feminist blogs

Glenn Greenwald, writing a week or two ago:

In the past two weeks, the following events transpired. A Department of Justice memo, authored by John Yoo, was released which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. It was revealed that the Bush administration declared the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be inapplicable to “domestic military operations” within the U.S. The U.S. Attorney General appears to have fabricated a key event leading to the 9/11 attacks and made patently false statements about surveillance laws and related lawsuits. Barack Obama went bowling in Pennsylvania and had a low score.

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

“Yoo and torture” - 102

“Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73

“Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16

“Obama and bowling” — 1,043

“Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

“Obama and patriotism” - 1,607

“Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079

And as Eric Boehlert documents, even Iraq — that little five-year U.S. occupation with no end in sight — has been virtually written out of the media narrative in favor of mindless, stupid, vapid chatter of the type referenced above.

Via Kate at Shakesville (and pointed out to me by Bean):

The video is in two rough halves: the first half is a montage of anti-Clinton misogyny in the mainstream media (although you can find the same thing from some so-called progressives). The second half is a loving montage of Clinton pics (I love the black and white pic with striped pants) set to a really cool pop song.

The open misogyny displayed towards Clinton by media figures is, simply, disgusting. As Judith Hope said:

You know, no matter who your favorite candidate for president may be, can American women continue to look the other way while the national media spews such sexist contempt? If we learn nothing else from this long Democratic primary season, we now know this: It is still ‘open season’ on American women.

But there’s one element that keeps me from endorsing this video wholeheartedly; the videomaker includes Keith Olbermann bashing Clinton for not distancing herself from Geraldine Ferraro’s infamous comments. For all I know Olbermann is a sexist asshat (I don’t watch his show), but his Ferraro comments are anti-racist, not misogynist. Including anti-racism within a montage of vile misogynist crap, as if the two were interchangable or in any way comparable, is offensive.

P.S. Check out this recent Media Matters column reporting more misogyny on parade, this time from the delightfully fair and balanced, not at all biased people at Fox. curtsy: Chet at Shakesville.

Vivian Stringer is the head coach of the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, so many of you may have heard her name in the wake of Don Imus’s racist and sexist comments.  However, her story and her influence as a pioneering woman extends well beyond the Imus controversy.  She has an amazing biography, and she is undoubtably a pioneering African American woman.  Her influence as a role model extends well beyond her coaching background, as revealed in the press surrounding the book:

 A gifted athlete, she had to fight for a place on an all-white cheerleading squad in the sixties. In 1981, just as her coaching career was taking off, her fourteen-month-old daughter, Nina, was stricken with spinal meningitis. Nina would never walk or talk again. Still grieving, Stringer brought a small, poor, historically black college to the national championships—a triumph hailed as “Hoosiers with an all-female cast.” In 1991, her husband, Bill—her staunchest supporter, the father of her children, and the love of her life—fell dead of a sudden heartattack, but that same year, she led yet another young team to the Final Four. Through these dark times and others—including her bout with cancer, shared here for the first time—Stringer has carried her burdens with grace. Given her history, it was no surprise that she led her team to respond to Don Imus’s slurs with dignity and courage.

Standing Tall is a story of quiet strength in the face of punishing odds. Above all, it is an extraordinary love story—love for the game, for the players she has coached, for her close-knit family, and for the husband she lost far too soon. It will resonate long after the last page.

Stringer releases her autobiography today and I encourage everyone to check it out.  It’s often that I put up stories about the mistreatment of black women in the US, so it is nice to have an occasion to celebrate some one who helps challenge those images of black women.

Update: Here is an interview I heard with her today.

Here’s the contact information via Media Matters:

Bill O’Reilly
oreilly@foxnews.com

Fox News Radio
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Email: foxnewsradio@foxnews.com

The Radio Factor
Westwood One
Bart Tessler
Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming
202.457.7998

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

If you missed last night’s Super Bowl, you missed a great game. I’ve gotten out of the habit of following sports since I moved to the east coast and could no longer follow my (original) home teams, but a few weeks ago, I decided to watch the NFL Conference championship between the Green Bay Packers and the New York Giants. What attracted me to that game was the weather. It was held outdoors in below zero degree temperatures, and I wanted to see how they were going to play in those inclement conditions. That game was great, and of course, I was rooting for the underdog New York Giants, not because I live in New York, but because I enjoy a comeback story.

