Syndicate and Hague

I’m not entirely sure how to start this, so I will start by saying I’m going to obscure some specifics in this to protect someone I care about while still trying to communicate the larger implications/issues in the decision that was handed down.

Megan and I were asked to participate in an interview with a media outlet with a fairly large distribution. The interview was - in general - about relationship decisions and dynamics and whether the choices we made in ours caused us to fight less or made our relationship different from others.

I was surprised, and a little impressed, that they would be willing to interview a married couple about something that had nothing to do with our status as a “same-sex” couple. Of course, it was my friend who was hunting down people for the story, and we came to mind because Megan and I make a big effort to look at the major stumbling blocks of relationships - chores, responsibilities, money - and make explicit, managed decisions about things so that we don’t wind up passive-aggressively damaging the relationship due to resentment/grudges.

Also, we really like being happy.

Anyway, tonight the word came down that we couldn’t be interviewed because they didn’t think that it was “surprising that a same-sex married couple would *insert doing the thing we do here*” and needed a straight married couple for it.

My initial surprise at the wonderful banality of us doing a story that had nothing to do with our genders was misguided. It wasn’t the institution of media that didn’t care, it was our friend who analytically looked at the topic and decided we would be a great couple to speak to it.

And here is where the diatribe comes in:

In this instance, they didn’t want a same sex couple because then they couldn’t play traditional gender roles against the “change” that they perceive is going on. Essentially, the decisions themselves weren’t the story, but the perceived decrease of male authority in the household was the story.

Media is one way we interpret our existence. We consume it, we are influenced by it, and I think we often forget how contrived things are. People in general don’t spend a ton of time thinking about audience and how carefully interview subjects are selected to influence a certain desired perception in the audience. Yes, liberals deconstruct FOX News, but venerated news outlets spin constantly as well.

This is why it drives me crazy when straight people say things like “Well, we don’t have a ’straight’ pride parade, I don’t understand why you have to do that sort of thing.” Heterosexuality is inscribed and reinforced as dominant, and homosexuality is so threatening that - unless a story is specifically constructed around it - it cannot exist. It cannot be banal, it must always be controversial. Decisions are made on a daily basis about what can be spoken to and what cannot be, and without us running around waving flags and making our presence known, we would be swept under the carpet forever.

The media outlet’s decision on this was one part homophobia, one part sexism, and one part reinforcement of the aberration of female equality or power in a heterosexual relationship.

That last one is what really kills me about this. Let’s give the management the benefit of the doubt on the homophobia and say that wasn’t a factor (::ha::). The point of explicitly wanting to frame the discussion around a straight couple making decisions that, for some reason, you wouldn’t expect them to make should force the question: why is this an issue? Usually, it’s about some traditional female role that is being upended:

• she’s making more money now, how does the guy feel?
• the guy decided to stay home with the kids, is he being mocked?
• she has a more advanced degree, does that make him feel inferior?

I’m sure you could add to the list, because you read/watch/hear these stories all the time. And they reinforce to us as a society that we should feel surprised by these showings of female authority/power. That we should be concerned by the lowered status of men in these relationships. It inscribes a very specific kind of spin and serves as a form of societal push-back onto a select group of people who either represent a changing society or people fear are representing a changing society.

It’s messed up.

Anyway. I wish I could actually talk about what we were going to talk about, because it’s interesting, but I wanted to be able to be critical without jeopardizing anyone’s job. It’s crappy times out there, you know?

You may not know who Jessica Valenti is, but it’s never too late to catch up on a strong, smart feminist voice. I bring her up because of her recent marriage and how well she has spoken about the complicated feelings she’s had about the process and institution, as well as her intentionality about constructing a wedding and a marriage that reflects her philosophies and life.

Back in January, when she announced her engagement on her blog, she accompanied the post titled “Does the personal always have to be political? (And can’t it ever be private?)” with this e-card:

It was around the same time that Megan and I told people about our engagement and dealt with a smaller scale and less vicious set of questions (asked both of each other and by others), so I found myself relating to her in a lot of ways. Why did we want to participate in the institution of marriage? What does a feminist (in Valenti’s case) or queer/feminist (in our case) marriage look like? How do you redefine something that (traditionally and still) is so interlaced with male dominance and religious control?

Thankfully, we didn’t have gossip columns and publications like Playboy weighing in on the merits of our relationship or framing our decision as a “feminist-finally-gets-hitched” story like the NY Times did. (By the way, NYT: seriously?? You could have written about so many more interesting aspects of the marriage/decisions made about it and you chose the easy and kind of anti-feminist route. But I shouldn’t expect more depth from the section that usually profiles rich, ivy leaguers with famous parents.)

Valenti just wrote a new post called Well, I’m damn sure never getting married again and it pains me that she had to write it. She thought into constructing what it meant not only to be married, but to get married, and I think that is what you would expect from someone with a track record of critical thought and political engagement.

And let me tell you, it is hard to deconstruct marriage and the cultural weight embedded in it to reconstruct it to fit your values. As Valenti said:

When I wrote about Andrew and I planning a wedding, I wasn’t doing so to make some grand statement about what feminists should do when they get married. Or to suggest that my wedding was going to be The Most Feminist Wedding Ever. I wrote about it as an individual, as a person, who was trying to negotiate her beliefs with a traditionally sexist institution and the consumerist party-planning that surrounds weddings.

…

We wanted to make the wedding representative of the institution we’d like marriage to be, and I think we did a good job. Does any of this change the fact that marriage is a historically sexist institution or make it okay that millions of people are denied the right to be married? Of course not. But it made the celebration one that made sense to us, one that re-imagined what marriage as an institution should be about - love, equal partnership and community. (And seriously, to the some of the more conservative relatives at our wedding, hearing these sort of things at a wedding absolutely made an impact.)

Love, equal partnership, and community: that is how Megan and I felt about it.

I can’t speak for Valenti or any other feminists/lgbt folks who get married, but - for us - everything was put on the table. We broke down what things signified in general, what they signified to us, and what we really wanted rather than what may be culturally imposed. For instance: the rings. Personally, I have somewhat critical feelings about wedding rings - engagement rings in particular. As engagement rings are traditionally only given to the woman, I find them to be a societal symbol of purchase (our language supports that - an engaged woman is “off the market”) and that is problematic for me. Wedding rings have a similar problem for me as the last thing I want to be is “owned” by anyone else. And as lovely as Megan is, I don’t want to be owned by her (and vice versa).

But rings are pretty. And I wanted one. I was so happy to be marrying Megan (and am so happy to be married to her), and the idea of having something that she gave to me that I would have with me all the time made me happy. So we decided: no engagement rings, but we got really pretty and unique rings made for us that would give us each a symbol of our love and a reflection of how we’re linked that we would carry with us every day. Then, when friends gave us the stones for the rings, they also became a way in which our community supported us.

Does wanting rings without wanting the baggage of ownership - does redefining that part of weddings - make us bad feminists? I don’t think so. And I’m sure if we’d wanted to badly enough that we could have redefined the role of the engagement ring as well. Having the capacity to think critically about institutions and practices doesn’t mean that we have to swear off everything associated with those things. My perspective is that the process of critique and intentionality underlies the core of the philosophy of “the personal is political.” The decisions we make with that kind of reflection are invariably going to be truer to ourselves and our values.

Megan and I had a hard time writing a ceremony in part because every element of it was analyzed - but because of that it was also completely appropriate to us. We wrote it in Provincetown two days before the wedding and it was perfect. It was about love, respect, individuality, change, support, trust, adventure, discovery, and commitment. It was about how she makes me a better person (and vice versa). (She is so awesome.)

What I hope is that Valenti can ignore the haters to an extent and be happy that she and her husband got to put the kind of effort and intentionality into defining their wedding and marriage that they did, and know that the kind of critical thought she expressed in public was not wasted.

This isn’t really a movie review.

I sometimes wonder why sooo many crappy awful movies for dudes get made. And then I came across statistics - via Traction - that in 2008:

• Women comprised only 16% of all directors, executive producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films (a decline of 3% since 2001 and of 1% since 2007).
• Only 9% of directors were women - no change since 1998
• 22% of the films released in 2008 employed no women directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, or editors. No films failed to employ a man in at least one of these roles.
• 90% of the films had no female directors.
• 43% of the films had no female producers.
• 79% of the films had no female editors.
• 96% of the films had no female cinematographers.

If you take a moment to think about what that means - that the vision behind the movies, how things are interpreted, how things are portrayed, how our attention is directed, how a story is cut, how a story is told, who the protagonist is, who we should care about, who we should forgive, all of it is predominantly controlled by the male perspective - it’s a bit overwhelming.

It seems beneficial to remind ourselves that as self-congratulatory as we can be about women’s progress, we started at such a position of disadvantage that we’re still not even close.  Actually, there was an article in Jezebel back in August that got this topic stewing around in my head.

In an article about an NY Times scan of the big studio schedules by Michael Cieply, they highlight one of his paragraphs trying to explain the disproportionate dominance of male directors.

In one respect, homogeneity among its film directors might actually help Hollywood in a business sense. Studio films, year in and year out, continue to pull in crowds worldwide at least in part because they look, sound and feel like what has gone before.

