feminist blogs

      Staff at my apartment complex posted notices on all the doors that read: "REMAIN CALM," along with other helpful tips, such as: Get out.  *Folk song about the Galveston storm in 1900.

         This is related to what I posted Friday about women’s safety vs. men’s feelings. I want to go back to a well-known anecdote about Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. In his memoir, he wrote about her being so upset by an aggressive panhandler that she didn’t want to take the bus to work. His grandfather accused her of being scared of the panhandler because he was black. Obama talked to family friend Frank Davis, a journalist and poet.

Davis told the teenager that his grandmother was correct to feel scared because she understood African-Americans "have a reason to hate."

          In Obama’s speech on race, he said his grandmother “once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.”
         Did she fear any black man who passed her on the street? Is it possible that she would have been wary of any man, no matter his race, who pursued her for money?
        First Obama, then others, have discussed his grandmother’s fears to illustrate attitudes about race. But her fears also speak to the harassment women (of all colors) face on the street and in public transportation. 
         I understand that it’s incendiary to talk about white women and black men. I’m not saying white women should fear black men more than white men. In regard to violence, women are more likely to be victims of men of their own race whom they know than they are of a stranger of another race. Nevertheless, if a woman (of any color) is afraid of a guy on the street, I think she has the right to be heard. Also, if a woman (of any color) has no problem taking precautions against a strange white guy, she should feel free to do the same when confronted by a man of color.
          This dovetails with a fascinating series I’ve mentioned before in which a writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer talks about many issues connected to her rape, including race. Joanna Connors is white; the rapist was black. She encountered him in a theater, and he was the only other person there.

I ignored my instinct not to trust a stranger, because the stranger was young and black, and I did not want to look like a racist white woman who automatically does not trust young black men.  If he had been white? I'm not sure -- but I think I would have left. 

          In another situation, a white woman might have trusted a white man, and still gotten raped. Or, a woman of color might have trusted a man of color. Or, she might not have wanted to look afraid in front of a white man. You can complicate the scenario with different ethnicities or different rationales, such as a woman needing to do her job. No matter what, women who get raped may still feel shame in a society that second-guesses their decisions. Connors continues:

        The rape made me fear black men I did not know, especially young black men. I hated this fear. I tried to reason my way out of it, and I spent a lot of my time in therapy trying to overcome it.
          Finally, a psychologist asked me the obvious, common-sense question: "But do you also fear and avoid strange white men?"
           My answer was yes, of course. The difference was that fearing white men did not make me feel bad about myself. It did not make me feel like a closet racist. It did not bring me shame.

          As in the previous post, I’m not saying women have to live in fear of, or distrust, all men all the time. Nor am I saying that whites should not examine their feelings about race. What I’m saying is: As progressives, let’s not forget women when we talk about civil liberties. 

         Feminists are not a state authority. We don’t have an army, police, courts, judges or executioners. We rarely, if ever, commit violence against our political opponents.
         I just wanted to clear that up, after last Friday’s lengthy arguments. One argument was that feminists who cannot imagine forgiving an alleged ally who abused a woman were akin to Stalinists who held trials with no chance of acquittal. If I choose not to forgive a man, he can still have a fine life. I have restricted him only in his dealings with me. I haven’t executed him or sent him to Siberia.
         This argument is related to the use of “feminazis,” in which we're compared to Nazis because we’re … what? extreme and militant? Not militant in the sense of being violent, of course, but too aggressive. In case anyone is confused, feminist armies have not invaded other countries, nor are we committing genocide against men.
        Some feminists talk of a war on women, or women living in occupied territory. If it’s false to compare feminists to the state, isn’t it equally wrong to compare men to the state? I don’t think so because men predominate in the top rungs of the government, military, media, religion, etc. Men do have much more control over state policy and actions.        A related argument is that feminists are stereotyping men if they distrust a man until he proves to be OK. Although I’m sure they exist, I can’t name a feminist who thinks all men are intrinsically bad. We understand some men are great, but we know men disproportionately commit crimes against women, and we cannot always predict who will do what. We have a right to try to lessen our personal risk. 

         I count fat as a feminist issue because there are so many messages in society that pressure girls and women to be as skinny as possible. That’s why I was happy to see this article, which says:

A new study suggests that a surprising number of overweight people - about half - have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while an equally startling number of trim people suffer from some of the ills associated with obesity.

         Unfortunately, the article began with the idea that only “trim people” “can look great in a swimsuit.”
         My mother, who was “trim” into her 80s, had high cholesterol and died of a heart attack. Thanks to genetics, I had high cholesterol even when I was thin. I wish more people understood that thinness does not guarantee health.

         Anyone who needs reminding that people can be anyone they want to be on the Internet should try online dating. If I ever do it again, shoot me I need to put in my profile: "I enjoy investigating. Do not contact me if you have something to hide."

  

        Can any man say he’s a feminist? Should women accept what he says without question? Is a feminist man who does something bad to a woman worse than a Joe Shmoe who does the same thing?
        The answer: If Camille Paglia can call herself a feminist, anyone can. There’s no credentialing committee. I’m sure people can become feminists by mail, without any actual study.
        Second question: Of course, people have the right to question anyone’s credibility as a feminist. In fact, it’s a minor sport. I give women more benefit of the doubt, sort of like extra credit for experience in the field.
        One complication is the different definitions of feminism. But this is more than a question of semantics. Because of the Kyle Paynes of the world, women should always have the right to question a man’s feminism. I’m not saying male feminists are suspect, but for our own safety, we have the right to ask questions whenever we have doubts.

Kyle Payne was a rape crisis advocate, women’s studies student, and resident advisor at his university. While “looking after” an unconscious drunk student in his care, he undid her shirt and took a photograph and video of her breast.

         This comes from Lauredhel, who has gathered other comments on him. The description above is what Payne has acknowledged in a plea agreement, in which assault charges were dropped. Payne also inspired various posts in the 61st Carnival of Feminists. There are a number of sites that discuss men and feminism in general. Some good ones, such as XY, can be found in this recent Twisty thread.
         To answer the third question: Yeah, I think Payne is worse than some other guy who did the same crime because he makes it harder for women to trust male allies. 

         After the UU church shootings, Echidne and others discussed conservative media that fan the flames of political hatred. The question arose: If liberals don’t fight fire with fire, what do we do instead?
        As a journalist, I grew disgusted with colleagues who wanted to make issues black or white, with no grays. They presented “both sides,” not a multiplicity of views. The worst examples were on the op-ed pages.
        Simple is easier to do than complex. Plus, simplistic and outrageous stuff sells. As long as the public buys it, people will sell it.
        I like that Echidne is more likely to raise questions. Her civility stands out in a blogosphere where anger and ridicule rule. I don't want liberals to stoop to the level of the conservatives who say hateful things and twist facts. If we do right, will this change those doing wrong? I’m sort of doubtful, but I still want us to do right.
         I want to apply the golden rule to politics. (Not as a rule, but a guideline.) If I object to people demonizing me, then I better think twice about demonizing them.
        If I employ a certain strategy, I can’t complain about that strategy if it's used against me. For example, I’m happy to boycott most of talk radio and its sponsors. But I have to understand that conservatives also run boycotts of media that they consider harmful. I can criticize their political views, and I can support my own, but I can’t talk about them stifling free speech if I use the same tactics.
        This week, the RNC put up a web site that parodied Obama. Bloggers on Kos suggested people flood the site with pro-Obama posts, and a few comments urged people to get the site to crash. If Republicans tried to crash Kos, these particular Kossacks could not argue that what the Republicans were doing was wrong, without being hypocrites.
         Yeah, I know. I’m no fun.

         People have discussed whether the shootings at the UU church in Knoxville should be considered terrorism since the shooter hated liberals. Joe Lauria writes:

Even if this man hopefully acted alone it is chilling to all progressive people and groups ... Are we free to express our views …?

          The possibility that the killer targeted this church because his ex-wife had been a member carries less cache because domestic violence is so common. In December, a member of the Clearwater, Fla., UU church killed his two young children, his ex-wife and her new partner before shooting himself. This crime did not attract the same publicity. But can’t we ask the same question Lauria did: Isn’t a crime like this chilling to all women who want to leave abusive men and start a new life?
          Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” It’s debatable whether the killings in Clearwater or Knoxville fit this definition. In regard to Clearwater, the killer appears to have systematically used fear and abuse to coerce his wife to do as he wanted, a pattern common to domestic violence. It’s quite likely that he did not think how his actions would affect others. But they do. A lot of women restrict their actions because of the threat of male violence. Why do I end up repeating this in post after post? Because a lot of people fail to see the political implications of what happens in private.
           Our culture ties masculinity to financial success. When some men fail at that, such as the unemployed and struggling killer in Knoxville, "they have to find a plausible scapegoat," says Brian Levin, professor of criminal justice and director of the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

"They will take that intense personal feeling of emasculation and failure and find some societal or political overlay that makes the failure seem not of their doing."

          Or, they may blame a woman. 

          In the 1980s, Rolling Stone published a few of my poems. It didn’t bother me that the magazine was paying next-to-nothing for poetry to use as filler. I understood that most of the writers, editors and musicians were men, but I was proud that women were infiltrating the ranks.
          Any hope that mass-market music magazines might have any concept of gender equity was dispelled by this MarketWatch article on Blender, whose editor, Joe Levy, spent 10 years at Rolling Stone.
         Blender is about “sex, more sex and rock and roll,” Jon Friedman writes. He uses the word “sex” repeatedly as a stand-in for women dressed and posed sexually. In other words, the magazine is all about women as the objects of men’s sexual desire. Women = sex. Friedman defends it:

Blender is more than just a string of babes adorning the covers. It features whimsical writing and analytical reporting.

         So, guys, don’t worry. You can say you subscribe for the articles.
         Friedman writes on economics, but doesn’t seem to see the market effect on women. If women are seen first and foremost as sex objects, they are less likely to reach parity with men in the music business.