Helen Boyd Kramer's journal on gender and stuff
This is one of those songs that’s going to be entirely misunderstood, much like “Every Breath You Take Was”. I’ll put money on it showing up at weddings, even.
And don’t miss some of the coldest lyrics about marriage I’ve ever heard:
i want to settle down
It’s time to bring you down
on just one knee for now
let’s make our vows
But it’s critique of marriage, competition between women, and that mannequin-like man spouse: It’s so spot on, no?
I’ve been a self-proclaimed feminist for 20 years now, and it took me a very, very long while to realize that Title IX was not ONLY about sports. It states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity.
There is no specific mention of sports, you’ll notice. I’ll be honest that that bias toward the sports issues it raised really pisses me off. And to clarify: I don’t hate sports. I just hate the way sports take up all the air in the room, all the time. And in this case, one of the reasons every reference we hear to Title IX concerns sports is because right out of the gate there were people more worried about how this might disrupt male athletes for a tiny goddamn second.
So to clarify, Title IX actually addresses all inequities in ANY EDUCATION PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY, which includes (but is not limited to):
Imagine.
That said, today it has been 40 years since Title IX was enacted by President Nixon, and I’m glad we’ve got it. Lately, honestly, I’m wondering what happened that we seemed to abandon so many of the amazing goals of the 60s and 70s, or exactly when we took our eye off equity.
In this article by a 55 year old woman about being childfree, this was the part that landed most squarely with me.
At one of many going-away parties, the wife of one of my colleagues in the philosophy department, after asking if I had children or planned to, blurted out a version of what my mother had said years before, telling me that having children was essential because it opened one up to a world of opportunities one would otherwise not have. What stands out in my mind from this conversation was this woman’s anger. At the time, I couldn’t figure out why my decision not to have kids made her so angry, why she insisted so stridently that I was wrong not to want them. I wasn’t angry with her for wanting and having them, after all. What I learned, from this and other conversations on the subject with women who are parents, is that it is usually quite difficult to explain your decision not to have children to those who have chosen to do so without offending them in some unspoken but very deep and palpable way. I believe this is partly because many of them are secretly envious of the child-free and also—perhaps more importantly—see the child-free person as a repudiation of their own life choice and, worse, as a sign of “non-envy.” Imitation is the highest form of flattery and the surest sign of envy. My child-free state was like a mirror that did not reflect their image. I gradually learned to provide nonanswers to questions pertaining to children and parenthood. (It is interesting to note, from my own experience, that men rarely if ever asked me about children and my lack of them.)
Because, well, YES. I was recently told by someone that I probably didn’t understand “their world” and I bit my tongue to keep from saying “oh yes I do – that’s why I didn’t choose it.”
I’ve often taught that one of the things that happens in trans communities – as well as in others, no doubt – that many people want you to do what they did in order to validate their own choices. There is tremendous pressure about a lot of life decisions, but for me, the feminist option is to respect women who decide to have children, no matter what they give up to do so. Me? I couldn’t. Didn’t want to. Needed to write, adventure, love broadly. I find so much maternal expression in so many other things I do; I am both loyal and protective, demanding and comforting. That is, I don’t think you need to be a mother in order to be one, so to speak. Continue reading “Childfree, Not Childless”
15 years for a 27 year old man who repeated gang raped an 11 year old with 19 other men: that’s what’s wrong with this country.
I hate being anything like essentialist about gender, but the misogyny coming out of the Republican party just pisses me off.
That said, if you have a vagina you may not be female, and if you don’t have one, you may be. But either way, you probably know and respect someone who has one, so tell these guys to STFU, already.
She was speaking out against a bill that would limit abortions.
“Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no,'” Brown said Wednesday.
You really have to wonder about a group of lawmakers who are so uncomfortable with women’s bodies that they can’t abide the word “vagina” but who feel comfortable telling women what to do with their bodies.
I strongly recommend a filibuster with The Vagina Monologues.
My friend Dylan found this article on what it means to be an ally – and therefore given more power & privilege than the group you’re working for, and I find it echoes a lot of my experience.
These four points especially:
- We don’t *need* the movement: we can leave at any time. This means we are more free to piss people off etc
- Outsiders to the movement will reward us more. We’ll be seen as more generous, heroic etc for our efforts in the movement, and probably given more respect, airtime and resources as a result. Sometimes this results in really tangible benefits like research grants, book deals, employment.
- Insiders in the movement will reward and value us more, knowing that outsiders will value us, and that therefore we’re useful spokespeople and a legitimising presence. This means that sometimes we can get our way by threatening to leave. Even without threats, people will be eager to appease and placate us.
- Because we’re usually still able to access the various kinds of support and resources open to us outside the groups we are allies to, that means we have two areas to draw on, whereas non-ally activists have only their own communities’ support and resources.
Very, very good thoughtful stuff, and unlike many other articles on the subject, it actually provides useful ways of defeating, or subverting, those kinds of power.
Problematic bits to her answer, but she still came down on the right side of this question. And the audience agreed enthusiastically.
So I’ll shut up about the whole beauty pageant issue for now. Ahem.
Radfem Sheila Jeffreys has been barred from speaking at RadFem 2012, a radical feminist conference in the UK.
She complained about it to the Guardian.
She is writing a book on the hurt caused by transgenderism. You can read about it here, but here’s the blurb:
“Transgender describes those who seek recognition as the opposite sex or gender on a long-term basis. The idea and practice of transgenderism now affects legal systems, schoolteachers, parents, wives and partners, and the politics of gender in profound ways. Gender Hurts examines the wider social and political context and implications of the phenomenon of transgenderism. Jeffreys and Gottschalk propose that gender in western culture is socially constructed as the basis of male domination and that the concept of gender has the potential to hurt many. They argue that in transgenderism the hurt can take several forms; psychologically, physically and socially. This book explore how the phenomenon is affecting people’s lives from exploring the implications for the children and adults who are diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, to the survivors’ movement who claim to have been misdiagnosed, and the impact on the partners of transgenders. This controversial book is a must read for all students and scholars of the politics of sexuality, women’s studies, gender studies, queer studies, transgender studies and cultural studies courses.”
Same hateful bullshit.
If anyone said the same stuff about women that radfems say about trans people, it would be called sexism. It is sad to see the amazing potential and significant contributions of radical feminism becoming mired in anti trans rhetoric and now research.
If you’d like some interesting historical contrast, Stephen Whittle’s piece “Where Did We Go Wrong?” discusses how his transition was accepted and even encouraged by the radical feminist group he belonged to at the time, but which changed with the publication of Raymond’s Transsexual Empire in 1979. So there is prior, pro trans radical feminism out there to build on, even if it’s 37 years old.
You don’t really have to wait even a minute for an example of the kind of victim-blaming that Slutwalk is all about, but this one is particularly horrific, as the young woman died in a fire on Saturday and the coverage of her death appeared in The New York Times. The journalist quotes someone who calls her a “he”, comments on the men she invited to her apartment, and describes her curvaceous body.
As if any of these things had anything to do with her dying in this fire. Pathetic reporting, pathetic culture we live in.
Other folks, including GLAAD, Janet Mock, and Autumn Sandeen are calling out this incredibly offensive and dangerous article as well. You can let the New York Times know you’re sick and tired of their victim blaming and transphobia by writing to them here or tweeting @NYTimes. Update: GLAAD also recommends tweeting @NYTMetro, the paper’s Metro Desk, which might get to the reporters more directly.
Please speak up.