Why do the pretty suburban white girls get all the media's attention?

When someone goes missing or is abducted–especially if at such a young, tender age–it’s always heartwrenching to watch the family members and spouses pour out their emotions on national television, pleaing for their loved-ones safe return. Unfortunately some times the missing and/or abducted are never seen again. At least not alive, tragically.

We have the media to thank for all the superficial and obnoxious drama that’s added onto the already emotional rollercoaster suffered by the missing’s/abductee’s loved-ones. Though every story is tragic, apparently the media and even our culture believes when the people at the center of the drama are a certain race or ethnicity and sex, the tragedy is more significant and “news worthy”. Most of the victims we see in the news resemble the fabled, blonde-haired/blue-eyed damsel-in-distress, who was snatched away from her king and queen like parents, and their castle in the White Suburbia in the middle of the night. We rarely if ever hear of the young African-American girl or boy, or the Hispanic child(ren) who were kidnapped. Even if they too were abducted from a nice home in an upper-middle-class suburban area, still, they don’t create the sense of innocence and purity like young, upper-middle-class, attractive, white women. It’s as if we expect African-Americans, Latinos, and other races and ethnicities regardless of their socioeconomic status to always be the victims of violent crimes, so why pay attention or create mass hysteria and a circus within the media when someone from their communities are abducted and left for dead in a ditch some where? Sometimes even working/lower-class whites are ignored by the media when someone from their communities goes missing or is abducted, and murdered.

Boys and young men as well, especially if they’re from the inner-city and a racial or ethnic minority, the media rarely bothers with them, because after all they don’t have that “damsel-in-distress, feminine virginal purity” the media craves. And lest we forget, the illusion that women must remain pure and sheltered from possible harm–so when one of us goes missing or is abducted, we have been robbed of our “womanly purity.”

Sexism, racism, and classism all fit in quite nicely with the media’s perception as to whose the prettiest, richest, and most innocent-looking (white female) victim. Perhaps Echidne of the Snakes could delve a bit more into the psychosocial aspect of this issue…

[…]…Thus, to understand the prevalence of the young-white-woman-missing stories requires a dive into the deep layers of the American consumer’s mind.

The first thing we notice along this dive is that the victims portrayed are never black, are never older, and are almost always attractive. They correspond to the mythological ideas of a Desirable Woman in this society: pure, young and beautiful. Like the princesses that were captured by dragons in fairy tales, helplessly waiting for the valiant prince to come and set them free (or, rather, to marry them). Attractive young white women are not supposed to go missing, also, which makes these news stories interesting as rarities of a sort. In reality, many women go missing every day and many are murdered in terrible ways. But too many of these victims were black or older or otherwise not of interest in the myth-making sense.

As we dive deeper into the imaginary American consciousness we come across variations, and even these explain why the damsel-in-distress stories are so valuable for the media: They can be interpreted to reinforce almost any prejudice a person might hold. For example, for a conservative these stories are moral tales about what happens when women are given too much freedom, or proofs that the society is descending into a moral chaos, what with all those perverts being allowed to walk about, hunting for dainty young maidens. Never mind that the stories are rare; after the media has finished with them they appear to be commonplace occurrences.

For a progressive or a liberal these stories are a disgusting case of the media going haywire, chasing after cheap stunts and avoiding all serious debate. But even the liberal must read the story to find out how bad things truly are.

Then there are those who see these victims as getting their comeuppance, after years of being the Class Princess or whatever. And those who enjoy the thrill of fear and sympathy, as long as it’s all vicarious. And of course those who really worry about the victims, who are drawn into deep empathy through the personification of fear and suffering that the media does so well. And those who wish for another runaway-bride story as further evidence of the treacherousness of all women. And so on.

But the truth still remains: That these sorts of events are rare and that when they occur they are more likely to have victims who are not white. When the media doesn’t report this they are doing all of us a disservice, especially if they omit other news items which are crucial for us to learn.

My mother (whom I’m staying with for the summer) lives in an upper-middle-class suburban neighborhood that’s predominately African-American, but I doubt the media would be interested in hearing a story about a [hypothetical] young African-American female who was abducted if it were to happen here in my neighborhood. Hopefully it won’t. Still, there seems to be an underlying belief that crimes such as abductions and abuses are supposed to happen in communities of Color, but when it happens in White Suburbia and befalls a young, attractive white female….bring out the media squadron because guess which story is going to dominate the headlines for the next six months. It’s all about that pretty package, people.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Economy, Popular (and unpopular) culture, Race, racism and related issues, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 63 Comments

Secret meetings, over-expansions of Law Enforcement's power, and the erosion of the Fourth Amendment?

