Showing posts with label womanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label womanism. Show all posts

Happy International Women's Day

Today is International Women's Day, which is generally only meaningfully marked by the people who already treat every day as International Women's Day. It is a day on which I am usually pointedly reminded that the business of advocating on behalf of women's equality is still considered woman's work, which tends to give the day a flavor of bitter irony that doesn't want to leave my mouth.

Nonetheless, every year, I feel obliged to try to write something profound for International Women's Day, and every year I fail, and most years I feel more optimistic about the state of women's equality than I do on this day.

This morning I woke up, checked Twitter, and the first thing I saw was a tweet from Donald Trump reading: "I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy."


I'm angry about the state of the world for the women in it, for women in my own country and for women in every country all over the world, Black women, brown women, white women, tall women, short women, women with dwarfism, fat women, thin women, in-betweenie women, trans women, intersex women, disabled women, able-bodied women, neuro-typical women, neuro-atypical women, old women, young women, girls, women with children, childfree women, healthy women, ill women, poor women, rich women, middle class women, employed women, unemployed women, women who do unpaid labor, insured women, uninsured women, immigrant women, migrant women, refugee women, English-speaking women, non-English-speaking women, progressive women, conservative women, women in unions, women in uniforms, women in male-centric careers, women in comas, straight women, lesbian women, bisexual women, asexual women, demisexual women, partnered women, unpartnered women, poly women, aromantic women, powerful women, weak women, vegan woman, vegetarian women, omnivorous women, religious women, atheist women, agnostic women, educated women, uneducated women, women who have survived trauma, women who want my advocacy, women who don't, and/or every other conceivable expression, intersection, and experience of womanhood that exists on the planet.

I am angry at what we are denied on the basis of our womanhood, or the insufficiency of our womanhood, or the unacceptable expression of our womanhood, as arbitrarily defined by people fiercely guarding their privilege.

I am angry that we are denied autonomy, dignity, respect, the right of consent, safety, security, opportunity, access, equality—and many things smaller than those.

That anger threatens every day to engulf me, to hold me like a flame under a jar until, starved of oxygen, I disappear into a wisp of smoke. I search each morning for a way to turn that anger into inspiration, fuel, purpose. Today is a day like all others in that regard.

Today is a day when I am angry, but, also like all other days, it is a day on which I am happy to be a woman among women.

I do not long to be the Exceptional Woman. When I find myself in a space in which I am the only woman, I do not feel satisfied, nor do I feel insecure: I feel contemptuous that there aren't more women there. I do not want to compete with other women in a way that suggests there is only room for one of us. I want to lift up other women, and be lifted up by them, and blaze trails in the hopes that many more will follow behind.

I respect women, and I love them. And when I take stock of all the issues disproportionately affecting women across the globe, what I see is lack of respect and love for women so pervasive and profound that to merely assert to love and respect women yet remains a radical act.

It is at the intersection of my anger at the mistreatment of women and my love and respect for them that I find my motivation every day.

I am an imperfect advocate for women, and I have nothing profound to say on International Women's Day. Again. The truth is, I just want to recommit myself to treating every day as a day in which it is important to fight for international justice for women, and to love and respect them, including myself.

I am a feminist with a teaspoon, and I ain't afraid to use it.

image of me, a fat white middle-aged woman with shoulder-length brown hair with grey streaks, wearing a red t-shirt, sitting at my desk
Wearing red today, for women.

Open Wide...

Recommended Reading

[Content Note: Discussion of racism and intersectional oppression; appropriation; violence.]

Alicia Garza: "A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement."

I created #BlackLivesMatter with Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, two of my sisters, as a call to action for Black people after 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was posthumously placed on trial for his own murder and the killer, George Zimmerman, was not held accountable for the crime he committed. It was a response to the anti-Black racism that permeates our society and also, unfortunately, our movements.

Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks' contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

...When we say Black Lives Matter, we are talking about the ways in which Black people are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity. It is an acknowledgement Black poverty and genocide is state violence. It is an acknowledgment that 1 million Black people are locked in cages in this country–one half of all people in prisons or jails–is an act of state violence. It is an acknowledgment that Black women continue to bear the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families and that assault is an act of state violence. Black queer and trans folks bearing a unique burden in a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us is state violence; the fact that 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows is state violence; the fact that Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war is state violence; Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state-sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by White supremacy is state violence. And the fact is that the lives of Black people—not ALL people—exist within these conditions is consequence of state violence.

When Black people get free, everybody gets free.

#BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean your life isn't important–it means that Black lives, which are seen as without value within White supremacy, are important to your liberation. Given the disproportionate impact state violence has on Black lives, we understand that when Black people in this country get free, the benefits will be wide reaching and transformative for society as a whole.
Go read the whole thing.

Open Wide...

Happy International Day of the Girl!

image of the International Day of the Girl Logo, featuring a lightbulb the filament of which is also an empowerment fist and the words: 'Day of the Girl: Innovate 2 Educate'

Today is also the second annual International Day of the Girl! This year's theme is Innovating for Girls' Education, and you can find a compilation of stories about UN Women's global work to promote innovation in education here.

UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka released a statement marking this day, which connects access to education with prevention of violence against girls and women and announces "the roll-out today of a new initiative to prevent violence against girls. The unique curriculum, Voices against Violence, will be delivered by the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts among its 10 million members in 145 countries."
The curriculum was developed within a broader education and advocacy framework under WAGGGS' global campaign Stop the Violence; Speak Out for Girls Rights, and has been tested among 1500 members of the girl guiding movement in 25 countries. Already, those who participated in the pilot programme have measured and reported changes in the level of knowledge and understanding of gender issues, and engaged parents and community members in dialogues and actions.
Awesome.

[Content Note: Violence; misogyny; terrorism.]

Given that education is the theme of this years IDoTG, it seems appropriate to share this amazing video of Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Sakharov Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban for campaigning on behalf of girls' educational access, on The Daily Show earlier this week. [H/T to Jess.]

Jon Stewart: Welcome back. My guest tonight—she's an advocate for girls' access to education worldwide—is the youngest person ever to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Her new book is called I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. Please welcome to the program Malala Yousafzai. [cheers and applause] Nice to see you. Thank you for being here.

Malala Yousafzai: Thank you so much. It's an honor for me.

Stewart: It is an honor for us . I know me.

Yousafzai: [laughs]

Stewart: This is— By the way, I—we talked a little bit before the show; nothing feels better than making you laugh. I will say that. I enjoyed that very much.

Yousafzai: [laughs uncomfortably] Thank you.

Stewart: Uh, I Am Malala, it, it, it—it's honestly humbling to meet you. You're sixteen: Where did your love for education come from?

Yousafzai: Um, we are human beings, and this is the part of our human nature, that we don't learn the importance of anything until it's snatched from our hands. And when—in Pakistan, when we were stopped from going to school, at that time, I realized that education is very important, and education is the power for women, and that's why the terrorists are afraid of education—they do not want women to get education, because then women would become more powerful. [cheers and applause]

Stewart: That's exactly—that's exactly right. When did the—when did the Taliban come to Swat Valley? Because, before then, you just describe it as, uh, a paradise of sorts.

