Friday, February 27, 2009
Net Neutrality
The left needs to be just as loud about this as they were about Social Security. The last thing this country needs is yet another way to grow the gap between those with money for access to information and power and those without.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Heroes continues to disappoint
I have to agree with the general feeling of the Heroes panel at Racialicious that this season of Heroes started bad and is going further downhill fast. I was a big fan of the first season of Heroes, and even the second season had it's good points. The third? I barely remember except for the Irish woman who provided Peter with what he needed, then was promptly rid of never to be discussed again. This season, however, is nothing but disappointment after disappointment. When the highlight of several episodes is seeing a psycho killer dealing with a difficult teenager, your series is in trouble. I am calling the big reveal of Matt's painting of DC on the floor the jump the shark moment of the series.
This season has also been the worst from a feminist perspective. A declining role for women culminated in the latest episode that revolved entirely around a group of men. The women who appeared served only as motivators for the men.
As for Angela Petrelli, I have gradually turned from finding her intriguing to disappointment that the treatment of her character stems from one of the strongest, most enduring misogynist ideas about women: that women wield a great deal of power invisibly from behind the scenes. That their motivations are mysterious and unfathomable, and their power of manipulation almost unlimited.
This season has also been the worst from a feminist perspective. A declining role for women culminated in the latest episode that revolved entirely around a group of men. The women who appeared served only as motivators for the men.
As for Angela Petrelli, I have gradually turned from finding her intriguing to disappointment that the treatment of her character stems from one of the strongest, most enduring misogynist ideas about women: that women wield a great deal of power invisibly from behind the scenes. That their motivations are mysterious and unfathomable, and their power of manipulation almost unlimited.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A cave of one's own
Can the idea of the "man room" or "cave" or whatever the fuck they want to call it just die already?
Apartment Therapy has a post up about this growing "phenomenon" asking readers their thoughts on the idea of a "man room." My thoughts are laced with obscenities, but I'll attempt to be more articulate.
First, any talk about a "man room" is bound to be heterocentric because of course it is men who live with women who supposedly need this dudely retreat from the taint of femininity. In this post I am going to focus on the supposed need for a boy's only room for grown male adults who are married to women. The heterocentrism and reliance on stereotypes deserve their own post, along with the class issues (this is primarily a middle class issue). There is another aspect I am going to explore here.
The attention given to the man-cave reflects the idea that men are especially in need of and deserving of space for relaxation that is suited to their interests and comforts. Why don't we think women need a women's room? Because the rest of the house is considered her space. The thinking goes that women are so dominant in the home, that they are so in-charge of that space, that it is their space. I think we're all familiar with the popular complaint that women will decorate and make spaces more feminine, thus ruining them for the men. (If you're not, just watch a week's worth of American sit-coms from the 90's).
What those complaints ignore, of course, is the fact that women are judged differently for their homes than men are. There are pressures on women, especially middle class women, that don't exist for men. Many men claim, for example, that they don't care about mess or clutter, and yet still expect their wives to keep a neat house for their comfort. At the least, they often expect to have clean dishes as they need them, clean and dry towels, clean clothes. This means that women are maintaining "their" space in part for the benefit of others: guests and family both.
The fact is, men do less work in the home while increasingly women do as much work outside of the home. And yet they are still considered more in need of their own space and time to relax, to have their comforts catered to. While space considered belonging to women involves work and stress, and is shared with others, space men supposedly need is centered completely around their needs. (I wonder who cleans up the man cave after the big game?)
A room of one's own is still out of reach for many married women. Men get all kinds of attention for their supposed need for space dedicated entirely to their needs and comfort. But women, whose lives and identities are often erased by their family role, are not expected to need any space dedicated to their comfort. Women who do desire space of their own are considered selfish or silly. A room of one's own for women is still a radical idea.
Apartment Therapy has a post up about this growing "phenomenon" asking readers their thoughts on the idea of a "man room." My thoughts are laced with obscenities, but I'll attempt to be more articulate.
First, any talk about a "man room" is bound to be heterocentric because of course it is men who live with women who supposedly need this dudely retreat from the taint of femininity. In this post I am going to focus on the supposed need for a boy's only room for grown male adults who are married to women. The heterocentrism and reliance on stereotypes deserve their own post, along with the class issues (this is primarily a middle class issue). There is another aspect I am going to explore here.
The attention given to the man-cave reflects the idea that men are especially in need of and deserving of space for relaxation that is suited to their interests and comforts. Why don't we think women need a women's room? Because the rest of the house is considered her space. The thinking goes that women are so dominant in the home, that they are so in-charge of that space, that it is their space. I think we're all familiar with the popular complaint that women will decorate and make spaces more feminine, thus ruining them for the men. (If you're not, just watch a week's worth of American sit-coms from the 90's).
What those complaints ignore, of course, is the fact that women are judged differently for their homes than men are. There are pressures on women, especially middle class women, that don't exist for men. Many men claim, for example, that they don't care about mess or clutter, and yet still expect their wives to keep a neat house for their comfort. At the least, they often expect to have clean dishes as they need them, clean and dry towels, clean clothes. This means that women are maintaining "their" space in part for the benefit of others: guests and family both.
The fact is, men do less work in the home while increasingly women do as much work outside of the home. And yet they are still considered more in need of their own space and time to relax, to have their comforts catered to. While space considered belonging to women involves work and stress, and is shared with others, space men supposedly need is centered completely around their needs. (I wonder who cleans up the man cave after the big game?)
