feminist blogs

This week marks the kickoff of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), a 2-week, woman-focused conference that takes place annually at the United Nations (UN). Basically, this means that for the next two weeks, THE principal global policy-making body will be dedicating itself exclusively to the pursuit of gender equality and the advancement of women. Pretty exciting stuff, right?!?!?

*Cricket Chirp* *Cricket Chirp*

Wait....what? You're not falling over in your chair with excitement about this event? Come to think of it, where's the buzz around the domestic U.S. feminist blogosphere? Shouldn't we all be as excited about this as we are about, say, Lady Gaga? Can't help but pull a Hanson here and ask..."Where's the love"??? (for C-S-dubs?)

Although it's disappointing, I'm not too surprised when I hear folks express apathy/cynicism towards the UN in general and the CSW in particular, especially since I myself have harbored those same kinds of feelings towards the UN in the past. It can seem like with all the acronyms and jargon being used, many delegates don't want members of civil society to get involved, or that they are creating a deliberate barrier for non-UN folks to get to the content. It can also sometimes feel like the progress being made there isn't real or important, since things. move. so. slowlyyyyyyy. sometimes.

But I'm one U.S.-based domestic feminist who is now sold on the importance of these two weeks, and I've worked with many international advocates who are as well.

Here's why.

First of all, documents that come out of these meetings are often used by women on the ground to fight for their rights. Even though this year's CSW will adopt a declaration rather than an outcome document, they will still be affirming important principles that women can use as reference points to hold their governments accountable. As a domestic advocate, I can appreciate the importance of empowering women to stand up for themselves, so I support this process for them.

Secondly, the CSW is an opportunity for U.S.-based feminists to connect with international feminists and see the intersections of their work. I can think of so many examples of women's issues that transcend the international/national distinction, and I have truly come to believe that CSW is a fantastic opportunities for real feminist activists to come together and parse out these issues in a way that is truly beneficial for the world's women. My experiences working on these issues at home and abroad has convinced me that systematic oppression of women comes from the same basic source, no matter where it happens, or in what cultural context. As the president of the NGO where I work pointed out at a UN event last week, "at the heart of both empowerment and equality are a person's fundamental right and ability to control her own body including her sexuality." I've found that this is true both in the United States, and abroad. So have others, like Michelle Goldberg.

Lastly, I support the CSW because it is supportive of movement building. As Jessica put it in her recent Washington Post article, "this isn't a zero-sum game, and we can fight for our rights while fighting for women internationally as well...It's time to do away with the either-or mentality that surrounds domestic and international women's rights." I completely agree, and in my eyes, the CSW is an excellent starting place for that, and it's my hope that over the next few weeks, feminists from all corners of the globe will discover more of their shared interests, common experiences, and great shared potential.

I'll be attending the CSW on and off for the next 2 weeks as part of my day job, and I'll be covering the main goings on, as well as a few side events, for Feministing as best I can. You can also get updates from an international team of Inter Press Service journalists here.

I'd love to hear your thoughts about the next two weeks as well. Are you bored by the UN? Impressed? Intimidated? Disillusioned? Cynical? What are your hopes and expectations for this year's CSW? Leave your impressions and experiences in comments, or just email me at Lori@feministing.com with your thoughts. And let's together make sure this crucially important world conference on women gets the attention from U.S.-based domestic feminists it needs and deserves.

Watching the Olympics has always been an event in my house. My dad is an avid sports fan, so we always watch a lot of sports, but something about the Olympics brings out part of him that was lost in living in the United States for 30+ years. The opportunity to root for India. India doesn't have a major presence in the Winter Olympics, but we still watch it together as a ritual homage to foreign nations and one of the few opportunities we can see other countries compete amongst each other.

But sentimentality aside (don't act like you didn't cry when China won gold and silver in couple iceskating last night), the Olympics is not without its issues. Not only it is a reminder of the violence of nationalism, colonial conquest and division between the first and third world, but it often uses indigenous iconography to create homogenous identities based on history often infected with violence. Guest Blogger, Toban Black at Sociological Images has an amazing and thorough break down of the use of indigenous signifiers at the 2010 Winter Olympics and their homogenizing effect.

The Olympics branding denies noteworthy differences among native groups spread across these areas. Passing theatrical gestures to native peoples during the open ceremonies could be considered to be more respectful, but Olympics marketers otherwise have been mixing up North American native traditions into a soup-like caricature. Natives have been consistently oppressed, but the various peoples who are considered to be native (in some way, or to some degree) certainly are not 'all the same.' Tacking Arctic imagery on to Vancouver-area Games implies that there is only one native essence (in North America, if not beyond this continent).

This essentialism is at the heart of what makes the Olympics so enjoyable for people like my parents and so problematic for the representation of people that not only don't identify but have been in violent turbulence with these nation-states. For all the national identity markers, come with them the baggage of nation-building and its surrounding violence. Black points this out further concluding that an inability to hear the protests to use indigenous imagery further shows this hypocrisy.

In sum, mainstream Canada claims and re-packages imagery from natives to sell a vision of a present-day Canada that is a tolerant country, with a rich and interesting history; such visions have been produced for the 2010 Games - as well as other tourism and merchandising, and wider nationalism. Then, ironically, when pro-indigenous groups challenge the use of this appropriated iconography to represent 'Canada,' majority groups dismiss their protests by claiming a more authentic Canadian-ness. Of course, the refusal to take indigenous protests seriously is just another manifestation of disinterest in the welfare of living indigenous peoples. Even as gestures are made toward native culture, actual natives generally are ignored.

I will continue to watch the Olympics but not without the grave understanding of how it is implicated in the erasure of colonialism, genocide and dissent.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen are presenting their plan to repeal or "phase out" DADT to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

via Wapo.

Among the issues to be addressed by the group: whether gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job; whether the Pentagon will be obligated to provide for their domestic partners; and whether straight military personnel could be compelled to share quarters with gays.

"I don't think anyone is underestimating the seriousness of the issue, or the complexity of it," said a senior military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Gates and Mullen had yet to testify.

DADT must be overturned immediately. As Wapo reports, gay rights groups are rightfully concerned that the military will dilly-dally on this process and end up taking longer and stalling.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell has an excellent piece up at the Nation about the necessity for DADT to be overturned, or else gays and lesbians are relegated to second class citizenship, comparing it to blacks that fought in both the Civil War and WWII.

Gay soldiers are part of this long history. Their open and unfettered participation in America's armed services is a necessary part of the struggle for full inclusion in America. When gay men and lesbians can openly and proudly point to their sacrifices for our country then they can call upon our country for full first-class citizenship.

Let's end DADT during Black History Month. President Obama's presence in the White House was made possible by the broken bodies of black soldiers who believed and sacrificed for a country that shackled and segregated them. They willingly bled for this country and with that blood they bought for all of us a country where a black man could be president.

Today gay soldiers fight and die with the same hope. They too believe in America even though our country does not protect them in Civil Rights legislation, even though our country withholds marriage equality, even though our country is marred by anti-gay violence: still they believe. It is an astonishing kind of hope. It is the kind of inspiring hope that has made every great American success possible.

While I agree with her take on the political necessity and significance of overturning DADT I have to take issue with one idea that permeates through the piece which is that military service is the heart of citizenship and military service is key to our safety. On Friday I wrote about my conflicted feelings about advocating for policies that make the military a more just place, because of my belief in the inherent injustice of the military industrial complex. Yes, I agree, civil service is at the heart of citizenship, and I have nothing but respect, gratitude and admiration for the courage of soldiers, but I often fear that their commitment has been exploited.

Institutionally, the military and war have been marketed as necessary for our safety, yet we have fought unsafe wars at the risk of countless civilians worldwide. It has been a gross exploitation of the citizenship of young Americans in the service of greed and domination. Furthermore, looking at all the different ways that people claim citizenship and the way those that contribute to this nation and are denied citizenship, it doesn't make me want to support the structures that define citizenship, but to change the way we define citizenship itself and reform the structures that define and control it.

Of course, the argument can be made that when policies like DADT are overturned, we are starting the process of this redefinition, but as Ann just said to me over IM it is important that we work for short-term inclusion to these institutions, while working towards the long-term reform and/or abolition of the very same institutions. I am not going to feel really good about short-term military reforms, until I feel good about our campaigns of military aggression. And from the way things are going, I don't see that being any time soon.

Obama made brief mention at the SOTU on Wednesday that he will be taking steps to repeal 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' and it appears that the Pentagon will be unveiling the steps they plan on taking to abolish a grossly homophobic and frankly inhumane policy.

Gates and Mullen are not expected to offer a specific legislative proposal to repeal the law, but rather to detail some of the preliminary steps that need to be taken inside the military in advance of formulating a legislative plan.

Gates will discuss options for more "humanely" implementing the current ban, for example, according to a senior Pentagon official. The secretary asked his general counsel's office for options six months ago including how to possibly not expel personnel whose homosexuality is revealed by third parties, the source said.

The 1993 law bars gay men and lesbians in the military from revealing their sexual orientation, and prevents the military from asking about it.

Another military official familiar with the discussion said some of the issues to be considered include the cost of implementing a new policy, benefits for gay spouses, potential hate crimes, and even logistical questions such as the possible need to renovate barracks to separate straight and gay troops.

According to the official, the idea of separate housing or showers was not considered a serious possibility, but would be discussed in order to rule it out.

Let me just say, thank goodness! But the steps include benefits for gay spouses, potential for hate crimes and separate housing? I don't know enough about military housing, but that doesn't sounds right to me. I generally don't equate segregation with humanity.

It is amazing to me that for all these years, young men and women that have given their life to serve in the military have not been given the simple ability to express their full humanity and be respected and supported.

I, of course, advocate the repeal of a law as ignorant and hurtful as DADT, but I advocate more wholly for a world where less and less people see the military as a viable option and to bring an end to militarism. The domination, greed and ignorance that propels our wars is the same ignorance that propels homophobia in the military. Without ending one, we probably won't ever end the other.

But since we don't live in a just or ideal world, at least they are truly taking steps to repeal DADT.

A sexist headline today on BBC, "Pretty Women 'Anger More Easily." A study done by the University of California found that women that considered themselves to be attractive, also seemed to have a temper, which led to the conclusion that "pretty women" are more likely to be angry. This study makes me angry and it is not because I am pretty.

There is no standard "pretty," so it is hard to build a study around it, but I do actually see the possibility that if someone thinks that they fit into certain pre-established standards of attractiveness, there sense of entitlement is greater than someone who has internalized the belief that they don't.

But that is too simplistic, since women of all shapes, sizes and colors suffer from sexist treatment and that affects their behavior in some way. In some ways I almost see these findings as potential hopeful since women that are classified as "pretty women" are often urged to stay quiet and not get angry.

But ultimately, I think the headline is misleading. This study doesn't prove that women that consider themselves to fall into society's definition of attractive are more likely to get angry (also remember it is a very very small sample size so hard to draw generalizations). But it shows that they may potentially have a higher sense of self worth and entitlement because our culture rewards women for what they look like, as opposed to what they are about. I bet if they did a study of women that identify as feminists, they would find out that statistically they too get very angry and have a high sense of what they should have access to. Just saying.

The word on the street is that the New York Times may be moving to a pay scale for viewing content online.

New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.

As someone who writes for a website that provides news and commentary for little to no pay (except for that joy of blogging!), this brings up an interesting question about what we should pay for and what we shouldn't. From the early days of Feministing our commitment to keeping it free was based on one issue and one issue alone--accessibility. However, as I have written here for 5 years, the reality of working for something with no pay has hit me, the lack of resources affects the depth with which I can write, the lack of resources forces me to have a multitude of other sources of income pushing Feministing to the back in the realm of passion project since as we all know, passion alone cannot sustain us, pay our rent or feed us.

That said, Feministing is only one website with a devout following (oh how we love you!), but there are a plethora of places at this point to receive free feminist insight. Similarly, this market of free information has plagued newspapers and they have reacted in many different ways, either through lay-offs, downsizing, charging for online circulation, etc, etc. The New York Times is one of the best newspapers in the world, it provides hard-hitting journalism, while other sources falter in the face of rough economic times for traditional journalism. Matt Yglesias speaks briefly to how it might affect him and his work,

But this raises the question from a blogger's point of view of how I should react to a paid model for the Times. Obviously if there's some really unique piece of reporting that it's the NYT and not anyplace else, I'll link to it. But a lot of news stories are slightly routine--everyone has a writeup of major political and foreign developments. So will I owe it to the readers to find Washington Post or AP or Reuters or BBC or Politico versions of those stories to link to? Or should I try to send a clear message to everyone that they ought to suck it up and pay to read the best newspaper in the world? Personally, I'd find it regrettable if the result of this decision was that I wound up spending more time publicizing inferior news sources but I'd also find it regrettable if the result was that I'm linking to more stuff that people can't click through.

This conundrum is at the heart of internet culture and can be applied to debates around downloading movies, music and TV along with gaining access to information and news. One of the democratizing forces of internet lauded by so many internet advocates is the ways in which it has allowed those with computer access, (which frankly is still only a certain subset of the population, but still a lot more people than before), access to news media in ways that people didn't have access to before along lines of race, class, gender, geographical location, age and ability. Basic free market analysis would suggest that this allows for a free market of information where the best one wins, right?

But see that is the thing with the internet, if you don't have a plan to sustain yourself, popularity alone may not. At some point you have to make some money if you want to survive. Just ask Twitter.

So, while I personally and professionally understand why the New York Times has to go to a pay model, I wonder what this will mean for the New York Times. The first issue being corporate control of news media sends my media justice flags up in the air, since despite difficulty of many communities still having access to the internet, those that can get online can access information. And the second issue being the reality that news media has become a dime a dozen. Sure a few of us might pay, but most people will definitely not. Just check out this poll on Mashable where 63% of respondents said 'absolutely not.'

Would you pay?

It's the end of December, and I'm still nibbling holiday meal leftovers even though I've forgotten what hunger feels like. So I think it's about that time....time for some end-of-the-year reflection :-) Last week, I posted the top ten international wins for women in 2009 (and resisted the urge to name the post "FTW"). This week, I'd like to offer a more personal take on the end of the year, and share my blogging resolutions with you, in the spirit of continued feminist[ing] progress and community-building.

It's been an eventful and wonderful year. Being able to interact with you all, a fantastic community of people who just plain get it, has strengthened and invigorated my feminism in ways I'm not sure I could have anticipated when I first started writing for the site. I see feministing fodder everywhere- things and thoughts I'm eager to share with you on the subway, at work, in my daily interactions with people, and even in my relationship. And I've tried to reflect this passion for feminism and this community in my posts. I've posted quick hits and long diatribes. I've criticized one of the most powerful companies in the world for being unfair, and made fun of one of the most ridiculous anti-choice websites for being absurd. I've posted pictures- of renegade feminist street signs, of the NYC pride parade, and the Clinton Global Initiative- and videos- most notably a documentary featuring sex workers in India mobilizing for their rights, and a short film of quirky lovers dancing in their underwear and, later, getting an abortion. I've posted breaking news, and I've made some silly puns. I've also managed to write a post or two that I am pretty proud of, mostly because they solicited some truly interesting and thought-provoking comments from you.

That's not to say it's all been peachy keen- I've definitely made some rookie mistakes, and you were right there to point them out for me ;-) When I carelessly titled a post, you weren't afraid to speak up and let me know. When I posted an opinion you completely disagreed with- well let's just say you aren't afraid to hold back!

So... what does 2010 hold? Well, in the spirit of transparent community, I thought I'd share with you here my personal blogging resolutions for 2010, and hopefully you'll share some of yours- blogging-related or not- in comments.

Resolution #1: Hurry up and wait. In 2010, I'd like to post more quickly and decrease my post turnaround time, especially on breaking news items. At the same time I recognize the need to review and edit each post more thoroughly before hitting that publish button. It's all about finding a balance on this one.

Resolution #2: Be brave enough to get personal. Sometimes it's a helluva lot easier to post a feminist news item than it is to post on something more personal, like a life event. For me, this is especially true when it comes to race issues- I still have trouble sometimes posting on things that hit so close to home. But if there's anything the Feministing editors have proven to me, it's that getting personal is the key to community building. In 2010, I need to be braver.

Resolution #3: Say more with less. I can be wordy. I know this. I'm working on it!

Resolution #4: Get connected. There are so many amazing feminists doing visionary work, and I don't want to blog in a bubble. In 2010, I hope to reach out more to other feminists to find inspiration in their progress and use this platform to highlight their work as well. This is something the Feministing editors are already incredibly good at, and something I'll continue to work on.

Resolution #5: Be more creative. This one pretty much speaks for itself, although I have to admit, I'm feeling a lot of pressure to write a haiku about it or something...to demonstrate real commitment to the resolution!

That's all for now, folks....HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS!!!

Spoiler alert.

Saturday night, I watched James Cameron's Avatar in 3-D. James Cameron spent thirteen years of production time to produce special effects and animation realistic enough to fulfill his lifelong dream of making this movie. But to add insult to injury, Cameron's long wait time before production is because Avatar is the most "realistic" human resemblance. If "technology has never looked so human in film", then caricatures of indigenous people have never before been so blatant.

Annalee Newitz, of i09.com, asked "When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar?"

"It's a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people. Avatar and scifi films like it give us the opportunity to answer the question: What do white people fantasize about when they fantasize about racial identity?

Avatar imaginatively revisits the crime scene of white America's foundational act of genocide, in which entire native tribes and civilizations were wiped out by European immigrants to the American continent. In the film, a group of soldiers and scientists have set up shop on the verdant moon Pandora, whose landscapes look like a cross between Northern California's redwood cathedrals and Brazil's tropical rainforest. The moon's inhabitants, the Na'vi, are blue, catlike versions of native people: They wear feathers in their hair, worship nature gods, paint their faces for war, use bows and arrows, and live in tribes. Watching the movie, there is really no mistake that these are alien versions of stereotypical native peoples that we've seen in Hollywood movies for decades."

It also became apparent that the invading scientists and military personnel were not just similar to the implied historic white colonial rule, but were, in fact, almost entirely white actors. A true analogy that reflects the human race as a colonizing power would include more actors of color. Lastly, as Lila Watson said, "If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. But if you recognize that your liberation and mine are bound up together, we can [work] together." But the problem with Avatar's white guilt fantasy is the same that manifests itself on an individual's path to white allyship: in Pandora, it is inherently the humans, the free, who come to help the oppressed, the Na'vi.

Furthermore, while Newitz argues that Avatar's racism is "a matter for debate," its sexist undertones and ableist plot are also worth questioning.

At FWD (Feminists With Disabilities), Esté Yarmosh posted a thorough roundup of the ableism in Avatar.

When I saw that Jake (the protagonist) uses a wheelchair, I wondered, "Will this be the first time I've seen a movie where a main character with a disability hasn't been magically 'cured' by the end?" Jake endures harassment by fellow Marines for his wheelchair use, and we learn that his disability can be "cured" with a costly surgery--when offered the surgery free, he refuses, to continue traveling into the Na'vi world against the wishes of his military superior. Just like the hundreds of teen movies of the "Ugly Duckling" genre, the Sci-Fi plot phenomenon of characters who miraculously regain their able-bodied privilege is pervasive. On i09.com, Charlie Jane Anders chronicled "20 Science Fiction Characters Who Got Their Legs Back," a brief modern timeline of Sci Fi's denials and avoidances of living with a disability through the eventual "salvations" of main characters. In Avatar, Jake abandons his wheelchair to be permanently installed in a Na'vi body. The underlying theme is that his human body is inadequate; instead, he achieves some type of salvation by entering his new body.

Na'vi bodies themselves sent an interesting message: standing nine feet tall, lean, with long legs, no hips, and small breasts among the women, they reflect components of the impossible body type projected on women in America. Though dark-skinned, the Na'vi had light-colored eyes, another touch of the "exotic" and desirable. The underlying theme of this sexualization accompanied the main female Na'vi character, Neytiri, the daughter of the Chief, who spoke with an accent and wore beads in her hair, and donned few clothes. Of course, Jake ends up having sex with Neytiri, and when his duplicity is revealed, their mating is treated as an ultimate insult-- the human obsession with virtue and virginity seems to manifest here, as not only Neytiri, but also other Na'vi, become angry at Jake for mating with her. Sex-shaming ensues.

And later, even the human bodies in the movie seemed unnecessarily sexualized. After being shot, head scientist Sigourney Weaver was stripped, carried to the base of a tree, draped in leaves, and positioned to display her curves and her milky-white skin while dying. Perhaps the one empowering woman character, Trudy Chacon, played by Michelle Rodriguez of Fast and the Furious fame, martyred herself for the Na'vi. And even while she flew into battle on behalf of the Na'vi, she had abandoned her military uniform for war paint on her face and aircraft, and a feathered headband. What makes this different from doing modern-day racial justice work in blackface? The attempt to imitate the Na'vi culture is insulting at best.

Cameron's movie does appear to be a white guilt fantasy, and as self-proclaimed "King of the World," (referring to Pandora, the Na'vi homeland), he is responsible for at least some of the problematic undertones. And precisely because it was a lifetime dream of his to write and produce Avatar, the superiority of humans to the indigenous characters, exotic indigenous bodies, and "salvation" from disability within the movie are unsurprising given that he first dreamed of Pandora five decades ago.

Check out this must read piece about Net Neutrality from Malkia Cyril, Chris Rabb and Joseph Torres.

CNN parted ways with Lou Dobbs last month after civil rights groups and Presente.org mobilized thousands of Latinos online to call on CNN to dump the talk show host for spewing hate against immigrants for years. None of this--not these advocacy efforts, not countless small business success stories, not even the election of President Obama--would have happened without a free and open Internet. For communities of color, the Internet provides us with a unique opportunity to speak for ourselves without first seeking approval or permission or having to secure major funds to do so. But the big telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to create an effectively segregated online community where they will act as our gatekeepers.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now considering new rules that could protect the fundamental principle of "Network Neutrality" once and for all. Net Neutrality prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, discriminating against or deterring Internet users from accessing online content and applications of their choice--such as e-newsletters, blogs, social networking sites, online videos, podcasts and smart-phone apps.

It's not that network owners are secretly plotting to stifle free speech. But they have an undeniable, rational interest in creating a pay-for-play model for the treatment of communication on the Internet. Commercial Web sites that pay will get speed and quality, and the noncommercial uses of the Net will be collateral damage--relegated to the slow lane. It's not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political reasons. It's that our speech is not important to them because it's not going to make them money.

As usual she brings it with personal experience and feminist authority in her measured, thoughtful and generous way.

Being a part of the WaPo's contest didn't change how I feel about the value of training women to enter public debate in greater numbers. It did, however, remind me of just how deeply the gender imbalance on op-ed pages is rooted. It's not all about submission rates or saying yes when producers call; it's also about old, tired, and stubbornly persistent perceptions of gender and authority.

Reading the comments that amassed following my writing throughout the three-week experience and, especially, after my video appearance, was a sobering reality check about how far we still have to go in changing cultural mores on who gets to speak about "political issues" and how they get to speak about them.

Please go read the rest.