Given the excitement of the Conference Championship game, I was looking forward to the Super Bowl. Again, I was routing for the underdog Giants. I used to like the Patriots, but there is something very unsettling about the win at any cost attitude that has driven the Patriots success over the past few years. The Patriots are cheaters (or at the very least, folks who are willing to bend the rules). They spied on other teams practices to steal signals, and the NFL punished them with the loss of a draft pick, a team fine of $250,000, and a fine of a half million dollars for the coach. The Patriots were also undefeated and favored to win by almost two touchdowns.

The game didn’t disappoint. It was exciting and culminated with a game winning, touchdown drive by the Giants in the remaining two and a half minutes. The Giants were known for coming from behind and winning on the road, and they appeared to revel in the underdog position. They also emphasized team play over star power, and the often ignored defense was the primary difference in the game. To me this win was a victory for sportsmanship.

Since I was hyped-up from the game and couldn’t sleep, my mind started wondering to of all thing–politics. I realized that the parallels between politics and sports are numerous. Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, which is the Conference Championship of Presidential politics. On the eve of the contest, I figured a I’d share a few of my thoughts about Presidential politics and sports, focusing on the contradictory values that influence the ways Americans views sports and politics.

Religion

One of the more hilarious and dangerous commonalities with politicians and athletes is that they seem to think God is on their side. They pray before the contest, and thank God and Jesus after it. How many times have you heard people say, “Without God, this would not be possible?” I have a really hard time believing the God has a favorite sports team or politician. Do people lose because God is against them?

Underdog’s

The underdog is big in sports, and while I think it’s a little less popular in politics, it is still there. There is the old saying “throw the bums out,” but at the same time, most of us love the bums we elect. For example, right now the favorable rating for Congress is very low, but when you ask people about their own Congressperson, they are much more favorable. We are also willing to tolerate much more inappropriate behavior from our own bums than from other folks bums. Nevertheless, there are times, when we do want the underdog to get ahead. If the underdog makes us feel good about ourselves, if the underdog symbolizes change, if the underdog beats incredible odds to make it to the top, or if the underdog reaffirms our belief in the inherent fairness of the system, then the underdog can become a fan favorite. The problem with this is that every side has a few skeletons in their closets, and we often overestimate the extent to which the individual politician or team is really going to change the system.

Cheating and Dirty Tricks

Some people want to win at any cost. They smear their opponents; they lie, cheat; and steal. I’m not cynical enough to believe that everybody does this, but I am realistic enough to know that it is common place. My concern is that when we become too cynical we are all to willing to accept lying, cheating, and stealing as an acceptable part of competition.

Experience vs. New Blood

As a culture, Americans love both experience and new blood. During the Super Bowl, the announcers informed us every time a rookie made a great play. We also got to hear about the deserving veterans, who finally got their shot at victory. In politics, we have a love hate relationship with veterans. The career politician is loathed, and re-elected over and over because of name recognition and the power of incumbency. New blood politicians are treated a little better than rookies in the sporting arena. Many people associate new blood with lack of corruption, which is probably naive given the nature of campaigning and fund raising.

The Comeback Story

Rather than giving the comeback story too much time–I’ll refer to the discussions about Experience vs. New Blood and Underdogs. It seems that comeback stories combine both of these two sets of values.

Social Inequality

I think most people want to believe that just about everyone has a fair shot to make it sports and politics, and our level of denial about the realities of social inequalities (in particular those of race, class, gender, religion, disability, and sexuality) is almost humorous. This gets particularly absurd with race. In sports and politics, we can’t even talk about racism without somebody trying to shut down the discussion. You didn’t have to follow the Super Bowl closely to notice that both the quarterbacks were the classic white guy quarterbacks, both the coaches were classic white guy coaches, the defensive backs for both teams were all black, the offensive lines were nearly all white, and the defensive lines were nearly all black. I’m sure somebody is going to be mad at me for pointing this out. The person, who I anger, is going to note the exceptions to these patterns, and tell me to lighten up. The same is true for politics. We’re supposed to believe that two people Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prove that we are somehow above racism and sexism. Rather than clinging to the reality of politics where white, heterosexual, Christian, guys with money run the show, we are supposed to focus on the exceptions. What’s also funny is that if you really want to add nuance to the discussion by pointing out both Obama and Clinton are only disadvantaged on one of these forms of social inequality, many folks play dumb and can’t get it. Instead, we’re supposed to deny, deny, deny–”the system is fair and if we worked hard enough we all have the same chance. Don’t rain on our parade by telling us other wise.”

