feminist blogs

Ahem.

Are you a mom whose brain cells haven’t all died? Are you tired of 7 Fun Ways to Make Your Child Gifted/a Pro Athlete/Chess Master articles? Rather looking for say 60 pages to keep your smarts? Then grab yourself a copy of Brain, Child.

Brain, Child calls itself “the magazine for thinking mothers” and they ain’t kidding.

The Spring 2009 issue took forever for me to read because after each article I had to put the issue down, stew in my thoughts on the subject, reflect, and repeat for a few hours to a few days. Drugs, sex, swearing and not living with your children – what say you? Oh, don’t fret, there is an article on fashion. But instead of a spread on what is hot for the pre-tween set, we get an engaging piece from Mylisa Larsen about what she learns about fashion from her four-year-old daughter. For part of this essay, I thought that perhaps I wrote it in my sleep & sent it in. Larsen & I share free-spirited girls who like to thumb their nose at fashion rules by matching stripes of one color with plaid of another on top of a butterfly print. Larsen experiments with fashion after years of belonging to the “comfortable shoe club” with amazing, yet predictable results.

If I had to label this issue, I’d label it “The One with My Friends in it.” Katy Read’s essay on non-custodial moms is heartbreaking yet enlightening to a world that baffles me, yet I also understand. Rebekah Spicuglia, whose story was also told in a WMC op-ed, summarizes her decision to not have her son live with her. She opens her heart and decides what is best for her son, not her, not what others expect her to do, but honestly what is best for her son at that moment in time. Spicuglia is representative of why some women do opt not to have custody of their child(ren) after splitting with the father – they are in school, they need to focus on reentering the workforce and so on. They aren’t out “finding themselves,” rather they are being responsible to themselves and their child(ren). Jill Miller Zimon talks about why noncustodial moms are a growing population and that society needs to recognize them for what they are – moms. Other friends mentioned in this issue include Devra Renner, who is discussing the hope military families have that the Obama administration will help them out on a variety of issues, including some that may benefit all families and PunditMom having an ad on the back cover.

Johanna Bailey and Joan Marcus both muse about whether or not exposing your child(ren) to something “adult” (drugs and swearing, respectfully) is harmful or not. Bailey makes a strong case that talking frankly and vividly (with all the details her step-father did with her in an attempt to scare her) with children about your past drug use could have a reverse effect. She speaks from hard-earned experience. Marcus’s father was the stereotypical swearing sailor. She grew up with not just his swearing, but watching Rocky Horror and appears to be a well-adjusted adult. I do wish that Marcus had explored the difference between general cursing (shit, fuck, hell) to racist and misogynistic epithets. She touches on it, but then lets it go. I say that because I ponder the same thing. Is it so wrong for my daughter to hear me cursing out CNN, yet again, versus hearing hateful words come from my mouth? OK, you could make a case that calling the latest GOP talking head an asshole is hateful, you know what I mean. I also wonder how many times Marcus will get asked to comment on High School Musical versus Grease.

As you can see from my profiling barely half of the pieces in this issue, this is not your usual mother’s magazine. I have to admit that when I first picked up Brain, Child after I had my daughter, I felt intimidated by the pieces. Gone are the smiley baby pictures on every other page. In its place is real, hard, cold, loving content meant to make us think. Thus for the newbie readers, go grab a copy and go slowly. You have three months to read each issue before the next one shows up on your doorstep or your bookstore. If your local bookstore doesn’t carry it, ASK for it.

AND if you want to subscribe (I’m going to finally do it!) there’s a neat package deal in the magazine. You can sign up on your own for $19.95 (newsstand is $23.80) for a full year. OR you can find three momma friends, subscribe together and get each subscription costs only $14. That’s a medium cuppa soy chai in savings! And I do believe this offer is only good with the special form in the magazine.

Disclaimer: I can’t recall how my relationship with Brain, Child began, but I’m sure they pitched me the idea of reviewing them on my blog and I said yes. The issue I read was a review copy. Future copies will be paid out of my own jean pocket.

UPDATE AGAIN: Here it is.

Live video chat by Ustream

UPDATE: This is still going on, but we’ll be starting late — perhaps 7:45ish, perhaps later. Keep checking in!

I’ll be on Erika Moen’s weekly video podcast tonight — you can watch it here, starting at 7:30 west coast time. We’ll be talking about Hereville and whatever else comes up. And you can also type in questions for me live. (There’s an archive of Erika’s past shows here.)

Erika’s a terrific cartoonist, by the way; I’m a fan of her autobiographical comic strip “DAR: A Super-Girly Top Secret Comic Diary.” (But be warned that Erika’s comics include lots of nudity and jokes about genitals and farts, so willing adults only should check out her comics.)

