Feminism in News and Popular Media

[Allison W]

It's too late to edit my last post, but I just looked it up from a Facebook link and they do carry XL and XXL in men's sizes, but "only to appeal to large athletes."

What about women who are large athletes?

[Kobi]

“There are a million rules for being a girl. There are a million things you have to do to get through each day. High school has things that can trip you up, ruin you, people say one thing and mean another, and you have to know all the rules, you have to know what you can and can't do.”

Elizabeth Scott, The Unwritten Rule

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Allison W

It's too late to edit my last post, but I just looked it up from a Facebook link and they do carry XL and XXL in men's sizes, but "only to appeal to large athletes."

What about women who are large athletes?

I'm guessing that there are NO large athletic women 'COOL' enough to wear XL clothing.

The whole thing just feeds into SO many terrible and damaging sexist, sizeist, bullshit misogynistic messages and attitudes it makes me nuts.

[femmeInterrupted]

Why are you taking this so personally?

This entire piece is an answer to that last question.

When women are bombarded every day from every direction with questions and statements that lessen their worth as human beings, question their judgement, undermine their experiences,
and collectively make the very loud statement that what women say and experience matters far less than how women look and what men think of women, it's damned hard NOT to take it personally,
or to not get upset at yet another person cracking sexist jokes without thinking them through.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

I'm guessing that there are NO large athletic women 'COOL' enough to wear XL clothing.

The whole thing just feeds into SO many terrible and damaging sexist, sizeist, bullshit misogynistic messages and attitudes it makes me nuts.

Abercrombie & Fitch are well known for their bullshit.


Abercrombie criticized for selling push-up tops to little girls


By the CNN Wire Staff

March 27, 2011 -- Updated 0154 GMT (0954 HKT)\

CNN) -- No stranger to controversy, U.S. retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has come under fire for offering a push-up bikini top to young girls.

Its "Ashley" bikini -- described as "padded" and a "push-up" -- was posted on the Abercrombie Kids website earlier this week.

The company declined to comment Saturday but noted it has since updated the description of its bikini online.

The product is now being offered as a padded, "striped triangle." Bottoms are sold separately.

"How is this okay for a second-grader?" asked Rebecca Odes in a recent post on the Babble parenting blog.

"Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up. But there's a difference between exploring these ideas on your own and having them sold to you in a children's catalog," she wrote.

Gail Dines, a sociology professor at Wheelock College in Boston, similarly slammed the top, saying it would encourage girls to think about themselves in a sexual way before they are ready.

"It (also) sends out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects," she told CNN affiliate WHDH.

This is not the first time the company, known for its sexy style of marketing campaigns, has found itself in hot water with consumers.

In 2002, the retailer pulled controversial T-shirts after complaints they were racially insensitive. One shirt showed Chinese laundry workers with conical hats and the phrase, "Wong Brothers Laundry Service: Two Wongs Can Make It White."

In 2003, the company -- under pressure from some consumer groups -- said it would stop issuing racy catalogues and halt the publication of its holiday book, which featured nude young adult models in sexually suggestive poses.

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Abercrombie & Fitch are well known for their bullshit.


Abercrombie criticized for selling push-up tops to little girls


By the CNN Wire Staff

March 27, 2011 -- Updated 0154 GMT (0954 HKT)\

CNN) -- No stranger to controversy, U.S. retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has come under fire for offering a push-up bikini top to young girls.

Its "Ashley" bikini -- described as "padded" and a "push-up" -- was posted on the Abercrombie Kids website earlier this week.

The company declined to comment Saturday but noted it has since updated the description of its bikini online.

The product is now being offered as a padded, "striped triangle." Bottoms are sold separately.

"How is this okay for a second-grader?" asked Rebecca Odes in a recent post on the Babble parenting blog.

"Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up. But there's a difference between exploring these ideas on your own and having them sold to you in a children's catalog," she wrote.

Gail Dines, a sociology professor at Wheelock College in Boston, similarly slammed the top, saying it would encourage girls to think about themselves in a sexual way before they are ready.

