feminist blogs

I don't like Hillary Clinton for many reasons, mainly: her slippery non-positions on some issues, her demagoguery on other issues (even when I might agree), her "taking responsibility" for her support of the war on Iraq while not taking any responsibility, and the smarmy tone of her campaign more worthy of a Rove than a progressive.

Yet this kind of misogynistic crap:

“Nixon in a pant suit” is an anti-Hillary meme that Andrew Sullivan, longtime stalwart of Tricky Dick’s party, has successfully propagated. And James Wolcott, with presumably better intentions, has followed, um, suit.

Google this:

hillary pantsuit OR “pant suit” OR “pantsuits” OR “pant suits”

By last count, there are over 300,000 web pages referencing this candidate and garment choice.

What does this fixation with “pant suits” mean?

Indeed. A loaded phrase. Because women aren't supposed to wear pants. Or, maybe, do other things men do?

My Comments:

I'm sorry - I'm gonna ramble a bit.

Hillary's case has at least started the conversation we should have been having all along. I don't think of feminism as an after thought - it's the foundation of all other forms of social justice. There's going to be a building wave because women are learning to use the internet to weave new kinds of webs of power. We communicate better, quicker, no matter where we are or what our resources are. We've never had such unfettered access to such a populist medium.

Women are 54% of the population. Men are less than 46% when you allow for the number of transgender people that lie in the center of the continuum. The state of women and their children is the state of the entire race. No culture can prosper when over half of it's population is hobbled or oppressed, especially when that group has the primary responsibility for raising children. If women are impoverished in any way, then the entire culture becomes so.

All of the social movements have been driven by women - the move for abolition, prohibition, suffrage, civil rights, the labor movement. What are the names we remember for these changes? Harriet Tubman, Carrie Nation, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Norma Ray. I'm not saying they are exclusively responsible, but the foundations of those movements were built on the backs of women who had simply had enough and took back their own power. If you want to heal racism, feminism has to be a part of it, or it won't work. If you want to build a labor union, you've got to get the women on your side. When you control the next generation, you determine the future.

One generation relaxed and the next generation didn't get it because they were rebelling against the rebellion. We're into a new generation now, and they're sitting at home watching Chris Matthews talk about how shrill Hillary's voice is - and they're pissed. It's about damned time. I'm so happy to see it. I'm not just looking for a wave, I want a tsunami, and I just might get it.

I've been critical of Hillary Clinton mainly because almost everything coming out of her mouth is so massaged and manufactured. But then she surprises:

On Crooks and Liars, says Nicole Belle:

I hesitate to post about this because I think it’s a non-story that could play negatively into a few different stereotypes, depending on your view of Hillary Clinton. I will say that I’m sure that she is at the verge of exhaustion and nerves are probably pretty frayed and this was a very honestly emotional moment for her. This campaign schedule would be brutal for anyone and I doubt very much that there are many who wouldn’t be just as, if not more, emotional. However, I do think that this is a good reminder for those eager to paint Hillary Clinton as this tough-as-nails political automaton that there is a real person with all the same real vulnerabilities there.

Is this weakness? Or is this the Hillary Clinton we should be seeing in this campaign? Because so far this first woman with a real chance at winning the White House has been pretty passionless and focus-grouped.

I got this comment on an old post called Defending the Need to Bleed. Period. I'm bumping it up because it's important.

I stumbled upon your blog while doing some web research on seasonale, and was very interested in what you had to say.
I am currently very frustrated with my doctors concerning birth control and menstruation. I am 23 years old but have never had a period without medication. My doctors put me on the pill at 17, specifically seasonale. For years I dealt with cystic acne, dehabilitating depression and when I was switched to the generic form of the pill, nausea resembling morning sickness. I went off the pill three months ago due to some health insurance problems, and immediately my skin cleared and I felt a great weight lifted from my shoulders. I felt happier than I had in a long time. My problem now is that I have not gotten a period in 3 months.

My doctors just tell me that acne isn't a big deal, that I made the depression up, and that the nausea will clear up in less than 3 months (3 MONTHS!) and want to start me back up on some form of the pill.
I am now terrified of the hormones, and do not want to put artificial chemicals into my body (I have been a vegetarian for 10 years now). Yet I know that I need to somehow have a period.
I am completely confused and frustrated with modern medicine's options.

If you know of anything that may help me, I would love to hear it. If not, it felt helpful to write my worried down.

Hi, Kristin-

First, it's important for me to point out that I'm not a doctor. Based on what you've said here, I think you might want to consider getting a second opinion before you go back on birth control pills.

Depression can be life threatening. As a 46 year old who still has severe scars from cystic acne, I can assure you that it's a big damned deal. Nausea is never pleasant - I can't imagine dealing with it for months at a time. My alarm bells go off when I hear of a doctor telling a woman she's making up symptoms like depression. You need a physician who listens to you, not one who treats you as an hysteric.

You didn't say why the doctors felt it was necessary for you to be on birth control. I know there are some medications they won't give a woman unless she's on birth control, and that in addition to its intended use, they sometimes give it to women to control ovarian cysts or severe cramps or bleeding. There might be a legitimate need for them in your case. Feel free to write back if you want to share more information.

If you need birth control, consider the combination of foam and condoms - the two together are very effective, they're portable, you only use them when you need them and the condoms help protect you from STDs. In the 21st Century, there's no such thing as a monogamous relationship. Always protect yourself.

As I mentioned before, I'd see a different doctor. There are risks to taking hormones, including an increased tendency to form tumors. If you can get by without them, it would probably be better, but only a doctor can advise you. 6 years is a long time to be on any medication, and you've seen from this break you're taking that you feel better without the drug. Your body may have changed dramatically in those 6 years. I wouldn't panic at this point about not having had a period. It could take a year or more for your cycle to normalize itself, if it ever does. Some women are regular as clocks, some aren't - it's not an indication of how healthy you are. There have also been huge changes in the availability of new drugs and treatments. There might be something new available that hasn't been considered yet.

Find a doctor who sees women as people, not problems to be solved. You know your body better than anyone, and Nature often knows best.

Good luck, and do check in and let me know how you are doing.

THEAGENESIS: The Birth of the Goddess



Oberon Zell-Ravenheart is the original "guy who gets it." Would that all men were as wise as he.

At this point it becomes necessary to define Divinity:

Divinity is the highest level of aware consciousness accessible to each living being, manifesting itself in the self-actualization of that being. Thus we can truly say, "All that groks is God" (Heinlein; Stranger in a Strange Land). Divinity is a cat being fully feline, grass being grassy, and people being fully human. Collective Divinity emerges when a number of people (a culture or society) share enough values, beliefs and aspects of a common life-style that they conceptualize a tribal God or Goddess, which takes on the character (and the gender) of the dominant elements of that culture. Thus the masculine God of the Western Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Moslems) may be seen to have arisen out of the values, ideals and principles of a nomadic, patriarchal culture - the ancient Hebrews. Matrifocal agrarian cultures, on the other hand, personified their values of fertility, sensuality, peace and the arts in the conceptualization of Goddesses. As small tribes coalesced into states and nations, their Gods and Goddesses battled for supremacy through their respective devotees. In some circumstances, various tribal divinities were joined peaceably (often through marriage) into a polytheistic pantheon, being ranked in status as their followers' respective influences determined. In other circumstances, one particularly fanatic tribe was able to completely dominate others and eliminate their own deities, elevating its God to the status of a solitary ruler over all creation, and enforcing His worship upon the people, usually upon pain of death. However, no matter to what rank a single tribal deity may be exalted by its followers, it still could be no other than a tribal divinity, existing only as an embodiment of the values of that tribe. "Gods are only as strong as those who believe in them think they are" (Alley Oop). When the planetary consciousness of Gaea awakens, She too will be Divinity - but on an entirely new level: the emergent deity Carlton Berenda postulates in The New Genesis. Indeed, even though yet unawakened, the slumbering subconscious [and dreaming?] mind of Gaea is experienced intuitively by us all, and has been referred to instinctively by us as Mother Earth, Mother Nature - The Goddess for whom She is well named. Indeed, this intuitive conceptualization of feminine gender for our planetary Divinity is scientifically valid, for biologically unisexual organisms (such as amoebae or hydra) are always considered female; in the act of reproduction they are referred to as mothers and their offspring as daughters.

[Note: I came later to the conclusion that Gaea may have indeed achieved consciousness in more ancient times, and that she was actually "knocked unconscious" by the worldwide cataclysms and attendant destruction of Her worshippers which ended the Bronze Age and ushered in the Age of Iron around 1500 BCE. This hypothesis is more fully developed in my 1977 research paper, "Cataclysm and Consciousness - From the Golden Age to the Age of Iron." [OZ, 1988]]

Thus we find that "God" is in reality Goddess, and that our ancient Pagan ancestors had an intuitive understanding of what we are now able to prove scientifically. Thus also we expose the logical absurdity of a concept of cosmic Divinity in the masculine gender. These few pages, however, have only been the briefest of introductions to the implications of a discovery so vast that its impact on the world's thinking will ultimately surpass the impact of the discovery of the Heliocentric structure of the solar system. This is the discovery that the entire Biosphere of the Earth comprises a single living Organism.[emphasis mine]

So, is the Divine Mother sleeping? Unconscious? Dreaming? More like having a nightmare. No one can say when She will awake, but my money says 12/21/2012* - 12.21.12, the one that was divided in two, the two we are about to see as one again, realizing the one and the two are the same. We can make sure this happens by spreading the word about the Goddess to everyone we can.

I just read a manuscript by my friend Athana that has filled me with hope. She took her natural gift as a story teller, and applied it to a book that describes the ancient Matriarchy, in glorious detail, with meticulous research and sets forth her goal of getting us back to the Goddess by 2035. It can't happen soon enough to suit me. I say we get that book on the shelves ASAP, and pray to our Mother that many more follow from many men and women who "get it," too.

*Thanks, Medusa! ;-)

The Senate has passed a bill that contains language to repeal the global gag rule.

So what's next for the global gag rule? It's now headed to a House-Senate "conference committee," where a few members from each chamber will work out differences between each chamber’s version of the bill. Then the Senate and House must approve the final compromise version, which will be sent to the president.

Even though we won this key vote on the global gag rule, President Bush has already threatened to veto any bill that includes a pro-choice provision, including this one.

Now you can help rally support for that language to survive to the final bill.

Of course, the problem of governments' claiming they own women's wombs is well represented within US borders, too.

That is the unfortunate moral of the many stories recapped in a must-read by Violet at Reclusive Leftist:

Here’s an interesting change. After all these stories of women being prosecuted or threatened with legal action for pressing rape charges, today we have a story of a woman being prosecuted for not pressing rape charges.

You all remember that back in 2005, a 17-year-old girl was actually prosecuted for reporting her rape. Not only prosecuted but convicted of a crime — and all because the state decided it couldn’t prove the case against her attackers.

And with the Duke case, as you all know, every sexist twit this side of the Andromeda galaxy took to the intertubes to demand that the victim in that case also be prosecuted, again for the “crime” of reporting a crime that the state decided it couldn’t prove.

And in the De Anza case, a teenage girl who was gang-raped by a sports team was publicly castigated for, again, reporting a crime that the state decided it couldn’t prove.

Anybody see a pattern?

Is this the commercial manifestation of Chinese fears of powerful women?

Chinese tourism authorities are seeking investment to build a novel concept attraction -- the world's first "women's town," where men get punished for disobedience, an official said Thursday.

The 2.3-square-km Longshuihu village in the Shuangqiao district of Chongqing municipality, also known as "women's town," was based on the local traditional concept of "women rule and men obey," a tourism official told Reuters.

"Traditional women dominate and men have to be obedient in the areas of Sichuan province and Chongqing, and now we are using it as an idea to attract tourists and boost tourism," the official, surname Li, said by telephone.

Maybe the government officials responsible have been enjoying a bit too much their pirated copy of Seven Beauties.

I mean, imagine! Men? Obeying? Women? What an exotic notion! Oh the horror! The fear! The eroticism!

...it's time to push back the regressive forces in Congress. Support the Freedom of Choice Act.

Step 1:
Join NARAL Pro-Choice America in our National Call-In Day to Support the Freedom of Choice Act
- Wednesday, April 25
- Call 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to both of your senators and your representative
- Use the following script:
“Please cosponsor the Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.1964/S.1173) to codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.”
- Click on the link [on the page linked above] to find out what other organizations are participating.

Step 2:
Fill out the form [on the page linked above] to urge your members of Congress to sign on as cosponsors, and then forward this action to your friends.

Who's involved?

NARAL Pro-Choice America is co-sponsoring the national call-in day with the following coalition partners:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Advocates for Youth
Alliance for Justice
American Association of University Women
American Civil Liberties Union
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Choice USA
Feminist Majority Foundation
Law Students for Choice
Medical Students for Choice
National Abortion Federation
National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Women’s Organizations
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Organization for Women
National Women’s Law Center
People for the American Way
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Reproductive Health Technologies Project
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective

The pro-choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). 

• FOCA will restore the reproductive rights recognized under the vision expressed in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, before anti-choice legislators and courts chipped away at these rights. 
• FOCA will secure the right to choose by establishing a federal law that will guarantee reproductive freedom for future generations of American women.  This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and his allies are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or imposing even more restrictions on our right to choose.

Click here to learn more about President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban and the Supreme Court's recent decision.

This is going to be a long battle in the war to establish and defend women's rights. I'm under no illusion that the current Congress, what with forced-pregnancy advocates sitting on both sides of the aisle, will pass this legislation, but showing support is a first step towards getting our elected officials to realize that the vast majority of Americans don't want the government controlling family planning.

...this can happen. It's a truly disturbing story. Horrifying.

This is a cautionary tale for the so-called "pro-life" movement, which has been clamoring for government control of family planning as well. The only difference is that the "pro-life" folks want the government to force pregnancy, while the Chinese government is forcing abortion of pregnancy.

Either way, the government decides and the woman, the family, the people directly involved have no say in the matter.

As Ann says at Feministing:

Bottom line? Despite what U.S. anti-choicers say, no one who is pro-choice is pro-forced abortion. We are against government intervention in personal reproductive decisions -- whether it be by the U.S. Congress in banning abortion or by the Chinese government in forcing it.

The issue is this: Who decides?

Our country has an unfortunate history. When the state and federal governments have meddled in human reproduction, horrors have resulted, including forced sterilization of women and men deemed undesirable by the government. That was plenty bad enough.

Imagine now an officially sanctioned governmental policy to control human reproduction in America. If the government can force a pregnancy, it can force an abortion. Family planning in all its subtleties and considerations becomes the government's decision. In fact, it's a mockery to even call it "family planning" anymore since, in effect, family planning is taken out of the family and placed in the smoke-filled rooms of the legislatures and Congress.

Is family planning really something we want the government controlling?

Really?