feminism

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08rossi.html

By MARGALIT FOX

Published: November 7, 2009

Alice S. Rossi, a noted sociologist and feminist scholar who was a founder of the National Organization for Women, died on Tuesday in Northampton, Mass. She was 87 and lived in Amherst, Mass.

 

The cause was pneumonia, her son, Peter E. Rossi, said.

 

At her death, Professor Rossi was the Harriet Martineau professor of sociology emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, where she had taught from 1974 until her retirement in 1991.

 

In her scholarship, Professor Rossi explored the status of women in work, family and sexual life. An early public advocate of abortion rights, she was often quoted by the national news media on an array of women’s issues. Her writings are widely credited with helping build the platform on which the women’s movement of the 1960s and afterward was erected.

 Not sure how this was missed but probably due to the shootings at Ft. Hood.  Thanks to Twandx for bringing it to our attention.

November 3rd is next Tuesday, and there are quite a few women running for election throughout the country. (So sorry, Mr. Derbyshire!) Is there one that strikes your fancy? Deserves, perhaps, $5 or an hour of phone banking?

Here are some lists to get you started.

Non-partisan: Women's Campaign Forum Endorsed Candidates for 2009

Non-partisan: Smart Voter by the League of Women Voters (This site lists all candidates by state and gives lots of useful voting information)

Democratic only: Emily's List (not separated by election year, but most are 2009 or 2010)

WASHINGTON - A bill to make violence against gays and lesbians a federal crime cleared the Senate Thursday and is headed to the White House for final approval.

The 68-29 vote was a victory for civil rights groups that have been fighting for years to expand the federal hate-crimes law beyond attacks motivated by bias based on religion, race, national origin or color. The new bill, which President Obama is expected to sign, includes penalties for assaults based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity.

Partizane.  A blog owned and run by a guy who has the stated purpose of working for more women in government.  Specifically a Woman President.  Along with that little goal, I believe strongly in the continued effort to pass the ERA and I want to do everything I can to advance the human rights of women everywhere.

Partizane.  Enforcing civil discourse among those who disagree.

Partizane (fr) A weapon having a blade with lateral projections mounted on the end of a long shaft, used primarily in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Partisan (derivation) A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person or idea.

Partizane. era, a mother president, women's rights, primary reform.

Well, I've failed so I quit.

I only really became aware of political blogging as a widespread phenomenon in Jan 2008, which seemed to be after the big meltdown/split from some of the formerly fairly unified sites like Kos and DU. I became very attached to TL, even sticking around as the site owner gradually began demanding we cheerlead for Obama and arbitrarily kicking commenters off when they fell astray of her increasingly erratic and idiosyncratic standard. When the PDS started I was gone; not because I disagreed (although I did) but because I felt the site had lost its integrity. I was pretty sad, since for whatever reason TL attracted some great commentators. At that point I decided getting attached to any one political blog was a bad idea. About this time last year, my RL exploded and I've done little commenting since. So I feel a bit unworthy to comment on NH's post today, since although I read all the Partizane posts, I don't participate as much as I should. Because this ended up so long, I made it a separate post instead of just a comment. My first ever, here.

editors note:  I attended a function full of Democratic women, last night, Aug. 24, 2009 and the main topic among the women was still "that crazy" Sarah Palin.  It seems a good time to re-visit Izarradar's wonderful post from October, 2008.  nh

They laugh at your voice, your accent.  They make fun of  how great you look, and how many kids you have.  They smirk because you played the flute in a beauty contest, and strutted your stuff in a swimsuit.  They say you’re dumb, you didn’t go to an Ivy League school, and God forbid you didn’t even have a passport until last year.  You’re small town, from a small, unpopulated state, scrutinized, belittled, and scorned.

On the issues, you and I don’t agree.

But every time they laugh at you, they laugh at me.  Every time they call you dumb, my I.Q. is questioned.  When they make fun of you, they make fun of me.  When they attack your family, they attack mine.  When they comment on how you look, my looks are also ridiculed.

The lovely and talented Taggles recently sent me a very interesting press release from the ACLU. It seems that a Florida court deprived Samantha Burton, a pregnant woman, of her right to determine her own medical care, and the ACLU is a tad exercised about that fact.

At Violet Socks' place, there is an incredible discussion going on regarding why mainstream feminists trashed Sarah Palin so viciously, and even made up lies about her to justify their hatred. There are about 300 comments in response. I highly recommend that you read it if you have the time.

Make no mistake, soon-to-be-ex-Governor Palin can easily be legitimately criticized on the issues. As a liberal, I don't agree with her on much. But the amount of manufactured outrages that were passed around, from Trig's parentage (still going on, at least in Andrew Sullivan's diseased mind) to the rape kit smear to the banning books smear, all passed on by feminists...it is utterly baffling to Dr. Socks. Why all the hatred and vitriol for this woman? Why couldn't they just tell the truth about her and have done with it?

Although there was no doubt some elitism involved (her accent! her lack of Ivy leage education! that hair!), to me, the answer is clear, and comes down to one word: Pro-Life.

Offered up as a question fully intended to create controversy, Carol Costello's Friday morning segment titled Just Sayin', asked the question, Is Feminism Obsolete?

It was actually a well meaning followup to the Palin - Letterman week that was.  But listenning this morning I couldn't help but think that Costello completely missed the point.  Yes we on the intertubes are having a heated debate about who and what is a feminist.  Can you be "pro-life" and be a feminist?  Can you be a goper and be a feminist?  Can you call Obama the New Face of Feminism and be a feminist? (Costello didn't ask that one).

My real gripe.  The recent Letterman - Palin event was not about Feminism, it was about Children and the protection of those children from predators and predatory attitudes.  It was about anyone's children whether they be right, left, commie or nazi.  Children are off limits.

You decide on where they went with the feminist discussion.

FAIR WARNING: This is a rant. With swear words and everything. Caution, earmuffs and burn cream are recommended before proceeding.

Oh my Goddess, did you read what our Dear Leader said last night? (I’m assuming that most of you didn’t watch, lest you die from Obama Narcissism Overload, or at the very least, overdose on the saccharine ejaculations of the chattering classes over the Bestest, Most Melanin-Enhanced Preznit Evah.) Did you fucking read what this condescending, preening creep said about being pro-choice in America?

Abortion rights: the term is everywhere these days. 

Pro-choice organizations use it; anti-choice organizations use it. The phrase seems to have slipped into today’s lexicon without making a splash. But really, what does it mean?

Let me ask you, feminist females who are in the pro-choice camp. Do you want abortion rights? Are you going to go around carrying a sign saying, “My body, my abortion?”

I don’t think so.

I believe that this meme is classic rightwing ratf*cking from the Gingrich school, and to use it is giving the He-Man Woman-Haters’ Club yet another victory in the framing wars.

After I returned home from The New Agenda's Violence Against Women Forum last Saturday, I couldn't stop talking to my husband about it. (I, like one of my favorite bloggers, AnnaBelle P, am extremely blessed to have a husband with whom I can discuss these types of issues.)

Violence against women has been on my mind a lot lately. High-profile cases such as Chris Brown's alleged beating of his girlfriend, Rihanna, and New York State Senator Hiram Montserrate's alleged assault on his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, not to mention the not-as-well-known uptick in incidences of female genital mutilation in Great Britain, added to the astonishing figure of 130 million living women who have been permanently scarred by this horrifying procedure, plus the fact that one out of every three women has been sexually or physically abused in the course of her life, well...let's just say I haven't been able to stop thinking about it.

True to my Virgoan nature, I have been trying to analyze why this keeps happening to women. Why are statistics like this accepted and acceptable?

For those of us who are firmly in the pro-choice camp - that is, who believe that the woman's choice reigns supreme when it comes to her own body - the election of Barack Obama was quite a blow. We were paying attention to the way he claimed women should consult a committee (of men, of course) before she made her choice about her own reproductive status. We noticed that he did not pick a new HHS secretary for quite some time after his inauguration, which meant that Bush's "conscience rule" has been in effect since the end of last year - and although the 30-day comment period expires today, the right-wing fundiegelicals seem to be the only ones commenting. They are screaming to the high heavens that Obama should not roll back the rule because they feel otherwise they will be "discriminated against."

As part of our bi-weekly BlogTalkRadio show, The View From Under The Bus, my cohosts and I do a Women's Herstory segment. The first show in March, Women's History Month, was a special one: We had a game show, during which we quizzed our brave contestants, testing their knowledge of womens' accomplishments and contributions within all sectors of society. I learned so much from our show, and although I knew quite a few of the political and artistic women we profiled, I must admit that I would have gotten every question wrong regarding women inventors.

Clearly, women-hatred is even more OK in the UK than it is in the US.  Way to go, Brits!

h/t to twandx for pointing out this article.  I glanced at the headline but it was such obvious bs I didn't read it.  But upon perusal, it's even more hateful than the usual run of the mill 'scientific' study.  Where to they turn out such uncritical, illogical 'professors?'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7971578.stm

Men never go on shopping sprees.

Their hormones never drive them to visit home improvement centers and fill up garages with redundant power tools they will never use.  Nor will they ever mail this useless junk to their relatives hoping that someone else will use it.  They never fill baements/attics with computers and stereo equipment only a couple years out of date so they can shop for the latest and greatest toy.  There aren't racks of unplayed video games laying in closets.

Men never have hangars filled with clothing they don't wear, duplicate sets of books they'll never read.  Also, there are no garden sheds filled with lawn and garden equipment that pristinely ages while the yard is full of weeds.

My irony meter pegged at max this morning.  Here's an article about the current state of 'medical' treatment by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7967851.stm

With a headline of 'Life: a Medical Condition' and a tag of Medicalisation of Normality, it begins thusly:

Restless leg syndrome, social anxiety disorder, female sexual dysfunction, celebrity worship syndrome - it seems that a new illness is invented every week, covering every potential quirk in human behaviour.

Okayyyyyyyyyy - female sexual dysfunction is normal, merely a quirk, no need to wonder why or try to diagnose or assist the woman.  Thanks, BBC!  Good to know!

The article continues with a description of medical female ailments of the past including hysteria and neurasthenia and goes on to say that female sexual dysfunction is not well defined.  Gee, doctor, I wonder why the hell that is?  Lack of study of the problem maybe?  The female half of the equation has been underserved, so to speak, since Kinsey (and now that we find out he was homosexual, that seems understandable).  Yes, it seems women have been and continue to be subject to a bunch of quackery, especially when it comes to sex.  How much more normal can you get?

Via Lambert:

Here's Villager Nancy Keegan happily selling her constituency down the river:

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president, he promised to enact legislation to prohibit the states from limiting the right to abortion. Now that Obama is in the White House and solid Democratic majorities are ensconced in Congress, opponents of abortion rights have been bracing for that and other major changes to abortion laws.

Being home sick is not all bad. Yesterday I was able to watch the end of one of my favorite movies from the 80's, "Nine to Five", starring Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton and the deliciously villainous Dabney Coleman as their "sexist egotistical lying hypocritical bigot" of a boss.

Now That Caroline has felt the sting of "Unqualified" I must once again confess to taking two steps backward on my journey towards feminism.

We've just witnessed and been a part of another shining example of the double standard women face in the politics of the 21st century.  Had the sadly dead publisher of "George" been the Camelot running, would we have screamed UNQUALIFIED?

A dear friend wrote me and mentioned the pattern that had unfolded in the New York papers.

• Hillary Clinton, unqualified! √
• Sarah Palin, unqualified!  √
• Caroline Kennedy, unqualified!  √
• Kirsten Gillibrand, unqualified!  √

Do you see the pattern?

Be forewarned, ladies. If you dare to think you are entitled to equal representation in government, you are doing something called "femi-whining."

Don Surber says so, and his post made the "best of the blogs" on RealClearPolitics, so he must have a point. Right?

What the hell is our problem, feminists of America?

"There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."

Madeleine Albright

By now, we have all seen the infamous Ms. Magazine cover of Barack Obama in Clark Kent drag, opening his jacket to reveal a T-shirt where the Superman "S" should be. The T-shirt proclaims, "This is what a feminist looks like." It was a shocking, and yet predictable, hommage to a richly undeserving male by a so-called bastion of women's liberation; the ultimate poke in the eye after the endorsements of NARAL and NOW for the all-male Obama-Biden ticket enraged us in the general election.

I've been doing a bit of research on Governor Janet Napolitano, and have read many contradicting things about her qualifications and ability to do the job of Director of Homeland Security. I just can't get a bead on her, so I am adopting a "wait and see" attitude and hoping she will bring some fresh ideas, organizational ability, and competence to the position. I do like the fact that she is female, of course.