Yousafzai: The Taliban came in 2004, but at that time, they were quite good—they did not show they're the terrorism and they did not blast any school at that time. But they started the real terrorism in 2007. They have blasted more than 400 schools in Swat. They have slaughtered people. And in the month of January 2009, they—they used to slaughter even two, three people every night, and they have flogged women. We have seen the barbaric situation of the 21st century, and we have seen, like, the, the, the cruelty, and we have seen harsh days in our life, and those are regarded as the darkest days of our life. So, it was—it was really hard for us at that time.

Stewart: You describe in the book, still, no matter what, they took the signs off of schools, they, uh, they went underground, but they continued in the face of— You spoke out publicly against the Taliban. What gave you the courage to continue this?

Yousafzai: You know, my father was a great encouragement for me, because he spoke of—he spoke out for women's rights; he spoke out for girls' education. And, at that time, I said that why shall I wait for someone else? Why shall I be looking to the government, to the army, that they would help us? Why don't I raise my voice? Why don't we speak up for our rights? The girls of Swat, they spoke up for their rights. I started writing diary; I spoke on every media channel that I could; and I raised my voice on every platform that I could. And I said: I need to tell the world what is happening in Swat. And I need to tell the world that Swat is suffering from terrorism, and we need to fight against terrorism.

Stewart: When did you realize the Taliban had made you a target?

Yousafzai: Um, when, uh, in 2012, um, we were— I was with my father, and someone came, and she told us that have you seen on Google net, if you search your name and the Taliban has threatened you, and I just could not believe it. I said no, it's not true—and even after the threat, when we saw it, I was not worried about myself that much; I was worried about my father, because we thought that the Taliban are not that much cruel that they would kill a child, 'cause I was 14 at that time. But then later on I used to, I like— I started thinking about that, and I used to think, to think that the Talib would come, and he would just kill me, but then I said: If he comes, what would you do, Malala? Um, then I would reply myself that: Malala, just take a shoe and hit him, but then I said— [laughter] But then I said: If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib. You must not treat others that much with cruelty and that much harshly; you must fight others, but through peace, and through dialogue and through education. Then I said: I'll tell him how important education is, and that I even want education for your children as well. And I will tell him: That's what I want to tell you. Now do what you want. [she chuckles; cheers and applause]

Stewart: Let me ask you— you know, I know your father is backstage and he's very proud of you, but would he be mad if I adopted you? [laughter]

Yousafzai: [laughs]

Stewart: Because you sure are swell.
Education for all. Education for all.

Open Wide...

Happy International Day of the Girl!

International Day of the Girl logo

Today is also the inaugural International Day of the Girl! The United Nations International Day of the Girl was established after a successful campaign "led in the US by School Girls Unite, an organization of students and young women leaders determined to advance the UN Millennium Development Goals related to gender equality and universal basic education, and other human rights issues. [Their] mission mirrors the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the International Day of the Girl Child, approved on December 19, 2011: To help galvanize worldwide enthusiasm for goals to better girls' lives, providing an opportunity for them to show leadership and reach their full potential."

This year's theme is ending child marriage around the globe, which is a perfect and terrible theme on which to launch the International Day of the Girl, because child marriage is the intersection of so many issues affecting girl children: The devaluing of female children, poverty, lack of educational opportunities, hostility to female agency, sexual violence, emotional abuse, lack of control of reproduction, cyclical devaluing of female children that underlies female infanticide and child marriage... All of these are inextricably wrapped up in child marriage, but this is a cycle that can be stopped.

Shummi, a Bangladeshi girl, in voiceover (with translation) over video of congregated young Bangladeshi girls and adult women: My name is Shumi. I am 11 years old. [text onscreen: Shumi, EKATA Group Member; she appears onscreen] My father wanted to arrange my marriage, but I did not agree to the proposal.

An unidentified Bangladeshi woman, in voiceover (with translation): Shumi told us her father was arranging her marriage. [text onscreen: EKATA Group Leader; she appears onscreen] Shumi asked us to go talk to her father and make him understand. [over video of women walking out of meeting space] As a result, we approached members of the local government, and other EKATA members, and we went to see Shumi's father together.

Rajendranath, a Bangladeshi man, onscreen, beside his meager home: The EKATA groups came and spoke to me. [text onscreen: Rajendranath, Shumi's Father] They said my daughter was too young for marriage. After a discussion, we agreed. [over video of Shumi walking with friends] We will now wait to marry Shumi when she comes of age.

Shumi, back with the congregated group again: I am very happy that my father has stopped this marriage. I want to be self-dependent; I do not want to marry until I am 18 years old.

EKATA Group Leader: We are all united to stop child marriage!

Whole Group, with arms in air: We are all united to stop child marriage!

Text Onscreen: International Day of the Girl: October 11, 2012. Just $49 can send a girl to school for a year, which will greatly decrease her chances of becoming a child bride. Donate now. Care.org.
Child marriage is not an immutable fact. It is a preventable social convention. Girls need champions. This is day to recruit those champions.

There are some great events and teaspooning opportunities today. I recommend signing this petition at Pathfinder and getting involved in one of many ways at Care.

Please feel welcome and encouraged to leave related links and suggestions for additional teaspooning opportunities in comments. Follow the hashtag #internationaldayofthegirl for more.

Open Wide...

Discussion Thread: Feminist/Womanist 101 Books

One of the most frequent questions I get via email is about good print resources for feminist/womanist 101. So: What books, essays, anthologies, novels, magazines would you recommended to a feminist/womanist noob?

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"We let Willow cut her hair. When you have a little girl, it's like how can you teach her that you're in control of her body? If I teach her that I'm in charge of whether or not she can touch her hair, she's going to replace me with some other man when she goes out in the world. She can't cut my hair but that's her hair. She has got to have command of her body. So when she goes out into the world, she's going out with a command that it is hers. She is used to making those decisions herself. We try to keep giving them those decisions until they can hold the full weight of their lives."—Will Smith, in an interview with Parade.

I love this so, so much.

[H/T to Shaker alabee, who saw it at STFU Conservatives.]

Open Wide...

This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.

Elizabeth Day in the Guardian: Lagging at school, the butt of cruel jokes: are males the new Second Sex?

Everything about this article is terrible, including and especially the idea that feminists/womanists do not give a fuck about the ways in which the Patriarchy also subverts a spectrum of acceptable male expression and encourages men to behave in ways that are detrimental to themselves, to each other, and to women.

It's hard to choose a single passage that encapsulates what is so terribly wrong with this piece, but this is as good as any, I suppose:

In a Guardian article on Friday, it was pointed out that the stereotyped image of a man incapable of growing up has become a staple of US film comedies – the most recent example being Jeff, Who Lives at Home, starring Jason Segel as a man still living with his long-suffering mother who lets him smoke weed in her basement.

Would the same humour be levelled at women? [David Benatar, head of the philosophy department at Cape Town University and author of The Second Sexism] thinks not.
Well, maybe David Benatar isn't the best person to ask, considering he's a professional antifeminist with an agenda and a book to sell—and there's also the little issue about how colossally wrong he is. Of course humor that promotes stereotypes is leveled at women—and the stereotypes of womanhood are typically more dehumanizing than "kind of an immature slacker."

(When MRAs play the Oppression Olympics, they're always going to lose. I would, however, happily trade ALL the gold medals for meaningful equality.)

Naturally, Benatar blames "partisan feminists" for the problems plaguing men, but "partisan feminists" didn't, for example, write and direct Jeff, Who Lives at Home. Men did that. The primary decision-makers—the legislators and cultural leaders—who shape and facilitate societies in which violence against men is tolerated and in which men are not valued as nurturers (some of Benatar's other complaints) are not women, but men. And privileged men, at that.

