Ibis3 will be our curator for an examination of news, media, arts, culture, politics, social media & the internet, women’s issues, and everyday life through a feminist lens.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Thanks for opening a new one, PZ
The three letter word missing from the Zika virus warning
Cosby case will move forward; request for dismissal rejected
CDC advises all women to avoid drinking in case they become pregnant
I guess blogs and twitter are already having a field day with this. The article says something about complaints about this advice reducing women to an incubator. I wanted to go a little broader here. If we relate this back to movements to grant “personhood” to fetuses and other anti-abortion claims: does it seem like both our civil institutions and politicians at large are moving in a direction that reduces the status of a woman from a fully fledged person to a mere function of what she can do, presumably for men, (i.g. bear his offspring).
To me this seemed like a part of a larger political current that is reducing women not quite back to their designation as property of their husbands or fathers, but at least to the point where they’re no longer full persons. ‘All women are free and capable persons, unless you’re of breeding age. In which case, hooo Nelly, do we have some regulations and requirements for you!’
Brian Radovich
It’s even worse. It lists “violence”, “STDs” and “unwanted pregnancies” as negative consequences of drinking.
I guess you’D call it progress: Before we blamed alcohol for the horrible things men did to women when men were drunk. Now we blame women drinking alcohol for the horrible things men do to us when we are drunk.
Victim blaming in pure, distilled form.
In an effort to not just decide the world needs to be culled, I’ve started watching non-feminist media with an eye specifically looking for feminist influences. A couple easy examples would be the evolution of the Disney Princess or Star Wars VII. No, they aren’t ‘feminist advocacy’ pieces, but both Frozen and Ep. 7 show a clear recognition that the audience is more willing to accept non-stereotyped roles from producers.
I found a less obvious example in my archive-dive of American Horror Story. Horror has an appalling record, as a genre, of dealing with women. Between rape metaphors, literal rape, the demonization of feminine sexuality and a reliance on pregnancy/body-horror, the genre tropes are just full of squick. And in full honesty, AHS goes to those same wells a bit too often to be fully comfortable with it.
But… on another level, the series represents a major triumph. After the execrable (IMNSHO) first season, the series producers began tapping some major Hollywood talent–and most notably, older actresses, the sorts who normally get shoved into the ‘grandmother’ roles, if they can get work at all. And then it has their interactions be intense and personal in ways that have nothing to do with Teh Menz. In short, it’s a Bechdel-Wallace Test triumph. That’s heartening, in part because it can lead to more women having more influence in Hollywood overall, which in turn would help undermine some of those horrid tropes.
Related to Brian’s #3
Here is the disastrous infographic that the CDC released on women drinking alcohol.
That “For any woman” section is an embarrassment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-are-those-rushing-to-condemn-muslim-men-so-silent-on-roosh-v-and-the-global-oppression-of-women-a6853971.html
I thought this was a very good article. I hadn’t heard of this Roosh V character until recently. He really is an odious character, I’m genuinely surprised he seems to have a following and has been selling a fair number of books. The author (Sunny Hundal) also raises some very good points about the treatment of women in places like China and India and the general lack of interest in it, despite the current climate of various groups of men jumping to defend women against muslim men/culture. I think part of this can be due to occurring closer to home, but it definitely made me question my own views and raised my self awareness a notch or two.
Holy shit, their press release on the topic is even worse than that:
Source: CDC Newsroom
What… the… fuck…
Not even implying it anymore with a little infographic or with words like “increased risk” or “can cause”. They’re just straight up saying it.
I was hoping I had stumbled onto the Onion’s website instead, what with the green color theme.
@freemage
My impression is that horror is actually more likely than other genres to feature (strong and resourceful) female protagonists. Sexism is there, all right–where isn’t it?–but there’s a pretty strong counter-current that people tend to overlook.
I think rape and body-horror are fair game for horror–because it’s horror, and rape is horrible–as long as it isn’t just women being threatened. Don’t use us as helpless, passive victimsn
@fal1 #7
I was actually debating whether or not to bring in Roosh V, but decided against it because it provoked such a visceral reaction from my first reading of it. Interestingly, this is the same guy who had to write “Don’t Bang Denmark”, as part of his PUA “Bang (country)” series. So, I kind of see him more as a laughable character now, rather than a serious contender for an audience. The clandestine nature of his meetings and how much protest he’s inspiring seems to me to be more of a publicity stunt than anything.
