But it's not rape if she's not a person!

The male snickering over giving Afghan patriarchs viagara so they can once again assert their manly dominance by fucking (women who are never actually mentioned) really takes the prize for most revolting expression of contempt for women this year. Women as people do not even figure into the penis-worshiping gaffaws about giving old men their ability to stick it in something as some kind of peace offering. The women - and girls, of course - are completely invisible. Just what the old patriarchs are asserting their dominance over is left to the imagination, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Let's not mince words: as most feminist blogs have said, what the oh so enlightened boys are snickering over and encouraging is rape. We don't even have to delve into the concept of what is meaningful consent to get there.

First, there's the original Washington Post article itself:

Afghan tribal leaders often had four wives -- the maximum number allowed by the Koran -- and aging village patriarchs were easily sold on the utility of a pill that could "put them back in an authoritative position," the official said.

Well, with four wives to control, who could blame him, amirite? What's being danced around here, and not very subtly, is that sex is clearly being recognized as a tool for a man to put his wives in their place. The penis as a weapon and sex as violence to assert authority is rape. Whether or not that is what's happening, that is what's being encouraged and laughed over as if it's just a cute joke about making little old men horny.

And if there's any question, that little gem is preceded by acknolwedgement that women, called "honey traps," have been used as incentives, compared to money and other services, with no regard for the women themselves as actual people. They are merely things to trade. Once again, women are being simply used, even if technically it's a little blue pill that's being given.

So we don't have to guess or speculate about how willing or unwilling the individual women and girls involved may be. We don't have to project onto them without their own words. We only have to care enough about them to know that they are being treated as faceless, nameless commodities to appease men. As Jill at Feministe said:

Because to me, when I hear that the ability of a man to get an erection around his wife puts him back in an authoritative position, my mind screams rape rape rape rape rape. What else could one possibly mean by equating a man’s capacity for intercourse so closely with authority over a woman? (And any other possible explanation must by its very nature still be deeply misogynistic.)

Some commenters on Feministe have tried to dismiss the fact that Americans are encouraging and enabling rape by suggesting that it's just tied to the attitude that virility=masculinity=authority. To do this they have to again disappear the women who are being acted upon in order to establish this authority. And they have to ignore that if a man must establish authority by fucking a girl or woman, then her say in the matter isn't likely to be taken into account.

Meanwhile, women in Afghanistan who work for women's rights are being punished and silenced. Follow the link and act to support women in Afghanistan.

And the founding fathers were miffed at taxation without representation

Women are routinely subjected to violence at the hands of men merely for being women. We are underrepresented in our government because our sexist society makes it so much harder for women to run in the first place, and because voters are products of that sexist society. Everywhere we see women's bodies presented for male pleasure and consumption. We are reminded daily that men would like us to be more compliant to their wishes, that they often wish we had no independant desires of our own. Often enough we see claims that we actually do not have any independant desire of our own. Taking a step back to look at the big picture, to see all those little things fall into a pattern, to connect them to systematic rapes of women as a strategy of war, to the legally enforced reduction of women's lives to little more than a tool to serve men and produce more of them, is something too terrifying and horrifying to face up to.

When we see that Obama's cabinet (if all are approved) is made up of 15 men and 5 women (ETA: oops, 16 men and 5 women. Thanks for the correction!), it is a small piece of the reality few are willing to make an effort to comprehend. To some of us, it is almost triggering in a way. A reminder that as a woman, I am viewed as less of a person than men.

The again, maybe I'm just "miffed." At least, I am according to the headline at CNN.com: "Why some women's groups are miffed at Obama."

I have a proposal. From now on, women only pay 20% of the taxes men pay, since women aren't even a fifth of the members of the two houses of congress. I propose further reducing women's tax burden by taking the pay gap into consideration.

The antidote to Twilight

Kate Harding has a post up about Twilight and the vampire romance in general. There's been a lot of talk about it on feminist blogs.

As an antidote to the awful taste of misogyny in the Twilight series, I highly recommend Robin McKinley's Sunshine. It's a vampire book that never forgets that vampires may be alluring, but they are always, always dangerous. (Don't be turned off by the current horrible cover showing on Amazon.)

Blog Roundup on HHS Rule

Here is a roundup of posts on the publication of the new HHS "Conscience" Regulations. Feel free to leave additional links in the comments!