The oppressions of men identified in the article are natural outgrowths of the Patriarchy—and of the Kyriarchy, which disadvantages queer men, men of color, men with disabilities, poor men, etc. But MRAs are so intractably invested in the idea of the binary "battle of the sexes" that they cannot see their argument is not with feminists/womanists, never has been and never will be.

(Except, of course, where their argument is really about the straight-up loss of male privilege. Which is what distinguishes MRAs from pro-feminist men, who don't let an unwillingness to dismantle undeserved privilege stand in the way of allying themselves with feminist/womanist women.)

Men like Benatar shake their fists and aim their rhetorical arrows at feminists, because they don't want to hold other men accountable. Thus do they effectively mask the real sexism that is directed at men—the Patriarchal narratives that continue to encourage displays and expressions of a "traditional masculinity" (and the systemic misrepresentation of that construction as evolutionary imperative to discourage alternative displays and expressions) which are increasingly at odds with modern culture.

It is the same gossamer promise that holds poor Republican voters in thrall—the lie of the American Dream that they could be wealthy and powerful someday—writ just for men: The Patriarchal Promise that every man could be an Alpha Male, a man of influence, a man in charge. Just follow the prescriptions of the Patriarchy and you, too, could be Somebody!

There are vanishingly few spaces, and fewer every day, for men who achieve sheerly by might and entitlement.

We're moving into a service economy, which favors patience, impulse control, empathy, intuition, a keen awareness of and sensitivity to others' needs, and the will and ability to be a team player—all of which are attributes discouraged in men (and encouraged in women) by the Patriarchy.

And we're moving into an egalitarian culture (despite what backlash broadcasting and conservative ideologues would have us believe), which favors the decentering of self, empathy, sensitivity, inclusiveness, and the will and ability to be an equal partner, in friendships, partnerships, and parenting—all of which are attributes discouraged in men (and encouraged in women) by the Patriarchy.

The world is changing, but the Patriarchy isn't. This is putting men who most buy into what the Patriarchy tells them they should be at the greatest disadvantage in almost every professional and personal situation.

That's the sexism that most stands to hurt men. And it ain't women who are the primary gatekeepers of that bullshit. It's other men.

Open Wide...

Today in Your Feminist Backlash

This is Newsweek's actual fucking cover this week:

image of a very thin white young woman from the chest up, who is naked, except for a black silk blindfold; she is wearing bright red lipstick with her lips slightly parted, and her head is tilted back as if in ecstasy; the text for the cover story reads: 'THE FANTASY LIFE OF WORKING WOMEN: Why surrender is a feminist dream.'
[Click to embiggen.]

The article can be read here, and contains such gems as:
It is intriguing that huge numbers of women are eagerly consuming myriad and disparate fantasies of submission at a moment when women are ascendant in the workplace, when they make up almost 60 percent of college students, when they are close to surpassing men as breadwinners, with four in 10 working women now outearning their husbands, when the majority of women under 30 are having and supporting children on their own, a moment when—in hard economic terms—women are less dependent or subjugated than before.
Yes, "intriguing." Possibly even more "intriguing" is the description of this article on Newsweek's Tumblr:
In an age where women are dominating—in the workplace, at school, at home—why are they seeking to be dominated in their love lives? Recent media portrayals have shown that a rising number of modern women fantasize about being overpowered, while studies are turning out statistics that bewilder feminists. New shows like HBO's Girls and books like Fifty Shades of Grey are showcasing the often hidden desire for powerlessness. But why? Katie Roiphe examines the submissive yet empowered female in Newsweek. "It is perhaps inconvenient for feminism that the erotic imagination does not submit to politics, or even changing demographics," she writes.
So, basically, Newsweek has allowed a writer to invent the claim out of whole cloth that US women are "dominating" in public and at home—despite 16% female representation in Congress and 15% representation among corporate CEOs, and despite the fact that study after study finds male-partnered women still doing the majority of housework and childcare, even if both partners are working full-time—and pair that specious contention with the popularity of a few random pieces of pop culture—despite the fact that relying on Girls as evidence of any phenomenon is pretty wild, considering it just premiered last night, and is produced by well-known feminist Judd Apatow, lulz—in order to implicitly claim that feminism is bullshit because all women REALLY want, deep down, is to be dominated by men.

And not only did Newsweek allow this garbage in its magazine; it put that shit right on the cover, with a reprehensible image.

I certainly hope that Newsweek will accept my pitch for next week's cover story, in which I use the ACTUAL popularity of The Hunger Games, Bridesmaids, Nurse Jackie, Parks & Recreation, and Downton Abbey to illustrate the fervent desire among USian women for feminist entertainment with strong female protagonists.

In which I will also elucidate the difference between consensual submission and nonconsensual subjugation.

[H/T to everyone in the multiverse, and thanks to each and every one of you.]

Open Wide...

War on Women. And ROE!!!

Someone in the Obama administration has finally admitted there's a war on women and other people with uteri:

"I think the war on women is real," Biden said in an interview he sat for with MSNBC's Ed Schultz as part of a campaign trip to New Hampshire to talk up the Buffett rule.
Well, I'm not happy that the President, while himself still refusing to say he even believes there's a war on women, is subcontracting this stuff to Biden, at least someone is saying it. And one imagines Biden, champion of the Violence Against Women Act, actually believes it. So good news, right? Ha ha wait for it!
"And, look, I tell you where it's going to intensify: the next president of the United States is going to get to name one and possibly two or more members of the Supreme Court."
You don't want Roe overturned, DO YOU, LADIES?!

Swell. The Vice-President of the United States now sounds like every pro-Obama troll who harassed me during the last election when I had the temerity to question whether Obama was really a solid ally on reproductive rights.

Hey, speaking of the last election, here's something I wrote four years ago, which is terribly even more relevant today, four years after Obama was elected, after a record number of abortion restrictions were enacted in state legislatures , after our ostensibly pro-choice Democratic President has remained silent on that fact, than it was then:

Even before the primary had ended, feminists/womanists (hereafter FWs) who had become disenchanted with Senator Barack Obama as a result of worrying rhetoric on reproductive rights, his and his campaign's use of sexist dog whistles, and/or his silence in response to an appalling onslaught of misogyny unleashed upon his opponent, were being bullied at any indication (real or imagined) that we would not vote for him. The usual rhetorical cudgels were brought out to browbeat us—Roe (to which I'll return later) and the ominous accusation that if McCain won, it would be our fault. As ever, it was the people calling out sexism and/or anti-FW policies who were charged with creating division among progressives, as opposed to the people engaging in sexism and their defenders.

Given Obama's most recent flub on abortion rights, first stating he doesn't "think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother" regarding late-term abortion exceptions, then clarifying by reiterating the same thing and fleshing out the pregnant straw-woman who wants a late term abortion just because she's "feeling blue," plus more of the "pastor and family" rhetoric—a veritable symphony of rightwing talking points, infantilization and mistrust of women, and hostility toward their autonomy—one might expect the bullies to realize that perhaps the FWs who had concerns about Obama also had a point, but if bullies were rational, they wouldn't be bullies. And so the drumbeat to cast FWs with legitimate complaints as the root of progressive discordance has only intensified.

This oft-wielded strategy to silence FWs who cry foul at sexism expressed by political allies is wrong for the following reason, which I cannot state any more succinctly than this: When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility.

