You can lie to yourself, but stop lying to me

Dear every jerk who has ever tried to tell me that women are "just as or more violent" than men,

If your assertion is true then why is it almost always men who kill their families and assorted others before checking out themselves?

In the above paragraph, there are 4 separate mass killings, all perpetrated by men, in the last few weeks in the US. There have indeed been female serial killers and mass murderers, as well as women who have killed their children. There is still CONSIDERABLY FEWER OF THEM.

A man leaves his wife, he generally doesn't have to worry about her killing him for it. Statistically, he is in no danger from her physically. For women? Its so fucking common that it doesn't even make the news.

So you types who want to try and draw a parity where there isn't one to placate your pwecious widdle egos can just fuck miles of off.

I am so pissed off right now

Breaking the silence: On Living Pro-Lifer's Choice for Women

I have to say, I am utterly shocked. And LIVID. What exactly are women supposed to do? We choose to go through with and give birth to an unplanned pregnancy? We are selfish, or stupid and deserve any hardship it causes unless we are white and financially well off. We choose to have an abortion? Then we are cold, heartless, baby-killing harpies. We choose to give the resulting baby up for adoption? Then we are selfish and/or heartless failures as women because we didn't want to follow our "maternal instincts" (puke) and become good little obedient child raisers, unless we are women of color, or poor, in which case, see point number one. We choose never to have children at all by being sterilized before its an issue? Then we are failures as women, except for WoC and poor women. Then we are just doing what we should to leave the population to the privileged.

I see no reason to play their fucking game. We will lose no matter what, purely by virtue of daring to exist while female and think that we are actually people with the right to live as we see fit.

Quick Hit: Misogyny Where You Least Expect It

Another one for the "You have got to be fucking kidding me!" file.

I love StumbleUpon. You want to lose a whole night of productivity? StumbleUpon. I have found some awesome sites and amazing images through this lovely concept.

Unfortunately there is no way to request things that are not written by idiots who say sexist things.

If you follow the link, you will find a blog post about the worlds deepest pool, which looks amazingly awesome. One problem though, the sub-title of the post.

The Deepest Swimming Pool In The World

The last date you take your cheating girlfriend on.

Anyone else see the problem here?

...

...

No?

Ummmm...is it absolutely necessary to advertise an amazing place with the suggestion that its a great place to kill a woman who cheats on you?

In a world where the vast majority of murdered women are murdered by their significant others, you really thought this was appropriate? Or worse, a fun thing to joke about?

Well I know that is exactly what makes me think someone is edgy and cool, is their willingness to joke about drowning bitches who dare to fuck someone other than them. Way to go there Skippy.

Fame and victim blaming

Unless you have been living under a rock in the States recently, you have probably heard of the case of musical artist Chris Brown facing charges for beating the stuffing out of his girlfriend, Rhianna who is actually more widely known than he is.

Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.

I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.

No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.

As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:

I don’t want to open up any dialogue right now. I don’t want to teach you. I don’t want to explain to you how women of colour are shoved in all directions when it comes to violence against women. I don’t want to teach anyone about sexism and racism in the media. I don’t want to tell you about my experiences so that you can satisfy your voyeuristic curiosity that we have been trained to have. I don’t want to make any woman, WOC or not, into a model victim. I don’t want to tell you why it’s wrong to expect that of any survivor. I don’t want to have to argue again and again why it is downright bullshit to try to take away agency from the survivor. I don’t want to explain that “the personal is political” doesn’t mean no one has a right to privacy.

I want to yell. I want to scream. I want to rage. I want to extend a hearty ‘fuck you’ to a lot of people.

I don’t give a fuck how your life has been fundamentally changed by seeing a sensationalized photograph of a domestic assault survivor.

I don’t give a fuck about her fame.

I don’t give a fuck that you want to see it too.

I don’t give a fuck that you think she has no right to privacy because she’s a celebrity.

I don’t give a fuck how lucky you now feel to have never experienced intimate partner violence just because you’ve seen it.

I don’t give a fuck that you can see the ‘upside’ of this because it’s “raising awareness.”

I don’t give a fuck about you making her into an example.

I don’t give a fuck about what you think she should and should not do about her life.

I don’t give a fuck about her abuser’s career.

I don’t give a FUCK if you think she deserved to be abused, or to have her photos spread around like a fucking Christmas card.

Fuck the people who have turned this into entertainment.

Fuck the people who have turned this into an after-school special on VAW.

Fuck the people who published it on news sites and displayed it on television (I am looking at you Entertainment Canada).

Fuck the people who posted it on their blogs, their journals, their Facebooks, MySpaces, and other social networking sites so that EVERYONE else can see it.

