Congrrrrrrratulations are in orrrrrrderrrrrr forrrrrr Scotland, which just became the 17th countrrrrrry legalize same-sex marrrrrriage. But that’s not all.
[Now without the brogue] Today, Scotland legalized same-sex marriage in a parliamentary vote of 105-18. The parliament also ended something called the “spousal veto,” which required that transgender people get written permission from their spouses before having their gender recognized by the state. Though England and Wales had already passed marriage equality legislation, Scotland is the only country in the United Kingdom to get rid of the “spousal veto.”
And there was a rainbow. For real. Which appeared hours before the vote. And which just might convince those who believe in an all mighty weather-controlling god that said all mighty weather-controlling god hearts marriage equality and rights for transgender people. #JustSayin
As we covered before, bans on insurance coverage of abortion have become a popular anti-choice tactic in recent years. Twenty-four states have banned Obamacare plans from covering abortion. But an anti-choicer’s work is never done and now states are prohibiting all private insurance plans from covering the procedure.
If you live in one of the nine states in dark purple in the map above, you can’t use private insurance to cover abortion. Those who live in one of the 10 light purple states should know that these states have considered legislation that would ban your coverage. And it’s not like those of us who live in the remaining states can breath a sigh of relief, given that anti-choicers are doing whatever they can to limit reproductive freedom.
This week comics Heather Gold (@heathr) and Katie Halper (@kthalps) ask if billionaire, Kristillnacht-fantasizing Ted Perkins, Grammy marriage equality wedding moment with Macklemore, Queen Latifah and Madonna, Warsaw Ghetto hero Irving Milchberg and Sweden and Denmark’s decision to ban circumcision are good for the Jews.
According to Rand Paul, the success of the women in his family proves that if there is a war on women, the women are winning it. It sounds like someone needs to brush up on their Kimberlé Crenshaw, STAT.I always had a sneaking suspicion that Rand Paul wasn’t well versed in intersectional feminist theory. It turns out I’m right. When David Gregory asked Paul on Meet The Press to comment on Mike Huckabee’s recent misogynist diatribe, the senator said,
This whole sort of war on women thing, I’m scratching my head because if there was a war on women, I think they won. You know, the women in my family are incredibly successful.
I have a niece at Cornell vet school, and 85% of the young people there are women. In law school, 60% are women; in med school, 55%. My younger sister’s an ob-gyn with six kids and doing great. You know, I don’t see so much that women are downtrodden; I see women rising up and doing great things. And, in fact, I worry about our young men sometimes because I think the women really are out-competing the men in our world.
Giving Paul the benefit of the doubt, I’m guessing, Gregory offered him a do-over and gave him a chance to provide an answer founded in policy and analysis, as opposed to the Paul Family Tree, accomplished as it may be:
My question, about whether you think it’s appropriate for the party, key figures in the party, to be talking about women, women’s health, women’s bodies, and the role of the federal government related to those things?
At which point Paul totally picked up what Gregory was putting down dropped the ball once again:
But what I would say is that we didn’t start this sort of I think glossy and sometimes dumbed-down debate about, you know, there being a war on women. I think the facts show that women are doing very well, have come a long way.
And, you know, like I say, I have a lot of successful women in my family and I don’t hear them saying, “Oh, woe is me. This terrible, you know, misogynist world.” They look out and they’re conquering the world. The women in my family are doing great, and that’s what I see in all the statistics coming out. I have, you know, young women in my office that are the leading intellectual lights of our office.
So I don’t really see this, that there’s some sort of war that’s, you know, keeping women down.
image via National Women’s Law Center and Think Progress
OK, Rand. We get it. the women in your life are doing really well. But, do you, Rand, get that this is a question about policy and not biography?And that your anecdotes gleaned from family reunions aren’t actually the best indicator of whether or not there is a war on women? Before determining that women are doing better than men professionally, you may want to compare your homegrown and charmingly quaint data to data data. For instance, actual studies show that women don’t get promoted as frequently as men, though they ask for promotions just as much; women are less appreciated though they are asked for more favors at work; and women still get paid less than men. On average, women get paid 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. And the wage gap is even worse for women of color, with African American women earning 64 cents and Latina women just 55 cents (see image above).
Which brings us to the intersectionality thing. Even if you want to use biography in place of facts, don’t you get that bragging about the success of women who are from an already successful, politically connected, not to mention white family doesn’t make the best PR? Usually when white Republicans play the individual story instead of overall picture card, they have the sense to share an anecdote about someone not, you know, related to them. They tend to come from struggle, be poorer, maybe not even white. And their stories are invented or co-opted to serve not as exceptions to the rule but as the norm.
