Where have we heard this before?
The tired, old line of feminists' selfless quest for gender equity hits several logical snags when one notices the fat, aging hippy feminist behind the curtain.
The Famous Five were notoriously white, elitist, anti-Asian and eugenicist. Hardly role models for a post-modern society that ostensibly eschews such backward thinking.
Ostensibly.
In the twenty-first century, who are the beneficiaries of such public policies as affirmative action, custody of children, increased female student enrollment in math programs or abortion?
Well, white women.
Affirmative action- the act of employing racial minorities and women for the purposes of corporate or political eye-candy- has benefitted more white women than any other group. In 2009, women made up 54.7 percent of the public service with aboriginals making up only 4.5 percent of public service. In the US, white women still make up a substantial amount of white collar jobs.
Women in Canada are over-represented in public sector jobs that provide generous benefits:
Women largely are still given sole custody of children after a divorce.
Despite efforts to increase female student enrollment in science, technology or math programs, very few female students actually do enroll:
And who largely supports unrestricted abortion access as an essential right?
Again, white women like Joyce Arthur (white):
Judy Rebick (the UnWASP but still pasty):
"If people don't have their own experience with what is an unwanted pregnancy . . . the stories of the anti-choice are more powerful to people," Rebick acknowledged.
Nancy Pelosi (decidedly un-Japanese):
Katherine Sebelius (very white):
And how many of these prominent feminists -and feminist groups- deigned to speak out against sharia law or Islamist misogyny?
How many of these prominent feminists and feminist groups dare to speak out against the misogyny of Islamism?
I could find only one reference to NOW against Islamism. It was a handful of women protesting a stoning sentence in Nigeria. I could find nothing else.
Judy Rebick has a delightful bit of equivalence here:
(Sidebar: Jews and Christians don't stone women to death, Judy. )
Nancy Pelosi "bravely" covered her head while in Syria:
Now, where is the solidarity with their fellow Muslim feminists?
Of sex-selection abortions:
Surely this crusader for all things female will step in change things, right?
Who came to the defense of Sarah Palin when she endured some of the ugliest personal attacks the US political scene has ever known?
As for feminists serving their own interests - uh, yeah, in the sense that the advancement of gender equity is in their interest. And everyone's, I suppose.
The tired, old line of feminists' selfless quest for gender equity hits several logical snags when one notices the fat, aging hippy feminist behind the curtain.
The Famous Five were notoriously white, elitist, anti-Asian and eugenicist. Hardly role models for a post-modern society that ostensibly eschews such backward thinking.
Ostensibly.
In the twenty-first century, who are the beneficiaries of such public policies as affirmative action, custody of children, increased female student enrollment in math programs or abortion?
Well, white women.
Affirmative action- the act of employing racial minorities and women for the purposes of corporate or political eye-candy- has benefitted more white women than any other group. In 2009, women made up 54.7 percent of the public service with aboriginals making up only 4.5 percent of public service. In the US, white women still make up a substantial amount of white collar jobs.
Women in Canada are over-represented in public sector jobs that provide generous benefits:
There are other benefits which come with these public sector jobs such as top-ups for maternity benefits. I can tell you from experience many private sector employers offer nothing beyond the Employment Insurance maternity/paternity leave plans which pay 55% of wages up to a maximum of just over $400 per week. By contrast, federal government workers are eligible for a top-up that pays them 93% of their wages for the full year of maternal leave.
Women largely are still given sole custody of children after a divorce.
Despite efforts to increase female student enrollment in science, technology or math programs, very few female students actually do enroll:
A study released Tuesday by the Institute for Women's Policy Research says that while women represent a majority of college graduates overall, only 27.5% of Associate’s degrees and occupational certificates in the STEM fields were awarded to women in 2007. Cynthia Costello, the study’s author, found that women are losing ground: This statistic was more than 10% higher in 1997.
Underrepresentation in STEM fields at community colleges may be part of the reason women lag behind men in the STEM workforce. According to the study, women make up almost half of the American workforce but only around a quarter of the STEM labor pool. Data presented in the study shows that women are leaving some STEM fields. From 2000 to 2009, the number of women working in computers and math dropped about 3%.
And who largely supports unrestricted abortion access as an essential right?
Again, white women like Joyce Arthur (white):
She acknowledged that "nobody likes sex-selective abortion," but said that's not a good enough reason to ban it.
Judy Rebick (the UnWASP but still pasty):
"If people don't have their own experience with what is an unwanted pregnancy . . . the stories of the anti-choice are more powerful to people," Rebick acknowledged.
Nancy Pelosi (decidedly un-Japanese):
I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…
Katherine Sebelius (very white):
The country’s first criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood was left teetering Friday when it was revealed the state of Kansas destroyed abortion records that prosecutors planned to use as evidence....
The shredding occurred when KDHE was under former Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion rights supporter. Officials at KDHE, now part of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration, declined comment.
And how many of these prominent feminists -and feminist groups- deigned to speak out against sharia law or Islamist misogyny?
How many of these prominent feminists and feminist groups dare to speak out against the misogyny of Islamism?
I could find only one reference to NOW against Islamism. It was a handful of women protesting a stoning sentence in Nigeria. I could find nothing else.
Judy Rebick has a delightful bit of equivalence here:
"[In response to a comment from the floor that] Sharia law will make all of the gains women made go up in a puff of smoke, ... the Christians and Jewish courts got their laws in the Arbitration Act and quietly under the radar the Jews and Christians have started to use it."
(Sidebar: Jews and Christians don't stone women to death, Judy. )
Nancy Pelosi "bravely" covered her head while in Syria:
Thus, both U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have donned the hijab when visiting Arab and Muslim countries whereas Arab and Muslim female dignitaries and spouses do not remove the hijab or the niqab while visiting the West. On July 18, 2010, British Minister Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary and second most powerful woman in the cabinet, described the burqa as "empowering." She said, "I don't, living in this country as a woman, want to be told what I can and can't wear. One of the things we pride ourselves on … is being free to choose what you wear … so banning the burka is absolutely contrary to what this country is about."
Now, where is the solidarity with their fellow Muslim feminists?
To which I say, clothes don’t oppress people – people oppress people. (See what I did there?) A woman who wears a hijab is no more or no less oppressed than a woman who wears a string bikini. You simply cannot tell these things by looking at the clothes a woman wears.
In America, as I've written elsewhere, our president is proud of our efforts on behalf of a Muslim girl's right to wear hijab in school. (Yes, hijab, the headscarf that Turkey, France, and parts of Germany have banned in public schools. More: Various American feminists view the essentially non-existent "choice" to wear the Islamic Veil as akin to a feminist choice, a feminist right. (For a long time I and a handful of other feminists have despaired of the use of feminist concepts to justify, even glorify, being a "sex worker," a "surrogate uterus," etc. My Body, Myself—Because My Mind Is Sure Gone).
Indeed, feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum, in the august pages of the New York Times, recently insisted that the burqa wearers are not coerced into wearing the shroud-like garment, nor is it really uncomfortable, dangerous to one's health, or associated with violence against women. She doesn't believe that showing one's face for purposes of identification is even really necessary—and that, of course, banning the burqa would be "discriminatory." Nussbaum deftly marshals all her arguments without even getting to the "delicate issue of religiously grounded accomodation." In her view, a ban would be "unacceptable in a society committed to equal liberty. Equal respect for conscience requires us to reject" all the arguments that have been made against face veiling.
Of sex-selection abortions:
I don’t think that abortion should be banned because of the reason the woman is procuring it. I believe that women should be able to have an abortion for any reason at all, no matter how “shallow” or wrong someone else may judge it to be. ...
The situation in Punjab offers a great example of this. It’s unfair, in my eyes, to go after the women having these abortions. Yes, they’re making a choice, but they’re doing so in reaction to a series of cultural issues that make them believe, as females themselves, that femaleness is inferior and that it’s a burden. We can attempt to rectify the deep-seated wrongs instead of attacking the women who are simply trying to negotiate their own lives in a thoroughly fucked-up world.
Surely this crusader for all things female will step in change things, right?
Who came to the defense of Sarah Palin when she endured some of the ugliest personal attacks the US political scene has ever known?
The Washington Post isn’t the only daily D.C. newspaper to rave about Sandra Bernhard’s anti-Palin ranting. Wednesday’s Washington Examiner joined in, with the headline "Comedienne delivers enraged optimism." Barbara Mackay claimed "in the end, oddly and subtly, Bernhard’s message is positive."
That’s not the impression you’d get from the blog of Theater J, where Bernhard is appearing. It has video of Bernhard calling Palin "Uncle Women," a "turncoat b—h" and a "whore." One complaint on the blog that Bernhard crosses a line of political incorrectness draws a defense from Ari Roth of Theater J that really drops the curtain on how coarse this show is:
In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as "A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a F–ked Up White Man’s Racist World" and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.Forgive me if gang-rape jokes don't greet my ears as oddly and subtly positive, as the Examiner suggests, and forgive me if gang-rape jokes aren't "a rotating sprinkler that a spectator washes in most happily," like the Washington Post insists.
The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a "disgusting show." there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as "disgusting." I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge. [Profanity editing is mine.]
No comments:
Post a Comment