On the other hand, he is part of the Indian Diaspora, and given the sorts of conversations mainland India is having about these very issues, maybe his stance isn’t surprising? Feminism hasn’t really made much progress into rural parts of India, or even the urban parts. Sometimes it feels like I’m watching 1st and 2nd wave ideas being exported to other parts of the world. It doesn’t make it less repulsive, but it does give it a context. Combined with him being a showman, I’m guessing he has a new book coming out. It does lend support to the argument that we live with a “culture of rape” when you consider he actually has an audience.
@freemage #5
You know, the first time I actually the first Evil Dead was with a female friend of mine who specifically wanted me to see it with her. She even pointed out the tree-root rape scene to me as one of her favorites, and commented “Oh yeah, that’s why you don’t go wandering in the forest after dark, B#%$#!” It was an interesting experience. Horror is just an altogether weird genre for me. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that didn’t fail the Bechdel test, but women are victims, protagonists, and antagonists in equal measure I think. You get moments of seemingly empowering feminism, and then you see tropes like “women in refrigerators”, or “femme fatale”. They’re very much the same as superhero movies in my thinking. It’s all a weird normative reinforcing/twisting experience for me.
I kinda wanted to bring up the Skepchick article on Hillary Clinton in this thread, but I really can’t decide if that fits more feminism or politics discussion. My argument in support of the author was something like moving from Newton’s “standing on the shoulders of giants” trope to grinding those giants, (like Ida Wells), under your high heel while you climb to the top over them. I’ll let somebody else bring that up for discussion if they feel it merits inclusion. As a white male feminist, I’m probably part of the most privileged group, so it always feels weird bringing up ideas that feminism should be broader than just supporting women in one or two arenas.
There is a meme that’s been around for a number of years related to the abortion debate that nearly half of human conceptus are spontaneously aborted (generally due to genetic defect) with the woman never knowing she had conceived and aborted. I do not know how true that is but as I understand there is some science behind it.
In this discussion, what that means is that the other half of the conceptus continue viability while the woman still is unaware.
Most people, I can imagine, understand what too much alcohol can do to a developing fetus. I can imagine there are a lot of women in this population of 320 + million that do not know. I see the CDC’s recommendation (note: recommendation, not policy, not restriction, not regulation) as being information for women to consider in deciding where when and how much to consume.
The choice of where when and how much to consume is an individual choice. But that choice is best made by an informed person in possession of the facts. This CDC recommendation is another data point to enter into that decision matrix.
To use this recommendation as an excuse to rant on about misogyny, MRA trash, victim blaming and so on is just fine as long as it is understood that this is just a rather weak excuse to vent bile. The CDC recommendation has nothing to do with any attempt to subjugate women but, instead, to give women the kind of information needed to make intelligent informed decisions.
Brian Randovic @10:
While it’s true that horror films typically have a wide range of female characters, if you examine it a little closer it gets a little worse. Specifically, female sexuality has always had a big role in which category a given female character ends up in: villains are usually either hypersexual seductresses or some sort of grotesque monstrocity. A girl who wants to get it on with her boyfriend might as well have “BAIT” tattooed to her forehead. In order to be the protagonist, a woman has to be pure and virginal.
@azpaul #11: I thought the same as you initially, then I read TFA…
Giliell’s comment #4 explains it better.
Giliell #1 + Radovich #3 =
#13 F.O.
Demonstrable facts are that people who drink too much often do make poor decisions.
— Don’t go to bed with this strange guy. He may be diseased.
— Don’t go to bed with him. I’m not protected.
— The CDC’s graphic warns that too much drink can lead to poor decisions.
Is the CDC saying that a woman who drinks is at fault if she is violently raped? No.
— Many men, drunk or sober, are violent toward women. That is fact.
— Women need to be on guard and exercise their better judgement to spot and avoid creeps. That is fact.
— Too much drink can put a woman in a violent situation not of her own making. That is fact.
— The CDC’s graphic warns women that too much drink can lead to injuries/violence. That is fact.
