In the week following sexual assault charges filed against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, commentators have gotten caught up in an unusually meta debate, asking about the best way to talk about sexual assault charges (and, notably, drawing a distinction between charges and a conviction: innocent until proven guilty, after all). This case follows a rape charge filed against Roethlisberger in 2008.
As the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette explained, the victim's privacy is her discretionary choice, and so the media has declined to identify her. The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates expresses the journalistic conundrum this poses: "What, specifically, should we be saying? How should we be talking about the anonymous accuser? What, specifically, constitutes taking alleged sexual misconduct seriously? Should we really be in the business of denouncing 'alleged crimes?'" We're glad that writers are asking themselves how to talk about sexual assault cases, but in this case, there are plenty of models for the wrong way to do it. (The New York Times posted a round-up of said coverage here.)
Feministing provided a good response: we can, and should, presume innocent until proven guilty. But, "we can still evaluate the way the media portrays women when they bring about rape charges, the extent to which the general public will defend and accept athletes that have been accused (or down right guilty) of sexual assault, sexual abuse and/or domestic violence."
ESPN painted a picture of Roethlisberger as a great, innocent guy--the type of guy who would never hurt a lady, who was "'was very polite with everybody.'" And yet, "this latest situation seems to have shaken fans of the star quarterback, a man who has never hidden the fact he enjoys the nightlife. He has been spotted gambling in Las Vegas and is sometimes seen in public with small groups of friends and bodyguards." The Bleacher Report was even more offensive in saying, "Whether he assaulted the girl is irrelevant in my thinking at this point. What matters is why he put himself in this situation...again."
What's most stomach churning about these arguments is that they employ the same logic that is all too often applied to women who are victims of sexual assault--they were asking for it. Ms. Magazine identified this troubling thread and asks, "Yes Ben, why did you put yourself in that situation? How could you leave yourself so vulnerable? Going to a bar, you were asking to be accused of sexual assault!" (Thanks, Lisa, for the tip.) -TLF
Friday, March 12, 2010
Shaving your pubic hair can be dangerous
I'm the first to agree that shaving while driving (for anybody of any sex on any part of their body) is a bad idea that shows only the poorest judgment. So I have no sympathy for the Florida driver who hit a truck while shaving her pubic hair earlier this week (and then switched seats with the passenger, her ex-husband, to try and dupe the police into thinking he had been driving recklesskly; she also wasn't supposed to be on the road to begin with due to a revoked license), but I'm still bothered by the snide comments that keep bubbling up in regard to pubic hair "landscaping."
ABC reported that "she was distracted, according to officers, because she was driving while shaving her 'bikini area,'" and they go further to explain the causality: "In the police report obtained by ABC News, the trim job was apparently essential because the arresting officer, trooper Gary Dunick, said the Indiana native told him she was heading to Key West visit her boyfriend." It's easy to make a mockery of this woman who in several ways is a perfect caricature, but the tone suggests that preparing one's pubic hair in such a way is absurd. It's not unlikely that Trooper Dudnick will some time have a sexual encounter with a wife or girlfriend who also shaves her pubic hair, maybe even at his behest, or the "apparently essential" need to be hairless for a man. The news coverage shied away from even saying "pubic hair," instead going for the euphemism "bikini area."
Newser's headline, "Hot Date in Key West Leads To Collision," gets into causation, and Keys News says, "As authorities nationwide warn motorists of the dangers of driving while texting, Florida Keys law enforcement officers add a new caution: Don't try to shave your privates, either." Maybe the most effective way to do that would be to stop demanding that women's body hair look a certain way.
Yes, this is comical and the driver behaved stupidly. But the license to joke about "landscaping" is especially obnoxious when lanscaped pubic hair is, in fact, the social norm. -Sara
ABC reported that "she was distracted, according to officers, because she was driving while shaving her 'bikini area,'" and they go further to explain the causality: "In the police report obtained by ABC News, the trim job was apparently essential because the arresting officer, trooper Gary Dunick, said the Indiana native told him she was heading to Key West visit her boyfriend." It's easy to make a mockery of this woman who in several ways is a perfect caricature, but the tone suggests that preparing one's pubic hair in such a way is absurd. It's not unlikely that Trooper Dudnick will some time have a sexual encounter with a wife or girlfriend who also shaves her pubic hair, maybe even at his behest, or the "apparently essential" need to be hairless for a man. The news coverage shied away from even saying "pubic hair," instead going for the euphemism "bikini area."
Newser's headline, "Hot Date in Key West Leads To Collision," gets into causation, and Keys News says, "As authorities nationwide warn motorists of the dangers of driving while texting, Florida Keys law enforcement officers add a new caution: Don't try to shave your privates, either." Maybe the most effective way to do that would be to stop demanding that women's body hair look a certain way.
