Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[Kobi]

TOKYO (AP) — An outspoken nationalist mayor said the Japanese military's forced prostitution of Asian women before and during World War II was necessary to "maintain discipline" in the ranks and provide rest for soldiers who risked their lives in battle.

The comments made Monday are already raising ire in neighboring countries that bore the brunt of Japan's wartime aggression and have long complained that Japan has failed to fully atone for wartime atrocities.

Toru Hashimoto, the young, brash mayor of Osaka who is co-leader of an emerging conservative political party, also said that U.S. troops currently based in southern Japan should patronize the local sex industry more to help reduce rapes and other assaults.

Hashimoto told reporters on Monday that there wasn't clear evidence that the Japanese military had coerced women to become what are euphemistically called "comfort women" before and during World War II.

"To maintain discipline in the military, it must have been necessary at that time," Hashimoto said. "For soldiers who risked their lives in circumstances where bullets are flying around like rain and wind, if you want them to get some rest, a comfort women system was necessary. That's clear to anyone."

Historians say up to 200,000 women, mainly from the Korean Peninsula and China, were forced to provide sex for Japanese soldiers in military brothels.

China's Foreign Ministry criticized the mayor's comments and saw them as further evidence of a rightward drift in Japanese politics under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

"We are appalled and indignant about the Japanese politician's comments boldly challenging humanity and historical justice," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a daily media briefing. "The way they treat the past will determine the way Japan walks toward the future. On what choice Japan will make, the Asian neighbors and the international community will wait and see."

Asked about a photo of Abe posing in a fighter jet with the number 731 — the number of a notorious, secret Japanese unit that performed chemical and biological experiments on Chinese in World War II — Hong again urged Japan not to whitewash history so as to improve relations with countries that suffered under Japanese occupation.

"There is a mountain of definitive iron-hard evidence for the crimes they committed in the Second World War. We hope Japan will face and contemplate their history of aggression and treat it correctly," Hong said.

Abe posed, thumbs up, in the aircraft during a weekend visit to northeastern Japan.

South Korea's Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment over what it called a senior Japanese official's serious lack of historical understanding and respect for women's rights. It asked Japan's leaders to reflect on their country's imperial past, including grave human rights violations, and correct anachronistic historical views.

Hashimoto said he recently visited Okinawa in southern Japan and told the U.S. commander there "to make better use of the sex industry."

"He froze, and then with a wry smile said that is off-limits for the U.S. military," he said.

"I told him that there are problems because of such formalities," Hashimoto said, explaining that he was not referring to illegal prostitution but to places operating within the law. "If you don't make use of those places you cannot properly control the sexual energy of those tough guys."

Calls to the after-hours number for U.S. Forces in Japan were not answered.

Hashimoto's comments came amid continuing criticism of Abe's earlier pledges to revise Japan's past apologies for wartime atrocities. Before he took office in December, Abe had advocated revising a 1993 statement by then Prime Minister Yohei Kono acknowledging and expressing remorse for the suffering caused to the sexual slaves of Japanese troops.

Abe has acknowledged "comfort women" existed but has denied they were coerced into prostitution, citing a lack of official evidence.

Recently, top officials in Abe's government have appeared to backpedal on suggestions the government might revise those apologies, apparently hoping to ease tensions with South Korea and China and address U.S. concerns about Abe's nationalist agenda.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga repeated the previous government position and said those women went through unbearable pain.

"The stance of the Japanese government on the comfort women issue is well known. They have suffered unspeakably painful experiences. The Abe Cabinet has the same sentiments as past Cabinets," he said.

Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura said Hashimoto's remark was unhelpful given the criticism Japan faces from neighboring countries and the U.S. over its interpretation of history.

"A series of remarks related to our interpretation of (wartime) history have been already misunderstood. In that sense, Mr. Hashimoto's remark came at a bad time," Shimomura told reporters. "I wonder if there is any positive meaning to intentionally make such remarks at this particular moment."

Hashimoto, 43, is co-head of the newly formed Japan Restoration Party with former Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara, who is a strident nationalist.