Bringing It All Together

The irony of these values is that they often conflict with each other, and many folks are content with this, partly because they are wearing blinders and partly because many of our social norms require us to hold contradictory beliefs. I’m sure my own glee over the Giants wins is full of contradictions. Now, that the underdogs are on top, and I’m going to have to find another team that makes me feel that sports are fair.

Like most people I want to believe in meritocracy, even though I know it takes a lot more than merit to make it to the top. Even though I know that competition can bring out the worst in people, I want to believe that the “good guys” win in the end. Even the division of people into “good guys” and “bad guys” reflects an unrealistic dichotomy, but one that most of us use as a lens to view society. Nothing should remind people more of this sports and politics.

From CNN’s website:

Within minutes of posting a story on CNN’s homepage called “Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in South Carolina,” readers reacted quickly and angrily. […] Many took umbrage at the story’s suggestion that black women voters face “a unique, and most unexpected dilemma” about voting their race or their gender.

CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American. […]

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”

Another CNN reader pointed out that (since the media has written off John Edwards) white men also are, by CNN’s standards, choosing between voting their sex or voting their race. Yet, mysteriously, CNN isn’t writing stories about that.

(Curtsy: The Debate Link)

Jim Lobe points out that “strong supporter of Israel” is too often used by the press as shorthand for “extreme right-wing views on Israel.” For instance, the Washington Post referred to the founders of “Freedom’s Watch” as “strong supporters of Israel.”

I don’t doubt that the group’s donors consider themselves “strong supporters of Israel”, but what precisely is meant by that? If the phrase means supporters of the government of Israel, then it is inaccurate, because the positions of Adelson and other Watch donors on such key questions as Jerusalem, the West Bank — indeed, any territorial compromise — even Annapolis and a two-state solution, are well to the right of the current Israeli government. In fact, Adelson, like most RJC heavyweights, are strong supporters of former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party which, the last time I checked, constituted the government’s chief political opposition and is maneuvering to bring it down. So, if they oppose the current government of Israel, in what way are they “strong supporters of Israel?”

This kind of journalistic shorthand — associating neo-conservatives and their organizations like the RJC and Freedom’s Watch — with being ‘’pro-Israel’’ or “strong supporters of Israel” — is unfortunately pervasive in the mainstream media. It is not only inaccurate; it is also dangerous. It […] puts those individuals or organizations — particularly in the American Jewish community — that are very concerned about Israel but that believe that the neo-conservatives have actually undermined the country’s security in a kind of political limbo. After all, if Adelson, Freedom’s Watch, and the RJC are considered “pro-Israel” or “strong supporters of Israel,” what does that make Americans for Peace Now or the Israel Policy Forum, both of which consider themselves “pro-Israel” and “strong supporters of Israel” but also believe, contrary to hard-line neo-conservatives, that a two-state solution with major territorial compromises that include East Jerusalem are the only way to ensure Israel’s security and long-term survival?

This kind of lazy journalistic labeling has very real and very unfortunate political consequences.

I’d take issue with the “best interests at heart” phrase, which gets into motives. I do think it’s true, however, that calling right-wing policies “pro-Israel” implies that these policies are good for Israel, which is a partisan opinion that many would disagree with. The mainstream media should find a more neutral term to use.

The latest Disability Blog Carnival is up at [with]tv where Connie Kuusisto (also blogging at Planet of the Blind) has compiled a collection of links on “Disability in the Media.” Check it out! 

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade

The story of Katie Jones has been circulating slowly on disability listservs and blogs since the December 9 article in the Chicago Tribune. FRIDA provided an early link to the story, and since then Crip Chick, Shiva, Bint, Trinity, Brownfemipower have all addressed aspects of Katie’s story and the larger issues. Comments everywhere have been… illuminating.

I haven’t written about this before now because these sorts of articles from the mainstream media — this one involving children, parental control of a child’s well-being, disability prejudice, personhood and consciousness, health care in the U.S., living with the aid of machines, “special needs” schooling, and “right-to-die” versus the right to not be coerced to die — contain so much information that is either misleading, incomplete or biased that I can’t think where to begin.

Katie Jones is a second-grader in Lake County, Illinois, who has severe cerebral palsy and whose parents have sent her to school with a DNR order (Do Not Resuscitate) prominently attached to the back of her wheelchair. Taking that much at face value, the implications for Katie, her parents, her young classmates and school employees are complex and profound.

Add to that some mind-boggling facts about both the case and the media coverage of it: The Tribune article portrays cerebral palsy as a terminal disease, and while I’m not well-versed on the very wide range of abilities and medical issues people with CP possess, none of the many people I have known personally have ever been about to drop dead. So that portrayal is dangerously and cruelly incomplete. The Tribune article doesn’t discuss the fact that Katie apparently does communicate thoughts and feelings beyond those independently interpreted by people around her. You must dig to the caption of photo 4 at a sidebar link to even learn she is capable of expressing her feelings at will. And this, at the article’s end:

Before the bus arrived, Beth Jones weaved a French braid into the school girl’s long brown hair, while Allie [Katie’s four-year-old sister] held up a feeding tube. A machine could do the job, but that makes group hugs difficult.

Besides, anything that beeps isn’t allowed in the Jones house.

“When we took her home from the hospital, where there were so many machines, we made the no beeping rule,” Beth Jones said.

The group hug part is completely untrue. I’ve had a feeding tube for two years now, and I can say with absolute certainty that there is nothing about attaching a thin plastic tube to the end of it and running that tube to a machine that makes it hard to hug or be physically close to people. It’s actually less a problem for physical intimacy than an IV in the top of the hand would be, whether that IV is connected to a hanging bag or a machine. Feeding through the tube manually is a perfectly reasonable way to use the tube since basically this just entails using a giant syringe or holding the tube up and letting gravity allow nutrients to travel gently into the stomach, but attaching falsehood and phobia to machines that do this same task contributes to the pervasive ableist belief that people are better off dead than using medical technology for the long-term.

And the “no beeping rule”? There’s the real reason for the DNR right there. Better dead than using a machine that might make some noise.

I understand machines are scary. I get that because I’ve needed to make my own adjustments to them and also because I see it in peoples’ eyes every day. And I do understand people have different points at which they might choose not to live beyond, though I’ll add that there seems to be little reflection upon or respect given to the people who live quite happily beyond those points.

I’d like to hear much much more about the Jones’ “no beeping rule.” Is it because Katie is terrified of the beeping? Does the beeping represent an identifiable point beyond which Katie’s parents don’t feel they can handle her care? Or is the beeping too public? Too intrusive? Too medical? Why is an alarm that can signal a problem that should be addressed juxtaposed against the myth that without machines Katie will die “peacefully” from choking or suffocation? Why is this type of beeping so forbidden in our technological age where cellphones and dozens of other machines chirp at each of us all day long?

It’s not really the beeping, of course. And the answer to Trinity’s question:

Now why is [info that Katie shares thoughts via a communication device] tucked away in the photoshoot and not right there by the article, which is written in a way that suggests she is not aware what is happening?

seems to be that it didn’t seem relevant to the point of the article. Katie’s consciousness and feelings were not important in an article about whether or not she lives or dies and whether or not she gets to go to school in the meantime. What her thoughts about all this might possibly be is not once pondered in the article.

Further discussion can also be found at Wrong Planet, an online forum for people with Asperger’s Syndrome.

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade

Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) that led the protest against the NYU Child Study Center’s “Ransom Notes” ad campaign, announces:

I am pleased to inform you that this afternoon the NYU Child Study Center announced that they will be ending the “Ransom Notes” ad campaign in response to widespread public pressure from the disability community. You can read that announcement here (at the NYU Child Study Center’s website). The thousands of people with disabilities, family members, professionals and others who have written, called, e-mailed and signed our petition have been heard. Today is a historic day for the disability community. Furthermore, having spoken directly with Dr. Harold Koplewicz, Director of the NYU Child Study Center, I have obtained a commitment to pursue real dialogue in the creation of any further ad campaign depicting individuals with disabilities. We applaud the NYU Child Study Center for hearing the voice of the disability community and withdrawing the “Ransom Notes” ad campaign.

Twenty-two disability rights organizations came together to ensure the withdrawal of this advertising campaign. Our response to this campaign stretched continents, with e-mails, letters and phone calls coming from as far away as Israel, Britain and Australia. The disability community acted with a unity and decisiveness that has rarely been heard before and we are seeing the results of our strength today. Our success sends an inescapable message: if you wish to depict people with disabilities, you must consult us and seek our approval. Anything less will guarantee that we will make our voices heard. We are willing to help anyone and any group that seeks to raise awareness of disability issues, but those efforts must be done with us, not against us. This is a victory for inclusion, for respect and for the strength and unity of people with disabilities across the world. It is that message that has carried the day in our successful response to this campaign. Furthermore, we intend to build on this progress, not only by continuing a dialogue with the NYU Child Study Center and using this momentum to ensure self-advocate representation at other institutions as well, but also by building on the broad and powerful alliance that secured the withdrawal of these ads in the first place. We are strongest when we stand together, as a community, as a culture and as a people.

Thank you to all of you who have made this victory possible. Remember: “Nothing About Us, Without Us!”

It didn’t look promising at first. This past weekend the images of the ads at the Child Study Center’s website were briefly taken down, but they were back up when the New York Times Sunday coverage of the ads quoted Koplewicz as saying the Center was determined to “stick with it and ride out the storm” and even expand the campaign to four other cities soon.

Kristina Chew, PhD., who blogs at Autism Vox and was also quoted in the NYT article, has been providing relentless commentary, coverage and linkage to dozens of blogs writing about the ads. To follow those posts chronologically go here, here, here, here, here and here.

Or check out Furious Seasons where Philip Dawdy makes some interesting connections in noting that Koplewicz co-authored a study of Paxil for the pharmaceutical company Glaxo SmithKline that apparently exaggerated benefits and downplayed adverse effects in treating adolescent depression. Koplewicz is one of dozens of co-authors of that study, but Dawdy wrote earlier this year:

“Some very smart people have taken on many of the issues around Study 329 and Paxil/Seroxat and, based upon the evidence, I’d have to say that it’s fair to assert that none of us in the patient world should trust anyone who had a hand in the study (unless they want to suddenly recant the work) on absolutely anything they say about mental illness. At a minimum, we should be wildly skeptical of any claims they make.”

Dawdy hasn’t been the only one to speculate about what corporate interests might have connections to the Ransom Notes ad campaign. Many commenters to the NYT article wondered about possible pharmaceutical backing for the ads, though I’ve seen absolutely no direct evidence of this. It seems to have been yet another case of do-gooders offering a message that didn’t take into account the experiences and feelings of those they set out to help.

In the Center’s announcement of the end of the ad campaign, Koplewicz writes:

Though we meant well, we’ve come to realize that we unintentionally hurt and offended some people. We’ve read all the emails, both pro and con, listened to phone calls, and have spoken with many parents who are working day and night to get their children the help they need. We have decided to conclude this phase of our campaign today because the debate over the ads is taking away from the pressing day-to-day work we need to do to help children and their families. They are and remain our first concern.

Our goal was to start a national dialogue. Now that we have the public’s attention, we need your help. We would like to move forward and harness the energy that this campaign has generated to work together so that we do not lose one more day in the lives of these children. We hope you will partner with us to bring the issues surrounding child and adolescent mental health to the top of America’s agenda. Work with us as we fight to give children and their families equal access to health insurance, remove the stigma that the term “psychiatric disorder” so clearly still elicits, and, most importantly, support the drive to make research and science-based treatment a national priority.

We invite all of you to continue this conversation online at a “town hall” meeting that we will hold early next year as we plan the next phase of our national public awareness campaign on child mental health. Look for details on our web site www.AboutOurKids.org.

Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade