Archive for December, 2005

Is The Oppression of Women The Root Of All Oppressions?

Posted by Ampersand | December 31st, 2005

Since there are now something like 300 posts in the thread Heart started, I thought I’d extract an exchange Heart and I had in that thread to start a new post.

Heart wrote:

In my opinion, a woman is a radical feminist if she agrees that the world we live in is a male supremacist world, that women in general are subjugated and oppressed by men and male institutions. The best way to evaluate the way male supremacy works is by comparing the situations of men and women who are similarly situated. A rich white woman, for example, is never going to be as well off as a rich white man, because she is or was still vulnerable to rape, objectification, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, molestation, in ways which the rich white man is not, in ways which affect her or have affected her from the time of her birth. A homeless man on the street is still better off than a homeless woman for the same reasons. And in between these two extremes, if we look at men and women, doesn’t matter the ethnicity, class standing, age, so long as we are talking about men and women who are similarly situated, we see across the board that men fare better in this world than women do. And that’s because the world is a male supremacist world. If a woman sees this, acknowledges that this is true, then she is probably a radical feminist, in that she is understanding sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions … racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.

In response to that, I wrote:

I certainly agree that the way to evaluate male supremacy is to compare women and men’s situations “all else held equal,” as you say. The fact that so often anti-feminists refuse to do this - instead comparing Hilary Clinton to a homeless black man, to use an example I’ve seen several different anti-feminists come up with - is either a sign of poor faith or poor thinking on their part.

However, if I understand your argument correctly (and maybe I don’t), you seem to be saying that this sort of comparison shows men to be better off “across the board,” and therefore we should understand “sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions … racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.”

Here’s where I’m confused: Couldn’t you say the same thing about virtually any other kind of widepread oppression? For instance, I’d argue that the correct way to evaluate white supremacy is to compare whites and blacks who are similarly situated in all ways other than race. Doing this will show whites to be better off than blacks “across the board.” Does it therefore follow that racism is the root oppression, and all other oppressions are modeled on it?

And Heart responded:

Amp is tricksy hobbits, luring me back into this thread. Heh. Well, I have a few things to say, here and in the Transwomen thread, so it’s all good.

First, I think if we compare black people and white people who are similarly situated, we do not find that across the board, white people are worse off than black people. I think we find, for example, that black men, in general, earn more money than white women and have consistently for a very long time. I think we find that black men were, for example, enfranchised as citizens in the United States 70 years before white women were. And I think we find, for example, that black college-educated women earn more money today, than similarly situated college-educated white women. I have written about this in some depth here.

I think we can say that male supremacy is the first, or root oppression, because men, throughout history and in every culture, first oppressed women, before any man, or any tribe or culture, ever oppressed anyone on account of race, class or whom someone loved. Racism, classism, homophobia, are recent inventions compared with the subjugation of women to men because we are women. The first oppression — oppression of women because we are women — occurred wherever women were assigned the tasks of sexual servicing men, reproduction for the benefit of the tribe or people group, and wherever women were assigned the tasks of the care of infants and children for the benefit of the tribe or people group. This goes back to the very earliest civilizations in all and every part of the world, without respect to race, ethnicity, religion, people group. Students of black history — which I am — know, for example, that in the 10th, 11th centuries, kings in African people groups exchanged women, wives, concubines, with kings in white European people groups. And the African kings were as racist in the direction of European royalty as was true, vice versa. A good book to begin with for those who are unfamiliar with this history is Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America by Lerone Bennett.

Male supremacy was the very first “othering,” the very first objectification by one class of people, men, of another class of people, women. Men’s otherng of women occurred, again, across the boundaries of race, culture, class and history. The othering was enlisted in the service of specific goals, i.e., the sexual servicing of men, the bearing of children, creation and perpetuation of family dynasties, and all of the caretaking and labor involved in these efforts. In the othering of women, men learned the usefulness and efficacy of dominance hierarchies. Power-over was eroticized and celebrated. Over time other people groups were othered, in later periods of history and in various cultures, for specific reasons, most of them having to do with the amassing of wealth or the preservatin of dominance hierarchies. But the techniques by way of which a class of people — women — were made the servants of an upper class — men, were honed in the earliest relationships between men and women. And for this reason, among others, radical feminists attend to the *way* women as a people group continue to be objectified and othered by men as a people group. Other otherings are important and the subject of the attention of all feminists, including radical feminists, but radical feminists attend first and foremost to this one, which is so central in so many ways.

Heart

So that’s where we stand. I do intend to respond to Heart, but it may be hours before I can do that, because I’ve got things going on in the meatworld right now.

NOTE: As an experiment, this comments thread is for feminist, pro-feminist, and feminist-friendly posters only. If you suspect you wouldn’t fit into Amp’s conception of “feminist, pro-feminist, or feminist-friendly,” then please don’t contribute to the comments following this post.

More moderation policy stuff

Posted by Ampersand | December 30th, 2005

For those of you who didn’t follow all of the comments following Heart’s post, Heart in the end decided not to try out radical-feminist-women only threads on “Alas.”

I’ve also decided that my previous scheme to restrict MRAs to particular topic categories was simply too convoluted to work. (My belief is that no policy that takes more than twenty seconds to explain will be workable in practice.)

Instead, I’ve decided to experiment with marking some posts as “feminist, pro-feminist and feminist-friendly only” threads (such as yesterday’s transwomen & feminism post). This is similar to Heart’s proposal, but it’s not limited to radical feminists, and pro-feminist men are allowed. Also, I’ve decided to be freer about kicking MRAs and anti-feminists off (although I still don’t take requests, so please don’t ask). Hopefully, this will address the concerns of folks who felt “Alas” has become too MRA-dominated. We’ll see how it goes, and make further adjustments if necessary.

