Archive for the 'Feminism, sexism, etc' Category

Previous Entries
Next Page »

Cartoon: Really Good Careers

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 by Barry Deutsch

Description of cartoon: The cartoon shows a woman holding a child’s hand, in a fairly dismal-looking city area, standing on a sidewalk at the entrance to a building. Above the entrance is a sign that says “Really Good Careers.” To the right of the entrance, a smaller sign says “An equal opportunity employer.” The entrance is shaped like a male silhouette; it seems apparent that the woman and her child could not fit through the entrance.

Posted in Ampersand, Cartooning & comics, Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Economy | Comment

Alfre Woodard reads Sojourner Truth

Saturday, March 24th, 2012 by Barry Deutsch

This is just a stunningly great reading:

TRANSCRIPT

MODERATOR: Here, the black abolitionist Sojourner Truth, who was freed from slavery in 1827, speaks to a gathering of feminists, in Akron, Ohio, in 1851.

ALFRE WOODARD AS SOJOURNER TRUTH: Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the Negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what’s all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helped me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or give me the best place. And ain’t I a woman?

Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, I can work as much — no man, no man could head I’ve gathered into barns. And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman?

I have borne thirteen children, and seen most of ‘em sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing – what’s that thing in the head. What they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] Intellect! That’s it, honey. What’s that got to do with a woman’s rights or negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that man there, right there that little man in black there, he says women can’t have rights as much as men, ’cause Christ wasn’t a woman. Where did your Christ come from? Where, where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man ain’t had nothing to do with it.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, right side up again! And now they is asking to do it. The men better let ‘em!

Ed Darrell writes:

This is a piece one does best to absorb from oral performance. It is a piece that one should hear repeatedly, to understand.

Woodard nails this one well, I think.

Ms. Truth’s speech needs careful reflection. She was not just speaking for women’s rights, but was lecturing the suffragists as well on their having overlooked the plight of women of color and working women, and women in poverty. She’s talking to you, and to me, and asking us to confront our stereotypes of what women are and what women do, to recognize that women are humans, deserving of full respect for that reason alone.

Posted in Ampersand, Feminism, sexism, etc, Race, racism and related issues | Comment

On “Hot Chicks Of Occupy Wall Street” and DC’s Relaunch of Starfire

Friday, October 28th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

So, this dude decided to go to Occupy Wall Street and make a video of some of the women there, which he released under the title “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street.” There’s no hint that he got consent from any of the women he photographed.

1) The main thing that bothers me about this is that it could change the experience of being at Occupy Wall Street for women. Women who have heard about this video (and its associated tumbler blog) and go to Occupy Wall Street are now more likely to wonder if the people taking pictures are going to post them as “hot chick” pics.

Of course, some women don’t mind that. But some do. To post this video with total indifference for the feelings of the women who do mind, is simply an asshole thing to do.

2) A lot of the problem is the title “hot chicks.” That sets a context that’s frankly icky, and wrong for the occasion. It trivializes the women’s activism.

3) And of course, it’s not a coincidence that someone chose to do “hot chicks” rather than “hot studs.” This is treatment that women (by and large) are singled out for.

4) I don’t think there’s anything wrong with lust, or with appreciating how gorgeous and sexy people are. But that it’s okay to appreciate sexiness isn’t a magic wand making everything okay. Admiring sexy people is fine; but posting your admiration online, apparently without consent, in a way that trivializes why these women are attending OWS, is sexist and stupid and potentially harmful.

5) I’m actually reminded of the rewriting of Starfire in the revamped DC Comics universe. (Sue me, I’m nerdy.) Michele Lee interviewed her seven-year-old daughter, a fan of Starfire, about the “new” Starfire.

“What about this Starfire? What do you think about her?” (Referring to an image from DC’s reboot Red Hood and the Outsiders)

“I can see almost all of her boobs.”

“And?”

“Well she is on the beach in her bikini. But…”

“But?”

“But, she’s not relaxing or swimming. She’s just posing a lot.” *my daughter appears uncomfortable*

“Anything else?”

“Well, she’s not fighting anyone. And not talking to anyone really. She’s just almost naked and posing. [...] I want her to be a hero, fighting things and be strong and helping people.”

Lee’s daughter put her finger on exactly what was wrong with how DC “rebooted” Starfire. The character originally existed to fight evil and save the world (and yes, she often did this wearing incredibly revealing outfits). To reimagine the character as someone who primarily stands around and poses is Getting It Wrong. That’s not what the character is there for.

