feminist blogs

Today is the anniversary of Seneca Falls. Two years ago I used this occasion to publish a review of how much progress women have made since 1848. Since the topic is still relevant (and since an html table, once made, should never be put to waste), I decided to republish it today.

********************************************************************

July 19, 1848: one hundred and sixty years ago today. In Seneca Falls, New York, 300 women and men gathered to discuss “the social, civil and religious condition and rights of Woman.” It was the first women’s rights convention in American history.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a young firebrand then, sharp of tongue and sharper of wit. She’d spent the week before the convention laboring over a Declaration of Sentiments, modeling it closely on Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal,” she scribbled on a long sheet of foolscap. “We insist that [women] have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.” Her husband was so alarmed he decided to leave town for the duration.

Just as the Declaration of Independence had enumerated the colonists’ grievances with King George, Stanton listed “injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” The Declaration was read aloud at the convention and adopted unanimously, with 100 women and men affixing their signatures to the document. “In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule,” Stanton wrote, “but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object.”

One hundred and sixty years later, where do we stand? How many of those “injuries and usurpations” have been fixed? I thought it would be interesting to list the items in a table, a kind of feminist punch-list, as it were, with a status note on each item. Fixed or not fixed?

#	“Injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman” from the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments	Fixed in the U.S.?	Fixed world-wide?
1	He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
2	He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
3	He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men–both natives and foreigners.
4	Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
5	He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
6	He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
7	He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master–the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
8	He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women–the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.
9	After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
10	He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.
11	He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
12	He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.
13	He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.
14	He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.
15	He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.
16	He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Making this little table was partially an exercise in translating Stanton’s 19th century prose to modern concepts. Item #11, for example: that’s the glass ceiling. Granted, we’ve made immense progress in the professions (though “theology” doesn’t have quite the cachet it used to), but the ceiling is still there. Hence the big red X.

But mostly I’m gratified by how far we’ve come, at least in the United States (and other countries that have experienced the feminist revolution.) All of the legal restrictions listed by Stanton have been removed, and most of the social barriers of her day have fallen as well. Even the unfixed items show significant progress. The women of 1848 would hardly know what to think if they were plopped down in the midst of modern America.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a sharp cookie, though, and she would have quickly grasped that there’s still a world of hurt buried in items #14 and #16. Changing laws is hard; changing hearts and minds is harder.

The tragedy of this little table is in the column for “Fixed world-wide?” Not a single checkmark. Not a single one of those “injuries and usurpations” has been completely removed from the face of the Earth. It’s all red Xs, all the way down.

Halloween used to be my second-favorite holiday (after Christmas). Back in the 80s, before Halloween became Dress Like A Whore Day, I used to love going to costume parties. One year I went as a floor lamp. Another I went as a mermaid. I still remember the costume winners at the big Halloween bash in 1989: they were dressed like the B-52s. They had it nailed, too.

Halloween costumes were always a make-your-own thing back then; there were no racks of adult costumes for sale in the stores. Ready-made costumes simply weren’t available, except I suppose by special order or maybe in big cities. But I never saw any. The goal in making your own costume was to come up with something clever, well-done, and striking. Nobody dressed like a streetwalker or a stripper. I’m not sure exactly when Dress Like A Whore Day kicked in — sometime in the 90s, I guess — but I’m quite sure that it’s connected to the mass merchandising of adult Halloween costumes. Supply, demand, vicious recursive loop from hell, and yet another soul-destroying, woman-degrading win is chalked up for global capitalism. Yay.

In the 90s I became a reclusive domestic type, and my Halloween activities turned to pumpkin carving at home with the folks and the dogs. (Note: do not let dogs eat pieces of raw pumpkin. Trust me on this.) I haven’t done that in a couple of years, but I’m almost afraid to look at the new carving kits that are out. I just know that somebody’s gonna come out with a Sexy Jack O’ Lantern pattern, and then I’ll have to kill myself.

No, wait! This is going to be a happy post! A shiny, happy post! A post about how we can go forth this Halloween, clothed in absurdity and armed with sharp carving tools, to take back this formerly-beloved holiday from the grip of sexual objectification.

Which mostly means I’m going to offer up some ideas for non-porntastic costumes. Not that these are particularly clever or anything; they’re just alternatives to the Cult of Sex-Ay. As you’ll see, I’m partial to costumes based on famous people. The possibilities are endless, and the clothes are usually stuff you already have or can rig up pretty easily. In fact, you can almost work backward with this: figure out what you want to wear, then choose a famous person to match.

The Queen

She’s only the most famous woman in the world. And dressing up as the Queen is an easy, dignified way to pile on the glamour.

What you need:

1. An evening gown — something fairly conservative.
2. A tiara (you can get a fake one from a party store).
3. A blue Garter sash and a military-style medal to pin on it. (The color and the medal are important so it doesn’t look like a beauty pageant sash.)
4. A big, boxy purse.
5. Rhinestone necklace and earrings.
6. White evening gloves, if you have them.
7. Optional: a fake fur stole (you can get fake fur by the yard at a fabric store).
8. Bonus points: dog hand-puppets to represent the Queen’s corgis.

If you have gray or silver hair, that’s great, but it doesn’t really matter. The Queen’s hairstyle hasn’t changed in 50 years.

If you’d prefer to do a daytime Queen look instead, then basically it’s a hat situation.

What you need:

1. The most fantastic hat you can rig up.
2. A suit or dress to match.
3. A strand of pearls, pearl earrings, and a broach.
4. Enormous purse.
5. Dog hand-puppets still an option.

Marlene Dietrich

When Marlene Dietrich wore a top hat and tails in Morocco (1930), she created one of the iconic images of the 20th century.

What you need:

1. Black tailcoat suit (or a tailcoat and black pants).
2. White tie, shirt, cumberbund, and pocket hankie.
3. Top hat (you can get a plastic one at a party store).
4. Cigarette or a cigarette holder.
5. Wavy blond hair or wig.

Frida Kahlo

Frida Kahlo’s personal style was as distinctive as her paintings. She combined traditional Mexican textiles with elaborate hairstyles and eclectic jewelry to create a remarkable look.

What you need:

1. Flowers in your hair, preferably red, pink, or both. You can also weave in brightly colored ribbons and do elaborate braids, if you like.
2. A peasant-style blouse. A Mexican embroidered blouse is ideal.
3. A long, full skirt. Ruffles are good. It shouldn’t match the blouse.
4. A shawl or rebozo.
5. Bold, chunky jewelry. Frida’s necklace of big jadeite beads is probably the most recognizable, but she wore other styles as well. Just make sure it’s bold. Wear big earrings, too.
6. Bonus points: unibrow and moustache, either natural or painted on.

Amelia Earhart or Bessie Coleman

There’s a new Amelia Earhart movie out, so there might be some suitable costumes in the stores. Otherwise you might have a little trouble running down an aviator hat and goggles. This site gives some tips on where to find the various pieces.

Earhart and Bessie Coleman were contemporaries, so you can use essentially the same costume for either one. Coleman was the first black woman to be licensed as a pilot; she was killed in an aircrash in 1926.

What you need:

1. Aviator hat.
2. Goggles.
3. Bomber jacket, ideally brown leather. For Coleman, you can do a World War I style Army jacket instead (if you can get one).
4. For Coleman, a white scarf wrapped around the neck. For Earhart, a white scarf or a man’s shirt and tie.
5. Jodphurs or slim-fitting pants.
6. Riding boots.

Coco Chanel

If you have a Chanel suit (or a lookalike), this one’s easy. You just need to accessorize with costume jewelry. A lot of costume jewelry.

What you need:

1. Chanel-style suit.
2. As many strands of fake pearls as you can fit on your neck, of various lengths. Chanel sometimes wore as many as six.
3. Broaches, bracelets, and earrings.
4. Scissors on a string around your neck (she always wore these at work).
5. A hat, ideally.
6. Optional: cigarette or cigarette holder.

Indira Gandhi

Love her or hate her, the Prime Minister of India was one of the most powerful women of the 20th century. And if you already have a sari, this one’s pretty easy.

What you need:

1. A sari.
2. Matching choli. Gandhi usually wore rather conservative cholis.
3. Temporary hair dye to create that characteristic shock of white.

Gandhi’s approach to makeup and jewelry was minimal: virtually no makeup, usually no earrings, and either one simple necklace or none at all.

Coincidentally, Indira Gandhi was assassinated on October 31, 1984.

Julia Child

As my friend SimplyWondered says, “kill them animals and fry ‘em up!”

What you need:

1. A blue shirt or blouse with the sleeves rolled up.
2. A chef-style blue denim apron with a dish towel tucked into the waist ties.
3. A round white badge, pinned to your blouse, that says “L’école des trois gourmandes” (the name of Julia’s cooking school).
4. A dark, slim skirt.
5. A big-ass butcher knife. Or a mallet. Or a rolling pin. Or a skillet.
6. Bonus points: a rubber chicken.

Billie Holiday

The picture at right is of the real Billie Holiday; the picture below is of Paula Patton dressed up as Billie Holiday for a Glamour magazine shoot. I’m including it because it’s such a gorgeous image, and much more detailed than any of the real photos of Billie Holiday. It really captures Lady Day’s glamour.

What you need:

1. A white gardenia in your hair. This is required.
2. A fabulous evening gown. The most iconic look is white satin, either strapless or halter-style, but Holiday wore a variety of styles and colors. It just has to be fabulous.
3. Fingerless elbow-length gloves, black or white. She often wore these to cover her track marks.
4. Elegant jewelry: pearl necklace, diamond earrings, that sort of thing.

If you don’t have an evening gown, you can try a dressy 40s style suit instead.

Janis Joplin

Hippie glamour!

What you need:

1. Lots of love beads.
2. More bangles than you thought could fit on a human arm.
3. Big round glasses.
4. Bell bottoms.
5. A tie-dye shirt, macrame vest, or other hippie garment.
6. A feather boa (you can get these at craft stores).
7. Long hair or a wig.
8. Optional: that weird fur hat thing she wore sometimes.
9. Bonus points: a bottle of Southern Comfort.

Yoko Ono

There are a million pictures of John and Yoko, but one of the most famous images is their wedding photo. They both dressed all in white. This is a pretty easy look to pull off, and if you have a boyfriend or husband who needs a matching outfit, you know what to do.

What you need:

1. A white miniskirt.
2. A white sweater or pullover.
3. White pantyhose.
4. White knee socks.
5. White tennis shoes.
6. A white hat with a big brim.
7. Long black hair or a wig.
8. Big black sunglasses.

Of course, there are lots of other ways to dress — or undress — as John and Yoko. Full nudity is good, though it may get you arrested. Or half nudity: your man can go starkers and you can wear a black sweater and dark pants, like on the cover of Rolling Stone. Or you can both wear pajamas and carry “Bed Peace” and “Hair Peace” signs. Lots of possibilities with John and Yoko.

Cyndi Lauper

The 80s, as my cousin once solemnly pronounced at a family reunion after hours of drinking, were The Greatest Decade Ever. And there is nothing — NOTHING! — more 80s than Cyndi Lauper.

What you need:

1. Multi-colored, asymmetrical hair.
2. Several full skirts of different colors. Ruffly is good.
3. A bustier, camisole, or tank top.
4. The biggest earrings in the world.
5. Colorful plastic jewelry: bangles, bracelets, necklaces, chains, etc.
6. Facepaint. Not makeup; facepaint.
7. Stockings and socks.
8. Combat boots.

Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Sandra Day O’Connor

If you have a black choir robe or graduation gown, you can rock this look. The only sartorial difference between the three justices is their choice of collar. Sandra Day O’Connor usually wore a lacy jabot, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg is most famous for a kind of crocheted Peter Pan thing (though she has also worn jabots). The first Supreme Court portrait of Sonia Sotomayor shows her wearing a lacy jabot very similar to what O’Connor usually wore.

Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Billy Jean King, etc…

If you have a tennis dress and a racket, you can go as pretty much any female tennis star of the past 50 years.

The same is true with other sports: if you have the uniform, just pick the famous athlete to match.

This can be especially useful in cold weather. If your Halloween party is an outdoor fete in International Falls, Minnesota, consider going as Iditarod champion Susan Butcher.

Isadora Duncan

Many of Isadora’s early costumes look like she rigged them up with sheets and ribbon. If it worked for her, it can work for you. Just imagine you’re going to a toga party.

And by the way, if you want to show some skin, you can definitely do it with Isadora. Some of her costumes, like the one at left, were literally transparent.

That’s a rhetorical question, of course. If you read my post yesterday about hate crimes (or even if you didn’t), you know why.