Link Farm and Open Thread #3

Posted by Ampersand | December 30th, 2005

Here’s a bunch of links to things I’ve been reading. Feel free to use the comments to talk about these links, or to provide links of your own (either to your own stuff, or to anything else you think is interesting), or to talk about whatever you’d like.

Bush Defense Department Refuses To Implement Anti-Human Trafficking Policy

More fun/horrifying before-and-after photo retouching.

Graduate Student’s Nightmare
“Hold the snide remarks about not backing up your thesis, and consider the true horror of this. Your thesis is gone. Gone. Gone.”

A really neat idea: Introducing Doodle Blog.
Contribute your doodles!

For Some, Transsexuality is a Choice, and That’s Just Fine

Forgotten Holiday TV Specials
Some of these really cracked me up, particularly “A Muppet Christmas with Zbigniew Brzezinski” and “Christmas with David Cronenberg.” Via Hit and Run.

What You See Is What You Get
I’m not sure what language it’s in, but this video clip of a magic trick is super-cool-dandytastic.

Women’s Rights Are Good Economics
An interesting article in Foreign Affairs argues that “Backing women’s rights in developing countries isn’t just good ethics; it’s also sound economics. Growth and living standards get a dramatic boost when women are given just a bit more education, political clout, and economic opportunity.”

Top Ten Myths About Iraq In 2005
Read this Juan Cole post - one of the best posts I’ve seen about Iraq in quite a while. Although his comment-writers make a persuasive case that myth #3 may not belong on the list. And I think another myth - the myth that invading Iraq has brought about an improvement in women’s rights - belongs on the list.

One Less Reason To Move To Spain
Spanish civil servants will no longer be allowed the traditional two-or-three hour siesta, instead having to take just one hour for lunch. Very disappointing.

French Woman Meets Online Romance In Person - And It’s Her Son. Ewwww!

More On Radfem-Only Threads At “Alas”
Actually, I’ve decided to experiment with “feminist and pro-feminist only” threads, which aren’t limited to radical feminists or to women, but which do exclude folks who don’t approve of feminism. But meanwhile, here are two blogs commenting on Heart’s proposal for radfem-women-only threads: Egotistical Whining and The Debate Link.

Why Feminists Should Accept Transwomen as Women

Posted by Ampersand | December 30th, 2005

Expect light posting from me until 2006 - I’m just too busy to spend a lot of time on “Alas.” But I wanted to point out this excellent discussion of transwomen and feminism, which took place in Feministe’s comments, mostly between three writers I respect a lot: Piny, Emma of GenderGeek, and Tekanji of Shrub.com. Tekanji, in particular, did a wonderful job of arguing that a definition of “women” that includes transwomen is compatable with, and desirable for, feminism.

From Tekanji’s final post on that thread:

I guess part of the difference in where we’re coming from on this is that you feel that to make a more inclusive definition of “woman” would be to eradicate, or at least de-emphasize, the current meaning. And, I agree, on some levels it would.

But, part of what I see as a gender democracy is that it focuses on adding to existing definitions, not taking away. Just because I choose to work outside of the home and not have children does not make some other woman’s choice to become a stay-at-home mom any less valid, right? In that same regard, the ability for a transwoman to call herself, and be seen as, a woman should not invalidate the womanhood of women-born-women.

Also, on the “helping our cause” area, I disagree. I think that in order to get society* to a place where the transgendered (et, al) are accepted - be they woman-identifying, man-identifying, neither or both - is to get to a place where a person’s choice is not seen as genderdized. In that way, I see the struggle of women-born-women and the transgendered (et, al) to be one and the same: we all want the same opportunities, rights, and freedoms as men-born-men have traditionally have, as well as the ability for the traditonally “feminine” to be seen as something of equal value so that men-born-men can aspire to it, too. If “masculine” and “feminine” were seen as equal, then I am quite sure that the gender binary wouldn’t be nearly as important as it is now. [...]

I don’t believe having a less strict (more mutable, more inclusive, etc) definition of “woman” necessitates the eradication of the subtleties of the current defintion. We already have a diverse set of people who fit under the word “woman”, we already need specific subsets to deal with their distinct needs, so what’s adding yet another subset onto that in order to help alleviate the oppression of some of our sisters?

That last paragraph in particular does a wonderful job of putting into words something I’ve thought about this question for years. Like Tekanji, I’ve long been disturbed by a strong streak of transphobia among some feminists; that was a major reason I grew disenchanted with the late, great Ms. Boards.

There’s more good stuff in the discussion at Feministe, so I’d recommend reading the whole thing.

NOTE: As an experiment, this comments thread is for feminist, pro-feminist, and feminist-friendly posters only. If you suspect you wouldn’t fit into Amp’s conception of “feminist, pro-feminist, or feminist-friendly,” then please don’t contribute to the comments following this post.

If you have a little extra cash….

Posted by Ampersand | December 28th, 2005

I’m so lazy, I’m just gonna quote Bitch PhD:

Group hugs are nice and warm, but not quite warm enough for Chicago in winter without a water heater. Flea’s went out. Her paypal tip jar helped her buy a new one, but she’s “saving up” to have a plumber install it. However long it takes to save up for hot water when you’ve got two kids in midwinter is too damn long–so if any of you have a li’l extra Christmas cash, I know flea would really appreciate any donations.

Flea, as I’m sure you all know, is the blogosphere’s best storyteller, bar none. I’m a fan of her blog, and I assume I’m not the only one on “Alas.”

I made a sadly small donation, which is pretty much what I could afford. But if a bunch of us make sadly small donations, it might add up….