Yes, this is comical and the driver behaved stupidly. But the license to joke about "landscaping" is especially obnoxious when lanscaped pubic hair is, in fact, the social norm. -Sara
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Haterade in Mississippi: summing up today's news
Eighteen-year-old Constance McMillen planned to take her girlfriend to prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Mississippi. But when school board officials got wind of the date, they told her that the girlfriends would not be allowed to arrive together, nor would McMillen be allowed to wear a tuxedo to the event. On top of that, school officials reserved the right to kick the two out if other students felt "uncomfortable." The American Civil Liberties Union, which defended another Mississippi teenager's right to wear a tuxedo in her senior photo, swooped in with an ultimatum for the school board: reverse the illegal, discriminatory ban on same-sex dates. But instead of adhering to the law, Itawamba cancelled prom, leaving McMillen to take the heat from her classmates.
"A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this, so in a way it's really retaliation," said McMillen, who arrived at school this week to be told "Thanks for ruining my senior year" by a classmate. Salon.com commented on the cruelty of the cancellation, saying this is really about "a school board defending its right to discriminate so fiercely it will deny a rite of passage to all the graduating students, and blame it on the one who stood up for her own civil rights and dignity. It's about an institution doing an end run around the law to preserve its own bigotry..."
Shakesville published an open letter to Mississippians who are holding tight to institutional bigotry as a way to prevent change, writing, "Time will not stand still. You cannot re-create your youth or what you envision as the glorious past through your children."
And Jezebel noted that none other than Roger Ebert has taken up McMillen's cause on his Twitter feed, writing "It's okay if girls go to a prom together because they can't get dates, but god forbid if they like each other." Jezebel also got hold of an administrative email address at Itawamba High if you're interested in letting the school board know what's on your mind: tmcneese@itawamba.k12.ms.us. -TLF
"A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this, so in a way it's really retaliation," said McMillen, who arrived at school this week to be told "Thanks for ruining my senior year" by a classmate. Salon.com commented on the cruelty of the cancellation, saying this is really about "a school board defending its right to discriminate so fiercely it will deny a rite of passage to all the graduating students, and blame it on the one who stood up for her own civil rights and dignity. It's about an institution doing an end run around the law to preserve its own bigotry..."
Shakesville published an open letter to Mississippians who are holding tight to institutional bigotry as a way to prevent change, writing, "Time will not stand still. You cannot re-create your youth or what you envision as the glorious past through your children."
And Jezebel noted that none other than Roger Ebert has taken up McMillen's cause on his Twitter feed, writing "It's okay if girls go to a prom together because they can't get dates, but god forbid if they like each other." Jezebel also got hold of an administrative email address at Itawamba High if you're interested in letting the school board know what's on your mind: tmcneese@itawamba.k12.ms.us. -TLF
Winning in Afghanistan by winning over women
Some American women soldiers will soon be playing a new role in the war in Afghanistan. They'll be diplomats who reach out to Afghan women.
According to the New York Times, the U.S. military will train American female troops to serve in "female engagement teams" to meet and spend time with Afghan women. According to Afghan custom and cultural mores, Afghan women cannot talk with men and must remain in the home. The military reasons that this new program will allow American women (and Americans) to gain trust and cooperation from Afghan women and the larger Afghan community. This will help the military to infiltrate Afghan communities in order to secure "vital" military recon, like the Taliban's location. It will also allow the military to learn about problems that exist in the area, such as poor sanitation, so that the military can sweep in and fix these issues.
American women soldiers interviewed by the Times appear thrilled for the new task, as they feel it will really help the war effort and allow them to connect with a community that had been largely off-limits. Says Cpl. Vanessa Jones, “When I heard about this, I said, 'Oh, that’s it, let’s go.'"
Though the plan might sound valid, it rings hollow when one considers the implications of our country's current position and broader strategies in Afghanistan in addition to its approach to Afghan women. Anand Gopal, an Afghanistan-based journalist, noted last year that U.S. support of the Hamid Karzai administration is suspect in light of its Taliban-esque stance on women, as illustrated by the passage of the Shia Family Law, which legalizes marital rape. Gopal writes, "Many observers say that unless the rural, tribal structure of the society is changed, the patriarchal prison will continue. But that might be something only the Afghans themselves can accomplish. In the meantime, many Afghan women say that the West can help this process--by dropping support for fundamentalists and misogynists." As American women soldiers attempt to gain the trust of Afghan women, other U.S. soldiers will continue their military efforts of drone attacks, night raids, and more violent activities that continue to hurt women, especially as women suffer far more in armed conflict conditions than men.
Samhita of Feministing wrote last fall that the continued U.S. narrative to help Afghan women is "drenched in racism and colonial fantasy...where often what we are calling for is not what 'others' may want in their home countries, but our ideology on war, terror, justice and feminism guides our political affiliations nonetheless." Perhaps women soldiers will listen when Afghan women continue to ask for aid, not more war, and certainly not tactical friendly visits and infiltration. Afghan women, after all, are making it known that they're unhappy with being left out of negotiations to end violence thus far. -Jean
According to the New York Times, the U.S. military will train American female troops to serve in "female engagement teams" to meet and spend time with Afghan women. According to Afghan custom and cultural mores, Afghan women cannot talk with men and must remain in the home. The military reasons that this new program will allow American women (and Americans) to gain trust and cooperation from Afghan women and the larger Afghan community. This will help the military to infiltrate Afghan communities in order to secure "vital" military recon, like the Taliban's location. It will also allow the military to learn about problems that exist in the area, such as poor sanitation, so that the military can sweep in and fix these issues.
American women soldiers interviewed by the Times appear thrilled for the new task, as they feel it will really help the war effort and allow them to connect with a community that had been largely off-limits. Says Cpl. Vanessa Jones, “When I heard about this, I said, 'Oh, that’s it, let’s go.'"
Though the plan might sound valid, it rings hollow when one considers the implications of our country's current position and broader strategies in Afghanistan in addition to its approach to Afghan women. Anand Gopal, an Afghanistan-based journalist, noted last year that U.S. support of the Hamid Karzai administration is suspect in light of its Taliban-esque stance on women, as illustrated by the passage of the Shia Family Law, which legalizes marital rape. Gopal writes, "Many observers say that unless the rural, tribal structure of the society is changed, the patriarchal prison will continue. But that might be something only the Afghans themselves can accomplish. In the meantime, many Afghan women say that the West can help this process--by dropping support for fundamentalists and misogynists." As American women soldiers attempt to gain the trust of Afghan women, other U.S. soldiers will continue their military efforts of drone attacks, night raids, and more violent activities that continue to hurt women, especially as women suffer far more in armed conflict conditions than men.
Samhita of Feministing wrote last fall that the continued U.S. narrative to help Afghan women is "drenched in racism and colonial fantasy...where often what we are calling for is not what 'others' may want in their home countries, but our ideology on war, terror, justice and feminism guides our political affiliations nonetheless." Perhaps women soldiers will listen when Afghan women continue to ask for aid, not more war, and certainly not tactical friendly visits and infiltration. Afghan women, after all, are making it known that they're unhappy with being left out of negotiations to end violence thus far. -Jean
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
What's a black doll worth?: summing up today's news
The price differential was first noticed by the web site Guanabee, where they posited this snarky rhetorical question: "Who says Barbie dolls don’t supply young girls with a realistic portrayal of womanhood?" As Pam's House Blend chimed in in agreement, "Our culture still tells us is that blacks are 'less valuable' as a group on so many levels."
Mother Jones saw problems with the dialogue about race: "Interestingly, ABC News reported that the dolls were 'black,' while Guanabee called them 'brown.' Ambiguity abounds—except for Wal-Mart's contention that whatever they are, they're worth less than white ballerinas." The values assigned to these dolls reflect Walmart's clearance policy, a company spokesperson explained. The physically impossible proportions that Barbie's body puts forth are only a part of the unrealistic portrait of women she paints for children; racial diversity is also just an afterthought, and some sociologists say that consumer preference across race is for white dolls. In response, Pam's House Blend asks, "Why sugar-coat this by keeping the prices at parity?...It seems disingenuous to keep the prices equal in order to spare guilt-ridden people from the truth or consumers who feel uncomfortable with the thought that children still pick the white doll more often than not."
Jezebel got to the crux of the problem and provides an explanation that would counter Pam's objections to tweaking market prices. "Just as Barbie dolls continue to reflect institutional sexism with their unrealistic representation of the female body (a baby-face-plus-big-boobs representation that's become especially popular in an age that incongruously demands both extreme youth and sexual availability), so too the relative 'values' placed on black dolls reflect the ways black women are often devalued." Apparently there's never been a better time to learn about the insidious link between racism and sexism than while shopping for a Barbie doll. -TLF
Is chivalry dead? Do we care?
When I mention that I'm a feminist to a person who doesn't identify as the same, that person often wants to talk about my presumed hatred of chivalry. Usually, I explain that I'm not anti-etiquette. Chivalry within reason is akin to politeness. (Just don't open my car door for me.) And there's nothing wrong with lightheartedly playing into antiquated gender stereotypes, so long as we acknowledge that's what we're doing.
But if feminists get the anti-chivalry rap, it's probably because of news stories like this one on AOL.com, which details one instance of chivalry's resurgence in American culture. At a Phoenix area high school, a Latin teacher named Cord Ivanyi has been instructing his male students in etiquette, teaching them to stand up when women enter a room, to open doors for girls, and to pull out their chairs for them. He started the lessons, he said, because he was disturbed to see boys roughhousing with girls. But now, things have changed. "There's a different tenor in the class, a gravity attached to the girls. They've been more feminized in the boys' eyes," Ivanyi said. "These girls are reading Jane Austen novels in class. For them, chivalry hasn't gone out of style."