But the Richmond case provides an unusually clear-cut example of how violence against women, just because they’re women (as opposed to black/immigrant/Jewish/gay women), is considered normal. Why? Because it was in this very same town last year that the gang rape of a gay woman was prosecuted as a hate crime.

The facts of that earlier case: On December 13, 2008, a 28-year-old lesbian was gang-raped by four men in Richmond, California. The four men, who were aged 31, 21, 16, and 15, assaulted the woman as she was leaving her car. They raped her multiple times over the course of 45 minutes, robbed her, left her naked outside an abandoned building, and drove off in her car. What made it a hate crime in the eyes of law enforcement? The woman had a rainbow gay pride sticker on her car, and, according to police, the rapists taunted her for being a lesbian.

This latest gang rape case is similar: same town, same crime, even the same police officer investigating (Lt. Mark Gagan). Rape, kidnapping, robbery, abandonment of the victim outside. There’s no gay pride sticker this time, but we do have a two-hour spectacle with multiple bystanders taking pictures and even joining in. Sure sounds like a hate crime to me. But then, I’m a woman.

It’s weird, isn’t it? How invisible misogyny is, I mean. The lesbian gang rape was a hate crime, no question. But the men who gang-raped that girl Saturday night were just as full of hatred for womankind, just as full of determination to degrade a random member of a hated group, as those other guys were full of hatred for lesbians. In fact, the whole thing almost has the flavor of a lynching about it, what with the spectators and the jocularity.

I understand that the Richmond D.A. is looking for ways to charge the bystanders who watched the gang rape and didn’t report it. Perhaps she might look into the California hate crime statute. Just a thought.

The big news today on the progress-of-civilization front is that President Obama has signed the new hate crimes bill into law. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands federal law to cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

Yes, gender really is on the list; it really is included. If you’re like me, you might feel compelled to check the language of the bill to make sure, since there seems to be a near-blackout in the media on that aspect of the legislation. “Gay hate crimes bill,” the papers are calling it; news articles re-tell the tragic story of Matthew Shepard; gay rights groups are quoted for their reactions to this historic moment. In his remarks at the signing ceremony, President Obama mentioned the thousands of hate crimes that have been committed against gays and lesbians, and talked about having the freedom to walk down the street hand-in-hand with the person you love. No word at all on violence against women.

Even the New York Times, our so-called paper of record, led off with this:

President Obama signed a hate crimes bill into law on Wednesday, telling an audience at the White House that the provision would “strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth.”

The law expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation. Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.

The Times article doesn’t mention gender at all.

So you can see why I started to get a little nervous today, wondering if somehow “gender” had actually been removed from the final bill. Christ, I thought, did they just take it out?

No; as far as I can tell, it’s still in there. The language of the bill doesn’t appear to have changed since it was introduced in the Senate, and the Anti-Defamation League’s handy little summary on the bill’s provisions is unequivocal. So, gender is in!

But here’s the real question: will it matter?

The problem, as I’m sure you already know if you’re reading this blog, is that there is an overwhelming bias against acknowledging that hate crimes against women even exist. Male violence against women — battery, assault, rape, murder — is so pervasive, so interwoven into the very fabric of patriarchal society, that people resist seeing it for what it is. Hey, that’s not some freaky exotic hate crime! protests the confused patriarchal tool. That’s just life!

This is why states have been so slow to include gender as a hate-crime category. And it’s why, even in those states that do include gender, very few cases are prosecuted. California, for example, has gender hate crime on the books, but largely ignores gender as a criterion in its front-line law enforcement policies and training materials. In Massachusetts, the Attorney General’s office ruled that “gender-based hate crimes require at least two previous restraining orders issued to protect two different domestic partners,” a measure that seems clearly designed to protect normal male hatred of women as, well, normal.

Even when the crime in question is unmistakably an act of hatred towards women-as-a-group, people simply refuse to make the call. George Sodini: dude fills up page after page in his diary with misogynistic ranting, spells out in no uncertain terms his burning resentment of womankind, and sprays 50 bullets at random into a room full of strangers. And the papers call him “unlucky in love.”

Which is not to say, of course, that all male violence against women constitutes a hate crime. Where to draw the line, though, is an interesting question. The usual approach is to argue that most male-on-female violence will not make the cut. For example, the ADL is all about reassurance that the status quo will endure:

After studying the statutes in which gender is included, ADL came to the conclusion that the inclusion of gender has not overwhelmed the reporting system, nor has it distracted the criminal justice system from vigorous action against traditional hate-based crimes…It is also important to realize that there has not been an overwhelming number of gender-based crimes reported as an extension of domestic violence and rape cases.

As if that’s a good thing.

Feminists tend to take a more expansive view of the possibilities. Kathy Rodgers of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund addressed this back in 1998, when Congress was considering an earlier version of the hate crimes bill (yeah, it’s been a long time coming). In her testimony at a Congressional hearing, Rodgers gave some examples of what might constitute a hate crime against women:

The following are a few examples of gender-based bias crimes for which federal authority under Section 245 might provide criminal redress:

• A woman was battered by her husband for many years. He had battered his former wife and former girlfriends as well. He refused to allow his wife to work, stating that women belong in the home and that he wouldn’t tolerate his wife working. She went to the police on numerous occasions, but they responded in only a perfunctory way because they were good friends with her husband. They repeatedly declined to arrest him even when she called the police after he violated the restraining orders she had obtained.
• A serial rapist was accused of raping several women. The crimes were characterized by extreme violence and mutilation of the women’s genitals. He fled the state once he learned the local police had identified him as a suspect.
• A woman alleged that she was gang raped by several men who uttered gender-based epithets such as ”bitch” and ”whore” as they raped her. They apparently were in town visiting a friend. Local law enforcement officials said they could not prosecute them because they lived out of state.
• A woman was sexually assaulted by another passenger while she was riding on a train from Florida to New York. During the assault, he berated her, told her that she was getting what she deserved for traveling alone as a woman, and that should be at home raising her children. She had no idea which state the train was passing through at the time of the assault. The Florida and New York police apologetically said they could not prosecute as a result.
• In a brutal gang rape case pending under the Violence Against Women Act civil rights provision, two male students allegedly repeatedly raped a female student. One of the perpetrators latter bragged that he liked to get women drunk and sexually assault them.

YEAH!

Obviously, though, our legal culture is a long ways from interpreting any of these things as hate crimes. Still: the law is in place. As of today, the law is officially on the books and on our side.

Maybe we can do something with it.

The College of William and Mary crowns its first transgender homecoming queen:

Jessee Vasold ’11 made history at the College of William and Mary Wednesday when ze was announced as the school’s first transgender homecoming queen, representing the Class of 2011.

Vasold identifies as gender-queer and prefers to be referred to with gender neutral pronouns: “ze” in place of he or she and “zir” rather than him or her. Vasold has also created a Facebook account for a female identity, Kathy Middlesex.

Anybody wanna take a guess on how long it took to explain to my mother that Vasold is not biologically female?

I’m too pissed off about this to write a proper post, so this is gonna be kind of a connect-the-dots type thing. A few quotes and links, some pictures, possibly arrows.

Here we go:

If you’re a sentient adult female in this country, you probably know that “breast cancer awareness” is a pink sewer hole of foul commercialization. If you don’t know this (possibly because you’re new to sentience, or because you’ve somehow managed to get through life without ever coming within hurling distance of the Susan G. Komen Foundation), read The Artist Formerly Known As Twisty Faster for background:

• Just when you thought it was safe
• Pink: Hell Trembles at the Hideous Name
• Breast Cancer Awareness Month Finally Over: Retailers Descend Into Funk

As TAFKATF noted pithily in that last-linked post (emphasis mine):

My fucking problem is not that a few girls got a pink rose and a “mini-manicure,” or even that some well-meaning beautician thinks dipping cancer patients in paraffin is a good idea. My fucking problem is what these things represent: that breast cancer has been turned into a cult of überfemininity.

And now the next, inevitable stage in the evolution of the cult has arrived: pornification! Mais bien sûr. It’s the key component of modern American gender construction, the fabric of our lives, the thing without which none of us could function or dress ourselves in the morning or even know what sex we are. It’s our fucking North Star. Can’t make a cult of femininity without porn, man. Bricks without straw.

Well thank fucking god, the Good Ship Porn has docked.

As detailed in this horrifying post from some blog I’ve never heard of, “breast cancer awareness” is now basically just “breast awareness.” It’s an excuse for strip shows and porn sites and T-shirts that encourage men to look at women’s boobs instead of their faces. I suppose there’s a buck for cancer research somewhere at the bottom of that barrel, but jesus christ. What’s next, “Tricking for the Cure”?

