feminist blogs

  An article in Time magazine yesterday, “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top,” suggests some interesting news on the gender wage gap. Data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and analyzed by James Chung of Reach Advisors, shows a reverse gender wage gap in the largest U.S. cities by up to 17 percent. [...]

Caught this story in my inbox today — apparently, an Asian American family recently moved into a suburban area called Hapy Valley outside of Portland, Oregon. The family claims that they returned home one day to find racial slurs spray-painted onto the house. They also found a book of matches and a clear bottle containing a liquid that might have been gasoline, along with a note threatening arson.

Here’s the full article:

Asian-American family receives threats after moving into suburban Portland home

HAPPY VALLEY (AP) – Clackamas County sheriff’s officers are investigating a racial harassment case involving an Asian-American family moving into a home in the southeast Portland suburb of Happy Valley.

Sheriff’s Detective Jim Strovink says the FBI is also investigating whether the harassment of Sang Huynh and his family constitutes a federal civil rights violation.

Racial slurs were spray-painted Monday afternoon on the outside of the home. The family also found a book of matches near a clear plastic bottle of what police think is gasoline. Warning notes included one that said, “We will burn your house down if we have to.”

Fourteen-year-old Lisa Huynh says her parents are upset by the threats and her little brother is now afraid to sleep in his own room.

Happy Valley Mayor Rob Wheeler called the harassment “totally unacceptable and disturbing.”

According to its Wikipedia article, Happy Valley is a small community that had about 4,500 residents in 2000. Nearly 90% of the residents are White, and Asian residents make up the next largest racial group at less than 9%.

To me, Happy Valley doesn’t sound like all that happy a place to be.

My wife and I were married on September 4, 2005, and what a remarkable and blessed half-decade it has been. For our anniversary, the bonus track is one of “our songs”, and was not chosen at random.

Lots of good stuff from the random shuffle. #8 is by an amazing former student and good friend, Tara Craig. Check her out.

1. “The Ballad of Mark Magdalen”, Cry Cry Cry
2. “Mixed Up, Shook Up Girl” Mink DeVille
3. “Summer, Highland Falls”, Billy Joel
4. “I Hear Them All”, Old Crow Medicine Show
5. “An Exception to the Rule”, Dwight Yoakam
6. “Maybe There’s A World”, Yusuf Islam
7. “Your Bright Baby Blues”, Jackson Browne
8. “Until Our Voices Give Out”, Tara Craig
9. “Swept Away”, The Avett Brothers
10. “Elvis Presley and America”, U2

Bonus Track: “Turn Me On”, Norah Jones

Bad news for Roy Den Hollander: the Second Court of Appeals in Manhattan dismissed his claim that Ladies' Nights— evenings at bars and nightclubs where women get reduced door fees and drink prices— violated his Constitutional rights. Hollander, who stylizes himself both as a "men's rights" and an "anti-feminist" lawyer, argued that Ladies' Nights resulted from "40 years of lobbying and intimidation, [by] the special interest group called 'Feminism.'" And here I thought it was just a marketing ploy.

Hollander's convoluted legal argument was this: Since the State of New York issues the liquor licenses bars and clubs need, then they are essentially state-run establishments. His logic (and I use that term loosely) followed that these businesses would thus be required to adhere to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Hollander concludes that, unless the courts take action, only "what’s left of the Wall Street moguls" will be be able to afford to go to nightclubs. Both the lower court and the Court of Appeals found no merit in this claim, pointing out the obvious fact that having a liquor license does not make a business state-run.

This is not the only ridiculous battle Hollander's has fighting against feminism; It is his third. He has pursued two other cases in the recent past. First, he filed a suit against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law he refers to as the "Female Fraud Act." His big beef with VAWA is that immigrant women can gain citizenship if they've been victims of domestic violence. How terrible! Hollander is sure innocent American men everywhere will be falsely charged under this law. Listen, as a former case manager at a domestic violence shelter, let me tell you this: gaining citizenship under VAWA isn't as simple of accusing some random guy of abuse. Implying otherwise denotes a complete lack of understanding, not only of VAWA, but of domestic violence itself.  Hollander took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and was denied.

Hollander's other lawsuit involved the Women's Studies program at Columbia University. Here he claimed that by having Women's Studies, but not Men's Studies, was a violation of Title IX and of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Proving that his craziness knows no limits, he further argued that the Sate of New York and the federal government aided Columbia in "preaching the religious belief system 'Feminism.'" Judge Lewis A. Kaplan dismissed the case as "absurd," saying "Feminism is no more a religion than physics."