The Patriot Act was–allegedly–supposed to aid law enforcement in rounding up suspected terrorist cells here in the United States. Not go on fishing expeditions in libraries because a student needed to check out a Koran for an assignment, harass and abuse Islamic and Arab-Americans who an overwhelming majority are not terrorists–far from it, or violate women’s medical privacy because they may have had abortions. Well some lawmakers on the Hill (and President Dubya Bush) want to expand those “zero-productive, ineffective against terrorism, but wonderful when terrorizing every day citizens” privileges that have been given to law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. But what’s with all the secrecy surrounding the deliberations on the fate of the Patriot Act? Surely we the citizenry have a right to know which of our liberties will be compromised or altogether squashed if the Patriot Act is expanded.

Senate Panel Considering Patriot Act Expansion Bill in Secret; ACLU Says Fixes, Not Expansions, Are Needed

WASHINGTON – The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is meeting today behind closed doors to conclude secret deliberations on legislation designed to reauthorize – and expand – the Patriot Act. The American Civil Liberties Union denounced the secretive process, and said lawmakers should be reforming, not expanding, the most extreme parts of the Patriot Act. The proposed bill would make the Patriot Act’s most controversial provisions permanent, and further expand it by allowing FBI agents to issue their own search orders with no court approval.

“When lawmakers seek to rewrite our Fourth Amendment rights, they should at least have the gumption to do so in public,” said Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy. “In the past few days, thousands of concerned Americans have called on lawmakers in Washington to reject this misguided – and secretive – approach.”

“Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order,” Graves added. “We can give law enforcement the tools they need to protect us without sidestepping our Constitution’s fundamental checks and balances.”

The bill would give the FBI “administrative subpoena” authority, permitting the bureau to write and approve its own search orders for any tangible thing held by a third party deemed relevant to an intelligence investigation, without prior judicial approval. This unilateral power would let agents seize personal records from medical facilities, libraries, hotels, gun dealers, banks and any other businesses without any specific facts connecting those records to any criminal activity or a foreign agent. This would drastically undermine the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The proposal would also remove one of the few safeguards in place for intelligence investigations. Currently, business records of an American cannot be demanded “solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.” The proposed legislation would delete this restriction and allow records to be sought based on constitutionally protected activity as long as the investigation as a whole is not based solely on constitutionally protected activity.

Proponents of that power claim that this would give the FBI the same power used by government agencies administering federal programs, like Medicare. But these agencies do not have at their disposal, as does the FBI, other tools like grand jury subpoenas or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act search orders. The ACLU noted that Congress has continuously denied this power, long sought for by the FBI, for good reasons. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, expressed concerns that this expanded power would give the FBI “carte blanche” to go on “fishing expeditions” without checks against abuse.

The proposal would also give the FBI broad new powers to track people’s mail in intelligence inquiries. It would force postal workers to disclose the name, address and other information appearing on envelopes delivered to or from people designated by the FBI, without any meaningful protections or oversight. That drastic proposal has drawn criticism from within the service itself, including its chief privacy officer.

“The Patriot Act went too far, too fast – the current proposal would go even farther in the trampling of our rights,” Graves said. “Now is the time for Congress to consider well-thought out modifications to the Patriot Act, like the bipartisan SAFE Act, that will preserve both our security and our liberty. Lawmakers must reject this unneeded power grab.”

Libraries, women who’ve had abortions, and every single Islamic and Arab-American beware! Thanks Ashcroft, for this legacy in law enforcement and justice.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics | 10 Comments

What Media Girl and Lorraine said…

Media Girl along with Lorraine pretty much sum all of this up for us. Feminism, so called “liberal/progressive” men’s attitudes towards women’s rights issues, social equality, confronting male privilege within our culture and the political sphere…

Back in April, I said:

In the ’60s and ’70s, when women and racial minorities were demanding equal rights, the conservatives came up with a very savvy response: “Why should you deserve special rights?”

