Diotima on Gloria Steinem

I read Gloria Steinem’s interview in Buzzflash when it came out, but didn’t think it was especially fascinating; I didn’t even link to it from “Alas.” Then I read this entry at Diotima, in which Sara – one of my favorite conservative bloggers – is reduced to what can only be called sputtering incoherence by the task of responding to Steinem’s interview.

I’m not going to rebut every instance in which Sara’s points are illogical or based on a failure to comprehend Steinem’s arguments. But for example, consider this quote from Steinem, about right-wing religious activists:

Gloria Steinem: But these are the people that our European ancestors came to this country to escape. I mean, they are trying to cite unproveable arguments — arguments that take place in heaven and life after death — as reasons why we should obey them now. These literally are the type of people that the Europeans who founded America came here to escape.

Sara responds by saying that she learned from this that…

…modern religious conservatives are actually 17th century Anglicans. Interesting. I guess what I find most striking about this is how completely ignorant it reveals Ms. Steinem to be of her opposition. I guess I’d always assumed that some members of the Left promote these inaccurate stereotypes as scare tactics, out of malice. But Ms. Steinem seems like a true believer.

The Anglican line is an easy put-down, but it ignores the meaning of Steinem’s quote. Steinem’s quote explained in what sense modern religious conservatives are like 17th century Anglicans; both groups “cite unproveable arguments — arguments that take place in heaven and life after death — as reasons why we should obey them now.”

Steinem’s statement is a simplification, but also fundamentally correct. Conservative intellectuals like Sara aren’t what’s driving the Republicans to oppose same-sex marriage (actually, Sara favors same-sex marriage) and reproductive rights. In those areas, the 800-pound gorilla in the Republican party is the religious right. And those folks use unprovable arguments all the time, just as Ms. Steinem said.

Yesterday, Rhode Island Representative Victor Moffitt (R) justified his anti-gay-marriage bill by saying “The sanctity of marriage needs to be defined, protected. I am a Catholic. I view marriage as a sacrament.” How can one argue with that? Mr. Moffitt has a right to his beliefs, and to vote based on his beliefs. Nonetheless, he’s clearly attempting to use the law to force all Rhode Islanders to obey his religious beliefs; and that’s typical behavior from religious conservatives in America today, on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to reproductive rights to “Terri’s law.”

If Sara actually believes that folks like Representative Moffitt are a scare tactic made up by feminists – or if she believes that they are not a powerful force in the Republican party – then I’d say that Sara exhibits less understanding of the modern conservative movement than Ms. Steinem does.

Here’s another Steinem quote with Sara’s response:

Gloria Steinem: If he is elected in 2004, abortion will be criminalized in this country. We will continue to injure and kill millions of women in other countries by the gag rule and the withdrawal of funds for family planning, for AIDS education. And we will endanger many other advances we take for granted — Title IX and so on.

Sara at Diotima: Sputter. Read that again. “If he is elected [not “re-elected”] in 2004, abortion will be criminalized in this country.” What kind of alternate universe is this woman living it?!?! We’re going to injure and kill millions of women? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years? Rrrrraaggrrrr! We LOST on Title IX! They won! This woman is on crack! She’s completely lost it!

Clearly Sara’s wacked-out tone here is tongue-in-cheek, but her logic is just as wacky.

First, Sara implies that it’s insane to think that a Bush re-election might lead to criminalization of abortion. Why? It’s certainly possible (I’d say likely) that both O’Connor and Stevens will retire from the Supreme Court in the four-year period following the 2004 election, and if so Bush might intend to choose anti-Roe justices to fill those seats. The result of this would almost certainly be criminalization of abortion in much of the USA.

This is not an obscure scenario; the Buzzflash interviewer brings it up during Steinem’s interview. Nor is it so implausible that only an insane person could worry about it.

And yes, feminists won on Title IX. But there is a continuous movement among conservatives to water-down or overturn Title IX; it’s quite reasonable for Steinem to think that Title IX and other feminist victories will be “endangered” by continuing Republican dominance in politics.

Finally, I am puzzled – and appalled – by this bit of total illogic from Sara: “We’re going to injure and kill millions of women? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years?”

Is Sara honestly saying that because she finds abortion morally wrong, injuring and killing millions of women is somehow unimportant or justifiable?

When Steinem referred to the withdrawal of funding for family planning and AIDS prevention, I took that as a reference to the way pro-lifers and the Bush administration blocked $34 million earmarked for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA for short – yes, I know the initials don’t match up, complain to the UN). $34 million is almost 15% of UNFPA’s total funding.

A few facts about UNFPA: UNFPA does not provide support for abortions or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world. In fact, they prevent abortion, by providing family planning services and birth control in developing countries all over the world. They also help prevent AIDS, provide medical care which makes pregnancy and childbirth safer for mothers and babies, and work to prevent and treat obstetric fistulas. (More on what UNFPA does here).

According to UNFPA, “UNFPA estimates that $34 million applied to family planning programmes could prevent some 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths annually worldwide.” That’s only deaths – the total would presumably be much higher if non-fatal conditions such as fistulas were included.

Why was UNPFA defunded? Because some US pro-lifers accused UNPFA of supporting coercive abortions in China. Several independent fact-finding missions – including one from the Bush administration – have refuted this claim. (A more recent group of US religious scholars and ethicists, organized by Catholics for Choice, came to the same conclusion – pdf file).

I understand that to pro-lifers, there is little or no difference between the death of an 8-week embryo and the death of an adult woman. However, how can concern for unborn children possibly justify defunding an agency that doesn’t provide abortions, helps women and reduces the need for abortion?

Sara seems to feel that while abortion is legal in the US, it’s somehow ridiculous for Steinem to object to pro-life attacks on health care for women in the third world. Sara’s position (if it is indeed her position, and not just a momentary flash of anger) is unsupportable and immoral; the deaths of unborn fetuses in the US do not justify deaths and injuries to women in the third world.

Illogical as Sara’s statement is, it’s also typical of the pro-life movement in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, not a single pro-life organization in the US – not even the pro-life “feminists” – objected to the defunding of UNFPA. This calls into question the pro-life leadership’s commitment to opposing abortion – apparently an agency that reduces abortion through non-coercive needs, like UNFPA, is seen as the enemy by pro-life organizations.

Actually, pro-lifers who don’t think Bush’s election (not, as Sara correctly points out, “re-election”) will lead to overturning Roe would be well advised to vote for the Democrat instead. By reauthorizing funding for UNFPA (which had been cut off under Reagan), Bill Clinton probably prevented more abortions than President Bush ever has.

* * *

More generally, I think part of Sara’s difficulty with Steinem is due to the cultural difference between the IWF and feminism. Gloria Steinem is a type of leader that the IWF has never had. Steinem isn’t an academic or a think-tanker; she’s a popular leader and organizer. That’s a kind of leadership that’s completely foreign to the IWF culture, because they’ve never had any popular support.

Sara thinks that Steinem should embarrass feminists because she says something silly in an interview (and I admit, Steinem’s quasi-Marxist interpretation of the pro-life movement was cringeworthy). But that completely misses the point – Steinem’s accomplishments and contribution to feminism has primarily been as an organizer, not as a theorist. As an organizer, Steinem contributed to a huge advancement of feminism, equality and justice in the USA; on balance, a mistaken statement about pro-lifers in an obscure interview is insignificant.

[Edited on 2-16-04 to correct typos, grammer and to make it slightly less snippy.].

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Feminism, sexism, etc, UNFPA | 22 Comments

On this day in history…

(Bean’s away this week, enjoying the tropical sunshine and the palm trees of London, Canada, so I’m subbing for her – Amp.)

February 12

1855: (Birthday) Fannie Williams, co-founder of the National Association of Colored Women born in Brockport, NY. The NACW still exists today.

1909: (A First) The first meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is held; members include Mary Church Terrell, Jane Addams, and Ida B. Wells Barnett, Joesphine Ruffin, and Inez Millholland Boissevain.

1992: Following a seven-year court battle, Sharon Kowalski is finally brought home by her life partner (and now legal guardian), Karen Thompson. Kowalski, who had been severely injured in an accident, was the subject of a custody suit between Thompson and Kowalski’s estranged father.

2004: (A first) City officials in San Francisco issued a license and performed a wedding ceremony for a lesbian couple. This appears to be the first legal same-sex wedding in the United States. The couple, Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, are longtime lesbian-rights activists, who have been together for over half a century.

edited by bean to add previously missing information and to make one correction..

Posted in On this day... | 9 Comments

Iraqi women's rights: Send a letter to George W. Bush

The Feminist Majority Foundation has a letter you can email expressing “concern to the Bush Administration about” the stripping away of Iraqi women’s rights. Please fill out the letter; it’ll only take you a minute to send it using the FMF’s form, and it’s possible it’ll do some good..

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 2 Comments

Ashcroft goes after medical records of women who have had abortions

Lis at Riba Rambles has highlighted an interesting news story. The case is National Abortion Federation vs. John Ashcroft, in which the NAF is trying to get the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban overturned. One of the parties suing is a doctor who performs late-term abortions.

Ashcroft’s lawyers tried to subpheona the medical records of the doctor’s patients from the hospital. Although they agreed to let the hospital strike off the patients’ names, they reserved the right to try and get further identifying information from the hospital later.

Happily, the court slapped the attempt down – Lis has quotes from the ruling. Still, it’s scarey stuff, and yet another example of how little Ashcroft seems to understand the notion of “privacy.” Especially, of course, as applied to pregnant women.

Update Will Baude responds:

Why is it that people feel compelled to accuse Ashcroft of not understanding “privacy” rather than, say, understanding perfectly well, but disagreeing about what should be private?

I think Will overestimates how literal my readers are. I trust that “Alas, a Blog” readers, being smartish sorts, realize that a smart, accomplished politician like Ashcroft comprehends arguments that he disagrees with. They would therefore not take my words literally.

What if I had said something along the lines of Will’s suggestion? “Ashcroft understands privacy perfectly well, of course, while disagreeing with me on what is private.” That version would better suit literal-minded readers, but would have failed to effectively communicate my disdain for Ashcroft and the (in my opinion) anti-women views he represents.

My original version isn’t as literal, but better communicates my attitude.

Of course, if I were engaged in direct debate with Mr. Ashcroft, that would be a reason to choose the more polite version. But I think expressing disdain (and in this case, heartfelt disdain) for the views of public figures is perfectly reasonable rhetoric.

SECOND UPDATE: This cracked me up. My, this post has generated some odd criticisms. Anyhow, point well taken; I’ve made a correction..

Posted in \"Partial Birth\" Abortion, Abortion & reproductive rights | 11 Comments

What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a rape culture

What causes rape? How can we change our culture so that it happens less often, or not at all? I’d like to give my opinions on this – at, perhaps, some risk of pissing some folks off.

Alas readers who know me know that I’m a font of statistical evidence about rape; there was a year or so in which I didn’t read about much other than quantitative research about rape. But of the hundreds of stats about rape I’ve read, the most essential one is the most obvious: the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. If we want to discover how to reduce rape, we have to be willing to figure out what the hell is wrong with men, and how to change it.

(Okay, ass-covering time: when I say “what the hell is wrong with men,” I do mean all men in our culture – even men as “enlightened” as the more feminist men on this board. But I don’t mean that all men rape, or even that all men are potential rapists. Rather, I’d say the things in our culture which screw up men so much that rape becomes a widespread problem affect all men to some degree – even those who never rape.)

Unfortunately, I think feminism – and especially radical feminism – has been limited in increasing our understanding of rape, because feminism is (generally) focused on women, whereas rape is mostly about men. You will never find the cause or cure for rape by examining women, because rapists are overwhelmingly male.

So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we live in a “rape culture” (defined as “a culture in which rape is prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence”), then what are those fundamental attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence?

I’d identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity, cultural disdain for women, and our society’s conception of sexuality as something possessed exclusively by women. If we want “24 hours in which there is no rape,” then we have to destroy these three warped cultural ideas.

1) The Myth of Fragile Masculinity.

From early boyhood, men are taught that their masculinity must be protected above all else, or else it will be lost. Men who have lost their masculinity are objects of contempt, derision and violent abuse, and have lost the right to be loved or respected by their fellow men and by their fathers.

Boys are also taught that masculinity is fragile and high-maintenance; you work to get it and to retain it, and the slightest slip can cause it to be altogether lost. You can slip instantly, with no transition, from the most popular boy in the room to the butt of everyone’s jokes: all it takes is a moment’s lapse in which you say or do anything that can be interpreted as feminine.

This is essential: Masculinity is fragile. The man who has lost his masculinity is, in the eyes of male culture, less than nothing, worse than dead. Therefore, force in defense of masculinity – like beating up a boy who accuses you of being a faggot – can feel to boys and men like a form of self-defense.

Masculinity is defined by what it is not. Being masculine means avoiding the feminine. Being feminine, even for an instant, means risking loss of masculinity. Empathy, in our culture’s warped conception, is feminine; thinking about other people’s emotions is feminine. Boys are taught to avoid empathy.

Masculinity is also defined by power-over. The man who is overpowered by others is less then a man; the man who has power over others is a man among men. Remember, masculinity is fragile: if you don’t have power-over, you’re in danger of losing your manhood.

Once boys become teens, masculinity is additionally defined by the absolutely crucial task of getting laid. Once again, masculinity is fragile: he who isn’t getting any ain’t a man.

So there are a myriad of ways in which boys and men can lose the status of “being a man.” But at the same time, boys and men feel absolutely entitled to becoming men.

Masculinity comes wrapped around a sense of entitlement. Men don’t feel grateful when the women in their life (mothers, wives, maids) prepare meals, make beds, or whatever: in our society’s warped view, the women are just doing what they’re supposed to, and men are just getting what they’re entitled to. (Statistically, it’s interesting that virtually everyone in our culture who decides to blow up a building or machine-gun a crowd is white and male. The main reason for this, I believe, is that white men feel so entitled to high status in society, some of them take revenge if they don’t their rightful entitlement.)

There is one bit of good news – for most men, issues about masculinity are more extreme in the first thirty years of men’s lives then thereafter. For someone still in school – be it the 6th grade or a college frat house – the social enforcement mechanisms for not maintaining masculinity can be extreme. Those who can’t “be men” are social pariahs, are taught to be ashamed, and are not-uncommonly the subjects of beatings. But that’s not as true in most adult environments (although it’s true in some adult environments, like prison). Perhaps once we’ve been away from those sorts of environments for five or ten years, most of us begin to feel that our masculinity isn’t so threatened, after all.

Statistically, environments which tend to have the most rape – middle and high school, frat houses, prisons – are also the environments which most emphasize masculinity, and where boys and men have the most reason to fear losing masculinity. If we could change the culture of such environments, we’d go a long way towards reducing rape.

2) Low regard for women.

The fact is, women aren’t respected as equals, by and large. To some degree this is a self-perpetuating cycle: why aren’t women in more of public life’s highest-respected positions (Presidents, CEOs, Senators, movie stars, cartoonists :) , etc)? Because women aren’t seen as capable of holding society’s highest positions. Why aren’t women seen as being as capable? Well, just look around: there are almost no women are doing those things.

Women’s lower pay – and lower status generally in most of the overtly powerful and materially rewarding aspects of our culture – is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women. That the huge amount of unpaid caretaking work our society requires to get by is overwhelmingly done by women, and accorded almost no respect (“stay at home moms just sit around watching TV all day, right?”), is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women.

Women get paid less. Women get promoted less. Women get out of the house less. The work women do is worth less. In our society, women are less. This must change if rape is to be eliminated.

Remember how masculinity encourages lack of empathy? Well, low regard for women also encourages lack of empathy. Social scientists have shown that people (regardless of sex) are less empathic towards those who are below them in the social hierarchy. Bosses are less empathic towards secretaries than vice-versa; owners less empathic towards slaves than vice-versa; men less empathic towards women than vice-versa.

Why do men rape women? It’s not because they hate women, by and large. Do hunters hunt because they hate animals? No, they hunt because hunting is fun, because they like the meat, and maybe because hunting is a way of male-bonding, They don’t hate the animal; they just consider empathy for the animal’s feelings irrelevant, less important than their desire for meat or fun. (I’m ignoring the ecological arguments for hunting for the sake of the analogy).

Men who rape women don’t do it because they hate women, but because they don’t give a fuck about women (at least, not the women they rape). They want something, they take it, and they’re by-and-large indifferent to how the person they “take” it from feels.

This is why the “rape isn’t about sex, rape is about violence” analysis falls short. It’s not true – not from the point of view of many rapists – and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don’t rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it’s not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all, because a woman’s feelings aren’t worth considering. They’re just women, after all.

Which brings me to my third point….

3) Sexuality is something possessed by women, which is given to (or taken by) men.

That’s our society’s view of it. Look at the magazines on the racks – it’s pretty obvious why men’s magazines, wanting to sell copies with a sexy cover, usually use photos of mostly-undressed women. But why do women’s magazines do the exact same thing? Because to do a sexy magazine cover, you generally have to show a photo of a woman. Sexuality equals women in our culture; it is something possessed by women, not by men.

That’s also why women are taught to wait to be asked for a dance (or for a date), while men are taught to do the asking. Women have it; men ask for it. That’s why porn-like images of women are so common they’re impossible to avoid, while porn-like images of men are (outside gay male culture) relatively infrequent. Women have sex; to show a picture of sex, show a porn-like image of a woman.

Why do men rape, while women virtually never rape? Because sexuality is something possessed by women, in our society’s warped view. In our society, women don’t rape for the same reason rich people don’t mug.

This connects to the first point, too – the fragility of masculinity. Men who have lost their masculinity are, in our culture’s view, less than men, less even than women. They are the lowest of the low. One way to lose your masculinity is to be unable to “get” sex from a woman. This also breeds resentment of women (in much the same way that poverty can sometimes breed resentment of rich people): “how dare women not give something to me that I need so desperately? How dare women withhold from me the masculinity that I’m entitled to?”

If there’s nothing worse to a man than losing that fragile masculinity, and if one way of retaining masculinity is to use masculinity’s power-over to take sex from the owners, and if the owners are only women, anyway, rather than being anything important – then rape is frequently the result.

Hell, looking at how twisted and sick our culture is, sometimes I’m surprised rape doesn’t happen even more often.

* * *

Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. It’s sick, warped, and twisted. But that is the truth about our sick, warped, and twisted society, in my opinion. People talk about a “rape culture.” I’d argue that these three things – Masculinity, Low Regard for Women, and Sex is Owned by Women – are the three main ingredients of that rape culture. And if we want to create a world without rape, finding ways to change those three things is where we should start..

Posted in Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 214 Comments

Ampersand is reading…

  • I’ve been meaning to link to this interesting article from Nervy Girl Magazine for a while, about women’s and men’s razors.
    On the “Experience Venus” page, I learned about how Venus can give me “oh-so-touchable legs.” And I got the inside scoop on some features special to the Venus system, including the super-simple blade-change function—“No fiddling. No mistakes. Blade-changing made simple. Click. That’s it. Just open the refill and click on the handle. You couldn’t do it upside down if you tried. Phew.”

    Phew indeed. The MACH3 site’s version? “Open cartridge architecture makes rinsing and cleaning the MACH3Turbo blades easier than ever; the single-point docking system … makes it virtually impossible for consumers to accidentally load a cartridge upside down.” Architecture? Docking system? Thank goodness they didn’t try those 50-cent words on the girlies.

    Via Jenn Manley Lee, who has additional thoughts you should read.

  • Body and Soul guest poster Donald Johnson has an excellent post discussing the sanctions in Iraq (remember the sanctions? You know, when the US needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of civilians? It was reported in the European papers), and what they tell us about “How Centrists Think.” There’s some good material in the comments section, too.
  • A really impressive twenty-questions type game. It’s also interesting to see what it gets wrong – for instance, it didn’t know that elephants can swim.
  • If you’re any sort of comic book geek, you should know who Julius Schwartz is – that is, who he was. He passed away earlier this week. I’d say “sadly, he passed away” but really – how sad is it when someone passes away from a seemingly long, accomplished and happy life? We should all do so well. Read Marc Evanier’s remembrance, even if you have no idea who Julius Schwartz was.
  • The Leiter Report notes that, according to a wide range of statistics, the USA isn’t actually the only worthwhile place in the world to live.
  • Eugene Volokh looks at the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (actually an anti-marriage amendment, if you think about it) and finds that it’s quite possible it would outlaw not only same-sex marriage, but also state-level civil union and domestic partnership laws.
  • See a man wrestle a hippo with his bare hands! A lot of folks have linked to this Decembrist post which attempts to grapple with the scale of the dishonesty of the Bush budget.
  • Ms Musings responds to the latest batch of nonsense from the swell gals of the IWF. The IWF’s conclusion: every single policy that the GOP favors is in women’s best interests. It must be mysterious to them that women tend to vote for the Democrats…
  • Womens Enews reports on how important even a part-time, low-paying job can be for securing a degree of empowerment for women in South Africa.
  • Who are the left? John Quiggin’s initial post on this wasn’t that great, but the update and concession are terrific.
  • Joel Rogers in The Nation argues the progressive case for Edwards. I have to admit, if it’s a choice between Edwards and Kerry, I don’t see why Kerry – who, on TV, strongly resembles Lurch on tranquilizers – is seen as more “electable.”
  • The New York Times examines how the religious right settled on fighting gay marriage as their best fundraising hope of the moment.
  • Ain’t-It-Cool-News reports on the most important news story of all (look for February 10th):
    Buzz inside certain Los Angeles law firms suggests that talent contracts are being hammered out, and they’re timed around a May start for an upcoming Universal feature about a starship captain, a space hooker, a mysterious preacher and a pair of fugitives named Tam. The bad news: under the scenario discussed, “Firefly: The Movie” wouldn’t hit multiplexes until late 2005.

    And then, I hope, a TV series… Via FireflyMovie.com and Kip.

  • He may be conservative, but Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage rocks. Here, he’s discussing the Massachusetts Court’s recent rejection of “civil unions” as an alternative to gay marriage.
    The Justices in the majority mercilessly home in on the central meaning behind so-called “civil unions” – the only defense of them is that they are a device to maintain exclusion, especially when they are substantively identical to civil marriage. In that sense – same thing, different department – they’re a text-book case of “separate but equal.” If you’re going to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples, why are you calling it something different? If both can drink the same water, why a different water fountain? The only answer can be: to keep the stigma in place. But stigma as such surely has no role under a constitution that affirms equal rights for all citizens. It’s not the court’s role to rule otherwise. The only judicial activism in this case would have been if the Court had decided that, in spite of the state constitution, the public’s own discomfort with a minority would be justification for maintaining that minority’s second class status.

    And more:

    I don’t believe courts should never do anything but rubber-stamp majority decisions. I think the argument for equal marriage rights is so constitutionally strong it will take a federal constitutional amendment to deny gays their rights. I suspect the religious right agrees. So we now have to see if the general public finds gay couples such a threat to their life that they will write discrimination against them in the Constitution. I have to hope and pray they won’t. But I cannot be dismayed when courts include gay people as equal citizens in this republic. That’s their job. And it’s their constitutional duty.
  • In addition to Andrew Sullivan, the go-to-blogger for pro-same-sex marriage arguments is Gabriel Rosenberg. (Hope I spelled that right – his name doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere on his blog.) This week, check out his posts arguing that polygamy and incest are easily distinguished from same-sex marriage, and also his response to Mr. Kurtz.
    …One reason many SSM advocates, myself included, are so adamant about the rights of same-sex couples to marry is that in this country many same-sex couples are adopting and raising children. We feel marriage would help protect those families in the same way they help protect families headed by opposite-sex parents. It is the people that strive to deny these families the protection of marriage that are saying that marriage isn’t important for parenting.

    Many links via MarriageDebate.org, which is a great blog for folks following the SSM debate.

.

Posted in Link farms | 4 Comments

The Violence Against Women Act: discrimination against men?

The NOW Legal Defense Fund (NOWLDF) is suing the feds over a Pennsylvania marriage promotion program. The program apparently provides “employment services” to fathers but not mothers.

The marriage movement is bound to run into further problems like this as they push their agenda. Not all marriage movement people are chauvinists and gay-bashers, but they’ve nonetheless aligned themselves firmly with chauvinists and gay-bashers, and that’s bound to lead to problems.

Tom Slyvester of Family Scholars Blog more-or-less admits that the NOWLDF folks are correct to object to this sexist program. He also points out that it’s unfair to judge the entire marriage movement by one sexist program in Pennsylvania. So far, so good – I agree with all of that. Then Tom writes:

Ms. Brown also adds, “When a program offers services to men and not to women, that’s indisputable discrimination.” I don’t remember: did NOW Legal Defense fight the Violence Against Women Act for that same reason?

NOWLDF, of course, lobbied hard for passage of VAWA and the various VAWA sequels.

However, despite its title, it’s not at all clear that VAWA discriminates based on sex. Most of VAWA is written in scrupulously sex-neutral language. Take this passage (from a part of VAWA later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, because the Court felt that Violence Against Women isn’t sufficiently related to interstate commerce):

(b) RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRIMES OF VIOLENCE- All persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender (as defined in subsection (d)).
(c) CAUSE OF ACTION- A person (including a person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State) who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender and thus deprives another of the right declared in subsection (b) shall be liable to the party injured, in an action for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate.
(d) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section–
(1) the term `crime of violence motivated by gender’ means a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender, and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim’s gender…

I know the legalese is painful reading, but still – it’s clear that this is not a law that created one law for women and a different law for men. Before the Supreme Court overturned the federal crime aspects of VAWA, VAWA convictions included women arrested for violence against men (see, for instance, Rita Gluzman’s arrest and conviction, reported by AP on 3/22/1999).

Other parts of VAWA aren’t so clear-cut – for instance, I suppose someone could read the bits funding research, rape crisis lines, and the like as providing funding exclusively to helping women. In practice, however, VAWA hasn’t excluded male victims; rape crisis lines help anyone who calls them, and some VAWA-funded research has interviewed victims of both sexes (pdf file).

(Men’s rights advocates often claim that VAWA explicitly discriminates against men in its provisions, but I haven’t seen anyone quote an actual passage from VAWA to prove their case. To be fair, I haven’t read all of VAWA – but even if some obscure, discriminatory passage exists, that doesn’t alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of the legislation is sex-neutral).

To imply that VAWA is as discriminatory as providing employment training to men only is ridiculous.

* * *

That said, I think Tom’s argument misses the boat in another way. Like opponents of Affirmative Action, Tom ignores the difference between attempts to combat discrimination and discrimination itself.

As I wrote in an earlier post (I’m recycling freely from that post in this post, incidentally), it’s tempting to respond to VAWA by asking “so where’s the Violence Against Men Act?” Taken out of context, VAWA does seem pretty unfair. Why should the government focus on what happens to women?

But VAWA wasn’t written outside of context. In reality, crime is not sex-neutral. The majority of criminal violence against men is “stranger violence”; men are assaulted in bars, attacked by muggers, raped in prison. For women, in contrast, the majority of violence is “intimate violence”; women are beat up by husbands, raped by acquaintances.

Here’s where context comes into play. Our courts and our cops have been designed mainly to prevent stranger violence – which is to say, the kind of violence that happens mostly to men. You want to know where the Violence Against Men Act is? Virtually our entire criminal-justice system – at least, the bits dealing with violent crime – has been a Violence Against Men Act, for most of its history. Violence that happens primarily to women – intimate violence, date rape, and so on – has been ignored until recently.

VAWA isn’t adding bias to a sex-neutral system; it’s an attempt to correct a system which has for centuries been overwhelmingly biased towards the needs of men.

UPDATE: David Blankenhorn, also of Family Scholars Blog – using the rather bitter tone that has, alas, become the norm for his postings – argues that the employment-for-dads program is an example of good intentions leading to a mistake. From what David writes, I think that’s probably true.

It’s rather ironic, however, that David simultaneously asks us to give his friends’ motives the benefit of the doubt, while writing that he has “no doubts” that the folks at NOW have evil intentions. Apparently giving people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt is something David thinks his opponents should do, but he himself should not.

Also, David strongly implies that NOWLDF’s lawyers are racists – without, needless to say, providing a speck of evidence to support his mean-spirited insinuations. (As far as I can make out, David thinks that NOWLDF should give a pass to sexist policies if some of the administrators running the policy are black. Oy.).

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 29 Comments

South Dakota Considering Banning Abortion

South Dakota’s legislature is considering “a bill making abortion a crime unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.” (Link via Evangelical Outpost).

Pro-lifers are by no means united in support of this bill (here’s the text of the bill, by the way). Some worry that the bill would cost South Dakota taxpayers a lot of money to defend in court, but will ultimately be found unconstitutional and thus not actually prevent any abortions. Others seem to believe that the bill takes advantage of a loophole in Roe v. Wade. From Christus Vector:

The first paradox is that the bill is not only constitutional under a proper interpretation of the Fourteenth amendment, it may very well be compatible with Roe v. Wade. This is because the bill contains explicit findings that human life begins at conception, and that the state therefore has a compelling interest in the protection of that life. This is important because the court in Roe declined to decide when life begins, saying instead that since it wasn’t clear that life did begin at conception that possibility couldn’t override a women’s right to have an abortion. This, combined with the deference generally given to legislative findings of fact, means that it should be possible for a state to provide the missing basis for what the court in Roe admitted would be a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting abortion.

As I pointed out in Christus Vector’s comments, I don’t think the legal argument has much merit. There are two questions to be considered: First, is the Supreme Court obliged to defer to legislative fact-finding, and second, what does Roe really say.

Regarding deference, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have made it clear that they don’t consider themselves bound by congressional fact-finding. See, for instance, their decision overturning parts of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), on the grounds that VAWA had no relationship to interstate commerce, despite extensive congressional fact-finding which found just the opposite.

As Clarence Thomas once wrote (pdf file):

We know of no support… for the proposition that if the constitutionality of a statute depends in part on the existence of certain facts, a court may not review a legislature’s judgment that the facts exist. If a legislature could make a statute constitutional simply by ‘finding’ that black is white or freedom, slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce. At least since Marbury v. Madison (1803), that has not been the law.

As for the supposed loophole in Roe, to me it seems like wishful thinking on the part of some pro-lifers. Here’s the relevant passage from the Roe v. Wade decision:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question.[….]

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.

It seems clear that the logic of Roe is not threatened by South Dakota’s bill declaring that life begins at conception – just cross out “Texas” and write in “South Dakota,” and the problem is solved..

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 12 Comments

No comment

This Crooked Timber post, by John Quiggin, must be quoted in full:

In the middle of a generally reasonable Newsweek article about the failure to find WMDs, I came across the following para

But if Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t he come clean? After all, he could have given U.N. inspectors free rein; he could have allowed them to interview all of his scientists in private—even outside the country—and let them rummage through his palaces. Faced with war, wasn’t that the sensible option?

But, but …(lapses into stunned silence)

.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 7 Comments

Al Sharpton: paid-for operative of the Republicans

Both The Black Commentor and The Village Voice are slamming Al Sharpton this week, apparently with good reason. They argue, persuasively, that Sharpton has allowed himself to become a puppet of Republican operative Roger Stone. (Stone is best-known for organizing the conservative mobs that stopped vote-counting in Florida in 2000.)

From the Black Commentator article:

The growing storm over his covert alliance with rightwing Republicans probably came too late to have any measurable impact on Tuesday’s elections, but the revelations are a deathblow to his actual goal: to become the recognized leader of African Americans. Although the story has been framed in terms of treachery to the Democratic Party, or as evidence of Sharpton’s visceral disdain for white “liberals,” the tale will resonate somewhat differently among African Americans. Sharpton comes across as a hapless stooge of the worst elements of the GOP.

Roger Stone, a millionaire political consultant who began his career as a 19-year-old Watergate dirty trickster, virtually took over the Sharpton campaign in the last quarter of 2003, according to reports in the New York Times (January 25), Salon.com (”A GOP Trickster Rents Sharpton,” February 3) and New York’s Village Voice (“Sleeping with the GOP,” February 3). Stone and Sharpton were introduced two years ago by Donald Trump, the celebrity millionaire, said the Times. Stone brought in Charles Halloran to replace Sharpton campaign manager Frank Watkins, a longtime advisor to the Jesse Jacksons, Junior and Senior, who resigned in late September. (In the Village Voice article, Sharpton says Watkins was fired.) Halloran previously managed the New York gubernatorial campaign of far-right billionaire Tom Golisano, on the Independence Party line. He also managed a mostly white, conservative party’s attempt to unseat the first Black-led government of Bermuda.

Stone provides “ideas and direction, while Mr. Halloran…does the front-line work,” said the Times. “In the attacks on Dr. Dean, Mr. Stone helped set the tone and direction while Mr. Halloran did the research. Mr. Halloran came up with Dr. Dean’s hiring record as governor, for example, aides to Mr. Sharpton said.” […]

Stone has “loaned” Sharpton at least $270,000, and the candidate has made frequent use of Stone’s credit card, according to the Voice story. NAN funds have been hopelessly commingled with campaign monies – a potential legal disaster.

The relationship boggles the mind. Roger Stone is the Hard Right storm trooper whose goons bum-rushed the Miami-Dade elections offices in 2000, shutting down the recount and setting the stage for George Bush’s “selection.”

The Black Commentator agues that Sharpton’s run, on balance, may still be a good thing; Sharpton has harmed himself as a public figure, but his presence in the debates has also forced the leading (and, needless to say, white) candidates to improve their positions:

“Big Al” was truly large on the stage, a daunting deterrent to the intrusion of the usual coded racial rhetoric into the Democratic debates or on the stump: Don’t even think about it, said Al, without having to move his lips. Sharpton gave voice – at times, brilliantly – to the core progressive principles of the Black political consensus, causing big-footed white men to step lightly and in the right general direction.

Sharpton’s candidacy has had a magical effect on the racial chemistry of the Democratic dialogue, in starkest contrast to the White Citizens Council-type language of the GOP. He caused the white candidates to repeatedly demonstrate, through their words and campaign schedules, that they valued Black voters.

I also like the BC’s conclusion:

We must ask why Al Sharpton emerged as a contender for national Black leadership via the presidential primaries. The answer is simple, and should be deeply troubling: He was the only one to step forward. Such was also the case in the decades of Sharpton’s rise to prominence in New York. When police brutalized African Americans, Al Sharpton was there. When demonstrations needed to be mounted, Sharpton was on point. When Black anger rose, Sharpton rose to the occasion – year, after year, after year.

Whites of all political persuasions denounced Sharpton as an opportunist and publicity seeker – as if they were telling Black folks something we didn’t know. But we desperately needed publicity, and an opportunity to be heard. Rev. Al seized the spotlight and shook things up, which was a lot better than nothing.

Somebody Black had to do it.

As us bloggers are wont to say, read the whole thing.

I find this… disappointing. I’ve generally supported Kucinich in the democratic primary, but I’ve admired Sharpton’s performance in the debates and his articulation of progressive positions. Sharpton has some disturbing episodes in his past, but I thought he had earned a second chance – a chance to show he had changed and emerge as a serious progressive voice.

Little chance of that now..

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 6 Comments