Alexis Hutchinson, a 21-year-old Army cook, was arrested last November when she didn't deploy to Afghanistan because her mother backed out of caring for her son during her tour. Now, Hutchinson is back in the news because the military opted not to court martial her; instead she received an other-than-honorable discharge and she lost her veteran's benefits. Though, as the New York Times writes, Hutchinson "did what might seem natural to a parent" by staying with her son in lieu of a caretaker, the military thinks otherwise, contending that Hutchinson “didn’t intend to deploy to Afghanistan with her unit and deliberately sought ways out of the deployment."
Feministing points out the damned-if-she-does, damned-if-she-doesn't element to this story: "Amazing, if she left her child with no care, she would be demonized as a neglectful mother. She stays with her child to care for him and now she was lying and using him as a ploy to get out of her job."
The Atlantic Monthly wonders "how well does the military treat single mothers?" and answers the question with a fantastic round-up of commentary surrounding the three-month Hutchinson affair, noting that while "the issue has been resolved with less drama than initially expected, it has sparked debate over the intersection of child care, parenting, and an increasingly overextended military." -TLF
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Holding elected officials accountable: summing up today's news
New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate was expelled from the senate this week in response to his conviction for a sexual assault misdemeanor. Monserrate was among the 8 senators who voted in his favor (to the 53 who voted to remove him from the Senate), and according the New York Times, he said, "The actions that I’ve committed do not rise to the level of expulsion.”
The actions in question consist of Monserrate dragging his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, from her building as she held on to the front door, beating her, and slashing her across the face with a piece of glass, requiring 25 stitches. One witness described Giraldo as "a terrified woman, begging for help," according to reports in the New York Daily News and on NY1.
Among the senators who voted in Monserrate's defense was Ruben Diaz, who gave an impassioned speech arguing that the entire vote was predicated on racism: "...They form a committe to go after the Hispanic one, to get even. So ladies and gentlemen, go ahead, and get even!" (It's also worth watching to see the infuriating moment in which Diaz identifies other Hispanic members of Congress, but forgets the name of "that lady," pointing in what is presumably the direction where a Hispanic woman member of Congress sits.) You can watch Diaz's speech here:
NPR's Political Junkie blog takes a look at what the explusion means politically for the already divided Democrats in New York, and Feministing weighed in here. Democrats originally stood by Monserrate on the grounds that the violence was accidental. To turn offenses like this into a partisan political tool is dreadfully unpalatable, and we applaud the New York Senate for taking Monserrate's actions seriously. Holding elected officials accountable for violent crimes against women isn't about "getting even," it's about basic moral precedent and responsibility. -TLF
The actions in question consist of Monserrate dragging his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, from her building as she held on to the front door, beating her, and slashing her across the face with a piece of glass, requiring 25 stitches. One witness described Giraldo as "a terrified woman, begging for help," according to reports in the New York Daily News and on NY1.
Among the senators who voted in Monserrate's defense was Ruben Diaz, who gave an impassioned speech arguing that the entire vote was predicated on racism: "...They form a committe to go after the Hispanic one, to get even. So ladies and gentlemen, go ahead, and get even!" (It's also worth watching to see the infuriating moment in which Diaz identifies other Hispanic members of Congress, but forgets the name of "that lady," pointing in what is presumably the direction where a Hispanic woman member of Congress sits.) You can watch Diaz's speech here:
NPR's Political Junkie blog takes a look at what the explusion means politically for the already divided Democrats in New York, and Feministing weighed in here. Democrats originally stood by Monserrate on the grounds that the violence was accidental. To turn offenses like this into a partisan political tool is dreadfully unpalatable, and we applaud the New York Senate for taking Monserrate's actions seriously. Holding elected officials accountable for violent crimes against women isn't about "getting even," it's about basic moral precedent and responsibility. -TLF
Virginity for sale
It's no secret that there is a robust global marketplace for sex. Last fall, Freakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner argued that prostitution operates like any old rags-to-riches opportunistic business: work hard, excel, make more money. "There is one labour market women have always dominated: prostitution," they write. "Its business model is built upon a simple premise. Since time immemorial and all over the world, men have wanted more sex than they could get for free. So what inevitably emerges is a supply of women who, for the right price, are willing to satisfy this demand. But what is the right price?" According to Double X, the going rate for a virgin is "at least $10,000 if the woman is reasonably attractive and under 25." Double X highlights one woman of whom the Freakonomics authors would be proud:
Dylan may well have been empowered by selling her virginity, but for many women, prostitution is a form of slavery. (The National Human Trafficking Resource Center has a good fact sheet here.) It's the same economic model that some women use as an empowering tool to fund advanced degrees that forces some women into a lifetime of debt bondage. In an excellent series on teenage runaways, the New York Times wrote that "nearly a third of the children who flee or are kicked out of their homes each year engage in sex for food, drugs or a place to stay."