Sakihito Ozawa, the party's parliamentary affairs chairman, said he believed Hashimoto's remarks reflected his personal views, but he expressed concerns about possible repercussions.

"We should ask his real intentions and stop this at some point," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-mayor...042050746.html

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Kobi

TOKYO (AP) — An outspoken nationalist mayor said the Japanese military's forced prostitution of Asian women before and during World War II was necessary to "maintain discipline" in the ranks and provide rest for soldiers who risked their lives in battle.

The comments made Monday are already raising ire in neighboring countries that bore the brunt of Japan's wartime aggression and have long complained that Japan has failed to fully atone for wartime atrocities.

Toru Hashimoto, the young, brash mayor of Osaka who is co-leader of an emerging conservative political party, also said that U.S. troops currently based in southern Japan should patronize the local sex industry more to help reduce rapes and other assaults.

Hashimoto told reporters on Monday that there wasn't clear evidence that the Japanese military had coerced women to become what are euphemistically called "comfort women" before and during World War II.

"To maintain discipline in the military, it must have been necessary at that time," Hashimoto said. "For soldiers who risked their lives in circumstances where bullets are flying around like rain and wind, if you want them to get some rest, a comfort women system was necessary. That's clear to anyone."

Historians say up to 200,000 women, mainly from the Korean Peninsula and China, were forced to provide sex for Japanese soldiers in military brothels.

China's Foreign Ministry criticized the mayor's comments and saw them as further evidence of a rightward drift in Japanese politics under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

"We are appalled and indignant about the Japanese politician's comments boldly challenging humanity and historical justice," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a daily media briefing. "The way they treat the past will determine the way Japan walks toward the future. On what choice Japan will make, the Asian neighbors and the international community will wait and see."

Asked about a photo of Abe posing in a fighter jet with the number 731 — the number of a notorious, secret Japanese unit that performed chemical and biological experiments on Chinese in World War II — Hong again urged Japan not to whitewash history so as to improve relations with countries that suffered under Japanese occupation.

"There is a mountain of definitive iron-hard evidence for the crimes they committed in the Second World War. We hope Japan will face and contemplate their history of aggression and treat it correctly," Hong said.

Abe posed, thumbs up, in the aircraft during a weekend visit to northeastern Japan.

South Korea's Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment over what it called a senior Japanese official's serious lack of historical understanding and respect for women's rights. It asked Japan's leaders to reflect on their country's imperial past, including grave human rights violations, and correct anachronistic historical views.

Hashimoto said he recently visited Okinawa in southern Japan and told the U.S. commander there "to make better use of the sex industry."

"He froze, and then with a wry smile said that is off-limits for the U.S. military," he said.

"I told him that there are problems because of such formalities," Hashimoto said, explaining that he was not referring to illegal prostitution but to places operating within the law. "If you don't make use of those places you cannot properly control the sexual energy of those tough guys."

Calls to the after-hours number for U.S. Forces in Japan were not answered.

Hashimoto's comments came amid continuing criticism of Abe's earlier pledges to revise Japan's past apologies for wartime atrocities. Before he took office in December, Abe had advocated revising a 1993 statement by then Prime Minister Yohei Kono acknowledging and expressing remorse for the suffering caused to the sexual slaves of Japanese troops.

Abe has acknowledged "comfort women" existed but has denied they were coerced into prostitution, citing a lack of official evidence.

Recently, top officials in Abe's government have appeared to backpedal on suggestions the government might revise those apologies, apparently hoping to ease tensions with South Korea and China and address U.S. concerns about Abe's nationalist agenda.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga repeated the previous government position and said those women went through unbearable pain.

"The stance of the Japanese government on the comfort women issue is well known. They have suffered unspeakably painful experiences. The Abe Cabinet has the same sentiments as past Cabinets," he said.

Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura said Hashimoto's remark was unhelpful given the criticism Japan faces from neighboring countries and the U.S. over its interpretation of history.

"A series of remarks related to our interpretation of (wartime) history have been already misunderstood. In that sense, Mr. Hashimoto's remark came at a bad time," Shimomura told reporters. "I wonder if there is any positive meaning to intentionally make such remarks at this particular moment."

