Link

Post from my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

(In brief because I’m still too busy with work.)

If you need any convincing today that religion and feminism just do not mix, have aread of this piece. The site on which I found the piece seems to be devoted to merging religion and the state as much as it can (and we all know what a good idea that is!), and claims that it wishes to “support the self-evident truths found in the Declaration of Independence, and their faithful application through upholding the U.S. Constitution, as written. Its purpose is to thoughtfully and courageously advance the cause of our nation’s Founders”. Um.

The piece in question maintains that the Christian church (denomination unclear) has bought into the “lie” of feminism and women’s rights. In doing so, the church has  allowed the poor menz to be emasculated and has (breathe deeply) put women on the pulpit. Women don’t have “god-given” roles. Men do. Women should be kept in their place. And that place is not the pulpit. Bonnie Alba, there. She knows her place.

When we see women pastors standing in the pulpit, we have to wonder, what happened? to the men and male leadership? Thirty years of being emasculated and undermined by women striving for an equality they already had, men have ceded to women. Men have abandoned their God-given roles.

Reading further, the author engages in a little bit of slut-shaming just for good measure. “Fallen women” always want a man to blame, or something. That bit doesn’t make a great deal of sense. I think she just wanted to have a bit of a go but wasn’t really sure how to go about it.

The author concludes that because of feminism (read: women in general) the US of A is on its frickin’ knees. Much like women should be, I dare say…

Link

From my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

I’m still trying to process this particular story: girls who like rock and roll are whores(thegloss, hat tip to lastyearsgirl). One should always begin a discussion which involves the word “whore” with the question: “what is a whore”? It’s a much-used term yet I’ve never quite understood what it means. It’s generally directed at those women who have sex and enjoy sex, though if those women are married the term doesn’t apply, as I understand it. So, unmarried women who have and enjoy sex are whores. (So what about lesbians who can’t legally get married in the traditional sense? Or does it just apply to heterosexual females?) There’s also a consideration of the number of partners, I believe, although that number is entirely arbitrary and subjective. I don’t know if five sexual partners makes you a whore, or if it’s 10, or if it’s 20, or if it’s 100. Other behaviours are often discussed also; for example, if a woman likes a drink of an evening, she may be a whore. There’s probably an age consideration also, with younger women arguably more likely to be “labelled” whores than older women, and there could also be an ethnic element in the mix. And, of course, if a man whistles to a woman on the street and comments on her “nice tits” and she ignores him, it’s very likely that he will call her a whore. Because, you know, that’s a complement, right, and she’s a slut for not indulging his ego and god-given patriarchal right to objectify her. But I digress. A whore is anything or anyone you want it to be, m’kay?

In the case of the linked piece, Men’s Health – that pinnacle of philogyny – reports that women are whores if they like rock and roll. Women who listen to Nirvana are more likely to “put out” on the first date than women who listen to Coldplay.* (Yes, seriously!) And why? Because of the lyrics, of course. Cobain was a shagger and Martin is, well, he’s not a shagger. (They do make a semi-interesting point about normalising different sorts of behaviours but it’s impossible to take any of it seriously when it’s all intended to slut-shame.) It is admitted that the study is unscientific. Ahem.

In somewhat related news, Psychology Today reports that Princeton researchers have found that sexy women are more likely to be seen as sex objects. Why? Because some male brains neurologically deny sexualized women “humanity”. When these men viewed pictures of scantily clad women (that’s the study’s definition of sexiness, by the way), their brains did not perceive them as being fully human. (Other studies have found, you may be interested in noting, that such women are less moral, likeable and intelligent!) A couple of things. First, these men can’t help themselves if they dehumanise a sexy lady because it’s all to do with their brains and their cognition over which they have no control. Irrelevant, it seems, is the patriarchal culture which has permitted them to dehumanise women in the first place. Second, sexy ladies, you only have yourself to blame if you’re not given the respect you deserve; again, remember, it’s the poor menz brains going all awry when they see you. Third, perhaps you just shouldn’t be sexy at all, for your own sake. And, by sexy, don’t forget that we mean scantily clad. If nothing else, you should have a care for what your appearance is doing to these poor blokes whose brains are fried every time they turn the corner. Not a bit wonder they see you as sub-human, you flipping harlot! Psychology Today there, always good for larks.


* Women who listen to Coldplay have a whole other term in my book but it applies to men also.

Link

From my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

Yes, I know Osama Bin Laden was killed today or yesterday or overnight but I have a feeling that’s been done to death (pun intended) at this stage. Frankly, I’m trying to avoid seeing any more menacing crowds full of people who seem to be delighting in the bloodlust. It’s stomach-churning.

And I want to write about something else anyway.