While the latter two cases are officially dead, Hollander has vowed to take his fight against Ladies' Nights all the way to the Supreme Court. Although, he realizes that there isn't much of a chance that the high court would hear the case. Asked about the odds of the case actually being considered by the Supreme Court, Hollander said, "about the same as some pretty young lady paying my way on a date." Finally, something Hollander and I agree on.

Photo credit: ken30684

This is so infuriating.

According to MassLive.com, Christine Judd was athletic director and dean at Cathedral High School in Springfield, Massachusetts — until she married her partner last month. At that point the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield gave her a choice — quit or be fired. Says diocese spokesman Mark Dupont,

Without being specific to this matter, it should be clear that all employees of our Catholic schools are made aware of our policies and regulations. This includes language that clearly states that whenever by public example, an employee engages in or espouses conduct which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Church, that employee may be subject to disciplinary action. To do otherwise would be in contradiction to the values we believe in and are teaching in these same schools. So while we certainly want to be compassionate and understanding, we must be true to who we are.

Judd says that she's "still exploring her legal options," and that "she questions if there are lay persons who work for the Catholic diocese who divorce and remarry without an annulment, or employees who use birth control, or men who have had vasectomies, or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion."

by Amanda Marcotte

So, yesterday was my 33rd birthday.  In the proper form, it was celebrated with much vinyl.  I bought some records at a very nice little local store in Brooklyn, and Marc bought me some more, along with some books.  It was an excellent haul: She, REM, Wire, the 45s, PIL, the Rezillos, and, much to my great delight, the Beastie Boys.  Specifically, their first grown-up album, and what many of us deem their best album, Paul’s Boutique. It was the perfect gift for a newly minted Brooklyn-dwelling New Yorker, and I even know what intersection the cover is at!  In honor of me being so old and this being Labor Day weekend, I’m taking the rest of the day off from blogging.  Until then, enjoy this mix made off the Beastie Boys.  Leave your own mixes in comments.  Or comment about whatever you like.  Open thread.

Original song: “Hey Ladies” by the Beastie Boys

I was sad that the original video, which is hilarious, was not embeddable.  But you can still play the song from this webpage.

1) “Award Tour” by A Tribe Called Quest
2) “Let Me Ride” by Dr. Dre, feat. Snoop Dogg & RBX
3) “Who Am I?” by Snoop Dogg
4) “Fight The Power” by Public Enemy
5) “Express Yourself” by NWA
6) “Me Myself & I” by De La Soul
7) “Ready Or Not” by the Fugees
8) “C.R.E.A.M.” by Wu-Tang
9) “I Get Around” by 2-Pac
10) “Sure Shot” by the Beastie Boys

Videos behind the fold.  Dance your asses off! It’s a long weekend.  I know I plan to.  (Even though it’s New York.)

And in honor of dancing in New York City:

I don’t know about you, my my life does not afford me the time I’d like for reading. I’ve been known to spend (literally) days just reading; lately I’m lucky to have a couple hours a week. Enter zines, which are the perfect length for the bus ride or a kid’s nap time. In my [...]

This is the 41st post in a weekly feature here at Spare Candy, called "In History." Some posts might be little more than a photo, others full on features. If you have any suggestions for a person or event that should be featured, or would like to submit a guest post or cross post, e-mail me at rosiered23 (at) sparecandy (dot) com.


Jennie Ruth Nickerson (1905-1997) was an American sculptor, WPA (Public Works of Art Program) artist, art educator and teacher. She preferred to work in stone and carved directly into her materials. Her signature works were larger-than-life religious figures, but also created the occasional political figure as well.

As this site says, Nickerson was "a female pioneer in a field dominated by men until the late 1900s. ... As a female, Nickerson was unable to find apprentice work with any of the great sculptors of the time. Striking out on her own in a studio on 14th Street in Manhattan, she discovered the art of direct stone carving." Nickerson exhibited in a number of museums, including Metropolitan Museum, the Whitney Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, the Cocoran Gallery, the Brooklyn Museum, the Jewish Museum and the Pennsylvania Academy. Read more about her at the link, which also contains images of some of her sculptures.

Photo source.

A new article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, authored by Andrea Swartzendruber, who has a master’s in public health and Dr. Jonathan M. Zenilman, calls for a national strategy for improving sexual health. The authors write:

… [T]he United States lacks an integrated approach to sexual health. Public health programs such as sexually transmitted disease (STD)/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention and family planning are categorically funded and organizationally fragmented, and federal reproductive health programs in the past decade emphasized abstinence. As a result, sexual health indicators are poor. Incidence of HIV has not decreased since the 1990s,1 and rates of STDs, unintended pregnancy, teen pregnancy, and abortion are higher than in many developed countries. “Sexual health” does not appear once in the more than 1,000 pages of the new health care legislation. Nevertheless, the public is keenly interested in sexual health, as evidenced by the uptake of recent medical advances. For example, there are an estimated 17 million prescriptions for erectile dysfunction annually, and 26 million doses of human papillomavirus vaccine have been administered since its licensure in 2006.

Building on the 2001 Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior, we propose that a framework promoting health and responsible behavior can serve as a unifying goal and improve health indicators.

This strategy includes a national public awareness campaign, integration of sexual health services into primary care, comprehensive sex ed, and ensuring funding access for sexual health services (condoms, contraception, and STD testing are issued by name).

In the conclusion, the authors argue that “Politicization of sexual health results in division, bad policy, ineffective programs, and poor health outcomes.” Exactly. Instead of paying for effective programs, funding abstinence-only education, something that has been proven ineffective. I’d love to see us adopt a national strategy that seeks to treat sexual health as part of one’s overall health instead of as a hot-button political issue.

But though investing in STD testing and awareness about more responsible sexual behavior, the study didn’t mention abortion or pregnancy care as part of sexual health care. This is the heart of the problem with arguing for better sexual health education and care. Part of sexual health education and care necessarily includes talking about unintended pregnancy and therefore abortion. As we saw with the Stupak/Nelson debate, abortion is increasingly viewed as somehow separate from other kinds of medical care. Here, it’s left out of the discussion on sexual heath.

I’m all for increasing STD testing and improving access to comprehensive sex ed and contraception. If we really tackled all that stuff in a comprehensive way and really integrated it with the rest of health care, it would have a significant impact on unintended pregnancy. But unintended pregnancy will still occur, even if we have the best sexual health education in the world.

I’m glad that these two authors are arguing for better sexual health education in such a prominent publication. And I understand why the left it out. As abortion has become so politicized, lots of serious people exclude it to avoid getting derailed into an unproductive discussion about abortion. But I want to see us get to the point where abortion access is perceived as part of sexual health — and all medical care.

“Obviously, the BBC cannot give in to government pressure, but…” – Yes Minister

According to the news – and again due to the incompetence of people who walk around Number 10 unlike most people who keep secret documents in a safe place, and instead flash it around for all to see – the Coalition is undermining the independence of the BBC as it dangles the carrot (license fee) to influence the BBC’s coverage of the Coalition’s cuts. It’s a bit like when the Coalition spit out their dummy when they couldn’t manipulate Question Time into doing what they wanted – some of those cabinet minsters, so used to always getting what they want.

Several other things spring to mind.

Just a few days ago, Thompson was going on about how left-wing the BBC was and how impartial they now are. Maybe now we can see the real reasons for these out of the blue remarks. It might be an attempt to cosey up to the Coalition government so that they can keep their finance, or maybe it was something Thompson thought would please the Coalition as he wrestles to keep the fee, especially with Jeremy Hunt briefing against them nearly every week – or maybe I am taking the remarks totally out of context. Interesting to think about, however.

Something else this slip up by the Beeb clearly shows is that the government are fully aware of how damaging and deep their cuts will be. Yes, this is probably a fairly obvious remark to make – but it does show that the government are clearly worried about the impact these cuts will have, and are trying to cover all bases before the review comes out. It vindicates our fear for the worse (as if we needed any confirmation)!

Labour are jumping on the story – but it is probably a well-known fact that the BBC is not really that independent anyway. I think Yes Minister provides us with a useful reminder of the likely relationship the BBC and the government share: where they both completely deny any wrong doing, but then a nudge and a wink, let the independence slowly fall away to the sound of money.

Anyway, have  a look at a Yes Minister clip regarding the BBC and government pressure – takes a while to get into it, but highly relevant, as most of Yes Minister is! Oh, and very funny!