"It (also) sends out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects," she told CNN affiliate WHDH.

This is not the first time the company, known for its sexy style of marketing campaigns, has found itself in hot water with consumers.

In 2002, the retailer pulled controversial T-shirts after complaints they were racially insensitive. One shirt showed Chinese laundry workers with conical hats and the phrase, "Wong Brothers Laundry Service: Two Wongs Can Make It White."

In 2003, the company -- under pressure from some consumer groups -- said it would stop issuing racy catalogues and halt the publication of its holiday book, which featured nude young adult models in sexually suggestive poses.

Wow.

It's nice how they manage to throw in a healthy dose of racism as well. More bang for the consumers buck, I suppose.

Asshats.

The sexualization of young girls ( and boys) is sickening. I understand the instant 'blaming' of the parents, but the truth is, those parents have already drunk the Kool-Aid-- and have swallowed and internalized the normalization of the sexualization and commodification of females along the continuum of our lives. All of those beauty pageant mom and daughter duo's spring to mind.

There seems to be little or no thought to the messaging (both external and internal) happening when they are buying their 8 year daughters bedazzled g-strings from "Junior lingerie" shops, and heavily sexualized clothing/make up etc.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://liberationcollective.wordpres...ge-1/#comments



Consistent with common usage of the term “cisgender,” the graphic below explains that “…if you identify with the gender you were assigened [sic] at birth, you are cis.”

Another Trans 101: Cisgender webpage describes cis this way: “For example, if a doctor said “it’s a boy!” when you were born, and you identify as a man, then you could be described as cisgender.” [i] Likewise, girl-born people who identify as women are also considered cisgender. WBW are cis.

Framing gender as a medically determined assignment may seem like a good start to explaining gendered oppression because it purports to make a distinction between physical sex and gender. Feminism similarly understands masculinity and femininity (e.g., gender) as strictly enforced social constructs neither of which are the “normal” or inevitable result of one’s reproductive sex organs. Feminism and trans theory agree that coercive gender assignments are a significant source of oppression.

On closer inspection of the concept of “cisgender,” however, feminism and trans theory quickly diverge. Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation. Feminism claims that gender is a much more complicated (and sinister) social phenomenon than this popular cis/trans binary has any hope of capturing.

First, “masculinity” and “femininity” are not monolithic, static concepts that are wholly embraced or wholly discarded. Socially assigned gender roles encompass entire lives’ worth of behaviors and expectations, from cradle to grave. Most people’s identification with their “gender” assignment is not a simple Y/N. One may be aesthetically gender conforming, but at the same time, behaviorally non-conforming. Or vice versa. Or some combination of both. Most of us are not walking, talking stereotypes. It is unusual for a person to both appear and behave in unmodified identification with their assigned gender at birth. For example, a female-born person might wear pink dresses and lots of makeup, but behave in an assertive, detached, and highly intellectual manner. Or a female-born person might appear very androgynous, without any feminine adornment at all, but express herself gently, quietly, and with graceful concern for those around her. What about a female who is aggressive and competitive in her professional life, but submissive and emotional in her personal life? Who decides whether an individual is sufficiently identified with to be considered “cis”? Or sufficiently non-identified with to be “trans”? “Cis” and “trans” do not describe discrete social classes from which political analysis can be extrapolated.

Additionally, one’s identification with their “gender” may change over time. Gender is not an immutable characteristic. While some people argue that “gender identity” is a deeply felt, unchanging personal quality;[ii] the existence and prominence of late-transitioning[iii] trans people drags this claim into very questionable territory. One may be gender conforming for many years, then slowly or suddenly reject the characteristics of their assigned gender. How an individual identifies in reference to their gender, whether it be masculinity or femininity, is not necessarily stable, nor should it have to be.

The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;” nor does it address people with hostile relationships to gender in general. As a woman-born-woman who rejects femininity as females’ destiny, I surely do not identify with my assigned gender in the way that “cis” describes. Indeed, no one holding radical feminist/anti-essentialist views about gender could be considered “cis” because, by definition of these views, we reject gender as a natural social category that every person identifies with. Feminists do not believe that everyone has a “gender identity,” or that we all possess some kind of internal compass directing our identification with “gender.”

Identifying with something is an internal, subjective experience. Self-assessments of gender do not equal self-awareness, nor do they provide insight as to how gendered oppression operates in the broader, external social sphere.

By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as “normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other.

See graphic, above. The cis/trans* binary does not break down any structures of normalcy because it doesn’t describe how such systems operate. It doesn’t explain how a person will be treated by society or what kind(s) of power they hold relative to others. External observers cannot reliably determine whether someone considers herself “cis” or “trans;” they simply pass judgment by categorizing superficial expressions of masculinity or femininity as appropriate or inappropriate. In reality, any person who significantly defies the gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not. Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were “trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years.

“IT’S A GIRL!” (see graphic above) means something in regard to that baby’s life. Assuming she makes it to adulthood, that is.[iv]

For “It’s a girl!” to make sense, it must refer to a long string of gendered words that help the community understand what to expect out of babies called “girls.”

…

The single utterance, “It’s a girl!” does not a baby girl make. The drama of gender is a repeat performance—it must be reenacted continually to form a pattern. Butler writes, “the body becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time.” 273 She explains, “[t]his repetition is at once a reenactment and reexperiencing of a set of meanings already socially established…[v]

The pattern of gender, constituted through gender’s repeated performance on the stage of life, demonstrates that males and masculinity are institutionally dominant over females and femininity. Gender is not just a fun dress up game that individuals merely identify with in isolation from all contextual and historical meaning, but the most powerful tool of structural oppression ever created by humans.

Notwithstanding variations caused by intersecting factors such as economic class, national jurisdiction, and cultural differences; the collective female social location is consistently less than similarly situated males in terms of: (i) material resources received as an infant and child, (ii) respect, attention, and intellectual encouragement received as an infant and child, (iii) risk of being sexually exploited or victimized, (iv) role within the hetero family unit, (v) representation and power in government, (vi) access to education, jobs, and promotions in the workforce, (vii) property ownership and dominion over space.[vi]

Recognizing this, feminism understands gender as a powerful– but not inevitable– tool of organizing social relations and distributing power, including physical resources, between the sexes. The near-universal quality of life disparities enumerated above are created, enforced, and replicated through the enforcement of gendered difference and the meanings assigned to these differences. Being born with female appearing genitals and, as a direct result, being coercively assigned the feminine gender at birth, is clearly not a (cis) privilege, nor is it socially equivalent to males’ masculine gender assignment. Female-bodied people and male-bodied people are not similarly situated persons in regard to gender based oppression. Gender is not simply a neutral binary. More importantly, it is a hierarchy.

Cis privilege does not exist, man-privilege does.

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or not) from gendered oppression. While a man’s gender conformity with masculinity—both aesthetic and behavioral— will substantially insulate him from sex and gender motivated oppression and violence, a woman’s appropriate conformity to stereotypical femininity does not. The 2011 SlutWalk campaign (hopefully) served as a grave reminder that victim-blaming, woman-blaming rhetoric is alive and well in mainstream social discourse. The perception that women “bring it on ourselves” or “ask for it” when we dress in certain, undeniably feminine ways is very wrong, but also very real. Some predators are even documented as specifically targeting conventionally “attractive” women.

The first good-looking girl I see tonight is going to die.

Edward Kemper, serial killer.[vii]

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard of beauty for women, feminine-appearing women (trans or not) will be eye-catching targets for misogynistic violence because of their perceived “beauty.” In other words, because they are feminine-conforming.

Further, socially defined feminine behaviors such as hospitality, care-taking, and a socially structured desire for male sexual attention contribute to women’s vulnerability to exploitation. When a woman’s social performance (trans or not) is consistent with feminine subordination to male authority, rapists and other abusers may target these women as easy victims on the assumption that they will be less likely to resist unwanted advances.

Rapists often select potential victims using gut feeling. Subtle attempts to invade our personal space and to force conversation with us are tests of our boundaries used by rapists to confirm their gut feeling. We send a strong message when we enforce our limits and preferences for touching, revealing personal information and feelings, and having people in the space that surrounds us.[viii]

Feminine socialization conditions women to be accommodating to others, listen politely and attentively, and express emotional concern for those who appear downtrodden. As a result, women still make up the majority of workers in underpaid “caring professions” such as social work, teaching, and nursing. This tendency towards altruism and giving of trust allow feminine-behaving people to be taken advantage of by those who recognize it as an opportunity to leverage their “feminine” generosity for personal gain.

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard of appropriate behavior for women (trans or not), we will continue to struggle not only with setting boundaries against others’ predatory and/or exploitative intentions, but we are also doomed to walk uphill against the professional double standard recognized in the groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins:

An employer who objects to aggressiveness in women but whose positions require this trait places women in an intolerable and impermissible Catch-22: out of a job if they behave aggressively and out of a job if they do not. [ix]

The behavioral characteristics of femininity are economically and intellectually devalued as compared to the traits of masculinity. Power is gendered. As a result, males continue to control almost all of the world’s resources and power, including the positions of institutional authority required to direct social reform. Within this patriarchal context, women’s compliance with feminine behavioral norms simply does not result in social empowerment. It can’t. And it won’t. Because “gender” isn’t designed to work that way.

Eliminating sex-based gender assignments, while leaving hegemonic masculinity and femininity intact,isn’t going to rectify this imbalance. The cis/trans* binary is a gross oversimplification of the gendered dynamics that structure social relations in favor of male-born people. Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing.

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”

up [i] http://www.basicrights.org/uncategor...101-cisgender/

up [ii] Levi, Jennifer L., The Interplay Between Disability and Sexuality: Clothes Don’t Make the Man (or Woman), but Gender Identity Might. 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 90 (2006).

up [iii] http://ensuringfairness.wordpress.com/statistics/

up [iv] Femicide is real. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/femaleinfanticide.html

up [v] Clarke, Jessica A., Adverse Possession of Identity: Radical Theory, Conventional Practice. Oregon Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2005.

up [vi] Special thanks to Virginia Brown for articulating these disparities.

up [vii] http://www.examiner.com/true-crime-i...serial-killers

up [viii] http://www.portlandonline.com/police...=61860&c=35911

up [ix] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (490 U.S. 228, 251).

up [x] Here is an example of a trans woman listening, understanding, and incorporating feminist critique of gender into her work. It is possible.

___________________

[Sweetfeme]

The other day I was listening to a very interesting interview on CBC Radio 2 about the effort the American Military had made to reduce the incidents of rapes in the military. The interview panel discussed the concept of "toxic masculinity".
Has anyone else heard of this term? I thought it was fascinating the way they talked about how men really feel entitled to having a women's body. That they are somehow entitled to take a woman's body and do with it as the like, as a matter of right.
This then got me thinking about the whole butch/femme dynamic and made me wonder if this notion of entitlement is alive and well in our communitiesl?
Could it be...I am interested in everyone's thoughts.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

http://liberationcollective.wordpres...ge-1/#comments

... by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation. ...


The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;”...


By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as “normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other....

In reality, any person who significantly defies the gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not. Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were “trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years...


Cis privilege does not exist, man-privilege does.

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or not) from gendered oppression. ...

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”



___________________

Brilliant. The term 'cis' annoys the f**k out of me for all the above mentioned reasons, plus a few more. My first point is briefly touched upon in the above article, but isn't given nearly enough space. In the overly simplistic version of gender theory that renders a person as either 'cis' or trans, a butch woman would be labeled as 'cis' regardless of whether or not she identifies with butch AS A GENDER! This invisibilises butch women, and that's NOT OK with me.

Second, simplistically reducing the world into two choices of either 'cis' or trans leaves intersex people out altogether, as well as running roughshod over the IDs of Two Spirit Native people. That shouldn't be OK with anyone, and it's certainly not OK with me.

