Crisis Pregnancy Centers

One of the things I was working on as an intern at NARAL this summer (other than updating their online content) was researching Crisis Pregnancy Centers. During this time, RH Reality Check came out with this great video about the deceptions spread by CPCs.

From NARAL Pro-Choice California's website (i.e. me):

Crisis Pregnancy Centers, also known as CPCs, are fake clinics and counseling centers that often use deception, inaccurate information and intimidation to prevent potentially pregnant women from accessing abortion and/or birth control services. Commonly, their goal is to impose their anti-choice agenda on women especially in so-called “at risk” communities (low income, minority, non-English speaking, etc). Many of these centers also provide sex education services and therefore have received significant funding both at the state and federal levels from abstinence-only education programs. In trying to make an important and constitutionally protected choice, women should have medically accurate information and counseling that is free of political or religious agenda.

It should be a given that women are provided with complete and accurate information before making choices about their bodies and their reproductive health. And yet.

Being a Woman: The Male Gaze and Saying No

(x-posted from my blogspot)

In response to this (blog entry that just has an embedded video) and this:

The author here grosses me out.

That guy isn’t real. Somebody decided to make him up so they could write the “write fuck me on your chest and smile” line, claiming female = victim and that somehow, if only men would understand and be sensitive to this, it would be okay.

Most men aren’t anything like this guy, and for the rest of us the author has done nothing to improve our understanding of “what it’s like to be a woman.” If the author were listening, I’d respond: “Being a grownup means taking the fuck me sign off your chest and telling people ‘no’ or ‘piss off’ whenever necessary.”

Giving a reality check to a straw man, kind of annoying.

----------------

I see where the commenter is coming from, but I think it's a *very* shallow reading of that clip. The message I got from this video/scene was different. Writing "fuck me" on his chest would be about drawing a parallel between the symbolic gesture and the reality of inhabiting a woman's body--a body that is unfortunately read by some as "willing" just by virtue of being female. If the guy had actually gone out with the FUCK ME on his chest, it wouldn't have been the same thing/feeling...but it wasn't about him actually doing it. It was about showing the parallel between that and walking around with an INVISIBLE (yet oh so visible) marker of "oh yeah, sure, fuck me, that's great, I really want it from you, thank you."

A man walking naked with FUCK ME on his chest would be seen as abnormal, whereas a woman just walking around would not be. Violence against women is perpetrated because it's, in a way, normalized. This is the narrative that we've been given; people assuming a naked man with FUCK ME scrawled on his chest wants and is ready for sex is not realistic, but people assuming a woman walking down the street wants and is ready for sex IS realistic. This whole scene is about the psychological impact; it's about the female character trying to show this man how it feels by creating a "story" that APPROXIMATES that feeling. Taking that story to reality wouldn't work, but THINKING about it and thinking about what it MEANS would certainly make an impact.

Woman is not inherently "victim," but the truth is that in society, many times there is a strong correlation between the two. And if it's not "victim," it's still the receiving end of violence, be it symbolic, physical, or both. And that being said...yeah--if only men could understand and be sensitive to the realities of living in a body marked as "female," we would probably have less scenarios like this. A man would be way less likely to invade a woman's privacy like what happened on The L Word if he understood how that shit felt. A man would be less likely to leer at a woman and think it's okay to grab her ass if he understood how that felt. Obviously it would only be a start. Someone's knowledge doesn't predict what they will do with it.

But the thing is, there's no real way to understand, FULLY understand, unless one has lived through it. Anything else is just an assumption, removed to a certain degree, or a sympathetic thought. No one can TRULY and wholly understand or "feel" what someone else is feeling. We have approximations, yes, and a "common language," yes, but these are only approximations. Still, these approximations are valuable--very valuable. They're the closest we have to the real thing, and they are important. And even if we can't feel exactly what someone else has felt, there are probably huge overlaps, and we can sympathize and find solidarity.

Finally, the "...telling people ‘no’ or ‘piss off’ whenever necessary" comment? Telling people "no" or to "piss off" when necessary is a right (and sort of one's duty to a certain extent), but to have that right respected? A totally different ballgame. Women usually don't have the privilege of not having to worry that their "no" may not be respected or even taken seriously. Saying "no" doesn't necessitate or equal a respect of that "no." Just because a woman screams NO and fights back, does that mean a rapist will stop raping her? Just because we say NO, does that mean a mugger will suddenly return all our money and leave us alone? Just because a NO is necessary doesn't mean it will WORK. There are various situations when saying NO just isn't enough.

And sure, most men aren't like the guy in the video, who will set up cameras all over your house...but that's not the point. Most men aren't rapists, or murderers, or robbers--but we still have to talk about those that are, and represent them in the media, and show that they exist. We still have to show that women are hurt, not to normalize that violence, but to show the realities of the world and that they are NOT ACCEPTABLE. We have to put these things in the forefront so people cannot ignore them, so people have to acknowledge them and get educated and DO something about it. The fact that a (presumably) Average Joe (whatever that is) cannot relate at all to this clip and feels that it provides NO insight into how it feels to be a woman is VERY distressing to me.

I wish I could say I wrote this...it's by a friend who's an organizer for TLGB issues:

First Radical

Am I your first radical?
A revolutionary fuck,
feeling you up
while dressing you down
feeling around for sense of identity
while its escaping me as to why,
so I say fuck it,
while helping you
while helping myself 
to a consensual fruit
flavoring the salt of your lips,
the skin of your neck,
the sweat on your thighs.
I've pumped my fist in the air so many times
for the right to do
what I think
we're about to do,
that my biceps all the way to my fingertips
just keeps growing stronger.

But it seems everytime your eyes scream directly into mine,
the message that resonates runs parallel to mine,
and I refuse to deny that this will go by
without feeling,
it's just not the conventional type.
But nothing really is
as every pelvic pump preaches another gospel
according to resistance,
according to power,
according to beauty 
in the Holy Bible of our liberation.

So speak to me in tongues, because you know it'll start miracles.
Make me moan to make sure I'm still breathing.
Press your heart on mine to make sure its still beating
bleeding together
becoming one body we find solidarity
while we pray and preach simultaneously,
in union or individually
or whatever happens to happen.

Kiss my lips that move to make a motion,
then kiss my lips that exist to destroy notions,
connotation, expectations,
and bring life forward.
And I will pray before I come
in
to your universe of one body, one love
that the fuck-up that follows will be a helpful one
God,
eternally omnipresent,
resting between my knees,
grant me the serenity to make my bed,
and lie in it,
love in it,
die in it,
then rise from the dead and refuse to straighten the sheets.
Because as my heavy breath breathes harmony to your heavy swallows,
I find myself bathing in what God gave me
as a Holy and radical communion,
and hoping you'll approach the altar for yours,
receiving blood and body,
leading or following spirit,
which proves to be beautiful, too.
And as you slide your hand inside,
consider you're sliding your hand into mine
as we stand on a picket line screaming for freedom,
and consider that God lies between our grasp,
soaking in to our skin to provide us this strength.
And consider my moans are to celebrate freedom,
and that I scream out God's name
because I see her so clearly.

Love Your Body Day Poster

I would've liked to see non-skirt-wearing women.
Still, the poster's pretty cute.

Scientific study finds that promiscuity is culturally-based. Feminists say, "No kidding."

Jezebel had a good post the other day about a new study showing that promiscuity may be more culturally influenced than biologically/evolutionarily. Well, yeah, no kidding. But evolutionary biologists have long held that, based mainly on studies of fruit flies, males are more promiscuous than females. Spreading one's genes is an evolutionary advantage, but producing eggs is more of an investment than insemination, so females tend to have fewer mating partners while males tend to have more. While these findings are undoubtedly important, the subsequent application to human behavior has been, well, problematic. Claiming cultural norms/stereotypes as "natural" tends to lead into dangerous territory, reinforcing expectations of men's and women's roles in society.

However, a new study that actually takes a look at human behavior has shown that "Evidence for sex differences in variation in reproductive success alone does not allow us to make generalizations about sex roles, as numerous variables will influence [previous findings] for men and women." But not only is the notion of promiscuous men and choosy women culturally based, it may also be wrong. While men had more children by different partners than women did overall, number of sexual partners is extremely difficult to measure because people lie about it. The social expectation for men to sleep around and women to want committed relationships tends to make men exaggerate upwards and women exaggerate downwards when surveyed about the number of sexual partners they'd had.

This study is encouraging, because it shows an awareness by the scientific community that humans are embedded in culture - a fact that tends to be ignored in evolutionary biology. On the other hand, Elizabeth Wilson (who gave a talk at the differences colloquium a few weeks ago) got me thinking about the fact that feminism tends to ignore biology, too. To paraphrase Wilson, although nothing can be explained in purely biological terms - especially biology - feminism does need to be more engaged with biology. When we distance ourselves from the scientific community, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we could be focused on working through similar issues. And the last thing we want is to show how completely out-of-touch we are by suggesting that fruit fly research is unimportant.