It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. If women, men of color, gay/bi/trans* men, et. al. are valued, then they should not be demeaned-and if they are demeaned, they should not be expected to pretend it does not matter.

Pretty straightforward stuff. There are some related ideas I want to address, though, which complicate the issue, especially from the perspective of those who earnestly cannot understand why feminists don't see the "perfect logic" of:

• Candidate A is sexist, and at worst will not make things any worse for women.
• Candidate B is sexist, and at best will not make things any worse for women.
• Therefore, feminists should vote for Candidate A.

I get why that appears to make sense—and for some FWs it does, particularly Democratic partisans, which is totally legitimate—but then there's that whole my vote is mine thing, and this subject is really bigger than for whom anyone will or will not vote, because the (typically) unspoken corollary to "Therefore, FWs should vote for Candidate A" is "...and they should not do anything to undermine him like point out that he is not their ally."

The reasoning behind the "perfectly logical" calculation above—and the related compulsion to cajole alignment with that strategy and/or silence FW criticism—is predicated on a couple of commonly-held (and oft-cited) assumptions:

1. Voting for/Supporting the more liberal of two mainstream party candidates is always and necessarily the most consistent with feminist/womanist principles.

2. Voting for/Supporting the more democratic of two mainstream party candidates is axiomatically the most feminist/womanist choice.

3. Feminism is an "issue" or a "cause" akin to other political issues or causes like protecting social security or fair elections.

4. The best possible America for a straight, white, cis, able-bodied, wealthy man is the best possible America for everyone.

5. More rights for "everyone" means more rights for women.

All of these are wrong—or, at minimum, not always correct. Let's take them one at a time.

Open Wide...

An Observation

The United States would be a very different place if everyone cared this much about misogyny when there wasn't a presidential election in which appearing to care about misogyny could score a political point.

Not that I don't love the "feminist" outrage when it's politically expedient and all, but it'd be nice if the same voices were raised occasionally with equal amounts of passion just because women are humans deserving of respect, dignity, autonomy, and equality, too.

Open Wide...

The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck

[Content Note: Misogyny; rape culture; bullying.]

Despite feminists' reputation, and contra my own individual reputation cultivated over five years of public opinion-making, I am not a man-hater.

If I played by misogynists' rules, specifically the one that dictates it only takes one woman doing one Mean or Duplicitous or Disrespectful or Unlawful or otherwise Bad Thing to justify hatred of all women, I would have plenty of justification for hating men, if I were inclined to do that sort of thing.

Most of my threatening hate mail comes from men. The most unrelentingly trouble-making trolls have always been men. I've been cat-called and cow-called from moving vehicles countless times, and subjected to other forms of street harassment, and sexually harassed at work, always by men. I have been sexually assaulted—if one includes rape, attempted rape, unsolicited touching of breasts, buttocks, and/or genitals, nonconsensual frottage on public transportation, and flashing—by dozens of people during my lifetime, some known to me, some strangers, all men.

But I don't hate men, because I play by different rules. In fact, there are men in this world whom I love quite a lot.

There are also individual men in this world I would say I probably hate, or something close, men who I hold in unfathomable contempt, but it is not because they are men.

No, I don't hate men.

It would, however, be fair to say that I don't easily trust them.

My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language ("humankind").

There are the insidious assumptions guiding our interactions—the supposition that I will regard being exceptionalized as a compliment ("you're not like those other women"), and the presumption that I am an ally against certain kinds of women. Surely, we're all in agreement that Britney Spears is a dirty slut who deserves nothing but a steady stream of misogynist vitriol whenever her name is mentioned, right? Always the subtle pressure to abandon my principles to trash this woman or that woman, as if I'll never twig to the reality that there's always a justification for unleashing the misogyny, for hating a woman in ways reserved only for women. I am exhorted to join in the cruel revelry, and when I refuse, suddenly the target is on my back. And so it goes.

There are the jokes about women, about wives, about mothers, about raising daughters, about female bosses. They are told in my presence by men who are meant to care about me, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status. I am meant to ignore that this is a bullying tactic, that the men telling these jokes derive their amusement specifically from knowing they upset me, piss me off, hurt me. They tell them and I can laugh, and they can thus feel superior, or I can not laugh, and they can thus feel superior. Heads they win, tails I lose. I am used as a prop in an ongoing game of patriarchal posturing, and then I am meant to believe it is true when some of the men who enjoy this sport, in which I am their pawn, tell me, "I love you." I love you, my daughter. I love you, my niece. I love you, my friend. I am meant to trust these words.

There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

There is the perplexity at my fury that my life experience is not considered more relevant than the opinionated pronouncements of men who make a pastime of informal observation, like womanhood is an exotic locale which provides magnificent fodder for the amateur ethnographer. And there is the haughty dismissal of my assertion that being on the outside looking in doesn't make one more objective; it merely provides a different perspective.

There are the persistent, tiresome pronouncements of similitude between men's and women's experiences, the belligerent insistence that handsome men are objectified by women, too! that women pinch men's butts sometimes, too! that men are expected to look a certain way at work, too! that women rape, too! and other equivalencies that conveniently and stupidly ignore institutional inequities that mean X rarely equals Y. And there are the long-suffering groans that meet any attempt to contextualize sexism and refute the idea that such indignities, though grim they all may be, are not necessarily equally oppressive.

There are the stereotypes—oh, the abundant stereotypes!—about women, not me, of course, but other women, those women with their bad driving and their relentless shopping habits and their PMS and their disgusting vanity and their inability to stop talking and their disinterest in Important Things and their trying to trap men and their getting pregnant on purpose and their false rape accusations and their being bitches sluts whores cunts... And I am expected to nod in agreement, and I am nudged and admonished to agree. I am expected to say these things are not true of me, but are true of women (am I seceding from the union?); I am expected to put my stamp of token approval on the stereotypes. Yes, it's true. Between you and me, it's all true. That's what is wanted from me. Abdication of my principles and pride, in service to a patriarchal system that will only use my collusion to further subjugate me. This is a thing that is asked of me by men who purport to care for me.

There is the unwillingness to listen, a ferociously stubborn not getting it on so many things, so many important things. And the obdurate refusal to believe, to internalize, that my outrage is not manufactured and my injure not make-believe—an inflexible rejection of the possibility that my pain is authentic, in favor of the consolatory belief that I am angry because I'm a feminist (rather than the truth: that I'm a feminist because I'm angry).

And there is the denial about engaging in misogyny, even when it's evident, even when it's pointed out gently, softly, indulgently, carefully, with goodwill and the presumption that it was not intentional. There is the firm, fixed, unyielding denial—because it is better and easier to imply that I'm stupid or crazy, that I have imagined being insulted by someone about whom I care (just for the fun of it!), than it is to just admit a bloody mistake. Rather I am implied to be a hysteric than to say, simply, I'm sorry.

Not every man does all of these things, or even most of them, and certainly not all the time. But it only takes one, randomly and occasionally, exploding in a shower of cartoon stars like an unexpected punch in the nose, to send me staggering sideways, wondering what just happened.

Well. I certainly didn't see that coming...

These things, they are not the habits of deliberately, connivingly cruel men. They are, in fact, the habits of the men in this world I love quite a lot.

All of whom have given me reason to mistrust them, to use my distrust as a self-protection mechanism, as an essential tool to get through every day, because I never know when I might next get knocked off-kilter with something that puts me in the position, once again, of choosing between my dignity and the serenity of our relationship.