This kind of chivalry, the kind that makes women out to be fainting, frilly little girls, is rather sexist. The good kind of chivalry, the kind that allows men to do nice things for women without coming across as misogynists, is perhaps trickier to employ. But men would do well to take a cue from a Victorian-era playbook by adding a few chivalrous things to their repertoire beyond opening doors and pulling out seats. How about listening without interrupting? Or maintaining a respectful level of personal space? Or educating other men about sexual violence?
As loath as I am to cite AskMen on anything, the site's hilariously misguided "Chivalry vs. Feminism" article does end with one gem of advice. "Don't baby her or treat her like a child, simply be there for her as you would a good friend and everything should be fine." -Naomi (Thanks to Lydia for the tip.)
But if feminists get the anti-chivalry rap, it's probably because of news stories like this one on AOL.com, which details one instance of chivalry's resurgence in American culture. At a Phoenix area high school, a Latin teacher named Cord Ivanyi has been instructing his male students in etiquette, teaching them to stand up when women enter a room, to open doors for girls, and to pull out their chairs for them. He started the lessons, he said, because he was disturbed to see boys roughhousing with girls. But now, things have changed. "There's a different tenor in the class, a gravity attached to the girls. They've been more feminized in the boys' eyes," Ivanyi said. "These girls are reading Jane Austen novels in class. For them, chivalry hasn't gone out of style."
This kind of chivalry, the kind that makes women out to be fainting, frilly little girls, is rather sexist. The good kind of chivalry, the kind that allows men to do nice things for women without coming across as misogynists, is perhaps trickier to employ. But men would do well to take a cue from a Victorian-era playbook by adding a few chivalrous things to their repertoire beyond opening doors and pulling out seats. How about listening without interrupting? Or maintaining a respectful level of personal space? Or educating other men about sexual violence?
As loath as I am to cite AskMen on anything, the site's hilariously misguided "Chivalry vs. Feminism" article does end with one gem of advice. "Don't baby her or treat her like a child, simply be there for her as you would a good friend and everything should be fine." -Naomi (Thanks to Lydia for the tip.)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Happy International Women's Day: summing up yesterday's news
Apologies for the delay, but Lady Finger editors were so busy celebrating International Women's Day yesterday that we skipped blogging about it. So here we are today, with yesterday's roundup:
International Women's Day has its origins in the early 20th century women's rights movement in the United States, an irony because the U.S. does not officially recognize it as a holiday. (China, Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, on the other hand, do.) The holiday was envisioned as a day for women to make their political demands, but today it has morphed into a celebration of feminism and its achievements and goals, and also a recognition of individual women and their contributions to their families (kind of like Mother's Day).
Barack and Michelle Obama spoke about the holiday (view their speeches below), with Barack subtly commending Hillary Clinton for her effort to win the presidency and Michelle saying, "We honor women who refused to listen to those who would say that you couldn’t or shouldn’t pursue your dreams. And we honor women who may not have had many opportunities in their own lives, and we all know women like that: Women who poured everything they had into making sure that their daughters and their granddaughters could pursue their dreams; women who, as the poet Alice Walker once wrote, 'knew what we must know without knowing it themselves.'"
Over at Jezebel, you can view a very touching slideshow with photos of women celebrating the globe over. And RH Reality Check has a wonderful roundup of its own, highlighting friends' and contributors' favorite books about women's equality. Gender Across Borders also has a comprehensive list of relevant blogs. -TLF
International Women's Day has its origins in the early 20th century women's rights movement in the United States, an irony because the U.S. does not officially recognize it as a holiday. (China, Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, on the other hand, do.) The holiday was envisioned as a day for women to make their political demands, but today it has morphed into a celebration of feminism and its achievements and goals, and also a recognition of individual women and their contributions to their families (kind of like Mother's Day).
Barack and Michelle Obama spoke about the holiday (view their speeches below), with Barack subtly commending Hillary Clinton for her effort to win the presidency and Michelle saying, "We honor women who refused to listen to those who would say that you couldn’t or shouldn’t pursue your dreams. And we honor women who may not have had many opportunities in their own lives, and we all know women like that: Women who poured everything they had into making sure that their daughters and their granddaughters could pursue their dreams; women who, as the poet Alice Walker once wrote, 'knew what we must know without knowing it themselves.'"
Over at Jezebel, you can view a very touching slideshow with photos of women celebrating the globe over. And RH Reality Check has a wonderful roundup of its own, highlighting friends' and contributors' favorite books about women's equality. Gender Across Borders also has a comprehensive list of relevant blogs. -TLF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