I give a fuck about her dignity and I am yelling about it. I give a fuck about her choices that only SHE has a right to. I give a fuck about her life. I give a fuck about her rights. I give a fuck about her privacy. I give a fuck about her, so why don’t you?

This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.

Fuckers.

Same Shit, Different Day

Dear US, US based mainstream media, and various other information outlets,

Please stop it with the judgments of Nadya Suleman. I am so sick of hearing about this that I could puke. Asking if she should be "allowed" to give birth to octuplets when she already has six children is an irresponsible question. Her body, her life and her choice. So they may end up on some sort of public assistance. Who the fuck cares? no really, who cares? Some of y'all think you shouldn't have to pay for her choices because you think they are irresponsible. I get it. I also think thats a pretty fucking cold Regan-esque thing to say. These are children, they are here and they are alive, and they deserve a chance at a decent life, regardless of how desperately you want to judge their mother. Unless you really think your self-righteous posturing about how this woman is a leech, insane or worse is more important than feeding children who haven't done anything but be born. And seriously, Yahoo news...the whole family may end up costing a whole 1.3 million dollars as a scare tactic? That means one dollar from a million taxpayers. How many taxpayers do we have in this country, hmm? Purposefully inflating that number to feed into the welfare wank? THATS fucking irresponsible.

Honestly, judging women for their reproductive choices is so fucking old-meme I don't even know where to begin. Besides, if she were a white woman with a husband everyone would be cooing over the pwecious widdle babies and TLC would be falling all over itself to give her a TV show and years worth of free shit.

Just cut it the fuck out already.

love and kisses,

me

Veiled Contempt-Part one: "Hijab" (aka The "Mythnomers and Impervections" edition)

(go here for an explanation of the title)

So, we are finally gonna start with this conversation, mainly because it seems to be the hugest issue that your average non-Muslim westerner will bring up regarding women in Islam. This took forever to actually put together, so pay attention.

Welcome to the first section of Part One in my Veiled Contempt series.

The veil.

This particular subject in itself is huge, and how it is addressed is rarely unproblematic for the people actually faced with the prospect of wearing something that has so many shades and degrees of meaning from place to place.

Very often, at least in a good deal of the popular culture that I have seen, the concept of veiling is either painted as absolutely oppressive, all the time, no matter what, or as an object of ridicule.

This part of this series will serve as a sort of primer on basic veiling names and facts, as well as dispelling some myths about the practice itself. I will add a disclaimer, this information should not necessarily be considered comprehensive. It is based on a few years of research on my part but there is a huge wealth of information on this topic. This piece barely scratches the surface.

First thing that must be understood: not every Muslim women veils. Not every predominantly Muslim country requires it either. Most don't require anything in the way of head covering for women, in some Muslim countries the practice is discouraged or outright banned in certain areas and even in the countries where it is required, veiling as it is recognized by non-Muslim westerners, and even some Muslim westerners, is a largely urban and recent phenomenon that has a huge variance from country to country, ethnic group to ethnic group.

Next thing that must be understood: there are many different variations of veil, all of which have their own name, and their own history, locality and meaning.

The headscarf, or hijab, is the most ubiquitous symbol of female Muslim identity to outsiders. There is no doubt in your mind when you see a woman wearing any one of the possible variations of the veil as to how this woman identifies herself. However, there are a multitude of questions as to why a woman would identify herself so openly in this way. In response to that, there is a multitude of reasons for wearing it, dependent on factors such as location, culture and interpretation of religious texts. Depending on where the woman is currently located, and where she is originally from, the veil can have many meanings, many purposes and many “why’s” attached to it. In today’s world, the veil has significant social, religious and political implications.



There are different variations of the veil, each of which has a slightly different implication. To list them fairly quickly, there is the hijab or headscarf, which can be found throughout the Middle East as well as in Turkey; there is the jilbab, often associated directly with the hijab; the niqab, which is not only the jilbab and the hijab but also a covering for the face which leaves only the eyes showing; the chador, or “sheet” which is a large piece of fabric, or a cloak that is wrapped around the body and head and is found mainly in Iran and Pakistan; the burqa, which is usually a large tent-like garment with a screen to allow the wearer some vision, and is found mainly in Afghanistan; and lastly the abaya, a flowing garment which is normally black that covers from the head to the ankles and can be found all over the Middle East. The style which is used to wear and decorate the various different methods of veiling can be an indicator of regional origin. The niqab can be as simple as a black outer garment worn when one goes out, to an elaborately decorated headdress made with leather and sewn on metal decorations. The simpler version generally indicates an urban dweller, whereas the more elaborate niqab is an indicator of a smaller, more rural village dweller. The style in which a hijab is wrapped about the head is also an indicator of regional origin. Hijabs in Egypt are very different from hijabs in Turkey.



The obvious meaning of the veil is to establish visual evidence of differentiated roles for males and females within Islamic culture. The actual source of the veiling tradition pre-Islam is unclear, but there are many theories. One theory is that women would cover themselves in the desert to prevent the dust and sand from ruining their clothing, or to prevent them from being made a target for raiders. In a strictly Islamic interpretation, it indicates something quite different. There are clothing and headwear prescriptions for both men and women within Islam, but they have one major difference. In every mention of men covering their heads it is with some reference to the divine. Men were to cover their heads to show a relationship to God, whereas women were to cover their heads as an indication of separation from certain aspects of social interaction and as an indication of modesty.



There are religious writings that have been used by many different groups and individuals to enforce a version of the veil on women. Two Surahs specifically indicate that a woman should cover. Surah An-Nur (24:31) advises women to “draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons or their sister’s sons, or their women or the slaves whom their right hands possess or male servants free of physical needs or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex.” Essentially, this Surah dictates that women should only show their “beauty” to their husbands or to those who are ineligible to be their husbands. This Surah has been used to not only make the argument for veiling, but to make the argument for nothing more than modesty. It has been taken to the other extreme as well, and has been used to justify extreme examples of veiling, which will be discussed later.



There is also Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59), which delivers a more direct command: “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast heir outer garments over their persons [when abroad]: that it is most convenient that they should be known [as such] and not molested: and God is Oft-forgiving, most merciful.” In this passage, the word “outer garments” used here is jalabeeb, plural of jilbab, which is a long gown covering from the neck to the ankles. This Surah is also used to justify extreme veiling.

The current trend of young, second generation Muslim women in western countries beginning to veil when it had not been a well observed practice in their families has been attributed to these two Surahs, the translations of them in English and the interpretations thereof. Many of these young women are interpreting veiling as fard, or religious duty. This has become more important in recent years as the popularity of multiculturalism has expanded. There has always been an attitude of assimilation for immigrants to America due to how recent immigrants ahve been and are treated as "other" and marginalized, and in the late 80’s/early 90’s it wasn’t seen as very “cool” to be anything other than mainstream, so immigrants to places like north America were more likely to try and assimilate in order to gain social recognition and reduce the “otherness.” In the last decade or so being ethnic in some way has become more fashionable and therefore more desirable. With the idea that asserting ones ethnic identity is a way of gaining social status, it has become important to some women to assert a specific part of their identity. Since it is a bit more difficult to assert a specific ethnic identity and still maintain a fairly decent social circle without being deemed racist, it has become easier to bring a religious identity more to the forefront and to still be inclusive. It has even gotten to the point where instead of trying to blend into the usual social hierarchies in school, or in public, it is easier to carve out a specific social niche in which everyone who is part of the group shares some visible evidence of their identity. This particular evidence has become so popular that there is a fairly brisk market for these culturally specific garments and businesses have sprung up amidst the demand.



The veil also has social implications, which are very dependent on the location and culture of the veiler. The most common social implication of the veil is the protection from harassment. Many women who choose to veil have found that by asserting their identity as a pious Muslim woman, they are either left alone when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, or they are able to take a higher moral ground because of it. In my own experience of wearing a veil her on the streets of Philadelphia, I did notice a difference in the way I was treated by men. I found that I was stared at less, and the cat calls that have been a fact of my life since the onset of puberty had all but stopped. It has been stated in several different studies on the choice to veil that many women witnessed a reduction in how much they had to deflect unwanted advances once they assumed the veil.

However, this does not always apply. In a conversation on NPR that I had with Azar Nafisi, the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, I asked her about this in regards to the forced veiling of Iranian women. She said that while that was used as the official justification for enforcing the veil, in her experience it only made street harassment worse. According to her, this was mainly because the assumption of the veil was compulsory and had many different veins of logic behind it, not the least of which being the assumption that women were inherently a temptation to men and had to be covered to protect men from their “seductive powers.” This mindset, even under the guise of protecting the women, only served to put them at greater risk. Mrs. Nafisi emphasized that the important part of this was the choice to veil. When veiling no longer becomes a choice and is compulsory, it loses any moral high ground or credibility because it is no longer a sign of the individual woman’s piety, but a social mark of inherent licentiousness.



Another social implication of the veil is the reactions of western non-Muslims to women who veil in their midst. There are a great many assumptions about the veil and the purpose of it in the west, and there have been some recent negative reactions to veiled women in supposedly “liberal” countries.

The first and most obvious example is the French ban on obvious religious clothing or symbols in public schools. This ban states that religious headwear is not allowed in a publicly funded institution. The argument is that because France is so secular, and assumes that a great deal of its citizens are also secular, they do not want to be seen as endorsing any particular religion. There is also the argument that the veil is something that is forced on women by their fathers, husbands, or other family members and the government has to be willing to protect them from that. This is an understandable desire, however, the premises that it is based on are false. The vast majority of women who live in western countries who veil do so by choice. Their families often resist them in their decision to veil, as a part of not wanting to stand out as ethnically different and because of the implications of identifying openly and visually as a Muslim in a world where there has been a great deal of violence attributed to Islamic fundamentalism and where many people assume that “Muslim” and “terrorist” are synonymous.



Another case is Britain. A few years ago a British elected official began to insist that if any of the veiled Muslim women in his constituency wished to speak to him, they would have to remove their face veil. He called it a “visible sign of difference” and insisted that he would not accept people trying to separate themselves from the rest of the world. If they wanted his attention, they had to remove their veils. It was obvious that he had no idea what he was asking and had no idea about the significance of the veil. He too, assumed that it was something forced on these women by possessive husbands and exclusionary cultures. It did not cross his mind that perhaps this woman chose it for herself and sees it as a sign of her devotion to God. He assumed, like so many others, that he was “saving” these women and giving them a chance at being “free.” Quite often, as I mentioned earlier, veiling is chosen. There are only a few countries that require women to veil and even in those countries there are rural areas where it is not observed as extremely as it is in the city centers. Some cultures that have a large Muslim population do not allow women to veil, so when they come to a western country that prides itself on freedom to worship, they choose to worship in a way that was denied them before. If a woman is from Indonesia or Turkey and chooses to veil when in a western country, this is most likely because in her country of origin, she is either socially discouraged, or outright denied the choice.

Possibly the largest implications connected to the veil are the political implications. Politically, the veil can function in many ways, but the ones that I will discuss here are the uses of the veil as a sign of either obedience or defiance of the government, and the veil as a sign of protest against the West.

There are at least three major countries in the Middle East that strictly enforce a veiling policy for their female population, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Each of these countries policies has their roots in various political and religious justifications. In Saudi Arabia, the niqab is the required form of veiling for any time that a woman leaves her home. The restrictions go much deeper than that, and extend to women’s ability to travel alone or obtain anything without the permission of a male guardian. The source of this proscription for veiling is the very conservative Wahabi Islam that is integrated with the power of the monarchy. In Afghanistan, the burqa is the proscribed form of the veil. In the past this was instituted by the Taliban which went as far as to prevent women from going to school, and would have morality police that would beat women and punish their husbands if their veiling was deemed insufficient. There is still an on-going issue in Afghanistan regarding the behavior of women that some groups find to be "impious," leading to horrible actions, like throwing acid on women who dare to attend school. Finally, in Iran, the chador was introduced as a required dress for women whenever they left their homes. This began as part of the movement that eventually led to the Islamic revolution. It was considered to be a way of rebelling against the influence of the west on Iranian culture and the sexualization of women for profit. It later became a way of showing ones obedience to the government. If a woman is not veiled properly, she can be arrested on indecency charges and be given a years-long prison sentence. The severity of how this is enforced waxes and wanes depending on current political tides.

These three locations have a few obvious things in common, the first of these being the government enforcement of dress using the excuse of “morality,” the second being the penalties for violating the dress code. All three use the previously discussed religious texts to justify these policies. The second two have one more thing in common. In both Iran and Afghanistan, these policies came as a reaction to the increasing encroachment and interference of the west on these specific countries.

On the flip side, there are countries that have outlawed the veil in the past and continue to actively discourage against it now. One is Turkey, a country that is based in Ataturk’s vision of a completely secular state. Ataturk himself put legal limits on religious dress during his lifetime. These laws have been revoked for the most part, but one is still hard pressed to find a woman in a position of political or social power in turkey who actively veils in public. Here have also been several movements in Egypt to block the veil, and in response veiling has grown as a sign of political protest.

In conclusion, it is obvious that with the complexity of the practice of veiling it is foolhardy at best and completely ignorant at worst to make assumptions about a woman who veils or doesn’t and about her impetus for doing so. As far as my personal opinion on the practice, I feel that it can be an important form of identity assertion and a way to express oneself socially, politically and religiously. That being said, I support the practice, provided it is a choice. If it is forced it loses all meaning except the political and that does nothing but cheapen the religious and cultural reasons for choosing it. In the flip side of that argument, forcing a woman to remove it when she does not wish to shows the same disregard for her agency as forcing her to wear it does, and as a double strike, is able to be couched in supposedly progressive rhetoric which, under the surface, has very little to do with "progress" and has everything to do with control. In the next section of this series I will address a deeper analysis of this practice, and the western equivalents thereof.

Fat Failure

{I am putting a trigger warning on this post for eating disorders, body issues, and self-harm.}

I'm still new to the concept of fat acceptance.

I have been trying to love my body for years. I understand that I have tried everything short of weight loss surgery to lose weight and was never able to get lower than 140lbs. On a 5ft frame, that is still pretty big and still put me in the overweight category according to the BMI. I had to eat nothing but apple juice and saltines, plus throw up two to three times a day for a whole month to get to that weight too. When given the choice by my very scared (now ex)girlfriend between eating and not puking and being put in the hospital against my will, I decided to try to eat again. Within a few months, I had regained all but 2 of the 40lbs I had lost in that scary month, and had gained anxiety attacks and an occasional heart issue as well. When I tried to get my heart issue examined, I was told to lose weight first, regardless of my protests that I hadn't had a heart problem until after I had lost weight. I have come to the realization in recent years that my girlfriend's threat probably would not have been carried out, not from lack of intent on her part, but because by most medical standards, I was still fat even after starving and purging for 30 days straight.

When my Grandmother was on chemotherapy for her second (and eventually fatal) round of breast cancer, she drastically lost weight. All people at her office could see was that she was skinny. So what if she was going bald? So what if she was nauseous and tired all the time? So what if she was dying? At least she was finally thin!

And we reach my central point...the value we have on thinness. The myth that it is better regardless of how it is reached. I have been told that I should lose weight before I could get fertility advice, because I am supposed to put my health in jeopardy for arbitrary standards of what is attractive in order to win the right to reproduce.

As much as I want to love my body, I am buffeted constantly with images, people, advertisements and medical professionals telling me that fat is BAD and since I'm fat, I must be weak-willed, lazy, gluttonous, and immoral because being fat is a "choice" that I made. It started from childhood, with a schoolmate calling me "chubby" in the first grade to my dance teacher when I was 12 nick-naming me "mama cow" because puberty made me balloon to my school mates in junior high taking up the nickname and mooing at me in the hallways, and in the end, all of this is considered justified because I wouldn't be fat unless I wasn't trying to be thin, amiright?

I have accepted this idea of the morality of body shape/size to such a degree that when I don't do something right, I criticize my body. When I feel incompetent, I can feel my body very acutely, and the feeling of it touching my clothing reminds me of how big I am. I tell myself to stop being so damn fat as if my fat disappearing will take all of my foibles as a person away with it, and being thin will mean that I have attained perfection. It takes all of the mental energy I have not to freak right the hell out and break down crying when this happens. I know that its not true, I know that its a fantasy, and that just reinforces my feelings of being a failure. Its a nasty downward spiral that usually ends with me in the bathroom tearing my clothes off and punching my own stomach repeatedly.

My spouse tries to help by telling me that I'm beautiful when I complain about feeling fat. While the sentiment is well-meaning, and I know zie truly finds me beautiful, the problem still remains of juxtaposing a truth about me, my fat, with hir perception of me as beautiful. It translates in my warped, self-hating mind to hir loving me despite my fat. My fat is still bad, zie just tolerates it. That probably is not the case at all, but that is what happens in my head. My sister-in-law also makes such well-meaning gaffes. I try to talk about my fat as a morally neutral fact, in order to counter my fantasy of being thin, and it can help to a point, at least on the surface. She can always be relied upon to rush to reassure me that I am not fat! Not at all! She doesn't realize that she is assuming fat is always a bad thing. Then again, she and I are both dancers and have been subjected to the same brainwashing, so I can understand to a point why she does this. Her intentions are sweet, but not helpful at all.

All I want is to get a point where I don't actively hate my body and myself for having it.
Why the fuck does it have to be this hard?

Holy Shit!

I GOT MY WISH!


Well, one of them anyway, the Global Gag Rule is fucking GONE! At least until the next anti-choice president reinstates it. Seriously, can we get some legislation on this already? We are talking about women's lives here, not some fucking ideological disagreement.

There has been some annoyance on my side of this issue about why President Obama (GOD but writing that feels good!) waited til the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (when this was initially scheduled) to do this. While I can understand that annoyance, I don't share it. He fucking DID it people, and he did it in a way that doesn't have anti-choice assholes losing their shit.

As painful as I know this is, because we have been waiting for 8 fucking years for this, we can't afford to just upend the power structure that has been built over that time. Why the hell should we subject those who disagree with us to the same treatment we have been subjected to? What purpose does that serve except to foster more resentment that there already is? That and the bat-shit crazies that feel threatened by a liberal president who is also a POC don't need any more encouragement at this point.

Compromise doesn't have to mean what we have been told it means for so long. Progressives are regularly told to back down a little bit so we and vicariously, our message, will be more acceptable. The demand of compromise has regularly been used to silence us and block our efforts. So-called compromises have been made on their terms, and usually include us giving us the very issue that is central to our struggle (Example: civil unions instead of marriage for queers) while trying to placate us with crumbs from the table. That is not true compromise, and it never has been, but this troll's bargain has been dressed in the language of "reasonable compromise" for so long and used to paint progressives a rigid and inflexible, that any compromise is suspect. Any admonition to respect the other side is possibly a way to get us to shut our collective face and know our collective place.

This DOES NOT have to be the case. We can define compromise as well, in a way so that our needs and rights are respected. We don't have to become what we despise, and we don't have to become what the other side wishes we were.

We won this one for now. I am content with that and ready to keep working.

Polish those teaspoons people, we have an ocean to deal with.

(and thanks Sady for getting my wheels spinning on this)

Blog for Choice day

Its Blog For Choice Day.

The 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is traditionally marked by anti-choice(I categorically reject the term "pro-life" to describe these people. Anyone who supports laws that kill women and do not save fetuses is not "pro-life.") advocates widely protesting the fact that women are still worth more than an unborn fetus. Today, there are anti-choicers marching in DC showcasing "Women Who Regret Their Abortions." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not only are these... people... doing just that, they are running this campaign on faulty information.

Say it with me kids: THE NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED MENTALLY BY HAVING AN ABORTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISPROVED.

Saying otherwise over and over again with no solid proof is the same as smashing your head against a brick wall: its pointless, and proves no other point than that you are a moron.

The concept of medical choice covers more than just abortions, more than just reproduction. It means that as human being we have the right to decide what will medically be done to our bodies. It all comes down, as Liss at Shakesville put it, to trust. I trust people to make their own medical decisions. I apply this universally: I trust people to decide when to have children, I trust people to decide if ther bodies are right for them, and I do not trust someone who doesn't know me or mine to make that choice for me.

What I want to see from our new pro-choice President is the end of the Global Gag Rule that pulls American federal funding from any organization that dares to think the word abortion and results in the maternal mortality rate world-wide going up. I want to see the end of the DHHS regulations that allow medical providers to refuse necessary services based on being offended. I want to see the end to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. I want safe, affordable access to contraception, and abortion, as well as comprehensive sex-education programs.

Its not enough, but dammit, we deserve to be treated like people, not fucking brood mares.

Fuck You, You Fucking Fuck

President Bush declares January 18th to be "Sanctity of Human Life Day".


Because women aren't human.

Because POC aren't human.

Because anyone of the LGBTQ, especially T, community isn't human.

Because Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs in general, and Muslims are not human.

Only a (middle to upper-class white) fetus is human and has a right to live and this deserves a fucking holiday.

Fuck you Mr. Bush. You have overseen some of the most egregious actions and inactions by the US government resulting in the loss of human life that have happened in my lifetime, and you have the fucking nerve to pull your pud over the actions you took to treat women as incubators with legs.

Please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out the door, repeatedly if you don't mind.

Veiled Contempt - Introduction ( aka The "Why I Opened This Can o' Worms" Edition)

I seriously doubt that this is a concept that has not been spoken of before, but I have never talked about it here, so it is new in one way at least.



When Islam and women in Islam are discussed in Western classrooms, or at dinner tables, or even in foreign policy discussions, what are the first things that are mentioned?

Usually, its one of two things: Hijab(often mistakenly called Burqa and generally falsely conflated with Saudi or Iranian forced dress codes) and "honor" killings. Both are pointed out as examples of exotic otherness and supposed Muslim/Arab (another false conflation, but I digress) savagery in comparison with supposed Western "liberal" attitudes towards women, gender "equality" and moral superiority. "Well, WE don't treat OUR women like THAT." Generally, much nodding of heads back patting and ego fellating ensues.

This attitude amuses me (and by "amuses me," I mean it makes me want to repeatedly bash my head into a wall) because of one underlying flaw in the rush to promote ourselves as superior whiteness/Westerness, namely that Western women are treated very similarly, the only difference being the exact way that sexism is expressed. The underlying attitudes, about a woman's place, her function, what she should look like, her responsibility for participating in the public sphere, and her punishment for violating the patriarchal demands placed upon her, are almost exactly the same and differ mainly in degree of severity. The only other major difference is the form of support that our judicial systems grant these actions. Again, the rationalizations are eerily similar, and the only difference in support is whether it is tacit, or open. Even in the law, the only differences become a matter of degree.

So, I decided that I had too much to say (no surprise there) about all of these subjects, so I would start a series. At this moment, its only this introductory post and two subsequent posts, but I'm flexible. I will be drawing from a variety of sources, including blogs like Muslimah Media Watch, news sites, feminist theory, and my own observations in both the Middle East and the US. My intention is to make clear that when it comes to sexism and treatment of women, no one has the moral high ground. This can end up opening into an on going series if the information is available.

So, be on the lookout for my first post, probably sometime next week.

In Memoriam...

One year ago today, Benazir Bhutto, the first woman to lead a Muslim nation, was assassinated.



She faced massive hurdles in her rise to power, and subsequent loss of it, and as soon as I learned who she was, I knew I had found a true hero and role model. Her death, two days before my wedding, shocked and pained me more than I can possibly explain. It had been clear for a long time that if there was anyone who could start to restore sanity to the tense situation that is Pakistan, it was her. Her death sent the whole area into chaos that it is still recovering from.

She continues to inspire me, even today.

I Don't Think I'm Better Than You

Has anyone else come across this "women are morally superior to men" trope? I have heard it before, mainly in philosophy classes, but I came across it again in the Feministing Community, in an entry by Wendy_notsid about a book called Hating Women : America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex By Rabbi Schmuley Boteach. (Sorry, not linking to it.)

There was, of course, a lot of commentary in the book regarding the awful stereotypes presented of women in the popular media, how men are being groomed to view women, and the over-sexualization of young women in popular media and culture that I heartily agreed with, but there were passages of the book that annoyed me greatly, as a feminist and as a humanist in general. Not only was it his criticism of the feminist movement for concentrating too much on being like men and leaving behind their “natural feminine virtues” (I’m not taking this word for word), or his belief that women were respected more prior to the twentieth century (though that really got to me, but it’s a point to pick apart for another blog), but it was also his stressing of how men and women are not equal, but that women are superior beings.

I am sure that the Rabbi meant to help, seeing that he has daughters and seems to subscribe to certain beliefs that indicate that women are to be valued, which is a good thing. I take issue with what is intended to be valued from women, and how this is still limiting to us, as well as the implications for a feminist movement that were to be held to this standard. From the Feministing article:

...he stated the usual evidence of the so-called female superiority: more women do charitable work, more women attend religious services, women are more likely to be sympathetic to the troubles of others, more women excel academically… I know also that there is a belief in a number of Jewish denominations that women are the holier sex because we can bear children and are naturally more moral than men. Another idea is that man was God’s first try in creating a physical being in Its image, and that woman was God’s second, more successful, try.

The idea that any one group of people is morally superior to another is problematic.

First of all, it feeds into the exclusionary stereotype that follows liberation movements, and gives credence to those privileged whiners that are pissed that there is something in the world that doesn't include them. Seriously, why give them more ammo?

Second, it places more responsibility on the shoulders of women to behave "properly" and allows a pass for men to behave however they want with the excuse that they are just "naturally flawed." Women are already blamed for the violence and oppression they face, this just makes that idea even stronger.

Third, this can be used to silence those of us who still insist on pointing out inequality. If we can be placated with the head pat of being "morally superior" (which, by the way, doesn't prevent rape, murder, domestic violence, job discrimination, education discrimination, etc) then we don't need to be treated "like men" (translation: like people) because our needs aren't the same.

The false dichotomy of one group being better than the other prevents any real critical analysis of constructions of personhood and identity, and recreates double standards that are "impossible" to argue against.

There is more to me than this...

I have been going over and having some serious conversations with myself with regards to my family planning choices lately and have discovered something that kinda makes me a bit uncomfortable with myself.

I have had and continue to have fertility issues. About a year and a half ago, my doctors found cysts on my ovaries that could create complications for the process of getting and staying pregnant. Due to lack of insurance, I have not had the opportunity to see a specialist and confirm a diagnosis of a specific hormonal disorder, but since I have just received coverage from my job, I should be able to get that taken care of.

I have also discovered recently that I am able to conceive, but nothing has stuck yet. I have miscarried twice in as many months and was surprised to find that I was not particularly torn up about it. Don't get me wrong, the spouse and I both want a family and chilluns eventually, but so far it doesn't seem to be in the cards without help.

Our niece Jackie was born July 11th, and we got to spend some time with her recently. That day made me feel like I wanted to get pregnant ASAP (that and my dear friend being ready to pop) while I was in the presence of the baby. However, as soon as we left to go home, I started having second thoughts, which led to an almost panic attack at the thought of a pregnancy and parenthood.

It hit me that I was very not ready. When I unpacked the feelings a bit more I realized that I was not ready because I did not want to be limited in my life choices because of a small and totally dependent person. I felt that I wanted to be more than a mother before adding that to the list of ways that I am identified. I felt like being a mother was...beneath me in some ways, like I want to contribute more to the world than just continuing my genetic material.

This is what makes me uncomfortable. I have many dear friends, both online and off who are parents and who still manage to do things with their lives and be parents as well as contributing to the world and society in other ways. I know it can be done, but internally, I feel that motherhood/parenthood is a step down from what I can be for the world. This is not to say that parenting is less than anything else in regards to changing the world, and that is the rub.

I have had the "women have the power of creation" used against me in abusive relationships as a way to put me in my "place," to let me know that they saw this as my only "real" power and as a way to make me feel like I was less valuable than my male partner. I have internalized this to such a degree that I don't feel that being a parent, for me, is a legitimate vocation. I know that this is bullshit, I really do, but I can't seem to get past it in making my own choices. And I feel that if I choose to have a child, I will be relegated to "just" a parent.

I am also terrified. I am terrified that I don't have the patience for children of my own, that I won't love them, that I will resent them, that the novelty will wear off quickly and I will hate the paradigm shift to this being my reality. I am also terrified that I will be defined by the world around me by my reproductive choices. Since I am female, I will be defined as mother first and person second by everyone else in the world, specifically by employers. I want a career, I need a career. The idea that I will be denied this option because of having or potentially having kids makes me so angry and so scared. Part of me wants to do what I have always done, which is do my damnedest to fly in the face of ridiculous assumptions and to challenge them simply by my very being. However, I have also internalized this so deeply, I'm not sure I am strong enough to do that. And it makes me so very angry to know that I live in a society that will judge me regardless of my choices, a society that has taught me that parenthood is worth less than other life paths.

And as a note, this is not intended to offend, in any way, anyone who has made and wishes to make the choice to parent and raise children. I know, intellectually, that this is a valid choice and that it does not lessen someone to make it. I just want to be able to make this choice for myself without all the socio-cultural baggage. Apparently, as a woman in the West, this is indeed too much to ask.

Babe In Total Control of Herself

Due to a discussion on an Ani DiFranco online community, I have been going over the word "bitch" when used as an insult. I know that this is territory that has been chewed to death by theorists, linguists and social commentators, most of whom are far more eloquent and informed than I. This discussion is more for me, and about what I will accept as descriptors and labels for myself.

"Bitch" in the English language is a decidedly gendered insult, the exact implication of which changing depending on who it is applied to. When applied to women, it seems to indicate a woman who is too "man-like" (eg. aggressive, driven, controlling, demanding, etc.) but when applied to men, it is intended to indicate a man who is to "woman-like" (eg. weak, flexible, emotional, etc.)

First of all, can/should a word be able to mean two different, "opposite" things when applied in the same way to two different people? To me, this defies logic at the very least. If we had too many words or linguistic structures that worked this way, language would cease to make sense.

Second, the use of this term reinforces a gender binary for social behaviors that is not carried out by any scientific evidence that can't be countered with an exploration of socialization and how it varies cross culturally.

I guess this could use some context. The conversation that started this was an accusation that Ani is "hard to work with." It had been leveled by local crews of music venues that had hosted her on her recent tour, and I have heard something similar from a friend of mine who used to work at a theatre in my area where she played a few years back. Someone in the community claimed that zie heard that Ani was a bitch.

Based on accounts from other people in the community who had worked with her, she kept a professional distance and had very specific and outlined needs and standards that she expected to be met. Nothing insane or entitled, just specific. According to these posters, working with her was stressful as hell, but when it came down to it, everything went off without a hitch, everything exactly where it needed to be.

It occurred to me that the script people expect one to follow if one appears female bodied is smiling, sweet, accommodating...hell, even I expected it of Ani. Girls who are good people ask nicely, wait their turn and don't make waves.

I all but slapped myself in the face when I realized that i had bought into that shit. Ani is a successful musician and CEO of her own recording company and music venue. She is self promoted, recorded and distributed. She rules every aspect of her business so she doesn't have to make the choice that the rest of us are expected to make: our values or our paychecks. To manage that, one must be driven, specific, aggressive, demanding and totally in control.

To be successful without sacrificing oneself, a woman has to be a bitch.

If being a woman who knows what she needs and demands it because she knows that asking nicely doesn't work makes me a bitch, then that is all I can ever hope to be. Hell, I wish I could have the courage to rewrite that script internally and be the bitch that I know I am.

cross posted in a few places