Hashimoto, 43, is co-head of the newly formed Japan Restoration Party with former Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara, who is a strident nationalist.

Sakihito Ozawa, the party's parliamentary affairs chairman, said he believed Hashimoto's remarks reflected his personal views, but he expressed concerns about possible repercussions.

"We should ask his real intentions and stop this at some point," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-mayor...042050746.html

This is terrible. There is TONS of evidence, including survivor testimonials, that this systemic rape took place. Shame on him!

http://www.amnesty.org.nz/files/Comf...-factsheet.pdf

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

This is terrible. There is TONS of evidence, including survivor testimonials, that this systemic rape took place. Shame on him!

http://www.amnesty.org.nz/files/Comf...-factsheet.pdf

What was making me speechless was the convenient reframing of what occured in an attempt to make it not only acceptable but necessary.

"To maintain discipline in the military, it must have been necessary at that time," Hashimoto said. "For soldiers who risked their lives in circumstances where bullets are flying around like rain and wind, if you want them to get some rest, a comfort women system was necessary. That's clear to anyone."

That one statement, the attitude and beliefs it suggests is the hallmarks of the patriarchial and paternal bullshit which perpetuates and fuels sexism and misogyny.

To hear someone attempt to dismiss it as "necessary" in 2013 is disturbing. Is also a good reminder why the war on women keeps rearing its ugly head all over the world.

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Kobi

To hear someone attempt to dismiss it as "necessary" in 2013 is disturbing. Is also a good reminder why the war on women keeps rearing its ugly head all over the world.

That's the exact truth of it.
I can't even understand how anyone can NOT SEE that. Especially women.

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers say they're outraged that for the second time this month a member of the armed forces assigned to help prevent sexual assaults in the military is under investigation for alleged sexual misconduct.

The back-to-back Army and Air Force cases highlight a problem that is drawing increased scrutiny in Congress and expressions of frustration from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Lawmakers said it was time for Hagel to get tough with the military brass.

"This is sickening. Twice now, in a matter of as many weeks, we've seen the very people charged with protecting victims of sexual assault being charged as perpetrators," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "It's an astonishing reminder that the Pentagon has both a major problem on its hands and a tremendous amount of work to do to assure victims — who already only report a small fraction of sexual assaults — that they are changing the culture around these heinous crimes.

"Secretary Hagel needs to act swiftly to re-examine sexual assault services across the department to ensure that these disturbing betrayals of trust are ended," Murray said.

Hagel said he was directing all the services to retrain, re-credential and rescreen all sexual assault prevention and response personnel and military recruiters, his spokesman, George Little, said after Tuesday's announcement that a sergeant first class at Fort Hood, Texas, was accused of pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault and maltreatment of subordinates.

The soldier, whose name was not released, was being investigated by the Army Criminal Investigation Command. No charges had been filed.

Little said Hagel was angry and disappointed at "these troubling allegations and the breakdown in discipline and standards they imply." He said Hagel met with Army Secretary John McHugh earlier Tuesday and ordered him to "fully investigate this matter rapidly, to discover the extent of these allegations and to ensure that all of those who might be involved are dealt with appropriately."

The Fort Hood soldier had been assigned as an equal opportunity adviser and coordinator of a sexual harassment-assault prevention program at the Army's 3rd Corps headquarters when the allegation arose, the Army said.

"To protect the integrity of the investigative process and the rights of all persons involved, no more information will be released at this time," an Army statement said.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said in a statement he was "outraged and disgusted by the reports out of Fort Hood."

McKeon, noting he has a granddaughter in the Army, said he saw "no meaningful distinction between complacency or complicity in the military's latest failure to uphold their own standards of conduct. Nor do I see a distinction between the service member who orchestrated this offense and the chain of command that was either oblivious to or tolerant of criminal behavior. Both are accountable for this appalling breach of trust with their subordinates."

He called on Hagel to conduct a review of the military and its civilian leadership "to determine whether they continue to hold his trust and his confidence to lead in this area."

Just last week an Air Force officer who headed a sexual assault prevention office was himself arrested on charges of groping a woman in a Northern Virginia parking lot.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement his panel was considering a number of measures to counter the problem, including changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and will act on them next month.