Of course, the women in “Hot Chicks” are real people, not drawings on paper. But the screw-up is the same; in both cases, women are treated primarily as eye candy for men’s consumption, and only incidentally as people who are there to fight evil and save the world.

* * *

More blogging about “Hot Chicks Of Occupy Wall Street”:

 

Posted in Ampersand, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc | Comment

Mixed Feelings About Men-Ups

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

April

Photographer Ron Sabean created this “Men Ups” series of photos, 12 shots of men, dressed in (conventionally) masculine attire and often with macho props, posing like a model in an Alberto Vargas or Gil Elvgren pin-up painting.1

August

On the one hand, I like the series. The photos look nice, and do a great job of illustrating how performative “sexy” femininity is; even in pin-up photography, male models rarely strike Vargus-style poses (although sometimes). That’s certainly how the artist intended them:

My work tends to be either an overt social commentary, or rooted in deeply personal subjects relating directly to myself. With the Men-ups! series, it was definitely the former that was more so embraced and the issue of gender roles was my target. It has always interested me how the sexes have been pitted against one another and taught to believe that gender roles/identities and biologically assigned sexes were one in the same, especially since that couldn’t be further from the truth. How can color have a sex? How can a pose be acceptable (and even provocative) for one, and not the other? From these ideas, and many, many more, was born the series, one in which I hope breeds thought and insight on just how ridiculous and restrictive the socially created gender roles are from their very inception.

(There’s a brief interview with him here. He was also the model for Mr. May.)

On the other hand, even though I’m pretty sure the photographer didn’t intend the photos this way, I’ve seen some people find them funny because they believe it’s inherently silly for men to be sexy and cute. Which is sexist.

November

I also wonder, would it be possible to do a gender-reversed version of this series — a series of pin-ups of women posed with “feminine” objects and outfits, but in “masculine” ways? I think it would be hard to communicate “these are women performing exaggerated masculinity” using only the poses and attitudes. If you pose a woman like this, or this, or this, I think most viewers would just take it as an ordinary pin-up shot of a woman.

P.S. I also found this series of photos, similarly posing male models like female pin-ups, but — in my eyes, at least — containing more heat.

Photobucket

Hat tip.

  1. Unexpectedly sweet/sad tidbit from the Wikipedia article: Vargas retired from painting pin-ups after his wife, who was also his model, died.

Posted in Ampersand, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc, Men and masculinity | Comment

Saudi Women Granted The Right To Vote And To Run For Office

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

From The New York Times:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Sunday granted women the right to vote and run in future municipal elections, the biggest change in a decade for women in a puritanical kingdom that practices strict separation of the sexes, including banning women from driving.

Saudi women, who are legally subject to male chaperones for almost any public activity, hailed the royal decree as an important, if limited, step toward making them equal to their male counterparts. They said the uprisings sweeping the Arab world for the past nine months — along with sustained domestic pressure for women’s rights and a more representative form of government — prompted the change.

“There is the element of the Arab Spring, there is the element of the strength of Saudi social media, and there is the element of Saudi women themselves, who are not silent,” said Hatoon al-Fassi, a history professor and one of the women who organized a campaign demanding the right to vote this spring. “Plus, the fact that the issue of women has turned Saudi Arabia into an international joke is another thing that brought the decision now.”

This is obviously wonderful news — and a great credit to the work of activist Saudi women.

That said, it’s important to keep in mind that voting is a less important right in Saudi Arabia than most places; as Max Fisher points out, “voting in a non-democratic society where elected bodies merely ‘advise’ the monarchy” may not have much practical importance. And there are four years before the next election cycle, giving King Abdullah time to backtrack.

But it’s still a potentially important symbolic victory; it shows that Saudi women’s activism can’t simply be ignored. Next, hopefully, will come the right to drive, which Saudi women have been pushing for.

Juan Cole has more on the political context.

More from the Times story:

Despite the snail’s pace of change, women on Sunday were optimistic that the right to vote and run would give them leverage to change the measures, big and small, that hem them in.

“It is a good sign, and we have to take advantage of it,” said Maha al-Qahtani, one of the women who defied the ban on driving this year, said of the king’s announcement. “But we still need more rights.”

Women require the permission of a male sponsor, or “mahram,” to travel or undertake much of the commercial activity needed to run a business. They inhabit separate and often inferior spaces in restaurants, banks and health clubs, when they are allowed in at all.

