Taking a Break

Hello readers,

As you may know, I live in Wisconsin. Things are a little crazy here right now. I'm taking a break to try to help out. Please keep speaking up for not just women's rights, but for worker's rights!

Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill Protest from Matt Wisniewski on Vimeo.

Women and Comedy: Target Women

It certainly feels like women are being targeted right now. We've already come together to stand up for some basic rights, and it seems we'll be doing more of the same in coming months and years. Why, you might ask, is February "comedy month" at Leda's Revenge when there are is so much going on right now? Well, I could write every day about some new outrage. Surely, though, most folks reading this blog have heard of the challenges and are taking action (right?). But if they're anything like me, they might need a lift first.

Enter comedy month at Leda's Revenge. And enter Sarah Haskins and Target Women, a lighthearted look at feminism. Haskins doesn't get angry, but instead exposes just how ridiculous (and potentially funny) our culture and its media can be. Alas, Haskins left Target Women just last month, but fortunately, she left us with far more youtube-able material than the three examples below. So go ahead and laugh before rolling up your sleeves and getting to work:

Women and Comedy: Are Women Funny?

Christopher Hitchens says no in this arrogant rant. This understandably upset a lot of people. Unfortunately, research has shown that women don't make audiences laugh as much as men. Here's a clip from the British comedy panel show QI:



This doesn't mean the case is closed. Just like nearly everything in the feminist blogosphere, this can be traced back to cultural influences, at least in part. Women aren't SUPPOSED to be funny. Men are. Certainly not all men feel threatened by a funny woman's wit, but surely some do. Certainly not all women laugh less at other women, but if people believe that women are not funny, why wouldn't they laugh more at men? At a certain point, the belief that women can't make us laugh as effectively as men is sure to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Audiences will expect that women are merely chuckle-worthy and will ignore or downplay the hilarity that women are capable of.

Though Ronni Ancona joked about there being equal numbers of men and women, it does seem that there are fewer females who choose to make a living making people laugh. Perhaps this is because they won't get as many laughs, or because they've never seen themselves as or wanted to be comedians. There could be any number of reasons, but the more we see women being funny, the more we'll start to believe that they are. Funny women have been around for ages, but it wasn't until recently- due to the success and critical acclaim of women like Tina Fey, Amy Sedaris, and Sarah Silverman- that being a comedian was a normal thing for a female to do, not just an anomaly.

And finally, the obvious: humor is subjective. Maybe one woman doesn't share your sense of humor, but she is hilarious to someone else. One woman doesn't represent all women, just as anyone from any group cannot encompass everyone.

So even if you aren't a comedian, go ahead and tell your joke, no matter what your gender. Folks from all walks of life are capable of injecting some much-needed humor into our world.

Pro-Choice Is Pro-Life

I usually try to avoid this topic. Everyone has a strongly-held opinion which is extremely unlikely to change. Bringing it up will only spur arguments and strain friendships.

And then there's Kermit Gosnell. If you haven't heard about this, well, I'm afraid I can't fill you in. His actions are abhorrent and make my stomach turn. Here is a link for background.

Many people will use this to argue that abortion is unsafe. Many will use this to argue that abortion shouldn't even be legal. The first step in this process is the soon-to-be-voted-upon HR 3 , or the Smith Insurance Ban. But before we go down that road, two arguments:

First, just because one person is willing and able to perform such atrocities does not mean that all providers are dangerous, ill-trained, or unconscionable. Imagine a dentist who has had a little education in another field, say obstetrics or some type of surgery. The dentist never completes the training, yet operates outside established legal parameters and performs these services on the cheap. Would the result of these actions be to call for a moratorium on this other field? Of course not. We'd all realize that one person's actions could not render an entire field of medicine dangerous. In fact, in nearly any other situation, the discussion of safety and legality wouldn't be broached.

But most importantly, this case highlights the need for safe, affordable abortion services for women. No matter what your stance on this debate, you surely would agree that keeping women alive and well is extremely important. Hmmm. Or maybe you don't. Well then, I would argue that, if abortion becomes illegal or inaccessible, cases like these will only increase. If women are going to search out abortion services no matter what the regulations are (and history tells us that they will), I believe that having a healthy woman is more important than creating a serious risk to her well-being or even her life.

The moral of the story: this case only highlights the need for legitimate abortion providers. Let's keep that in mind and not use this as an excuse to cut services. Let's not create an environment conducive to producing the next Kermit Gosnell.

Hey Facebook

This picture is OK with Facebook. So are advertisements with topless models.

(So is joining a group denying that millions of people died in the holocaust, or one that allows hate speech against overweight folks.)

Want to post a picture of a woman nursing her child? No way, says Facebook. A warning will be sent. Pictures will be deleted. Accounts have been suspended. “Exposed breast” violates Facebook's terms of use. But looking at the above photo, I have to ask “What constitutes an exposed breast?”

So people can't post pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Who cares? When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound so terrible. There are larger issues behind this small one, though, and that makes it a big deal.

First of all, it seems to be OK to post a topless photo (with no nipple) as long as it is for profit or explicitly sexual (or oftentimes, both). Somehow, nursing a child is disgusting but turning people on is not. This seems to be true in a larger context, as well. Hooters is fine, but feeding your child in a restaurant isn't. (Does this mean one can nurse freely at Hooters?)

Second, this reflects attitudes all over the real world. If this is a punishable offense on a private Facebook page or a breastfeeding group page, what does that mean for mothers in real life? Women are shamed for feeding their infants in public. Contrary to popular belief, mothers can't necessarily “plan ahead” (thank you, Bill Maher) because babies aren't yet capable of advance planning (“I should eat now because mom wants to go out and I might offend someone if I need to eat”). Perhaps folks can cover up, but who wants to eat under a sheet? (Maybe the adults who choose not to avert their eyes when offended could use a blanket as a cover up.) When using a sheet, the chances of having a peacefully nursing baby decline and having a fussy, noisy baby becomes an ever-likelier scenario. Obviously, averting your eyes is easier than plugging you ears while trying to eat. Is it because women are so sexualized that people seem to be unable to tear themselves away from something they claim to find repellent?

Being a mom means giving up a lot. It's hard to do anything- even grocery shopping or running errands- with a small child in tow. It seems nearly impossible to leave the house and not eventually have to feed your child in public. I suppose that could be avoided if you chose to feed from formula, but the benefits of breastfeeding to both mother and baby have been well-documented, and formula can be cost-prohibitive. You could pump ahead of time (if possible) or leave your child with a babysitter or with a partner every time you wanted to go out in public. But how many times per week do people need to leave the house? That seems like a fairly unrealistic plan for most regular people. Most importantly, women should not be forced to stay at home because someone else finds the act of feeding a child obscene. Mothers shouldn't be isolated. They, too, need to be social, go to restaurants, take their older children to play in parks and learn in the world outside the home. Anyone who believes that mothers and their children should be cloistered away because “that's what you get for having a child” needs to rethink things. Their mothers surely made immeasurable sacrifices so they can espouse their anti-family attitudes, which I find completely repulsive and simplistic.

In summary: Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! If people don't like it, they can look away.

Drink the Spit

Your tax dollars, hard at work:

I Believe Anita Hill

Long time, no blog. Sorry, folks. Life gets busy, internet stops working. Doubts creep in. Is feminism really what needs to be at the forefront of our minds right now? Gay teenagers are being bullied into committing suicide in disturbingly high numbers. Climate change feels like a noose tightening around our neck. What good is a blog, for crying out loud?

Still, I knew I had to write after Virginia Thomas demanded Anita Hill's apology to her husband, Clarence. (She called this “an olive branch.” Hmmm.) Why, you ask, would such a thing wake me from a two-month, blog-free slumber? I was still a kid when the Clarence Thomas hearings happened, and it made a huge impression on me. It was more than just the first time I realized why there was a need for feminists; it was when I started identifying as one.

My thought process at the time went much the same as now: What does Anita Hill have to gain personally by doing this? People claimed she was “put up to it.” Maybe she was encouraged to speak up- but so what? The reward that Hill got for her bravery was vilification and accusation of falsification. And now Virginia Thomas has the gall to ask for an apology?!

No, no. Let me.

I'm sorry that this has been so painful for you, Ms. Thomas. Honestly, I can't imagine what you must have felt standing by a man who sexually harassed other women. I'm sorry that your drama played out on a public stage, and that back then, leaving your husband was even less of an option than it is today. I can't imagine the pressure you must have felt to stay and play the role of the trusting wife, to keep up appearances despite any doubts you may have held. Obviously, this ordeal has been stewing for 19 years, and for whatever reason, it boiled over a few days ago, resulting in the ultimate act of denial: asking for an apology from one of your husband's victims. It's a shame for you that you didn't get what you wanted. But I would be lying if I said I didn't cheer when I heard of her refusal to make your desperate action seem legitimate.

You want to know what really makes me feel sorrow? When women like Anita Hill are bold enough to take their harassers to task and garner nothing but disbelief. I'm truly sorry that you, like much of our world, don't seem to understand that there is nothing for these women but threats, name-calling and a small possibility of seeing the person who wronged them brought to justice. Do you and all the others who question the validity of a woman's statement every time she is attacked, abused or harassed, really believe that she wants to add to her misery? Do you think women enjoy that kind of attention? Or is it just too horrible to hear that such things can and do happen? I couldn't be more sorry that they do. I'm sorry that it's easier to live in a state of denial than to admit that, for as they say, admitting the problem is the first step. I'm sorry that you don't recognize just how brave women who stand up for their rights really are. It seems to me like a basic thing, freedom from harassment. I'm sorry that you, and so many others, have failed to recognize that.

I know that I don't need to say it, but obviously it hasn't been said enough: I still believe Anita Hill.