I see nowhere in the CDC’s display of facts where blame is being assigned the victim. These are facts on the ground that women need to know. There are a lot of women, especially young women, who do not see the dangers of over consumption of alcohol. They need to know.
Is it blaming the potential crash victim to recommend defensive driving?
So, there’s this from a few days ago: United Nations Committee Affirms Abortion as a Human Right
@azpaul3:
So it’s her responsibility but not his? Did the CDC warn fertile men against drinking?
Apparently Roosh has cancelled his upcoming events due to receiving threats. Police came to his mom’s house to take a report. He lives in her basement.
A few comments about this:
1) I trust that he actually received threats. I wonder if the anti-feminists will stay consistent and insist that he’s really just sending the threats to himself. Is he a professional victim now?
2) WTF is it with people sending threats of violence to those they disagree with? There seem to be these jackasses in every corner (realizing that some corners are much more highly populated with this shit than others).
3) Lolololol, the 36-year-old self-proclaimed “King of Masculinity” lives in his mom’s basement. I guess that explains his photos where he has fat stacks of cash; I was rich from Pizza Hut money when I lived at home.
Further to my #18…
4) Anyone want to start a pool on how long it will be before Dawkins retweets him?
@azpaul3:
did you read what I wrote in #14? Did you understand it?
Let me clue you in on a little fact of biology: alcohol does not cause pregnancy. Another fact? Nor does orgasm.
If one person got pregnant, either a female person was raped by a male person, a male person was raped by a female person, a female person knocked over a sperm bank and wielded a turkey baster to procreative effect before being arrested, or at least TWO people are responsible.
In fact, the common risk scenarios the CDC imagines consistently involve scenarios of two or more actors – they don’t grant the scenario of single-handedly knocking over a sperm bank any epidemiological significance at all!
SO WHY THE FUCK IS THE WARNING NOT GIVEN TO ALL INVOLVED IN THE EPIDEMIOLOGICALLY RELEVANT SITUATIONS?
Sure, warn women.
But why warn ONLY women? Does the CDC have good experimental evidence that sperm have magic powers? Should we presume that evidence exists but the CDC is withholding from publication? Or is the most plausible hypothesis from which to work that the sexism proven to operate in the area of responsibility for sex and pregnancy also operated in the CDC decision to target the warning ONLY to women?
“Conspiracy theory” isn’t my null hypothesis.
@Golgafrinchan Captain #18
Agree 100% for 1) & 2).
I think we tend to identify with our ideas, and if someone threatens them, we feel personally threatened.
3) Meh. Whatevs. I have been in the PUA community, and left because none of them was anything I wanted to be or be seen with. (Ethical concerns unfortunately came a lot later).
#20 Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden
Your Eminence,
Maybe because the subject was women and alcohol?
Why would you want to keep this information away from women?
azpaul
Where do I even start? You’re so fractually wrong it’s hard to decide
Wrong.
The CDC’s sheet does not say “if you intend getting pregnant it’s better you stop drinking and smoking and start taking folic acid.” It completely erases her from the image and totally focusses on a potential fetus which might sneak in there all by itself.
Given the fact that most people who can conceive already use contraceptions and most abortions are demanded by people who used contraception , the whole thing boils down to “people who can get pregnant must not drink alcohol because there might be an embryo”. Welcome to Saudi Arabia.
There are rather few facts in that sheet. It is not a “data point”, it is a clear attempt to coerce women into a certain behaviour or at least to squarely lay the blame at their feet in case anything goes wrong.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
The CDC sheet does not say “please be aware that alcohol lowers inhibitions and may lead to poor decisions. It lists violence, STDs and unintended pregnancies as consequences of alcohol consumption for women.
None of this is a consequence of alcohol consumption. Puking, falling over, having a serious hangover are consequences of drinking too much. Violence is a result of somebody deciding to be violent*. You don’t get pregnant just by being drunk. You get pregnant because somebody inserted their penis and released their sperm.
Of course it does. Do I have to explain again? By listing violence as a consequence of drinking it draws a clear line. Look at the medical risks of drinking alcohol and ask yourself the question: A consequence of drinking while pregnant is fetal alcohol syndrome. Who’s to blame? A risk of drinking while female is being the victim of violence. Who’s to blame?
That is bullshit. How does the drinking put you in a violent situation and how is it not of her making if her behaviour is the reason she’s in there?
Let me tell you a story: Many years ago a young woman, a teenager was away at a camp for a weekend. She drank a hell lot of beer. This was in Bavaria where they have those 1l beer kegs which means that either most of your beer will go stale or you drink it way too fast. Then she decided that trying Marihuana would be a cool idea. She was then so hammered she couldn’t walk straight. Her friends, all guys, tried to get her to her tent, but she was sick on the way and insisted to take a shower. The guys took her to the shower, helped her to undress, helped her to shower. She blacks out somewhere in that shower. The next morning she wakes up with a terrible headache. She’s in her PJs, in her sleeping bag. Totally not beaten up, totally not raped, totally not pregnant, totally not having an STI. Tell me, what was the deciding factor in the outcome of this?
You keep talking about facts that are not facts at all because they rely on a non-sequitur that those negative consequences are the rsult of her drinking and not of somebody else doing something to her. It reinforces victim blaming, especially when it comes to sexual violence.
Alcohol is the rape drug #1. It’s easy to access outside of Utah and some places in the Middle East**. It is also easy to make a victim drink more than she intended, by refilling her glass, using social pressure and the rules of politeness to their advantage (imagine a woman telling a guy “stop refilling my glass. I’m afraid that somebody here will rape me if I get drunk!”) or by simply handing her drinks that are much stronger than what she wanted to drink, or by adding more drugs that are hard to find in the bloodstream when the alcohol may still be present. Rapists know all these things and deliberately use them. Now the CDC decided to help them a little on their way.
*oh, and let’s talk about this “alcohol is to blame thing”: Yes, alcohol lowers your inhibitions. It doesn’t change who you are. People are not totally peaceful and then become violent at 1.0 0/00. People who think that violence is permissible under certain circumstances make different calls when drunk then when sober.
**Should be a paradise for women there, right? No alcohol at all, nobody will ever beat them, rape them or make them carry an unwanted pregnancy to term
Songs from the 90s that taught feminist lessons:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/138963-14-90s-songs-that-taught-you-feminist-lessons
#25 – Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
From CDC: It is recommended that women who are pregnant or might be pregnant not drink alcohol at all.
Notice the CDC’s wording: “who are pregnant or might be pregnant”. It does NOT say, ” who can get pregnant” which you interpret as meaning all women, contraceptive or not. The not-so-subtle difference escapes you? Welcome to the real world.
I see no such “blame” language in the CDC piece. I do see the advisory that too much drink CAN have unintended consequences. Do you deny the connections? Do you deny that excess alcohol consumption CAN lead people to make poor decisions?
Did they really have to spell that out? Again, do you deny that excess alcohol consumption CAN lead people to make poor decisions?
It does no such thing. The CDC states that too much can have risks. They even define what “too much” means. They DO NOT say alcohol consumption causes pregnancy or STDs or violence. They DO SAY that consuming too much CAN present risks that women should be aware of. Again, the not-so-subtle difference escapes you? Are you purposely misrepresenting the CDC position?
The drinking mom.
You already know the answer to that.
Your quote, “Violence is a result of somebody deciding to be violent*.” For the most part that decision IS NOT the woman’s. She is the victim, here. Understood?
And you are the one juxtaposing these two very different events and claiming the “blame” in the former attaches “blame” in the latter. You really are twisting the article to suit your own bias.
Sheesh! The same way a good defensive driver can get caught up in an accident anyway. Unless you want to consider driving a car as provocative culpability, which is stupid, it is NOT of her own making!
Nice anecdote. In this context it means nothing. No one is saying drinking must cause rape, violence or sex despite your seeming need for the contrary to make a weak point of bias where none exists.
Why the subterfuge? Can’t find enough bias you have to make it up? There are real women in real dangers because of sexism and misogyny. Those real and present dangers need to be exposed and hounded out of society. The CDC’s article is not one of them.
The CDC article is a health warning to women who are or may be pregnant to avoid alcohol. It then goes on to address the over consumption of alcohol and the potential risks to a woman’s health and well-being that MAY, not must, occur. We should expect this of the CDC. Not just women/alcohol but men/alcohol, lead/babies, vaccination/non-vaccination, etc. It’s their job.
azpaul
Oh, look, somebody who’s completely ignorant on reproductive biology. Fun fact: I might be pregnant right now. I won’t find out until my next period. Hopefully. I also know women who kept having their periods and only found out when they were three months along. “Might be pregnant”= Every fertile person who had a dick near their vagina.
Being the victim of violence is NOT the result of making poor decisions while drunk. Being a victim of sexual violence is not a result of making a poor decision while drunk
If that were the all important message they wanted to get across they’d damn better should. That’s “writing 101”. And of course, that information would be important for people of all genders, not just women.
Funny, since the claim is the exact same structure as the one above, the drinking woman must be the answer here as well.
Nope.
The CDC sheet makes a connection between things that are not connected. Being drunk does not put you at risk of these. If I drown a bottle of whiskey now and go to bed, would this put me at risk of violence, STDs and unwanted pregnancies? It would clearly be too much alcohol…
It always comes to the point where my body is compared to a house or a car or a latop…
Here’S a small thing you might want to learn: road accidents happen. Sexual violence accidents don’t happen. Rape does not happen because somebody makes a mistake. Violence does not happen because somebody makes a mistake.
If there’s no causal relationship, how come this puts you at risk?
And you know who puts them at risk? People like you who spend their time policing women’s behaviour so they stay “safe” instead of doing something about the people who violate them.
My statement:
Your response:
Well, if you want to twist reality to find a non-existent boogieman under the bed then so be it.
That you would see a health advisory as policing behavior is telling. You really can’t tell the difference, can you.
So let’s do something about the people who violate other people and quite wasting time gnashing teeth trying to make the CDC look like a hot bed of radical sexism for issuing an honest health recommendation.
azpaul
No, it’s yet another instance of common, everyday sexism. Issuing a condescending health recommendation that blames alcohol for the violence that men commonly commit against women is not at all helpful to your target audience. If they had a whole section on short skirts and revealing tops being dangerous clothing that might result in rape or violence or unwanted pregnancy, would you see the problem? Violent men are not a force of nature. Neither are rapists. Blaming alcohol for these things, and then telling women it is their responsibility to avoid the alcohol is sexist, insulting, and the CDC clearly needs some women on staff.
Well, maybe Tethys will get through.
I’m wondering, should they warn people against getting old? After all, being old puts you at risk of being scammed…
I hope so Giliell. I am growing increasingly frustrated with the way peoples brains rationalize the various ways that sexism is built in to our cultures. Especially when the subject involves rape. It’s like they automatically must change the subject to anything but the rape and victims. Alcohol! Skirts! STEM is better than the humanities! smh
Tethys
But don’t forget, it’s for our own protection!
I mean, we really need it if we didn’t know that any amount of alcohol under 21 puts us at risk of an unintended pregnancy (how did I manage not to get knocked up?). Or that having two beers every evening would put us at risk of an STD (I’m wondering: how does the STD know I have those two beers every evening, which puts me at risk, and not just on a Friday evening, which is apparently safe?)?
Maybe azpaul3 missed this straight from the CDC:
Yup, not sexist at all.
One of the many things I learned a long time ago in other struggles against bias and bigotry is that since I am not in that number I can never know the depth of feeling caused by that bias or recognize all the nuanced signs of that bigotry.
A wise old sage once advised that, in situations like this, the best course of action is to just shut the fuck up, listen and learn.
I need to follow that advice.
Thank you for the spirited discussion.
OK, so this violates the shut the fuck up part, but is essential to the listen and learn parts.
How is this statement sexist? What makes it sexist?
How would the CDC have presented this advise to avoid the “sexist” tag?
Can I have some thoughts and opinions on a gaming video I just recently saw?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpUs8oNjuV8
In particular, do women have slower reflexes than men? I tried googling it, but most of the articles are behind paywalls especially with meta studies. In the video he says that this is backed by decades worth of study, and yet provides no sources. I know the video is a year old but I’ve just recently have seen it.
azpaul
It is sexist because it reinforces the sexist notion that contraception and responsibility for human reproduction is on the women, but completely omits mentioning that the vector of pregnancy, drunken violence, STI’s, and rape is not alcohol, the vector is men. Correlation is not causation, as every single CDC scientist should know. Would you be offended if the CDC put out a health warning to men that they should avoid drinking alcohol lest they impregnate, infect, abuse, or rape women? It would be a completely factual health warning.
#36 Tethys
As far as rape and abuse, since a majority of men do not do these things such a suggestion would be inappropriate, imho. And I can see the women’s point of tying their alcohol consumption to these things being inappropriate as well especially since they are the victim of these things not the perpetrators.
But what I am having trouble understanding is the CDC’s advice to women against mixing alcohol and fetus being seen as sexist.
Why is this sexist and how could that sexism have been avoided in their advisory?
@azpaul
Maybe I can help (I’ll happily take criticism if I make a mistake anywhere).
Their interpretation is reasonable. Even when an authority is not singling out a group to take responsibility it is important to define that group appropriately and avoid suggestive or emotionally pressuring language when it comes to social justice concerns. You seem to be unintentionally ignoring the specific wording, context of the information and the fact that excessive social pressure on women and female people is a prime concern here so maybe a couple of analogies will help.
I have read several articles that talk about what advocates for people who have been sexually assaulted do to help with respect to our shitty justice system and helping the victim make choices. The advocates don’t tell them what to do, all they do is to provide the information without any suggestive or emotional pressure of any kind in any direction. This is done for many reasons but one reason is to give them the power that they have been denied and help counteract the way that social messages collectively take power and choice away from people who have been sexually assaulted (instead of focusing on the predators in our midst).
These CDC guidelines don’t just give people information, they actively suggest what women should do and create emotional pressure via the way they are worded. Wording that deliberately omits steps that include other people taking actions with responsibility of their own. Things like “women who might be pregnant” goes beyond simple information and enters the realm of social mores because of the chance that any woman might get pregnant when going out and enjoying themselves. The authoritarian parts of society love to obsess and overemphasize the tiny numbers in order to control the whole (for example
the tiny number of instances of voter fraud and their use in justifying bad regulations?) Remember the situation with Dawkins and women carrying fetuses with Downs Syndrome? Same problem. Instead of taking a position that only gave information he was taking a position that added to social pressure that controls what female people do with their bodies.
No one is denying the connections, they are emphasizing the manner and context of how they connections are portrayed.
Here they are explicitly trying to place responsibility on all women, women who may or may not be trying to get pregnant “just in case”. This seems to me to be no different from telling women they should not dress “’too suggestively’, just in case” because something bad might happen. Or telling women they should avoid alleys when walking home “just in case”. Rather then addressing our societies problem with confronting abusers, harassers and criminals somehow “violence” and “unintended pregnancy” just happen to become something only women need to worry about as stated in the guidelines and poster.
Even if the were directing this information to all women that does not change the fact that they could have worded things in a way that included shared responsibility or sole responsibility (like with violence) where appropriate, and does not use a fetus as a mechanism of social control. These things can be offered in a neutral manner when it comes to social pressure and they did not take that path.
@Crip Dyke 13
What makes it more damming is that there is data that can lead to social pressure on males who drink and might happen to get someone pregnant.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/histone-epigenetics-1.3263451
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/mens-health.htm
Did anyone else hear the BBC Radio 4 interview with the spokeswoman of the Women Against Rape Coalition where she essentially complained at length about how the rape allegation against Julian Assange is supposedly a political hatchet job, thus by implication (if not explicitly) doubting the word of the woman making the allegation? I have found a Guardian opinion piece where their position is expanded, and while I can see the merit in some of what they are saying, they seem very quick to declare, as if it is self evident, that the rape either never happened;
Or perhaps even worse, that it doesn’t matter if he is guilty or not because the whole business is really about the Wikileaks scandal;
(Emphasis added)
I find it a little troubling that Women Against Rape seem to have no problem assuming that the whole business is just a political frame up, thus implying that rape never happened, and by extension that the woman in question is lying and/or delusional, because the accused party was someone they had political sympathy with. I would have hoped that a group which has to deal with rape apologia every day would not be so quick to start buying into its tropes when confronted with a case they found challenging due to their political beliefs.
They even sail dangerously close at one point to pulling one of the most classic of all rape apologia lines, and acting as if general public discussion of a case should be performed with the same standards of proof as a legal proceeding;
(Emphasis added)
While I agree that a court of public opinion can be a dangerous thing, I am not so sure that we should just throw our hands up in the air and say that it is all unknowable so let’s not talk about it. Assange has shown no willingness to stand trial for these allegations. He claims that this is because he fears extradition to the US on unrelated Wikileaks charges, and that may be true, but I do not feel comfortable dismissing or doubting the statements of the woman who has made these allegations because the trial is being prevented through no actions of her own. Assuming Assange’s innocence as a matter of legal protocol should not amount to automatically doubting the word of the woman in question outside the courtroom.
While I agree completely that the legal system is usually less than enthusiastic in pursuing rapists, and the zeal with which they have gone after Assange could potentially be seen as suspicions in that regard, that does not prove that the claim itself is false. If, and it is still a big if, the case is politically motivated, then we still have no reason to assume that the charge itself is fabricated – the authorities could just as easily have capitalized upon an preexisting accusation for their purposes, which would mean that the woman in question is in absolute earnest in her claim against Assange, and Women Against Rape have just put themselves in the unenviable position of calling for him not to be deported and as such are seeking to deny the due process of law and access to justice for a woman who may well be a victim of sexual crime. That does not seem to the sort of thing a rape survivor advocacy group should be in the business of doing.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I paid the price, I own your son
“Dowries, though illegal, are still widespread in India. Two public information films ridiculing the practice aim to address dated attitudes to women.”
I find the approaches in how cultures are addressing outdated attitudes about women fascinating.
chris61, #39
Nice.
Shame they didn’t put sexist stuff against men in there for consistency.
Clever way Indian fathers are fighting female infanticide:
Indian Fathers Fight Female Infanticide with Selfies
“Every year in India, thousands of baby girls are abandoned at birth. While some are rescued, most aren’t, leaving the nation with 7.1 million far fewer girls than boys. So earlier this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi came up with a wholly inventive plan: have fathers across the nation take selfies with their daughters, then share them on the internet for the rest of the nation to see.”
@ 42 Saad
But they did.
“Australian mother Nikita Friedman has slammed the Big W store chain for the clothes, which she describes as a disgusting example of gender bias.”
Store criticized over skimpy shorts for young children
And now some good news about a store to counterbalance #45…
Target’s adding gender-neutral décor to upcoming children’s collection
It’s nice to know Target is listening and providing what customers want.
Zoë Quinn: Why I Just Dropped Harassment Charges Against the Man Who Started Gamergate
Hisar Women Have Found a Unique Way to Fight Gender Equality. And Their Nameplates Are Changing.
Pakistani Comic Team Muhafiz Throws Light On Child Marriage As A Tradition
The social-issue based Pakistani comic book team deals with a variety of issues including child marriage and acid attacks.
@chris61
I waited a while to see what would happen, but I don’t see what you are talking about. Perhaps you can show us what is in you head? I’m not denying that there is sexist stuff in there that affects men, but even if there was that would not take anything way from the sexism against women, and link dropping is not a behavior that I reward.
One of the problems that I see in society is that people who profess to care about men’s issues spend most of their time attacking people addressing women’s issues. If you have a point please make it.
Women are finding interesting ways to stop violence against women in Egypt.
A video at the Yes! site further explains what is being done to address women’s issues in Egypt. Kudos to the women creating the changes and those who created the video!
Changing attitudes about girls in India through the use of a men’s group
@50 Brony
That was my point. The CDC made a fact sheet addressed to men and a fact sheet addressed to women. If you consider that sexist then both sheets are sexist.
Welcome to Mirabel, the first centre supporting rape survivors in Nigeria. Excellent story of women helping each other, from a place we hear too little about.
chris61, #53
Oh, you thought the sexist thing about the women’s sheet is that there is a women’s sheet?
Ha.
Azpaul #37
I explained the sexism in my #36. Men cause 100% of pregnancies and are in fact directly responsible for most of the negative effects that are being ascribed to alcohol yet somehow the CDC fails to tell men not to drink between the ages of 21 and sometime in mid-life. Telling women they shouldn’t ever have a drink unless they have an IUD or hormonal birth control is simply patronizing bullshit. It’s just so helpful to be informed by the CDC that people with operational uteri and ovaries should always be aware that they could get pregnant or worse from alcohol, and should therefore abstain from alcohol.
CaitieCat, Harridan of Social Justice @#54:
You’re right. That’s an excellent story about Nigeria! It is always good to hear some positive news. The media often seems to focus on the negative stories.
Good story out of India:
This Man Offers an Unusual Gift to Women Who Have Just Given Birth to Girls in Rajasthan – Ghee!
Since there’s no Lounge or Thunderdome anymore i thought this might be the most suitable place to bring up this topic. I hope it’s fine.
Giliell commented this on the “We don’t mean literal trigger warnings” thread:
I’m always uncomfortable when encountering a lone woman on the street late at night because i feel there’s a good chance she is uncomfortable. I have a habit of walking really quite fast and i often overtake other people in the street walking in the same direction as me. Many years ago i caught up to a young woman and as i aproached her and she heard my rather noisy footsteps she kept looking back at me. After the third time or so that she looked back, i didn’t know how to communicate i was not a threat, so i just slowed way down, put my hands up, smiled and said something to the effect of “sorry, i didn’t mean to startle you”. She smiled back, chuckled nervously, i passed her and that was it. Even when there isn’t such an obvious sign of alarm, i do feel that by its very nature it’s a situation likely to cause some degree of distress to some people and i would like to avoid this. Crossing to the other side seems like a reasonable thing to do, but i was just wondering if there are any other suggestions of what some of you might want others to do to reassure, avoid or at least give any indication of being non-threatening. When crossing in the same street, i move to the furthest part of the pavement, to leave as much distance as possible in between at the moment of crossing and also, in the past i’ve tried, weirdly, as a result of my own discomfort, to convey my non-threatening nature through body language, which no doubt has both made me look weird and hasn’t had the desired effect, possibly the opposite. I thought i’d ask just in case i’m missing something obvious and reasonable.
UK company to introduce ‘period policy’ for female staff:
Good News:
The Peace Corps has doubled the number of countries participating in the Let Girls Learn initiative in a year.
Source: Butterflies and Wheels.
Cracked has hit it out of the park with this article: 5 Hilarious Ways Women Got Revenge On Creepy Guys. As an added bonus, the misogynist trolls in the comments are getting their asses handed to them.
Female scientist fights harassment with Wikipedia
Good for Emily Temple-Wood! She’s making a difference in the world.
Girl Called ‘Fat Whale’ Turns Cyberbullying Humiliation into Saving The Whales
Way to go, Dee!
‘Yall remember Jian Ghimeshi, the CBC star who got accused to rape by a *lot* of women, and had been the subject of the whole “do you know about Jian? he rapes people” whisper campaign to try and protect women who were new to the biz?
He got cleared of all charges.
Motherfucking judge literally went against the fucking case law to hand down “wimminz be lying yo”.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-judge-ruling-1.3504250
Not to bring everyone’s morning down, but I thought this tumblr article appropriate and important enough to share with my fellow nerds and geeks:
http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem
Great article, Akira, but it might do well to consider a content note for graphic descriptions of rape therein. Fortunately for me, I’m in a good place today, but that was pretty graphic for a lot of survivors to read without warning. But seriously, great article and worth reading.
Sorry, sorry. My bad. Still getting the hang of current online manners.
Interesting research into online comments. What a surprise. . .
I have a thought that I have started putting into practice on Facebook and I was curious if anyone else had a similar thought. This is a good time to start talking about what sexual assault looks like, particularly sharing stories about people who have been assaulted in bathrooms and who were ignored or whose assailant got away with it as a means of redirecting the fears of people to a more constructive end.
The biggest reason that people getting assaulted in bathrooms is in the news is because of people who are paranoid about issues related to sex and gender. Before this people were already getting sexually assaulted in bathrooms and that was getting ignored because society has a problem taking sexual assault seriously. So I’ve started pointing out that this is about learning to recognize predatory behavior and not simply reacting to perceived sex or gender. When family on Facebook post articles about predators being predatory in bathrooms I’ve started telling them this is a good time to start learning what predatory behavior looks like if they really want to look like they care about dealing with sexual predation.
While the situation is sad, it could be an opportunity. Thoughts?