Swallow shit, or ruin the entire afternoon?

It can come out of nowhere, and usually does. Which leaves me mistrustful by both necessity and design. Not fearful; just resigned—and on my guard. More vulnerability than that allows for the possibility of wounds that do not heal. Wounds to our relationship, the sort of irreparable damage that leaves one unable to look in the eye someone that you loved once upon a time.

This, then, is the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck: Men are allowed the easy comfort of their unexamined privilege, but my regard will always be shot through with a steely, anxious bolt of caution.

A shitty bargain all around, really. But there it is.

There are men who will read this post and think, huffily, dismissively, that a person of color could write a post very much like this one about white people, about me. That's absolutely right. So could a lesbian, a gay man, a bisexual, an asexual. So could a trans or intersex person (which hardly makes a comprehensive list). I'm okay with that. I don't feel hated. I feel mistrusted—and I understand it; I respect it. It means, for me, I must be vigilant, must make myself trustworthy. Every day.

I hope those men will hear me when I say, again, I do not hate you. I mistrust you. You can tell yourselves that's a problem with me, some inherent flaw, some evidence that I am fucked up and broken and weird; you can choose to believe that the women in your lives are nothing like me.

Or you can be vigilant, can make yourselves trustworthy. Every day.

Just in case they're more like me than you think.

[This post was originally published August 14, 2009. It's being linked a lot again recently, no doubt in part because of the current feminist/womanist backlash in which we find ourselves, including and especially the escalating war on women and other people with uteri. I thought it would be useful to publish it again.]

Open Wide...

Images in the River: Black Girl Dialogues

by Tami Winfrey Harris, who writes about race, feminism, politics, and pop culture at the blog What Tami Said. Her work has also appeared online at The Guardian's Comment is Free, Ms. Magazine blog, Newsweek, Change.org, Huffington Post and Racialicious. She is a graduate of the Iowa State University Greenlee School of Journalism. She is mom to two awesome stepkids and spends her spare time researching her family history and cultivating a righteous 'fro.

On March 31, Love Isn't Enough is teaming with a few of our Crunk Feminist friends to host a panel discussion about beginning dialogues with black girls about gender equality—Images in the River: Black Girl Dialogues.

Last year, Sheri Davis-Faulkner, Mashadi Matabane, Chanel Craft, and Asha French introduced 10 black teenage girls to feminism, as part of the National Women's Studies Association conference. They recounted the experience in a post on Crunk Feminist Collective.

During our Cover It Live event, Sheri, Mashadi, and Asha will be joined by Bianca Laureano, LIE contributor, to talk about planning, funding, and facilitating feminism 101 discussions for black girls. This is not just a conversation, but a call to action. Following the panel discussion, we encourage participants to host their own workshops and individual discussions with black girls and we invite them to share the process and outcomes on Love Isn't Enough so that others may learn from the efforts. (Details to come.)

This effort may be focused on black girls, but we appreciate the beauty and possibility in all girls. Everyone is welcome to contribute and learn from this conversation.

Read more here.

Will you help us spread the word? Tell everyone you know to help us create a valuable conversation about girls and gender equality.

Open Wide...

A Personhood Amendment, for Ladies

Shaker ma_am recently suggested, in response to the onslaught of anti-choice legislation that includes encroachments on reproductive rights that undermine the autonomy of women and other people with uteri as well as proposed "Personhood Amendments" to confer personhood on fetuses, that we need a Personhood Amendment for women and other people with uteri to establish our rights as autonomous people. I suggested we compose the amendment, and then try to get a clever Democratic Senator to introduce it into the US Senate.

So we did!

And then we composed a petition, and ma_am launched it at Change.org.

Here is our prosed Personhood Amendment:

A person identifying as a woman and/or having a uterus shall retain all of the full, basic, and fundamental rights of a US citizen as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Congress and the States shall make no law that infringes upon a person's life, including but not limited to access to life-saving or life-improving healthcare, and/or medicines and procedures deemed necessary or beneficial by a medical professional and/or by the person having the uterus, procurement of which shall not by denied in and of itself by the presence of a uterus. Congress and the States shall make no law that infringes upon a person's liberty, including but not limited to autonomy over hir own body and the ability to make decisions regarding hir own healthcare. Congress and the States shall make no law that interferes with a person's pursuit of happiness, including but not limited to access to a full spectrum of reproductive options, freedom from forcible reproduction, and the ability to make decisions regarding family planning and family resources.

Please sign the petition in support of the Personhood Amendment here. Once it has 1,000 signatures, it will be delivered to Senators Patty Murray (WA), Al Franken (MN), and Kristen Gillibrand (NY) with a request to introduce the proposed amendment into the legislative session.

And please spread the word about the petition via social networking sites. Let's change this conversation. It's time to change "women's rights are human rights" from a radical statement to settled fact.

teaspoon icon Teaspoons ahoy!

Open Wide...

Happy International Women's Day

Today is International Women's Day, which is generally only meaningfully marked by the people who already treat every day as International Women's Day. It is a day on which I am usually pointedly reminded that the business of advocating on behalf of women's equality is still considered woman's work, which tends to give the day a flavor of bitter irony that doesn't want to leave my mouth.

Nonetheless, every year, I feel obliged to try to write something profound for International Women's Day, and every year I fail, and most years I feel more optimistic about the state of women's equality than I do on this day. This morning I woke up, turned on the news, and the first thing I saw on CNN was a segment teaser for a piece about how the Arab Spring has failed to deliver on its promises for women. Quelle surprise.

[Content Note: Below links contain posts discussing violent misogyny.]

I'm angry about the state of the world for the women in it, in the US, along the US border, in Egypt, in DR Congo, in Brazil, in Scotland, in Australia, women in every country all over the world, black women, brown women, white women, tall women, short women, dwarf women, fat women, thin women, in-betweenie women, trans* women, women with disabilities, able-bodied women, neuro-typical women, neuro-atypical women, old women, young women, girls, women with children, childfree women, healthy women, ill women, poor women, rich women, middle class women, employed women, unemployed women, insured women, uninsured women, immigrant women, migrant women, English-speaking women, non-English-speaking women, progressive women, conservative women, women in unions, women in uniforms, women in male-centric careers, women in comas, straight women, lesbian women, bisexual women, asexual women, demisexual women, partnered women, unpartnered women, poly women, powerful women, weak women, vegan woman, vegetarian women, omnivorous women, religious women, atheist women, agnostic women, educated women, uneducated women, women who have survived trauma, women who want my advocacy, women who don't, and/or every other conceivable expression, intersectionality, and experience of womanhood that exists on the planet.

I am angry at what we are denied on the basis of our womanhood, or the insufficiency of our womanhood, or the unacceptable expression of our womanhood, as arbitrarily defined by people fiercely guarding their privilege.

I am angry that we are denied autonomy, dignity, respect, the right of consent, safety, security, opportunity, access, equality—and many things smaller than those.

That anger threatens every day to engulf me, to hold me like a flame under a jar until, starved of oxygen, I disappear into a wisp of smoke. I search each morning for a way to turn that anger into inspiration, fuel, purpose. Today is a day like all others in that regard.

Today is a day when I am angry, but, also like all other days, it is a day on which I am happy to be a woman among women.