You have to go read the whole post, but here are some of the ads and pictures:

I salute the author of the post (whoever she/he is — no byline is in evidence) for pulling together the exhibit, but I wonder at her/his weird optimism as to the location and velocity of this particular shit train. The mysterious author writes that “we can only hope this trend won’t go full-PETA, using overt sexuality to advance one cause at the expense of another.”

Knock me over with a Wonder bra, but I think that fucker has already gone full-PETA.

There was a good article in Sunday’s Guardian about the economic meltdown in California. I was distracted, however, by a paragraph halfway through, and for reasons unconnected to the ostensible topic at hand. The scene is the little town of Mendota in California’s Central Valley:

Outside, in a shop that Riofrio’s grandfather built, groups of unemployed men play pool for 25 cents a game. Near every one of the town’s liquor stores others lie slumped on the pavements, drinking their sorrows away.

Groups of unemployed men. Notice that there aren’t any groups of unemployed women lounging around, shooting pool for 25 cents a game, drinking themselves blind.

The image caught my attention because it’s so familiar. That’s what poverty and unemployment look like all over the world, whether it’s a dusty village in Kenya or a shanty town in Haiti, a post-Communist slum in Albania or a remote hamlet in Mongolia. Groups of unemployed men. Hanging around, nothing to do, just whiling away the useless hours with booze and bullshit.

Where are all the women?

They’re out working their butts off, that’s where they are. They’re too goddamn busy to drink or play pool. They’re washing and cooking, scrubbing and scrambling, trying to feed the baby and watch the kids and get something, anything, on the table for dinner. They’re doing laundry or feeding chickens or digging in the ground for potatoes or mending clothes or doing some goddamn thing. Always, every day, hour after hour, without fail. Ain’t no such thing in this world as an “unemployed” poor woman.

That’s what I think of whenever I read about some benighted place where the men are dejected and hopeless because there aren’t any paying jobs. “We have no work,” the dudes sigh poignantly to the male reporter. Meanwhile the women in the town are too busy working to even sit down.

A reader sent me this story from the U.K.: Transsexual prisoner wins right to be in female prison. That’s from the Torygraph — right-wing, I know, but at least it’s preferable to the sleazy red tops. Cliff Notes version:

The prisoner, who cannot be identified, won a human rights battle against Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, that keeping her in a male prison was a violation.

Lawyers for the 27-year-old inmate, who is still at the preoperative stage, described her as a “woman trapped inside a man’s body” and argued keeping her among men was preventing her from having a full sex change.

…

The killer, known as “A”, is currently serving life for the manslaughter of a boyfriend and the attempted rape of a female shop assistant, both committed while she was man.

Although born a man, she had been undergoing the process of gender reassignment, and in 2006 was granted a certificate under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which required her to be recognised as a woman “for all purposes”.

Her birth certificate has been changed to say she is a female, while hair on her face and legs has been permanently removed by laser and she has developed breasts after hormone treatment.

She is allowed to shower in private, launder her female clothing herself and has access to cosmetics.

However, she was forbidden from wearing skirts or blouses, or more than “subtle” make-up, at the men’s prison where she was being held on a “vulnerable prisoners” wing.

The court heard that in order to complete her change to full womanhood, she must live for a time as a woman and that could only be achieved if she was moved to a female jail.

…

She was originally convicted of manslaughter in 2001 and jailed for five years after smothering her boyfriend with a pillow and strangling him with a pair of tights.

She says that, although at first accepting of her gender dysphoria, he moved to hostility when she became increasingly feminised and she lost control after a row.

Less than a week after her release on license two years later, “A” attacked a shop assistant, forcing her into a back room, tied her up with a suspender belt and tried to rape her.

She was given a life sentence for that offence under a “two strikes” system following the manslaughter conviction.

Her legal team said the attempted rape was closely linked to her obsession with becoming a woman and her intense frustration at the authorities’ refusal to help her qualify for full gender reassignment surgery.

In July 2007, the Parole Board refused her release because “the risk to life and limb” were too high.

Phillipa Kaufman, A’s barrister, said: “So long as she stays in the male estate, she has no hope of realising her desire to become fully a woman.

“There is absolutely no security reason why she should be kept where she is. If she remains in the male estate, she is looking at the bleakest future in terms of what matters to her.

“What she would have in the female estate is hope; hope that she will be able to live in role and persuade her doctors that she should have gender reassignment surgery.”

Huh. So, what do we think about this?

My initial reaction is that the only real stumbling block here is the attempted rape. Take that away, and what you have is a male-to-female transgender woman who killed her boyfriend. For all intents and purposes, she’s living life as a woman. (She even has a certificate!) Women’s prison seems to make sense.

The attempted rape, though, is…troubling. Yeah, I think I’ll go with “troubling.” The prisoner is in jail for the attempted rape of a woman. She’s a rapist — a rapist with a penis. And she still has that penis. The Torygraph says the attempted rape occurred “while she was a man,” but reading carefully, it’s clear that she was already identifying as a woman at the time. All that’s changed since then is that she’s had more hormone treatments and gotten that certificate. But she was a self-identified woman-with-a-penis at the time of the attempted rape, and that’s what she is today.

Now, as a general rule, people with penises are excluded from women’s prisons because of the risk of rape. And this prisoner is, undoubtedly, a would-be rapist. With a penis.

On the other hand! Isn’t there such a thing as lesbian rape? Yes, there is. There are women who rape other women (with objects or whatever). And isn’t it entirely possible, even likely, that there are some women already in the women’s prison who fit this bill? Yes, I’d say so.

This is a weird case. I’m no expert on trans issues, and until now I don’t know that I’ve ever even considered a possibility like this. What do people think?

***

Update: Here’s the story in the Grundian as well. Looks like it’s also being picked up by the AP, so perhaps soon we’ll have our own trashy American coverage.

***

Update again! Now this is interesting: someone just emailed me this BBC story from 2003. Apparently this is prisoner A, as reported at the time of the attempted rape:

Transsexual jailed for rape attempt

A transsexual who said he tried to rape a woman so he could go to prison and have a sex change operation has been jailed for life.

Karen Louise Lawson - who used to be called Mark John Jones - committed the attack in a transsexuals’ shop in Greater Manchester.

Bolton Crown Court heard the 21-year-old, of no fixed abode, had only stopped his assault when he failed to get an erection.

Lawson, who pleaded guilty to attempted rape, was jailed for life by the judge, who ruled his second violent crime was not an exceptional case.

He had committed the attempted rape just days after being freed on licence after serving half of a five-year sentence for manslaughter in a male young offenders institution.

In 2001, when he was aged 18, he had admitted strangling his former lover when he refused to pay for Lawson’s sex change operation.

During the recent case, the jury was told Lawson had gone into Transformations, in Prestwich, in October 2002 and attacked a woman.

He tried to rape her but was unable to get an erection.

Lawson then went on the run but handed himself in to police in Bexleyheath, Kent, later that month.

Judge Derwent Hope, sentencing him to life in prison, said his victim had told police she feared for her life during the attack.

He told Lawson, who was referred to as she throughout the hearing: “Until you have full and proper treatment, I consider you to be potentially an extremely serious risk to any member of the public you associate with, a risk that could easily lead to that person’s death.”

Judge Hope also said Lawson’s name would be put on to the sex offenders’ register for the rest of his life.

A decision on when he would be suitable for parole would be left to the Home Secretary, he added.

I must say, this changes my assessment somewhat. The person is unstable and dangerous, but I would not call him/her a “would-be rapist” as one might normally use that term to refer to a man.

It’s official! The healthcare debate is now a genuine, certified, pharmaceutical-grade clusterfuck. I’m going to write another post about the deep currents at work in this mess, but in the meantime, here are a few quick hits:

• Jamison Foser blames the media for the current morass of misinformation:

  When you see people yelling, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” that’s a pretty good indication that the public could use some solid facts. How many people do you think know that health care reform with a strong public option would cost taxpayers less than a plan without such an option? I would bet that a distressingly large number of members of Congress don’t know that — and that very, very few voters do.

  People are understandably confused and unfamiliar with the facts — there are an awful lot of people spending an awful lot of money to confuse them and keep them in the dark. And they don’t have the time or the resources to sort through it all and find out whether reform would mean that a government bureaucrat is really going to show up at their door and tell them it’s time to die in order to save taxpayers money. (No: That would not happen.)

  Wouldn’t it be amazing if the news media actually explained all these confusing facts and issues to people, instead of just running videos of fistfights and reporting the President’s approval numbers? Christ, it would be like living in a different country.

• The lid has been blown on Obama’s secret deal with Big Pharma (doubtless one of many, many secret deals in this whole mess): the White House promised that healthcare reform would specifically exclude any option for Medicare to negotiate lower prices on prescriptions or import cheaper drugs from Canada.

  Yes, the media is partially to blame for the healthcare clusterfuck, but not entirely. Not even mostly. Obama himself has run this thing into the ground with rookie mistakes, including keeping secrets from his own damn party.

  You know, there’s something to be said for electing political veterans with experience in shepherding complex legislation through Congress. LBJ was that kind of president, and Hillary would have been as well. Obama? Very good at speeches, astroturfing, and making sure everything is printed in Gotham font. Actual government? Not so much.

• In a meeting on healthcare reform, Rahm Emanuel calls progressive Democrats “fucking stupid” for advocating, uh, healthcare reform.

  Okay, you know what I just said about rookie mistakes and thinking you’re still on the campaign trail? Times a billion, dude. Times a billion.

  Jane Hamsher gives the lowdown:

  On Tuesday, Common Purpose held its weekly meeting where lobbyist Erik Smith and a comm person from the White House tell liberal interest groups what they should be saying that week. Then if anyone gets out of line, they kick their asses. Along with Unity 09 and the 8:45 am call, they exist to form a solid left flank and keep the White House immune from liberal criticism. I like to call them collectively “the veal pen.”

  …Rahm unleashed a tirade on them all, telling them that they were going to fuck up the Democrats if we “failed” to pass any old health care bill (which appears now to be the health insurance industry approved co-ops). But I doubt you’ll hear any of them confirming that the White House hasn’t pressured them to stop their attacks on Democrats any time soon, because it came in the form of a flying shit fit at top volume with four-letter verbiage liberally applied.

  Here’s a thought, Rahm: fuck you.

• It looks like Sarah Palin is going to align herself with the Pat Buchanan, Michele Bachmann wing of the GOP. A thousand sighs for anyone who ever hoped she might be nudged a little more to the left.

  The TNR piece on Palin is good except for one sentence, which tripped me up like that ottoman Dick Van Dyke used to stumble over at the top of every show: “Palin and Bachmann remind no one of Hillary Clinton in their success in grasping complex policy issues, or in their desire to do so.” Huh? Why would they remind anyone of Hillary? Oh, right: it’s because they’re women and that’s the most important thing about them and it’s impossible for men to write about them as simply politicians. No, they’re women politicians and so must always be compared to other women politicians. It’s like comparing every black politician in the world to Alan Keyes.

  (By the way: anyone who thinks Palin’s stance on healthcare is uniquely Palinesque, shall we say, is mistaken. She’s a conservative, and her rhetoric is completely in line with the kind of paranoia conservatives have been dealing in all along.)

~

And in other news: on the hate-crime-that-liberal-dudes-don’t-consider-a-hate-crime front, Bob Herbert gets it. He seems to be the only one.

Pages and pages of hate-filled ranting against women. Fifty bullets sprayed into a crowd of female strangers. Three women dead, nine wounded.

Clearly a hate crime against women, right? Not if you’re Markos Moulitsas or Greg Mitchell or this dude. If you’re one of these guys, “hate crime against women” doesn’t even quite make sense. Hate crimes are serious and important, by definition; but shooting up bitches is just life, man. If you’re one of these guys, what you do is pore through the pages and pages of George Sodini’s hate rants against women, your eyes glazing over as you look for something important, until you finally light on the one paragraph that refers to black men and President Obama. Aha! Now that’s important.

Clearly, opine the dudes, this was a racist crime. The misogynistic screeds? The random shooting of a bunch of women? The dead bodies on the floor, the lives broken? Not about women at all. It was really an expression of Sodini’s resentment of black men. In other words, something important.

In the thread here yesterday, Esther said:

I remember reading a comment elsewhere saying that to this guy, as to others (though not all), women existed as a “form of consumption”. They aren’t real people with their own dreams, interests, strengths and flaws, hobbies and jobs, families and friends… they exist to “be consumed by men”.

There are degrees of that, Esther. There are degrees.