The New York Film Academy has put together this informative infographic demonstrating the gender inequality endemic in film-making. But there’s some hope. Check it out below the jump.
Photo: Dennis Lee Royle, Wire
Nelson Mandela and his incredible legacy were lauded today during his memorial service. But the great leader’s record on women’s rights, and specifically abortion rights, is not getting the recognition it deserves.
The right wing and anti-choice zealots are quick to condemn Mandela for his pro-choice statements, views and policies. And while criticism from many of these groups translates into an automatic honor, in my humble opinion, we should highlight all that Mandela did to empower women.
Mandela praised women for their role in fighting against apartheid and, like a true intersectionalist, saw the inextricable links among struggles against various forms of oppression. Speaking at South Africa’s first National Women’s Day in 1995, Mandela said:
As a tribute to the legions of women who navigated the path of fighting for justice before us, we ought to imprint in the supreme law of the land, firm principles upholding the rights of women. The women themselves and the whole of society, must make this a prime responsibility […] Together, we have it in our power to change South Africa for the better.
He proclaimed that freedom was contingent on women’s freedom at the opening of the first parliament in 1994:
It is vitally important that all structures of government, including the President himself, should understand this fully: that freedom cannot be achieved unless women have been emancipated from all forms of oppression.
Mandela words were accompanied by actions and policy. Over a third of Mandela’s cabinet appointees were women. Today, women constitute 44% of South Africa’s politicians. Mandela created the Commission for Gender Equality, an organization which uses research, public education, policy development, legislative initiatives, effective monitoring, and litigation to fight for a ”society free from gender oppression and all forms of inequality.” The Constitution which Mandela, as president, shaped, protects women from discrimination, rape and domestic violence. And, unlike the United States, Mandela’s South Africa ratified the U.N Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Mandela also enacted free prenatal and postnatal care to mothers in the public health system and free health care to children.
And Mandela transformed women’s lives through his commitment to reproductive rights. The Abortion and Sterilization Act, passed by the apartheid government in 1975, prohibited abortion. It provided exceptions in cases when the woman’s health or life was at risk, there was a high probability of a genetic defect, the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. The rape or incest had to be proven, and in all cases, two doctors, neither of whom could perform the abortion, had to approve of the procedure. Not surprisingly, this had terrible ramifications. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “Admissions to gynecologic wards increased substantially due to women presenting with incomplete and septic abortions. Maternal morbidity and mortality resulting from septic abortions also increased… the 1,000 or so legal abortions performed in South Africa annually represented a tiny fraction of all abortions carried out. Estimates of the number of clandestine abortions were dramatically larger, ranging from 120,000 to 250,000 per year between 1975 and 1996.” Also not surprising were the racist results: according to a 1994 Medical Research Council study on unsafe abortion in South Africa, 99% of the women treated at state hospitals for incomplete abortions were Black.
But that all changed with Nelson Mandela’s 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, which repealed the 1975 Act and granted all women “the right to choose whether to have an early, safe and legal termination of pregnancy according to her individual beliefs.” Minors do not need to notify their parents and there is no extra medical or legal approval required. Victims of rape or incest do not have the extra burden of documenting their violation. The bill recognizes “the values of human dignity, the achievement of equality, security of the person, non-racialism and non-sexism, and the advancement of human rights and freedoms which underlie a democratic South Africa.” The bill was ahead of its time both in its recognition of autonomy–”the Constitution protects the right of persons to make decisions concerning reproduction and to security in and control over their bodies”–and in the way it framed abortion as a health care issue and the responsibility of the state:
Both women and men have the right to be informed of and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and that women have the right of access to appropriate health care services to ensure safe pregnancy and childbirth;
… the decision to have children is fundamental to women’s physical, psychological and social health and that universal access to reproductive health care services includes family planning and contraception, termination of pregnancy, as well as sexuality education and counseling programmes and services;
… the State has the responsibility to provide reproductive health to all, and also to provide safe conditions under which the right of choice can be exercised without fear or harm.
The Constitution of 1996 explicitly endorsed equality for women and freedom from discrimination based not only on race or “colour” but gender, sex and notably, pregnancy. It also guaranteed that “everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right to make decisions concerning reproduction” and “to security in and control over their body.”
speech in 1993, he made his intersectionalist view clear:
The normal condition for human existence is democracy, justice, peace, non-racism, non-sexism, prosperity for everybody, a healthy environment and equality and solidarity among the peoples.
If we want to honor Mandela’s legacy, we must acknowledge and continue the various but interconnected struggles against racism, poverty, classism, imperialism and sexism for which he fought.
Marissa Alexander should never have been sentenced to jail for defending herself from an abusive husband by shooting at a wall, injuring nobody. She shouldn’t have to be retried. But at least she has been released on bond and was able to spend Thanksgiving with her family. It was the first time she had seen her family out of jail in three years.
Alexander had to pay $250,000 and will be under home arrest and wearing an ankle monitor until her trial on March 31st 2014.
Of course, Florida could just drop the charges but that would require that Angela Corey see Alexander for what she truly is: a victim and survivor of domestic abuser who dared to defend herself, not a criminal or an instigator of violence.
Melissa Harris Perry spoke her letter to Corey on her show this weekend.
Transcript
To the woman who put Marissa Alexander in jail
There is nothing like being home for the holidays with your loved ones. So I can only imagine that this Thanksgiving is particularly bittersweet for Marissa Alexander, who was granted a special pre-trial release at 10:30 PM on Wednesday – Thanksgiving Eve – after spending more than 1000 days in jail, and barely seeing her youngest child who just recently turned three.
But my letter is not to Marissa. Sis, I am saving that one for when you are finally freed for good. No, my letter this week is to the woman that worked to put you in jail in the first place: Florida State Attorney for the fourth judicial circuit, Angela Corey.
Dear Angela Corey,
It’s me, Melissa.
Angela, there are few times in life that we get second chances to right our wrongs. Well Angela, this is yours.
You have been called a fierce victim’s advocate, so it is way past time that you start acting like it.
Because a woman who was hospitalized in 2009 after being shoved into a bathtub and hitting her head – she is a victim.
A woman whose estranged husband has admitted to abusing all five mothers of his kids – she is his victim.
And when that woman, that victim, who has just recently given birth, fires a warning shot near the man that has cornered her in her home – she is a victim who feels she has no other recourse.
But that is part of the problem, Angela. You never saw Marissa as a victim. You saw Marissa as the aggressor and even justified why the infamous “Stand Your Ground” law was not applied in Marissa’s case.
Maria Bello came out in a New York Times Op-Ed this weekend. But what did she come out as? It’s not that simple, which is what makes it so awesome.
Some headlines are saying Maria Bello (Prisoners, ER, A History of Violence) has come out as “gay.” Others are saying she’s come out as bi. The essay, titled “Coming Out as a Modern Family,” is shaped around Bello’s decision to tell her son about her romantic relationship with a woman. But what she’s really doing in her op-ed is challenging the definition of family and partnership.
It’s hard for me even to define the term “partner.” For five years I considered my partner to be a friend then in his 70s, John Calley, with whom I talked daily. He was the one who picked me up each time I had a breakdown about another failed romance. Because we were platonic, did that make him any less of a partner?
And I have never understood the distinction of “primary” partner. Does that imply we have secondary and tertiary partners, too? Can my primary partner be my sister or child or best friend, or does it have to be someone I am having sex with? I have two friends who are sisters who have lived together for 15 years and raised a daughter. Are they not partners because they don’t have sex? And many married couples I know haven’t had sex for years. Are they any less partners?
Read the rest here.
13-year-old Duncan McAlpine Sennett used the bible to argue for marriage equality. It’s pretty simple: “The definition of traditional marriage has changed a lot since the days of the Torah, so why can’t it change just a little bit more so everybody can marry who they love?” Fabulous question.
For his Bar Mitzvah, the Jewish coming of age ritual, Duncan decided to look at Genesis to demonstrate how our idea of traditional marriage has, indeed, evolved since the time of the bible. Duncan delivered his speech at the November 9th Bar Mitzvah at Congregation Beth Israel, in Portland, where a coalition is pushing to get marriage equality on the ballot in 2014.
“Shabbot shalom. In my Torah portion… Jacob works for seven years to earn the right to marry Laban’s daughter, his love Rachel. Before marrying Rachel, Jacob is first tricked into marrying her older sister Leah. I find my parsha interesting because it is a window into what was life was like back in the days of the Torah.
Towleroad transcribed the speech:
“Back then, this seemed to have a perfect definition of what traditional marriage meant for their time, when as time passes we have a completely different definition today. So the question is: how has the definition of traditional marriage changed since the days of the Torah? Just looking at my Torah portion as a proof text, I think it has changed a lot.
Leah and Rachel had absolutely no say in marrying Jacob — it was like a business deal between Jacob and Laban. Today in the United States, marriage is very different. No longer do the fathers arrange marriages (NOTE: That’s not entirely true, but we’ll let it slide) and women can marry whomever they want.”
Read the rest here.
Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of World AIDS day. According to WorldAidsDay.org, World AIDS Day, which is held on December 1st, “is an opportunity for people worldwide to unite in the fight against HIV, show their support for people living with HIV and to commemorate people who have died. World AIDS Day was the first ever global health day and the first one was held in 1988.”
This image captures a poster created by Gran Fury, the artistic wing of the radical (in both senses of the word) organization ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power). To highlight their film Dallas Buyers Club, Focus Features put out a great slideshow of Gran Fury artwork, which describes the image:
In 1989, Gran Fury received a commission to create a work for the American Foundation for AIDS Research’s (AmFAR) “Arts against AIDS on the Road” which intended to bring artists’ work to different cities. Taking the idea literally, the collective created a series of bus-side posters entitled “Kissing Doesn’t Kill: Greed and Indifference Do.” The piece, which featured three multi-racial, differently aged couples (one gay, one straight, and one lesbian), included the coda, “Corporate Greed, Government Inaction, and Public Indifference Make AIDS a Political Crisis.” Rather brilliantly, Gran Fury used the techniques of corporate advertising, like bright and shiny Benetton clothing ads of the time, to bring attention to corporate greed. As one Gran Fury member commented, “We are trying to fight for attention as hard as Coca-Cola fights for attention.”
Read the rest of the description and check out the other works of art here.
Originally published December 2, 2013 on Feministing.
A terrible instagram account is taking other people’s selfies, without their consent or knowledge and giving them make-overs, some of which make the victims looks whiter.
Carrie Nelson, of the Frisky, was understandably disturbed when she learned that an instagram account had taken her selfie and given it a make-over without her permission. She,
discovered that photoshop_fantasy had appropriated my photo for its own purposes, which was to give my selfie a complete makeover. In its doctored version, my freckles are gone, my hairy eyebrows are trimmed, my wispy hair is slightly more orderly, my eyes and lips are enhanced by makeup, and the corners of my mouth are slightly upturned to add the tiniest smile.
It’s not a bad look for someone. But that someone doesn’t look like me.
I rarely wear makeup, so the only photos that exist of my beautified face were taken at my Bat Mitzvah, my junior and senior proms, my wedding, and the midnight screenings of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” that I attended as a teenager. Still, I can assure you that, when I wear makeup, I do not look like the person in photoshop_fantasy’s creation.
Nelson found the selfie-makeover upsetting for several reasons: “Naturally, I was angry that I was made to look like something other than myself, and I was angry that my photo was stolen and appropriated without permission.” But the worst part was the way the make over distorted the significance of the photo:
Most of all, though, I was angry because the doctored photo directly contradicted the entire purpose of my selfie. I took my selfie because I knew I didn’t look conventionally gorgeous in that moment. I took my selfie because I wanted the world to see me raw, flaws and all. I took my selfie because I can be beautiful even when I’m tired and depressed. I took my selfie because, beauty standards be damned, I liked my disheveled face on Sunday. That image empowered me far more than an unsolicited airbrushing ever could.
Nelson also discovered other women who had been made-over and made the disturbing observation that some of them had been made over to look more white. One black woman has her face lightened. One Asian woman has her eyes rounded and widened.
As Nelson points out, “There is absolutely space for empowerment in selfies, but only when the pictures remain in the domain of their creators. Once they are appropriated, the true ugliness of conventional beauty standards shines through.”
This instragram account is violating people and projecting their own racist and problematic standards of beauty onto them. They have yet to respond to Nelson.They’re fine twisting and reframing other people’s identities. Let’s see if they get the courage to show themselves.
graphic h/t Senator @PattyMurray
Get thee to a twitteree! Because the #HandsOffMyBC twitter storm, about companies trying to deny contraception coverage to their employees, is on!
As we blogged about earlier, the Supreme Court announced today that it will hear two cases in which companies are asking for the “right” to deny contraception coverage to employees if it violates their religious views. This has inspired the twitter hashtag #HandsOffMyBC (hands off my birth control.) As Rob Robin Marty @robinmarty tweeted, she’s “very shocked to see it’s all men trolling #HandsOffMyBC #waitnoimnotshockedatall.”
I have to admit, most of the trolls, some of whom are women, are making pretty unconvincing arguments which reek of misogyny and general hatred of human kind. But I did see one tweet that was so clever and astute, so nuanced and thought-provoking, so grounded in history and philosophy, that I have no choice but to respond.
Originally posted November 26, 2013 on Feministing.
The world lost an irreplaceable leader, thinker, icon and revolutionary, with the death of Nelson Mandela, who died at the age of 95 on Thursday. We can look to his own words for guidance on his passing:
Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is, therefore, why I will sleep for the eternity.
Here are some images and documents from Mandela’s life.
Nelson Mandela was born on July 18, 1918 into a chief family in Mvezo in Umtatu, then a part of South Africa’s Cape Province. He ran away from home and went to Johannesburg to escape an arranged marriage in 1941.
The Supreme Court announced it will rule on two cases asking that companies be allowed to deny workers insurance coverage for contraception if it violates the corporation owners’ beliefs. Let’s hope the court prioritizes not violating reproductive rights.
As ThinkProgress writes,
The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday it will review two challenges by private businesses who claim they are exempt from a federal requirement to include birth control coverage in health insurance. The decision to review two of the challenges, including one by crafts chain Hobby Lobby, means the high court will take on the controversial questions of whether a secular, for-profit corporation can assert a religious objection to a law, and even whether those corporation have religious expression rights under the U.S. Constitution. It also tests the Affordable Care Act’s guarantee to provide gender-specific, preventative services at no charge to individuals.
It’s cool, though. Because Hobby Lobby offers its employees free spiritual counseling. Which works better than any contraceptive!
Originally posted November 26, 2013 on Feministing.
katiehalper.com 