I do not long to be the Exceptional Woman. When I find myself in a space in which I am the only woman, I do not feel satisfied, nor do I feel insecure: I feel contemptuous that there aren't more women there. I do not want to compete with other women in a way that suggests there is only room for one of us. I want to lift up other women, and be lifted up by them, and blaze trails in the hopes that many more will follow behind.

I respect women, and I love them. And when I take stock of all the issues disproportionately affecting women across the globe, what I see is lack of respect and love for women so pervasive and profound that to merely assert to love and respect women yet remains a radical act.

It is at the intersection of my anger at the mistreatment of women and my love and respect for them that I find my motivation every day.

I am an imperfect advocate for women, and I have nothing profound to say on International Women's Day. Again. The truth is, I just want to recommit myself to treating every day as a day in which it is important to fight for international justice for women, and to love and respect them, including myself.

I am a feminist with a teaspoon, and I ain't afraid to use it.

Open Wide...

Welcome to Your Backlash

[Content Note: This post discusses the encroachment on women's, trans men's, and genderqueer people with uteris bodily autonomy and the limitation of their reproductive rights and options, as well as the inherent violence of the anti-choice position and movement.]

Two stories arrived in my inbox in quick succession this morning:

1. Operation Rescue Launches Anti-Abortion Website: "Operation Rescue, an extremist anti-abortion group, has launched a website - abortiondocs.org - which lists the photographs and addresses of abortion providers, as well as maps to find their places of business. The website, which describes itself as the 'largest collection of documents on America's abortion cartel,' aims to list every abortion provider in the country." This is terrorism against abortionists and abortion-seeking people, or people who might ever have need of an abortion, plain and simple.

2. Long-Term Worldwide Decline in Abortions Has Stalled, and Unsafe Abortions Have Increased: "After a period of substantial decline, the global abortion rate has stalled, according to new research from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO). Between 1995 and 2003, the overall number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44 years) dropped from 35 to 29; according to the new study, the global abortion rate in 2008 was virtually unchanged, at 28 per 1,000. This plateau coincides with a slowdown, documented by the United Nations, in contraceptive uptake, which has been especially marked in developing countries. The researchers also found that nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, and almost all unsafe abortions occur in the developing world."

On the one hand, these stories each deserve their own post, and I could spend the entire rest of my day writing 3,000 word pieces about each of them. On the other hand, they are part and parcel of the same issue, which is that the anti-choice position is inherently violent, whether it is forcing people with uteri who do not want to be pregnant to submit their bodies against their will to pregnancy and childbirth, or whether it is forcing people with uteri who do not want to be pregnant to seek out unsafe means of terminating a pregnancy—and there is nothing else to say but this: This is incompatible with freedom, if the word is to have any meaning at all.

This is an overtly misogynistic campaign to control the bodies of lives and women—and, by extension if not explicit design, a campaign that wants to wrestle away self-determination (and self-definition) from men and genderqueer people with uteri, too.

It is a violent backlash against the progress of feminism/womanism and gender equality. It is global, it is state-sanctioned in much of the world, and it is consigning people, mostly female people, to injury, to death, to lives they did not want.

This is not Woman's Work. The responsibility for turning this tide belongs to us all.

[See also: Misty's post. Respective hat tips to Shaker MinervaB and the Guttmacher Institute.]

Open Wide...

Woman's Work

For a very long time, Democrats' agreement with progressive women was this: Vote for us, and we will be your champion. In practical terms, despite important pieces of legislation like the Violence Against Women Act and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, being women's champion has largely meant making sure that progress women made wasn't allowed to backslide by standing between progressive women and the enforcers of the Patriarchy in all their guises—conservatism, religion, tradition.

But decades have passed with women on average still making less than men, still widely and primarily victimized by sexual violence (and still vanishingly unlikely to see justice for those crimes against them), still disproportionately affected by the nation's failure to provide a comprehensive and robustly funded social safety net, by unemployment, by food insecurity, by the lack of universal healthcare, by the lack of equal opportunities, by the lack of sensible and fair family-work policies. What social progress does happen frequently comes at the expense of women's reproductive rights.

Women who have multiple axes of oppression—women of color, women with disabilities, women in same-sex partnerships, women who are trans*, fat women, poor women, et. al.—are at increased risk of being marginalized and under-served by their government.

A government whose national legislative body, meant to be representative of the people, is still less than 20% female.

In recent elections, the Democrats' promise to progressive women has been reduced to ensuring (and only when it's politically expedient) that Roe vs. Wade would not be overturned, even as the GOP diligently works to render that ruling an empty statute.

Last spring, Shark-fu and I were talking about the blitz of anti-choice legislation in state legislatures across the nation, and she was telling me about lobbying in Jefferson City, Missouri—one of the many places bills limiting abortion rights are being considered. (The following has been published with her permission.)

Shark-fu: Jeff City was a train wreck. SEIU and others were there trying to stop the right to work bullshit. We were there trying to stop the 20 week abortion ban. And a whole bunch of losers were there showering the House and Senate with praise for giving it to the works and taking away women's rights. Ugh. I had a state Senator tell me that he "has" to vote for abortion restrictions so he can get other stuff done. The price of entry into negotiations with the MO GOP is women's reproductive freedom. I'm disgusted and dreaming of Canada.

Liss: "The price of entry into negotiations with the MO GOP is women's reproductive freedom." This is so depressing. I just don't even know what to say anymore. As I'm sure you know, the same legislation is making its way through the statehouse in Indiana. I'm not only dreaming of Canada; I'm dreaming of menopause, so I don't have to worry about the possibility of ever needing an abortion.

Shark-fu: OMG, it's so funny that you mention menopause! On the drive back yesterday I decided to write a post about how amazingly liberating it is to no longer have a uterus—every time I read a heinous bill I realize that they can't touch me. Sadly, plenty of the bills still apply to my post-hyster self. But they can't force me to get pregnant and that's so damn liberating it's sad.

Liss: If the fact that diminished cis female reproductive capacity (whether via hysterectomy, menopause, or elsewise) feels liberating for feminist women doesn't plainly expose how TOTALLY FUCKED UP the GOP's war on uteri is, I don't know what possibly could.

And then we lolsobbed forever.

This, then, is the situation in which we find ourselves: We are demoralized to the point of imagining, if only in passing, life in another country, or in another body, because we have been abandoned by the only one of the two nationally electable major parties who were even ostensibly on our side, who have negotiated away our alliance because doing so is the price of entry into doing business with the other party.

There is a presidential election coming up. The Democrats will not only want our votes, but expect them. And male partisans, having not learned the lessons of the last election, will admonish any feminist/womanist voter who does not axiomatically promise to give her vote to the Democrats that she is a fool who doesn't even understand her own rights or recognize her own best interests. We will be excoriated for even considering abandoning the Democratic Party, as if the Democratic Party did not abandon us first.

But this is not a post about voting. This is a post about the way reproductive rights are regarded—by the women who are actually affected by them, and by the party who purports to be our ally, and the cavernous divide in between.

My right to control my reproduction—and the respect for my bodily autonomy, agency, and consent that is embedded within that right—is central to my sense of self and my worth to my community and country. I can't put it any more plainly that that. The value of my very humanity is predicated on that right.

That right is not some piece of shit bit of legislation to be used as a dangled carrot during elections and used as a bargaining chip to be negotiated away in between.

And I'm angry that the party meant to champion women's rights doesn't see it the same way. I'm angry that there are so many male Democratic partisans (and not a few women) who claim to be progressive and yet think that whether I am trusted to make the best decisions about my own reproduction isn't a big fucking deal. Or want to lecture me about what a Big Fucking Deal it is when they're trying to bully me into voting for the party whose indifference allows the GOP to chip away at the scope of that right.

If it's not a big fucking deal to you every fucking day, then don't come shouting at me about it every four years like you're Professor Roe V. Wade, foremost expert in Abortionology at Gliberal University.

And if it is a big fucking deal to you every fucking day, then get busy getting involved.

Believe me, I know: Getting involved stinks. You're forced to deal with people who, on the best end, are deliberately obtuse bullies and, on the worst end, spam your inbox with pictures of dead fetuses. These are not pleasant folks, and I'd like to avoid them myself.

Unfortunately, that would necessitate closing up shop, putting down my teaspoon, and going silent. And then, somehow, magically not being a woman who lives in a patriarchy anymore.

This is the hard truth for progressive men who care about reproductive rights: When you leave the public fight to others, you're leaving it mostly to women.

I'll give you a moment to contemplate the many ways in which treating the feminist/womanist fight for reproductive rights as "woman's work" is some fucked-up irony, right there.

*a moment*

Now here's the other thing about leaving the reproductive rights fight to the ladies: Misogynists don't respect women. They don't listen to women; they won't acknowledge a woman's authority on her own lived experiences; they're not going to learn anything from women, and certainly not feminist/womanist women.

Misogynist anti-choicers who believe women to be less than need to hear that they're terribly, infuriatingly, and demonstrably wrong from men. Publicly. Passionately. As loud as the loud, so very loud, voices on the other side. One of the ways their self-reassuring bullshit works is via the effective void of male dissension, which supports their erroneous belief that they are the "objective" arbiters of womanhood.

They count on feminist men never showing up en masse for the main event.

They count on the Democratic Party being too squeamish, too spineless, too unprincipled, too apathetic to stand up for reproductive rights, unyieldingly.

They count on reproductive rights being the first bargaining chip on the table.

They count on the still almost entirely male leadership of the Democratic Party and the vast number of male Democratic partisans giving themselves permission to not get publicly involved, or to get publicly involved only when it's convenient and not all that risky and not all that hard.

They count on men trading on that privilege of not having to get involved.

They count on Democratic partisans being more interested in hectoring dispossessed progressive women than in being their allies and fighting this fight alongside them, every day.

They count on reproductive rights being treated as Woman's Work, and thus being devalued as woman's work inevitably is.

They are trying to overwhelm and demoralize the (mostly) women to whom this work is being left.

If the Democratic Party wants to retain its alliance with women, they'd better send reinforcements. And soon.

By way of suggestion, I recommend that the allegedly feminist staunch defender of reproductive rights, President Barack Obama, who happens to be currently seeking reelection, give some of his fancy speech-making on behalf of the 52% of the nation whose rights are being eroded. The states enacting a record number of abortion restrictions last year seems like it warrants his comment. Ahem.

[This piece was originally published in similar form April 4, 2011. It's particularly relevant again lately.]

Open Wide...

Woman's Work

For a very long time, Democrats' agreement with progressive women was this: Vote for us, and we will be your champion. In practical terms, despite important pieces of legislation like the Violence Against Women Act and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, being women's champion has largely meant making sure that progress women made wasn't allowed to backslide by standing between progressive women and the enforcers of the Patriarchy in all their guises—conservatism, religion, tradition.

But decades have passed with women on average still making less than men, still widely and primarily victimized by sexual violence (and still vanishingly unlikely to see justice for those crimes against them), still disproportionately affected by the nation's failure to provide a comprehensive and robustly funded social safety net, by unemployment, by food insecurity, by the lack of universal healthcare, by the lack of equal opportunities, by the lack of sensible and fair family-work policies. What social progress does happen frequently comes at the expense of women's reproductive rights.

Women who have multiple axes of oppression—women of color, women with disabilities, women in same-sex partnerships, women who are trans*, fat women, poor women, et. al.—are at increased risk of being marginalized and under-served by their government.

A government whose national legislative body, meant to be representative of the people, is still less than 20% female.

In recent elections, the Democrats' promise to progressive women has been reduced to ensuring (and only when it's politically expedient) that Roe vs. Wade would not be overturned, even as the GOP diligently works to render that ruling an empty statute.

Last week, Shark-fu and I were talking about the blitz of anti-choice legislation in state legislatures across the nation, and she was telling me about lobbying in Jefferson City, Missouri—one of the many places bills limiting abortion rights are being considered. (The following has been published with her permission.)

Shark-fu: Jeff City was a train wreck. SEIU and others were there trying to stop the right to work bullshit. We were there trying to stop the 20 week abortion ban. And a whole bunch of losers were there showering the House and Senate with praise for giving it to the works and taking away women's rights. Ugh. I had a state Senator tell me that he "has" to vote for abortion restrictions so he can get other stuff done. The price of entry into negotiations with the MO GOP is women's reproductive freedom. I'm disgusted and dreaming of Canada.

Liss: "The price of entry into negotiations with the MO GOP is women's reproductive freedom." This is so depressing. I just don't even know what to say anymore. As I'm sure you know, the same legislation is making its way through the statehouse in Indiana. I'm not only dreaming of Canada; I'm dreaming of menopause, so I don't have to worry about the possibility of ever needing an abortion.

Shark-fu: OMG, it's so funny that you mention menopause! On the drive back yesterday I decided to write a post about how amazingly liberating it is to no longer have a uterus—every time I read a heinous bill I realize that they can't touch me. Sadly, plenty of the bills still apply to my post-hyster self. But they can't force me to get pregnant and that's so damn liberating it's sad.

Liss: If the fact that diminished cis female reproductive capacity (whether via hysterectomy, menopause, or elsewise) feels liberating for feminist women doesn't plainly expose how TOTALLY FUCKED UP the GOP's war on uteri is, I don't know what possibly could.

And then we lolsobbed forever.

This, then, is the situation in which we find ourselves: We are demoralized to the point of imagining, if only in passing, life in another country, or in another body, because we have been abandoned by the only one of the two nationally electable major parties who were even ostensibly on our side, who have negotiated away our alliance because doing so is the price of entry into doing business with the other party.

There is a presidential election coming up. The Democrats will not only want our votes, but expect them. And male partisans, having not learned the lessons of the last election, will admonish any feminist/womanist voter who does not axiomatically promise to give her vote to the Democrats that she is a fool who doesn't even understand her own rights or recognize her own best interests. We will be excoriated for even considering abandoning the Democratic Party, as if the Democratic Party did not abandon us first.

But this is not a post about voting. This is a post about the way reproductive rights are regarded—by the women who are actually affected by them, and by the party who purports to be our ally, and the cavernous divide in between.

My right to control my reproduction—and the respect for my bodily autonomy, agency, and consent that is embedded within that right—is central to my sense of self and my worth to my community and country. I can't put it any more plainly that that. The value of my very humanity is predicated on that right.

That right is not some piece of shit bit of legislation to be used as a dangled carrot during elections and used as a bargaining chip to be negotiated away in between.

And I'm angry that the party meant to champion women's rights doesn't see it the same way. I'm angry that there are so many male Democratic partisans (and not a few women) who claim to be progressive and yet think that whether I am trusted to make the best decisions about my own reproduction isn't a big fucking deal. Or want to lecture me about what a Big Fucking Deal it is when they're trying to bully me into voting for the party whose indifference allows the GOP to chip away at the scope of that right.