Many of my betters have commented on calmdowndeargate before me (and have done so better than I could hope to) so I won’t labour over it again in much detail. For those of you who have been in hiding, or who have genuinely not read about or watched anything but the royal nonsense for a week, you may not know that our delightful PM, David (“Call me Dave”) Cameron, last week instructed a member of the opposition in the Commons to, “calm down, dear” during Prime Minister’s Questions. It will not come as any surprise to you that said member is a woman.

Cath Elliott wrote a wonderful piece in Comment in Free which lambasted Dave for his sexist remark. In the piece, she discusses Cameron’s categorical denial that he’s a sexist pig by rightly arguing that if he were not, such a remark would not have just rolled off his tongue. Sexism (just like racism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, etc. etc.) does not just “slip out” if you’ve never considered it before. Dave has all the trappings of a would-be-sexist, of course: old Etonian and member of the Bullingdon Club in Oxford (I went to Oxford; I’ve had some of the misogyny from those charmers first-hand), so the evidence is already stacked against him. Add into the mix his brutal budget cuts, most of which impinge on women most severely, and his virtually all-male cabinet, and there’s little point in him denying his sexism further. That, Dave, is a cert.

But why the vehemence of the reaction, you ask. Well, it’s because we’re fucking sick of it. Women have been told to “calm down” since time began, normally when they’re trying to make a point, argue a perspective, or offer an opinion. To do so, and to do so passionately, is hysteria, you see. Women shouldn’t have discussions because they get too damn emotional and invariably need to, yes, calm down. From Cath Elliott again:

Whatever his excuse turns out to be though, any woman who watched [Wednesday’s] exchange will be able to attest that “Calm down, dear” is neither humorous nor edgy; it is instead a classic sexist put-down, designed to shut women up and put them back “in their place”. “Calm down, dear” is what women hear when we’re allegedly being “hysterical” or “overemotional”. It’s that tired old gender stereotyping, the sort that implies that if we can’t even keep our emotions in check, then we obviously aren’t cut out for the more serious male world of politics and debate.

I have a colleague – a classic misogynist who thinks he’s a feminist because he “likes” women and supports them in their little endeavours – who tells his female colleagues to calm down all the time. He doesn’t realise (or doesn’t care) how utterly offensive and silencing those two little words are. I’ve told him, but it doesn’t need to matter to him. He and Dave are never told to calm down because they’re educated, privileged, white men who are allowed to have opinions and to express them in whatever way they please. Their faults, whatever they are, could never be called “uncalm”.

Women, on the other hand, have to checked, reprimanded, and reminded of their place all the time. That’s the first rule of the patriarchy. Let’s face it, they’d be better off not speaking in the first place if they can’t avoid being hysterical, amirite? ‘Course I am. And wouldn’t that be a happy day for you, Dave?

Link

They’re plenty prepared to tell you what to do with your uterus but it will not be mentioned by name. Dirty, filthy, lady bits!

Let’s face it: the GOP has some problems with understanding science. It probably comes from embracing creationism, or their refusal to listen to those dread agents of the government, teachers. But whatever the cause, Republicans tend to react to discussions of scientific fact by covering their ears, shouting “LA LA LA CAN’T HEAR YOU!”, and asserting that several lobbyists have assured them that the Sun does too orbit the Earth, and that there’s no such thing as “water,” and that contraceptives actually increase the likelihood of pregnancy when they’re not causing abortions.

Still, while I’m used to Republicans boiling all arguments down beyond reductio ad absurdum, they still have the capacity to surprise me. Take the Florida Republicans, please:

At one point [Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando] suggested that his wife “incorporate her uterus” to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn’t want to further regulate a Florida business.

Apparently the GOP leadership of the House didn’t like the one-liner.

They told Democrats that Randolph is not to discuss body parts on the House floor.

“The point was that Republicans are always talking about deregulation and big government,” Randolph said Thursday. “And I always say their philosophy is small government for the big guy and big government for the little guy. And so, if my wife’s uterus was incorporated or my friend’s bedroom was incorporated, maybe they (Republicans) would be talking about deregulating.

“It’s not like I used slang,” said Randolph, who actually got the line from his wife.

First, it is a good line. Randolph has a smart wife. Second, “uterus?” Really, you can’t mention body parts on the floor of the Florida House?

Hell no you can’t!

Text

When it comes to pay, do the thin win? The effect of weight on pay for men and women

Thank you for this very telling piece, redlightpolitics:

Just came across this study, from late 2010, which compares the effect of weight gain and pay gaps for men and women in Germany and the US (link goes to PDF). The study was conducted by Timothy Judge from University of Florida and Daniel Cable from the London School of Economics and it took multi-year data from around 11,000 people in Germany, and 8,000 in the US. From the intro:

Cultivation theory suggests that society holds very different body standards for men versus women, and research indicates that the consequences of defying these social norms may not be linear. To test these notions in the employment context, we examined the relationship between weight and income and the degree to which the relationship varies by gender. For women, we theorized a negative weight– income relationship that is steepest at the thin end of the distribution. For men, we predicted a positive weight–income relationship until obesity, where it becomes negative. To test these hypotheses, we utilized 2 longitudinal studies, 1 German and 1 American. In Study 1, weight was measured over 2 time periods, and earnings were averaged over the subsequent 5 years. Study 2 was a multilevel study in which weight and earnings were within-individual variables observed over time, and gender was a between- individual variable. Results from the 2 studies generally support the hypotheses, even when examining within-individual changes in weight over time.

Read More

Text

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

redlightpolitics:

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

I’m going to present this without commentary, because anything I say will not do this nonsense any justice:

Why the Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth   
  • Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They’re all male-dominated jobs.
  • Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, “In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals.” Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent “in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations.”

Read More

Text

Slut Shame: Why Do We Still Attack Women for Having Sex?

lipstick-feminists:

Slut Shame: Why Do We Still Attack Women for Having Sex?

On January 26, Loren Feldman wrote an open letter to media personality Julia Allison’s father, alleging to her expertise at oral sex and her promiscuity. The post, which has since been removed, is a prime example of the ease with which the accusation of being a slut is still hurled at women as a way to shame and degrade them.

Allison has plenty of company. To name a few, sex bloggers Kendra Halliday, aka The Beautiful Kind, who lost her job when a technical glitch outed her real name, and Lena Chen, who found herself paired with the Gawker headline “Worst Overshare Anywhere Ever” after posting a photo of herself after her boyfriend had ejaculated on her face. The Today Show’s Kathie Lee Gifford inspired a Change.org petition after she told Jersey Shore reality star Snooki that she should “value herself more. Don’t give yourself away to just any jerk, okay?” Slut-shaming can happen to anyone⎯well, any woman. Maybe you’ve written about your sex life, or maybe you’ve just been bold enough to express the fact that you don’t want to have kids. Maybe you wore a revealing outfit on a red carpet (see January Jones’ Golden Globes dress) or Tweeted a cleavage photo (Meghan McCain).

(Source: stfufauxminists)

Text

Rape is not a compliment

petitefeministe:

Rape is not a compliment

TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE

As the bafflingly tenacious power of religion proves, humans like stories that help them make sense of the world, even if the stories themselves make not a jot of sense. The belief that life is part of a divine plan in which one’s fate will be what one deserves will always hold more allure than the idea that life is just a series of random incidents with no guarantee of a happy ending, no matter how good a person you are.

This inability of humankind to bear very much reality explains how one clearly ridiculous story still has a purchase on the public imagination: that rape has something to do with desirability.

The terrible story of Delroy Grant, the serial sex attacker who was given life imprisonment last week after terrorising at least 203 elderly people, offered much jaw-dropping horror for newspapers to chew over: the police blunders that let Grant continue his attacks; the unimaginable trauma he inflicted on his victims; the fact that many of them died before Grant was brought to justice. But these facts weren’t enough for some papers and they focused on something else, something that seemed to confirm to them Grant’s depravity at least as much as his actions: that he chose to rape the elderly. London’s Evening Standard, for one, felt that this was so extraordinary that it merited its own little article in the middle of its double-spread report of the case, expressing “bafflement” at a “family man’s sexual attraction to the elderly”.

Now, one might think that Grant’s victims had suffered enough without the British press gasping that it’s a marvel anyone would want to have sex with them, even a rapist, and especially a seemingly normal “family man”. But this response is borne out of the still all-too prevalent belief – sometimes subconscious, sometimes less so – that sexual attacks are the expression of untrammelled desire and, ergo, the victim in some way has to be desirable, which brings us back to ye olde hoary chestnut of the victim being in some way at fault.

One doesn’t need to look too far for examples of this attitude. In fact, one could look to New Delhi where, according to a survey conducted last year, almost a third of women have been physically harassed by men. This, according to Ranjana Kumari, a leading women’s rights advocate, speaking to the New York Times, is because of the “tension between the people who are traditional in their mindset and the city that is changing rapidly”. Confirming Kumari’s diagnosis, the mother of one man recently accused of gang-raping a young woman told the same newspaper, “If these girls will roam around like this, then the boys will make mistakes.”

The New York Times itself fell into this trap earlier this month when reporting the story about 18 men who were charged with gang-raping an 11-year-old girl in an abandoned trailer home. The little girl, the paper noted, “dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground …” HANGING OUT with boys?! Well, the little slut was asking for it.