Posted in Ampersand, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc, International issues | Comment

Cartoon: The Modern Sisyphus

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

Script for this comic SelectShow

Posted in Ampersand, Cartooning & comics, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc, Race, racism and related issues | Comment

Star Wars And Women

Monday, September 12th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

Why ‘Star Wars’ Is Secretly Terrifying for Women — powered by Cracked.com

Posted in Ampersand, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc | Comment

The Mystical Pregnancy Trope

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

A video from Feminist Frequency. I think her argument loses focus towards the end, and generally needs more nuance, but is still worth watching:

(Transcript here.)

I think the way to think of this, is something like The Bechdel Test. It’s not a comment on any individual work — you can make an argument that the pregnancy plotline in BSG was well-done, for instance, or perhaps Alien 3. After all, for some women, there are substantially creepy issues surrounding pregnancy, and it’s legitimate for fiction to explore that. But the problem isn’t that an individual work is bad because it includes this trope; it’s the pattern formed by the use of the trope across many works.1

Crystal Coleman‘s essay is stronger, including doing a better job of making the connection to the virgin birth (which the video mistakenly refers to as the “Immaculate Conception”).

Mary is the Mystical Pregnancy model that all other models look to. She is visited by the angel Gabriel and informed that she has been selected to be the mother of Jesus, son of God. She marries her fiance and gives birth to the prophesied child, and three men follow a star to find the baby. Although non-biblical sources give Mary a life before Christ, there is no mention of this in the Bible. Quite often, Mary isn’t even mentioned by name, just referenced as the mother of Jesus (although, admittedly, this might be partly to distinguish between the myriad of Marys in the Bible). After Jesus’ crucifixion, Mary disappears. We know nothing about her, where she is born and when, what her life is like, what her life with Joseph (who is sidelined, as well) was like, if they had other children, how and when she died… nothing is canonical. For a figure that is so very important to many religions (just look at the amount of art that has been inspired by the Madonna), it’s surprising how little we actually know about her as a woman with her own unique identity.

Coleman also discusses the current season of Doctor Who.

I don’t think writers should never write mystical pregnancy plotlines. But at this point, the trope has been done often enough — and thoughtlessly enough — that it should only be used when the writer really believes they have something genuinely new or interesting to say with (or about) the trope.

One more note: According to a comment-writer on Feminist Frequency, Star Trek: Enterprise did once inflict a mystical pregnancy on a male character: Offensively, it was played for laughs.

  1. I’m kind of impressed that “Buffy” never went there. Of course, “Angel” made up for that by dipping into the mystical pregnancy well again and again.

Posted in Ampersand, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Body, Popular (and unpopular) culture | Comment

More On The Boundaries Of Feminism: Can You Be Pro-Life And Feminist?

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

Last year, Amanda Marcotte said that she doesn’t consider “Feminists For Life” and similar groups to be feminists. Cathy Young (who is pro-choice), disagreeing with Amanda, wrote:

But that doesn’t mean there should be no place at the feminist table for women who genuinely believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, no dialogue or search for compromise. Yes, even the biggest tent must have some boundaries: to expand “feminism” to include advocacy of male superiority or female submission would strip the concept of all meaning. But, last time I checked, women who held such views were in no rush to appropriate the term.

I have no problem accepting that women (or men) “who genuinely believe that abortion is the taking of a human life” can also be feminist. But at the same time, to be a feminist, one should consistently oppose policies that damage women’s well-being, autonomy, and equality.1 Otherwise, being “feminist” would be meaningless.

So, can a pro-lifer be feminist? I think so, if “pro-lifer” is defined as “one who believes that preserving fetal life is essential.”2 Let’s look at a Venn diagram:

The diagram shows two areas, labeled “Feminists believe that preserving women’s autonomy is essential” and “Pro-lifers believe that preserving fetal life is essential.” Where the two areas overlap is labeled “Feminist and pro-life.”

So a feminist pro-lifer is someone who considers both women’s autonomy and fetal life essential to preserve. So this person would be dedicated to lowering the abortion rate — but would want to do it through means that value women’s autonomy, by using non-coercive means of reducing the demand for abortion.

This doesn’t mean that they’d have to accept high abortion rates. In the real world, countries that practice such policies — Belgium and Switzerland, for instance — have incredibly low abortion rates. There is no conflict between wanting freedom for women, and preserving fetal life.

In contrast, a “feminist” pro-lifer who favors banning abortion — with all the enormous harms an abortion ban has on women’s autonomy, freedom, and equality, and despite the fact that bans don’t preserve fetal life any better than other policies do — is treating women’s autonomy as if it’s not essential at all. In my view, that person isn’t being a very good feminist.

(Similarly, someone who is entirely dedicated to preserving women’s equality, but is indifferent to preserving fetal life, isn’t being a very good pro-lifer. Not even if they say they’re pro-life.)