A room of one's own is still out of reach for many married women. Men get all kinds of attention for their supposed need for space dedicated entirely to their needs and comfort. But women, whose lives and identities are often erased by their family role, are not expected to need any space dedicated to their comfort. Women who do desire space of their own are considered selfish or silly. A room of one's own for women is still a radical idea.
Monday, February 9, 2009
More on the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships
Francis Kissling provides more information on the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on RH Reality Check. The information continues to be troubling.
Obama has named 15 of 25 Council members, whom Kissling characterizes as "mostly male, mostly 60-and-over clergy." Most, she reports, are anti-choice, a handful with no record, and only one is pro-choice.
Head on over to the full post for pro-choice, anti-poverty people who Kissling believes should be among the remaining 10 Council members. If you still have any motivation to contact the President, demand a full representation of pro-choice women for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It is absolutely unacceptable to have an office tasked with reproductive choice issues sacked with anti-choice men.
Obama has named 15 of 25 Council members, whom Kissling characterizes as "mostly male, mostly 60-and-over clergy." Most, she reports, are anti-choice, a handful with no record, and only one is pro-choice.
Head on over to the full post for pro-choice, anti-poverty people who Kissling believes should be among the remaining 10 Council members. If you still have any motivation to contact the President, demand a full representation of pro-choice women for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It is absolutely unacceptable to have an office tasked with reproductive choice issues sacked with anti-choice men.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Is your abortion government-approved?
It was painfully obvious during the primaries and election that Obama either did not really understand the issues behind the reproductive justice movement, didn't care, or didn't think that authentically pro-woman framing of the issues would get him elected. Like too many people, Obama overlooked the obstacles women face in truly controlling our reproductive lives. He continued to present the debate as centered around judging women's choices. His framing often suggested that we have already won our rights, that we simply need to defend where we are, and move on to a next stage.
Today, Cara has pointed out the continuing efforts in South Dakota to make abortion inaccessible, while technically legal.
This is going on around the country. Millions of women already have no access to safe, legal abortion even in the first trimester.
And of course, reproductive justice isn't just about abortion. It's about the right to fully control our lives, including whether to have children, when to have them, and how we have them. Women are still fighting tooth and nail for control over our own bodies, from access to contraception, to education, to being treated with respect and not coersion by medical professionals.
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings." This sounds like such a simple statement. Many quote it as such, sometimes as proof of their feminism because they think they believe women are human beings. But the corellary is what makes feminist awareness so powerful and painful; feminists recognize that most of the world does not treat women as human beings. When it comes to reproductive justice in the United States, women as human beings is still a radical notion.
And in the midst of a strong backlash against women's right to abortion, the Obama Administration has taken a stand on the wrong side:
This comes from Amy Sullivan, who is not exactly the best source, but she's quoted by Emily Douglas at RH Reality Check.
This is no surprise. It's exactly the way he talked about the issue during the election. But it's still chilling to see reducing abortion as a top priority of a faith-based governmental council.
It's dangerous and irresponsible, in my not so humble opinion.
ETA An excellent comment on the TIMES site:
Today, Cara has pointed out the continuing efforts in South Dakota to make abortion inaccessible, while technically legal.
This is going on around the country. Millions of women already have no access to safe, legal abortion even in the first trimester.
And of course, reproductive justice isn't just about abortion. It's about the right to fully control our lives, including whether to have children, when to have them, and how we have them. Women are still fighting tooth and nail for control over our own bodies, from access to contraception, to education, to being treated with respect and not coersion by medical professionals.
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings." This sounds like such a simple statement. Many quote it as such, sometimes as proof of their feminism because they think they believe women are human beings. But the corellary is what makes feminist awareness so powerful and painful; feminists recognize that most of the world does not treat women as human beings. When it comes to reproductive justice in the United States, women as human beings is still a radical notion.
And in the midst of a strong backlash against women's right to abortion, the Obama Administration has taken a stand on the wrong side:
We already know that Obama plans to officially announce Joshua DuBois' appointment to be director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships tomorrow, as well as the unveiling of his newly-formed Presidential Advisory Council of the same name. But I'm told by a religious leader who will be part of the Council that the president also plans to lay out four priorities for the Council. They will include focusing on global poverty (not surprising), the impact of economic recovery plans on low-income Americans (ditto), the faith-based initiative (OF COURSE), and...abortion reduction.
This comes from Amy Sullivan, who is not exactly the best source, but she's quoted by Emily Douglas at RH Reality Check.
This is no surprise. It's exactly the way he talked about the issue during the election. But it's still chilling to see reducing abortion as a top priority of a faith-based governmental council.
It's dangerous and irresponsible, in my not so humble opinion.
ETA An excellent comment on the TIMES site:
plukasiak Says:
Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 5:44 am
This post illustrates the kind of unproductive politicization of the abortion issue that Obama is talking about.
_
uh, its not the media who is politicizing abortion here, its Obama. He's the one calling a reproductive planning initiative "abortion reduction". (and lets not call it "family planning"; we're not talking about whether to take the kids to the beach or to Disneyworld for vacation, we're talking about sex and reducing unintended pregancies.)
_
And there is a danger in this, because the focus of reproductive planning cannot and should not be abortion reduction; reducing the number of abortions is just one of the inevitable by-product of a successful reproductive planning initiative.
_
"abortion reduction" isn't about healthy babies and prepared parents, "abortion reduction" is a phrase that comes right out of the "life begins at conception, and ends at birth" handbook. And whether we like it or not, abortion remains an important aspect of family planning -- while we can reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies with a reproductive planning initiative, we can't eliminate the need for abortion services, or the need for reproductive planning services to include abortion as an option for women who do not feel ready to be bear children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