Perhaps this is simply the everyday capitalist continuum as it applies to sex work, ranging from those who are underpaid by middlemen to those who are successful entrepreneurs. I won't argue that it's shameful to consider sex as a transaction, but I do maintain that a cultural endorsement of putting women's bodies on sale is one that endangers women everyday, in the name of men's pleasure. Women working as prostitutes are routinely abused and assaulted by their pimps. It's hard to look at a seven-figure virginity sale positively when women in the same business are held in debt bondage indefinitely, or are murdered at work. Levitt and Dubner think that it's an advantage for women that they dominate the sex market, but I see a systemic devaluation of women that institutionalizes violence, which makes it hard to celebrate a successful marketing campaign for one's virginity. -Sara
"Natalie Dylan is the ultimate virginity-marketing mogul. A 22-year-old women’s studies graduate from Sacramento State, Dylan needed the money to pay for her master’s degree in family and marriage therapy....After her media blitz, Dylan received over 10,000 bids, half of which were for over $1 million. Dylan approached her virginity like a good capitalist. 'The value of my chastity is one level on which men cannot compete with me... I decided to flip the equation, and turn my virginity into something that allows me to gain power and opportunity from men.'”I've blogged about money and power in relationships in the past, in the context of sugar daddies--distinct from sex work in that sugar daddy/sugar baby relationships are, well, relationships. I wrote that "what's most distressing is not the transaction-oriented nature of this [sugar daddy] dating web site, but the persistent role that gender plays in determining the power." I do not take issue with the commodification of sex, even in the context of sex work. What makes me squirm about the virginity auctions (one woman sold hers for $32,000 online last week) and about the overly simplistic supply-and-demand analysis provided by Levitt and Dubner is not only how strikingly archaic these transactions seem (Double X points out that in "the book of Deuteronomy, a girl’s virginity is worth 50 shekels, paid to her father"), but the flippant disregard to oppression that is often linked to prostitution.
Dylan may well have been empowered by selling her virginity, but for many women, prostitution is a form of slavery. (The National Human Trafficking Resource Center has a good fact sheet here.) It's the same economic model that some women use as an empowering tool to fund advanced degrees that forces some women into a lifetime of debt bondage. In an excellent series on teenage runaways, the New York Times wrote that "nearly a third of the children who flee or are kicked out of their homes each year engage in sex for food, drugs or a place to stay."
Perhaps this is simply the everyday capitalist continuum as it applies to sex work, ranging from those who are underpaid by middlemen to those who are successful entrepreneurs. I won't argue that it's shameful to consider sex as a transaction, but I do maintain that a cultural endorsement of putting women's bodies on sale is one that endangers women everyday, in the name of men's pleasure. Women working as prostitutes are routinely abused and assaulted by their pimps. It's hard to look at a seven-figure virginity sale positively when women in the same business are held in debt bondage indefinitely, or are murdered at work. Levitt and Dubner think that it's an advantage for women that they dominate the sex market, but I see a systemic devaluation of women that institutionalizes violence, which makes it hard to celebrate a successful marketing campaign for one's virginity. -Sara
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Dating Joe College: summing up today's news
The proportional rise of women in US colleges and universities (according to NPR, the student population has skewed toward women 57/43 for the better part of the last decade) is a celebrated victory for feminists, but there may an uglier side to this achievement for young, smart, ambitious women: heterosexual dating.
Feministing wrote that the Times story paints "a portrait of college life that basically offends everyone," playing into stereotypes of men and women. And, to view women's academic success as a handicap (only when it comes to a traditional model of dating and marriage, that is) is to undermine and misrepresent women's goals.
Will negotiations with the Taliban hurt or help Afghan women?
Talks with the Taliban might be the Obama administration's newest strategy in its ongoing war in Afghanistan, as more and more grow weary with increasingly expensive and futile military strategies. No U.S. officials have yet met with any Taliban, and U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke maintains that talks are "not an alternative to the military campaign." But Afghan President Hamid Karzai is already taking the first steps. He said earlier this week at a Munich press conference that he'd create a council to oversee the process, a goal of his second term. He recently visited Saudi Arabia to ask for help in brokering the talks, which would require conditions on the Taliban to "renounce violence, sever ties with al-Qaeda and respect the constitution."