It’s the classic, “When did you stop beating your wife?” question. They evoked a frame, and if you tried to answer it on its own terms, there was no escape. It is trapping rhetoric designed to destroy your position without even addressing it.

What the progressive challenge today is to reframe the entire dialogue, instead of running away from conservative frames like they’ve become toxic waste zones. What we need to do is take up those issues that still linger now, four decades after the civil rights movement, and frame them as they were originally raised:

equal rights (not “special rights,” as the conservatives would have you believe).

Lorraine sounds off on this topic today:

Maybe you think that abortion and gay marriage don’t matter. Maybe you think they’re things we’re distracting ourselves with. But my argument, nay, my plea, would be for us as progressives to consider the personal issues as political issues and realize that if we take away anyone’s right to privacy, eventually, we will lose our own.

We need to reclaim the body. If we claim the body, then we are able to say categorically that torture, capital punishment, sexual repression, gender inequality, are not part of the progressive agenda. If we claim the right to privacy, we are able to say that illegal search and seizure, religious indoctrination in schools, public prayer, refusal to sell Plan B, abstinence-only education…all of these things…are not acceptable. If we claim gender as power differential, we are able to see how the sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners is tied into notions of dominance…the same notions of dominance that will be used against all of us.

Why does this problem of perception persist? My guess is that primarily it’s a cultural thing. Men generally cannot — or perhaps simply do not — understand the privilege they enjoy. Some men seem to be actually very afraid of feminism and women’s equality. But even the most “liberal-minded” men can find all sorts of ways to justify their chauvinism.

Ultimately I think it comes down to this assumption of role as judge of what is or is not “appropriate” or “important shit” even when — or especially when — it comes to women’s experiences and issues women consider important. It is this aspect of male privilege that might be the most pernicious challenge to progressive politics — that issues that women consider important are only important if the man judges them as important.

I think that often we end up collaborating and encouraging this behavior by going along, shutting up and biting our tongues (or avoiding dissenting thoughts altogether) so as to maintain the peace and avoid unpleasant confrontation. When there are nutjobs out there like the wingnuts, MRA agitators and other out-and-proud misogynists, the passive-aggressive liberal patriarch can seem rather innocuous.

But sometimes the last straw falls, and this past weekend’s Kos-fest over gender broke the camel’s back for many of us.

Lorraine ends her post with this admonition:

You do not have to be a woman to recognize that gender and feminism are inextricably tied to the progressive agenda. You do not have to be a woman to recognize that when progressive males start shitting on so-called women’s issues, they are missing the point. If you do not understand how power works, how it is rooted in the binary oppositions that we ascribe to the sexes, then you will continue to focus on saving one tree while the entire forest is being razed.

Yet this is the blind spot in many progressive circles, where macho doesn’t disappear simply because it wears a peace sign. The internecine squabbling that goes on in the grassroots progressive world has been a source of great frustration to many of us. Wanting to change that paradigm, some smart folks started up DemSpeak with the intention of finding common framing language and activist strategies to be shared with any and all who are open to new ideas. (Disclosure: I signed on with them to help with the website administration and theming.)

How the progressive blogosphere responds over the coming weeks will be rather telling. My guess is that the alpha males will hold their ground, and we women will go off and do our own thing, and now and then hold our noses to go along with the liberal patriarch orthodoxy.

Change happens slowly, and then suddenly. If the rock face didn’t fall in this wave, some cracks spread out to make it more likely in the future. Something’s gotta give.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Elections and politics, Feminism, sexism, etc | 18 Comments

Boyfriend Gets Life Sentence Under "Fetal Protection" Law

UPDATE: Several folks in the comments, especially Portia and Radfem, read more closely than I did and noticed that there’s a disturbing pattern here; regardless of whether or not she really did want him to hit her to cause a miscarraige, the boyfriend is an abuser.

From the Houston Press:

“Later that morning, Davis and Lieutenant Mike Shapaka picked up Jerry at Lufkin High School for questioning. In the interview room, Jerry admitted to hitting Erica the night before, but only on the arms. He’d been out with friends, he said, and she tore into him about coming home so late. So he hit her a few times, just to get her to leave him alone.

Davis and Shapaka asked if he’d ever hit Erica before.

Yes, he said, but he always aimed for the arms.

As Thomas wrote:

If he was only attacking the fetuses there would be, at most, a strray bruise here or there. He’s a liar. His admitted abuse, and his likely pattern of abuse, also brings into question whether she really wanted to terminate the pregnancy, or was coerced into that by her boyfriend. (From my view on abortion, it follows that she had an absolute right to carry the pregnancy to term, and she’s entitled to be vindicated for the deprivation of that right as well.)

Like I said, if _all_ he did was help attack fetuses in her body with her consent, I have no problem with it. But that’s not what happened here. If he coerced her to terminate a pregnancy, threatened her or abused her (and he admits that he did), then he belongs in jail (for abusing her, not the fetuses, to which I concede no rights). The articles you supplied, Radfem, makes it clear to me that the latter is what happened, which totally alters my view of what ought to happen to this guy. He wasn’t trying to help her terminate an unwanted pregnancy. He was abusing her, and maybe forcing her to terminate a pregnancy that, whether planned or not, she had not freely chosen to terminate.

Clearly I posted too soon. My apologies to everyone for screwing this one up, and thank you Radfem and Portia for spotting my error.

Original post follows.

Continue reading

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 117 Comments

Various readings about Lakoff and Framing

George Lakoff’s idea of “framing” is very much “in” among liberals nowadays. Frances Moore Lappé sums it up well:

“Frames,”? according to Lakoff, are the key to understanding how political ideas are received. Human beings don’t absorb information as raw material; we sift input through frames of meaning carried in the language we use.

Lakoff’s central idea is that conservatives see the world through a “strict father”? frame emphasizing discipline, self-reliance, forceful defense, while progressives see the world through a “nurturant parent”? frame…supportive, nourishing, emphasizing mutual responsibility. Lakoff claims that thirty-five to 40 percent of Americans fall into each camp, although most are some sort of mix.

The Right, Lakoff points out, is extremely good at selling their policies in clear, easy to understand “strict father”? frames. Progressives, on the other hand, too often seem to offer laundry lists of issues lacking any overarching moral framework.

So, it’s easy to see why progressives are rallying around Lakoff’s call to arms. Since polls show majorities actually agree with the progressive agenda on many key issues, including corporate power, the environment and abortion, focusing on “framing”? issues in ways that Americans can understand them seems like the answer they’ve been praying for. Certainly, much of Lakoff’s advice about communicating progressive ideas is powerfully insightful and right on target.

I’ve been resistant to Lakoff’s frames, partly because they seem too crude to really say much about real-world politics. Doug Muder’s reformulation of Lakoff’s two categories into the Inherited Obligation family and the Negotiated Commitment family seems, to me, much more likely to reflect how people are really feeling:.

The right distinction isn’t between the conservative nuclear family and the liberal nuclear family, but between two completely different ways of experiencing family. Those two modes of experience may express themselves in families that are not nuclear at all.

The key distinction in Ault’s account is not strictness vs. nurturance, but the Given vs. the Chosen. What, in other words, is the source of your responsibilities to other people? Are you born with obligations? Or do you choose to make commitments? As with strictness and nurturance, every actual person experiences some combination of obligation and commitment. But emphasizing one or the other makes a striking difference. […]

Several liberal/conservative issues become much clearer in this analysis than they are in Lakoff.

Abortion. In the Inherited Obligation model, having children is an obligation, not a choice. Of course a pregnant woman may find it inconvenient to have a child at this point in her life, but that’s no reason to let her opt out – obligations are almost always inconvenient. In the long run, however, children are a good deal; their obligation to you pays off when you are old. In demanding that a young woman carry a fetus to term, then, society is looking out for long-term interests she may not yet have the perspective to see.

Conversely, in the Negotiated Commitment model nurturance is a gift, not an investment. A child is more like a work of art and less like a retirement plan. Having a child out of obligation, without a sense of commitment, is seen as a recipe for disaster. Pregnancies that result from rape, ignorance, or a birth-control failure are set up for such a disaster. If society is going to hold a prospective mother responsible for the welfare of her child – and it should – she must be given a chance to decide whether this child is her project or not.

Same-sex marriage. The husband/father and wife/mother roles in the Inherited Obligation model are timeless, unchangeable, and necessary. Someone has to be the husband/father and someone has to be the wife/mother. Same-sex couples just can’t cover both roles, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

But no comparable difficulty exists in the Negotiated Commitment model. A child has needs, and the parents have to negotiate a plan to meet those needs. Whether the parents are a mixed-sex couple or a same-sex couple – or even a single parent with a lot of committed friends – the problem is the same.

