feminist blogs

RBG. Mama of all grizzlies indeed.

Over at The Daily Beast, Beverly Willett writes about New York’s new no-fault divorce laws, using her own divorce to illustrate her point that no-fault laws are bad for families, marriages and society. She sees marriage as a permanent, life-long commitment; when her husband had an affair and tried to divorce her, she fought it. She was able to fight the divorce because of New York’s archaic divorce laws — laws which were changed last month to put the state more in line with the rest of the country. Under New York’s old fault-based divorce laws, a partner filing for divorce had to demonstrate infidelity, cruelty, etc in order to obtain a divorce. Those laws turned divorces into lengthy processes which were often economically and emotionally costly. They required one partner to be a wrong-doer in order to dissolve the marriage; they gave the partner who wanted to maintain the marriage more power than the partner who wanted to leave it.

Marriages are tricky things, and no-fault divorce is certainly not without its draw-backs. There are many situations, like Willett’s, where the man leaving the relationship against his wife’s wishes also controls the purse strings. Willett quit her job to stay home with the couples’ children; her husband leaving the marriage presented significant financial difficulties for her. Women’s work in the home is under-valued in divorce proceedings, and women are often financially harmed after a divorce because courts do not fully recognize the work done at home as “real” work.

As an aside, too, this is why many feminists cringe when we hear marriage promoted as a good way for women to obtain financial security, or when books and articles are published about how smart girls should marry rich, or when we hear conservatives say that being a stay-at-home mom is The Most Important Job In The World For Every Single Woman — being a mother is an incredibly important job, and it is work, but it’s not socially recognized that way. Truly valuing motherhood would require actually valuing it when it comes time to divide dollars — but the people who promote motherhood as a woman’s one and only true calling are the same ones who are quick to turn on mothers who find themselves suddenly single. Those women are selfish gold-diggers if they think they are entitled to half of the marital assets; they didn’t contribute to the marriage; etc etc. If a woman marries and stays at home because she trusts that that’s the best way to a stable life, she may be in for a very nasty surprise if her husband decides he eventually wants out. Marriage, with or without no-fault divorce, is not a guarantee of stability or safety; far from it.

Anyway. The plight of women who are financially insecure when their husbands leave them is very real, and it is a feminist issue.

But the answer is not to handcuff people in marriage.

Fault-based divorce laws work both ways, and women who suffer emotional abuse were often not able to secure divorces because of fault-based laws. Divorces are not unilaterally requested by men, and men are not the only people who want to leave marriages. While I really do feel for women who are being left by their partners, that isn’t a good enough justification for a system of marriage that requires people prove some sort of cruelty or unfaithfulness before they can leave the union.

It’s also a question of what we value about marriage and how we define it. If marriage is supposed to be an economic relationship, and if the primary purpose is to produce more productive workers for society, then it makes sense to create a series of constraints on a marital union. It makes sense to make marriage between men and women only, and to divide up marital tasks by gender — the man goes out and works for money, and the woman stays home to birth and raise children who will in turn either work for money or stay home and birth and raise their own children. The woman’s body exists in service of her husband, sexually and otherwise; that is her contribution to the relationship, to meet his financial one. It makes sense, in that scenario, to not have a concept of marital rape. Because the obligations and contributions are so unbalanced, it makes sense to require some sort of Really Bad Thing to be alleged before you can dissolve that union.

But if marriage is something else — if it’s about the union of two people who share an emotional bond — then the purely economic model doesn’t make sense. Marriage today is surely still about economics, in part. But it’s also about tying an economic relationship to an emotional one; it’s about promoting happiness and stability; it’s about giving two people shared access and rights to what they create together — children, a home, finances, a satisfying sex life. In that shared-access model, one partner does not (or should not) have a right to the other partner’s body and to their unpaid labor; sex is a shared joy and not a unilateral obligation; and work (either inside or outside of the home) is a shared requirement, divided up as the couple sees fit.