Why Alas Needs Radical Feminist Woman Only Threads

Posted by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff | December 28th, 2005

A while back, after I’d participated in some fairly intense threads here at Alas defending woman-only space in general, and woman-only internet boards (mine, in particular), Amp asked me if I’d like to start blogging regularly on Alas. I’ve been thinking about his invitation for some time now, and a couple of times I’ve written something, even threatened Amp that I was about to begin. Each time, though, I’ve ultimately decided not to, for the same reasons I haven’t posted at Alas for a long, long, time. There are just so many anti-feminist posters here. There are way too many men here, and too many of them seem to be here for the express purpose of making feminist discussion unlikely to impossible. It seemed too likely to me that attempting serious feminist discussion here would be like trying to have a conversation in a bar while the band was playing, just too frustrating.

A couple of days ago, Ginmar posted to my boards, alerting me to the treatment she was receiving here and to the fact that she had finally left Alas. I read her blog, then came here and read the various threads she’d described. There it all was in familiar detail, the same dynamics I’ve seen play out over the years on so many boards where feminists have attempted to gather: the trolling, the misogyny, the endless diversion,the ongoing defenses of indefensible anti-feminist, anti-woman behaviors, and always a tiny number of dogged and persevering radical feminist militants who are relentlessly baited and goaded, to the point they respond decisively, vehemently, passionately, even angrily and (gasp) stridently, at which point all hell breaks loose, they end up accused of being “bullying” or “silencing” or “overbearing” or “domineering” or “rude” and “uncivil,” to the point that, as with Ginmar, they end up leaving the boards entirely (or being banned). Which means, of course, that the radical feminist voice and presence is ultimately silenced, erased. In fact, what I described in the first paragraph of this post is my own silencing here. Ginmar was more persevering than I was, but her voice here has also been successfully silenced. There are a tiny number of radical feminists remaining here now.

I first encountered Amp on the old Ms boards, where there were the same ongoing problems with trolls, men’s rights activists, anti-feminists, libertarians, conservatives. Eventually, frustrated with how difficult it was to simply engage feminist women over issues of importance to us, I began what became a series of over 50 woman-only threads expressly for radical feminist women. Lots of people on the Ms boards, including feminist women, objected to those threads at first, but over time, their value became apparent even to those who at first opposed them. In the woman-only, radical feminist women’s space threads, women were at last able to enjoy serious discussions of feminist issues with far fewer of the intrusions and obfuscations typical of those who were on the Ms boards with one purpose and goal in mind: to silence and erase the voices of feminists, and especially feminist radicals, militants and separatists.

I think it’s great that Amp has revised the moderation policies here to make separate threads for men’s rights people and anti-feminists. I think that is definitely a step in the right direction. I would like to propose the creation of woman-only, radical feminist threads here as well, of the type some of us enjoyed back in the old Ms boards days, of the type we enjoy every day on my own boards. It seems to me that if space can be made for anti-feminists and fathers’ rights trolls here, it might make sense to make similar space for those of us who are radical feminists, separatists, and militants. I think it’s a shame that our presence on these boards is all but gone. Feminist women who share our politics and beliefs and history created a revolution in our time on behalf of the people of women, first and foremost, but ultimately benefitting all people — men, women, and children, and creatures and the earth as well. It seems to me that space should be made here for the kinds of discussions and discourses which have changed and are changing the world.

Woman-only, radical feminist space here won’t prevent anyone from discussing the issues we raise (in other threads which they create). What it will ensure is that our voices are not silenced and erased completely. And it might work to minimize the provocations which inexorably lead to flame wars and targeting and the uncivil posting styles which are often criticized here. So whaddya say, Amp? I’m pretty sure this isn’t what you anticipated I might post as a first post to your blog! It’s just that I haven’t been up for dealing with men’s rights guys and anti-feminists and trolls. I’ve done that to death and can’t give it my energy anymore. But I’d sure be up for creating a new space here for those who share my own separatist, radical, and militant feminist politics. I’d enjoy engaging the issues raised in the radical feminist threads outside of those threads here as well. And for what it’s worth, I’m betting the discussion which ensues now will be interesting.

Heart (Cheryl)
http://www.womensspace.org ( The Margins)

Race, Class and Second Chances

Posted by Ampersand | December 28th, 2005

Over at Blackprof, Dorothy Roberts is discussing drugs and the achievement gap between black and white kids:

Last night I heard a program on NPR’s All Things Considered, “Teen Abuse of Painkiller OxyContin on the Rise,” reporting a new survey showing that 1 in 20 high school seniors acknowledges taking the highly additive prescription painkiller OxyContin. The program featured interviews with a group of white, middle- and upper-class teenagers enrolled in a drug-treatment clinic at Children’s Hospital in Boston and their parents. The teens told about their addictions to OxyContin, which sometimes led to heroin, and the crime sprees they went on to support their habits. [...]

What struck me most about the NPR program was its totally sympathetic stance toward the plight of these teens and their parents. The interviewer never asked the teens if they had a problem with acting “white” or their parents why they didn’t motivate and supervise their children like “Asian parents.” There was not even a hint of blame for anyone: as one mother said, these children just “got grabbed by something that was greater than [them].” Nor was there any indication that any of the teens had been in trouble with the law for their crimes or placed in foster care for their parents’ neglect. Most will probably complete the drug treatment program, graduate from their highly-ranked suburban high schools, and go on to college, their brush with drug addiction and crime a forgiven momentary lapse in their privileged path to success.

Can you imagine a similarly sympathetic discussion of addiction, drug dealing, and theft with a group of black teenagers and their parents?

