Ew

I was driving home today and saw two horrible things:
1. A bumper sticker that read, "R: Restricted; No Fat Chicks"
2. A pink Hummer

Seriously?

Unwanted vs unplanned pregnanies

Today Rev. Debrah Haffner, from the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, addresses Jim Wallis (from Sojourners and God's Politics) and some statements he made in Newsweek online.

Wallis said that although he believes abortion to be a moral tragedy, he doesn't think the best way to prevent abortions is to criminalize them. He asks, "The question is how can we actually prevent unwanted pregnancies, protect unborn lives, support low-income women, offer compassionate alternatives to abortion, make adoption much more accessible and affordable, carefully fashion reasonable restrictions, and thus dramatically reduce the shamefully high abortion rate in America?"

Haffner responds by suggesting that it's not unwanted pregnanies Wallis should be concerned about preventing, but unplanned pregnanies. She writes,

What Rev. Wallis isn't telling you is that the abortion rate is at its lowest since 1974, a year after Roe v. Wade. Abortions are coming down in the U.S. The abortion rate is down 100,000 since 2000, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

What Rev. Wallis isn't telling you is that a majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and that 62% of mainline Christians and 84% of Jews believe that.

What Rev. Wallis isn't telling you is that according to the Guttmacher Institute, placing retrictions, whatever "reasonable restrictions" might be, doesn't make abortions rarer, it makes them less safe.

And despite my reading his paragraph over and over again lest I missed it, what Rev. Wallis isn't calling for is hope for young women for productive futures through quality education and job opportunities (as was missing in last week's stories on the so-called pregnancy pact), sexuality education, and high quality family planning services. Rev. Wallis, as a pro-choice feminist and minister, I will do everything I can to work with you on assuring adoption services and high quality prenatal care and parenting support -- when will we see you working to assure women AND men have access to the means to prevent pregnancies in the first place?

If anti-choicers really want to prevent abortions, they should support easy access to birth control and family planning services because that's what prevents unplanned pregnancies, not misleading information and abstinence only education. Just one more reason that the anti-choice promotion The Pill Kills is more about imposing conservative sexual mores on society than it is about preventing abortions.

Last week, James Dobson from Focus on the Family said that Obama was "deliberately distorting" the Bible to fit his own theology. Haffner critiqued Dobson, writing,

"I find it almost laughable that Mr. Dobson (he is not a minister, he just plays one on radio and tv) doesn't understand that he too uses the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own theology. After all, the Bible is silent on birth control, silent on abortion, and silent on consensual same sex adult sexual relationships as we understand them today, yet Mr. Dobson says he is talking about a Biblical morality when he opposes them. And as a Unitarian Universalist minister, I understand that of course, we bring our own worldview and our own theology to understanding our sacred texts."

Exactly what I was thinking. If Dobson doesn't realize that individual experience and beliefs shape the way we see the world (including individual understandings of theology), then he's sadly out of touch with human experience. And because we all have different experiences and viewpoints, we must be able to make our own decisions for our own lives. That's the beauty of choice - I'm not fighting for abortions; I'm fighting for women to have the ability to make their own choices regarding their bodies and their lives.

Bookmark Haffner's blog and keep reading - she's consistantly proving that religion, feminism and choice can, and do, go hand-in-hand.

So much America-Hating goin' on

I like our sitemeter. It provides loads of information, like when the Female Impersonator blog is listed on some-blog-I've-never-heard-of as an "America-Hating Blog to Watch Closely."

Keep it up, Impersonators. I think we should be proud that we have such a diverse set of readers.

Quick Read on images of male sexuality

Came across this older post at don't ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?. I'm glad I (eventually) found it because lindabeth is right on about so many things - how male sexuality becomes obscene in the eyes of other males. lindabeth writes,

Finally, what I’m also quite interested in regarding this video news story, is that the campaign included images of girls, depicted in much the same way as the guys are…yet he never mentioned being bothered by the “obscenity” of those! When we take this reaction, and think about the male anxiety around male nudity in general, and especially gay male sexuality (but of course, not lesbian sexuality), it it very clear that, in popular culture, sexuality becomes ‘obscene’ when it does not reinforce heteronormative masculinity. Images are only seen as improperly sexualized when it’s the male body on display for a (presumed) het female audience.

Check it out.

(By the way, I love the name of lindabeth's blog - I always tell my friends "daaaamn, you got a nice personality!")

Really Cool Women

This is awesome and totally inspiring.