"Tragically, the depth of the sexual assault problem in our military was already overwhelmingly clear before this latest highly disturbing report," Levin said.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said she intends to present new comprehensive legislation on Thursday to overhaul the military justice system by removing chain-of-command influence from prosecution of sex abuse crimes.

"To say this report is disturbing would be a gross understatement," Gillibrand said.

"The sad thing is that this is not a unique case,"Anu Bhagwati, former Marine captain and executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, said in an interview. "Week after week, we're hearing of cases across the branches of military leaders taking advantage of their positions of authority. "

The Pentagon is struggling with what it calls a growing epidemic of sexual assaults across the military. In a report last week, the Defense Department estimated that as many as 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year, based on survey results.

Of those, fewer than 3,400 reported the incident, and nearly 800 of them simply sought help but declined to file formal complaints against their alleged attackers.

There also is an ongoing investigation into more than 30 Air Force instructors for assaults on trainees at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and the recent arrest of the Air Force's head of sexual assault prevention on charges of groping a woman.

An Arlington County, Va., police report said Air Force Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski was drunk and grabbed a woman's breast and buttocks in a parking lot earlier this month. The woman fought him off and called police, the report said. A judge has set a July 18 trial date for Krusinski.

Congressional anger over these incidents and two recent decisions by officers to overturn juries' guilty verdicts in sexual assault cases has precipitated a storm of criticism on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., is holding up the nomination of Air Force Lt. Gen. Susan Helms, tapped to serve as vice commander of the U.S. Space Command, until McCaskill gets more information about Helms' decision to overturn a jury conviction in a sexual assault case.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...-military.html

It's hard to watch, but does a fine job of bringing to light this very issue.

It's not a shocker of course. Already an endemic problem globally, it's easy to see that the culture of machismo and systemic dehumanization in the military has colluded nicely together to form a culture that creates sexual violence AND a culture that denies and covers it up.

It's not a few 'bad apples' that are spoiling the rest of the barrel. The barrel is rotten, as is the ground it stands on. There are still those that deny that or find it ludicrous that there is rape culture. But one only has to peep inside this machine ( or the Catholic Church, for that matter) and see how normalized and pervasive both perpetration and denial of sexual violence is.

[Soon]

I had a disheartening conversation with a fifteen year old (bright) boy today.

As a class, we were discussing sexual assault/rape/slut-shaming and victim blaming. I brought up a recent story where a young woman in Nova Scotia--Rehtaeh Parsons--killed herself after being raped and bullied and harassed in its aftermath.

So, at the end of the class, student comes up to me and wouldn't stop with the argument...."If she was under age I could maybe understand (?) but

....she shouldn't have been there at the party
...she shouldn't have been drinking
...if she hadn't done any of those things, this wouldn't have happened to her..."


Of course, I try to to tell him the onus shouldn't be on women to have to monitor their behaviour in order to avoid/prevent women, and that her behaviour does not negate the rape. That the onus needs to be on men not raping and assaulting. However, he kept INSISTING, but but but if she hadn't done this and that. He was not able or could not (?) see that the discussion shouldn't be on what the victim did or didn't do, but that these men are committing a crime. I told him about consent and lack thereof with intoxication or being passed out, but he kept reverting to the "but if she hadn't done A then B wouldn't have happened to her."

Anyway, it was very frustrating. I am asking if anyone has an article or resource that is simple enough to maybe make him (and others?) in the class understand that the conversation shouldn't be about what these young women did or didn't do prior to being raped. The conversation needs to be about the rapists and raising men to not rape at all. Ever.

So, if you have something--a turn of phrase, an article, anything--that might help these adolescents understand that rape is not about a woman's behaviour, I'd appreciate it.

Sigh. I am still rankled by the conversation.

Thank you.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Soon

I had a disheartening conversation with a fifteen year old (bright) boy today.

As a class, we were discussing sexual assault/rape/slut-shaming and victim blaming. I brought up a recent story where a young woman in Nova Scotia--Rehtaeh Parsons--killed herself after being raped and bullied and harassed in its aftermath.

So, at the end of the class, student comes up to me and wouldn't stop with the argument...."If she was under age I could maybe understand (?) but

....she shouldn't have been there at the party
...she shouldn't have been drinking
...if she hadn't done any of those things, this wouldn't have happened to her..."


Of course, I try to to tell him the onus shouldn't be on women to have to monitor their behaviour in order to avoid/prevent women, and that her behaviour does not negate the rape. That the onus needs to be on men not raping and assaulting. However, he kept INSISTING, but but but if she hadn't done this and that. He was not able or could not (?) see that the discussion shouldn't be on what the victim did or didn't do, but that these men are committing a crime. I told him about consent and lack thereof with intoxication or being passed out, but he kept reverting to the "but if she hadn't done A then B wouldn't have happened to her."

Anyway, it was very frustrating. I am asking if anyone has an article or resource that is simple enough to maybe make him (and others?) in the class understand that the conversation shouldn't be about what these young women did or didn't do prior to being raped. The conversation needs to be about the rapists and raising men to not rape at all. Ever.

So, if you have something--a turn of phrase, an article, anything--that might help these adolescents understand that rape is not about a woman's behaviour, I'd appreciate it.

Sigh. I am still rankled by the conversation.

Thank you.

This site has some simple easy to understand info. This young man is displaying a blaming the victim mentality. It is should not be a womans responsibility to have to act in ways to prevent rape. It is mens responsibility to learn not to rape.

Rape Culture

[Kobi]

Also try a few of these. May or may not work.

[Kobi]

I like this one too:



And there is one more good analogy one that I cant find yet.

[Kobi]

Seems to me, a simple approach might be a more logical format for a potential instant breakthrough. For example.....so if your sister, mother, grandmother are in bed in their own home, asleep, and a man breaks in and rapes them.....they were dressed too provocatively? Shouldnt have been there? Egged him on?

Rape is rape. Adolesents girls are raped, elderly women are raped, nuns are raped, chuldren and babies are raped, men are raped. Fit the lack of logic to the situation.

Pardon my exuberence. I was working on a rape project today. Just spill over.

Found the anaolgy:

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Seems to me, a simple approach might be a more logical format for a potential instant breakthrough. For example.....so if your sister, mother, grandmother are in bed in their own home, asleep, and a man breaks in and rapes them.....they were dressed too provocatively? Shouldnt have been there? Egged him on?

Rape is rape. Adolesents girls are raped, elderly women are raped, nuns are raped, chuldren and babies are raped, men are raped. Fit the lack of logic to the situation.

Pardon my exuberence. I was working on a rape project today. Just spill over.

Found the anaolgy:

I think it's important to remember that rape is not a crime about sex. It's about power and control. That's why 7 year olds and 77 year olds get raped...Both demographics hardly fit the going standard for 'sexy' in today's society. It is however, a sexualized violence. It's about power OVER. It's about the dehumanization of women and children, the commodification of women and children, and the idea that is so nastily pervasive under the male gaze. Entitlement.

Personally, I don't think your exuberance needs pardoning, although I find myself in the same position often. I think it's O.K. to be passionate about things that require and are deserved of that passion. Violence against women is surely something that everyone SHOULD be passionate about.

I've been doing some research and reading into the gendered nature of anger and outrage. Both natural and appropriate emotions and responses to things that elicit that response. Again, violence against women and social justice comes to mind.

I think as feminists we need to have the discussions around anger, which is problematic in that
A) most examples of anger are that of aggression. It is gendered.
and
B) the notions of what it is to be a woman with anger. We AREN'T supposed to be. We are urged into forgiveness and passivity. We are told that in order to heal we need to let go of that anger. Globally, that's a LOT of women working on reclaiming lives derailed and greatly effected by woman abuse and sexual violation. That's a lot of sisters living lives altered by the reality of sexism, misogyny, racism, heterosexism...

So instead of pushing my anger away, I'm sitting with it, as is sometimes good to do with ALL uncomfortable emotions, because it's there for a reason.

Be passionate! Be angry. Be whatever it takes to feel enough to get active and create change.