That, of course, is an idealized version of reality. As we all know, work is not simply divided up evenly, and the distribution of housework to paid work is pretty skewed, gender-wise. But marriage today is heading in a much more egalitarian and much less purely economic direction. That’s part of the reason why anti-marriage-equality arguments are failing: The idea that women do X and men to Y and so marriage between two women is impossible just doesn’t sound as convincing as it might have 50 or even 20 years ago.

It makes sense that divorce laws would catch up with that evolution. If marriage is love-based and egalitarian, then it shouldn’t double as handcuffs; it should be an arrangement that both partners consent to being in. When one partner wants to withdraw that consent, they should have the right to do so. Of course, the right to withdraw from the relationship does not mean the right to take all of the marital assets with you, and unpaid work and marital contributions should be valued much more highly when dividing up assets. But the argument that one partner should not be able to withdraw from the relationship without the other partner’s consent is troubling, particularly from a feminist perspective. One partner may want to stay married for the sake of the children, or because they believe that marriage should be a life-long pledge, or for whatever other reasons. But I don’t think those desires should outweigh another individual’s desire not to be bound in marriage any longer; those desires are not compelling enough to force someone to remain legally and financially tied to a person they no longer wish to be with.

Divorce proceedings are often seriously flawed, and that’s an issue that feminists should absolutely spend more time addressing. But making couples hostage to a marriage through fault-based divorce laws is not the answer.

A reader writes in looking for resources:

I would love some help. I teach high school at small private school and in two weeks, I will be one of the chaperones on a four-day camping trip with about 80 10th graders. One aspect of this trip will be separating the boys and the girls and doing different activities with each group. On one day, I have been charged with coming up with a 50 minute presentation/activity/anything I make of it for the girls on women and popular culture.

My inclination is to discuss different representations of women in popular culture, how that affects my students’ views of themselves, etc. I plan to draw a little bit from Jean Kilbourne’s Can’t Buy My Love.

The group of girls I will be working with is largely white, economically privileged, and relatively conservative. My goals are to get them to realize two things: 1) They get their ideas about what being a girl entails from a lot of different sources even if they don’t always realizing they’re absorbing these ideas and 2) These ideas sometimes don’t reflect who they are and what they can be; sometimes these ideas are even detrimental to their happiness, etc.

So, here’s where I need help: Me talking to this group for 50 minutes will not be fun – for them or for me. Feministe bloggers and readers – do you have any suggestions for activities, videos (or tv clips), prompts, etc that I could use in this presentation?

Any suggestions?

You can send Feministe Feedback questions to feministe -at- gmail -dot- com.

Post a link to something you’ve written this week, along with a description. Make it specific — don’t just link your whole blog.

Yeah yeah I’m a day late on this, but Julian & co are hilarious.

So many congratulations to Jessica Valenti and Andrew Golis for the birth of their first baby, Layla Sorella Valenti-Golis (how beautiful is that name?). Little Layla was born early, at 29 weeks, after Jessica was diagnosed with severe preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome. But Layla is reportedly a strong and feisty little thing — just like her mom — and is doing well. Both Jessica and Layla are still recovering, so send them your good wishes and positive thoughts.

Congrats again, Jess and Andrew. Layla is so lucky to have parents as wonderful as the two of you. Sending so much love to your family.

Reshma Saujani is a 34-year-old attorney running against Carolyn Maloney in New York’s 14th Congressional district. She’s a new-comer to politics; she’s Indian-American; she’s socially liberal but pro-Wall Street; and she’s running against a faithful liberal feminist. If elected, Saujani would be the youngest woman in Congress. No one really expects Saujani to win, but it’s still an interesting race.

The narrative surrounding her election, though, has been less about policy and more about a Bright Young Thing vs. The Woman Who Paid Her Dues. The Times coverage this week has been particularly bad. A reporter was apparently assigned to cover the Saujani campaign, and instead of writing about anything substantive, she wrote about Saujani’s shoes.

Reshma Saujani has a lot to say about her bid to challenge Representative Carolyn B. Maloney in the Sept. 14 Democratic primary, and I listened carefully as I accompanied her while she canvassed in Astoria, Queens, on Saturday afternoon.

But as Ms. Saujani, a 34-year-old lawyer, described some of her passions — a public-private partnership to finance start-up costs for worthy entrepreneurs, the passage of the Dream Act for talented illegal immigrants aspiring to college — I found myself increasingly, and in spite of myself, wondering about her shoes.

It’s just downhill from there. The shoes, for the curious, are Kate Spade wedges — wedges typically being more comfortable than heels when you’re walking around all day canvassing, and trying to show a New York Times reporter what it is that you’re doing to get elected.

The reporter does point out that focusing on what a woman wears is sexist; no one ever asks Chuck Schumer about his footwear choices. And women are criticized no matter what they wear — they’re “mannish” if they wear drab suits like their male counterparts, or unfashionable if they wear brighter suits, or elitist and not serious if they’re fashionable (see: Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama). Saujani, the reporter points out, risks losing credibility because of her footwear:

Ms. Maloney, who declined to name her footwear of choice, has tried to draw a contrast between her own track record in Congress and Ms. Saujani’s lack of experience in an elected position. Those hip heels run the risk of undercutting Ms. Saujani’s credibility with the people she needs to convince of her gravitas (a wedge issue, even?). It is a concern no man has to consider when choosing loafers or lace-ups.

No, it’s not. And male politicians also don’t typically worry that a Times reporter is going to write about their wardrobe instead of their positions.

Thanks, Jan, for the link.

I face off with Karol from Alarming News over at The Hill. Check it out. A taste of her piece:

“As a general rule, when people feel they’ve been humiliated, when people feel they’ve been frustrated, when people feel they’ve been ignored, when people feel that justice is not meted, then they feel the need to conflagrate.”

This is Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of the future Cordoba House mosque, explaining away terrorism as simply a reaction, a last resort of desperate people. This is the “moderate” Imam, whom we all must accept or be branded anti-Muslim.

In the years since 9/11, though, it is increasingly Americans who have been humiliated, frustrated, ignored, and certainly made to feel that justice has not been meted. We have been made to feel stupid for living in a free country, for allowing our enemies to use our freedom against us. They used our planes to hit our dazzling buildings, full of people living productive, free lives who didn’t know they were at war. And yet, no real conflagration from Americans toward Muslims in America followed. The feared backlash against Muslims after 9/11 never came. The middle name Hussein did not stop Barack Obama from becoming president. As a country we accepted that Islam is not our enemy, despite the will of the terrorists to force an us vs. them war.

The mosque, though, so close in proximity to a place where so many people were killed in Islam’s name, has seemed to many as the last straw.

And mine:

Alvy Singer was probably right when he said that the rest of the country looks at New York like we’re left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers – that’s why a lot of us transplants moved here in the first place. But Republicans have made it clear that they don’t find that characterization nearly as charming as many of us do. When election time rolls around, New York is the GOP’s favorite punching bag: We’re not “real America;” we’re elitists; we’re latte-drinking arugula-eaters. For 364 days a year, Republicans are happy to characterize us as Sodom to San Francisco’s Gomorrah.

And then there’s September 11th. Any mention of that day and all of a sudden we’re a city so important, and of such hallowed ground, that local zoning laws and the decisions of our community boards should be issues of national debate.

The so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque, was catapulted into the national spotlight by anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller as evidence of the supposed “Islamicization” of America. President Obama responded to the media frenzy by benignly declaring that “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country” — a comment met with frothing hostility from the right.

Read ‘em both here.

Woody Allen’s Alvy Singer was probably right when he said that the rest of the country looks at New Yorkers like we’re left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers – that’s why a lot of us transplants moved here in the first place. But Republicans have made it clear that they don’t find that characterization nearly as charming as many of us do. Wall Street money is good and fine, but when election time rolls around, New York is the GOP’s favorite punching bag: We’re not “real America;” we’re elitists; we’re latte-drinking arugula-eaters who would probably drive Volvos if we didn’t take subway everywhere. For 364 days a year, Republicans are happy to characterize us as Sodom to San Francisco’s Gomorrah.

And then there’s September 11th. Any mention of that day and all of a sudden we’re a city so important, and of such hallowed ground, that local zoning laws and the decisions of our community boards should be issues of national debate.

The so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque, was catapulted into the national spotlight by anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller as evidence of the supposed “Islamicization” of America. President Obama responded to the media frenzy by benignly declaring that “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country” — a comment met with frothing hostility from the right.

Should this be a hot campaign issue as we head into the midterm elections? Of course not; it shouldn’t have been any sort of issue at all. But will it be? One in five Americans thinks Barack Obama is a Muslim, which is roughly the same number who report having otherworldly interactions with ghosts. Of course it will be.

September 11th was a national tragedy. The World Trade Center site absolutely must be treated respectfully. But even putting aside the fact that a community center is not de facto disrespectful, the proposed Park51 – which includes classrooms, a gym, a pool, a 9/11 memorial, a restaurant, galleries, an auditorium, and a prayer room – is two blocks away and not visible from the site itself. An actual mosque already exists four blocks from the World Trade Center site. Also two blocks away from the World Trade Center? Sex shops, bars, hot dog vendors, t-shirt and bumper sticker stands, a few bodegas, and two strip clubs. The community center is set to be built in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory. That isn’t “hallowed ground” so much as your average New York block.

As the midterms approach, Republican candidates are demanding that their opponents denounce the “mosque,” and Democrats up for election in states as far from New York as Nevada are speaking out in opposition. But the debate isn’t about a community center in lower Manhattan; it’s about the Republican message that conservative Christian white people are Real America, while Muslims, like the Japanese before them and the Jews before them (and on and on) are the face of un-America. That’s why, one conservative blogger explained, so many Americans think Obama is a Muslim — he just doesn’t act like one of “us.”

Of course, Muslims died in the Twin Towers along with other Americans; Muslims serve in New York City’s police force, fire department and emergency services; Muslims live and work in lower Manhattan, and were killed, injured and displaced by 9/11. New York has a long history of religious pluralism and diversity, but like the rest of the country we’ve also been on the wrong side of history many times over. Our mayor spoke out in favor of Park51, pointing out that it is exactly our spirit of openness and tolerance that was attacked on 9/11. Many of us who live and work in Manhattan are hopeful that we won’t repeat past mistakes, and that the hateful, ignorant and thoroughly disingenuous rhetoric sounding across the nation won’t torpedo the community center.

But even if Park51 goes forward, the mosque debate may just torpedo the election chances of Democrats who don’t get in line with anti-Muslim fervor. Siding with intolerance and bigotry over openness and dedication to the founding principles of this country does far more damage to the legacy of September 11th than one community center ever could.

Only 34 percent of Americans were able to correctly identify him as a Christian. Predictably, Republicans are far more likely to believe the president is a Muslim than Democrats are — nearly a third of Republicans think Obama is Muslim. But most surprising is the fact that the number of people who believe Obama is a Muslim has actually increased in the past year. Of course, Obama does do all kinds of Muslim-y things, so maybe it’s not really anyone’s fault that he’s perceived as a Muslim. I mean, when you see a guy drinking beer and palling around with Santa Claus, what other conclusion are you supposed to draw?

Dave Weigel’s take on this is particularly interesting. He notes that a right-wing blogger attributes the “Obama is Muslim” thing to Obama’s exoticism: “Obama has defined himself as literally exotic,” writes John Hinderaker at Powerline. “Small wonder that some Americans attribute exotic qualities to him. We’re not sure who he is, exactly, but he certainly isn’t one of us.”

And so we think he’s Muslim. Because Muslims aren’t like “us,” either.

As Weigel points out, the view here is, basically, Muslims are un-American. Muslims are not really part of “our” collective culture, or “our” America.

But that “Ground Zero mosque,” naw, that’s not about bigotry toward Muslims or anything. That’s just about respect.