One of the major ways that kids are treated differently in the US - by race and by class - is how many chances the kids get. A white, upper-class kid can mess up his life countless times and still pretty much count on being rescued and given another chance. If he does poorly in school, he gets specialized tutoring, rather than being written off and permanently slow-tracked. If she gets caught shoplifting or drugging or stealing, she’ll get a slap on the wrist or maybe some community service - if her case is ever brought to court at all. Rescue efforts are organized to get the kid back on the “right” track. Much of the time, well-off white kids simply aren’t allowed to fail.

How much does it take to get a kid written off as a hopeless case? Much, much less if the kid is poor, and less still if the kid is poor and Black. How much better would Black kids be if they were allowed to fail and be rescued as often as White kids are? I’d like to find out.

(By the way, the comments discussion at Blackprof is pretty interesting, too).

The Ten Worst Americans

Posted by Ampersand | December 27th, 2005

Alexandra at All Things Beautiful is asking bloggers to list who they think are the ten worst Americans of all time. Too many of the lists so far, both left and right, are both too partisan and too recent.

(Protein Wisdom’s list is hilarious, by the way.)

I can’t think of ten offhand, but I’m sure you folks can suggest some more.

Let’s see….

1) General Jeffrey Amherst (after whom town and college are named), for giving smallpox-infested blankets to Indians. From a letter he wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet in 1763: “”Could it not be contrived to send the ’smallpox’ among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them…. You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can move to extirpate this execrable race. I should be very glad to hear your scheme for hunting them down by dogs could take effect.”

2) President Andrew Jackson. The Trail of Tears alone is enough to get this racist madman on the list. Although arguably General Winfield Scott, who was more directly responsible for the Trail of Tears, deserves the spot more. Call this one a toss-up.

3) How about a simple serial killer? H. H. Holmes may have killed as many as 150 people, torturing some of them first. He seemed to kill men as part of elaborate scams, children for convenience, and women because he just liked killing women. His elaborate deathtrap-filled Chicago mansion burned down not long after he was arrested; the site is a post office now.

4) Texas cop Tom Coleman, who railroaded dozens of people (mostly black men) into prison on trumped-up drug charges so he could be a big man at the station house. Seems a little petty to include him on a list with mass-murderers, I admit, and maybe I’ll replace him with someone Ever So Much More Evil later. But I just hate this dude.

5) J. Edgar Hoover. “McCarthyism” should have been called “Hooverism”; Hoover, like McCarthy, was a strong believer in using the power of the government to crush dissent and ruin lives. But unlike McCarthy, he was smart enough to keep himself in the saddle for decades. Although hateful towards civil rights, he did have soft spots for blackmail and for the mafia. (It’s also rumoured that he was a cross-dresser; if so, that’s the only thing I like about Hoover.)

6) Senator John C. Calhoun, America’s most prominent supporter of slavery and arguably the single person most responsible for the “no compromise on slavery! never!” position of the South which (again, arguably) led to the civil war. Fun fact: A Senate resolution in the year 2000 declared Calhoun one of the “seven greatest” Senators ever!

7) In comments, Robert suggests another current-day dude: Fred Phelps, possibly the most hate-filled man in America. According to Wikipedia, some of Phelps’ relatives and associates “claim that Phelps suffers from a mental illness that leaves him unsatisfied with life unless he can be responsible for the suffering of other human beings.”

Post your suggestions in the comments!

Hat tip: The Argument Clinic.

UPDATE: This list by Joseph Marshall, in the comments at All Things Beautiful, features some very well-chosen names. (And I’m not only saying that because some of the names appear on my list as well!)

International Marriage Broker Act passes! Plus, Bush admin refuses to release rules to help battered immigrant women.

Posted by Ampersand | December 27th, 2005

In 1997, Indle King Jr.’s wife divorced him. King had beaten her head against a wall, and she sought and got a protective order to keep King away from her. King felt victimized by the divorce settlement (still does, probably).

King’s first wife had been what people call a mail-order bride. So King went back to the internet and found a new wife, Anastasia Soloviev from Kyrgyzstan. Two years into their marriage, 20-year-old Anastasia King had realized that she married an abusive monster, and was seeking a divorce. Not wanting to pay a second divorce settlement, King recruited his friend Dan Larson to help him murder Anastasia. King, a big man, sat on Anastasia’s chest to hold her down while Larson strangled her.

They dumped Anastasia’s body. Then the newly-single King went back to the internet to find his third mail-order bride.

Fortunately, Anastasia’s body was found before King could close that transaction. King wound up getting a 27-year sentence (newspaper accounts say King’s testimony on his own behalf cleared up any doubt the jury was feeling). The trial was big news in Washington state, where Anastasia had lived, and the issue came to the attention of Washington Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Rick Larsen. As a result, Congress this month passed The International Marriage Broker Act, which requires potential mail-order brides to be informed if their suitors have criminal histories or have had domestic violence complaints taken out against them.

Actually, there’s a lot more to the legislation; Bean, posting on her blog for the first time in months, describes the legislation in detail. There’s too much for me to sum up, so go over there and read her post. From Bean’s post:

This law is most definitely a step in the right direction, and will certainly help prevent some of the more serious atrocities some of these foreign brides might otherwise experience. However, as I wrote in my previous post on this subject, it will not prevent or stop all abuse against foreign brides. Many men (and international marriage brokers) will, no doubt, find ways around the law. And, not all abusive men will necessarily have a criminal record. And, or course, some women may still believe his claims that he has changed, or that the charges were due to lies (after all, why should we believe that women from the former Soviet Union or SE Asia are all that different in their desire to believe men who say they love them than American women are?).

Bean also discusses the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The most disturbing bit? In 2000, Congress created a class of visas - the “U visa” - for witnesses to and victims of “rape, torture, trafficking, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation” and a variety of other crimes. U visas are needed; they can give crime victims a way to avoid the impossible choice between staying with an abusive criminal or being deported.

Five years after Congress passed the U visa law, however, the law might as well have never been passed. Why? Because the Bush administration has refused to release rules for U visas, meaning that no one can get a U visa. (Women who would qualify for a U visa have been getting by with halfway measures and year-to-year visas in the meanwhile - if they’re lucky.) Sheer incompetence, or cold-hearted indifference? Who can even tell anymore?

UPDATE: See Ginmar’s post on this subject, as well.

Civil partnership in the UK

Posted by Nick Kiddle | December 25th, 2005

I’m late posting this, but since Wednesday, same-sex couples here in the UK have been able to register civil partnerships and get most of the benefits of marriage. (I don’t know what benefits they can’t get, and, alas, have no time to hunt up a link.)

The media seem to have concentrated mainly on the details of the ceremony Elton John and his partner had, although I did hear one apparently heterosexual man on the radio complaining that he and his girlfriend didn’t qualify for a civil partnership.

Pseudo-Adrienne Has Left The Building

Posted by Ampersand | December 23rd, 2005

Pseudo-Adriane and I have decided to return to having separate blogs. What it comes down to, primarily, is that P-A and I want different things from our blogs, and that’s cool. Also, P-A missed having a blog of her own.

P-A has already started posting again on her own fabulous blog, Pseudo-Adrienne’s Liberal Feminist Bias. I’m gonna be reading it often, and I hope you all will, too.

I also want to thank P-A for the sensational job she’s done blogging at “Alas.” Her posts here have, frankly, kicked patriarchal ass, and I know that her posts at P-A’s Liberal Feminist Bias will do the same. Let’s face it, P-A rocks.

New policy for anti-feminist, men’s rights, and right-wing posters

Posted by Ampersand | December 23rd, 2005

As part of my attempt to revamp the moderation policy, there are now new rules for anti-feminist, men’s rights activist, and right-wing posters. Please check ‘em out and let me know your thoughts.

Female Cops Are Better Cops

Posted by Ampersand | December 23rd, 2005

From Five Before Midnight:

Retention of women in the department and others like it continue to be a problem, particularly during the probational period when women are dropped for poor evaluations for being “too slow”, lacking in “gusto” and other similar reasons. Experts in women and policing state that such terms are code words to promote the idea that female officers are simply inferior to their male counterparts. [...]

Which is a shame, because many studies done comparing female officers to male officers have favored the women, including those done on the issue of excessive force. In statistics provided for many larger law enforcement agencies, women comprise about 5% of complaints involving excessive force, 5% of citizen complaints and 2% of sustained complaints. Women engage in as many arrests as their male counterparts and do not hesitate to use force when necessary, but their rates of excessive force are far exceeded by male officers.

Financially, women are more cost-effective when it comes to civil litigation paid out by cities and counties in relation to excessive force, sexual assaults and domestic violence. Although nationally, women are outnumbered by about 6.5 to 1, in terms of law suits paid out, men outnumber women, anywhere from 20 to 40 to 1.

So the logical thing to do would be to hire more female officers, particularly as the department moves away from parimilitary style policing and continues to embrace Community Oriented Problem Solving policing. Yet, the numbers of female officers in the RPD will continue to lag behind those of men for a long time.

The entire post (which covers a lot more ground, including a discussion of the harassment female officers have faced) is fascinating. The comments are also very impressive; blogger Mary (aka Radfem) does a great job responding to some very belligerant cops who post anonymously.

India: Women Rebel Against Attempt To Impose “Taliban” Style Morality

Posted by Ampersand | December 22nd, 2005

An interesting, one-step-backward one-step-forward story from India.

Shock mounted across the country Wednesday as several television stations showed video footage of female police officers slapping and punching young women. The incident took place in a public park in Meerut City, about 60 kilometers east of New Delhi.

The women had been rounded up in the park with their male dates. It was part of a police operation named “Operation Romeo,” which was supposedly aimed at discouraging the sexual harassment of women.

The police conducted the operation in full view of television cameras for nearly two hours. About eight women were rounded up, some of them by male police officers, but the slapping and punching was done by female officers.

Across India, many people saw the action as something quite different, and expressions of condemnation poured in from legislators and women activists. [...]

Brinda Karat, a leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and a prominent supporter of women’s rights, expressed her outrage at what she described as misplaced priorities.

“How dare they do it? They cannot take any action against the criminals who are raping women, the extent of violence against women in nonconsensual assault is so huge, on that they don’t want to take any action, and on young couples who are spending some time together in a public place…. They want to beat up those women. We will never accept it,” she said.

In Meerut City, students held angry street protests, and burnt effigies of police officers.

The students denounced attempts by the police to turn Uttar Pradesh into what they called a “Taleban” style region.

In the face of such anger, police officials quickly distanced themselves from the operation, blaming lower-level officers and calling it a shameful incident. Two women police officers were suspended and an inquiry was promised.

Christmas Song Repaired

Posted by Ampersand | December 22nd, 2005

Phil just called and sang me this - “the advantage of hanging out with children,” he said. I’ve never heard this one before.

Dashing through the snow
On a pair of broken skis
Down the hill we go
Crashing into trees (ow! ow! ow!)
The snow is turning red
I think I’m almost dead
That’s why I’m in this hospital
With a pole stuck in my head!

Bill O’Reilly’s gonna get them!

Another Update on the “Guilty of Insufficiently Traumatized Behavior” Case

Posted by Ampersand | December 22nd, 2005

(Previous posts on this topic here and here).

The Oregonian reports that Judge Peter Ackerman is feeling a bit defensive:

BEAVERTON — A municipal judge on Monday delayed sentencing a woman convicted of filing a false rape report until after her appeal is heard in Washington County Circuit Court.

But Judge Peter Ackerman took the opportunity to defend his conviction of the woman and criticize media attention surrounding the case.

“I’m a little disgusted by the coverage of this case,” Ackerman said during the hearing. “The facts were what the facts were.”

When Ackerman convicted the woman Dec. 2, he said he relied in part on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and friends of the girl, who said she did not appear to be traumatized in the days after the incident.

Advocates for rape victims criticized that reasoning. But Ackerman said Monday that the woman’s lawyer should have offered expert testimony to counter prosecution witnesses.

In retrospect, yes, it would have been good if they offered expert testimony (and I bet they will at the new trial). Nonetheless, the lack of expert testimony doesn’t rescue Ackerman’s ruling from being bad logic. The idea that there is a “correct” way that real rape victims must act, and that failure to act that way is proof of a malicioius false accusation, does not pass the smell test.

Commenting on the expert witness argument, Pinko Feminist Hellcat writes:

Did I miss the part of the trial where there were expert witnesses for the prosecution? An ignorant cop, a catty friend, and her dopehead, child-molester dating mother aren’t experts on rape trauma–and as law geeks love to remind us, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

It’s good that Ackerman is feeling the heat. Hopefully, he won’t be so quick to rely on stereotypes and false assumptions the next time he rules in a rape-related case - and, even more importantly, let’s hope other judges have heard of the controversy and made a mental note to check unfair assumptions about rape vicitms at the door. If rulings like his were ever to become a norm, it would be stupid for any rape victim to ever come forward to the police.

Be sure to read this post at Preemptive Karma - the blogger actually attended the sentencing hearing. (No sentence will be carried out until after the appeal, however). And this post at Pandagon. And this post at The Balancing Act. Quote of the day, from Balancing Act:

If she hasn’t seemed traumatized yet, then I am sure this will knock some sense into her. Mission accomplished?

Moderation Note: This thread is not intended for discussion of anti-feminist theories that false rape accusations are really very common (use this thread for that), or male rape victims, or the trauma of men who are falsely accused, and similar topics. Let’s try not derailing this one.

Alas, a Moderation Policy

Posted by Ampersand | December 22nd, 2005

(MRA, anti-feminist and right-wing guests, after reading this page read this post as well, please!)

I have a goal for the comments on “Alas.” A bunch of goals, actually.

  1. I’d like the discussions here to be respectful. By that, I mean not merely refraining from swearing at each other all the time, but actual respect for other posters, which means treating everyone you deal with as if they were as wonderful and important a person as you yourself are.
  2. I’d like “Alas” to not become a space where there’s nothing to be found but feminist-bashing and responses to the feminist-bashing. That doesn’t mean that posters here must agree with feminism or feminists; nor does it mean that feminists are exempt from having to respect others. It does mean that posters who in my judgement are dripping with contempt for feminists and feminism will be shown the door - even if they’re being polite on the surface. (And yes, this does create a bit of a double-standard. I can live with that.)
  3. I’d like the right-wing, anti-feminist and non-feminist critics who post on “Alas” to be treated with respect, rather than being bullied or shouted down.
  4. I’d like it if posters who choose to debate, attacked arguments, rather than attacking other posters. In general, following the principles of argumentation described here is a good idea.
  5. I’d like posters here to use good formatting (remember to put in paragraph breaks every now and then!) and clean, readable prose.
  6. I’d like it if the discussions on “Alas” were not as stupid as the discussions I’ve seen on many other internet forums.
  7. (Added April 7th 2006). I don’t want the discussions on “Alas” dominated by anti-feminists or MRAs. Although I like have a small number of well-written opposing views on “Alas” for spice, it’s my intention that most of the discussions here be dominated by feminist and lefty views. For that reason, brand-new MRA and anti-feminist posters might not be approved to post even if as individuals they are perfectly reasonable and polite.

    In other words, when I decide whether or not to let a new poster through, I decide that based not only on the quality of the individual poster but also on a desire to maintain a certain balance to the comments on “Alas” as a whole.

    Please note that beginning today, nearly all of my (Ampersand’s) posts will be cross-posted on the blog “Creative Destruction”. The comments at “Creative Destruction” are open to anyone who remains civil. So right-wing, anti-feminist, and MRA folks may be better off posting comments over there.

Those are my goals for comments on “Alas.” Posters whose presence, in my opinion, push discussions on “Alas” further away from these goals may be banned at any time. Posters who in my opinion help move “Alas” closer to those goals will be given slack.

Please note that these are not “rules,” so please don’t attempt to play “rules-lawyer.” People aren’t banned based on breaking rules; they’re banned based on my perception that they’re moving “Alas” discussions away from what I’d like “Alas” discussions to be.

* * *

IMPORTANT: If you might be described as an anti-feminist, a right-winger, or a men’s rights activist, then please read this link before posting.

* * *

So that’s it - that’s the “Alas” moderation policy. I don’t claim to have consistently followed it in the past, but I’ll be trying to follow them from now on.

Here’s a few additional notes:

On moderation: I will sometimes try to moderate by asking posters to cool down. However, due to limits on my time and energy, moderation is only done in a “random spot-check” fashion. This system will of course lead to unjust outcomes, in which I criticize post A but fail to criticize post B which was ever so much more offensive. Such is life.

A note to right-wing, men’s rights activist (MRA), and anti-feminist guests: Please understand that although I encourage debate, “Alas” is not intended to be a forum for relentless feminist-bashing. As well as avoiding obvious personal attacks and insults, anti-feminists who want to post on “Alas” would be well advised to avoid snide side comments like “I know that everyone here thinks it’s okay for men to be attacked,” and other such faux-polite comments that actually indicate contempt.

Is my moderation patriarchal? Some feminists may criticize me for moderating feminists (and, specifically, female feminists) at all. I am male, with male privilege; who am I to tell women what they can say and how they can say it? Isn’t that an expression of male privilege?

It’s a point that I’ve thought hard about (and which has made me very hesitant to ban even the rudest female feminist posters). But in the end, I’m not persuaded that setting goals for civility on one small blog, is the same as limiting women’s speech generally. Any woman (or man, for that matter) who doesn’t like my approach to discussion can easily find dozens of other feminist blogs and forums.

If your post is put into moderation: Probably you shouldn’t take it personally. The anti-spam program uses a big list of words that automatically get a comment put into the “needs approval” pile. (The words or bits of words that trigger auto-moderation can be totally unexpected and hard to predict. For a while, every time someone wrote a comment using the word “socialist” it was automatically put into moderation, because the word “cialist” was on the list!)

Anyhow, once a comment is in moderation, it stays there until I approve it. And if I happen to be busy or asleep, that can unfortunately take a while . Sorry about that - but it really IS necessary. Blame the free market for creating spam.

* * *

That’s it! None of this is written in stone, however, so if you have critiques or suggestions please feel free to pipe up.

Misogynistic Rape Laws In Pakistan

Posted by Ampersand | December 21st, 2005

An interesting article in Voice of America discusses the state of women’s rights in Pakistan. In some ways, women’s rights are flourishing, especially in the cities, where women’s relatively rapid economic advancement is driving a lot of local women’s rights activism. At the same time, rural areas are remain reactionary, supporting woman-hating practices like forced marriages and “honor” killings.

One focus of Pakistani feminist activism is “the country’s most controversial Islamic law, known as the Hudood Ordinance,” which activists are trying to have overturned.

Under the ordinance, women who fail to prove rape claims are charged with committing adultery, a criminal offense.

Trial lawyer and women’s advocate Jamila Aslam says the laws protect rapists and punish the victims.

“You find most women will not report the rape because they don’t expect to get justice. They go to the police station. Chances are if she’s pretty, she’ll be raped by the policeman. Second, they’ll say, oh, you’re a culprit because a sexual act has been performed. It’s a man’s world out here,” added Ms. Aslam.

She says the law has sent more than 20,000 mostly innocent women to prison.

But religious groups in Pakistan strongly oppose any changes to the law, saying it protects core Islamic values.

Unfortunately, the police and the president are firmly, and sometimes violently, misogynistic. The courage of women’s activists in Pakistan is stunning. From the International Herald Tribune:

“Teach the bitch a lesson. Strip her in public.” As one of the police officers told me, these were the orders issued by their bosses. The police beat the woman with batons in the full glare of the news media, tore her shirt off and, though they failed to take off her baggy trousers, certainly tried their best. The ritual public humiliation over, she and others - some bloodied - were dragged screaming and protesting to police vans and taken away to police stations.

This didn’t happen to some unknown student or impoverished villager. This happened to Asma Jahangir, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religion and head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, the country’s largest such nongovernmental group. The setting: a glitzy thoroughfare in Lahore’s upmarket Gulberg neighborhood. The crime: attempting to organize a symbolic mixed-gender mini-marathon on May 14. [...]

In Washington and London, Musharraf presents himself as the face of enlightenment; in Pakistan there is another face. The Bush administration, Musharraf’s chief backer, should realize that its friend in the war on terror came to power in a coup, continues to hold office without facing Pakistani voters, refuses to schedule a vote, and bans women from running in mixed-gender races. Those who stand for the values of human rights and democracy that the Bush administration calls universal are seen as the enemy within and are beaten on the streets.

The website Fiscal Study has put together a good collection of short articles about women’s rights in Pakistan (from which I swiped the photo at the top of this post). If you’ve got a few minutes, it’s well worth reading.

What’s striking to me is that Pakistani culture isn’t a monolith of misogyny, which is how it’s sometimes portrayed. The Pakistani women’s rights activists are as much a part of their culture as the misogynists are, and the feminist protestors pictured at the top of this post are as important an image of Pakistani womanhood as the more often seen photos of veiled women. The US should be looking for ways to support feminist activism in Pakistan, rather than just supporting a misogynistic head of state.

Various Links and Open Thread

Posted by Ampersand | December 21st, 2005

What I’ve been reading lately…. Please leave comments about, well, anything. And as always, feel free to post links, to your own stuff or to other folks’ stuff.

The Fifth Carnival of Feminists Is Up!

How Magazine Covers Are Retouched
This enjoyable site graphically demonstrates, with bef0re-and-after clicking, how much the cover photos of fashion magazines are retouched. It’s pretty impressive - the breast makeover is particularly ridiculous looking. Curtsy: The F-Word.

New Anti-Prostitution Bill Targets Johns
Interesting article in the Washington Post about a new federal anti-prostitution bill, which is aimed at reducing demand. “…In addition to funding shelters for ex-prostitutes and sponsoring a statistical survey of prostitution, it would authorize $25 million a year to law enforcement to reduce demand. Techniques would include using female decoys, posting pictures of johns on the Internet and establishing “john schools” to reeducate sex clients.”

Harold Pinter Speech On American Wrongdoing
Historical Conflict posts excerpts from a recent Harold Pinter speech, which (at least in the bits quoted) concentrates on the ills the US has done in Central America, and on the seemingly infinite American capacity to ignore and forget any harms done by the US.