What can you say to that? I’ve been under the impression that Hollywood has actually not been pulling in the box office numbers they need to in order to sustain their business model, but whatever. It also completely ignores how movies influence our culture at large, and how alienating it is for people to rarely see accurate representations of their lives in film. That was one theme that came up in The Celluloid Closet in regard to queer representation in film - that there were almost no representations of real queer lives in film (this was in 1995ish).

So when we went to Whip It last night, I was thinking about all of this and paying attention to how the movie showed women’s bodies, lives, sexualities, and humor in a female-directed, female-written film. I’m not saying that the movie was some groundbreaking work of feminism - it was a fluffy, feel-good, entertaining movie - but the representation of these different aspects that I noted were actually significantly different from other mainstream films I’ve seen recently.

• The skating scenes, of which there were many, were striking in that they focused on the competition, athleticism, brutality, and sexiness of roller derby - as opposed to focusing just on the sexiness and turning the female characters into playboy versions of roller derby girls
• It is really nice to see the quirky, female character as protagonist - the character that gets to develop and discover aspects of herself and become a more complete person - rather than as the girlfriend of and foil for male protagonist development
• Speaking of that, it’s also nice that though the romantic relationship had an impact on the main character, it wasn’t the core of the female protagonist’s transformation. I hate how hugely rare that is, but it’s refreshing to see
• I just really liked the range of female characters, the ways the different ages of the female characters contributed to friendships and relationships and their interactions with each other

What I want: more movies with female protagonists, written/directed by women. Let’s just balance things out.

There’s an article in Sunday’s Washington Post by Linda Hirshman that I’ll be getting to in just a moment, but first I want to touch on something I mentioned in a previous “on the issues” post. In it, I said that the “culture wars” topics - like gay marriage or abortion - were a distraction. This is true. When presented as issues of morality they are intended to distract people and drive an impenetrable wedge between them and the people who are “immoral.”

The problem, however, is that both of these issues have very real impacts - not only on peoples’ lives and choices, but in how the people who are the objects of each of those debates is treated.

I’m not going to talk about gay marriage today, but I am going to talk about abortion. Linda Hirshman’s article first.

My generation of women has been spoiled in that we have (dwindling, but present) access to abortion. Why is this spoiling? Because, apparently, the fact that we have it makes us not care whether we have it. The anti-choice fundamentalists love to wave fetuses in your face to show you how awful abortion is, but you rarely - if ever - see pro-choice people waving around images of women dead in a pool of blood from hemorrhaging after an illegal abortion.

Sorry for the shock value, but it’s true, it’s our legacy, it’s what has happened. It’s what will happen again because when abortion is illegal, women suffer. For instance, Hirshman cites West Germany’s prohibitive abortion laws and what they meant for women travelers.

In the 1980s, when abortion was severely limited in then-West Germany, border guards sometimes required German women returning from foreign trips to undergo vaginal examinations to make sure that they hadn’t illegally terminated a pregnancy while they were abroad. According to news stories and other accounts, the guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination – as West German law empowered them to do.

Think this is outlandish? Couldn’t happen here? Please.

four states — Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota — as having trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe’ s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow

And the trouble may come with crossing state lines and criminality there.

“To speak of the fetus’ ” home state, and make the home it shares with the mother “a basis” for controlling a woman’s ability to get an abortion might “make sense,” Columbia law professor Gerald Neuman wrote in 1993 when abortion rights were last in peril.

Now, the difference between Obama and McCain on this is clear. McCain has pledged to pack the Supreme Court with justices in the vein of Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas (extremely conservative). Among these men are the three youngest justices who may have careers on the court for as long as 30-35 years. They are entrenched. Any more conservative justices and the next 30 years will be a nightmare for women, people of color, GLBT folks, free speech, torture discussions, social programs, etc.

And let me remind you, on the more liberal side, John Paul Stevens will not last out another administration. The man is hanging on by his 88-year-old teeth.

Anyway, on McCain’s issues page, the very first entry on the “Human Dignity and Sanctity of Life” section (sigh) is this:

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the benchwill overturn it.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.

Blah blah blah it goes on about “strength” of pregnant women “choosing life” and faith based hoo-ha and nothing about sex education or anything that actually prevents abortion from being needed as an option nor anything about social programs to help women/families who choose to have children. So - as usual - pro-life as long as the kid isn’t born yet.

Obama’s site has a reproductive choice section

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

So there it is - you choose between the guy who won’t tell you how to not get pregnant, force you to keep it if you do, and leave you out on your own once you’ve given birth OR the guy who will work to get you the education and the access to contraception you need to not get pregnant in the first place, give you the opportunity to make the choice if you do, and in other sections has all kinds of things about supporting families/mothers. (Obama doesn’t cynically roll together helping families and his reproductive choice section into the same thing like McCain does.)