Obama let me down this week

I've said before that I'm an Obama supporter, however, I'm a little displeased with him and his campaign this week/last week (I'm a bit behind).

First up, at an Obama rally in Detroit, two women in head scarves weren't allowed to sit directly behind Obama - more importantly, directly in line of television cameras. Two different campaign workers said it wasn't good for the current political climate and and the other said no one was allowed with hats, even though photos of the event prove otherwise.

One of the woman, Hebba Aref, said, "I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to."

Obama later apologized to both women, but not before MN Rep. Keith Ellison told Obama that refusing to allow the women to sit in view of TV cameras was disappointing and the action didn't reflect the openness and inclusion his campaign promotes. Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to US Congress (woot woot MN 5th district!). As much as Obama says he's not Muslim, there's a risidual feeling from all the denials that implies being Muslim is bad, when it's clearly not.

When Ellison confronted Obama about it, Obama listened and then called the women to apologize. Jeff Fecke at Shakesville explains why it's so important that Ellison brought up the issue with Obama, and also why it's so important that Obama listened to the criticism and did something about it.

So for me, while the situation is disappointing, it is refreshing to see constructive criticism offered and taken.

Next, (and there's no reedeming silver lining on this one), Obama has stated he supports the Foreign Intelligence Security Act that provides retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies who broke the law by wiretapping US citizens.

Seriously? I'm super disappointed about this and I'm writing letters to make sure Obama knows I'm pissed. What happened to "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty." Oh wait, that was the primaries.

Now, Obama said, "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program." I'm sorry, but after the past 7 years of empty promises to protect our rights and liberty, I'm a little wary of you "monitoring" it to make sure it's not infringing on citizen rights.

Write to Obama here and tell him that America contains Muslims and that we're not going to stand for retroactive immunity in FISA.

My feminism, my life

Cross-posted at The Feminist Underground.

As far as my definition of feminism goes, it's been really hard to come up with. When I first began calling myself a feminist during my first term at college (Fall 2007), my boyfriend had a really hard time understanding. We had several difficult discussions in which he asked me to explain what feminism was so he could better understand where I was coming from. I finally got through to him by explaining that feminism, for me, was a general understanding that women suffer many inequalities that do not exist for men because of the society that we live in which has been structured in many ways to favor men. I then explained that the way in which I practice feminism is by recognizing those instances in which people, the government, the media, etc. treat women unjustly and I call them out for it because no change will come if people are so used to sexism that they don't even notice it. I feel as if true equality cannot come about if our society does not first recognize that their are inequalities and decide how to address them. That is all feminism is about - equality. And true equality certainly isn't going to come about if we merely put a band-aid on the problem of sexism and pretend its all better. As a feminist, I try to dig out the problems in our society and bring them to the surface so they can be properly addressed.

Some of the ways I practice feminism in my life:

This post is a little illustration of how I practice feminism in my daily life by recognizing misogyny in everyday media, like the music that I constantly listen to. I realized, while writing this post, that although some of the songs by this band (Nickelback) clearly were offensive and sexist, others were less so. I had a difficult time critiquing them because I like their music, which hurts me as a feminist because I know it's not always respectful.

I also try to fight misogyny in the media by refusing to purchase "women's" magazines which I feel are damaging to women's self-esteem and confidence. My action project for my first gender and women's studies class involved this idea.

I also call out other media, like television shows or websites, that are sexist (here and here). When I do that, I get a lot of negative responses, like people think I am acting superior to them because they like those shows. Even when I try to explain why I won't watch certain shows, people often choose to ignore me out of spite for my supposed superiority complex. That has led to a lot of conflict in myself - Can a feminist like some misogynist media and really call him/herself a feminist? I have decided that that is indeed possible, as long as one does not passively accept the misogyny and is able to identify and recognize it.

I also practice feminism on a slightly less-than-daily basis when I am in school by doing a feminist radio hour during which my co-host and I talk about feminism and try to get casual radio listeners involved in discussing the sexism that exists around us everyday. This has been a really empowering experience for me so far because I have had numerous fellow students tell me that they listened to our radio show and they were enlightened about many of the problems that still exist in our society when it comes to gender equality. The same can be said about blogging, which is a big way in which I practice feminism in my life.

Gay Marriage and Popular Sovereignty

At 5:01 on June 16th, gay marriage became legal in California. If you check out some pictures, they're adorable and the first couple to legal marry are Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both in their 80's, who have been together for 50+ years (pictures of those two are just soooo cute in their old lady-ness).