But back to what we’re really talking about when we talk about the War on Women. I appreciate that your comprehensive view includes economic justice (not that you’d use those words, per se) and the intersection between economic and social issues (though, again, you wouldn’t use those words exactly). but Huckabee and Gregory and almost everyone who uses the term War on Women is referring, at least in part, if not primarily, to the attack on reproductive rights. Things like, as the ACLU puts it so nicely, “restricting contraception; cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasounds; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, and prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their policies.” Or the desire to probe the very thing you are to afraid to utter. It’s called the vagina.
Even your fellow GOPer John McCain acknowledges there is a War on Women. Though, in all fairness, you and Huckabee probably consider him a Democrat, anyway.
Real Clear Politics has the transcript of the entire video clip here.
According to the mayor of Sochi, which will soon play host to the Olympics, there are no gay people in his town. Yet there are thriving gay nightclubs. How can gay people be invisible all the time except for during the night, when they come out in droves? It must be sorcery. In a video report, the BBC’s John Sweeny attempted to find out what the mayor of Sochi thought about his gay constituents. It turns out it’s a moot point because, as Mayor Anatoly Pakhomov explains, “We don’t have them in our town.” When Sweeny asks if he’s sure, Pakhomov responds, “I’m not sure. I don’t bloody know them.” What makes Sweeny so sure that there are gays in Sochi? He’s just a typical Western outsider trying to impose his own beliefs on Russia’s traditions. Well, as he tells the mayor, he went to a gay club the night before. And, indeed, despite the non-existence/ the mayor not “bloody” knowing any LGBT people, one club is so popular, it draws 400 people a night. Not only do the gays become visible only at night and hide from their mayor, they promote – see? I told you – sorcery.
Speaking of imposing ideas, when Sweeny asks Pakhomov if gay people will be welcome to the Olympics, the mayor responds: “Our hospitality will be extended to everyone who respects the laws of the Russian federation and who doesn’t impose their habits and their will on others. But yes, everyone is welcome.” It certainly sounds very welcoming. Almost as hospitable as when Putin, last week, said that gay people were welcome, as long as they didn’t contaminate the youth with their propaganda. Or their sorcery, he should have added.
Pete Seeger, one of the world’s most well-known, prolific and influential folk singers, died yesterday at the age of 94. Famous for his anti-war music, pro-economic justice and environmental music, Seeger also used his voice to raise awareness about gender norms and patriarchy. Here he is singing I’m Gonna be an Engineer, a song written by his sister Peggy Seeger. Lyrics and links after the jump.
Learn more about Pete on this Democracy Nowspecial, which aired today.
Something I wrote on going to his 90th birthday concert at Madison Square Garden.
A really moving performance of Pete’s anti-war ballad Bring Them Home at the Madison Square Garden concert, featuring Tao Rodriguez-Seeger, Warren Haynes, Band of Horses’ Ben Bridwell and Tyler Ramsey, Drive By Truckers’ Patterson Hood and Preservation Hall Jazz Band and the New York City Labor Chorus.
When I was a little girl I wished I was a boy I tagged along behind the gang and wore my corduroys. Everybody said I only did it to annoy But I was gonna be an engineer.
Mamma said, “Why can’t you be a lady? Your duty is to make me the mother of a pearl Wait until you’re older, dear And maybe you’ll be glad that you’re a girl.
Dainty as a Dresden statue, gentle as a Jersey cow, Smooth as silk, gives cream and milk Learn to coo, learn to moo That’s what you do to be a lady, now.
When I went to school I learned to write and how to read History, geography and home economy And typing is a skill that every girl is sure to need To while away the extra time until the time to breed And then they had the nerve to ask, what would I like to be? I says, “I’m gonna be an engineer!”
“No, you only need to learn to be a lady The duty isn’t yours, for to try to run the world An engineer could never have a baby Remember, dear, that you’re a girl”
She’s smart — for a woman. I wonder how she got that way? You get no choice, you get no voice Just stay mum, pretend you’re dumb. That’s how you come to be a lady, today. Well, I started as a typist but I studied on the sly Working out the day and night so I could qualify And every time the boss came in, he pinched me on the thigh Said, “I’ve never had an engineer!” “You owe it to the job to be a lady The duty of the staff is to give the boss a whirl The wages that you get are crummy, maybe But it’s all you get, ’cause you’re a girl”
Then Jimmy came along and we set up a conjugation We were busy every night with loving recreation I spent my days at work so he could get an education And now he’s an engineer!
He said: “I know you’ll always be a lady The duty of my darling is to love me all her life Could an engineer look after or obey me? Remember, dear, that you’re my wife!”
As soon a Jimmy got a job, I studied hard again Then busy at me turret-lathe a year or two, and then The morning that the twins were born, Jimmy says to them “Your mother was an engineer!” “You owe it to the kids to be a lady Dainty as a dish-rag, faithful as a chow Stay at home, you got to mind the baby Remember you’re a mother now!”
Every time I turn around there’s something else to do Cook a meal or mend a sock or sweep a floor or two Listening to Jimmy Young – it makes me want to spew I was gonna be an engineer.
I only wish that I could be a lady I’d do the lovely things that a lady’s s’posed to do I wouldn’t even mind if only they would pay me Then I could be a person too.
What price for a woman? You can buy her for a ring of gold, To love and obey, without any pay, You get a cook and a nurse for better or worse You don’t need a purse when a lady is sold.
Oh, but now the times are harder and me Jimmy’s got the sack; I went down to Vicker’s, they were glad to have me back. But I’m a third-class citizen, my wages tell me that But I’m a first-class engineer!
The boss he says “We pay you as a lady, You only got the job because I can’t afford a man, With you I keep the profits high as may be, You’re just a cheaper pair of hands.”
You got one fault, you’re a woman; You’re not worth the equal pay. A bitch or a tart, you’re nothing but heart, Shallow and vain, you’ve got no brain,
Well, I listened to my mother and I joined a typing pool Listened to my lover and I put him through his school If I listen to the boss, I’m just a bloody fool And an underpaid engineer I been a sucker ever since I was a baby As a daughter, as a mother, as a lover, as a dear But I’ll fight them as a woman, not a lady I’ll fight them as an engineer!
Words and music by Peggy Seeger
(c) 1970 Stormking Music, Inc.
You know you’re doing something right (as in good) when the right (as in bad) wing starts a not-very-clever hashtag about you. And ironically, the #MoreFakeThanWendyDavis hashtag is a self-parody. Because what’s really fake is the claim that Wendy Davis lied about her past. Not that the truth ever gets in the way of a good smear and/or hashtag campaign.
So, according to the headline of an article in the Dallas Morning News on Monday that is overflowing with quotes from anonymous people, Wendy Davis “touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred.” The article itself undermines that claim, reading, “The basic elements of the narrative are true.” So what facts are blurred? Well, according to this earth-shattering exposé, Davis was 21, NOT 19, when she was divorced. FOR SHAME! The hit piece claims:
It is her biography — a divorced teenage mother living in a trailer who earned her way to Harvard and political achievement — that her team is using to attract voters and boost fundraising…Davis was 21, not 19, when she was divorced. She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter.
“The truth is that at age 19, I was a teenage mother living alone with my daughter in a trailer and struggling to keep us afloat on my way to a divorce. And I knew then that I was going to have to work my way up and out of that life if I was going to give my daughter a better life and a better future and that’s what I’ve done. I am proud of where I came from and I am proud of what I’ve been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. And I guarantee you that anyone who tries to say otherwise hasn’t walked a day in my shoes.”
This is hardly scandalous or news-worthy. And yet, a fake scandal was born. And then, a hashtag was spawned and trended on Twitter. Davis has said, “My language should be tighter….I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.” But what’s really going on here?
As Aviva Shen at Think Progress points out, the attacks on Wendy Davis’ life story “follow a classic sexist playbook.”
The Dallas Morning News profile and subsequent media reactions have played up her marital and familial problems to poke holes in this story. While these personal details would be hardly a blip on a male candidate’s record, they are now being used to paint the state senator as a classic sexist archetype: the ruthlessly ambitious woman who sacrifices her children and uses her sexual wiles to manipulate men.
Shen outlines three sexist tropes the media is using to smear Davis: “She didn’t really struggle because she only lived in a trailer for a few months as a single mom….She manipulated her husband into paying her tuition….She abandoned her children in order to pursue a career.” Sound familiar?
Hey ladies! If you want to win an Academy Award for Best Actress, get cast as a wife, mother, sister, daughter, or girlfriend STAT! Fellas! If you want to win an Academy Award for best Actor, get cast as a husband, father, brother, son, or boyfriend STAT an important historical figure. That’s the lesson from these two fascinating infographics at The Huffington Post.
One demonstrates the roles for which women win Best Actress Academy Awards.
The other infographic reveals the kinds of roles that earn men the Award for Best Actor.
There isn’t much analysis. But here are some things I figured out after looking at the infographics.
The most common Best Actress-winning roles (30.2%) for women are those of wife, mother, sister, daughter or girlfriend. For example, Halle Berry as a mother and girlfriend in Monster’s Ball, Emma Thompson as a wife and sister in Howard’s End, Sally Field as a wife/widow and mother in Places of the Heart.
The most common Best Actor-winning roles for men (25.6%) are for historical roles. For example, Sean Penn as Harvey Milk in Milk (which he did totally deserve), Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln, Collin Firth as King George VI in The King’s Speech. You may notice a pattern here, too. The male actors play characters who are so central, the films are named after them, literally in the first two cases, and figuratively in the third. The female characters, however, aren’t, apparently, important enough to determine the title of the film.
Now there are historical roles which earn women Oscars, but the category of husband, father, son, brother or boyfriend doesn’t even exist for men.
Women can also win Oscars by playing prostitutes or mistresses (4.7%). Men, however, have not won Oscars for portraying prostitutes or… masters? What the word for the-dude-someone’s-having-an-affair-with? Women are also able to score an award by playing a housekeeper or maid. No butler category for men.
But don’t worry! All’s fair in Academy Awards. Men get their own special categories. For instance, several have one awards for “law or military” roles (10.5%) and others have won playing “career achievement” roles.
What are the take-aways here? The Academy really likes to reward women for playing characters defined by their familial relations to others, and will also give them pats on the head for playing maids, housekeepers, prostitutes, or mistresses–other roles defined by their relations to others. Men, on the other hand, are rewarded for playing important historical figures or whatever the hell they want, and will get encouraging punches in the arm for playing men who have career achievements under their belts–particularly in the male-dominated spheres of law or the military.
So, when it comes to life–I mean, the silver screen–men should pursue high-achieving, leadership roles while women should pursue familial, domestic, sexual roles if they want to succeed. Clearly this applies to acting roles only and has no effect whatsoever on the sanctioning or gendering of social roles in the real world. Obviously not…
Originally published January 21, 2014 on Feministing.
image via David J. Garrow, ‘The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.’ (New York, 1981), pp. 125‑126)
Though the right and even the mainstream frequently try to co-opt and sugarcoat Martin Luther King Jr.’s life and legacy, it is worth remembering just how radical Dr. King was. People familiar with U.S. history may not be surprised that the FBI was obsessed with and spied on King. But even the jaded may be surprised to learn the the FBI actually threatened King and encouraged him to kill himself.
In 1964, the FBI mailed Dr. King a letter as well as, apparently, an audio recording of King in bed with several women. The fake author is an African-American who is disgusted by the leader’s moral shorting comings:
King, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all of us Negroes. White people in this country have enough frauds of their own but I am sure they don’t have one at this time anywhere near your equal. I repeat you are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that. You could not believe in God… Clearly you don’t believe in any personal moral principles.King, like all frauds your end is approaching. You could have been our greatest leader. You, even at an early age have turned out to be not a leader but a dissolute, abnormal moral imbecile.
The fake King-hater is so disgusted, in fact, he urges King to kill himself:
King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.
Now, you may think I–a socialist-summer-camp-attending-Wesleyan-graduating-Feministing-blogger–am being overly dramatic and paranoid in my interpretation of the letter. But this is also the view you will find in a congressional committee report on the FBI and Martin Luther King:
The nature of the Bureau’s campaign against Dr. King is vividly illustrated by one incident. Shortly after Director Hoover’s press conference in November 1964, in which he referred to Dr. King as the country’s “most notorious liar,” (50) a package was mailed to Dr. King. It contained an anonymous diatribe against the civil rights leader and a copy of an electronic surveillance tape, apparently to lend credence to threats of exposure of derogatory personal information made in the letter. (51) The committee was unable to locate the original letter, but an apparently authentic copy was found in the files of Assistant Director Sullivan. The final paragraph clearly implied that suicide would be a suitable course of action for Dr. King.
You can find a photocopy and transcript of the entire letter here. And check out our roundup of links honoring King’s legacy from yesterday
Originally published January 20, 2014 on Feministing.
We are taking the afternoon off in honor of Martin Luther King Day. But here are some great articles, videos, and links which honor King’s life and highlight his legacy speaking truth to power. (Video transcript and more after the jump.)
Democracy Now!’s “Martin Luther King in his own words” video and transcript can be found here.
katiehalper.com 