Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Every one of us has looked at sexy photos of women (and men) and liked the photos and imagined all kinds of things while doing so. Does looking at pictures of almost to totally naked women, while thinking about all kinds of things, make me a sexist?

Certainly the radical feminists think so and they also are most certainly sex negative.

I just want to point out the broad generalization in this statement.

Not all radical feminists think so and not all are "sex negative".

I, personally, identify as a "radical feminist" and certainly am not sex negative.

Just sayin'.

It always bothers me when I read broad, sweeping statements that lump everyone, no matter how we identify, in the same bucket.

[Kobi]

During the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing, more than 100 countries expressed their commitment “to advance the goals of equality, development and peace for all women everywhere in the interest of humanity.” Since then, the United Nations has been tracking the plight of women, at times demanding international attention. To make the problems clearer, it helps to express them as a chart — as the Guardian did last June — or as a list of the worst places in the world for women, as the Independent did in March, as part of an investigation in tandem with the 101st International Women’s Day.

But one of the most complete pictures of the plight of women worldwide emerged earlier this week. Valerie M. Hudson, a Texas A&M University professor, analyzed information from the WomenStats Project and mapped the data in cooperation with Foreign Policy. Exploring nine factors, including physical security, maternal mortality, government participation and educational disparity, the data visualization corroborates aforementioned findings from the Independent and the Guardian: that Afghanistan is among the worst countries in the world for women, where 87% are illiterate, more than 70% face forced marriages and expectant mothers have a 1 in 11 chance of dying during childbirth. There are other areas of concern as well: For example, central and southern Africa appear to have more than a 20% difference in male and female secondary education level. Maternal mortality levels are also shockingly high in the region, with approximately 75% of the continent reporting more than 300 maternal deaths per 100,000 births.

According to additional statistics from the United Nation’s latest World’s Women publication, women are also legally disadvantaged in accessing land ownership, inheritance and other forms of property in 45 out of the 48 African countries reviewed and in 25 out of the 42 reviewed in Asia. Though the continent is home to the most dismal numbers overall, one problem that did not surface in Africa, is that of sex ratio and son preference in children. According to the research, Africa had normal sex ratios, while India, China and Vietnam had “extremely abnormal sex ratios favoring males.”

One of the most striking findings, was that of sex trafficking. According to Foreign Policy‘s map, it appears that nearly 75% of the world has lax trafficking laws. Almost all of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia fall into one of three categories: “Trafficking is illegal but still practiced,” “Trafficking is limitedly illegal but is still practiced,” or “Trafficking is not illegal and is commonly practiced.”

Circumstances seem dire when looking at Foreign Policy‘s map, and they should. According to the United Nation’s review of 33 countries with available statistics, the proportion of women who will be exposed to physical violence in their lifetime ranges from 12% in Hong Kong to 59% in Zambia. In a related survey, the U.N. found that nearly one-third of women worldwide agreed that being hit by a husband in an argument is justifiable, and in Mali, 74% of women say they believe it’s acceptable to by punished for refusing sex.

On the upside, the U.N. has reported some bright spots in the last 20 years: Female genital mutilation is decreasing slightly among younger generations, literacy among adult women and men around the world has improved, albeit slowly, and enrollment of girls in schools in increasing across the world.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/28/...ike-for-women/

[Truly Scrumptious]

While female genital mutilation may be decreasing slightly, it is now increasingly being performed in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada, due to immigration. FORWARD (The Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development) estimates that as many as 6,500 girls are at risk of FGM within the UK every year.

From the guardian:

"As many as 100,000 women in Britain have undergone female genital mutilations (FGM) with medics in the UK offering to carry out the illegal procedure on girls as young as 10, it has been reported.

Investigators from the Sunday Times said they had secretly filmed a doctor, dentist and alternative medicine practitioner who were allegedly willing to perform FGM or arrange for the operation to be carried out. The doctor and dentist deny any wrongdoing.

The practice, which involves the surgical removal of external genitalia and in some cases the stitching of the vaginal opening, is illegal in Britain and carries up to a 14-year prison sentence. It is also against the law to arrange FGM.

The procedure is widespread across parts of Africa. Victims are rarely given anaesthetic and frequently suffer long-term damage and pain.

Research suggests that every year more than 22,000 girls in the UK and up to 6,000 in London are at risk of the potentially fatal procedure.

The Metropolitan police said that since 2008 it had received 166 reports of people who feared they were at risk of FGM. Across all 43 forces in England and Wales, no one has ever been convicted of the offence, according to the Sunday Times."

more here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ap...ics?CMP=twt_gu

and if you can stomach it, here is more from FORWARD:
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by Truly Scrumptious

While female genital mutilation may be decreasing slightly, it is now increasingly being performed in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada, due to immigration. FORWARD (The Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development) estimates that as many as 6,500 girls are at risk of FGM within the UK every year.

From the guardian:

"As many as 100,000 women in Britain have undergone female genital mutilations (FGM) with medics in the UK offering to carry out the illegal procedure on girls as young as 10, it has been reported.

Investigators from the Sunday Times said they had secretly filmed a doctor, dentist and alternative medicine practitioner who were allegedly willing to perform FGM or arrange for the operation to be carried out. The doctor and dentist deny any wrongdoing.

The practice, which involves the surgical removal of external genitalia and in some cases the stitching of the vaginal opening, is illegal in Britain and carries up to a 14-year prison sentence. It is also against the law to arrange FGM.

The procedure is widespread across parts of Africa. Victims are rarely given anaesthetic and frequently suffer long-term damage and pain.

Research suggests that every year more than 22,000 girls in the UK and up to 6,000 in London are at risk of the potentially fatal procedure.

The Metropolitan police said that since 2008 it had received 166 reports of people who feared they were at risk of FGM. Across all 43 forces in England and Wales, no one has ever been convicted of the offence, according to the Sunday Times."

more here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ap...ics?CMP=twt_gu

and if you can stomach it, here is more from FORWARD:
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm

a link to US laws:

http://reproductiverights.org/sites/...fgmlawsusa.pdf

What is interesting to me is that it is legal (under federal law) for a woman over 18 to have this done. This practice is cultural and not religious.

And then there is the other big can of worms about male genital circumcision/mutilation. This originated as a religious practice and became the norm (a non-religious practice) in the US. It is automatically done to all baby boys before they go home.....parents are not asked unless something has changed in hospitals. It is now being justified as necessary for health reasons.

[Cin]

When my ex partner and I were deciding whether or not to circumcise our son we believed that having it done would have benefits for him, health and other. One friend that had not been circumcised always believed sex would be more pleasurable if he had been. Although looking back I don’t know how he could possibly know that since he never was. But being the radical feminist lesbian that I am, I wanted to make sure my son had the opportunity for as much sensation and sexual pleasure as possible. I know I never wanted to genitally mutilate my son, my choice was with his best interest as my only catalyst.

I don’t think that is generally the case with female genital mutilation. And while I don’t want to minimize the pain and suffering that circumcision may have caused any male I also don’t think it is comparable to the dangers that genital mutilation causes young females. Not only is the best interest of the girl not of much concern, in many cases the mutilation is done to the girl child to increase pleasure for males.

[Truly Scrumptious]

Honestly I have no idea what the risks or consequences of male circumcision are, but I do know they are routinely (though I just read a report from 2009 that said only about 60% of male babies are circumcised, a decline from the 1970s when the number was around 90%) performed in hospitals by doctors.

Female genital mutilation however is "traditionally carried out by an older woman with no medical training. Anaesthetics and antiseptic treatment are not generally used and the practice is usually carried out using basic tools such as knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass and razor blades. Often iodine or a mixture of herbs is placed on the wound to tighten the vagina and stop the bleeding."

Consequences:
severe pain and shock
infection
urine retention
injury to adjacent tissues
immediate fatal haemorrhaging

Long-term implications can entail:

extensive damage of the external reproductive system
uterus, vaginal and pelvic infections
cysts and neuromas
increased risk of Vesico Vaginal Fistula
complications in pregnancy and child birth
psychological damage
sexual dysfunction
difficulties in menstruation

Justifications of FGM

The justifications given for the practise are multiple and reflect the ideological and historical situation of the societies in which it has developed. Reasons cited generally relate to tradition, power inequalities and the ensuing compliance of women to the dictates of their communities

Reasons include:

custom and tradition
religion; in the mistaken belief that it is a religious requirement
preservation of virginity/chastity
social acceptance, especially for marriage
hygiene and cleanliness
increasing sexual pleasure for the male
family honour
a sense of belonging to the group and conversely the fear of social exclusion
enhancing fertility

http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm

[Toughy]

I'm glad I never had a son..........I have no idea what decision I would make. I think everyone makes the best decision they can for their own son.

I am clear about FGM. No way No how for girls. I think maybe perhaps it might should be illegal for adult women. However that eliminates choice for women and could drive the practice further underground (which is true for girls also). I dunno.....I hate crap like this.....

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Toughy

And then there is the other big can of worms about male genital circumcision/mutilation. This originated as a religious practice and became the norm (a non-religious practice) in the US. It is automatically done to all baby boys before they go home.....parents are not asked unless something has changed in hospitals. It is now being justified as necessary for health reasons.

Not sure if it's everywhere, but when I had my son almost 15 years ago in upstate New York, it was not automatic and had to be requested if parents wanted a circumcision performed.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

I just want to point out the broad generalization in this statement.

Not all radical feminists think so and not all are "sex negative".

I, personally, identify as a "radical feminist" and certainly am not sex negative.

Just sayin'.

It always bothers me when I read broad, sweeping statements that lump everyone, no matter how we identify, in the same bucket.

I also Identify as a radical feminist and I don't think I'm sex negative. I'm positively positive about sex and naked people in general. And looking at pictures of almost totally naked women (and men too) while thinking about all kinds of things doesn't make someone sexist in my radical feminist opinion. However the way that women and their bodies are sometimes used is at the very least sexist.

I guess what is sexist can occasionally be a difficult call to make. When misogyny is rearing its ugly head may be open to interpretation. Yet when is a decision not influenced by society's sexist and misogynistic opinions and expectations of women is perhaps an arguable never. It's impossible to live in our society and not have cut your teeth on sexism and misogyny.

[weatherboi]

i think these powerful pictures of women can be a very positive reflection as long as it was/is women friendly/controlled from start to finish. i do think that some women oppress their own. It is no longer a silent standard that women have to out perform, out work, out think, and behave more financially fiscal in order to create close to but never equal standards men have in this world when it comes to living and working.

i think that porn is inherently sexist only because my imagination concludes that the percentage would be so small it doesn't make a dent in the sexist damage that may come with the industry. Human trafficking is/has been an epidemic and provides many workers for the porn/sex worker industry globally.

i am not sure sexism is subjective and in my Household it is not gender specific due to its femme led nature.