Statistics I Used In An Earlier Post Under Question
The excellent Doctor Science brings up some statistics contrary to the ones I cited in this post about the “Boy Crisis.” The good Doctor also provides a link to this report from the American Council on Education (.pdf link), which is where the stats I used apparently came from (the report concludes that race and class, more than sex, is where the most crucial educational disparities lie). For a discussion of the statistics, read the comments at Rachels Tavern.

Teen Pregnancy Down
Gruntled Center reports that teen pregnancy rates are dropping. He also cites a study which found that half the drop is because of better birth control; a quarter because of increased abstinence; and a quarter because non-abstinent teens are having sex less often than they used to.

The Grossest Pet Story Ever
Scroll down about a screen and you can read it. But it’s really gross. Curtsy: Grand Mental Station.

UMASS Student Questioned by Federal Agents For Studying Mao Tse-Tung
From the article: “I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book,” Professor Pontbriand said. “Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that’s what triggered the visit, as I understand it.”

UPDATE: Turns out this story is a hoax - the student made it up.

Professor Files Complaint Against A Muslim Printer Repair Guy Who Wrote A Homophobic Email
I hate homophobia, but homophobes should still have free speech rights - including the right to respond negatively to an unsolicited pro-queer email. This professor (who is, I cringe upon reading, the head of the Women’s Studies Department) showed appallingly bad judgement in filing charges.

Darwin Wins In Dover

Susan Faludi is Cool
“My goal is to be accused of being strident.” - Susan Faludi.

Pentagon Threatened By Queer Kissing
From the article: Several groups are criticizing the Pentagon after press reports claimed it has been spying on civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel. [...] A “don’t ask, don’t tell” protest at the University of California at Santa Cruz that featured a gay kiss-in was labeled by the Pentagon as a “credible threat” of terrorism. (Hat tip: Shakespeare’s Sister).

Patriarchy Shaken in Small Croatian Village
From the article: Women in a Croatian village have seized power from their lazy menfolk in local elections.

After their success, the women of Lozisca on the island of Brac vowed “to let the men back into our beds, but never back into politics”.

They won all seven seats on the local council after deciding they were sick of seeing the village men doing nothing for the community. (Curtsy: Shakespeare’s Sister.)

Video of Shirtless Jocks Lip Synching “Turn Around, Bright Eyes”
I find it strangely compelling. Be sure to watch their version of Love Lifts, as well. Hat tip: Robert.

Fat Phobia In Small Children - What’s a Liberal Mom To Do?
Two interesting posts from LA Mom (here and here) about the disturbing emergence of anti-fat bigotry in her son.

Mary Poppins, P.L. Travers and Walt Disney
Really interesting article about how the creator of Mary Poppins agreed to let Disney make the movie - even though Disney, of course, made changes she found appalling. Also, it turns out the end of the movie was intended by Disney to be anti-suffragette - I had no idea.

Middle-Ground Proposals To Reduce Abortion
Gruntled Center has two proposals that he thinks both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can support: The “95-10″ plan, which attempts to reduce abortion by reducing the demand in non-coercive ways, such as providing more on-campus resources (such as daycare) for college students with children.

From Gruntled Center: The 95-10 proposal has the ambitious aim to reduce the number of abortions by 95% in ten years. The program starts with better education about birth prevention, the pregnancy support that is already available, the extent of the national abortion rate, and counseling and daycare on campus, an issue I wrote about recently. The act would then make existing adoption tax credits permanent, ban jacking up insurance rates for the “pre-existing condition” of pregnancy (as if it were a disease), and increase funding against domestic violence, as murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women. The 95-10 proposal does not end with the child’s birth, though; the act would fully fund the Women, Infants, and Children program, and require the successful State Child Health Insurance Programs to include pregnant women and their babies.

Tilda Swanson is Awesome
I saw The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and liked it - it was a reasonably faithful adaptation of the novel. But I can’t say I loved it; it was loads of fun, but nonetheless felt uninspired. The best thing in it was Tilda Swanson’s astounding, scary performance as The White Witch. I’m not sure if it passes The Mo Movie Measure or not; it depends on whether or not discussing a deceased male God counts as discussing a man.

Lose Weight Or You’ll Be Forced To Date Black Men!
Back in August, Kim posted about the anti-fat diatribes of Dr. Terry Bennett. Now it turns out his standard speech also includes a racial component:

In the obesity complaint, Bennett is quoted as saying: “If your husband were to die tomorrow -who would want you? . . . Well, men might want you, but not the types that you want to want you -Might even be a black guy!”

Bennett explains that only a racist would find that racist. Via Pinko Feminist Hellcat and Echidne.

Congratulations to Lab Cat!
…Who has had a short story nominated for a Ray Bradbury award.

Researchers find widespread Barbie mutilation

Posted by Ampersand | December 21st, 2005

From an A.P. article:

LONDON - Barbie, beware. The iconic plastic doll is often mutilated at the hands of young girls, according to research published Monday by British academics. “The girls we spoke to see Barbie torture as a legitimate play activity, and see the torture as a ‘cool’ activity,” said Agnes Nairn, one of the University of Bath researchers. “The types of mutilation are varied and creative, and range from removing the hair to decapitation, burning, breaking and even microwaving.”

Researchers from the university’s marketing and psychology departments questioned 100 children about their attitudes to a range of products as part of a study on branding. They found Barbie provoked the strongest reaction, with youngsters reporting “rejection, hatred and violence,” Nairn said.

“The meaning of ‘Barbie’ went beyond an expressed antipathy; actual physical violence and torture towards the doll was repeatedly reported, quite gleefully, across age, school and gender,” she said.

I find it interesting that Barbie is apparently hated and mutilated more often than other toys (including, one presumes, other female dolls). And I have to admit, I love the idea of gleeful little girls microwaving Barbies to death.

UPDATE: Be sure to read this post on Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty.