Archive | January, 2011

sherights’ shereads: Take 2!

31 Jan Home_Photo_books

I’ve gotten a lot of feedback on the sherights’ shereads post, including many great suggestions. Thanks to everyone who has contributed their thoughts! Below you’ll find additions to the first shereads list, including a children’s book (this is awesome — if anyone has more children’s book suggestions, please comment)!

Happy reading :)

BOOKS (FICTION)

The Wrestling Princess and Other Stories, by Judy Corbalis (**children’s book)

 

BOOKS (NON-FICTION)

Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, by Susan Faludi

Ain’t I A Woman?: Black Women and Feminism, by Bell Hooks (anything by Bell Hooks, really)

Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics, also by Bell Hooks

Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States, by Eleanor Flexner

The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women, by Naomi Wolf

Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future, by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards

Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity, by Julia Serano

Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, by Gloria Steinem

 

PS – A special thanks to The Undomestic Goddess, whose 52 Books Project was a goldmine of suggestions!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Not ‘Fit’ Enough? Prepare for a Pay Cut.

31 Jan check

We all know that American culture is obsessed with fit men and skinny women. But how far into our everyday lives does that obsession seep? As it turns out, right into our bank accounts.

The Washington Post reports on a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, which found that both men’s and women’s pay is affected by how many pounds they’re packing:

The study found that thin women are paid significantly more than their average-size counterparts, while heavier women make less. Skinnier-than-average men, on the other hand, cash smaller paychecks than their average-weight peers.

In general…people have subconscious reactions to different body types. For a man, skinny says less-than-manly, clashing with our vision of a leader: tall, strong and emotionally unmoved. For women, an ultra-thin figure simply says success and makes for an attractive corporate image…

Being thin paid off in a big way for women, earning them about $16,000 more a year, on average. But thin men made about $8,000 less than their male co-workers.

The researchers, Timothy Judge and Daniel Cable, say that much of the problem is the result of subconscious decisions based on entrenched social stereotypes.

Geez, whatever happened to being judged by — and paid according to — your merits?!

Tags: , , ,

Links We Love

30 Jan extra-extra-paper

Read on for stories about mainstream media sexism, child care programs, lenient rape sentences, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion act, and New York’s first Chief Digital Officer — a 27 year old woman!

 

Jezebel, Why Does Charlie Get Sympathy While Lindsay is Scorned?

Women’s eNews, Mama’s Alert: Budget Ax Could Swing at Child Care

Women’s eNews, N.Y. Case Shows Lenient Treatment of Rapists

New York Times, (Editorial) The New Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill

NBC New York, New York Hires First Chief Digital Officer

Breaking News: Women Still Underpaid

30 Jan money1

The headline is obviously dripping with snark. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has again confirmed what we already know: men make more than women in virtually everything.

Jezebel breaks it down for us:

In terms of dollars, the gap is largest for the highest-paid workers – $330 – and smallest for those in sales/office, at $130. By percent, it’s worst for service (women make 72% as much as men in that sector) and again smallest for sales/office (women make 82% as much as men in that area).

And if we extrapolate this out, it adds up to a significant difference in annual earnings. If these income levels persisted for, say, 50 weeks, men in management would make $16,500 more than women; in sales, they’d make $6,500 more.

The full BLS report is available here. In addition to analyzing earnings by gender, it also disaggregates data by race. Not surprisingly, even though women as a whole get screwed with this whole pay thing, white women earn more than women of color. In descending order, it goes like this:

White women > Asian women > African American women > Hispanic women

Sigh. So how about enacting that little piece of legislation known as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?! 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Spotlight On: Noir A-Go Go

29 Jan charlie

Part of being a feminist means shining a spotlight on pro-women business endeavors. I’ve already highlighted pro-choice conglomerates, so now it’s time to feature a smaller, woman-owned-and-created venture: Noir A-Go Go.

K.C. Washington, the genius behind Noir A-Go Go, was kind enough to participate in a sherights Q&A:

So, tell us. What exactly is Noir A-Go Go?

It’s a novelty postcard, bookmark, and general gift company featuring African American pinups and   50s housewives.

How did Noir A-Go Go evolve? What was your inspiration?

I have always loved the 1940s and 50s because of their overall glamour and style and am an avid collector of the memorabilia, especially postcards, magnets and journals. But every time I bought a card or whatever, being a Black woman, in the back of my mind, I always thought, wow, I wish they made black versions. Because of the history of this country and, dare I say the world, the Black woman hasn’t always been seen as beautiful or glamorous, especially back in the day. Sure, you can find images of Lena Horne and Dorothy Dandridge, but those are usually movie stills or specific pictures connected to an interview. Rarely, outside of the Black press, can you find glamour shots of ordinary women of color. So I had some time and a little money and I thought why don’t I create a line of postcards and bookmarks?

Do you draw the images yourself?

Unfortunately, I can’t draw to save my life, so I hired two artists I found through etsy.com and craigslist.com to do the work. I am in charge of overall concept and design, as well as the pithy tag lines like “Trust Me Sugar, I’ve Overcome.”

Who is your target audience?

Although I’m sure Black women and other women of color will be most drawn to Noir A-Go Go, I believe the images and sayings stand on their own and are fun and cute for anyone interested in the genre to appreciate. Plus, I figure, I’ve been buying White pinups forever why shouldn’t/wouldn’t White women enjoy Black pinups too? I came up with a little slogan to entice non-Blacks to check out the line: You don’t have to be Noir to Go Go.

What do you think is Noir A-Go Go’s biggest differentiators from the pin-up market?

Other than the lovely sepia tones of my girls, the ladies and two gentleman of Noir A-Go Go stand out for their vivid, eye catching style and fun sayings like “Play Nice? Try Again,” and “Feminist. Womanist. Humanist. I do it all. ” While firmly rooted in the pinup genre, I am attempting to put a fresh spin on the tone and playfulness. Some of the sayings are geared more towards African American culture while others are more general. Also, Noir A-Go Go is a family. I have created names for all of my images—Tessa, Izzy, Julius, Harper to name a few—and through my Facebook wall and on the website itself, you can find bios. Charlie (the main pinup) and the gang “interact” with one another and their buyers.

Tell us more about the Noir A-Go Go family. What products do you currently have that feature “the gang”? Are you going to expand your current line?

As of now, I have 7 different postcards, including one for Black History Month and one for Valentine’s Day. I also have two bookmarks. In the next two months, I am rolling out a post-it and one or two magnets. By summer, I will have two different tote bags and several more postcards. And of course there will be a Christmas card.

You can find the Noir A-Go Go family at http://noir-a-gogo.com as well as on Facebook. And coming in May, I should be at one or two flea markets around Manhattan and Brooklyn

Tags: , ,

Online Activism – Check!

29 Jan twitter-logo

I woke up this morning to a wonderful, beautiful thing: hundreds, if not thousands, of people are participating in a Twitter campaign targeting John Boehner regarding his new rape definitions.

If you are on Twitter, please join the conversation to let Boehner know that redefining rape is a wretched thing.

Use the hashtag #dearjohn and be sure to include his Twitter handle @JohnBoehner. Let’s make this a trending topic, folks!

To see the #dearjohn tweets to date, please go here.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

A New Low: Redefining Rape and Incest

28 Jan exploding_head

The sound you may have just heard was my head exploding. I’ve previously posted about the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion bill recently introduced in the House, which at first impression was bad. But bad has quickly escalated to worse.

Mother Jones has shed light on the fact that as part of this bill, the GOP is trying to more narrowly redefine rape and incest in an attempt to limit abortions in those states with rape/incest exceptions.

Here’s the nitty gritty:

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.” This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith’s spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

[....]

As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

So let’s get this straight. These are vulnerable girls and women who have been victimized by rape. And then further victimized upon realizing they are pregnant as a result of their rape. And the GOP wants to completely traumatize them by making it even more difficult to terminate their pregnancies, aka the constant reminder of what happened to them? Wow. Hats off to you, Republicans — it takes an impressive level of cruelty and creativity to even think that is acceptable.

Not to mention the consequences redefining rape will have on the thousands of rape victims who survive an attack every year. Under this bill, just saying “no” is not enough to qualify as rape. Drugged and can’t say no? Well, you’re screwed. (No bad pun intended). Date raped? Same deal. Rape victims with limited mental capacity? Saaaaame stinking deal.

Seriously, how is this not completely discriminatory?! This is, at its most basic level, about a specific, vulnerable subset of women being targeted and “punished.” **Head. exploding.**

So, let’s review. If you are a female of reproductive age, are raped, find yourself pregnant and have no means to pay for an abortion, sorry. Sucks to be you.

Tags: , , , , ,

Support Pro-Choice Businesses!

27 Jan shopping_bags

I try my best to be a fiscally responsible feminist, which means supporting businesses that support pro-women efforts. However, knowing what  issues conglomerates lend financial support to can be a tricky guessing game.

But guess no longer! TrustWomen has provided us with a list of pro-choice companies. The best part is that they got this list from an anti-choice boycott list posted online. Thanks for the tip, antis!

Here it is in all its glory:

From an Anti-Choice site (I won’t post because I don’t want them to get hits) of companies who support Planned Parenthood:

New boycott targets include AOL, Darden Restaurants (Bahama Breeze, The Capital Grille, LongHorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Season 52), Franchise Services (PIP, Signal Graphics, Sir Speedy), Hilton Worldwide (Conrad Hotels,Doubletree, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inns/Suites, Hilton Garden Inn, Hilton Hotels, Homewood Suites), Ignite Restaurants (Brickhouse Tavern+Tap, Joe’s Crab Shack), ING (financial services), Kohl’s (department stores), Mrs. Fields (cookies), Staples (office/school supplies), Toys “R” Us, and Trader Joe’s (markets/supermarkets).

Returning to The Boycott List are The Gap (apparel/accessories) and Freddie Mac (U.S. Government-sponsored secondary mortgages).

Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously released Boycott List include AlphaGraphics, Wells Fargo (including Wachovia), Nike, Time Warner, Bank of America, Walt Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Chevron, and Nationwide Insurance, among others.

Garvey was critical of pro-life organizations that continue to use PayPal even though it has been a boycott target for several years now. “PayPal is owned by boycott target eBay,” Garvey said. etc etc etc

The new Boycott List includes a “Dishonorable Mention” section, which identifies charitable groups that are associated with Planned Parenthood and/or its agenda. Groups named in this section include Lions Clubs, the American Cancer Society, Easter Seals, Boys & Girls Clubs, Ronald McDonald House Charities, Camp Fire, Girls Inc., Girl Scouts, Kiwanis Clubs, March of Dimes, Muscular Dystrophy Association, Rotary Clubs,  Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Salvation Army, YWCA, America Gives Back (formerly [American] Idol Gives Back), and YMCA, among others.

So, make sure to:

  • Eat at: Bahama Breeze (this place is fabulous already), Capital Grille, LongHorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, or Season 52; Brickhouse Tavern + Tap, Joe’s Crab Shack
  • Use services from: PIP, Signal Grapics, Sir Speedy, ING
  • Stay at: Conrad Hotels, Doubletree, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inns, Hiltons and Homewood Suites

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Did the 5 Pro-Choice Fingers Say to the Anti-Choice Face? SLAP!

27 Jan mental-health-example

Boo-yah! The New England Journal of Medicine has provided further validation that having an abortion does not, in fact, result in depression. Rather, giving birth and raising a baby raises a woman’s risk of having mental health problems.

The Associated Press reports:

Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions suggests.

The research by Danish scientists further debunks the notion that terminating a pregnancy can trigger mental illness and shows postpartum depression to be much more of a factor.

The Danish study included 365,550 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007. None had a history of psychiatric problems that required hospitalization. Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counseling at a hospital or outpatient facility before and after an abortion or delivery.

During the study period, 84,620 had an abortion while 280,930 gave birth.

Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion. Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling — similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion.

While first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, the proportion of those seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher. About 7 per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with 4 per 1,000 women pre-delivery.

The latest findings echo an extensive review by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that found no evidence that ending an unwanted pregnancy threatens women’s mental health.

So, the whole abortion-makes-you-depressed-and-crazy myth can join the abortion-gives-you-breast-cancer lie where it belongs: in the trash!

Tags: , , , , ,

Conception at Life Act, Stupak on Steroids & More

26 Jan no_coat_hangers_-keep_abortion_legal

In a previous post, I discussed the upcoming legislative hurdles the pro-choice constituency will have to face in the coming year. Well, since then, more details have come to light regarding specific anti-choice measures.I’ll do my best to summarize here.

1. Conception at Life Act, introduced yesterday in the US Senate. According to Ms. Magazine’s Feminist Wire Daily:

Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Life at Conception Act in the Senate yesterday that would establish that human life begins at the moment of conception. If passed, the bill would extend equal protection under 14th article of amendment of the Constitution to unborn fetuses and would reverse Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the US.

At the March for Life, held Monday at the National Mall, Senator Wicker pledged to overturn Roe v. Wade and stated, “We believe Roe v. Wade has led to a three-and-a-half decades-long holocaust in the United States of America.”

2. No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion (H.R. 3), aka “Stupak on Steroids,” introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). NOW-NYC explains:

What the bill will do:
Establish a federal ban of abortion insurance coverage on the new health exchanges.

Eliminate tax subsidies under the new health care law for individuals OR employers that purchase health insurance plans that cover abortion.

Permanently restrict abortion access for women in the military, federal prisons, and at the Indian Health Service by codifying a full ban on abortion in all health facilities operated by the federal government.
Further restrict the Hyde amendment by limiting exceptions to if a woman is “in danger of death,” the victim of a forcible rape (not statutory rape) and incest of a minor (not 18 or over). There are no exceptions for a woman’s health – no matter how severe.

Reality Check: Federal funding for abortion has been banned since the 1976 passage of the Hyde amendment. Obama also signed an executive order last year clarifying that the health care reform law will not allow federal funding for abortion.

Basically, this is an extreme attempt to dramatically reduce access to abortion services. It is NOT, as it may sound by its name, a reiteration of previous bills.

3. Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 217), introduced by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). Again, NOW-NYC explains:

What the bill will do: This bill will ban Title X dollars from any health clinic or entity that performs abortions, even though this funding is already banned from going toward abortions.

Reality Check: This bill brings the global gag rule home to the U.S., and it will threaten access to health care and prevention services for low-income women.  It will decimate major funding for thousands of health clinics across the country – including Planned Parenthood – that provide critical reproductive health services such as access to contraception, treatment of STI’s, and cancer screening.  For many women, these types of clinics provide their only health care.

This may seem bleak, but I personally enjoy a challenge. AND, there are ways to act and have your voice heard:

1.  Contact your Representative today. Tell them WHY you care about protecting women’s abortion access, which is LEGAL under U.S. law.  Ask them to reject these measures.  

2.  Flood Speaker Boehner and Representative Smith’s offices with comments.

Tags: , , , ,

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers