Femagination » Feminism

Sarah Palin Is NOT a Feminist!

Ellen Keim — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:15:38 +0000

Let’s get something straight: a feminist is not someone who dictates what others should do with their lives. Sarah Palin and her ilk insist that they are feminists even though they would take away all women’s right to determine whether or not they will have children. The irony here is that these pseudo-feminists are also against the federal government sticking its nose into anyone’s business—unless of course that “anyone” is a woman who wants to have an abortion. Apparently it’s all right for government, state or federal, to decide categorically that some citizens do not have the same rights as others.

To make the distinction clear, we ought to change the terminology used by both sides of the abortion debate. Just because you’re against abortion doesn’t mean that you are the only ones who value life. (In fact, it’s amazing how often anti-abortionists are also for capital punishment and complacent about killing in war.) And alternatively, just because you’re for choice doesn’t mean that you like abortion. It merely means that you uphold a woman’s right to make a choice about her own body.

I consider myself pro-choice and pro-life. I am not pro-abortion in the sense that I think abortion is the only answer for an unwanted pregnancy. But I am anti-force. People like Palin are pro-force. They want to force women to have babies they can’t afford to have, whether the cost is financial, emotional or physical.

I have four daughters. When they asked, I told them about my own abortion. And then I told them that they should never get themselves in the position where they would have to make that decision. Because abortion is regrettable. It’s morally and ethically complicated. Whether a woman makes the decision lightly or anguishes over it for the rest of her life is something we can’t anticipate or regulate. Every woman had different reasons and reactions. It’s not for any one of us to say what they should believe or how they should act on their beliefs.

A woman who insists that you cannot ever have an abortion is no more a real feminist than one who insists that you have to get married or stay home with your children. And if we allow such women to call themselves feminists, real feminists will forfeit their right to represent all women.

Sarah Palin does not represent me or my beliefs. I don’t represent hers. But if she had her way, my views would be irrelevant. They would be sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and insensitivity.

A Saudi Woman Speaks Out

Ellen Keim — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:55:01 +0000

Non-Muslims see Muslim women as oppressed, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia, where grown women have male guardians, are not allowed to drive and are required to cover themselves totally whenever they leave the house. That’s why it’s particularly surprising to run across a Saudi woman like Buthayna Nasser. She wears the full abaya (although not the niqab, or face veil) in her job as a television newscaster.

It’s a misconception that Saudi women don’t work, let alone have careers. Apparently, they have voices, too, judging by this video:

What Makes Eve Ensler Ill: Cancer or the Congo?

Ellen Keim — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:00:40 +0000

I just found out that Eve Ensler has uterine cancer. Her prognosis, she reports, is good, but uterine cancer is nothing to fool around with. If caught early, 5-year survival rates can be as high as 96%. Ensler does not share at which stage her cancer was detected. At any rate, she has been through hell physically for the past few months. But, she insists, it is nothing compared to the hell she goes through every time she hears of the latest atrocities being committed in the Congo.

In her article, which appeared in several newspapers simultaneously, she writes:

The stories of continued rapes, machete killings, grotesque mutilations, outright murdering of human rights activists – these images and events create nausea and weakness much worse than chemo or antibiotics or pain meds ever could. But even harder to deal with, in the weakened state that I have been in, is knowing that despite the ongoing horrific atrocities that have taken the lives of more than 6 million people and left more than 500,000 women and girls raped and tortured, the international power elite appear to be doing nothing.

She describes all the attempts she and her foundation, V-Day, have made to interest world leaders in the plight of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and how those appeals have fallen on deaf ears. When she appeals to Michelle Obama (through a high-end official), she is told that “femicide was not her ‘brand.’ Mrs. Obama was focusing on childhood obesity.” (Ensler’s reaction? “It surprised me that a woman with her capabilities lacked ambidextrous skills.”)

I realize that the U.S., or any one entity, for that matter, can’t solve all the world’s problems. But does that mean that we should ignore them? Women and children are the real victims of war. But the revenge-rapes and brutal massacres, not to mention being left without husbands and fathers, are largely written off as “collateral damage.” The death of soldiers is tragic enough, but women and children don’t even have any means of defending themselves.

If the Congo were in our own back yard, we might be moved to do something about the conditions there. But because it is half a world away, we feel that we can put it out of our minds. But Eve Ensler, even though you might think she has more important things to worry about, can’t put it out of hers.

For more background on the situation in the DRC, read Ensler’s article from a year ago, “An apathetic, greedy west has abandoned war-torn Congo.”

What’s With Arizona??

Ellen Keim — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:00:33 +0000

Arizona State Flag

Maybe it’s in the water. Maybe it’s the heat. Whatever it is, it’s bringing out the worst in the people of Arizona. I didn’t even realize that the governor, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law last September denying benefits to domestic partners of state employees. The new law, which takes effect October 1, redefines “dependent” and excludes coverage for domestic partners, including heterosexual partners, children of domestic partners, disabled adult dependents, and full time students over 22 who are claimed as dependents.

Interestingly enough, the University of Arizona has decided to reinstate benefits to domestic partners, using funds separate from state money, in order to remain competitive in attracting talent. According to the Arizona Daily Star, about 20 employees of the University left because of the repeal of domestic partner benefits and some job offers were rejected for the same reason.

I’ve always seen the offering of benefits to domestic partners and other dependents as a way to get more people insured in America. Without those benefits, many people will not have health insurance at all. Why shouldn’t a person be able to cover more than herself on her policy if she is willing to pay the family premium? In fact, I think insurance policies ought to cover adult children indefinitely. There’s a terrible gap in insurance coverage between 22-year-olds and those who have finally established their careers to the point where they get employee benefits.

Nor do I think people should be forced to marry just so they can share a family insurance plan. It’s not the place of the state to pry into what kind of relationship domestic partners have.

This stinginess on the part of the Arizona legislators is only part of negative picture being painted of Arizonans. Besides signing into law the new immigration law that allows law enforcement officials to request proof of legal immigration, residency, or citizenship of anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant, the governor also signed a bill that bans ethnic studies classes in the state’s public schools. The new law (see PDF) bans classes that “promote the overthrow of the United States government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” (In Tucson alone, where the school district is 56 percent Hispanic, there are approximately 1,500 high school students enrolled in ethnic studies classes.)*

In other words, students are going to be discouraged from being proud of their ethnic heritage. I’m assuming that anything that might promote resentment toward the majority (white) population will also be discouraged (such as telling the truth about certain parts of history). And since when did ethnic study classes promote the overthrow of the U.S. government? I thought it was mainly the Christian militia nuts who advocated that.

As if all this weren’t enough, there is the recent brouhaha over one public elementary school’s decision to paint over the faces of “ethnic” schoolchildren on a mural outside of the school so that they would all be white. Why? Because people were yelling racial epithets at it as they drove by. (Drive-by harassment.) Apparently that action has been reversed, but the fact that they would do it in the first place is beyond belief. Mind you, these were pictures of actual students who attend the school. (See Huffington Post story for more details.)

I realize that the eyes of the media are on Arizona right now and that equally absurd things go on everywhere, but it does seem that Arizona has a racism (not to mention a homophobia) problem. And the fact that it has a high number of immigrants shouldn’t be an excuse for the prejudice. Some (most) people don’t like change, and this is a changing world. In spite of the United States’ relatively restrictive immigration policy, it still has a lot of immigrants. And they are having babies. OMG!

Soon whites won’t be the majority anymore, and then what will they do?

I guess what they are trying to do in Arizona.

* Source: Feminist Majority Foundation’s Feminist News

Friday Videos: Fully Realized Women

Ellen Keim — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:00:39 +0000

Kavita Ramdas talks about three powerful women who walk the line between modernity and tradition in their attempts to make a difference. Ramdas is the President and CEO of the largest non-profit organization in the world exclusively funding women’s human rights, the Global Fund for Women.

Fashion: A Sign of Liberation or Oppression?

Ellen Keim — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:48:41 +0000

In an imagined essay* by Carrie Bradshaw about her trip to the Middle East, she writes:

We felt just awful for those poor Arab women. We saw the way they looked longingly at our glamorous and vibrant couture. The difference between those women and us is that we look fabulous under oppression! We can get through the world of men getting us down because at least we can pick our clothes and drink cocktails by the pool. We didn’t really get to talk to many Arab women on the trip, but the ones that rescued us were completely jealous of the fact that we could leave the house in our couture and they couldn’t.

This post is not about defending Muslim women and their way of life. What it is about is the idea that Western women feel free because they can dress and behave however they want.

You’re probably thinking, Exactly!

But think about it for a minute. What’s the main reason we think that that Muslim women are oppressed? Because of the way that they dress. We don’t know, and don’t care to know, the first thing about their lives besides what they wear. The mere fact that they cover up convinces us that they must not be free to do the things that Western women take for granted.

But if we think that being “allowed” to sit around the pool in our bikinis drinking cocktails means that we’re not oppressed, we’re sadly mistaken. We’re just distracted from noticing it.

Some Muslim apologists insist that it is Western women who are enslaved by their culture and its demands on them to be sexy and Muslim women who are liberated because they don’t have to worry about what they look like. There’s some truth in what they say, but they’re missing the point. It’s not what women wear that signifies oppression or freedom. It’s whether or not they have the same opportunities that men do.

Some (usually younger) feminists are practically giddy about what they see as all their options. “The real feminist is not the woman who rejects her femininity; it’s the woman who celebrates it!” they cry. They think that spending loads of money on their hair, make-up, pretty little frocks and designer shoes and bags is a sign of self-esteem—and liberation. They see “old-fashioned” feminists in much the same light as they see Muslim women: as being trapped by their own values into becoming mere shadows of real women.

They may have a point as well. But the truth is, as long as women are kept busy debating fashion, they’re not noticing the real oppression in their lives. The female professional may make enough money to afford her physical upkeep, but is she making as much as the males alongside her? Is she getting promotions at the same rate and for the same, or even better, performance? Is she held back when she has children (or even just because she can have them) in a way that men aren’t?

Being well-dressed doesn’t mean we’re not oppressed.

* “The Lobby for Abu Dhabi – An Essay by Carrie Bradshaw” by Sara on Muslimah Media Watch

Is Being a Woman All That It’s Cracked Up to Be?

Ellen Keim — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 06:46:16 +0000

On April 16, 2010, Vexing wrote at Feministing that she’s frustrated with the transgendered females she’s met who don’t acknowledge that becoming female has caused them to lose privilege. (For a discussion of privilege, see yesterday’s post.) She wants to know how to convince them that when they were gender-normative males (meaning their gender identity matched their genitalia), they had male privilege and that once they transitioned to female, they lost it.

Vexing’s frustration comes from the reactions she’s received from these transgendered females. They don’t see a problem at all. She hypothesizes that they are so thrilled with being female that they’re willing to put up with the sexism and discrimination that comes with it. Some even appear to welcome it, as a kind of proof that they are indeed being accepted as women.

It’s not just transgendered females who feel this way. Plenty of gender-normative women seem willing to accept what society dishes out because “after all, it goes with the territory.” These women usually insist that the benefits of being women—being sought after sexually, protected and supported, able to have children, and not having to work—far outweigh the possible deficits—being abused sexually, controlled and mistreated, left high and dry when they become pregnant, and not being able to find meaningful work that pays well.

A woman who refuses to call herself a feminist is one divorce or beating away from becoming one. Everything’s fine as long as she gets to be the star of her perfect little life. But when reality sets in, when she experiences the negative side of being female, when she wakes up and realizes that men get a larger share of the pie than women do, then she may begin to wonder if being a woman is all that it’s cracked up to be.

One in six women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Women get poorer after a divorce than men do. Women still bear the greater share of the burden of housework and child-rearing, even if they work as many hours outside of the home as their husbands and boyfriends do. Women are the ones who get pregnant, who work at lower-paying jobs, who are seen as easy prey by rapists and murderers. Women are treated like sex objects, trafficked into sexual slavery, and made into whores.

Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be a woman?

Of course most women don’t have a choice. But if they could choose, if they could have a do-over, would they still want to be born female?

Feminists have often been accused of not being comfortable with their gender identity (after all, everyone knows that a feminist is either an overt or a covert lesbian). They gravitate toward feminism because they’re not satisfied by marriage and motherhood. They hate their own gender and all that it stands for, so they devote themselves to tearing apart the fabric of true womanhood. The bottom line is, they’d rather be men.

That’s hogwash. Feminists value womanhood so much they’re willing to fight for every woman’s right to be what she has always dreamed of. Not every woman wants to be a wife or a mother or a homemaker, just as not every woman wants to be a career woman. And some women want it all. Feminism says that nobody has the right to stand in a woman’s way or to restrict her choices in life, whatever they may be.

Being a woman isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. But it could be.

Privilege

Ellen Keim — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 06:26:16 +0000

Even though as a feminist I write for the benefit of all women, not all women will listen to me. I am especially suspect as a Second Wave feminist because I belong to the cohort that seemed to run things during the era of the women’s liberation movement:. The problem is that, according to some, I’m a woman of privilege: I’m white, straight, middle-class and able-bodied. Women of color, lesbians, the poor and the disabled felt that they need not apply.

Actually, this has been a criticism of the feminist movement as far back as the First Wave, when feminists were more concerned about getting women the vote than in eradicating slavery.

And I’m not sure that things have changed that much today. Where once feminists were represented by the Susan B. Anthonys and the Gloria Steinems, now we have the Jessica Valentis; all white, straight, middle class and able-bodied.

Some women have even refused to join, or have left, the feminist movement, because they feel that women of privilege monopolize it. They feel that they’re not being listened to. They resent not being able to influence the course of the feminist movement (although I would argue that this isn’t entirely true).

And isn’t that what we’re talking about anyway? Being shut out of the party? It’s like in high school when the “in” crowd seems to run everything. That’s what being privileged is really all about. Being the one who’s picked first, who gets most of the recognition and is given more opportunities to get ahead. Being given more because you had more to begin with. Having advantages that start you out ahead of everyone else.

It’s natural to resent that kind of privilege. We want those who are “on top” to pay in some way for their privilege. We want them to feel guilty, to apologize, maybe even to give up what they’ve been given. But is that really fair?

Let’s take this a step further: what about male privilege? Feminists talk about the advantages men have just by virtue of their being born male. But what do we expect them to do about it? They can’t very well stop being men. (Well, they could, but that’s a rather drastic solution.)

Feminists do often seem to want men to feel guilty and to apologize for their privilege. But what feminists really want is for men to acknowledge that privilege. And to be willing to stop hogging the resources that are bestowed upon them.

That’s all that anyone wants of those who have privilege. We want them to say, “Yes, we realize that we have things easier than you do. And that we didn’t do anything to earn what we’ve been given. So from now on, we’re going to accord you the same privileges we have. ”

But even this is a touchy solution. It smacks of the lords giving rights to the peasants. What we really need is to change society’s attitudes toward privilege. We need to stop rewarding those who have it and penalizing those who don’t.

In fact, what if we got rid of the concept of privilege altogether? What if it was no longer seen as an advantage to be male, white, straight, rich and able-bodied? What if all conditions and characteristics were seen as valuable? What if we stopped dividing people into the haves and have-nots?

Yes, I know I’m being idealistic. I know that we’ll probably never see a society where people are willing to give up the power that being seen as privileged brings them. But if we would stop attaching so much power to certain qualities, we would find this world a much better place for all of us.