Finally, it creates a permanent division between women who have transitioned and those who have never been trans. One of my closest friends is a trans woman who is infuriated by the term 'cis'. She finished transitioning years ago, and is now a woman. Period. She does NOT wish to append either 'trans' or 'cis' to her or anyone else's identity of woman. She sacrificed a great deal to become a woman, and all she wants is to be recognised as a woman with no qualifications attached.

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Brilliant. The term 'cis' annoys the f**k out of me for all the above mentioned reasons, plus a few more. My first point is briefly touched upon in the above article, but isn't given nearly enough space. In the overly simplistic version of gender theory that renders a person as either 'cis' or trans, a butch woman would be labeled as 'cis' regardless of whether or not she identifies with butch AS A GENDER! This invisibilises butch women, and that's NOT OK with me.

Second, simplistically reducing the world into two choices of either 'cis' or trans leaves intersex people out altogether, as well as running roughshod over the IDs of Two Spirit Native people. That shouldn't be OK with anyone, and it's certainly not OK with me.

Finally, it creates a permanent division between women who have transitioned and those who have never been trans. One of my closest friends is a trans woman who is infuriated by the term 'cis'. She finished transitioning years ago, and is now a woman. Period. She does NOT wish to append either 'trans' or 'cis' to her or anyone else's identity of woman. She sacrificed a great deal to become a woman, and all she wants is to be recognised as a woman with no qualifications attached.

Cheryl,

I couldn't agree more with your post! Women who have had the experience of transitioning are WOMEN. Calling them Transwomen keeps them othered, and reinforces the hierarchy of 'born' woman/female vs. 'other female/woman. It's completely unacceptable. The Transgender movement ( rather than the movement created by the experiences of intersex and Transsexual people) has caused great harm to women with transsexual experiences and history by its insistence of blurring gender lines. Women with Transsexual histories didn't struggle their whole lives, have expensive and often inaccessible surgeries to come out as some 'other/third/fourth/fifth gender' They transitioned to become what they are, and always were, Women. Before anyone jumps on this as an anti trans-gender post, please don't-- I'm not talking about keeping the gender binary as it is, or suggesting that gender in and of it's self isn't fluid-- but women who are looking for community with women, services for women, health care for women, are interested in being seen, and included as a woman. This is why it's a deeply feminist issue. As always, when you boil it down, it's the voices of women in our most marginalized locations that get silenced and attacked.

"Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing."

Love. It.

[Allison W]

"The Princess and the PR," about the protagonist of Brave, Merida, getting a makeover for her addition to the Disney princess lineup. Or, to quote the Daily Show site's description of the clip, "The hero of Disney's 'Brave' gets a controversial makeover, threatening a longstanding arrangement with America's parents."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...=synd_facebook

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/41...ou-might-think


How often do women falsely accuse men of rape? Often? Sometimes? Almost never? And, how often do women falsely accuse men of domestic violence? The actual numbers might surprise you and may help change the way our culture views sexual violence allegations.

In a recent report published by the United Kingdom's Crown Prosecution Service, it was found that a mere 35 out of 5,651 or .6% women falsely accused men of rape, and only 6 women out of 111,891 or .005% falsely accused a man of domestic violence during the 17-month-long study.

The study was conducted in response to a 2010 court appeal in which a woman pleaded guilty to falsely retracting true accusations of rape she had made against her husband and was sentence to 8 months in prison for "perverting the court of justice."

Now, why is the study significant? Well, for starters, the low number of false accusations helps to undermine the myth that women are vindictive shrews who will lie about an act of sexual violence in order to get revenge on a man who treats them poorly, didn't call after a one night stand, or breaks up with them. One of the easiest ways for rape apologists to turn the tables on a sexual violence survivor who files criminal charges against her assailant is to exaggerate the prevalence of false rape allegations or attack the survivor's credibility.