These developments have ignited a new round of debate among and around Afghan women. Some worry talks will signal a green light for the Taliban to reimpose its brutal restrictions on Afghan women once again, which included forbidding women from working outside the home, attending school, using cosmetics, laughing out loud, riding a bike, dressing without a full burka, being photographed, and more. Others argue Afghan women have come fairly far since the Taliban's fall and it'd be impossible to regress. Besides, they say, conditions of the talks would allow no "rollbacks." Still others say many of these restrictions haven't disappeared much under Karzai's rule, especially outside Kabul, as many members of the Afghan government--some recognized warlords--are just as misogynistic as the Taliban. In talks, the U.S. should pressure Karzai to push for more rights for women.
Surely, however, our continued military presence in Afghanistan hurts Afghan women. It has further destabilized the country and continues to ignite the ire of most Afghan men, including Taliban, which leads to increased violence and inequities for women. (This explains why many Afghan women call for immediate withdrawal and an investment in humanitarian and economic aid, including former Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya, who recently penned this book.) Talks with the enemy--however brutal and horrific the Taliban's actions have been--might be the best way to get U.S. troops out as quickly and safely as possible, leaving little possibility for a vacuum of power that allows for rollbacks.
Afghan women must be included in the decisions to engage in talks, however, if the U.S. and the Karzai governments truly intend to preserve the few strides they've made and allow Afghan women to secure more. -Jean
These developments have ignited a new round of debate among and around Afghan women. Some worry talks will signal a green light for the Taliban to reimpose its brutal restrictions on Afghan women once again, which included forbidding women from working outside the home, attending school, using cosmetics, laughing out loud, riding a bike, dressing without a full burka, being photographed, and more. Others argue Afghan women have come fairly far since the Taliban's fall and it'd be impossible to regress. Besides, they say, conditions of the talks would allow no "rollbacks." Still others say many of these restrictions haven't disappeared much under Karzai's rule, especially outside Kabul, as many members of the Afghan government--some recognized warlords--are just as misogynistic as the Taliban. In talks, the U.S. should pressure Karzai to push for more rights for women.
Surely, however, our continued military presence in Afghanistan hurts Afghan women. It has further destabilized the country and continues to ignite the ire of most Afghan men, including Taliban, which leads to increased violence and inequities for women. (This explains why many Afghan women call for immediate withdrawal and an investment in humanitarian and economic aid, including former Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya, who recently penned this book.) Talks with the enemy--however brutal and horrific the Taliban's actions have been--might be the best way to get U.S. troops out as quickly and safely as possible, leaving little possibility for a vacuum of power that allows for rollbacks.
Afghan women must be included in the decisions to engage in talks, however, if the U.S. and the Karzai governments truly intend to preserve the few strides they've made and allow Afghan women to secure more. -Jean
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tebow ad fallout: summing up today's news
The Super Bowl has come and gone, but the controversy over the Tim Tebow ad (above) still simmers in the feminist blogosphere. The ad, which aired during the first quarter of the game, turned out to be a lot tamer than its critics and proponents alike had envisioned. Last week, The Lady Finger thought Tim Tebow's mom Pam would say something like this: "I could've had an abortion; my doctor recommended I did. But I didn't, and look at the vigorous son I bore, whose strength and masculinity would never have graced our football fields if I'd had an abortion. I urge you to choose life, too!" But she ended up saying something closer to this: "My family has had some tough times. But boy, do I love my son!" The most watched-for ad during the Super Bowl turned out to be a wishy-washy feel good clip, void of any of the messy politics that preceded it.
So what gives? Bitch Magazine says that Focus on the Family, which funded the ad (the first of its kind in CBS history), meant to call feminists' bluff by hyping the ad as explicitly anti-abortion in order to make the feminist outcry appear completely irrational when the ad actually ran. RHRealityCheck takes a different tack, demanding to know what really happened to Pam Tebow, who has reported two different versions of her "I chose life" story to the press and to Focus on the Family. Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon wonders, "Pam Tebow’s lines were all oblique references to her choice not to have an abortion, but if FotF felt the need to couch her story in such coded and oblique terms that it could have been an ad for Wii Family, doesn’t that say something incredibly telling about how weak and radical their position actually is?"
And before we wrap up, don't forget the best Super Bowl non ad of all time:
-TLF
Monday, February 8, 2010
Jenny Sanford speaks: summing up today's news
Jenny Sanford, who became widely known for being cheated on by her soon-to-be-ex-husband, Mark Sanford (the Governor of South Carolina, whose extramarital affair was made public back in June), has written a new book called Staying True to tell her story. At the time that the scandalous news broke, Sanford notably differed from the many wives of the many public figures who have cheated (which The Lady Finger addressed here) in that she chose not to stand by her husband.
The publication of her new book has Sanford back in the spotlight, albeit with a diminished, or at least disputed, public stature. Jezebel looks at some of the varied responses to the book here. ABC interviewed Sanford, and she also appeared on The View.
A Washington Post reviewer said, "I cheered the emergence of a new model for the wronged political spouse... Yet the most disappointing part of Staying True is that, consciously or not, Jenny Sanford reveals her own complicity -- not in facilitating her husband's affair, but in allowing herself to be treated so badly for so long" and "the disappointing part is that Jenny Sanford is, well, the very victim I had imagined her not to be. The book is replete with instances of Jenny-as-doormat, from the very start of their relationship and continuing, excruciatingly, months after her discovery of his affair."
The New York Times called the book an "elegant evisceration of a memoir" and looked at Sanford's victimized position as part of a more complicated series of pressures: "Women can be trapped in many ways, she said. She felt snared in their very public life." The LA Times took a snarky critical stand and says, "for all the pious references to forgiveness stitched throughout the narrative, revenge is a barely concealed subtext. And revenge she gets, but there's a good bit of collateral damage in what's just as obviously unintended self-revelation. In fact, by the time we get to the affair late in the book, it's a bit of a relief, since this is about the first normative impulse either of the Sanfords seems to have had during their marriage."
The reviewers disagree as to whether the book is victimizing or empowering, but it's at the very least courageous to expose one's private life so publicly, as Sanford has done. -TLF
The publication of her new book has Sanford back in the spotlight, albeit with a diminished, or at least disputed, public stature. Jezebel looks at some of the varied responses to the book here. ABC interviewed Sanford, and she also appeared on The View.
A Washington Post reviewer said, "I cheered the emergence of a new model for the wronged political spouse... Yet the most disappointing part of Staying True is that, consciously or not, Jenny Sanford reveals her own complicity -- not in facilitating her husband's affair, but in allowing herself to be treated so badly for so long" and "the disappointing part is that Jenny Sanford is, well, the very victim I had imagined her not to be. The book is replete with instances of Jenny-as-doormat, from the very start of their relationship and continuing, excruciatingly, months after her discovery of his affair."
The New York Times called the book an "elegant evisceration of a memoir" and looked at Sanford's victimized position as part of a more complicated series of pressures: "Women can be trapped in many ways, she said. She felt snared in their very public life." The LA Times took a snarky critical stand and says, "for all the pious references to forgiveness stitched throughout the narrative, revenge is a barely concealed subtext. And revenge she gets, but there's a good bit of collateral damage in what's just as obviously unintended self-revelation. In fact, by the time we get to the affair late in the book, it's a bit of a relief, since this is about the first normative impulse either of the Sanfords seems to have had during their marriage."
The reviewers disagree as to whether the book is victimizing or empowering, but it's at the very least courageous to expose one's private life so publicly, as Sanford has done. -TLF
What last night's Super Bowl ads teach us about women
-That our wombs are "hero-incubators," in the words of Jaclyn Friedman. (Via Focus on the Family.)
-That our breasts are so mesmerizing that they can obscure a shitty plot line. (Via GoDaddy.com, which, full disclosure, hosts our site.)
-That we're relentless, emasculating naggers, demanding that our men carry our lip balm and watch our vampire TV shows and be civil to our mothers, in spite of their inclinations to the contrary. (Via Dodge.)
-That we turn our men into spineless mall shoppers, powerless to assert their real desire to watch the game. (Via FLOTV.)
-That one near-naked photo of one of us can explode power lines, incite marital feuding, wreak havoc on home construction, and sell a phone. (Via Motorola.)
-That we're worth less than the tires on our husbands' cars. (Via Bridgestone.)
-That we like it when strange guys follow us on the street. (Via NCIS.) -Naomi
-That our breasts are so mesmerizing that they can obscure a shitty plot line. (Via GoDaddy.com, which, full disclosure, hosts our site.)
-That we're relentless, emasculating naggers, demanding that our men carry our lip balm and watch our vampire TV shows and be civil to our mothers, in spite of their inclinations to the contrary. (Via Dodge.)
-That we turn our men into spineless mall shoppers, powerless to assert their real desire to watch the game. (Via FLOTV.)
-That one near-naked photo of one of us can explode power lines, incite marital feuding, wreak havoc on home construction, and sell a phone. (Via Motorola.)
-That we're worth less than the tires on our husbands' cars. (Via Bridgestone.)
-That we like it when strange guys follow us on the street. (Via NCIS.) -Naomi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