Thanks for sharing

[Kobi]

femmeInterrupted this might explain the reasons behind what we have been talking about. The "survey" was done back in 2012 for netmums. Not sure how valid it is in scientific terms but it does explain some of the reluctance, apathy, shifts....I'm not sure what to call it.

Is it a ME focus as the name implies i.e. personal preferences? Does it feel like internalized sexism to some extent with a dash of identification with the aggressor or Stockholm Syndrome? Does it have some valid points?

Does it address some of the anger and women focus of the previous post?

-----------


http://www.netmums.com/

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Soon

I had a disheartening conversation with a fifteen year old (bright) boy today.

As a class, we were discussing sexual assault/rape/slut-shaming and victim blaming. I brought up a recent story where a young woman in Nova Scotia--Rehtaeh Parsons--killed herself after being raped and bullied and harassed in its aftermath.

So, at the end of the class, student comes up to me and wouldn't stop with the argument...."If she was under age I could maybe understand (?) but

....she shouldn't have been there at the party
...she shouldn't have been drinking
...if she hadn't done any of those things, this wouldn't have happened to her..."


Of course, I try to to tell him the onus shouldn't be on women to have to monitor their behaviour in order to avoid/prevent women, and that her behaviour does not negate the rape. That the onus needs to be on men not raping and assaulting. However, he kept INSISTING, but but but if she hadn't done this and that. He was not able or could not (?) see that the discussion shouldn't be on what the victim did or didn't do, but that these men are committing a crime. I told him about consent and lack thereof with intoxication or being passed out, but he kept reverting to the "but if she hadn't done A then B wouldn't have happened to her."

Anyway, it was very frustrating. I am asking if anyone has an article or resource that is simple enough to maybe make him (and others?) in the class understand that the conversation shouldn't be about what these young women did or didn't do prior to being raped. The conversation needs to be about the rapists and raising men to not rape at all. Ever.

So, if you have something--a turn of phrase, an article, anything--that might help these adolescents understand that rape is not about a woman's behaviour, I'd appreciate it.

Sigh. I am still rankled by the conversation.

Thank you.

Sometimes it's as simple as changing the gender of the victim. "So, if you, (directed at the male student), were at a party and became intoxicated, you should expect to be raped. And you should expect photos of yourself being raped to be posted on the internet, and for your former friends to taunt you mercilessly about it. And it would all be your own fault for having gone to a party with other boys and for having drunk too much alcohol."

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Kobi

femmeInterrupted this might explain the reasons behind what we have been talking about. The "survey" was done back in 2012 for netmums. Not sure how valid it is in scientific terms but it does explain some of the reluctance, apathy, shifts....I'm not sure what to call it.

Is it a ME focus as the name implies i.e. personal preferences? Does it feel like internalized sexism to some extent with a dash of identification with the aggressor or Stockholm Syndrome? Does it have some valid points?

Does it address some of the anger and women focus of the previous post?

-----------


http://www.netmums.com/

First off....what the hell is 'Vajazzle'?!

There's just too much to deconstruct here....I keep sighing, which is interfering with my typing!

It is interesting that the scope of 'alright activities' are all about beauty/body modification/image. I'd say that's a tall glass of Stockholm flavoured Kool-Aid.

The parts about motherhood, affordable and quality daycare, maternity leave benefits should have always been important to everyone...not just the women with the babies. This all ties into the unpaid work/labour of women, the creation of 'pink collar' low paid wages (still in most of the helping/caring professions)

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

First off....what the hell is 'Vajazzle'?!

There's just too much to deconstruct here....I keep sighing, which is interfering with my typing!

It is interesting that the scope of 'alright activities' are all about beauty/body modification/image. I'd say that's a tall glass of Stockholm flavoured Kool-Aid.

The parts about motherhood, affordable and quality daycare, maternity leave benefits should have always been important to everyone...not just the women with the babies. This all ties into the unpaid work/labour of women, the creation of 'pink collar' low paid wages (still in most of the helping/caring professions)

Vajazzling: The act of applying glitter and jewels to a woman's bikini area for aesthetic purposes.

Learn something new everyday.

[Allison W]

On the matter of that FeMEnist thing, I can understand the importance of personal preferences coming up--different people are different and so will have different needs and motivations and will make different choices. But the survey itself is kind of depressing. The answers kind of range from "sad" to "soul-killing." I mean, getting back into the kitchen being the highest priority on the list, vastly exceeding little things like equal pay and more women in positions of power? What is this I don't even.

But I really want to shake down the ones who answered that the big priority of women today should be to reject equality in favour of backwards gender-essentialism and "different rights," and ask them what the crispy fuck "different rights" they are thinking. Because seriously, anything good coming of going down that road isn't even conceivable on paper, let alone in practice. That is serious I-don't-even-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore shit.

EDIT: The #1 answer for priorities ("just being a mum") saddened me (primarily due to being at the tippy-top of the list; if it had traded places with one of the other answers, it wouldn't have made me nearly so uneasy), but the #2 priority actually makes sense and I suppose I should clarify that that one didn't make me want to weep tears of blood.

[Kobi]

A debate by Afghan MPs about beefing up a law to prevent violence against women has been halted amid angry scenes.

Parliament's speaker ended the debate after 15 minutes after traditionalists called for the law to be scrapped.

A law banning violence against women, child marriages and forced marriages was passed by presidential decree in 2009, but did not gain MPs' approval.

Hundreds of people have been jailed under the current law, introduced by President Hamid Karzai.

'Lack of assurance'

The decision to seek parliamentary approval for the law had split women activists.

Some had said opening it up for debate in parliament could pave the way for conservatives to amend it and weaken protection for women - or even throw it out altogether.

One of those against the move was prominent MP Farkhunda Zahra Naderi. She told the BBC after Saturday's events in parliament that her fears had been proved right.

During the debate, mullahs and other traditionalist MPs accused President Karzai of acting against Islamic Sharia law by signing the decree in the first place, the BBC's David Loyn reports from Kabul.

In particular, they demanded a change to the law so that men cannot be prosecuted for rape within marriage, our correspondent said.

One of those who had sought to enshrine the decree with parliamentary approval is leading MP Fawzia Koofi, who survived a Taliban ambush two years ago.

She had worried that if the law did not have parliamentary backing it could be weakened as Afghan leaders attempt to pacify the Islamist Taliban movement.

"There is a lack of assurance that any president of Afghanistan will have any commitment to women's issues and in particular towards this decree," Ms Koofi told the BBC before the debate.

President Karzai has come under fire from women's groups for frequently changing his position on women's rights.

In 2012, he endorsed a "code of conduct" issued by an influential council of clerics which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances.

Ms Koofi and fellow activists have argued that the law is similar to those in many other Islamic countries.

The existing law will now remain in force while further discussions on procedure are held, our correspondent says.

Despite the efforts taken to enhance rights for women and girls in Afghanistan, child marriages remain common and stories of abuse keep coming to light.

Most Afghans still live in rural areas, where poverty, conflict and conservative attitudes are more likely to keep girls and women at home.

-----------------------

Analysis
BBC News, Kabul

Afghanistan's Law to Eliminate Violence Against Women, remains in force. It was signed by President Karzai in 2009 and did not need parliamentary approval.

But nothing is certain in this young democracy, and those who brought it to parliament, led by a potential presidential candidate, Fawzia Koofi, wanted it approved there so it was irreversible. But women activists who feared that debating it would give a platform to the most fundamentalist voices were proved right. Its withdrawal for now puts further progress on women's rights into legal limbo.

There have been hundreds of successful prosecutions under the law - some resulting in jail terms. But changing attitudes in the Afghan countryside will take more than a change in the law, and the failed debate will strengthen the hand of fundamentalists who see the law as opposed to Sharia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22579098

[DapperButch]

Just a good article. We have talked here before about masculine privilege and misogyny from butches. Thought others may appreciate the article.



http://www.autostraddle.com/butch-pl...sogyny-174442/

AND

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-b...ref=gay-voices

[femmeInterrupted]

http://jezebel.com/florida-girl-face...mate-508849336





Kaitlyn Hunt's parents knew their 18-year-old daughter was dating a 15-year-old girl whom she met through classes and varsity sports at the Florida high school the two attended. But when the younger girl's parents learned about the relationship, they had Kaitlyn arrested on two counts of felony lewd and lascivious battery on a child ages 12 to 16. Kaitlyn must now choose whether to go to trial — if found guilty, she'd have to register as a sex offender and could serve up to 15 years in prison — or accept a plea deal of two years' house arrest and one year of probation. The Hunts hope growing publicity will pressure the state to drop her case and focus on protecting and educating teenagers instead of prosecuting them for falling in consensual love.

Steven Hunt told Jezebel in a phone interview that his daughter Kaitlyn, whom friends and family call "Kate," grew close with her 15-year-old former girlfriend through classes and the varsity basketball team the two played on at Sebastian River High School in Sebastian, Fla; the younger girl was a freshman student enrolled in International Baccalaureate courses with upperclassmen, so they were peers in the same social circle. Kate's mother, Kelley Hunt Smith, wrote on Facebook that the two girls hung out with the family at their home and before basketball games. Since Kelley had seen the girl's father at sporting events, she assumed her family knew about and accepted the relationship. Kate had always dated boys, but when she told her mother she was dating a girl, Kelley "didn’t want to make it a big deal," she wrote. "I talked to her about it, and figured it was just a social thing, times have changed and a lot of kids are experimenting, so I didn’t make much of it."

"We knew about her sexual preference for a long time," Steve said. "It wasn't an issue for us."

But it was an issue for her former girlfriend's parents. When the girls' basketball coach found out the two were dating, she kicked Kate off the team and told the younger girl's parents, who told police. That's when Kate was arrested. According to Kelley:

On Saturday February 16th our families world was shattered and our daughters nightmare begun. The police came to our home and arrested my daughter, put her in hand cuffs and we had no idea why. They refused to tell us anything at first because she had turned 18. Kate was ripped out of our arms, terrified, crying hysterically. My younger daughter was there at the time, my husband and myself, we were mortified. They finally told us she was being arrested on “probable cause”. I asked them probable cause of what, they said sexual battery on a person 12-16 years old. My heart dropped, I knew then that it had to have been her girlfriend's parents. These people never came to us as parents, never tried to speak to us, didn’t try to get the school involved to speak to us and tell us they had a problem with the girls dating, not one single word. Instead, they set out their vengeance and had my child arrested on FELONY charges.
Kate, who agreed to cut off contact with her former girlfriend and was subsequently expelled weeks before graduation to boot, has until Friday to decide whether to go to trial or take the plea deal. Her parents don't want her to choose either option.

“The (assistant) state attorney, Brian Workman needs to use taxpayers money to prosecute REAL criminals, not a high school student who has never been in trouble a day in her young life, all because she had a mutual consenting relationship with someone who has bigoted parents,” wrote Hunt Smith. "...they feel like my daughter “made” their daughter gay. They are bigoted, religious zeolites that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter."

Kate's father said this case highlights glaring problems with age-of-consent laws and sex-education. The age of consent in Florida is 18, but should 18-year-old high schoolers really be responsible for setting boundaries with the 14 to 17-year-olds who take the same classes and participate in the same after-school activities as they do? "There's no education at her school that describes what to do and what not to do within a consensual relationship in terms of age," Steve said. "The fact that this was a same-sex relationship was clearly the motivation factor [behind the arrest]. But this law is ridiculous regardless of whether teenagers are gay or straight."

From the "Free Kate" Facebook page:

The law needs to change, not only to protect Kate, but to protect the millions of teenagers, boys and girls, straight and gay, whose lives are regularly ruined because parents disapprove of their children's sexual choices. We want justice for all 18-year-old high school seniors who have undergone criminal prosecution for exercising poor judgement in their dating life. Such students are not predators. They're just kids. Likewise, we believe the law should not be arbitrarily enforced based on a parent's anger. Parents should be empowered to protect their children, but not at the price of destroying another young person's life forever.
The Hunts have launched a Change.org petition, which has over 52K signatures, and a fundraising site to help with extensive legal fees. "Kate is strong but scared," Steve said. "We hope she gets her freedom soon."