In a world where women are threatened and slut-shamed for speaking up about sexual assault and for seeking justice for the crimes committed against them it is important for our society to support survivors. The report's findings serve as a supportive, factual counterpoint to any rape apologist who uses false statistics to claim that survivors "lie" about or "exaggerate" what happened to them in order to get revenge.

The report is also important because it highlights the reality that false allegations are often complicated by outside factors, such as:

Mental health issues: 18% of all the rape and/or domestic violence allegations examined by the study were made by someone with a mental health issue as assessed by a health professional. All but one of the accusations made by someone with a mental illness proved to be false or grossly exaggerated.

Some person other than a possible victim makes a false accusation: in one instance, a father reported that his daughter had been raped by her older boyfriend and pressured her to substantiate his claim by providing false information to the police.

An accuser is pressured to recant their statement: despite having visible injuries, one woman said she lied about her original assault accusation, but later claimed she recanted her statement because of threats of future violence made by her partner.

These outside factors must considered when allegations of sexual violence are examined because they are realities that the judicial system must deal with, and because we cannot allow the blame and shame game to morph into an even bigger monster. We cannot permit mentally healthy survivors to be called mentally ill, crazy, or nuts, simply because they make an allegation of sexual assault. We also cannot discount an accusation of sexual violence by a bystander who may be able to provide critical information in a criminal investigation. And we need to ensure that survivors aren’t pressured by police, lawyers, assailants, family members, or friends to recant true allegations, as the failure to prosecute an offender may lead to future abuse.

While the study reveals that there were a small number of false allegations over a 17-month-long period, we as a society need to stop unabashedly questioning the validity of rape, domestic violence, and sexual assault allegations as doing so only serves to silence, ostracize, and shame survivors. Just as men do not want to be judged or stereotyped because of the actions of one rapist, survivors do not want their very true and painful experiences to be invalidated by a handful of false sexual violence allegations.

Picture Credit: Riemann

[femmeInterrupted]

[IMG]Image removed by Admin - Against TOS for Nudity/Dead Body[/IMG]

New York Coroner's picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973. When Gerri's picture appeared in MS, no one knew her name or all the circumstances that surrounded her death from an illegal abortion.

Gerri Twerdy Santoro was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him.
Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon's baby she was carrying, he would kill her.
She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy.
Santoro was 6 1/2 months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri's boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment.
They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion.
When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room.
She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn't.
She was found like this, on her stomach with her knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude, alone and dead.

There are times when I wish I could see the world in a different way.
That I could reclaim an earlier less sentient state before my consciousness was raised.
But my reaction to this photo is visceral and profound.
The control and commodification of women's reproductive lives is still an oppressive and dangerous reality for ALL women.
This woman died before I was born, but she, and our other fallen sisters, are not forgotten.

[Medusa]

FemmeInterrupted -

I have removed the photo that appeared in your post. It is against the TOS to post images of nudity of any kind or dead bodies.

If you would like to LINK to the photo, that is fine but please put a warning up that the image is graphic so that more sensitive types aren't accidentally subjected to an upsetting image.


Thanks!

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

[IMG]Image removed by Admin - Against TOS for Nudity/Dead Body[/IMG]

New York Coroner's picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973. When Gerri's picture appeared in MS, no one knew her name or all the circumstances that surrounded her death from an illegal abortion.

Gerri Twerdy Santoro was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him.
Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon's baby she was carrying, he would kill her.
She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy.
Santoro was 6 1/2 months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri's boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment.
They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion.
When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room.
She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn't.
She was found like this, on her stomach with her knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude, alone and dead.

There are times when I wish I could see the world in a different way.
That I could reclaim an earlier less sentient state before my consciousness was raised.
But my reaction to this photo is visceral and profound.
The control and commodification of women's reproductive lives is still an oppressive and dangerous reality for ALL women.
This woman died before I was born, but she, and our other fallen sisters, are not forgotten.

Sorry for blanking on the TOS. My intent wasn't anything other than what I said in my post...but I apologize for the TOS violation. Mea Culpa .