It’s easy to dismiss this mentality as being limited to those whose view of women tends to the prehistoric end of the gender-relations spectrum. I did, until a few weeks ago when I had what I would describe as a minor stalker issue – minor, although by the third day, the increasingly weird hourly texts and late-night doorbell ringing really had begun to lose their charm.

I told as many people as possible about it, particularly people who see me most days, just to be safe. I told them the full story of how I’d met this person, his phone number and how many times he had emailed to tell me he’d made another painting of my face. Everyone was very sympathetic, but five times out of 10, their first question was, “So did you sleep with him?” Now, I could take it as a compliment that 50% of the seemingly sensible people who know me think that my sexual skills are such that I could cause a man to become mentally ill. But this would require extra-strength blinkers to stop me from seeing the obvious truth that this non-compliment contains within the hard nugget of misogyny – namely, that women who are sexually harassed have brought it on themselves, either through their looks or behaviour.

It seems extraordinary in a week when another woman, Eman al-Obeidi, told journalists in Libya that she had been raped and beaten by members of Gaddafi’s militia that one needs to say that sexual attacks have nothing to do with desire, but are about the abuse of power, sadism and mental illness. They have nothing to do with the looks of the victim, contrary to what Hollywood movies suggest, in which rape victims are always attractive and usually blond. (Al-Obeidi told journalists, before Gaddafi’s forces dragged her away screaming, that she had been raped by 15 men “and they defecated and urinated on me”. I’m guessing she did not feel flattered.)

This is why Delroy Grant’s targeting of the elderly was, while shockingly cruel, not perverted in the way some papers seemed to think: old people are vulnerable, therefore irresistible to someone who gets off on torturing the helpless. Rape and sexual harassment are not compliments doled out only to the beautiful and alluring. They are an extreme form of bullying, and they can, tragically, happen to anyone.

Link

Because it’s always more important to discuss a female politicians clothes than it is to discuss her polices.

Earlier today at a “townterview” in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, before an audience of students and young professionals, secretary of State Hillary Clinton had fielded a number of bland, boring questions about Kyrgyzstani issues when the moderator decided to sex things up a bit by asking a few things that would “touch some personality of Hillary Clinton.” It started out fine. No, Chelsea doesn’t have any political ambitions, Clinton said. No, she wasn’t afraid to come to Bishkek, despite the recent explosion. Then it got awkward.

MODERATOR 1: Okay. Which designers do you prefer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes?

MODERATOR 1: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)

“Eh, that’s not that awkward,” you may be saying to yourself. “A little embarrassing for the moderator, but I’ve seen worse.” But consider that just literally moments before, Clinton had advised a young female lawyer about succeeding in a world of sexist attitudes.

“It requires, for a woman, usually in today’s world still, an extra amount of effort because I think it’s - the fact that women are still sometimes judged more critically. If you are in the courtroom or you are presenting a case, it still is a fact - and this is not just in Kyrgyzstan, this is everywhere - that when a man walks into a courtroom it’s rare for someone to say, “Oh, look what he is wearing.” (Laughter.) But if you walk into a courtroom, or any young woman walks into a courtroom, people are going to notice. And that will be an additional requirement that you have to meet.”

Had the moderator just zoned out during this answer? Was he too wedded to his (we think it was a he, although the transcript is unclear) prepared questions? Or did he just not realize how extra horrible his question would sound coming right after Clinton’s remarks about sexism? It probably doesn’t matter, Kyrgyzstan. Clinton’s heard it all before. If you happen to see a big drop-off in American aid this year, it’s probably not related to this incident at all.

Text

This is still a man’s world - Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

petitefeministe:

This is still a man’s world - Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

Turns out I can be sexist, easily, naturally, as if it is what nature intended, though I like to think I am a passionate advocate for women’s rights. Over the last 30 years the articles on gender injustice this Ms Right On has written, plus speeches, policy papers, chapters in books and emails, would fill a shipping container, or two even. And yet last week I let the side down, badly.

It was at a seminar on broadcast interviews – the most effective styles, and how real answers can be extracted from media savvy interviewees. Justin Webb of the Today programme, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and I were on the panel. We discussed great exchanges and inquisitors. Until the last five minutes, not one female broadcaster had been mentioned, and two smart young women spoke up to ask why not. They shamed us twice over – a vital conversation had dwelt only on male excellence and we hadn’t realised that. Somehow forgotten were Martha Kearney, Kirsty Wark, Caroline Quinn, Ritula Shah, Anita Anand, Sarah Montague, Jenni Murray, Victoria Derbyshire… At every level, still, even in the West, women are invisible, neglected, kept down, slighted, patronised, objectified, denied and demeaned in everyday life.

Read More

Web Analytics