If people who throw women’s autonomy and equality out the window as soon as another priority comes up are feminists, that would, as Cathy says, strip the term of all meaning.

  1. This is not the definition of “feminist” I’d use generally, but it’s functional for the purposes of this post.
  2. I’m not sure I’d use that definition generally, but it’s the one I’ll use for purposes of this post. I’m very skeptical about the motivations of the major pro-life groups and leaders, but I’m sure some individual pro-lifers are genuinely motivated by a desire to preserve fetal life.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Ampersand, Anti-feminists and their pals, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc | Comment

Supreme Court, In A 4-4 Vote, Affirms Sexist Discrimination Against Fathers

Sunday, June 19th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

Italian Dad Reunited

[Crossposted at Family Scholars Blog.]

I wrote about Flores-Villar v. United States last year. The Times summarizes the state of the law in 1974, when Ruben Flores-Villar was born:

Children born outside the country to an unmarried American parent are considered American citizens at birth if the parent lived in the United States before the child was born. For a mother, the required period of residence is one year. For a father, it is 10 years, five of them after he turns 14. Fathers must also prove parenthood and pledge to support the child.

The case involves Ruben Flores-Villar, whose father — but not mother — is an American. Ruben was born in Mexico and moved to the US when he was two months old. Ruben has been declared an “illegal immigrant” and deported to Mexico. Ruben’s father was sixteen years old when Ruben was born, and so the “five of them after he turns 14″ provision of the law was impossible to meet.

(It’s important to note that immigration law was altered in the 1980s; the current law is still sexist and should be fixed, but the discrepancy is not as large as it was when Ruben was born.)

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling on a 4-4 vote; Kagen recused herself because she was involved with this case as Solicitor General. This is particularly frustrating since, had Kagen voted, it’s expected she would have voted in Flores-Villar’s favor.

Amanda Rice writes, “When the Court splits, the lower court’s decision stands, but the Supreme Court’s decision creates no precedent. In other words, it’s just as if the Court never granted certiorari.” And this split decision creates some ground for optimism: perhaps a future case, in which Kagen can participate, will lead to this sexist immigration law being overturned.

Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center writes:

The case demonstrates how vulnerable the hard-won Constitutional protection against sex discrimination has become. The Constitution requires an exceedingly persuasive rationale to justify the government’s treatment of people differently based on gender—and there was simply no rationale offered that even comes close here. Four Justices on the Court were willing to let stand a decision based on outdated stereotypes about the roles of men and women in raising their children.

The Court’s decision allows the continued application of tougher standards for U.S. citizenship to children born abroad to unmarried U.S. citizen fathers as compared to unmarried U. S. citizen mothers. Flores-Villar, an unmarried father, could only have passed his citizenship on to his son if he had lived in the U.S. for at least ten years prior to the child’s birth, with five of those years after the age of 14—a standard that was physically impossible for him to meet since he was 16 years old when he became a father. In contrast, unmarried mothers only have to live in the U.S. for one year—at any time in their lives—a standard Flores-Villar easily met. This unequal treatment imposes real harm on mothers, fathers and children, and because of this decision, the harm continues.

And Sandra Park of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project writes:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the law in response to Flores-Villar’s constitutional challenge. The court failed to take into account that gender stereotypes that presume fathers are less responsible for child rearing influenced the passage of the law, despite the fact that laws that discriminate between men and women based on gender stereotypes have routinely been struck down as violating the Constitution. 

Furthermore, the lower court did not recognize that the government’s justification for the law – to avoid statelessness of children – was unpersuasive. By subjecting fathers to stricter residency requirements, the law exacerbates the risk of statelessness for their children and does not effectively address the problem. Without much analysis, the court relied on the reasoning of Nguyen v. INS, which approved the law’s legitimation requirement, but did not recognize a crucial distinction. In Nguyen, the Court emphasized that the father had ample opportunity to legally acknowledge his child and exercise his right to transmit citizenship. Flores-Villar’s father, on the other hand, faced an absolute bar to transmitting citizenship due to his age. In effect, the law declares that some parents have fewer rights, simply because they are men.

Today’s order did not rule on the merits of the 9th Circuit’s reasoning. But given that this nationality law continues to treat fathers and mothers differently, those questions will likely be raised again, to be heard next time by all nine justices.

The comments at the Volokh Conspiracy include some speculation about which justices voted on which side of this issue.

Posted in Ampersand, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc, Immigration, Migrant Rights, etc, Sexism hurts men, Supreme Court Issues | Comment

Previous Entries
Next Page »