If it's not a big fucking deal to you every fucking day, then don't come shouting at me about it every four years like you're Professor Roe V. Wade, foremost expert in Abortionology at Gliberal University.

And if it is a big fucking deal to you every fucking day, then get busy getting involved.

Believe me, I know: Getting involved stinks. You're forced to deal with people who, on the best end, are deliberately obtuse bullies and, on the worst end, spam your inbox with pictures of dead fetuses. These are not pleasant folks, and I'd like to avoid them myself.

Unfortunately, that would necessitate closing up shop, putting down my teaspoon, and going silent. And then, somehow, magically not being a woman who lives in a patriarchy anymore.

This is the hard truth for progressive men who care about reproductive rights: When you leave the public fight to others, you're leaving it mostly to women.

I'll give you a moment to contemplate the many ways in which treating the feminist/womanist fight for reproductive rights as "woman's work" is some fucked-up irony, right there.

*a moment*

Now here's the other thing about leaving the reproductive rights fight to the ladies: Misogynists don't respect women. They don't listen to women; they won't acknowledge a woman's authority on her own lived experiences; they're not going to learn anything from women, and certainly not feminist/womanist women.

Misogynist anti-choicers who believe women to be less than need to hear that they're terribly, infuriatingly, and demonstrably wrong from men. Publicly. Passionately. As loud as the loud, so very loud, voices on the other side. One of the ways their self-reassuring bullshit works is via the effective void of male dissension, which supports their erroneous belief that they are the "objective" arbiters of womanhood.

They count on feminist men never showing up en masse for the main event.

They count on the Democratic Party being too squeamish, too spineless, too unprincipled, too apathetic to stand up for reproductive rights, unyieldingly.

They count on reproductive rights being the first bargaining chip on the table.

They count on the still almost entirely male leadership of the Democratic Party and the vast number of male Democratic partisans giving themselves permission to not get publicly involved, or to get publicly involved only when it's convenient and not all that risky and not all that hard.

They count on men trading on that privilege of not having to get involved.

They count on Democratic partisans being more interested in hectoring dispossessed progressive women than in being their allies and fighting this fight alongside them, every day.

They count on reproductive rights being treated as Woman's Work, and thus being devalued as woman's work inevitably is.

They are trying to overwhelm and demoralize the (mostly) women to whom this work is being left.

If the Democratic Party wants to retain its alliance with women, they'd better send reinforcements. And soon.

By way of suggestion, I recommend sending out that allegedly feminist staunch defender of reproductive rights, President Barack Obama, to give some of his fancy speech-making on behalf of the 52% of the nation whose rights are being eroded. Three hundred and fifty-one pieces of legislation seems like it warrants his comment. Ahem.

Open Wide...

You're Humorless, Stupid, Oversensitive, and Ugly

[This was originally posted in Dec. 2006. I am reposting it with minor edits (chiefly, the inclusion of womanism), after a conversation with a friend who was (coincidentally) cast as the hysterical harpy this morning by coworkers for not enjoying True Blood.]

Jessica (with her original emphasis):

I can't tell you how many times after telling a guy I'm a feminist, he'll jokingly throw his hands up in defense as if I'm gearing up to attack him. Now of course, this is tremendously stupid and annoying on a number of levels: first, it plays on the idea that feminists are scary and man-hating, but more importantly it's meant to be mocking. (Haha, don't hit me, little cute feminist girl!) I even had someone, after telling him that I run a feminist blog, lift up my arm and peer into my armpit jokingly—looking for hair. Yeah, hysterical.
Feminists/Womanists Can't Win 101: When identifying oneself as a feminist/womanist (FW) to a non-FW, the non-FW is likely to make a gesture or comment that is trite and uninspired. When the FW reacts to the "joke" with the resounding dearth of laughter it deserves, the non-FW's presumption that FWs are humorless is thusly reinforced.

If your comedy instincts include whipping out a comment about granola or leghair upon hearing the word "feminism," feminists' sense of humor isn't really the problem, k?

What truly kills me about the "oh so scary feminist" stereotype is that it's generally a big joke to the people who perpetuate it. The implication is that while we're unattractive and annoying (bitches and ballbusters, all of us), we're not really a threat at all—just bothersome. It's a sweet little way to make feminism seem uncool and unimportant all the same time.

I think what's most important to remember about this stereotype—and most hackneyed bullshit involving feminism, really—is that is serves a specific, strategic purpose. Not many people want to be considered nasty and scary—especially young women.
Very true. Or so I've heard, anyway; being perceived as nasty and/or scary has never been a particular concern of mine, ahem.

In all seriousness, the fear of—or, perhaps more accurately, the frustration with—being seen as irrational (unintelligent) and hypersensitive (uncool) are as equally important factors for FW women, which is why I firmly believe that every women's studies program at every university should include an introductory course called You're Humorless, Stupid, Oversensitive, and Ugly, the objective of which is to explore the practical realities of being an active FW in the world. I've seen women with a belly full of fire and a head full of steam about overt sexism at work absolutely crumple like a flan in a cupboard with one comment about how they are humorless, over-reactionary, dowdy, fat, or, simply, not fun—not because they are weak, but because they are unprepared.

It's a shock to the system to collide head-on with such an entirely inappropriate non sequitur about one's appearance or personality, to have a meritorious argument dismissed with schoolyard mockery dressed up as adult discourse. It can be highly embarrassing, too, particularly if it happens in front of other people, and all the theory in the world can't protect against that sort of paralyzing surprise. FWs for whom the thick skin is not innate could probably benefit from a little assistance in the form of being taught what to expect. (Especially since any veteran FW could teach the damn course; we've all experienced the same tired shit. Nothing ever seems to be new in anti-feminism…)

That shouldn't be misconstrued as an exhortation to develop a resistance to listening, learning, or legitimate criticism, but merely to find a way to avoid internalizing predictable unfair attacks—some of which will come disguised as accusations of not listening, not learning, or refusing to acknowledge as legitimate criticism some rubbish like "I don't object to what you're saying; I object to how you're saying it" (the utterers of which are, to the contrary, almost invariably masking theoretical, not semantic, objections) or "Feminism is exclusionary" (a complaint, you'll note, strangely never made by men who have included themselves).

Standing one's ground in the face of repeated accusations of being unreasonably strident and unyielding is tough when the indictment has a façade vaguely resembling fairness. It's imperative that young (and/or recently converted) FWs find a way to see through and deal with the bullshit that inevitably surrounds this deeply personal issue; otherwise life will seem a whole lot longer than one might like.

And then the trick is to find, as much as anyone is able, a balance between using humor whenever possible, and kicking it into hardcore high gear when necessary, without apology. Being a successful FW in a world so largely resistant to your ideals takes, rather unfairly I'm afraid, a certain panache and charisma dependent on not caring whether anyone thinks you have panache or charisma.

That's a real kick in the pants, as they say, but The Patriarchy never told us life was fair.

Quite the opposite, actually. It's no wonder we feel grumpy sometimes; there's no need to exacerbate it by feeling guilty about that, too. Tears in a bucket; motherfuckit, bitchez. When we laugh, we laugh—and when we don't, well, maybe it's because there just ain't shit to laugh about that day. I'm all right with that.

Open Wide...