[trigger warning]
A friend of mine made this video about how rape is shown in the media. Obviously, the perspective is a bit skewed. At any rate, I wanted to share it with you.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Dear Oklahoma
Dear Oklahoma Congress,
Yes, Utah got a letter, and yes, perhaps it is a tired old gimmick of mine. But you have done plenty to deserve it. First off, this was awfully sneaky. While folks have been focused on the controversial new law in Arizona, you passed these. I refer, of course, to HB 2656 and HB 2780, your new abortion laws, for which you overrode the governor's veto.
We're dealing with two objectionable bills, the first of which states that all women who choose an abortion must have a sonogram while the screen is facing them. They must then hear a description of the fetus- its fingers, toes, heartbeat. No woman is allowed to have an abortion until she has heard and seen this, and doctors who fail to provide this information can be held liable. But do you really think, HB 2780 supporters, that women haven't already considered this information carefully? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that a woman hasn't thought of every angle before going to the clinic? Abortion is obviously not an optimal option; women do not make the decision lightly. No one just pops in off the street. If you understand that, as most rational adults do, then you must see that you are playing the guilt trip card. A woman is likely to be in a state of heightened emotion going into this procedure. Doesn't this seem a little manipulative? You say it's all about informed consent. This isn't about having all the information, this is about shocking a woman into keeping her baby.
And you know what, the lack of exceptions for women who were raped or cases of incest is just the icing on the cake. You say this won't effect many people? In this culture of woman-blaming that you are helping to perpetuate, rape and sexual abuse victims are made to feel guilty for just having been there. These crimes are grossly underreported as a result. The numbers say that a small percentage of women who choose abortion are victims of rape, but off the record, the number is probably much higher. So let's get this straight. It's OK to re-traumatize a rape victim because... Well, I can't think of any reason. This was not her fault. If you want to blame someone, track down her assailant and shame him. But for goodness sake, show some compassion. If you really want to stop abortions due to rape and incest, then do some damn work to prevent them in the first place. Don't blame the victim.
This brings me to part two. Part one is disgusting, but part two is just flat out horrific. If a doctor thinks a woman might consider an abortion because of her child's medical issues, that doctor can withhold information or even lie to that woman about her child's health. So not only does Oklahoma guilt women, it also doesn't have any reverence for medicine? Or, for that matter, you have no consideration for families? Let's face it, you can make laws against women all you want, but both parents will feel the effects of not being prepared for a child that needs extra care or a child who won't live much past birth. So will any siblings. Wouldn't it be better for families to have the chance to seek out support from family and friends, to choose caretakers who can best help their new baby, to prepare older siblings for the increased responsibilities they will hold? Wouldn't it be kind to give families the chance to come to grips with the fact that this child might not live to adulthood? And finally, how healthy is it for mothers to always be questioning the information their doctors give them? No family can rest easy knowing their assumptions about their newest member's health could be based on a lie. That kind of worry and stress is not healthy for pregnant women or unborn children.
Step back, Oklahoma. Step back from your black and white view of this issue and see the subtleties. Realize that whether you believe abortion should be legal or not, what you have done is not helping anyone on any side of this debate.
Yours in outrage,
Astrid of Leda's Revenge
Yes, Utah got a letter, and yes, perhaps it is a tired old gimmick of mine. But you have done plenty to deserve it. First off, this was awfully sneaky. While folks have been focused on the controversial new law in Arizona, you passed these. I refer, of course, to HB 2656 and HB 2780, your new abortion laws, for which you overrode the governor's veto.
We're dealing with two objectionable bills, the first of which states that all women who choose an abortion must have a sonogram while the screen is facing them. They must then hear a description of the fetus- its fingers, toes, heartbeat. No woman is allowed to have an abortion until she has heard and seen this, and doctors who fail to provide this information can be held liable. But do you really think, HB 2780 supporters, that women haven't already considered this information carefully? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that a woman hasn't thought of every angle before going to the clinic? Abortion is obviously not an optimal option; women do not make the decision lightly. No one just pops in off the street. If you understand that, as most rational adults do, then you must see that you are playing the guilt trip card. A woman is likely to be in a state of heightened emotion going into this procedure. Doesn't this seem a little manipulative? You say it's all about informed consent. This isn't about having all the information, this is about shocking a woman into keeping her baby.
And you know what, the lack of exceptions for women who were raped or cases of incest is just the icing on the cake. You say this won't effect many people? In this culture of woman-blaming that you are helping to perpetuate, rape and sexual abuse victims are made to feel guilty for just having been there. These crimes are grossly underreported as a result. The numbers say that a small percentage of women who choose abortion are victims of rape, but off the record, the number is probably much higher. So let's get this straight. It's OK to re-traumatize a rape victim because... Well, I can't think of any reason. This was not her fault. If you want to blame someone, track down her assailant and shame him. But for goodness sake, show some compassion. If you really want to stop abortions due to rape and incest, then do some damn work to prevent them in the first place. Don't blame the victim.
This brings me to part two. Part one is disgusting, but part two is just flat out horrific. If a doctor thinks a woman might consider an abortion because of her child's medical issues, that doctor can withhold information or even lie to that woman about her child's health. So not only does Oklahoma guilt women, it also doesn't have any reverence for medicine? Or, for that matter, you have no consideration for families? Let's face it, you can make laws against women all you want, but both parents will feel the effects of not being prepared for a child that needs extra care or a child who won't live much past birth. So will any siblings. Wouldn't it be better for families to have the chance to seek out support from family and friends, to choose caretakers who can best help their new baby, to prepare older siblings for the increased responsibilities they will hold? Wouldn't it be kind to give families the chance to come to grips with the fact that this child might not live to adulthood? And finally, how healthy is it for mothers to always be questioning the information their doctors give them? No family can rest easy knowing their assumptions about their newest member's health could be based on a lie. That kind of worry and stress is not healthy for pregnant women or unborn children.
Step back, Oklahoma. Step back from your black and white view of this issue and see the subtleties. Realize that whether you believe abortion should be legal or not, what you have done is not helping anyone on any side of this debate.
Yours in outrage,
Astrid of Leda's Revenge
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Good for... Britney?
I never thought I'd say this, but kudos to Britney Spears. She was brave enough to release some unretouched original photos alongside the "finished" versions she modeled for the latest Candie's campaign. Granted, she does have makeup and lighting on her side, but there is still a noticeable difference between airbrushed and original.
I can't think of a better person to do this than Britney Spears, who is blond, thin, and by most Western pop-culture standards, a real beauty. To many, she is as beautiful as humanly possible. But humanly possible isn't enough anymore. Now advertisements cannot look like anything less than a fantasy that no woman will ever live up to. No wonder so many folks have body image issues.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Mascots
Let's do an experiment. First, name three college mascots. Now name the mascots of three professional sports teams. Finally, name three female mascots. Which one did you have the most trouble with? An informal discussion with friends failed to produce any stand-alone female mascots at all. What do I mean by “stand-alone”? Sometimes, schools will have a male mascot with a lesser-known female counterpart who gets trotted out at women's sporting events or for the occasional half time skit. Sometimes you see a gender-neutral (or gender-lacking) mascot such as an inanimate object, a meteorological event, or a group of animals. But when do you ever see a lone female as a team's or school's representative? Some internet research unearthed Athena, the mascot of Claremont McKenna, and Rosie the Elephant from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. It also turned up this. Sigh.
Most schools or teams chose mascots before we as a society started thinking about marginalized groups. Often, there is no representation, or the portrayal of said group is terrible. Let's take all the Native American-derived mascots for example. Remember Chief Wahoo? I'd rather have no females than to have them cast in the same insensitive light. But with awareness increasing ever more, one wonders why more recently-created teams haven't branched out.
