feminist blogs

Snooping at the passport records of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain by the government a private company contracted by the government is a big deal, but it's the kind of thing that some politicians are pushing to make easier and more widespread. How? With "Real ID" -- the national ID card program that, once upon a time, was the kind of thing that Republicans and Democrats opposed, but now is the greatest new Big Brother kool-ade flavor favored by Republican politicians and neoconservative "thinkers."

From Ars Technica, we get the quote of the week:

As I've reported previously, the major problem with Real ID is that local DMV and law enforcement officials will have access to an unprecedented amount of sensitive information on anyone with a Real ID—scanned copies of any documents used to establish identity, like birth certificates, bank statements, pay stubs, property tax bills, and so on, not to mention driving histories from other states. Now imagine all of that data in the hands of a crooked sheriff who's fighting off a reformist challenger in a hotly contested election. Do you really want to live in that world?

No.

And maybe we should add to the scenario Jon Stokes paints: private companies contracted by governments. After all, the passport breaches were not done by government employees, they were perpetrated by private individuals working for a private corporation.

In this day and age where our government "outsources" (read: privatizes) so much of its own business, from school lunches to prisons to heavily armed mercenaries in Iraq, where is the line drawn on privacy in a Real ID world?

Time was that this was a country of people free to live their own lives. Now we have a government that seems bent on controlling and tracking us in all we do, as though we were guilty until proven innocent.

The tipping point for this political agenda was 9/11, when foreign nationals already on CIA watch lists managed to sneak in and skyjack their way into murderous infamy. The Bush Administration, with general Republican enthusiasm, reacted by pushing for radical new powers to spy not on foreign threats, but on Americans -- none of whom had anything to do with 9/11.

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

-1984, by George Orwell (Chapter 1)

I liked Eliot Spitzer, I really did. And I can understand that lots of other people liked him too, and now they want to defend him. But are liberals serious arguing that “Spitzer did nothing wrong“?

The outrage over former New York governor Eliot Spitzer hiring an A-list hooker makes me feel like throwing a gigantic, crippling pile of superheavy biology and economics books at everyone in the United States and possibly the world. Are we still so Victorian in our thinking that we think it’s bad for somebody to pay large amounts of money for a few hours of skin-time with a professional? Have we not learned enough at this point about psychology and neuroscience to understand that a roll in the sheets is just a fun, chemical fizz for our brains and that it means nothing about ethics and morality?

Except that it does mean something about ethics and morality when it’s illegal and you’re a governor. And, while I don’t know the details of Spitzer’s marriage, I’m gonna guess that the majority if the time, it matters when you’re married. Call me old-fashioned, but I think when you make a commitment to someone, you honor it. Now, if Spitz and his wife had a deal where he could sleep with as many other people as he wanted, fine. But given the circumstances — specifically, chatter about Spitzer’s sexual requests, which reportedly included some condom-free activity, and the fact that he’s a prominent public figure for whom being caught meant total ruin — I have a hard time believing that his wife was a-ok with everything.

Plus, no, I don’t think we’re all on the same page that prostitution is totally morally acceptable, especially when the reality of sex work includes lots of women and girls who aren’t there voluntarily. Perhaps in theory, sex work isn’t problematic (although even that’s debatable). But in practice it often is. In Spitzer’s case, he was with a woman who was by all accounts there on her own volition. That’s great. While I have no problem with women who choose to go into sex work, I have to admit that I do have a problem with men who purchase sex. Perhaps that comment is going to get me attacked, but I’ll stick to it: I don’t think that it’s immoral or wrong to sell sex or to work in the sex industry. I do think that men who buy sex are committing a moral wrong. Sex work is not a morally clear issue, and no, we most certainly do not all agree that buying sex is nothing more than a fun roll in the sheets without any ethical or moral strings attached.

Of course, my moral opinions aren’t really the point. But even if we put that aside, Spitzer also may have committed a variety of financial improprieties in an effort to hide his sex work purchases, in addition to, you know, illegally purchasing sex. That’s definitely “wrong” in my book. And although I don’t think prostitution should be criminalized, I do think that the kinds of financial buggery Spitzer is accused of is rightly criminal. And as liberal people who expect a basic level of responsibility and ethical judgment in our leaders, I think we have to be just as hard on politicians we love as those we loathe. Which is why we have to be tough on Spitzer: Because he was wrong, legally and ethically. It was not simply a private matter. And when we cover our eyes and act like we don’t understand how anyone could possibly have a problem with what Spitzer did, we look like idiots.

A-ok in OK (click the photo to enlarge).

A court there has ruled that upskirt photos — taken without the (in this case, underage) victim’s consent — are perfectly legal. Because if you wear a skirt in public, you can’t expect perverts not to take pictures up it.

The story:

LOS ANGELES — UCLA Medical Center will fire some employees and discipline others for snooping at the confidential medical records of Britney Spears, who was hospitalized in its psychiatric ward, a hospital official told The Associated Press.

Jeri Simpson, the hospital’s director of human resources who was involved in the investigations of the confidentiality breach, confirmed the action but could not say how many employees were affected. The hospital did not say when the snooping took place or which of Spears records were looked at.

The Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site Friday that the breaches occurred during Spears most recent hospital stay. While the disciplined employees were unable to access her psychiatric records, they did look at non-psychiatric records from her previous visits to the medical center, the Times reported.

The headline?

Britney Spears Gets Hospital Workers Fired

Now, is it just me, or does that headline seem to imply that Spears was the one demanding that the employees lose their jobs? Because she’s an overentitled celebrity who crushes the little people wherever she goes. She’s an unreasonable diva, squashing those poor people who did nothing at all wrong! Clearly, it was a hissyfit!

Well, except for the part where Spears is* hospitalized, and these people were breaking medical privacy laws (HIPAA, anyone?) by snooping in her medical records, even if — as far as anyone knows — the information in them hasn’t been leaked to the press. Luckily, they couldn’t access her psychiatric records, but they did look at confidential information from her prior stays at the hospital, such as when she gave birth to her sons.

I don’t know if the headline was written by the AP or by HuffPo, but HuffPo has a neat little feature that allows you to compare different versions of a story. The earlier version had this headline:

Hospital to Fire Workers in Spears Case

Guess it wasn’t quite as sexy as the one that positioned Spears as responsible for the firings.

Both versions, however, have the following paragraph:

Leading up to the hospitalizations, Spears had been behaving bizarrely. She shaved her head, was seen in public without underwear, ran over a celebrity photographer’s foot and attacked a vehicle with an umbrella.

Of the items on this list, one kind of stands out as being not particularly indicative of mental problems; and, indeed, indicative more of the level of privacy invasion that this woman has to put up with every time she steps out of her door. Really, no one would ever know that Britney Spears “was seen in public without underwear” had the pack of paparazzi who hound her relentlessly not had their lenses trained up her skirt. Someone will undoubtedly raise her celebrity status in comments, and argue that she sought fame, so why should she have any expectation that they’re *not* going to be shooting photos up her skirt? IOW, she asked for it by being a celebrity.

Well, there are two answers for that. Number one, she became a celebrity not as an adult, but as a child, pushed by her family. And number two, that argument is, frankly, probably what those 13 hospital employees told themselves when they snooped into her medical records.

* Actually, is she? I confess I haven’t been keeping close tabs on her whereabouts lately.

This is satire, right?

Fay Weldon is a long-time feminist activist, and I have to hope that this op/ed is simply a satirical response to the suggestion of a British politician that all teenage girls should be sterilized. But it reads awfully seriously. And whether or not she meant it, the commenters at the Daily Mail sure seem to be taking her seriously — and agreeing with her proposal. Plus there’s the fact that Weldon “found God” a few years back and has been spouting some seriously anti-feminist rhetoric ever since. I want to believe it’s a joke, but I’m not so sure.

Last week, an intriguing proposition was mooted by Government minister Dawn Primarolo.

Teenage girls, she said, could be steered towards what is described as “long-term contraception”.

This is now possible thanks to the development of contraceptive jabs and implants which can last up to five years.

In other words, there is a way of effectively sterilising girls for a lengthy period of time.

At what age? Well, doesn’t 12 until 17 sound rather sensible?

This would have the advantage of bringing down the teenage pregnancy rate, so high in this country it makes us a disgrace among the nations - the worst offenders in Europe.

The abortion rate would fall sharply. And silly young girls could get on with the education that is meant to produce serious, responsible taxpayers, not benefit recipients.

Now, many people will see this modest proposal as little short of horrific - nothing less than state interference in our reproductive lives.

But think about it: it might not be such a bad idea.

The rest of the op/ed just goes downhill from there.

I’m all for improving access to education and decreasing the teen pregnancy rate, but not at any cost. And forcing all girls to be sterilized is a pretty high price to pay. It’s simply wrong. It’s a violation of bodily autonomy and basic human rights, just like forced abortion and forced pregnancy. It is not something that any pro-choice person should ever consider reasonable.

It’s also something with deeply racist roots. Forced and coerced sterilizations are not neutral propositions, and have long been used as tools of control against women of color and others “unfit” for parenthood. These kinds of suggestions cannot be separated from that history. And, no matter who they’re directed at, suggestions that we should take away the reproductive rights of an entire group of people are inherently problematic and worthy of strong feminist opposition.

The party of Barry Goldwater is dead.

Via Captain's Quarters:

It's their community, of course, and they set the rules. However, this doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does Redstate's. While Paul's supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.

Having been to the CLC, I disagree with Leon's assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them.

Yes, the small-government advocates should be tolerated in the party of neo-fascism. Dismiss their arguments for fiscal responsibility.

Even though Ron Paul is a social conservative, as ready to invite Big Brother into the livingrooms and bedrooms of Americans as any gold-star Republican, his name is mud in mainstream Republican circles.

Why?

Maybe follow the money. This is the new face of conservatism.

(P.S. - I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, either. Far be it! But compared to all the other Republican candidates, he's a fucking saint!)

Alabama journalist Gita Smith imagines the Supreme Court oral argument that will take place if the Court accepts a challenge to Alabama’s law banning the sale of vibrating sex toys. The 11th Circuit held in favor of the state, writing that there is no right to sexual privacy in the state. Gun sales? Go for it. Vibrator sales? Too dangerous.

The (ridiculous) Alabama law is similar to a Texas statute that the late, great Molly Ivins took on a few years back. Ivins really nails it. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you not to watch the clip at work.

(via C&L; also at LGM).

especially if you are naked!

So, I wasn’t going to jump up on my soapbox here, I was going to be all civil and polite and stuff, but alas, I must break that promise….because this has caused me to become somewhat peeved…did I say “somewhat”?  I meant really, really peeved…

If I worked in a factory, or a diner, or in retail or waste management, if I worked in phone sales, or performed data entry, or my profession was office assistant…if I worked in a movie theater, or auto body shop, or a hair salon, the government would require four things of me…if that…

Proof of Legal Name
Proof of Age
Social Security Number
Completed tax forms

But, you see, I don’t work in any of those fields, I work in one that is, ahem, less savory.  I work in one where there is a legitimate concern to make sure myself and all my co-workers are over the age of 18.  There is already a law in place to insure this, a law known as 2257, which requires that any person who makes and/or displays pornography have, on file, proof of the performers age.  Anyone and everyone I have ever worked with or for has made sure of this, for obvious reasons. 

 However, now it seems 2257 is not sufficient.  Having proof of a performers age is just not good enough.  Now, it seems the government wants an official list of every porn star in America…and we’re not just talking the Jenna Jameson’s of the world here, but every person performing in any sort of porn…from Porn Valley CA productions to net sites that specialize in Lesbian porn for Lesbians (which, hey, generally already all comply with 2257), and along with proof of age, they want to know things such as a performers photos, stage names, professional names, maiden names, aliases & nicknames (read full article here, host site nsfw). Things that are rarely asked for in any other form of employment, really. 

Does the manager of the local bookstore have to keep photos and a list of all known nicknames, maiden names and aliases of his employees?  No, s/he most certainly does not.  Does all this information have to be compiled into a government database?  No, it doesn’t.  And while it is nice to see the government is willing to let folk like me retain a bit of privacy, after all, they aren’t demanding to keep my address and phone number on file (yet), I will say I find this new proposed law to be a bit unsettling.   

Yes, being able to prove that a person working in porn, any sort of porn, is over 18 is important, which is why 2257 was agreed to and complied with without much of a fight.  But does the government really need to know that as a kid my parents called me Attila and I once, ten or so years ago, worked under the stage name Jayne Jet?  No, they don’t really.  I, like every other working person in the US should have to provide my legal name, proof of age, and my SSN.  Hell, I even pay taxes.   

Then again, this is country where the government thinks wire taping is okay…and I do note that while this law is aimed at the porn industry, to protect underage people from working in the business, there is no similar mention of such laws for people who use migrant farm labor, or run clothing factories, or sell alcohol… 

Imagine that?

How is this even tolerable in our society? In Aurora Illinois a new Planned Parenthood clinic almost completed construction before coming to the attention of those who would like to sabotage it:

Growth in the counties Aurora straddles — DuPage, Will, Kendall and Kane — has created an intense need for more comprehensive and affordable women’s health care. And while the majority of patients come to Planned Parenthood for birth control, testing for gynecological cancers or screening for sexually transmitted diseases, it is the abortions that have made this a stealth venture almost 35 years after Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Correct me if I am wrong, but birth control is legal is it not? Clandestine abortions may have ended with Roe V. Wade but circumstances such as this serve as a reminder how time has not made discretion any less of a necessity.

Would this be acceptable if places of worship were treated with the same interference? Would contractors be willing to cancel their contracts with organizations building a cultural center that hate groups targeted? What about a HIV clinic? How about a group home for individuals with disabilities? It is a civil rights issue when the ability to exercise your constitutional right is inhibited by religious zealots who oppose reproductive freedom. I would rather hear our political leaders support less “safe, legal, and rare” and focus more on “legal and accessible”, we deserve it.

I will be turning 30 this year and it seems every time I go to a social function another friend is announcing her belly is full of baby. For me it still seems so grown-up and I still prefer to sit at the kids table during Thanksgiving dinner. A few months ago one of my girlfriends had her first and only biological child. She married a high school teacher who had 2 other children from his previous marriage and they agreed that they did not want more children.

I was dismayed, although not surprised to hear how difficult it was for her to convince her doctor to perform a tubal ligation after the birth. Feeling that their family was complete, she insisted from her very first appointment that she wanted to have permanent birth control. Her physician simply would not consider it, and I am sure if it wasn’t for her pushy insistent nature she would not have been granted the procedure. Her choice was constantly challenged, not only by her doctor, but nurses, hospital staff, family and friends. You would think that by limiting herself to one biological child she was robbing herself and humanity of a messiah.

It is infuriating that women still have to “convince” doctors that we know what is right for us in regard to our reproductive choices. Considering the recent Supreme Court decision, it’s not shocking to discover that many still believe women to be fickle about our decisions that impact whether or not we reproduce. Medical and judicial establishments have a long history of pernicious dominion of women’s physical autonomy, not limited to abortion. When women have to be tenacious in justifying their choices to those who dictate and “grant permission” it is a reminder that emancipation is an illusion.
(more…)