Crossposted at the NOW-NYS Young Feminist Task Force blog .

I'm trying to find some information on how midwifery and other alternative birthing options are treated in all the health care reform bills, but finding comparisons about this topic is proving difficult.

Anyone know of any resources that could be useful?

Thanks!

So, I finally went to see The Proposal with a couple of friends of mine. I really liked it, it was cute and funny and had a love story and happily ever after, etc. etc. I think romantic comedies are adorable, but it's also difficult to watch them because as a feminist, you inevitably find things you don't quite appreciate.

When the movie opened, for the first few scenes, I thought Sandra Bullock's character, Margaret, was awesome. I respected her for being strong and not taking crap from anyone. I especially respected her for continuing to do what she wanted despite the fact that everyone called her "it" or a "witch".

But the movie paints her out to be a complete bitch. Why does every strong woman have to be portrayed as a bitch? And why are strong men portrayed positively? I just didn't like that just because she did not take crap from people, all of a sudden it makes her a horrible, horrible person.

Also, the movie makes it seem like she was basically cured by love. Here's a strong woman who falls in love and then proceeds to let out every vulnerability she's ever had. Like the time she cried in the bathroom when someone called her a bitch. Really?? So, the people who made the movie wanted to portray her as either a bitch or not a strong woman at all.

And the entire time, Ryan Reynolds' character Andrew is trying to rise above her. Because heaven forbid a woman ever be more powerful than a man.

And finally, when he is trying to convince her that they love each other, blah blah blah, and she tries to protest, he yells for her to shut up. And then, when he's kissing her, someone in the background says, "Yeah, show her who's boss, Andrew."

Margaret is also painted as an incredibly lonely woman. Why in the world does her life suck so much when she's a strong woman who doesn't take crap from anyone and all of a sudden brightens up when she unravels all of her vulnerabilities, etc.? I'm not saying that if you are vulnerable or cry that you are not strong. No, not at all. But apparently, that's what the creators of the movie think because at the end, she doesn't even have power over her employees anymore. No one is scared of her now.

And what's also frustrating is that when I left the movie, I mentioned to my friend Joanna that I liked it, but from a feminist viewpoint, I was iffy about it. She then proceeded to tell me to "shut up" and that "it was just a movie".

Yes, I know it was just a movie, and that romantic comedies don't really have the responsibility to be all socially aware, but I don't think I was wrong in being frustrated.

What do you guys think? Should I just leave it at that, that it is just a movie, or am I justified in being frustrated about all of this?

In our day, her presumed offenses might lend themselves to some unkind remarks and assorted snickering but would not carry the full weight of scandal as they did then.  In short, she was assumed to be a fallen woman who had engaged in promiscious behavior, was rumored to have driven her first husband to suicide as a result of her dalliances, and furthermore engaged in the indignity of not waiting a respectable length of time before being remarried to her second husband.  That she was also not an especially tactful, nor restrained person with a quick temper, her strong opinions made an unfortunate situation much worse.  The President, however, liked the Eatons and made it known that he wished that they be allowed to live in peace and that those who shunned the couple ought to be seen as personally affronting him.

However, even so, other cabinet members, particularly their wives refused to call on Eaton, a direct snub according to the social conventions of the day.  Social divisions within Jackson's inner circle that had been papered over unskillfully prior to Jackson's election now found themselves in open display as two camps broke out:  those in favor of Peggy Eaton and those not.  Washington society spread one salacious rumor after another, further encouraging the discord.  Soon, the entire cabinet had to be dissolved, with prominent members being dispersed to cities and locations well away from Washington.  As the reader, I still find it incredible that some took such lengths to dissociate themselves from one person knowing that doing so would created tremendous problems within the Presidency itself and compromising the governance of an entire nation.

First of I'd like to say that I completely agree that it is dishonest for a transgender person and a cisgender person to have sex, full-stop.  We live in a world where notions of sexual orientation and gender are defined from a cisgender persective.  Since transgender people don't fit neatly into these cisgender definitions, we are always going to be viewed as dishonest from a cis-only perspective.

The whole notion of gender is commonly defined in terms of "biological sex".  Interestingly very few people seem to see any need to decide what "biological sex" actually is, given that it has about a million different scientific meanings.  Transgender people don't fit into these ideas of gender, so we are dishonest always.  I can't say I am female without being accused of lying about what my assigned biological sex.  And I can't say I'm male, because that isn't my gender identity nor is how I'm usually perceived, so that of cause would make me dishonest as well.  And I certainly couldn't say my gender identity is anything other than female or male, because those options don't even exist in a lot of people's eyes.  So yes I am completely dishonest, because I can't even give an honest (cisgender) answer to what my gender is.

Thankfully comments along the above lines have become rarer at Feministing, and transgender people are less often accused of being dishonest about their gender.

But now with this recent post, there was a lot of people making comments based on similar thinking.  That transgender people should reveal their transgender status, because it's something a partner needs to know.  Yet the reason usually given is that its relevant to the sexual orientation of the cisgender person.

It is this system of labelling sexual orientations that is the problem.  The reality is that a human being is sexually attracted to some other human beings.  But we then feel the need to categorise people into heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or assexual.  But given that these categories are based on the gender of the person you are attracted to, this can not possibly be meaningful when the gender of a person isn't straight-forward.

The reality is that you can be attracted to somebody, without even knowing  what their gender (however you as an individual define it) or even being mistaken about the gender.  This situation clearly makes a mockery of the system we use.  Though I have no doubt that many people would just blame the person they are "mistakenly" attracted to for being dishonest about their gender.

And the other obvious anamoly which seemed to be completely ignored in most comments - that if a cisgender person is sexually attracted to a transgender person, then the attraction exists.  The cisgender person can't then say that they aren't attracted to trans people, that's just a plain contradiction.  What of cause can be said is that the cisgender person chooses not to have sex with transgender people, which is of cause a valid preference - just as racism classism, biphobia, and ableism are also valid reasons for choosing sexual partners.

Now I realise that the above "systems" of defining gender and sexual orientation are very widely used in society.  But I am disturbed that on a Feminist blog, people are defending the use of these cisgender-only systems - systems whose consequence is to oppress transgender people.

To call a stealth transgender person dishonest (or worse) for having sex with a cisgender person is a defense of this transphobic system.  If people want to choose to only sleep with cisgender (or white/able/middle-class/non-bigots/liberal/conservative/etc) partners, then people should take care that their sexual partners satisfy their particular prejudices.

Even if a majority of people are transphobic (or racist/ableist/classist/etc) then that doesn't justify obligating transgender people to partake in that oppression.  Surely the real issue is tackling that transphobic culture, pointing out the absurdity of society's ideas of gender and sexual orientation, rather than accusing transgender people of dishonesty or sexual assault because we don't fit society's norms and expectations.

And to be clear, I acknowledge that it is possible to construct hypothetical situations that would be dishonest and/or sexual assault committed by a transgender person (just as the case for a cisgender person).  I am talking about the general idea of a cisgender and transgender person having sex.

And in this post I am not making any comment on the argument that being open about big things is important/necessary in a relationship - that is a seperate issue to this

Check it out!

It's under "Our Publications" in the Resources tab on our webpage raisingwomensvoices.net

This self-assured knowledge is useful when the PETA interns are naked, which happens occasionally, like at a recent Friday demonstration when Kelsey Jaye stands with another "PETA Beauty" in a makeshift shower on Pennsylvania Avenue by the National Archives. They languidly wash each other with cruelty-free soap and ignore heckles from the gathering crowd.

This isn't an unusual display, of course. PETA has a long history of objectifying women in the name of animal rights. What I found to be interesting about the article was a quote from one of the female interns.  Jaye, from the shower scene above, has participated in many demonstrations. She describes another naked protest, this one against bull-fighting:

"There were 50 demonstrators in a big naked pile, with arrows sticking out everywhere....It was totally empowering. It's great to be able to use your body as a tool."

I don't like PETA's tactics, but THIS woman finds those tactics empowering.  I am uncomfortable getting all paternalistic towards another woman regarding what she chooses to do with her body: "Honey, I know you THINK this is empowering, but that's because you're too cold to feel the sexism."

This isn't too far from the "sex work as empowering/degrading" argument. I don't have a particular point I'm trying to make here.  I just wanted to put the article out there for the rest of the community to think about.

My friend, Jessica, and I have started a blog to deal with issues having to do with beauty--in particular, women's problems with boobs. The way boobs are sexualized (and of course they are sexual), the way images are more and and more pornographic, how girls are taught to both be ashamed of their breasts and at the same time, willing to show them off in tight shirts. 

The blog is a social justice project that aims to give women a space to explore the many issues surrounding our ideas and our physical experiences with our boobs. We have posted some stories, some news items, and a poll and questionnaire. It would be helpful if we could receive a lot of responses to our survey as well as some new stories.

Please check it out and tell us your own stories or give us suggestions as to how we can make the blog better or more relevant.

Thanks,

Bridgett Jensen

herlifewithboobs

I ran across a very disturbing letter in a Dear Prudence column.  The letter-writer has a problem (to some extent long-standing) with her boyfriend:  he tickles her, although she's repeatly told him she doesn't like to be tickled : 

Whenever we are lying on the couch or in bed together, he will start tickling me, and when I react he gets on top of me and pins me down so that I can't defend myself. I have repeatedly told him that I hate being tickled....  He insists that because I laugh, I must enjoy it. He adds that I need to learn to master my mind, and once I "convince" myself that I am not ticklish, then I won't panic when he tickles me. What should I say to him that gets my point across?

I've had problems with Prudence's replies in the past, but on this one I think she absolutely hits the nail on the head: 

Your boyfriend knows that though you're laughing uproariously while he's tickling you, it doesn't mean you're having a great time but that you're being tortured. Torturing you is the great time for him. If he were a decent person, a simple "Please don't tickle me again. I hate it" should have been enough to end the sessions once and for all. But you've explained ad infinitum what a violation the tickling is. In response, he plays ridiculous mind games with you about how you're responsible for your own reaction when he daily climbs on top of you and pins you down so he can force you to endure his digital assaults. You're asking me what you can say to your "great," "sweet," and "caring" boyfriend to get him to stop attacking you. I think you should boil your remarks down to their essence, and what you should say is "Goodbye."

Prudie is on the money here.  NOT ALL ABUSE -- not even all physical abuse -- INVOLVES HITTING.  What this guy is doing to the LW is abuse, plain and simple.

To be precise, I ran across this entry at a LiveJournal, cf_abby_tribute .  I have strong disagreements with some of the comments in the thread ("kick him in the balls" was sarcasm, I hope), but others are dead-on accurate:

One of the early signs of a possible abuser is when he holds down or otherwise restrains his mate without permission.

And:

The little fucker isn't trying to 'convince' her that she should control her ticklishness. He is 'convincing' himself that he is NOT getting off on overpowering her, the feeling of her wriggling powerlessly underneath him and her breathless and anguished begging to please, please, *please* stop, no, no, indeed not. He is *helping* her, really. And the stiffie he gets from it is merely a side benefit, nothing more.

What distresses me about the original letter is realizing -- once again -- how easy it is for an abused person to deny, even to herself, that she's being abused ... and how dreadfully easy it is for an abuser to find ways of abusing that don't look like abuse.   Who, after all, would equate tickling with abuse?  But I'm putting this posting in the category "Violence Against Women", because -- as strongly as he might insist that it was just a game , that it was just in fun and after all he was only making her laugh! -- what he's doing to her is abusive, and assaultive, and in its essence violent.

I wish I were kidding.

I would like as many people as possible to report this group. Not only is this page racist by implying that large black men are an instant threat to people, but it also makes a joke out of rape – which is NEVER a laughing matter.

They also use Mark Henry’s photograph to represent the group (most likely without his permission). He is a wrestler in the WWE for those who don’t know, and as far as I know, he is NOT guilty of rape.

Please send the message to all the 40,000 thoughtless followers that this type of group, along with the disgusting comments in the “Just Fans” section, is NOT acceptable.

Let’s see if we can actually get Facebook to take this group down. I believe in free speech, but not when it becomes hate speech.

The report button is on the lower left-hand part of the page.

Thanks in advance to anyone who helps out!

Cross-posted at She Says All

I just wanted to let you know, because I realize it probably hasn’t occurred to you, that being engaged to a friend- a female friend- on facebook boils down to a heteronormative joke. I know you're not trying to malicious, so please don't be offended, but I want you to understand how much meaning your "joke" holds. We all know you’re not actually in a relationship with this girl, and would never be because you're straight. Becuase of that fact, your "engagement" is humorous because of the subliminal joke it represents. I know you didn't intend it, but your relationship status says, “ha ha how ridiculous that these two GIRLS could EVER be together in real life! How ridiculous and funny!”

And because that is the understood, subliminal, joke behind your “engagement,” participating in such a trend is heteronormative and contributes to an environment that makes queer people invisable. As your best friend and a lesbian, you’re hurting me. On this day, when gay marriage was defeated in yet another state, sham same-sex engagements are particularly cruel. I know you don’t mean to, and you probably don’t even realize why being “engaged” to your female friend is cute a vaguely funny, nevermind understand how heteronormative it is. It still hurts though.

Love, Barbara

They have launced WoMoz, which in the words of the organziation, "aims to increase the participation of women in open source projects: understanding why this gap exist, reaching, and making products and projects more attractive for women."

A link to the project's website can be found here.

Below is the project's logo, created by Anamaria Stoica.

Upon reading portions of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act, I found some interesting ways in which the law and society views pregnant girls as well as disabled women. And it looks like in the case of women, you are guilty of a disability until proven abled (unless you're married, which magically makes you abled). Let's look at this closer.

~

Basically, that means, as an unemancipated minor, you have a disability. But this disability doesn't apply to all minors. Male minors cannot bear children, therefore male minors do NOT and CANNOT have this disability . i.e. the disability to discern whether or not they should have an abortion.

But this law doesn't only apply to pregnant female minors, it applies to "incompetent" persons as well and who are "incompetent" persons?

~
"Incompetent" means any person who has been adjudged as mentally ill or developmentally disabled and who, because of her mental illness or developmental disability, is not fully able to manage her person and for whom a guardian of the person has been appointed under Section 11a 3(a)(1) of the Probate Act of 1975.
~

Well, lookie there! Now we can see how abled-bodied women have privilege over their bodies in ways disabled women do not. It looks like a pregnant minor's "disability" magically goes away when she reaches a certain age, but women who are deemed "incompetent" have to compile with this law at ANY AGE. Damn. And I thought 8 years of child-bearing while minor and unmarried was bad.
And while we're on that, let's look at the definition of a minor:
~
"Minor" means any person under 18 years of age who is not or has not been married or who has not been emancipated under the Emancipation of Minors Act.
~
Whee! So if I got married when I was 10 years old, I'd no longer be a minor! And I would no longer have this disability! In fact, if I just bloody emancipated myself from my guardians, I wouldn't have this "disability" either! Good to know!

However, we get to the root of the problem: a minor or incompetent person is only deemed "non-disabled" if they can somehow prove it in a court proceeding:

~
(d) Notice shall be waived if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence either:
(1) that the minor or incompetent person is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion,
~
So, female minors/incompetent women are deemed "guilty" or "disabled" until they prove they are not? What is up with that?

Let me reiterate too-- men/boys and women/girls who cannot bear children will never been seen as having this "disability." Their abilities will never be scrutinized.