Friday, September 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Ending domestic violence against men
In an effort to educate people about domestic violence, the Pennsylvania state legislature proposed that October be designated as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The seemingly benign resolution has faced hostility from one Representative, though, who claims that the proposal "had a homosexual agenda," detected in the language, "one in six women and one in 33 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape."
In what looks like a weak effort at martyring himself as a women's rights advocate, Representative Daryl Metcalfe said, "I don't support the resolution or funding for groups that go beyond helping women." Although proportionally small, there were over 800,000 reported cases of domestic violence against men in the US last year. Beyond the numbers, though, is the problem with Metcalfe's reasoning that helping women only is enough. A meaningful feminist effort at ending domestic violence includes men in its educational efforts, whether those men are victims or perpetrators.
Imposing homophobia on the state's good faith effort to bring needed attention to domestic violence does a disservice to the men and women of Pennsylvania. (Thank you, Vicki, for the tip.) -Sara
In what looks like a weak effort at martyring himself as a women's rights advocate, Representative Daryl Metcalfe said, "I don't support the resolution or funding for groups that go beyond helping women." Although proportionally small, there were over 800,000 reported cases of domestic violence against men in the US last year. Beyond the numbers, though, is the problem with Metcalfe's reasoning that helping women only is enough. A meaningful feminist effort at ending domestic violence includes men in its educational efforts, whether those men are victims or perpetrators.
Imposing homophobia on the state's good faith effort to bring needed attention to domestic violence does a disservice to the men and women of Pennsylvania. (Thank you, Vicki, for the tip.) -Sara
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Anti-choice activists gear up
Over at RH Reality Check, Denver muckraker Wendy Norris has a great piece on three anti-abortion ballot initiatives simmering in Florida, Colorado and Montana. The initiatives, which seek to proffer constitutional rights to fertilized eggs, represent a relatively new tactic for anti-choice groups which have previously painted abortion as a moral issue or a threat to women's mental health. The "egg as a person" law, as Norris calls it, flopped in Colorado last year. Heeding Georgetown University bioethicist Dianne Irving's advice, Colorado organizers have this year tweaked the ballot language to avoid using the term "fertilized egg" in favor of the ambiguous phrase "from the beginning of biological development." Keep your eyes peeled for Colorado activists who kicked off their signature-gathering efforts last month at the Colorado State Fair. They need 76,000 valid signatures by February to get the initiative on the 2010 state ballot. -Naomi
Monday, September 21, 2009
Hey ladies, why the long faces?
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but what's the problem with women these days? First we want out of the house and now that we've made enormous strides in the work world we're still not happy? We women are just impossible to please.
The above, more or less, is the gist of a recent Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times in which the ever-so-trenchant Dowd cites a General Social Survey stating that men are getting happier as women are getting sadder. Dowd shows little surprise and even less skepticism regarding the study. Of course women are bummed out, she says, since we're biologically predestined to look wistfully out the window:
"...women are hormonally more complicated and biologically more vulnerable," she writes. "Women are much harder on themselves than men. They tend to attach to other people more strongly, beat themselves up more when they lose attachments, take things more personally at work and pop far more antidepressants."
Dowd relies so heavily on these stale gender stereotypes that she completely rejects one plausible theory as to why some women truly are stressed: the fact that working women still take on the lion's share of domestic tasks.
"[Experts] dispute the idea that the variance in happiness is caused by women carrying a bigger burden of work at home, the 'second shift,'" she writes. "They say that while women still do more cooking, cleaning and child-caring, the trend lines are moving toward more parity, which should make them less stressed."
Dowd is right about one thing, however. On top of societal pressure to be young-looking, fit, attentive mothers, women now face the stress of the work world too. But does all this pressure, as the study suggests, amount to despondency? As a journalist, Dowd should have flexed her skeptic's muscle and assessed the survey itself. It's quite possible that half a century ago, women not only felt trapped by their domestic fetters, but they also felt guilty about expressing this dissatisfaction. Women today, on the other hand, might be more open about their happiness or the lack thereof. Dowd does her readers a disservice by regurgitating tired cliches about women and their unpredictable moods. Once we move past the blather of biological determinism, then perhaps we can have an honest conversation about the state of our collective contentment. -Naomi (Thanks, Lindsay, for the tip.)
The above, more or less, is the gist of a recent Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times in which the ever-so-trenchant Dowd cites a General Social Survey stating that men are getting happier as women are getting sadder. Dowd shows little surprise and even less skepticism regarding the study. Of course women are bummed out, she says, since we're biologically predestined to look wistfully out the window:
"...women are hormonally more complicated and biologically more vulnerable," she writes. "Women are much harder on themselves than men. They tend to attach to other people more strongly, beat themselves up more when they lose attachments, take things more personally at work and pop far more antidepressants."
Dowd relies so heavily on these stale gender stereotypes that she completely rejects one plausible theory as to why some women truly are stressed: the fact that working women still take on the lion's share of domestic tasks.
"[Experts] dispute the idea that the variance in happiness is caused by women carrying a bigger burden of work at home, the 'second shift,'" she writes. "They say that while women still do more cooking, cleaning and child-caring, the trend lines are moving toward more parity, which should make them less stressed."
Dowd is right about one thing, however. On top of societal pressure to be young-looking, fit, attentive mothers, women now face the stress of the work world too. But does all this pressure, as the study suggests, amount to despondency? As a journalist, Dowd should have flexed her skeptic's muscle and assessed the survey itself. It's quite possible that half a century ago, women not only felt trapped by their domestic fetters, but they also felt guilty about expressing this dissatisfaction. Women today, on the other hand, might be more open about their happiness or the lack thereof. Dowd does her readers a disservice by regurgitating tired cliches about women and their unpredictable moods. Once we move past the blather of biological determinism, then perhaps we can have an honest conversation about the state of our collective contentment. -Naomi (Thanks, Lindsay, for the tip.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
