Monday, 28 January 2013
The Familial Divide and "Choice" vs "Life"
Friday, 25 January 2013
Roe v Wade - 40 Years Later
By: Liberate Zealot
It was the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade a couple of days ago, and I meant to write something then, but work and masters/internship applications got in the way.
There's a saying that Roe v Wade wasn't the start of abortions, but rather the end of women dying from unsafe and illegal abortions. However, that's not actually the case. The financial and legal restrictions on abortion mean that illegal abortions continue, and people continue to die from them. At much smaller numbers than the 5,000 annually from before Roe v Wade, but one person who dies from their inability to access a safe and legal abortion is one person too many.
Between 1975 and 1979 a third of all women who died from illegal abortions did so because they couldn't access or afford legal abortions. Other reasons included religious pressure to not get abortions and a need for secrecy. The vast majority of these women were African American and Hispanic.
The current increasing restrictions around abortion have forced many people to look for other ways to terminate their pregnancies. In Texas people are crossing the boarder to get abortion pills from Mexico. Often the lack of information provided means this doesn't work.
And then there's the fact that many people are doing without the abortions they want and need. As the TurnAway Study makes plain this can have disastrous consequences for the women and her children. Instead they're having another child, to tax their health, income, emotional well being, make employment harder, and increase their slide into systematic poverty. Women in abusive relationships are more likely to stay in them if they are denied an abortion.
As many of us know, and many more of us are learning, Roe v Wade is not enough to to protect people's right to a safe and affordable abortion. And often it is people in poverty and people of color who are paying this price.
It was the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade a couple of days ago, and I meant to write something then, but work and masters/internship applications got in the way.
There's a saying that Roe v Wade wasn't the start of abortions, but rather the end of women dying from unsafe and illegal abortions. However, that's not actually the case. The financial and legal restrictions on abortion mean that illegal abortions continue, and people continue to die from them. At much smaller numbers than the 5,000 annually from before Roe v Wade, but one person who dies from their inability to access a safe and legal abortion is one person too many.
Between 1975 and 1979 a third of all women who died from illegal abortions did so because they couldn't access or afford legal abortions. Other reasons included religious pressure to not get abortions and a need for secrecy. The vast majority of these women were African American and Hispanic.
The current increasing restrictions around abortion have forced many people to look for other ways to terminate their pregnancies. In Texas people are crossing the boarder to get abortion pills from Mexico. Often the lack of information provided means this doesn't work.
And then there's the fact that many people are doing without the abortions they want and need. As the TurnAway Study makes plain this can have disastrous consequences for the women and her children. Instead they're having another child, to tax their health, income, emotional well being, make employment harder, and increase their slide into systematic poverty. Women in abusive relationships are more likely to stay in them if they are denied an abortion.
As many of us know, and many more of us are learning, Roe v Wade is not enough to to protect people's right to a safe and affordable abortion. And often it is people in poverty and people of color who are paying this price.
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Binary Bullshit: The "Feminine" and Feminism
By: Liberate Zealot
A continuation of Femmephobia is Everywhere
A lot of the time, I hear people discuss gender roles and characteristics, and the culture at large, as some sort of immutable absolute. "This is the way it is, and has been, world without end (amen)". Which is such bullshit. Culture undergoes plenty of changes, some vast, some minute, some incredibly quickly, some at a glacial pace. And just as culture changes so does our understanding of men and women, masculine and feminine and gender roles, characteristics and binaries.
The (Euro-Western Centric) modern gender Binary sets up characteristics as:
Men Women
Strong Weak
Active/Aggressive Passive/Submissive
Logical Emotional
Analytic Intuitive
Sexual Chaste
Decisive Flaky
Genuine Back-stabbing
And while some of these are very similar to the ideas of previous centuries and various cultures, some of the binary characteristics are the complete opposite of previous centuries.
From the time of the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance women were seen as more "fleshy" and sexual than men. Women were temptresses and men needed to stand firm to their lusty ways. Similarly this was one reason why women needed to be under the control of men, women weren't seen to be able to control themselves or their "baser" impulses. Now of course over the 1700s this began to change, and by the Victorian era there has been a complete reversal, women were the chaste/non-sexual ones who needed to be protected from base men who couldn't control their lust (and thus male relatives needed to protect their women from other men).
In the course of 200 years the European view of sexuality, morality, and self-control of (middle and upper class) white men and women made a complete about face. Women went from being "fleshy", lusty, of a simpler morality, and in need of outside control to chaste/non-sexual, the moral centers of the family/society, and in charge of not only controlling their own desires and impulsiveness, but those of men as well. Meanwhile men went from being the more moral and in control of their desires to having almost uncontrollable lusts that women needed to both control and be protected from.
During this same time period the cultural understanding of emotion and logic underwent vast changes. Again from the time of the Greeks through the Renaissance emotion and logic were not seen as binaries, and both were the domain of men. Deep emotion and the purest and deepest of relationships and love were between men. At times this was considered especially true of warriors (Japan has also had this interpretation of emotion, relationships, and warrior men). It wasn't until the Enlightenment Period that emotion and logic became fully divorced and binary traits, and the more "undesirable" one, emotion, became a feminine/womanly trait. And when it comes to male friendships and the societal view of their closeness and expression, these underwent a dramatic shift in barely a decade (the trials of Oscar Wilde and increasing awareness of homosexuality and the stigma against same sex relationships had a lot to do with this).
And this doesn't get into the more tangible signifiers of men/women or "masculine" and "feminine". The blue and pink and their gender alignment shift is perhaps one of the better known examples. Make-up, high heeled shoes, and long hair have by turns been strongly aligned with with different genders (at different times) or been seen as gender neutral. During times of gender neutrality these things were often related more to class (make-up and high heels for example). And the Euro/US/Western idea of math as a male discipline and humanities as a female one is decidedly different than the Japanese understanding of gender, math, and literature.
Furthermore the gendering of roles breaks down as soon as the role becomes associated with profit or recognition. Cooking for the family is considered women's work, but once it comes to a profession chefs are (mostly) men. The becomes even more true when the chef is "high class" and celebrated. Fashion, especially the buying of it, is seen as a feminine thing, yet the majority of established and recognized designers and photographers are men.
Basically as traits/roles/characteristics gain or lose their societal worth or value they shift between men and women or being "masculine" and "feminine". The roles, characteristics, and traits are certainly not immutable. Neither do they (for the most part, exceptions can be made for weak, back-stabbing etc) have any intrinsic value and for the most part were not created FOR or BY the Patriarchy. Rather the Patriarchy has created the binary and classification of these characteristics, traits, roles. Patriarchy says women are of less value and so the things the culture values less become "feminine" or the domain of women. And the way to combat this is not through eschewing or dismissing the things that are considered "feminine". To disdain or look down on things that are "feminine" is simply the continuation of the Patriarchy. This is not to say that women have to take on anything that is considered "feminine" or that women doing "feminine" things is a necessary part of feminism. Rather, our feminism must include valuing many of the things seen as traditionally "feminine" or for women, even as we seek to dismantle gender roles and the Binary. It's impossible to value women if we do not value any of the things that are seen as belonging to women.
A continuation of Femmephobia is Everywhere
A lot of the time, I hear people discuss gender roles and characteristics, and the culture at large, as some sort of immutable absolute. "This is the way it is, and has been, world without end (amen)". Which is such bullshit. Culture undergoes plenty of changes, some vast, some minute, some incredibly quickly, some at a glacial pace. And just as culture changes so does our understanding of men and women, masculine and feminine and gender roles, characteristics and binaries.
The (Euro-Western Centric) modern gender Binary sets up characteristics as:
Men Women
Strong Weak
Active/Aggressive Passive/Submissive
Logical Emotional
Analytic Intuitive
Sexual Chaste
Decisive Flaky
Genuine Back-stabbing
And while some of these are very similar to the ideas of previous centuries and various cultures, some of the binary characteristics are the complete opposite of previous centuries.
From the time of the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance women were seen as more "fleshy" and sexual than men. Women were temptresses and men needed to stand firm to their lusty ways. Similarly this was one reason why women needed to be under the control of men, women weren't seen to be able to control themselves or their "baser" impulses. Now of course over the 1700s this began to change, and by the Victorian era there has been a complete reversal, women were the chaste/non-sexual ones who needed to be protected from base men who couldn't control their lust (and thus male relatives needed to protect their women from other men).
In the course of 200 years the European view of sexuality, morality, and self-control of (middle and upper class) white men and women made a complete about face. Women went from being "fleshy", lusty, of a simpler morality, and in need of outside control to chaste/non-sexual, the moral centers of the family/society, and in charge of not only controlling their own desires and impulsiveness, but those of men as well. Meanwhile men went from being the more moral and in control of their desires to having almost uncontrollable lusts that women needed to both control and be protected from.
During this same time period the cultural understanding of emotion and logic underwent vast changes. Again from the time of the Greeks through the Renaissance emotion and logic were not seen as binaries, and both were the domain of men. Deep emotion and the purest and deepest of relationships and love were between men. At times this was considered especially true of warriors (Japan has also had this interpretation of emotion, relationships, and warrior men). It wasn't until the Enlightenment Period that emotion and logic became fully divorced and binary traits, and the more "undesirable" one, emotion, became a feminine/womanly trait. And when it comes to male friendships and the societal view of their closeness and expression, these underwent a dramatic shift in barely a decade (the trials of Oscar Wilde and increasing awareness of homosexuality and the stigma against same sex relationships had a lot to do with this).
And this doesn't get into the more tangible signifiers of men/women or "masculine" and "feminine". The blue and pink and their gender alignment shift is perhaps one of the better known examples. Make-up, high heeled shoes, and long hair have by turns been strongly aligned with with different genders (at different times) or been seen as gender neutral. During times of gender neutrality these things were often related more to class (make-up and high heels for example). And the Euro/US/Western idea of math as a male discipline and humanities as a female one is decidedly different than the Japanese understanding of gender, math, and literature.
Furthermore the gendering of roles breaks down as soon as the role becomes associated with profit or recognition. Cooking for the family is considered women's work, but once it comes to a profession chefs are (mostly) men. The becomes even more true when the chef is "high class" and celebrated. Fashion, especially the buying of it, is seen as a feminine thing, yet the majority of established and recognized designers and photographers are men.
Basically as traits/roles/characteristics gain or lose their societal worth or value they shift between men and women or being "masculine" and "feminine". The roles, characteristics, and traits are certainly not immutable. Neither do they (for the most part, exceptions can be made for weak, back-stabbing etc) have any intrinsic value and for the most part were not created FOR or BY the Patriarchy. Rather the Patriarchy has created the binary and classification of these characteristics, traits, roles. Patriarchy says women are of less value and so the things the culture values less become "feminine" or the domain of women. And the way to combat this is not through eschewing or dismissing the things that are considered "feminine". To disdain or look down on things that are "feminine" is simply the continuation of the Patriarchy. This is not to say that women have to take on anything that is considered "feminine" or that women doing "feminine" things is a necessary part of feminism. Rather, our feminism must include valuing many of the things seen as traditionally "feminine" or for women, even as we seek to dismantle gender roles and the Binary. It's impossible to value women if we do not value any of the things that are seen as belonging to women.
Thursday, 3 January 2013
Sunday, 30 December 2012
By: Liberate Zealot
Content Warning: Discussions of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse
Recently several feminist areas I frequent have been discussing male violence and domestic abuse/intimate partner abuse. Which has called to mind my own experiences with, and education of, abusive relationships.
Content Warning: Discussions of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse
Recently several feminist areas I frequent have been discussing male violence and domestic abuse/intimate partner abuse. Which has called to mind my own experiences with, and education of, abusive relationships.
Sunday, 23 December 2012
Babe, is this Sexist?
So, the way to attract women is to think of them as metal objects, maybe robots. Seems like a surefire plan to get someone with a brain of their own. But maybe that is the point *sigh*
Here's to a continual increase in sexism and othering of the opposite sex. Crappy New Year!!
Monday, 17 December 2012
Babe, is this Sexist?
It's the new installment of Babe, is this Sexist? for the Holiday/Gift Giving Season, and this one is about a novelty gift.
Oh yay, stress relievers that involve squeezing scantily clad women who then scream "in pain" obviously this is in no way sexist. Except, wait, it totally, really, 100% is sexist!
The idea that violence against women relieves men's stress is just horrible. As is the objectification and sexualization of women inherent in this gift. The fact that these were one of the first images I found upon searching "novelty gifts for men" on Google, is also really gross.
We'll do at least one more segment of Babe, is this Sexist? for the Holiday/Gift Giving Season. Make recommendations for other Holiday/Gift Giving specific options for the next installment of "Babe, is this Sexist?" in the comments here, or on the F.A.R. facebook page.
Go to the Babe, Is This Sexist Masterpost
Oh yay, stress relievers that involve squeezing scantily clad women who then scream "in pain" obviously this is in no way sexist. Except, wait, it totally, really, 100% is sexist!
The idea that violence against women relieves men's stress is just horrible. As is the objectification and sexualization of women inherent in this gift. The fact that these were one of the first images I found upon searching "novelty gifts for men" on Google, is also really gross.
We'll do at least one more segment of Babe, is this Sexist? for the Holiday/Gift Giving Season. Make recommendations for other Holiday/Gift Giving specific options for the next installment of "Babe, is this Sexist?" in the comments here, or on the F.A.R. facebook page.
Go to the Babe, Is This Sexist Masterpost
Sunday, 16 December 2012
Mental Health: Talk About It.
I grew up in a house with guns. A lot of guns, actually. I learned how to use them, maintain them, and clean them properly. My dad taught me how to make bullets in our garage. I remember helping him from a very young age. I plan on keeping guns when I have my own place some day. I've never turned a gun on any person, and never plan to. As such, guns are clearly not the only issue at play here.
On top of this, however, my mother in particular taught me how mental illness is a serious issue that gets ignored. People with mental illnesses are invisible in our society, and the services available to them are poorly funded and few at best. My parents volunteered with one of these services in our home town. They taught me what is important in life. Care. It is really easy right now to talk about gun control, and I won't pretend it's not an important topic. But please, please, please, take some time today to think about how you can help to improve the state of mental health care for the people around you. If we as a nation and as a broader society spend as much time *talking* about mental illness and services for mental illness as openly and as often as we talk about gun control, we may see an improvement in the lives of so many people around us.
So yes, please talk about the victims. Please remember them. Respect their families and the grief they are dealing with and will deal with for the rest of their lives. But I can't agree with further making mental illness invisible. We make mental illness invisible by boiling this horrific tragedy down to an issue of gun control, the Second Amendment, or the Long Gun Registry. We make mental illness invisible by projecting our own mental state onto others without knowing theirs, assuming they would make the same choice as you, or assuming you would ever be in the same position as them with the mental state that you possess. We make mental illness invisible through individual pathology while neglecting the systemic criticism necessary to destroy the stigma, and improve/multiply services and awareness around mental health. We make mental illness invisible by ignoring the fact that there are mentally ill people who do things that hurt. I've seen so many "motivational posters" that use images of people with disabilities - mental or physical - talking about overcoming challenges, always remaining positive, what beautiful people these are, and other such stereotypes. Disability and mental illness do not exist only when they are convenient to post about on your status in a way that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself. It exists when it sucks, when it hurts, and when it damages. The point is, it exists. We need to treat it that way.
Feel free to dissect or denounce my argument here, or elsewhere, and everywhere. Hang me out to dry if you would like. But please, talk about it. Talk about it often, loudly, and critically. While you do that, here's how you can get involved in some of the services around you:
http://www.carp.ca/2012/04/10/the-centre-for-addiction-and-mental-health-camh/
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Babe, Is This Sexist?
The next couple installments of Babe, Is This Sexist takes a look at advertising specific to the Holiday/Gift Giving Season. This one has to do with a recent, and recently pulled Virgin Mobile Ad.
And FUCK YES THIS IS SEXIST! I really hope I don't need to explain why an ad referencing sexual assault as part of the "Gift of Christmas Surprise" is super sexist.
Twitter quickly took to calling Virgin Mobile out, with Richard Branson (owns the Virgin Brand but not the US Virgin Mobile Company) joining in. Understandably the website quickly pulled the ad and offered an apology. Supposedly they had an external group doing advertising that didn't seek the company's permission before posting the image.
But seriously how does this get green lighted by any professional organization. Seriously, did no one think maybe they shouldn't make a rape joke on their Advent Calender?
Make recommendations for other Holiday/Gift Giving specific options for the next installment of "Babe, is this Sexist?" in the comments here, or on the F.A.R. facebook page.
Go to the Babe, Is This Sexist Masterpost
And FUCK YES THIS IS SEXIST! I really hope I don't need to explain why an ad referencing sexual assault as part of the "Gift of Christmas Surprise" is super sexist.
Twitter quickly took to calling Virgin Mobile out, with Richard Branson (owns the Virgin Brand but not the US Virgin Mobile Company) joining in. Understandably the website quickly pulled the ad and offered an apology. Supposedly they had an external group doing advertising that didn't seek the company's permission before posting the image.
But seriously how does this get green lighted by any professional organization. Seriously, did no one think maybe they shouldn't make a rape joke on their Advent Calender?
Make recommendations for other Holiday/Gift Giving specific options for the next installment of "Babe, is this Sexist?" in the comments here, or on the F.A.R. facebook page.
Go to the Babe, Is This Sexist Masterpost
Sunday, 9 December 2012
Signs of Abuse used to Victim Blame Kasandra Perkins
By: Liberate Zealot
Content Warning: Discussions of domestic violence and murder
The victim blaming surrounding the murder of Kasandra Perkins and the abuser Jovan Belcher makes me sick. People present the accounts of the night before the murder and portray Kasandra Perkins as "instigating" or a "catalyst" while Jovan Belcher just "snapped" or wasn't in his right mind because of a concussion, and I am horrified. Because when I read the accounts I see a very standard part of abusive relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)