Today is End the R-word Day, a day to spread awareness about the offensiveness of the derogatory word, “retard” used to diminish people with intellectual or learning disabilities. I personally don’t refer to the word “retard” as the “R word”, but for many years, I have refused to use “retard” in my everyday language.

Like many slurs, the “R word” is harmful precisely because it appears so commonly in our daily colloquialisms. It has become slang to refer to things that are “dumb”, “stupid” or “ridiculous”, and for many people, it seems to roll off the tongue without a second thought.

When I was a kid, I went to a school with a special education class. I remember one girl with special needs who was bigger and older than the other children at the school, but who had difficulties with her communication skills. She was picked on by everyone in the class, and this only exacerbated her feelings of isolation and frustration.

Word like “retard” categorize people with mental disabilities as negative and ludicrous, and its casual usage often implies blame of learning disabilities on the special needs person. In this way, the “R word” is no different than ”faggot”, “bitch” or “chink” — it is a word that demeans a community with its every colloquial usage, intended or not.

I don’t personally believe in blanket censorship of a word: I think removing a word from our vocabulary (for political correctness reasons) without mutual understanding as to why the word is offensive only dooms us to find a new a word to use in a hateful and derogatory fashion. Thus, I think the “R Word” campaign is a good idea for raising awareness amongst our friends and families who use the “R word” casually that this is unacceptable.

Act Now: Please consider making the following pledge at R-word.org with me:

I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities.

Also, if someone uses the word “retard” today in a derogatory or negative fashion, please start a conversation with them about the word’s history as a slur.

After about a week with JS-Kit, I’ve decided just to go ahead and convert back to Wordpress comments. Hopefully I will find other means of keeping comment spam at a minimum.

All recent comments on this blog have been retained. Let me know if you are having any problems with the site.

And for Restructure!, who requested a Comments RSS feed, it can be found here.

Happy commenting!

Like baseball and ballet recitals, attaining the perfect bikini body has evolved into an all-American pastime. Starting with spring break and extending through Labor Day, women and girls across the country strive to lose weight, tone their tummies and find a flattering swimsuit. You must earn your fun in the sun with a suitable figure.

We are a nation suffering from bikini body disorder. So People magazine is patting itself on the back for putting a 48-year-old TV star in a two-piece bathing suit on the cover. While this editorial decision does challenge one ideal, the article staunchly supports another. The Valerie Bertinelli story is all about losing weight. Thanks to a rigid diet and exercise routine, the actress was able to whittle her figure down to a stereotypically accepted size 6. Apparently middle aged women can be sexy, but they have to drop 50 lbs. first.

This wasn't Bertinelli's first People cover. In April 2007, she was featured for her public declaration to slim down. "I need to do this in front of millions of people so I can't mess up," Bertinelli says. "It is freeing because I can say it first: I know what you're thinking - I'm fat." According to the current issue, she rarely made public appearances at her high weight of 172 lbs. This is obviously a woman with serious body image issues. But two years and a Jenny Craig endorsement later, she's bearing it all on the beach, promoting herself as a health and weight-loss activist.

Because age is one of the ways our society discriminates against women's bodies, the story initially appears inspirational. "A bikini? I'm too old for bikinis!" cries Bertinelli. "Then I realized, Wait a minute. Why not a bikini?" But the article quickly devolves into a glorified diet ad.

At times, it goes a step further, eerily echoing eating disorder rhetoric. "I'm just one jalapeno popper away from being 40 lbs. heavier again," says Bertinelli. She adds that every time she looks in the mirror, "My eyes go immediately to the parts I don't like, the jiggly bits."

This type of story reinforces extreme dieting and negative body image. Bertinelli claims, "We all just need to appreciate our bodies for what they are, jiggly bits and all." But she obviously could not do that herself. Not only did she diet down to 132 lbs. in nine months, she got down to 123 for the photo shoot, hiring a personal trainer and restricting her calories to rock bottom levels. Now she vows to "stay vigilant" and keep working on her waistline.

Far from a tale of body acceptance, Bertinelli's bikini quest exemplifies our twisted obsession with weight loss. It supports the cliché that no matter how old you are, no matter how much you've accomplished professional or personally, there is always room for improvement. And for American women, that improvement starts on the scale.

This was an unfortunate move prior to the election in an effort to bow to fundamentalists.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."

Women's rights advocates are suggesting that this law essentially legalizes rape. Via Independent UK and more at Huffington Post and Think Progress.

Have you heard? Size Matters. If you've been tuned into the cable news coverage of Obama's trip overseas, you've no doubt noticed how the whole wide world revolves around Obama. Or the U.S.

Here in the United States, there is no foreign news unless the U.S. is at the center. Little wonder that the White House press kit -- distributed in flight -- describes the UK and other European nations in simple terms that even self-absorbed ego-inflated adolescent American reporters can understand:

The United Kingdom is "slightly smaller than Oregon." Germany is "about the size of Montana." The Czech Republic is "about the size of Virginia." And France is merely "four-fifths the size of Texas."

Bush may be gone, but clearly the cowboys have not left the White House.

Commenter Jon nails it:

What utter dickheads the Americans continue to be. It appears their 'size-ist' references missed the fact that British bellies are about one fifth the size of their American counterparts and British Universities create at least five times the world's international supply of scientific brains.

Interesting that, if we're as peurile and insignificant as this patronising and disingenuously inadequate 'fact book' appears; how come we're hosting such a supposedly 'important' meeting. Also; why is it neccessary for the American pols to receive a 'briefing' book ON THE F*****G plane, on the way here. By default, it proves how disconnected and inadequately equipped they are.

After all this effort, most of them won't get the references of course, as many have proven themselves incapable of locating "France", or "Germany" or "Czechoslovakia". Let's remember folks JUST how important France is to America - .... 'remember the USA changing the name of 'french-fries' to 'freedom-fries' .... yes, THAT's how 'valuable' France is to America.

G20 Obama Politics News Europe United States Ego

In all the discussions about Same Sex Marriage, the rarely-acknowledged elephant in the room is that there is no coherent non-religious opposition. The religious opposition, of course, boils down to “people who are not members of my chosen religion should nto have the same civil rights as people who are members,” so it makes sense that opponents of SSM would cast about for a reason beyond the sexual orientation of Paul. When I tried to bring attention to this lately, there were quite a few protests, and cries of, “but my opposition has nothing to do with religion! I just don’t see SSM as part of the American legal tradition,” or, “I just think that past examples of SSM in other cultures have been transient.”

But here’s the thing. Those reasons are religious.

There was gay marriage in ancient Rome. When did it stop? When Christianity took over the empire.

There were socially sanctioned same sex relationships among many indigenous North American civilizations. When did they stop? When they were converted, often forceably, to Christianity.

Every (or nearly every … I’m not encyclopedia-man here) post-Roman Western European  civilization was officially Christian. The legal tradition they handed down to us was a Christian legal tradition. Christian morality became inexorably bound up in the law, to the point where things like blasphemy were considered crimes.

Thus, when someone says, “Hey, those traditions of Same Sex Marriage in other cultures sure seemed temporary,” what they’re really saying is, “Hey, those traditions of Same Sex Marriage in other cultures sure are part of a non-Christian tradition that ended when we made them convert.”

When someone says “I just don’t see examples of legally/socially sanctioned Same Sex Marriage in western civilization,”¹ what they’re really saying is, “I just don’t see examples of legally/socially sanctioned Same Sex Marriage in civilizations with enforced Christianity.”

When someone says “I just don’t see examples of legally/socially sanctioned Same Sex Marriage in the United States,” what they’re really saying is, “I just don’t see examples of legally/socially sanctioned Same Sex Marriage in a country whose legal code grew from laws based on Christianity.”

And of course, when someone says, “I’m opposed to Same Sex Marriage because marriage has always been between a man and a woman,” what they’re really saying² is, “There was a time when it was against the law to follow another religion, and I sure miss that.”

There was a time when it was illegal to do business on a Sunday. There was a time when adultery was illegal. That was because of this. There was a time when sodomy was illegal, and that was because of this. As time has gone on, those things have been jettisoned from the American legal tradition, in part because of the understanding that there ought to be a distinction between the legal and the religious. The same is true here.

Beyond all that, of course, argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. Knowing how people used to do things ‘way back when’ doesn’t hold any logical or moral weight. If it’s a good idea, we should do it now. If it’s a bad idea, we shouldn’t. Whether or not the Hittites, the Franks, the Normans, or the Aztecs allowed Same Sex Marriage or not is a hell of a red herring.

Please do not comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.

1. And by the way, even phrasing the argument in such a way that you talk about ‘western civilizations’ is really very racist. In order for it to make a lick of sense, I would have to be convinced that we somehow have more in common with the 11th century French than we do with the Iroquois Confederacy whom we based much of our Constitution on. More in common beyond “but America’s supposed to be white,” I mean.
2. Aside from, “I am ignorant of history and other cultures”

To add to the humor (that's not really that funny), it turns out that folks in Italy are not taking well to the Pope's allegation that condoms have led to an increase of AIDS in Africa. In response they have organized to send the Pope condoms (1 per person) via 60,000 people. Sounds like the Pink Chaddi campaign.

Pam has more. I wonder if anyone at the Vatican will respond.