Sorry, ladies, but your vagina conflicts with my morals by Jill at Feministe

Anti-Choice DHHS rule finalized by Cara at The Curvature

URGENT Action: Bush's Conscience Rule by frau sally at The Feminist Underground. (Crossposted at Jump Off the Bridge)

Just Released: President-Elect Obama must repeal harmful HHS rule by Marcia Greenberger at Womenstake

HHS Provider Conscince rule: You better shop around by Marilyn Keefe at RH Reality Check

Unconscionable policies, dangerous politics by Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check

HHS Finalizes rule that redefinse abortion by Ann at Feministing

And then, just in case you'd forgotten for -one second- why the outgoing administration sucks beyond black hole levels of sucking by belledame222

Bush administration embraces anti-contraception agenda by Amanda at Pandagon

I never should have gotten out of bed this morning by Melissa at Shakesville

I don't have much to add to the many great posts above, except to point out that this is an issue that, as usual, will affect the most vulnerable women the most. It is not just a feminist issue, but an issue of class, race, sexual orientation, gender identification, and more. It is crucial now to contact your Congressmen and Obama and push them on this issue. Many Democrats are not exactly known for their willingness to take a bold stand on issues of reproductive health.

God hates gays, God bless America

I wanted to say something more thoughtful about Rick Warren's role in Obama's inauguration. First I had to get past the sputtering anger phase.

I have to clarify that my giant temper tantrum was not out of surprise. I'm not surprised.

"I told you so" is verboten in some places, but, well. There it is. i am full of acrimony and not in the mood to be kind to those who pushed for Obama in the primaries by ignoring or obfuscating the problems with his broad coalition approach. That there are people in comments sections of some blogs still defending Obama and playing the "what he really means" game is almost as infuriating as the selection of Rick Warren itself.

There is nothing surprising here. The selection and the talking points surrounding it are nothing new from Obama. And they are still bullshit. As my favorite English prof used to say, one can say there are similarities and differences between almost any two things.

The truth is, some views are considered so far from a respectful disagreement that no matter how much an individual neo-Nazi*, for example, might hypothetically agree with progressives on a single issue, that person would not be invited to play a large public role in the President's inauguration. But being against civil rights for gays and lesbians, and lying and spreading hate to fight against those rights is something that can just be overlooked as a difference of opinion. It makes me sick.

Oh, and his stance against abortion is not even controversial enough to be addressed in the talking points.

The talking points might almost make sense (almost) if Rick Warren were being ivited to speak about those common ground issues. If Warren's importance to the evangelical community were being leveraged to gain support for those issues, it would at least be understandable. But instead he is being given a prominent role specifically as a pastor, and that lends him authority he does not deserve. It comes at the expense of women and the LGBTQ community, for whom Obama has demonstrated less respect than the religious right.

*Think that's too extremist? Am I shamelessly Godwinizing? Rick Warren has compared abortion to the holocaust, and homosexual marriage to rape. Nazis are invoked too easly and often because most of us have learned an almost instinctual revulsion for them and what they did. Neo-nazis, though they haven't been successful in engaging in widespread, institutionalized genocide, are recognized by most people as unreasonably hateful because of their association with German nazis. Those views taint and discredit anything else they do in the eyes of people who view themselves as not bigoted or racist. Certain bigotries have less impact and less influence on public policy only because leaders have been pushed to reject people who hold these views. Obama is proposing the exact opposite of this tactic, and that has never been shown to work in the past.

I don't know enough obscenities

I was resolved to write more on feminist analysis of pop culture and tv because that's where my interests lie and I was just not inspired to write about politics.

But a post on The West Wing is on hold while I have a giant temper tantrum.

Via Pharyngula, Kyle at Rightwingwatch.org has posted news that Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration.

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. !*^#^*@$^!@#^*!@$%&!@#^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The (straight) white man's burden

The day after Thanksgiving I purchased The West Wing box set, which was finally an affordable price. I've been watching an episode or two a day since then, plus a couple mini marathons.

I watched the first several seasons of The West Wing when it aired, but haven't seen more than a few clips since then. I've actually been glad that I didn't remember the show very well because I'm seeing it now with fresh eyes. And while the show is deservedly praised by many feminists and progressives, it's not without its flaws.

What struck me as I watched the second season was how a lack of women and minorities in the senior staff meant that their interests were championed by straight white men. This was especially glaring when the plot deliberately set up a member of a disadvantaged group as the conservative foil to the liberal staffers.

CJ Cregg is the only woman on the senior staff, and she is the press secretary. She doesn't have much of a role in shaping policy. In fact, there are no women who are regular characters who significantly influence policy. There are no regularly occurring characters who aren't straight. Charlie is the only person of color who is a regular major character. So, needless to say, straight white men are doing most of the talking about liberal policies on the show.

There are a few times when this goes beyond irritating but all too common, and becomes something more than the typical sexism and racism of casting. Fairly consistently, straight white men (typically the stars of the show) are the Champions of Liberalism and they have rarely brought in women or minorities to represent the progressive or activist segment of those groups. (Abbey Bartlet is one exception). So it stands out even more when they bring in a woman and a gay man to represent the conservative point of view.

In "The Portland Trip," a gay man who is a Republican Congressman, Matt Skinner, is pushing for passage of an anti-gay marriage bill. He debates about it with Josh Lyman, a straight man. Josh asks Skinner how he can be a Republican. Skinner responds that not everything in his life has to be about being gay, and he gets the last word.

Josh: How can you be a member of this party?? . . . This party that says who you are is against the law.

Matt: You know, I never understood why you gun control people don't all join the NRA. They've got 2 mil members, you bring 3 mil to the next meeting? Call a vote. All those in favor of tossing guns? Bam! move on.

Josh: That's a heck of a strategy, Matt, I'll bring it up in a meeting.

Matt: I agree with 95% of the Republican platform. I believe in local government. I'm in favor of individual rights rather than group rights. I believe that free markets lead to free people and that the country needs strong national defense. My life? Doesn't have to be about being a homosexual. It doesn't have to be entirely about that.

The problem, of course, is not that this view is presented, but that there have been no lesbian or gay characters to speak for the views of a vast majority of the community.

Similarly, very few women speak to women's issues on the show. In another episode Ainsley Hayes, a Republican woman, argues against the ERA. Again it is Sam Seaborn who argues for the ERA. Because he fails to effectively argue the liberal, feminist view of the ERA (and how can he without looking patronizing?) the conservative opposition to the amendment comes off looking stronger and more pro-woman. Luckily, there is a clip of the crucial part of this exchange on YouTube:



An exception to this pattern is in "Isaac and Ishmael," the episode written in response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Leo McGarry is questioning a man who is suspected of.. well, something related to having a suspicious name. The man works in the White House and is an American citizen. Leo is apparently freaked out enough to say some reactionary, racist things while the target of the inquisition helps to show how unjust and racist those views are. (This one exception loses some of its impact by virtue of the fact that a bunch of mostly white people are discussing terrorism and why "they" hate "us" in other scenes.)

Recommended Reading: Mandatory Ultrasounds

The Feminist Law Professors blog has a link up to a downloadable paper on the problems of mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. Carol Singer uses legal framing of the issue that I personally hadn't seen before. I haven't read the whole thing myself yet, but it looks extremely interesting.

A highlight from the abstract:

Mandatory ultrasound intrudes upon that protected area of decisionmaking in several respects. First, simply by virtue of having an ultrasound, a pregnant woman is promoted into the category of mother and it is against this conscripted status that she must proceed. Second, unlike other compulsory forms of abortion disclosure, the statutes require the woman to use her body to produce the very information intended to dissuade her from pursuing an abortion. The resulting fetal image is intended as a self-evident statement about the meaning of human life.

But characterizing the fetus as a child, as most ultrasound statutes do, is a political description, not a scientific one. It confuses medically informed consent with what I identify as morally informed consent, that realm of personal considerations that are a woman’s alone to determine. Imbued with indelible social meaning, the mandatory ultrasound requirement replaces consent with coercion - not about the ultimate decision, but about how a woman chooses to get there.

The idea that the decision making process should not be coerced fascinates me and I'm looking forward to reading more about it. Beyond the legal discussion that I assume the paper is limited to, it brings up the cultural perception of women as autonomous moral agents. That is, the commonly held perception that women are not autonomous moral agents in the way men are. Women are frequently limited to the virgin/whore dichotomy and a woman seeking an abortion is already deemed a whore and therefore incapable of being responsible for her own morality.

Go read the whole thing.

Real versus Fake Trees

This probably comes too late this year for anyone who puts up a tree for the holidays. I don't, but I thought this was interesting nonetheless. In reading occupational safety and health news for my job, I came across an article on the eco-friendliness of real trees vs artificial. According to a botanist quoted in the article, real trees are the way to go. From organic tree farms when possible:

“For the environmentally conscious consumer, a live Christmas tree is preferable to artificial,” he said. “An expenditure on a live tree results in a carbon neutral purchase that poses very little environmental threat, while injecting money into the domestic economy.”

Springer added that the most environmentally friendly tree would be raised organically – without the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides – in nearby environs with its roots intact, so that it can be re-planted after Christmas. He said buying from a local grower cuts down on the use of fossil fuels to transport the tree to the seller’s place of business, which reduces the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

Do you buy a tree? If so, what kind?

Larry Summers

When Larry Summers was rumored to be a possible pick for Obama's cabinet, many women immediately protested. For some time it appeared that Obama had actually done what he'd promised... to listen seriously to concerns, and to support women's equality. There were several pieces written by men pouting over the way the annoyed feminists had created such a controversy that Summers was off the short list, following the grand tradition of treating women as a "special interest."

Sadly, I haven't seen much outrage over the placement of Summers in the National Economic Council, a position that will not have to be confirmed by the Senate. This is nothing but a little switcheroo to make it look as if Obama is taking women's concerns seriously.

It seems Obama has learned the same lesson as Time Magazine:

[H]is controversial comments about women's aptitude for math and science were a reminder that he operates best when he is working behind the scenes.

I suppose we should be glad he didn't just thumb his nose at us and put Summers in as Treasury Secretary anyway. That's change you can believe in!

(H/T FAIR)