At this point, it is worth examining the concept of a mascot. True, it is a symbol, a representative of sorts. But mascots are also seen as side-kicks, tag-alongs, cute cartoons with no real personality. How much prestige is there in a mascot? The issue here is not so much the burning desire to have women seen in that form- women have been used to sell us things for years. The problem is in the ways of thinking that have led to the lack of women as representatives of athletic or intellectual institutions.
Women often don't take offense at being represented by a male because we are used to it, not only in the case of images, but in many languages and religions. Men are generally chosen as the sole representative of a group of people who are usually of mixed gender, just as white skin is usually considered “the norm” in many Western cultures. But if the tables are turned, would men be just as happy to be represented by a female? Probably not. This isn't because men are terrible, just because it isn't a situation they have been put in before.
And then there's my whole theory of denigration of the feminine, which I'll surely return to again and again in the course of my writings. Of course women are OK with being represented by a male mascot, or more broadly, of course they want to wear pants and have careers. Why wouldn't anyone want to be like a man? Manliness is a worthy aspiration. But why would men want to wear skirts or learn to sew? Well, some men DO want those things, but society as a whole thinks that trying to be more feminine is weird or undesirable. Male has been the gold standard in so many societies for so long that we just can't imagine it any other way.
Qualities that we ascribe to mascots- leadership, strength, speed, endurance, intelligence- are usually considered to be more masculine qualities. This makes it a real bummer to have a woman as a mascot.
Things are changing, but there is a long way to go. Wouldn't it be great to have a respectfully-represented female, transsexual or minority as the mascot of an elementary school? Or better yet, what about a variety of mascots from all walks of life? Maybe someday, we won't feel the need to present ourselves to the world in such a simplistic manner. But until then, we can teach children that people from all walks of life are valuable.
Most schools or teams chose mascots before we as a society started thinking about marginalized groups. Often, there is no representation, or the portrayal of said group is terrible. Let's take all the Native American-derived mascots for example. Remember Chief Wahoo? I'd rather have no females than to have them cast in the same insensitive light. But with awareness increasing ever more, one wonders why more recently-created teams haven't branched out.
At this point, it is worth examining the concept of a mascot. True, it is a symbol, a representative of sorts. But mascots are also seen as side-kicks, tag-alongs, cute cartoons with no real personality. How much prestige is there in a mascot? The issue here is not so much the burning desire to have women seen in that form- women have been used to sell us things for years. The problem is in the ways of thinking that have led to the lack of women as representatives of athletic or intellectual institutions.
Women often don't take offense at being represented by a male because we are used to it, not only in the case of images, but in many languages and religions. Men are generally chosen as the sole representative of a group of people who are usually of mixed gender, just as white skin is usually considered “the norm” in many Western cultures. But if the tables are turned, would men be just as happy to be represented by a female? Probably not. This isn't because men are terrible, just because it isn't a situation they have been put in before.
And then there's my whole theory of denigration of the feminine, which I'll surely return to again and again in the course of my writings. Of course women are OK with being represented by a male mascot, or more broadly, of course they want to wear pants and have careers. Why wouldn't anyone want to be like a man? Manliness is a worthy aspiration. But why would men want to wear skirts or learn to sew? Well, some men DO want those things, but society as a whole thinks that trying to be more feminine is weird or undesirable. Male has been the gold standard in so many societies for so long that we just can't imagine it any other way.
Qualities that we ascribe to mascots- leadership, strength, speed, endurance, intelligence- are usually considered to be more masculine qualities. This makes it a real bummer to have a woman as a mascot.
Things are changing, but there is a long way to go. Wouldn't it be great to have a respectfully-represented female, transsexual or minority as the mascot of an elementary school? Or better yet, what about a variety of mascots from all walks of life? Maybe someday, we won't feel the need to present ourselves to the world in such a simplistic manner. But until then, we can teach children that people from all walks of life are valuable.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Mandatory Motherhood
The criteria for becoming an astronaut in China are rough. Got a scar? You're disqualified. Bad breath? Ineligible. Yes, snoring is also forbidden. Oh, and if you're a woman, you must be married and have children.
Don't worry about that last requirement, though; China says the reasoning behind it isn't sexist. After all, it isn't known how space flight will affect a person's fertility. And married mothers are obviously more mature than single women.
How interesting.
Following China's logic, a 16-year-old mother is more grown-up than a woman ten years her senior who is putting off having children so she can focus on her education and career for awhile. This could be the case, but more likely, it's not. It is true, major experiences can and usually do change lives, but not necessarily in a way that creates maturity (or readiness for space travel). And by making these requirements for women alone, China is implying that men aren't altered by marriage and parenthood. It almost goes without saying that men have an equal capacity for growth. To deny that would be insulting to one half of the population.
But let's return to China's insult of women for a minute. Never mind this article from TIME Magazine which states that short flights are safe for either sex's reproductive systems, and that male fertility could potentially be more damaged by venturing into space than female. Even if that weren't the case, China is basically telling women that their highest calling is as a wife and mother.
Being a wife and/or a mother can be a wonderful thing. I know some amazing feminists who are married with children (check out the blog Mamma Femminista for an excellent example). I also know many women who have chosen not to have children or get legally married for one reason or another, and that's wonderful, too. The best part is that most women have the choice. Career can take precedence over children or vice versa. Or a woman can have both. It seems a shame to have a family prerequisite before a woman can embark on another life adventure. And it seems a shame to define a woman's worth by her role in the family first and foremost when there are so many ways she can contribute to society.
There are other things that make this policy problematic. Does China make exceptions for women who are, for whatever reason, incapable of having their own children? Does adoption count? Do the chosen moms even get to spend time with the families they are so valued for having? Being an astronaut is a high-stress career, especially if you aren't even allowed to have bad breath.
Let's hope that China sees the error of their ways. Perhaps when the powers that be realize they could be missing out on some amazing candidates because of a discriminatory policy, they'll reverse it. In the meantime, those of us who are able can take advantage of one of the best things the feminist movement has given us: choice.
Don't worry about that last requirement, though; China says the reasoning behind it isn't sexist. After all, it isn't known how space flight will affect a person's fertility. And married mothers are obviously more mature than single women.
How interesting.
Following China's logic, a 16-year-old mother is more grown-up than a woman ten years her senior who is putting off having children so she can focus on her education and career for awhile. This could be the case, but more likely, it's not. It is true, major experiences can and usually do change lives, but not necessarily in a way that creates maturity (or readiness for space travel). And by making these requirements for women alone, China is implying that men aren't altered by marriage and parenthood. It almost goes without saying that men have an equal capacity for growth. To deny that would be insulting to one half of the population.
But let's return to China's insult of women for a minute. Never mind this article from TIME Magazine which states that short flights are safe for either sex's reproductive systems, and that male fertility could potentially be more damaged by venturing into space than female. Even if that weren't the case, China is basically telling women that their highest calling is as a wife and mother.
Being a wife and/or a mother can be a wonderful thing. I know some amazing feminists who are married with children (check out the blog Mamma Femminista for an excellent example). I also know many women who have chosen not to have children or get legally married for one reason or another, and that's wonderful, too. The best part is that most women have the choice. Career can take precedence over children or vice versa. Or a woman can have both. It seems a shame to have a family prerequisite before a woman can embark on another life adventure. And it seems a shame to define a woman's worth by her role in the family first and foremost when there are so many ways she can contribute to society.
There are other things that make this policy problematic. Does China make exceptions for women who are, for whatever reason, incapable of having their own children? Does adoption count? Do the chosen moms even get to spend time with the families they are so valued for having? Being an astronaut is a high-stress career, especially if you aren't even allowed to have bad breath.
Let's hope that China sees the error of their ways. Perhaps when the powers that be realize they could be missing out on some amazing candidates because of a discriminatory policy, they'll reverse it. In the meantime, those of us who are able can take advantage of one of the best things the feminist movement has given us: choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)