picture of them in their Carolina sweatshirts. Must be nice.”

An earlier version of this article may have left the impression that Emily Kennard might personally condone a boyfriend's cheating. As the article now states, it was her characterization of some other people's attitudes.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 14, 2010


An article last Sunday about dating on campuses where women outnumber men misattributed a quotation. It was Janitra Venkatesan, a student at the University of North Carolina — not Mitali Dayal, another student there — who said: “My roommate’s parents met here. She has this nice little picture of them in their Carolina sweatshirts. Must be nice.”

Apparently now universities in the USA are beginning to tilt toward a majority of female students. Is this the best that the gold standard for daily journalism in the States can do? The big story is it is hard to get a date?

Women go to university to snag a partner? How many stories do we read about men, boys, transmen, cisgendered men, white heterosexual men, queer men, POC men going to college and the big worry is dating?

Memo to all women: No half for you in Hollywood

OK, we’re not just imagining it.

Women may make up 51% of the population, but actresses nabbed only 29.9% of the 4,379 speaking parts in the 100 top-grossing films of 2007, or so says a new study released by University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism, which was conducted by professor Stacy. L Smith.

According to Smith’s study, 83% of all directors, writers, and producers on those films were male. Not surprisingly, the number of female characters grew dramatically when a woman directed a film -- up to 44.6% from 29.3% if a man was behind the camera.

That number would probably be even lower if Smith and her team had to factor in "The Hurt Locker," from filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow, who many believe will be the first woman to win an Academy Award for directing come March 7. The number of parts for females in her movie? According to IMDB, only three of the 34 actors were women, which means they accounted around 9% of the characters on screen.

A few more numbers to consider: Smith said these statistics about women directors and female actors should be interpreted with caution -- only three of the top 100 films of 2007 had a female director.

-- Rachel Abramowitz

I have yet to get my head around this...

Utah's New Abortion Law Threatens to Punish Innocent Women for Miscarriages
by Ruth Fertig womensrights.change.org

Utah lawmakers have just passed a bill that would charge a woman with criminal homicide for obtaining an illegal abortion or inducing a miscarriage, whether intentionally or through "reckless" behavior.

There are a few narrowly defined exceptions, including failure to comply with medical advice, refusal to submit to a physician's recommended treatment, and negligence (which in legal terms is apparently a less serious crime than recklessness). Otherwise, the law holds women accountable for criminal homicide if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly "cause the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development," outside the parameters of legal abortion.

The bill was ostensibly a response to a recent Utah case in which a 17-year-old, 7 months pregnant girl was protected from prosecution after she paid a man $150 to beat her in a failed attempt to induce miscarriage. At that time, Utah -- like most other states -- did not hold women criminally liable for seeking illegal abortion, but instead punished those who performed them. It seems Utah lawmakers found it unjust that this desperate girl was not sent to prison. Yet in their efforts to close the supposed loophole, they have now opened up a gaping hole, into which many women who had no desire for an abortion are liable to fall.

As various advocacy groups have pointed out, the terms of the bill are so subjective that a woman could theoretically be charged for criminal homicide if she: fails to wear a seat-belt, gets in a car accident and suffers a miscarriage; uses legal or illegal drugs and the baby is stillborn; carries multiples as a result of fertility treatment, and one or more of the babies die; or remains with a partner whom she knows to be abusive, and she suffers a miscarriage after he beats her particularly violently.

As Utah's ACLU wrote in a letter to Utah's governor in protest of the law, "If this bill is signed into law, women in this state will essentially be in the uncomfortable and unfortunate position of having to prove that the abortions they obtain (or miscarriages they suffer) are not unlawful." In effect, women suffering the trauma of losing a baby they desired could end up facing the double trauma of being charged with causing the baby's death.

Don't think it's possible that women could be held accountable for obviously unintentional harm to the fetuses they're carrying? As fellow blogger Roxy MtJoy made clear last week, you might want to think again.

Says the National Advocates for Pregnant Women: "Once the state has the power to decide what a women's "intent" is, it does not really matter what her intent actually is." Giving police and prosecutors such enormous discretion to decide who will and will not be arrested and charged under this law is an invitation for innocent women (and their families) to suffer.

As both the ACLU and National Advocates for Pregnant Women point out, most states give women immunity from prosecution for a reason -- it's in the interest of both maternal and fetal health. If women are fearful of prosecution for harmful behavior, they won't get the prenatal care they need (which is harmful behavior in itself). Likewise, if they know they will be charged for getting an illegal abortion, they won't seek medical help if the procedure goes wrong. And then there's the fact that prosecuting women for homicide for something that half the country believes should be perfectly legal is just not good policy.

So, yeah, this is a terrible law all around. Please ask the governor of Utah not to sign it into law.

According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.

The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion.

While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, with penalties including up to life in prison.

Posted by Tara Lohan at 12:41 pm
March 3, 2010
Alternet

Lesbians in South Africa Being Raped to “Cure” Them of Sexual Orientation

The group ActionAid released a report about the shocking rise in homophobic attacks and murders in South Africa, especially Johannesburg and Cape Town where lesbian women are being raped as a “corrective” punishment for being gay.

They report:

Rape is fast becoming the most widespread hate crime targeted against gay women in townships across South Africa. One lesbian and gay support group says it is dealing with 10 new cases of lesbian women being targeted for ‘corrective’ rape every week in Cape Town alone.

Laura Turquet, ActionAid’s women’s rights coordinator, said: “So-called ‘corrective’ rape is yet another grotesque manifestation of violence against women, the most widespread human rights violation in the world today. These crimes continue unabated and with impunity, while governments simply turn a blind eye.”

Since 1998 31 women have been reported murdered in homophobic attacks, they say, but the actual number is likely much higher. Of those 31, only 2 of their attackers have ever been to court and there has only been one conviction.

ActionAid reports that although South Africa has a progressive constitution that guarantees equal rights to gay and lesbian people, the legal system still lags far behind. “Hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation are not recognised by South African law and the courts refuse to recognise that it plays any part in these cases,” says ActionAid. “The police are reluctant to investigate hate crimes against lesbian women and there is inadequate support for the survivors.”

The attacks against lesbians are also part of a larger culture of violence of against women — there is an estimated 500,000 rapes a year and only 1 in 25 men are ever convicted.

Signed
 

Utah Governor Signs Law Charging Women and Girls With Murder for Miscarriages

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/women...ry?id=10057074


On a better note....

then there was this... makes me think men have lost their minds, oh wait they have.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/anti-homosexuality-bill-uganda-global-uproar/story?id=10045436&page=1

La Pachuca
 

I was unsure as to where to post this. I decided to put it here because I initiated the thread and yes there is misogyny and sexism in the history and experience of the Pachuca. There is also racism, homophobia, Transphobia, cultural politics, on and on.

Many times here on the site we find ourselves discussing the harder topics such as gender, race, sexism, class. Most of you know I am Mexican American and raised in Los Angeles. I think it would be an eye opener for many here to read this book, "The Woman In The Zoot Suit." It is written by Catherine S. Ramirez.

The Pachuca, Chola, Low Rider, she is a piece of recent history and yes, is still with us in some cultures. The Pachuca is female masculinity. The Pachuca is queer, the Pachuca is straight. She made and makes her own rules. Much like many of us in here.

Most of the time when discussing gender, masculinity we do it framed in a "white" framework. I am not saying that is necessarily a horrible thing. It's true there are white people but the fallacy is in believing that it is the superior or the only context in which to see our history, our gender, our sexuality, our world.

http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/zoot_su..._man_and_woman

http://feministreview.blogspot.com/2...tionalism.html

http://www.dukeupress.edu/books.php3...-0-8223-4303-5

Thanks Greyson, that book looks very interesting. I will try to get a copy to read it.

From man to woman- sexism in the workplace..
 

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/k...of_quality.jpg

Major Victory Against Rape Apologist Hate Speech in South Africa

Good Blog: Femocracy
 

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp6EVKr7sLs&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Eudy Simelane -- A Story of Corrective Rape[/nomedia]

Bret Easton Ellis on American Psycho, Christian Bale, and His Problem with Women Directors


What are your thoughts on women directors? After you saw Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank, you tweeted that you might have to reevaluate your preconceived notions about them.
I did. And after I saw [Floria Sigismondi’s] The Runaways, too.

Really?
I loved it.

I wish I’d loved it.
Well, I wasn’t looking forward to it. I avoided it, and then I was with some people and they said, “It starts soon at the Arclight. Let’s go.” So yeah, I do have to reevaluate that, but for the most part I’m not totally convinced, [except for] Andrea Arnold, Kathryn Bigelow, Sofia Coppola…

Not Mary Harron?
Mary Harron to a degree. There’s something about the medium of film itself that I think requires the male gaze.

What would that be?
We’re watching, and we’re aroused by looking, whereas I don’t think women respond that way to films, just because of how they’re built.

"Regardless of the business aspect of things, is there a reason that there isn’t a female Hitchcock or a female Scorsese or a female Spielberg?"

You don’t think they have an overt level of arousal?

[They have one] that’s not so stimulated by the visual. I think, to a degree, all the women I named aren’t particularly visual directors. You could argue that Lost in Translation is beautiful, but is that [cinematographer Lance Acord]? I don’t know. Regardless of the business aspect of things, is there a reason that there isn’t a female Hitchcock or a female Scorsese or a female Spielberg? I don’t know. I think it’s a medium that really is built for the male gaze and for a male sensibility. I mean, the best art is made under not an indifference to, but a neutrality [toward] the kind of emotionalism that I think can be a trap for women directors. But I have to get over it, you’re right, because so far this year, two of my favorite movies were made by women, Fish Tank and The Runaways. I’ve got to start rethinking that, although I have to say that a lot of the big studio movies I saw last year that were directed by women were far worse than the sh***y big-budget studio movies that were directed by men.

Which are we talking about?
"I mean, do I want to say this on the record? Did you see The Proposal? Anyway, whatever."

Elena Kagan, cross your legs!
Robin Givhan goes after the Supreme Court nominee's "unusual" posture (and perhaps her sexuality)


This weekend, the Washington Post raised a new concern about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and her posture. No, not her political stance, but how she carries her body. Naturally, this commentary comes from the Post's fashion writer Robin Givhan, who is disturbed by how "she sat hunched over" and "with her legs ajar" while courting senators on Capitol Hill.

Givhan writes, "In the photographs ... she doesn't appear to ever cross her legs." (Oddly enough, the first image I came across of these meetings shows Kagan crossing her legs -- but, hyperbole aside, let's move on.) Givhan continues:

People tend to mimic each other's body language during a conversation, especially if they're trying to connect with one another. But even when Kagan sits across from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who has her legs crossed at the knees, Kagan keeps both feet planted firmly on the ground. Her body language will not be bullied into conformity.

She does not cross her legs at the ankles either, the way so many older women do. Instead, Kagan sits, in her sensible skirts, with her legs slightly apart, hands draped in her lap.

Certainly this sort of critique can't be taken too seriously, given the context. Givhan is on the fashion beat, after all, and she indiscriminately targets political figures, male and female alike. But what silliness, subjecting a 50-year-old woman to that classic grandmotherly scolding of "cross your legs, young lady!" The truth is, Kagan still sits rather demurely, despite her legs being uncrossed.

Beyond that basic ridiculousness, I find Givhan's emphasis on Kagan's otherness, her refusal to conform and be normal, somewhat discomfiting. It feels like Kagan is, however indirectly, being indicted over her sexuality -- once again. An accompanying photo caption reads: "UNUSUAL: Most women, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, cross their legs when sitting, but not Kagan." Maybe because she's an "unusual" lesbian.

Givhan also lays into Kagan for her "frumpiness," noting that "Kagan's version of middle-age seems stuck in a time warp, back when 50-something did not mean Kim Cattrall or Sharon Stone, 'Cougar Town' or 'Sex and the City.'" I'm going to give Givhan -- and my own sanity -- the benefit of the doubt and assume she doesn't actually mean that the gold standard of sartorial appropriateness for a 50-year-old Supreme Court nominee is "Cougar Town."

more...here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_593796.html

That is so interesting and so lame. i loved it. Thank you!!!

How does he explain other women visual artists -- photographers, graphic artists, etc?

And Spielberg and Hitchcock???? Of course there are not women Spielberg's and Hitchcock's. None of us has been an adolescent male. Plus when Hitchcock was directing, how many women could dream of getting to make major motion pictures.

The reason why there are fewer major women directors is simple. It's a very expensive medium. You have to be able to work within and get the support of corporations to do your work. i do not know the nature of the business. But there do not seem to be a lot of women producers either. And that is business acumen. No one has ever said women lack that. So there must be some old boy stuff going on.

And he's also not looking at foreign films. i am not a huge fan, but what about Lina Wertmuller?

And he's totally conflated eighties film theory about the gaze -- which is about how films use point of view to reinforce gender hierarchies -- and psychological theories about men being more visual.

LOL. Oh well, he wrote American Psycho. Nuff said.

Jesus this thread is upsetting.

A global view of sexism & vilence against women is needed
 

Feminism's Fourth Wave
Women are doing nearly everything men do, but...
November 4, 2003
by Katie Allison Granju


Last year, during the U.S. assault on the Taliban in Afghanistan, my seven-year old daughter, Jane seemed truly puzzled by the photos of Afghani women that dominated the news. Why, she wanted to know, did those women want to wear clothing that covered them from head to toe? Weren't they hot? How could they run or even smile at other people? Why weren't there ever interviews on television with any Afghani women? What was meant when it was said that now, women and girls in that country could read and write again?

I explained to Jane about the cultural and religious restrictions faced by these particular mothers and daughters, and she listened, mouth hanging open in vivid disbelief. She peppered me with questions about every aspect of the lives of Afghanistan's female population, and seemed utterly astounded when I told her that there are actually many places and cultures around the world in which girls cannot go to school; choose what they will wear or whom they will marry; own property; or vote.

As sad as it made me to explain the state of so many of the world's women to the most important girl in my life, I realized that the fact that Jane found this information so incomprehensible represented something very positive. The environment in which my daughter is growing into adulthood is one in which she sees few, if any restrictions on what is possible for her. Her American girlhood is very different from the one in which I came of age only a few decades ago.

When I was Jane's age, my working, feminist mother was an anomaly among the women I knew, and my parents had to make a conscious effort to be sure I understood that, although most doctors, police officers, and engineers were men, this didn't mean that "only" men could hold these jobs. My parents had to be ever-vigilant to protect both their daughters from being held back by unfair and sexist limitations, and they worked to be sure that we were exposed to art, music, and great ideas by women. They ensured that we had "Free to Be You and Me" books and records around the house, and a lifetime subscription to Ms. Magazine in our mailbox.

Today, however, the world has changed enough that parents don't have to make these kinds of special efforts to promote a sense of equality and possibility in our young daughters. Basic feminist consciousness has become an organic part of our culture, and we are all the better for it.

My third grade girl gets her news and information from terrific female journalists, and she is personally acquainted with women lawyers, priests, doctors, firefighters, farmers, athletes, social workers, and artists. Jane is an aggressive and successful competitor in her own chosen sport, and she enjoys listening to music by everyone from 'tween queen Hilary Duff to riot-grrls Sleater-Kinney.

Unlike my own parents, I do not feel compelled to pontificate on the wrong-headedness of rigid gender roles every time I see Jane playing with her dolls. I'm confident that she understands clearly that motherhood is not incompatible with professional achievement or civic engagement.

Also different from my own childhood as the daughter of '70s "women's libbers," Jane and her friends don't seem to feel any conflict between their femininity and their power. When I was a little girl, equality often meant trying to act or look like the little boys. Jane, however, is growing up in a pop culture infused with grrl-power -- from the Powerpuff Girls to Jessica Lynch. I observe her and her little friends playing superheroes, but their superheroes proudly wear sparkly pink capes as they save the world.

While all of this progress is terrific, I also recognize that my daughter is growing up in a society where women still earn less money than men for performing the same work; where women continue to live in realistic, ever-present fear of sexual assault; and where girls are still too often discouraged from studying math or science. There is still work ahead for her generation of rising young feministas. But as I watch her playing things like "President Barbie solves the Mideast peace crisis" with her friends, I feel hopeful.


Katie Allison Granju lives in Knoxville and is the mother of three children. She is the author of Attachment Parenting (Simon and Schuster, 1999) and her website is www.locoparentis.blogspot.com. This article first appeared in Metro Pulse Online.
From Feminist.net
http://www.ifeminists.net/introducti...104granju.html

from The Atlantic:
 

That is fucked up.

School district blames disabled student for own molestation

When a teacher's aide at Saddleback High School in Santa Ana, CA was arrested for molesting one of the special-ed students under his care, the school district's first impulse was to cover the incident up and hope no one would find out.

Now the student's parents have sued the Santa Ana Unified School District for negligently keeping on an employee that other parents had been complaining about for years. The district's lawyers have responded by not only blaming the mentally disabled girl for her own abuse but asking that the judge dismiss the charges and make the victim's family pay the district's legal fees.

The seventeen-year-old victim, who has cerebral palsy, has the mental capacity of a seven-year-old and is confined to a wheelchair. Because she is unable to speak, no one knows exactly what was happening when another school employee found her alone in a room with Alonso Manuel Gonzalez, with her shirt pulled up and her breasts exposed, but the incident resulted in the aide's arrest for a "lewd act with dependent adult."

The school's immediate reaction was to attempt to keep the incident under wraps. Saddleback teachers told the OC Weekly they had been told not to discuss the incident with anyone. Parents were not notified and a school representative refused to discuss the matter with a reporter. Over the next few months, the school district made no public acknowledgment of the arrest, either when Gonzalez was arraigned or several months later when he pleaded guilty to child abuse and endangerment.

The parents of other disabled students, however, quickly came forward with their own complaints about Gonzalez, going back to at least 2005. They told the OC Weekly that a group of parents had met with Saddleback's principle and the head of the district's special-ed program to complain that Gonzalez made the students uncomfortable and seemed to want to spend time alone with female students, but that the district ignored their concerns.

Now, a year after the aide's guilty plea, the parents of the student have brought a civil suit against Gonzales for causing mental and physical trauma to their daughter and also against the school district for negligence. As a result, the district's lawyers are fighting back -- hard.

In a filing with the Orange County Superior Court, the attorneys claim that the wheelchair-bound girl "chose to encounter the known risk" of being alone with Gonzalez, that she "consented to" him lifting up her shirt, and that her injuries were the result of her having "failed to use due and reasonable care for her own safety and protection."

They also charge her parents with having "negligently, carelessly and recklessly supervised, monitored, controlled and instructed the minor plaintiff so as to legally cause and contribute to her injuries and damages, if any."

"As a grand, caring finale, the district asked presiding Judge Luis A. Rodriguez to not only dismiss all charges against them but to make the victim's family pay all legal fees," the OC Weekly concludes, adding, "Since when did the Santa Ana Unified School District take its directions toward sex abuse from the Diocese of Orange?"

NYT Op-Ed: