feminist blogs

If you’re interested, I wrote a piece for The Daily Mirror about my recent trip to the LAPD’s “Behind the Scenes” exhibit here in Vegas (which got a lot of media attention when the Kennedy family protested the inclusion of bloody clothing from Robert Kennedy’s shooting). My friend Larry was interested in the politics involved–whose personal tragedy gets put on public display? Were the displays as sensationalistic as he suspected they would be? He was particularly interested in how the case of the Black Dahlia (aka Elizabeth Short) would be presented, and what the LAPD would think was appropriate to display for public consumption.

So I agreed to go take a look. And I was horrified in so many ways. Absolutely stunned. You can find the piece here.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

So the Oscars were last night, and a woman won Best Director for the first time ever! And that same woman’s movie won Best Picture! Which is exciting, especially since the next big contender was Avatar, which I have not seen mostly because I hate James Cameron and I really hate colonialist masturbatory pet-projects. Lauren wrote about The Hurt Locker here, and Sady covered Avatar pretty well over at her regular pad. Yay Kathryn Bigelow, boo James Cameron.

The big Oscar disappointment for me was Sandra Bullock winning Best Actress. Even though I love Sandra Bullock — she seems very sweet and smart and funny and like she’d be really fun to have a few beers with, because she would definitely be the person encouraging you to eat barbeque at 3 in the morning, and who doesn’t love that person? And her dress was one of my favorites last night, and whoever styled her did a fantastic job. But the movie she won for? And the character she played? It’s White Lady Saves The Day to the max, and I’m just awfully tired of movies about how tough white women come in and save children of color. Or, as David Edelstein put it, “[Bullock won] because her role in The Blind Side spoke to two semi-contradictory impulses in Academy voters: a) guilt over being filthy rich and white; and b) a hunger to channel your altruism in ways that enable you to crush other people on the playing field.”

But really, the Oscars were full of un-surprises, so onto the important things: What everyone was wearing. My absolute favorite was Sandy Powell, the woman who won the Oscar for Best Costume Design. But I can’t find a picture of her, so my #2 was Cameron Diaz (pictured above; Maggie Gyllenhaal was a close second). She was my surprise favorite of the night, especially because she often shows up to awards shows looking… troubling. And she generally just doesn’t do it for me. But she rocked the gold dress and I loved it.

On the dude side, of course Tom Ford was the best dressed:

But I also loved:

What did you all think (of the show or of the clothes)?

Jay Smooth on why we should focus less on the dumb racist/sexist/asshole-y bullshit people like John Mayer say (and man, did he ever say some dumb bullshit) and more on, say, re-segregation of the public school system:

And just for fun, Jay Smooth discussing Chris Matthews’s comment that he “forgot” President Obama was black, and what that says about what we think racial equality would look like:

I get this with students a lot: they desperately want to deny ever noticing anyone’s race/ethnicity, because the discourse of color blindness states that the way to treat people equally and eradicate racism is to stop acknowledging racial categories at all. But when you simply start ignoring the role of an important socially-constructed category without actually eliminating the negative effect is has on those in certain categories, you aren’t ending racism. It’s just making it harder to talk about or address, since anyone who tries to start a conversation about racial inequality is accused of actually perpetuating inequality and/or being racist for bringing the topic up.

This ties back in with the first video–we are more comfortable with more symbolic or linguistic forms of combating racial inequality (so, say, people say they have a friend who “happens to be Black,” as though it’s something they never thought about until that very second) than the much more complicated, difficult, and long-term work of rooting out structural inequality.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Hot damn I love her.

Some women choose to follow men, and some women choose to follow their dreams. If you’re wondering which way to go, remember that your career will never wake up and tell you that it doesn’t love you anymore.

Is Taylor Swift bad for women? The F-Bomb says she is not a feminist dream! Because, well, she is maybe not so talented and she writes pretty much just about boys and she relies pretty heavily on the virgin/whore thing in her songs and videos. My one quibble is the idea that Swift isn’t a feminist dream because there are lots of better female artists out there, like La Gaga, and they should be getting more of the credit. That is true, but this is not a zero-sum game! The music industry is chock-full of really really crappy male artists to balance out the handful of really really good male artists, so I’m cool with having a bunch of really really crappy female artists, too. And yes, I would put Taylor Swift in that category, even though I think she is completely adorable. And for the record, I like my share of really really crappy artists, so if you like Taylor Swift? That’s ok! But songs with painfully trite lyrics like that over sweet little melodies? Entertaining no doubt, but not exactly Musical Genius. But again, that’s ok — women should have just as much room as men to make easily-marketable and widely-palatable musical Big Macs. The problem, of course, is that women don’t have as much room as men in the music industry, and so even the really talented ones either get funneled into the Sweet Girl With a Guitar box or dressed in a latex bikini. The fact that Swift plays the virgin isn’t her fault, personally, but it is a problem with her branding — which is why it’s important to keep the ensuing flame-age focused on the idea that we’re criticizing Taylor Swift as a musical brand created and marketed in a particular cultural context, and not Taylor Swift the surely very sweet and smart young woman.

Anyway, apparently not all feminists are in agreement that Taylor Swift is bad. The point, though, isn’t that we should feel bad for liking Taylor Swift because it somehow damages our feminist creds (did anyone say that?). Just that, you know, as feminists who write on the internet we analyze pop culture and stuff. And maybe Taylor Swift is not the best thing, feminism-wise. Kind of like how Nickleback is not the best thing, humanity-wise.

All of which is to say, I’m with what our girl Sady wrote way back in ‘09. And also Kate Harding, because, of course. Autostraddle also has kind of an amazing post.

Although I’ll add that, despite my feeling that Swift is completely precious, I will always sort of hate her for allowing that travesty of a duet with Stevie Nicks to go on at the Grammy Awards. That is Stevie Nicks. Stevie Nicks does not sing back-up. And if she does back you up, you had better not be out of tune.

I may have mentioned my hatred of John Mayer five or six times before. He is possibly my most-hated male celebrity. He is also the gift that never stops giving, because his totally bizarre, narcissistic and offensive comments never end. Example of the day: His latest Playboy interview. A few highlights:

1. “There have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed.”

2. “My biggest dream is to write pornography.”

3. “I feel like women are getting their comeuppance against men now. I hear about man-whores more than I hear about whores. When women are whorish, they’re owning their sexuality. When men are whorish, they’re disgusting beasts.”

4. “I am a very…I’m just very. V-E-R-Y. And if you can’t handle very, then I’m a douche bag. But I think the world needs a little very. That’s why black people love me.”

5. “My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock. I’m going to start dating separately from my dick.”

And that’s not even the part where he talks about Jessica Simpson as “sexual napalm.” Oh J. Don’t ever change.

UPDATE: Renee has more, and it is horrific and involves John Mayer using the n-word and musing on what it’s like to be black.

Kelly V. sent in a video by Alisa Miller of Public Radio International about the impact of news coverage on what we know about. In particular, she argues that changes in the U.S. news media, such as shutting down expensive foreign bureaus, have led to less coverage of events or issues in other countries:

For other examples of the role of media outlets in signaling what’s worth talking about, check out our posts on media outlets covering celebrity stories while chastising us for caring, presenting polls in the media, what stories get covered?, people are more interested in Tiger Woods than Afghanistan, meaningless statistics, U.S. and international versions of magazine covers, “us and them,” which missing kids get news coverage?, covering Obama and McCain, covering Obama and Clinton, and what’s worth covering in a slideshow?

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Scott Fujita. I mean, damn — an outspoken, feminist, gay-rights supporting dude who loves his grandma? Chose to play in New Orleans after Katrina, and gives a lot back to his adopted city? And he sounds pretty humble?

Here’s what he told the New York Times about the anti-choice Tebow ad:

Fujita has spoken out before in favor of abortion rights and gay rights.

“It’s just me standing up for equal rights,” Fujita said. “It’s not that courageous to have an opinion if you think it’s the right thing and you believe it wholeheartedly.”

The Tebow ad suggests that Tebow’s mother was advised about having an abortion when she was pregnant with him, but chose instead to give birth.

The issue resonates with Fujita because he was adopted, and Fujita said he respected Tebow for standing up for what he believed in.

“The idea of focusing on the family — who wouldn’t agree with that?” Fujita said. “But the means of doing so, he and I might not see eye to eye all the way.”

When Fujita was born in 1979, his biological mother, he said, was in her teens and she gave him up for adoption because she did not have the means to raise a child.

“I’m just so thankful she had the courage and the support system to be able to carry out the pregnancy,” Fujita said. “I wouldn’t expect that of everybody.”

He and his wife have twin daughters. Those girls sound like they’re going to be raised by a great dad.

Read the whole Reasons to Love Scott list over at Jezebel.

A great ad to balance the Tim Tebow spot:

This won’t actually be airing during the Superbowl, so spread it around. Thank you, Sean James and Al Joyner, for speaking out.

Transcript and a statement by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, are below the fold.

TRANSCRIPT:

Sean James: I’m Sean James I’m a former college and professional football player
Al Joiner: I’m Al Joyner I won the Olympic Gold medal in the Triple Jump
SJ: I love my family and I love sports.
AJ: And Superbowl weekend is a perfect time to honor both – sports and family.
SJ: There’s a lot of talk leading up to this Superbowl, about an ad focused on sports and family. The ad features a great football player, Tim Tebow, and his loving mother, discussing a difficult medical decision she made for her family.
I respect and honor Mrs Tebow’s decision.
AK: I want my daughter to live in a world where everyone’s decisions are respected.
SJ: My Mom showed me that women are strong and wise. She taught me that only women can make the best decisions about their health and their future.
AJ: My daughter will always be my little girl, but I’m proud every day as I watch her grow up to be her own person, a smart confident young woman. I trust her to take care of herself.
SJ: We’re working toward the day where every woman will be valued, where every woman’s decision about her health and her family will be respected.
AJ: We celebrate families by supporting our mothers, by supporting our daughters, by trusting women.

Statement by Cecile Richards:

“Planned Parenthood respects the ability of every woman to make important personal medical decisions for herself and her family, including the decision by Pam Tebow more than 20 years ago to carry her high-risk pregnancy to term and deliver her son Tim. The Tebows’ story is compelling, and central to it is the fact that we must respect the ability of every woman to make important medical decisions for herself and her family, after receiving counsel from medical professionals, religious leaders, family members, or others she trusts.

“The Tebow story underlines what Planned Parenthood has learned from the millions of women doctors and nurses at its health centers have cared for over nearly a century. Women take decisions about their health very seriously. They consider their doctors’ advice, they talk with their loved ones and people they trust, including religious leaders, and they carefully weigh all considerations before making the best decision for themselves and their families. This is true whether it’s a decision about their choice of contraception, specific medical treatments for illnesses like cancer, challenges related to medically complex pregnancies, or any other important health care issue they are considering.

“If Focus on the Family, the sponsor of the ad about the Tebow family, has its way, millions of women would no longer be able to make important personal medical decisions for themselves and their families when it comes to abortion. Focus on the Family’s long-stated goal is to outlaw abortion except in rare cases when the woman’s life is severely at risk. This is an extreme position, which would rob every woman of the ability to make important personal medical decisions for herself and her family.

“In addition to opposing a woman’s ability to make important medical decisions for herself, Focus on the Family also opposes commonsense comprehensive sex education and life-saving stem cell research. The agenda of this organization is far outside the mainstream of American life.

“Planned Parenthood urges all Americans to ponder the true meaning of the Tebow family’s experience — one in which a woman was presented with medical and moral considerations and made a deeply personal decision in private without government interference. That is exactly what we want every woman to be able to do when she must make important and highly personal medical decisions.”

To read the mainstream media spin in the Tim Tebow / anti-abortion ad controversy, you’d think that us Hysterical Feminists ™ were at it again, getting whipped into a censor-happy frenzy just because some lady decided to have a baby.

The issue, though, isn’t that we disagree with Pam Tebow’s choice (although it’s worth pointing out that she had a choice she now wishes to take away from other women, and that the choice she made — to continue a pregnancy after she became ill while on a mission trip in the Phillipines — isn’t actually available to most women in the Phillipines, where abortion is illegal and most procedures happen clandestinely); it isn’t that we don’t think anti-choice ads should be allowed on the air; it isn’t that we think anti-choice views should be censored. It’s that CBS has, for the past few years, regularly rejected ads from left-of-center organizations — MoveOn.org, PeTA, and the United Church of Christ. CBS was clear that it did not accept ads on contentious or controversial subjects such as, apparently, democracy, animal rights and gay rights. But an ad about abortion, from Focus on the Family — one of the most radical, right-leaning organizations out there? Apparently totally fine.

That’s why pro-choice and lefty folks were angry and calling for this ad to be pulled. I personally think those calls were not the best strategy, and that we should have focused on trying to buy our own ad, but that opportunity has passed. Even though I don’t support CBS pulling the ad, I am floored at the hypocrisy of their shifting standards. It also adds insult to injury that this ad is being aired during the Superbowl — not a “man’s event” by any real measure, but an event that is widely perceived to be All About Men. It just feels a little shameless and extra offensive to run an ad that forwards an anti-woman political position at an event where the advertising has traditionally focused on Stuff Dudes Like (beer, trucks and titties, for the most part).

I don’t begrudge Tebow using his fame to forward his political views. I don’t agree with him, but go for it. I think CBS should play the ad (I also think they should have played the ads from MoveOn and UCC). I also think that “Look, a Heisman trophy winner’s mother could have had an abortion!” is a really silly and shallow anti-abortion argument, since any set of circumstances can lead one person or another to exist or not exist. The fact that my existence wouldn’t have happened without WWII and without Australia’s old policies of not allowing certain physically disabled immigrants does not make WWII or that policy good things; the fact that Hitler’s mom didn’t have an abortion doesn’t mean that abortion should be mandatory. The fact that I have friends who would not have existed if their mothers hadn’t had earlier abortions doesn’t make abortion a universally perfect choice. The abortion debate is not, and should not be, centered around the existence of potential future Heisman trophy winners. A turn in that direction is pretty easily smacked down, so I’m not convinced that feminists are just too scared to address the ad itself.

It’s the hypocrisy that is frustrating. It’s the fact that an admittedly tame anti-choice ad is considered mainstream enough to air, but an equally tame ad promoting the basic humanity of gay people (and God’s love of gay people) is controversial. It’s the fact that abortion — a woman’s most basic right to control the number and spacing of her children, and her most basic right to not have the government interfere and legally compel her to carry a pregnancy to term — is still one of the most hot-button issues in the United States. This isn’t just politics; it’s a human rights and a bodily integrity issue. And yes, some of us are a little salty about the fact that our claim to our own bodies is often spun as immoral and controversial, while it’s just peachy for others to purport that we exist as vessels to produce future Great Men like Tim Tebow.

CBS claims it has changed its policy and now allows more controversial ad compaigns, so it would have been interesting to see if they actually stood by that had a pro-choice group wanted to buy ad space. Of course, they did just reject an ad from a gay dating website and an ad for Dante’s Inferno (because it used the phrase “Go to Hell”), so maybe we have our answer.

In all of this controversy, though, there isn’t much mention of the fact that Focus on the Family spent $3 million on this ad — how much money do you think that organization spends on actually helping women? In honor of Tim Tebow and his mother — who, lucky for her, actually had a choice — I’ll be making a donation to the National Network of Abortion Funds, a network of more than 100 local organizations that helps low-income women cover the cost of abortion. I hope you will donate too. I have a feeling that if NNAF had an extra $3 million laying around, it wouldn’t be using it to compete for ad time with Doritos.