Elsewhere I've discussed the legality of the case - because other cases have ruled the right to marry an inherent civil right and because sexual orientation is protected under the equal protection clause, it's unconsitutional to limit marriage between two people based on gender and sexual orientation.

However, citizens in California and elsewhere are trying to circumvent the court's ruling by gathering signatures to get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballet in November. "It's the will of the people!" they cry, hoping to sway opinion and rule through that argument.

Marriage equality activists say that denying gay people the right to marry creates a group of second-class citizens who are discriminated against through laws and practice. It's an inherent right that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to marry (and this is an argument the CA Supreme Court agrees with in their May 15, 2008 decision on In re: Marriage Cases - the CA Supreme Court decided people should be able to marry regardless of race in 1948 in Perez v. Sharp and the SCOTUS made it federal in 1967 with Loving v. Viriginia).

We've heard these two arguments before - or at least the history of the United States has, not anyone alive today. These are almost exactly the same positions Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas took on slavery in the 1858 Illinois Senate race and then again in the 1860 Presidential race.

For several years, Douglas was the champion of popular sovereignty, or popular rule - the concept that people should be able to decide what's best for their state/territory. Lincoln agreed with popular sovereignty, or at least up to a certain degree, like when popular opinion tread on a cause that wasn't moral. For Lincoln, slavery was immoral and violated the natural rights of Black people.

In seven different debates held throughout Illinois (including one at the fine institution of Knox College, where Amelia and Kate currently attend), Douglas and Lincoln verbally sparred back and forth over popular sovereignty and the morality of slavery. Douglas and Lincoln were debating the merits of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise (the Compromise contained new slave territories to beneath the southern border of Missouri, with Missouri as the exception). Kansas-Nebraska stated that the rule of the people should decide if a new territory was to be slave or free, designed by Douglas and popular sovereignty. Other things complicated the debate as well, such as the Dred Scott SCOTUS ruling and Douglas' race-baiting of Lincoln (that's another story for another time). The debates were incredibly popular all over Illinois and they were published in various Chicago newspapers and newspapers all over the nation.

Douglas won the 1858 Illinois Senate race, however, Douglas and Lincoln faced each other again two years later on a much wider stage - this time for the President of the United States. They reiterated much of the positions and arguments throughout the 1860 race, and that time, Lincoln won.

This isn't the first time US politics has heard the popular will/natural rights debate, and it won't be the last time. However, we can make sure that the voices speaking for the expansion of rights are heard as opposed to the voices trying to limit rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights wasn't created to close off freedoms - it was crafted so to explicitly say, "These are the specific rights that cannot be taken away from us and that goes for any other rights as deemed necessary in the future" - the right to vote based not on gender or race, for example. I believe the right to marry falls under this category as well, and the CA Supreme Court agrees with me.

So next time you hear someone say, "The people don't want gay marriage! We should follow the popular opinion of the people!" remember that this argument has been tried before and when it comes down to inherent rights, it's not going to work.

This post was influenced by Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America.

Video Time - Again

I have been super busy and am now getting sick, but I couldn't let this video (h/t Feministing) escape the Female Impersonator blog. It's great.



I promise I will write a non-video post soon.

Life and Blogging: Incompatible, accompanied by relevant comic and video

Planning my grandparent's 50th anniversary luncheon with my mother was such a time-suck that I've been completely absent from the internets for the past week or so. I didn't even read any of my blog subscriptions which was a blasphemy of the highest degree. My very small audience will be happy to note that I'm currently sitting on a rant on the pornification of bisexuality.

In other news, I totally caught that interview with Jessica Valenti, writer and founder of the popular Feministing.com, on Moblogic:

Nothing particularly hard-hitting there, but we feminists tend to be a bit stand-offish in wider forums with our views. Probably because of trolls on comments like this:

Jessica Valenti is a bigot, she just happens to back what is currently a politically correct and popular form of bigotry.

The way they talk on her website you'd think women were living in some kind of planet of the apes scenario and yet she seems to manage to live a rather privileged life of celebrity, book deals and socialising.

She's not even an intelligent bigot, or she's highly intellectually dishonest, but then again her career is based on this notion that women are horribly oppressed - it's in her interests to keep perpetuating this idea.

No, I will not link to the comment. Trolls don't get free audiences here.

First of all, since when is feminism popular? I think our dear troll is confusing feminism with Suicide Girls or the various teenie-bopper fads that confuse titillation with empowerment and equality.

It's really obvious that Jessica is "privileged". I mean, she has to put up with asinine trolls and their sophomoric logic day in and day out! I do that too, although on a much smaller scale, and I can tell you how much fun it is, and how much money I make. Jessica's "socializing" is called activism. Instead of getting drunk and shooting the breeze with buddies, which is fun in moderation, try something more productive like writing books.

Finally, our dear troll punctuates his sentiment with the tired-and-true, "shuttup opportunistic man-hating whore!" sentiment. Any feminist knows she's doing something right when she gets this gem thrown at her. From trolls in my very personal rape thread whining about teh poor menz to anonymous emails about how I alienate people from feminism with my awful, terrible book reviews and pop-culture sociology, there seems to be no shortage of men, and the occasional woman, who seem to think that the people pointing out discrimination are somehow more to blame for society's ills than the people that perpetuate those attitudes with the defense of their willful ignorance.

In more colloquial terms, via Penny Arcade:

(Cross-posted)

Power of Repitition - McCain, Cunt, Cunt, McCain

I found this video on Feministe, and I actually laughed out loud when I saw it.

Here it is: "At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." - John McCain, to his wife, Cindy, in 1992.

I also thought it was interesting because when I wrote a post about this topic back in April, people accused me of taking a "slow news day" to dig deep into the candidate's past in order to discredit him with irrelevant information (read the post for more).

Ha.

Want to look like a fool? Dress your ageism!

...or "Leave the Fashion to the Young Ladies."

Right off the bat, this article rubbed me the wrong way. The title: "Want to Look Younger? Dress Your Age." Dressing your age can be useful for many things, like working in a professional environment, for example. But the title suggests that the only reason any (woman) would want to dress her age is to look younger. Because being young is the only way to be beautiful, you know*. Then, once I finally got past the title, I found even more goodies. For example, a no-no according to this read was "Chunky platform shoes." Here's why:

The description of what you want to look for in a shoe sounds a lot like what you’d want your body to look like too—sleek, slim and sexy. So while you can still wear moderate platforms, reasonable wedges and slightly chunky shoes, you want to avoid any exaggerated versions. “After a certain age, a too-chunky shoe just starts to look orthopedic,” says Krupp. Not to mention that some of those sky-high platforms and wedges can be downright dangerous. Twist an ankle in a chunky shoe and you might find yourself in a decidedly unstylish cast or brace!

Yep, old ladies, watch out for those shoes! Not only will the really make you look your age with their "orthopedic" style (since you're probably over 30, you must be getting ready for the nursing home, right?), they'll probably even cause damage to your much-less-than-supple body!
Another example of this author really trying to keep those oldies in place can be found in the reasoning behind banning older women from wearing "Sheer over sheer":

Clothes always have a tendency to get lighter, airier and less substantialwhen summer weather hits. And this season, with a trend toward transparent tops, tunics and dresses, is no exception. Instead of wearing sexy underpinnings with a gauzy top, Krupp suggests trying the trend in a more minor way. “You don’t want to expose too much, so consider a top that reveals just your upper chest beneath a sheer chiffon, but wear an opaque camisole underneath it that completely covers your breasts,” she says. “You can still look sexy, but you can do it without revealing too much.” (emphasis mine)

The problem I have with this is not that it suggests covering up, but that it does not give a specific time/reason to cover up, like attending a child's sporting event, for example. The line “You don’t want to expose too much” is directed at the target reader of this article: Older women. It is basically saying, "If you're old, there's not reason for you NOT to be covered up!"

I don’t really agree with the idea of “fashion” in the first place, because it dictates too much, giving people (especially women) a very narrow sense of what is “beautiful.” But when you add into this mix the idea that beauty also has some sort of age limit, and if you’re over that limit you better not do x, y, or z if you want to show your face in public, it makes me even more cynical.

*According to subtle messages from the diet, plastic surgery, and fashion industries, it sure is.

Non-feminist moment: Amelia edition

Damn it.

It's midnight, and I just caught myself feeling pleased about working out and not eating much today, even though there were several times when I was pretty hungry.

What. The. Fuck.

How is that something to be pleased about?? Grr...

My Cutie-Smartie Kids

My posting has been kind of slow lately, mostly because I'm still getting used to my full time job. I'm a nanny for three kids: a ten year old boy, a nine year old girl, and a five year old girl. The job is both mentally and physically exhausting, but we have a good time together. And I've been taking little feminist mental notes.

One thing I've noticed during the last week was about nicknames. When I'm talking to the two girls, I sometimes address them as "cutie" or "beautiful." I don't call the boy by any name like that, and I've been wondering about the effect on them in the long term. I've decided to call them "smartie" instead of "cutie" or "beautiful."

What do you guys think about this? Do you think that nicknames make a difference in the long run? Do they teach girls to value looks as a defining characteristic? Or are they just sweet, simple names?

My non-feminist moment of the weekend

While on my way to my grandparent's house to visit my grandpa for Father's Day, my sister and I were talking in the car, wondering if my uncle was going to be there.

My sister: I wonder of [uncle] still eats all of his meals at Grandma and Grandpa's house.
Me: Hah, does [longtime live-in girlfriend] not know how to cook?
(pause)
My sister: You mean does [uncle] not know how to cook?

There it is. I assumed that my uncle's girlfriend does all of the cooking and that my uncle does not, also, I implied that he isn't responsible for his own well-being when he is an adult and clearly should be able to cook a meal for himself.

As egregious as my assumption was, my sister did the right thing and called me out on it. She reminded me that although sexism invades our daily lives, casting shadows over even the most well-intentioned, informed, and even self-identifying feminists, we can acknowledge the sexism that escapes our own mouths and minds and work against it. To let it go unchecked would have allowed that bit of sexism to stay alive and grow, as opposed to calling it out and squashing it right away.

We have to hold ourselves accountable for our participation in the systematic and cultural patriarchy that exists in the world. If we can't even live up to our mistakes and cultural biases, how can we expect others to do the same?

So here's to my sister, who pointed out my own assumptions and didn't allow that sexism to exist in our midst.

Plastic Surgery and the Fake Beauty Ideal

What do Cindy Jackson, 48, and Steve Erhardt, 23, have in common?

They've both spend over $100,000 USD on plastic surgery.

The images above are of human beings that do not exist in nature. What I find intrinsically wrong and disturbing is my reaction to both pictures. Cindy, my mind tells me, is a pretty woman. Don't I wish that I will look like that when I'm almost 50? Steve, according to my inner sense of beauty, is a bizarre parody of a man. Cindy is beautiful, and Steve is abhorrent.

If my inner sense of beauty was as unwarped as I would like it to be, both pictures should disgust me. My mind should be incapable of finding completely unnatural and fake images of humanity as sexually appealing, or more so, than images of unaltered human beings.

I tested this with several of my friends. Unanimously, regardless of their gender or sexual preference, everyone I talked to found Cindy better looking than Steve. In fact, only one of my friends, a straight woman, thought that Steve wasn't disturbing.

What does this mean?

It means that our definition of female beauty is so warped that we find completely invented images of women prettier than actual women. This standard does not apply to men. When confronted with an image of the "perfect man" who has spent thousands of dollars augmenting himself to adhere to a beauty ideal, most react with disgust. When we see Cindy, on the other hand, we find her unanimously prettier than Steve, at the least, and extremely good-looking in general.

I submit this experiment as absolute undeniable proof that the image of female beauty is invented to a degree that male beauty has never been. Humanity finds the male that occurs naturally much better looking than one that appears plastic and fake. Whereas, unless we're plastic surgery experts, we are incapable of recognizing alteration to the female form because we are socialized to find such alternations beautiful and normal.

It is the true female body, with its stretch marks, pores, unlined eyes, uneven skin, knobby knees, and slight pouch that we find as disgusting as the altered male.

Repeat this experiment with your friends. Even though I spend hours weekly trying to deconstruct the false image of beauty that marketing has socialized into my subconscious, I still find Cindy infinitely more attractive than Steve. I highly doubt that anyone, regardless of their sexuality or gender, disagrees with me.

It is this evidence—socialization has ruined my natural sense of beauty—that is much more horrifying than the thousands of dollars and months of pain women undergo to transform themselves into some Living Doll. Although I cannot determine which came first—the demand for false beauty or the image of unnatural beauty—I can say that my subconscious is evidence that we continue to perpetuate this demand for the mutilated image of femininity despite any objection that so-and-so prefers natural beauty.

In fact, I postulate that anyone when confronted with a unadorned symmetrical female face through the media would not find it as attractive or "normal" as the completely unnatural image of Cindy Jackson.

This fact, coupled with the observation that we are capable of valuing real men over altered men (who would argue that a naturally handsome man is less appealing than Steve?), leads me to believe that feminist theory is undeniably true: that what is we think is "normal" female beauty has nothing to do with nature. This hijacking of female beauty and biology is nauseating in its totality.

(Cross-posted)