How to engage biology is, of course, the difficult question. But I get discouraged when I end up in arguments with my biology-focused friends about things like the influence of evolution and/or culture on sex and gender, because it gets in the way of our shared commitment to social justice. I make a habit of calling out science out for its assumed objectivity - nothing is purely objective; we don't exist in a vacuum - but the last thing I want to do is alienate it because it isn't self-aware enough. It would be more productive to help it become more self-aware, and then work in conversation with it.

Take Back the Night!

I just wanted to make a quick comment on Thursday night. We had a critical mass for Take Back the Night (~35),and then a really fantastic speak out that lasted until midnight. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend the speak-out, but I did yell my way through the hour and a half long march through campus buildings and spaces, and up Thayer st. It was a powerful event, with students of different genders, and I hope it's as good (or maybe even better!) next year.

My favorite chant of the (very loud) march was one made up by a participant--"8-6-4-2, Brown has rape, too. 1-2-3-4, we won't take it anymore!" Recognizing that sexual assault occurs and that we as individual students have a responsibility to fight the culture of rape is really important. There's a huge tendency to minimize rape, either by ascribing it as being inevitable based on a situation, or as a trivial problem (I'm thinking of the yells down my hall saying that an exam "raped" them). There are two parts that need to be worked on--the culture, and the policies. As far as Brown's messed up policies, I'm a big fan of the SATForce's work on campus, so if this is an issue that you want to take action on, I'm sure they could use them.

Back to the event, there was definitely a certain amount of hostility to the march, particularly in certain areas of campus. People view events about stopping sexual assault as a comment about them specifically, as opposed to the culture in general.

This may not have been the most intelligible post ever made--but the weather is nice, my brain is fried, and the work has to get done. I hope you're all having an amazing reading period! If other people have thoughts on this, feel free to let me know, or comment--there's definitely some interesting and conflicting views about stopping sexual assault.

Body Language

I was at a congressional hearing last week, and at a Degree Day meeting today.  What do these two events have in common?

Gendered body language.

Women tended to look down, slouch, hunch shoulders.  Women smiled, men did not.  Men were loud, women were not and tended to speak in a higher, lighter tone that almost asked people not to argue or criticize.  Men spread out, leaned back and took up space, one politician blatantly falling asleep in his seat.  Women tended to use qualifying statements or precede their presentations with how they didn't actually plan to be speaking and how they weren't qualified.  Men spoke longer than women.  There were no openly trans people there.

Issue 1:  Basic traditional sexism- man-identified people need to tone the assertive confidence down a little, women-identified need to bring it up to a happy medium.  We need to take extra care in how we nurture kids and treat people of different genders, making sure female-identified people get told and shown they are powerful.

Issue 2:  Dissociate our mental framework (expectations, interpretation, etc.) for body language and confidence from people's (assigned?) genders.  Create trans-inclusive space and make legal equality for trans people so more trans people have the resources to be participating in all these things.

Issue 3:  We need to learn how to respect the voices of people with all different personalities and comfort levels in any given situation.

I get frustrated when people quit after Issue 1; it just pisses off lots of man-identified people and makes a lot of women-identified people feel indignant (hey, I'm not weak or under-confident, and good people respect me!) and is generally unproductive.

Mow The Lawn ad for razor

WTF.

Rachel Graves: Menagerie

"There is an inextricable link between the domination and exploitation of women, and the domination and exploitation of animals. Animals and women are objectified in similar ways: from the mass media fantasy images of impossibly proportioned women and happy cartoon cows and chickens, to the animal names and insults directed toward women. Women are called foxes, bitches, birds, lambs – domestic and game animals. If men are compared to animals at all they are wolves, bears, stallions – symbols of strength and power."

CLICK FOR THE REST OF THE PICTURES.

Interesting Women: La Païva.

Esther Lachmann, later Pauline Thérèse Lachmann, later Mme Villoing, later Mme la Marquise de Païva, later Countess Henckel von Donnersmarck, (b. Moscow, 7 May 1819 - d. Neudeck, 21 January 1884) was the most successful of 19th century French courtesans.

[excerpts from the Wiki article]

She returned to Paris, and from there to the spa at Baden, where she met a Portuguese marquis, Albino Francesco de Païva-Araujo. Her first husband had died of consumption, so she was free to marry the marquis on 5 June 1851, acquiring a fortune, a title, and her nickname, La Païva. The day following, Horace de Viel-Castel wrote, she told her husband, "You wanted to sleep with me, and you've done so, by making me your wife. You have given me your name, I acquitted myself last night. I have behaved like an honest woman, I wanted a position, and I've got it, but all you have is a prostitute for a wife. You can't take me anywhere, and you can't introduce me to anyone. We must therefore separate. You go back to Portugal. I shall stay here with your name, and remain a whore." And, indeed, the marquis returned to Portugal, leaving her behind. The marriage was not annulled until 16 August 1871, and the marquis shot himself in 1872.

Cornelia Otis Skinner wrote that one of La Païva's conquests was a banker of whom she demanded twenty banknotes of one thousand francs each - which, she stipulated, he must burn one by one during their lovemaking. The banker decided to substitute counterfeit banknotes. Even so, the sight of their incineration was so unnerving that he could not accomplish his part of the tryst.

She died at their castle in Neudeck on 21 January 1884, aged 64. Her naked body was preserved in a glass tank of alcohol, kept by her husband in an isolated room of the castle. Henckel visited her corpse regularly for a strange sort of contemplation that may be termed thanatophilia. It is said that when Henckel's second wife, Katharina, unexpectedly discovered the body of her predecessor, preserved in all its glory in alcohol, she suffered a mental breakdown.

Real Women Have _______

Via Flickr (a statement by Gabrielle Hennessey)

I hate Dove's "Real Women Have Curves" slogan with a passion. I stuffed my bra in seventh grade because of ideas like that, because of society's undying belief that Breasts = Woman. A few days ago I walked into a store and a fellow shopper didn't hesitate to tell her partner that my body was "gross."

She said this while three or four feet away from me. I assume she wanted me to hear her and feel bad about my alleged eating disorder/unhealthiness/low self esteem, so that I'd go home and cry over some bonbons about my wasted life and listen to Christina Aguilera and discover my inner beauty and suddenly gain thirty pounds so I could be normal like her.

Real women have hearts and blood and bones. They have skin that breaks and nerves that feel the cold. They are made up of carbon and water and constantly renewing cells. They know who they are.

Real women may not have breasts. They may not even have vaginas. They might like girls or boys or a bit of both or neither at all. They may not always consider themselves to be women, or they might have to fight to be called such since no one else believes them.

Find a new slogan, Dove. Thousands of the people you've unwittingly condemned as Not Real Women are waiting.

Enjoy your profits.

Oh, labels. What makes a "woman"? What makes someone "[insert group here]"? What makes someone anything? If breasts don't make a woman, what does? Is it the chromosomes? Is it the genital appearance? Is it the clothes? Is it other people's perception of them as a member of a certain group? Is it a certain grouping of these aforementioned things? Is it an intangible "je ne sais quoi" of "woman-ness"? What does that even MEAN? And why is it necessary to make this distinction?

If we reduce these broad categories (e.g. woman, man, Latin@, homosexual, American, etc) to a list of "traits," no one person will embody all of them. However, devoid of things that describe a label or devoid of things that make UP a definition, categories become meaningless. With no signified, the signifier becomes empty--just surface, with nothing beneath it. We keep using these terms in hopes that they will represent our realities somehow and allow us to communicate with one another, and ourselves.

The problem with all labels is that they ultimately define through exclusion; they purport to build a community based on, yes, shared traits or ideas or WHATEVER, but it always happens at the expense of keeping "something" out. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not going to ask for the abolition of all labels and categories because I DO find them useful (although inherently flawed). What I'm going to ask for is the fluidity and openness of thought to think outside those categories and constantly question them. What I'm going to ask for is a critical, analytical approach to definitions and life in general--one that will allow for change, multiplicity, and a degree of uncertainty about it all.

Next time you ask yourself "Oh, is that person [insert label here]?," ask YOURSELF why you even need to know. Not because you don't need to know the answer to your original question (maybe you do, maybe you don't, whatever), but because I feel an integral part of understanding the world is understanding (or at least trying to understand) ourselves. Being introspective and looking at our own minds and our own actions in a way that is honest, questioning, and even slightly playful (because taking things seriously 24/7 only leads to nasties like high blood-pressure and a permanently furrowed brow) can tell us a lot about the world and why we perceive it the way we do. Asking yourself why you need to know if the person sitting next to you on the bus is "a girl or a boy" or "Mexican or Asian" will probably (eventually?) show you some of your own preconceptions, and by becoming self-aware, you can finally begin a process of growth and change. You can't break the bars of cages you can't see.

Take RELS 410

Clement of Alexandria, second century Christian theologian, believed that every moment of your life should be lived in devotion to God.  Thus anyone should be able to tell from your smallest action that you were a Christian.

Clement developed tons of guidelines for every imaginable situation, so that a good Christian would know how to act.

For example, if you were a lady at a dinner party, and your toga, not being the most reliably fastened garment, were to slip and bare a part of your arm immodestly, and a man were to comment inappropriately on the beauty of your arm, a good Christian woman should respond:

"It's not public property."

Once when I was 14, I was wearing a camisole and a guy tossed a penny down my cleavage, so I then had to fish at it and wriggle to get it to drop out the bottom of the built-in bra and get it out of my shirt.

I think I told him to please not do that again.  I can't remember if I laughed it off or just got stony-faced or went somewhere else.  I know he apologized sincerely after reading about how I felt (dirty, uncomfortable, uncertain, embarrassed) about the incident on my blog.  

But it strikes me that Clement is still relevant.  

What do you say?

Quick Link: The Double Standard Revealed

Via The Washington Post:

When a vaccine designed to protect girls against a sexually transmitted virus arrived three years ago, the debate centered on one question: Would the shots make young girls more likely to have sex?

Now the vaccine's maker is trying to get approval to sell the vaccine for boys, and the debate is focusing on something else entirely: Is it worth the money, and is it safe and effective enough?

Read the full article here.

March Madness - what about the women?

March Madness is upon us. The drama, the rivalries, the brackets, the sheer passion of college basketball (which, if you ask me, is much more fun to watch than pro basketball for this very reason). And yet, at risk of pointing out the obvious, the brackets we fill out with such enthusiasm on ESPN.com are for men's basketball. The majority of the publicized and televised games? Men's basketball.

The other night I went home for a UConn women's game - though the team is undefeated and has a hugely loyal fan base, they haven't been selling out, which I'll chalk up to the economy. In any case, I was riveted. I'm no sports expert, but these women were spectacular to watch - the way they interacted both on and off the court, the intensity of play, their speed and ball-handling skills - beautiful. Equally impressively, everyone on the team performs well academically - sophomore Maya Moore (pictured), arguably the best player in the league, boasts a 3.74 GPA. Based on the team camaraderie - one player is designated to high-five everyone on the bench whenever someone scores - they seem like people I'd like to hang out with in my spare time. Suffice it to say: I'm in love with the UConn women.

So after the game, with all that adrenaline going through me, I couldn't stop thinking about the fact that the NCAA basketball tournament is essentially the only time when women's sports are given a significant amount of attention in the mainstream media - and even then, there isn't nearly the same degree of excitement about them as there is about the men's tournament. What's up with that? I'm sick of hearing comments like, "Well, men's basketball is just better and more exciting than women's." That seems like a cop-out to me. For one thing, "better" is purely subjective. If women's games and brackets were hyped up as much as the men's, would we find them equally exciting? Probably. Women's basketball definitely brings the passion and the drama - the UConn/Tennessee rivalry is one of the fiercest rivalries in sports. And even as a UConn fan, I can easily admit that Tennessee coach Pat Summitt's 1,000 victories is an unparalleled feat - by any coach, male or female. The Lady Vols' athletic director was quoted as saying, "I can’t imagine anyone doing what she has done ever again." Programs like these, with a relatively long history and a strong alumni network, draw crowds. This is the same reason why men's tournament games are played on a neutral court, while women's games are played at stadiums (like UConn's) where there will surely be a wide enough local fan base to sell tickets.

And then there's another problem: where do they go from here? The WNBA has had a decent amount of success compared to other professional women's sports. But with the Houston Comets - "the most important franchise in the history of women's professional sports" - having folded this winter, one wonders about the future of the league's popularity and subsequent success. Do players like Candace Parker and Maya Moore (who can totally dunk, by the way) get frustrated by the fact that their sport's popularity peaks in college?

Bringing it back home, how do you feel about women's sports at Brown? I'd love to hear from athletes on this one. Speaking personally, I hear a lot about how undeniably awesome the women's crew and rugby teams are - but at Brown, as at most schools, nothing in women's sports is even comparable to the amount of money and hype spent on men's football. I know that, "objectively" speaking, this all has to do with money. It's a tried-and-true fact that men's games sell tickets. Fine, I understand that. But is there anything we can do about it? Other than resorting to, say, something like this? Most relevantly, do we have a feminist obligation to support women's athletics?

A Presidentress who Looks Like Me?

When I was in middle school, I thought the whole idea of people of color needing older people of color as role models was bullshit. I was like, I can model myself on anybody!

There weren't any older people of color that I connected with in the role model sense because my parents live pretty segregated lives, and in school and other settings class differences overpowered racial similarities.

It wasn't until I was in a setting with a LOT of queer people of color 10 and 15 years older than me, who actually shared some of my beliefs and life experiences, that I actually got what all the fuss about having "role models" was about. Somehow, seeing those people living lives I thought I might like to live, defining themselves outside the roles and behaviors I saw in the few Asian people in my town, embracing their race to mean what they wanted it to mean...was liberating. And empowering. And amazing. I carry it with me to this day.

I'm reminded of this experience at Brown, where suddenly I am surrounded by a LOT of women who are scientists and engineers and mathematicians. It's not that I never saw a woman who was a scientist, or that I didn't think I could be a scientist. It's that I never saw a large group of them who were anything like me together.

I have not had any epiphany about my secret desire to study biochemical geophysics. I'm not really a science person. I think if that were my passion, I would have pursued it regardless of the genders of the people I saw in science around me. It would just have felt normal because it was, the same way years of being the only girl in woodworking and cabinetmaking classes felt perfectly fine.

But seeing these women who pause to comment on cloud structures, who actually go and do out the statistical analysis for the housing lottery, these women who enjoy these conversations together and are energized by each others' enthusiasm for questioning and appreciating the ways the world works...It is strangely liberating. And empowering. And amazing.

Maybe I am just a follower who needs to see a lot of people do something before it looks good to me, but science actually looks kind of cool and accessible and easier. And I'm not sure I would ever have seen that if I hadn't had these women to shake up my image of science and scientists and how science is applied in life. Maybe this is why there are fewer women in the sciences, etc.-- because right now only those who are passionate about them or who are encouraged in them early on pursue them as careers, while the girls like me who like to be with the crowd, well, follow the crowd.

What are your thoughts on the "role models who look like me" idea?

Women's History Month Quiz

Via Feministing:

Deborah Siegel, over at Girl w/Pen, is trying to start a little infectious blog quiz. If you've got one, paste these questions and add one of your own, then post it up at your blog so we can spread the knowledge.

1. In 2009, women make up what percent of the U.S. Senate?
A. 3%
B. 17%
C. 33%
D. 50%

2. How many CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are female?
A. 15
B. 28
C. 59
D. 84

3. Who was the first First Lady to create her own media presence (i.e. hold regular press conferences, write a daily newspaper column and a monthly magazine column, and host a weekly radio show)?
A. Eleanor Roosevelt
B. Jacqueline Kennedy
C. Pat Nixon
D. Hillary Clinton

4. The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced to Congress in:
A. 1923
B. 1942
C. 1969
D. 1971

5. Who was the first African-American woman to win the Nobel Prize for Literature?
A. Phyllis Wheatley
B. Alice Walker
C. Toni Morrison
D. Maya Angelou

6. What percentage of union members are women today?
A. 10%
B. 25%
C. 35%
D. 45%

7. What year did the Griswold v. Connecticut decision guarantee married women the right to birth control?
A. 1960
B. 1965
C. 1969
D. 1950

8. What was the first coeducational college in the United States?
A. Oberlin Collegiate Institute
B. Andover Newton College
C. Radcliffe College
D. College of William and Mary

Scroll down for answers...













ANSWERS: 1:B, 2:A, 3:A, 4:A, 5:C, 6:D, 7:B 8:A

Women in the economy

It's not exactly new news that the economy isn't doing too well. If you're like me, you're spending at least a part of your spring break frantically applying to jobs and internships for the summer. Luckily for me, I am in a pretty secure financial situation, which isn't very common. So it was with frustration that I read that with the export sector declining, women are being hit hard by the global rise in unemployment. Apparently, "Although the crisis had its initial impact largely on male-dominated sectors such as finance, insurance and construction, it is now spreading into fields where women are widely employed,"--Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development

And, unsurprisingly, "Women’s lower employment rates, weaker control over property and resources, concentration in informal and vulnerable forms of employment with lower earnings, and less social protection, all place women in a weaker position than men to weather crises”, said ILO Bureau for Gender Equality Director Jane Hodges

Of course, this means that there are two problems--the difference in employment and policy protections of women, and the economic crisis. It seems to me that one of these can be acted on now--not by imposing standards on other nations, but by making an example of ourselves, and making sure that movements started in other countries have some resources to make the changes they see as necessary and beneficial. More equality in employment, around the world, would benefit everyone.

On the US level, it looks like the wage gap for women still exists (of course, that was before the economic crisis. According to claims by the National Women's Law Center, the stimulus might be good for getting some more women in underreperesentated fields. And for those thinking this might be bad for men, check out this really interesting piece from the NY Times.

I know this post might seem like a downer for spring break. But it doesn't have to be! Give a little bit to Kiva, the microfinance organization, and look for a woman entrepreneur to help. It'll make you feel better, and make a big impact! I promise! Plus, it's the gift that keeps on giving! (You can take your money back when the loan is repaid, or lend it again). Programs like this are exactly what help these changes happen.

By the way, if you get bored during break, I recommend looking through the UN women watch site. It's pretty interesting stuff.

Any thoughts? I try not to impose cultural standards, but I know I do sometimes--do you see any problems? What changes do you see as being viable or necessary now?
How's your spring break going?

14/365: The Scale

I'm not a snob, I'm just optimistic

My mother has told me not to be a young feminist snob.

She wants me to not get caught off guard in an innocent belief that sexism is over because there are guys who agree with feminist principles. She means that I shouldn't assume that later in life I won't end up in situations based in sexism and gender roles-- that I'm young and that I don't appreciate the complexity and subtlety and pressures of future situations, and that my big ideas won't necessarily save me.

There's some truth to this.

Yesterday I was in training for a long-distance counseling program to help low-income students apply to college. We had to do skits on various themes; ours was over-dependence. The scenario that immediately came to my mind was a girl mentee calling her case manager to talk about issues with her boyfriend. Our group thought of reasons boyfriend and mentee could be fighting-- I came up with Valentine's Day, thinking of a person I know. The one boy in the group suggested he could be like, "But we agreed we wouldn't do anything for Valentine's Day!" based on his own experiences.

A few minutes later I found myself cast into the role of a girl who was angry at her boyfriend for not getting her anything for Valentine's Day even though they had agreed not to celebrate it. I had my case manager on speed dial and said in a bitchy tone of voice, "I never said that! I can't believe you think I said that! I can't even talk to you right now!" And called my mentor.

And this was intensely uncomfortable. I wasn't sure how I ended up playing this person, but it wasn't me. It's not that it's unrealistic- the reason the scenario came to mind is that we all knew people to whom this had happened. But under time pressure to create an over-exaggerated scenario, we re-created the gender roles and destructive patterns we'd seen around us. I think to the other two kids, nothing seemed out of place. Despite my big ideas, despite the perspectives on this sort of behavior that being in non-heterosexual relationships has given me, it is so challenging to break out of the internalized, modeled cycle.

There are a million good ways to communicate in relationships; I don't presume to judge what works and is positive for other couples-- I don't necessarily think the Valentine's Day scenario signifies poor self-esteem or a doomed couple. I just know it's not what I look for in relationships anymore, but it was still what jumped to my mind, even as a woman, to be portrayed in the small-scale skit media.

To end on a positive note, the reason that I know I want something different in my relationships is because I've seen and experienced relationships between strong people who worked hard to create new dynamics. None of them have been perfect, but I've seen some really beautiful habits for anti-oppressive communication and decision-making, especially among younger couples. It's inspiring! I don't think I'm a young feminist snob, I'm just optimistic.

Hate crime legislation in RI

Rhode Island might be small, but it's pretty cool that we live in a state that is so often ahead of the country on progressive changes. Right now, there are 10 states in the country that have trans-inclusive non discrimination acts, including Rhode Island. This is something that hasn't happened at the federal level--you may or may not recall that ENDA, the non-discrimination act that was introduced last year, did not included trans people, and only provided provisions for sexual orientation, something that was not only a cop out, but very hurtful to many. ENDA didn't pass because it didn't have support from either side--in an act of solidarity, the LGBT community didn't support the legislation. These laws protect people who are genderqueer, gender varient, or are transgendered from discrimination based on their gender expression.

While Rhode Island might be ahead in some arenas, hate crime legislation is not one of them. Check out this for more info on which states include sexual orientation and/or gender expression in their hate crime laws (if they have any). Including gender identity and expression in hate crime legislation is important to provide legal protection to transgendered people, who are often victims of violence.

Below is a reprint of a call to action to help lobby RI legislators on upcoming hearings on making the RI definition of hate crimes more inclusive:

Join GenderAction - a subgroup of the QA working on issues facing transgender and gender variant people. We're helping pass a bill to add "gender identity or expression" to RI's law defining hate crimes. It would also mandate that police be trained in gender identity/expression bias and that the state keep statistics on gender identity/expression related hate crimes. We need your letters of support! Write them as individuals, or as a group, and send them to: queer@brown.edu
The bill # is H5432
Group meetings are every Wed. at 7pm in Faunce 321

So get writing! It only takes a couple minutes!

Quick Link: Obama and Women's Issues

Check it out: Obama creates post for international women's issues.

What do you all think? I'm wary of how it might be carried out, but optimistic about the fact that the rights of women around the world are being made a priority.



One other thing: If you're reading this blog, please feel free to comment! We want to hear from you, not just the other way around.

Two links, a rant, and a plug.

Here are two great articles debunking some of the myths and accusations being hurled around in the wake of the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident (the first gives a brief summary, if you haven't heard about this awful story).

Five Mistakes We Make When We Talk About Rihanna (Newsweek)

What It Doesn't Mean (Yes Means Yes Blog)

I'm going to come right out and say that it infuriates and upsets me when I hear ignorant comments and jokes about domestic violence - on this very campus. We're supposed to be this bastion of social justice, and yet the day after the story came out in the news I actually heard a friend say, "Chris Brown is my hero because he smacked up Rihanna." I wish I could walk around and hear people talking about about how incidents like this are indications of a global social illness that is tied up in questions of gender, race, and power - not petty gossip and jokes that only perpetuate the problem.



In happier news, I'd like to shamelessly promote the Gender & Sexuality Studies DUG. It's pretty new and we're excited to get some awesome events off the ground...more about that later! For now, the official blurb (note that you do not have to be a concentrator to get involved):

"The Gender & Sexuality Studies Departmental Undergraduate Group is a space for students to meet and talk with other students interested in the topics of gender and sexuality. The DUG is not limited to current concentrators; any students interested in these topics are welcome to attend and voice their opinions. The DUG will have an informal meeting schedule (about once a month) and will sponsor various events throughout the year, including in conjunction with other departments. E-mail GNSSDUG@gmail.com for more information."

Free Market

Going once, going twice, three times...

Would you sell yours, if you knew you'd sold mine too?

My body's been sold

a hundred million times

beer, bikinis, and breast cancer

across magazine pages.

More power to her,

if she can get paid to wear that.

But her power,

was my power

bodies attached to minds,

voices, to those succulent lips.

Free markets have coordination failures

If everybody started investing

to create a Mecca, El Dorado...

but no one will go first.

From her flat belly

to her slender thighs

She's an externality.

Her price 

is more than she

your market

has failed me.

Your body does not just belong to you

It's a shared form,

that I never signed.

Page after page after catalogue page

My body's been sold a hundred million times

Because beer doesn't taste good enough on its own

Buy one, get a hot babe free

Would you buy her,

if you knew you'd bought me too?

Because everyone needs a little sesame street

Here's something to cheer you up with the state of society, and the state of your homework.

"When women run, women win"

So, I just got back from a Women's History Month event and I am suitably inspired. I won't go over everything that the speaker, Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts covered (although, seriously, check her out, and then vote for her for governor of RI in 2010), but I do think that one of the points she made comes up again and again in politics.

When women run, they win, and at the same rate as men. But women just don't choose to run, both because they don't think that they're qualified, and because they just plain don't get asked. There are two parts, then, to this problem. The first is the difference in how boys and girls are socialized, and the second is the way political parties are run. In Robert's case, she ran after being asked by her incumbent, and informing, not asking the local Democratic party, where potential candidates may have to wait in a line before being endorsed. As far as the socialization of women, that's obviously an issue that effects many professions and situations. The upside of a bad situation is that people feel more comfortable sharing life experiences with a women, which is useful for door-to-door campaigning, something that Roberts said she was happy to find out and use to her advantage.

The counterargument to all of this is, of course, that elected officials represent all of their constituents, and not just those in their own demographic. However, I think it's important that our government be representative, and that women tend to better represent women's issues. As Roberts stated in her speech, when people's government looks like them, they tend to trust it more. I definitely will be looking into Rhode Island's track record in the future, since it didn't sound good, though as a Virginian I might be impressed.

For more info, check out this book, which happens to be by a Brown professor. You don't necessarily need to read the whole thing, but the arguments and data are really interesting.

I'd also recommend checking out this site for information on publicly financed elections in Rhode Island. Publicly financed elections have been found to increase participation by women and minorities in campaigns.

Launch time!

Welcome to Women@Brown!

We envision this blog becoming a community of Brown students discussing political issues, campus events, pop culture, and anything and everything relating to women or women issues. We hope to spark discussions, help people stay informed, and even be a starting point for campus activism.

The contributors will draw from relevant campus organizations, and any interested students or those affiliated with Brown. While we might not be able to represent every view out there, at least we can make an effort!

While this is a blog that will be centered on women's issues, it is not only for women. People of any and every gender are welcome to be contributors or join in on the discussion.

Interested in becoming a contributor? e-mail Julia.dahlin@gmail.com

While we expect there to be a bit of a slow period at the start up, watch for this space to become a major part of campus discourse!
Expect this site to go live at the beginning of March.