Mulder is also very interesting discussing why it is “Inherited Obligation” families often see the “Negotiated Commitment” model as a threat to their way of life, rather than just a harmless live-and-let-live alternative.

Our belief in negotiated commitment – that people are not obligated to relationships they did not choose – is like one of those devastating European germs that white settlers spread throughout the world three centuries ago. We are immune; our families are based on negotiated commitments and (though they are far from perfect) work quite well in that environment – as long as we can maintain the social safety net.

But Inherited Obligation families are not doing nearly so well. Blue states consistently lead red states in statistical measures of familial success – low divorce rate, low drop-out rate, low violent crime, low teen pregnancy. Divorce rates in particular seem to vary inversely to liberalism: conservative Baptist marriages fail far more often than those from more liberal Christian denominations.

We have trouble grasping how tolerance can be threatening. Ault explains:

Liberally minded people often do not realize … that rather than respecting fundamentalists views, they are denying them by insisting that religious beliefs or ethical standards be seen as personal, private matters we must all tolerate in one another – that moral standards are relative, not absolute. … Shawmut River’s commitment to absolutes was in keeping with the binding character they saw in the family obligations through which their world was organized. To see moral standards as personal and relative, on the other hand, widened the scope of individual autonomy and freedom in ways that denied and threatened to undermine lives that depended upon seeing family obligations as nondiscretionary – not as something individuals can choose or not choose, but as absolutes they have to accept.

Meanwhile, a lot of Democrats, drawing on Lakoff (sort of), are saying that we have to “reframe” our advocacy of reproductive rights; we have to talk about “freedom” rather than “choice,” and so on. I’m pretty much a “whatever works” person; there are dozens of correct arguments in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal, and we should be willing to try all of them out and see which ones work.

But talking about how to “frame” arguments in favor of legal abortion and other feminist issues seem a bit besides the point. As Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women sharply observes, “Dems spend far more time trying to find new and clever ways to talk about abortion rights than they actually spend talking about a woman’s right to choose motherhood or not. ” She links to this terrific article by Martha Burk:

Lakoff is probably right that Bush’s appeal to women and men alike was more emotional than rational. But the erosion of women’s support for Democrats was also a result of the Kerry campaign strategy. The Kerry campaign shied away from talking to women at all, choosing instead to go for the white male warrior vote. Women’s advocates were alarmed about this from the beginning, when the Democrats refused to fund a strategy to get women to the polls, while the Bush team had a person in every precinct who was responsible for turning out the female “W”? vote.

Even female Republican pollsters like Kellyanne Conway admit that women lean Democratic “if left to their own devices.”? That’s because women depend more on the social safety net (the compassionate “parent government”? in Lakoff-speak), and the Democrats have traditionally stood for better social services like expanding health care and child care, and ensuring retirement through Social Security (women’s main source of retirement income ). But the Democrats failed to exploit this natural advantage, instead trying to out-tough-guy Bush on the war and homeland security. According to the Votes for Women 2004 project, Republican women’s events were about how much the campaign valued women, while Democratic women’s events were about extracting money from female donors to use on general campaign themes. Significantly, among women who stayed away from the polls, homeland security ranked third behind the top concerns of jobs and economic security and health care security.

Leaving women out of the debate was not new for the Democrats. They have shown us in the last two elections that they don’t want to be too vocal about women. Every time George Bush said to Al Gore, “I don’t trust the government, I trust the people,”? Gore had the perfect opportunity to counter with “except for women in making their own decisions about their own bodies.”? He never once took that opportunity. In 2004, the Dems avoided “women’s issues”? at every turn, even taking the Equal Rights Amendment out of the platform for the first time in 40 years. When their own internal polling showed the pay gap as one of the top concerns for women, the candidate didn’t want to talk about it publicly. As for the abortion issue, only those far inside the Beltway could decode Kerry’s rambling answer in the final debate to conclude he was…sorry, Howard…pro-choice. Even so, the DNC is now blaming the loss on “being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion,”? according to Dean.

(Curtsies to Marriage Debate and Lucinda Marshall.)

Posted in Elections and politics | 30 Comments

Forty years later and women are still putting up with b.s. about their birth control

With the slow rolling back of women’s reproductive rights taking place within our country let’s take a moment and observe the forty-year anniversary of a landmark Supreme Court decision that guaranteed a woman’s privacy and right to control her reproductive destiny….but for how long?

Planned Parenthood Celebrates 40 Years of Protected Birth Control
Forty Years After Griswold v. Connecticut Case, Women Still Face Obstacles to Accessing Reliable Birth Control Options

WASHINGTON, DC … On June 7, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) will celebrate the 40th anniversary of constitutional protection for using birth control in the United States. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that made the use of birth control by married couples illegal with its ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. However, 40 years later, women still face unnecessary and often politically-motivated barriers to contraception.

[…]

“As we celebrate today, we know that the battle for access to birth control is not over,” PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl said. “Even now, we are in the midst of fighting off legislation and policies that would deny women their birth control prescriptions at pharmacies. The future of the Supreme Court is shaky at best. Planned Parenthood will continue to be the leading advocate for reproductive health and rights wherever they are threatened.”

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision was announced June 7, 1965 … five years after FDA approval of the birth control pill and 49 years after Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States. Griswold paved the way for the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Eisenstadt v. Baird, which expanded the protection of birth control to unmarried women … and for the widespread use of contraception that exists today…[…]

Yes, a widespread usage that comes with the price of some women being humiliated and turned-down when trying to refill their birth control prescriptions, due to the vehement anti-choice/anti-contraceptive forces that have taken control of politics within this country. Thankfully we do have the pill and access to it, but for some of us who only have certain pharmacies around us, simply trying to obtain it can be an unnecessary gauntlet that some women must run. But some stumble and are unable to obtain the pill, so some resort to abortions that could have been avoided if the woman had easy access to contraceptive medication. The “gauntlet” has been thrown at women who dare want to control their reproductive destinies, manage their hormonal issues, and even enjoy sex with a reduced risk and fear of an unintentional/unwanted pregnancy. Well, even with the pill the sex might not be good anyway, but you know what I mean.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Anti-feminists and their pals, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc. | Comments Off on Forty years later and women are still putting up with b.s. about their birth control

The issue of violence against women and why it's so damn hard to talk about

I wonder how long it will take for a possible thread of this post to turn into a “oh, wah, you’re forgetting about the violence and abuses men suffer,” flame war. Though this post is about violence against women and the “uniqueness” and seriousness of this problem. We do live in a culture and face a legal and political system that puts women and girls at a disadvantage, and regard our civil rights to be easily compromised when certain politicians view them to be too much of an inconvenience to preserve. But it’s really difficult to discuss the subject of violence against women, as it almost always–when it’s brought up by women–turns into an accusation against those women for “being sexist,” and an embarrassing placation to certain men in the audience. Why do we have to make sure we don’t “hurt men’s feelings” or “offend them” when talking about violence against women just so we can even discuss it to begin with?

Raising awarenss about violence against women and girls–specifically in the home–and taking steps to prevent it, forces us to confront the misogyny and male privilege within our culture, and our legal and political system’s patriarchal tendancies. Gosh, and why dare cite, question, and criticize those little realities? It’s never a pretty site when confronting and acknowledging how our culture and society perpetuates violence against women through its treatment of us, and our calls for more awareness and prevention are often dismissed as “female hysteria.” Especially when you point out that most of this violence is committed by men and is condoned by the “boys will be boys” mentality of our culture. Oh no, then you’re called a man-hater, a bigot, and a sexist for pointing that out! Best of all the whole problem is often minimalized when some people make statements such as, “oh, domestic violence happens to men too,” (though on a lower scale), as an attempt to derail the entire issue–if not, completely suppress it. As with women being its focal point and this specifically effecting us, why even bother addressing this problem and the social factors that contribute to it at all? Or you could, and just marginalize it, so you can get away with ignoring the real issue all together.

Here’s V-Day: Until the Violence Stops with more on the issue of violence being directed specifically against women and girls, and some sources and statistics.

Violence Against Women Statistics

The fact that numerous studies and reports are done on violence against women and have resulted in equally numerous statistics emphasizes that violence against women is a serious problem plaguing the world’s women and girls. Some statistics are more relevant, reliable or telling than others and similar statistics from different studies or reports can seem to conflict with one another. This is because there are several variables that affect the collection of data and the formulation of statistics: the size of a study’s sample, the duration of the study, how recent the study is, the location of the study, the words used in the questions, the definitions of key terms, among many others factors. So, when using any statistics, cite them accurately, use them in the appropriate context, and be aware of their vulnerabilities.

Following are a selection of the best web sites at which to find and verify violence against women statistics:

World Health Organization
Department of Justice
Department of Justice’s Violence Against Women Office
Department of Justice’s On-line Resources
RAINN
Feminist.com
Family Violence Prevention Fund

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Feminism, sexism, etc, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 60 Comments

A few fat-related links

  • Make sure to read this excellent Scientific American article which very nearly destroys the “fat is death” paradigm. (Curtsey: “Alas” reader Justice.)
  • This BBC article reports on a study which found that, in women, it’s healthier to have a lot of fat around the hips and thighs. “Compared to the group of women with the smallest hip circumferences, women with the biggest were found to have an 87% reduction in deaths. They also had an 86% reduced risk of having coronary heart disease and a 46% reduction in the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, according to the researchers.” (Curtsies to Kristy and Robert.)
  • Stay Free! Daily has a good critique of an Independant article which implied that anorexia is all about the genes and has little to do with social norms.
  • As Big Fat Blog reports, Buenos Aires, in an attempt to combat eating disorders, has passed a law forcing clothing stores to carry a range of sizes.
Posted in Fat, fat and more fat, Link farms | 14 Comments

A Policy of Rape

This Nicholas Kristof op-ed in the Times, about rape in Darfur, is brutal, but also a must-read.

On March 26, a 17-year-old student named Hawa went to a French-run clinic in Kalma and reported that she had been raped. A French midwife examined her and confirmed that she was bleeding and had been raped.

But an informer in the clinic alerted the police, who barged in and – over the determined protests of two Frenchwomen – carried Hawa off to a police hospital, where she was chained to a cot by one leg and one arm. A doctor there declared that she had not been raped after all, and Hawa was then imprisoned for a couple of days. The authorities are now proposing that she be charged with submitting false information.

The attacks are sometimes purely about humiliation. Some women are raped with sticks that tear apart their insides, leaving them constantly trickling urine. One Sudanese woman working for a European aid organization was raped with a bayonet. […]

I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped. The reason is an indication of how utterly we are failing the people of Darfur, two years into the first genocide of the 21st century.

“It’s simple,” one woman here explained. “When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.”

Read the whole thing. Thanks to Robert for the tip.

UPDATE: And read this post by Seth Chalmer, as well:

Even from Darfur activists, I’ve usually heard the victims described as “non-Arab tribes”, or “African tribes”. I’ve used that terminology myself, because I’ve heard it from others.

Why aren’t we saying the blunt truth? Complexities there may be, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Janjaweed are trying to murder all black people.

Posted in International issues, Race, racism and related issues, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 6 Comments

The Ban on Women Drivers in Saudi Arabia

Interesting AP article about the issue of women and driving in Saudi Arabia. Here’s a few bits, but it’s worth clicking over and reading the whole thing:

He just wanted his colleagues in the government’s legislative arm to discuss the possibility of conducting a study into the feasibility of reversing the ban on women drivers … the only prohibition of its kind in the world.

But Consultative Council member Mohammad al-Zulfa’s proposal has unleashed a storm in this conservative country where the subject of women drivers remains taboo. […] There even have been calls to kick al-Zulfa from the council and strip him of his Saudi nationality. […]

Conservatives, who believe women should be shielded from strange men, say driving will allow a woman to leave home whenever she pleases and go wherever she wishes. Some say it will present her with opportunities to violate Islamic law, such as exposing her eyes while driving or interacting with strange men, like police officers or mechanics.

“Driving by women leads to evil,” Munir al-Shahrani wrote in a letter to the editor of the Al-Watan daily. “Can you imagine what it will be like if her car broke down? She would have to seek help from men.” […] The driving prohibition has forced families to hire live-in drivers, who, strangely, are allowed to be alone with women. […]

Many women activists also welcomed al-Zulfa’s suggestion. But others lashed out at him for using the issue to project himself as a reformer.

Via Darnell Clayton at BNN.

Posted in International issues | 2 Comments