There are plenty of reasons that women shouldn’t get behind Sarah Palin just because she’s got two X chromosomes, including her adamantly anti-choice stance on women’s rights to make decisions for themselves. Personally, I think that Palin was chosen cynically - to potentially appeal to the radical right Christian conservatives and to disenchanted (sigh, so sick of that meme) Hillary supporters.

All that said, I’m already seeing the sexism that encountered Clinton rearing its ugly, ugly head in discussions of Palin. It’s disgusting and unnecessary and none of us should stand for it. Just as we shouldn’t stand for the misogynistic attacks on Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton or any other woman.

That’s it, that’s all I’m saying on this. Have fun this extended weekend and join me at the Liberty Parade if you’re in Minneapolis!

You know, I am so sick of this. I blogged a while ago in my old Myspace blog about Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who sued her employer, Goodyear Tire, for paying her less than her male coworkers doing the same work. The Supreme Court ruled last year that because Ledbetter did not file a complaint within 180 days of her first paycheck she couldn’t sue. Because, you know, we generally find out we’re getting discriminated against within 3 months of it happening.

This is, of course, complicated by many companies barring employees from even discussing their pay (they can get fired for doing so). Personally, I think this is partially in place to allow discrimination to continue without accountability. Call it conspiratorial, but I’m just saying–women expect less and it’s in companies’ financial interests to not let us realize what’s up.

Well, today, Senate Republicans blocked the attempt to fix the legislation the Supreme Court interpreted in such an idiotic fashion.

Of the bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said:

We think that this bill is primarily designed to create a massive amount of new litigation in our country.

Honestly? I would hope it does. The point of legislation like this is to call the companies on their behavior. It’s us saying: you can’t get away with this anymore. Don’t want lawsuits? Don’t pay your female workers 6k less than their lowest paid male peer with the same responsibilities (that was Ledbetter’s situation).

And she summed up the lasting implications of it too: a lifetime of pay inequity results in lower Social Security payouts, lower pensions, lower 401k amounts…it’s a constant, lingering inequality. And it’s just wrong.

I’d like to note that John McCain–you know, the “maverick” that foolish Clinton and Obama supporters sometimes say they’ll vote for if their candidate doesn’t get the Democratic nomination–voted with the Republicans to block the bill. McCain has a long history of anti-woman voting, so this is not at all surprising, but I thought I’d call attention to it because the “If X doesn’t win, I’m going to vote for McCain” line is bugging the hell out of me.

To be fair, I thought I’d give respect to the Republicans who voted to advance this bill. They are: Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

File under: seething, smoke coming out from my ears.

I am so fucking sick of the sexist bile that is spewing forth from people criticizing Clinton in this race. My particular issue is about this (Via Feministing):

This is bad enough in and of itself. Lending credence to gross sexual harassment (calling Clinton “frigid” in high school–and may I point out that we’re a long way away from that era) by bringing it up during a campaign for PRESIDENT?!?!?! This is why Katie Couric annoys the crap out of me.

But it’s worse, of course, because then people grab onto this as if the douchebag assessment of Clinton as “frigid” can translate to some personality flaw–a humorlessness. Because, you know, bitch can’t take a joke. She should have been nicer when I told her she had a nice ass. Frigid whore. (Ah, if only I could say I’ve never heard that construction. Inherently doesn’t make sense. But it doesn’t matter.)

Then HuffPo has some jackass blogging this idiocy:

By asking Hillary on 60 Minutes about being known as Miss Frigidaire in high school, Couric brought out more of the real Hillary:

COURIC: Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?”

CLINTON: Only with some boys,” Clinton said, laughing.

COURIC: I don’t know if I want to hear the back story on that!

CLINTON: Well, you wouldn’t want to know the boys either.

(Apparently, the real story, as reported by Carl Bernstein, is that Hillary’s high school yearbook predicted she would become a nun, and would be known as Sister Frigidaire.)

I am guessing the “some boys” that Clinton thinks Couric would not want to know were normal intelligent people who had a sense of humor and had spotted someone who did not. I don’t remember too many low-lifes working for our high school yearbook.

Awesome. You. Are. Awesome.

I don’t think this needs to be deconstructed or elaborated upon. It just deserves a two word response:

Fuck you.

This breaks my heart. Via Feministing:

Men presidents only

I think that having a woman president would be a bad idea for our country. Women are not meant to rule countries and be in charge. They are meant to make decisions but not confirm them.

Our president deals with some countries that don’t respect or allow women in leadership positions. I wonder if the United States would have more terrorist attacks because we would be seen as weak with a woman leader. I agree that women can do many things, but leave the ruling of the countries to the men.

BRITTANY BAYLES, 13, Kennewick

So back in the yesteryear of the 1990s, Elizabeth Dole ran for the Republican nomination for the 2000 presidential election. I remember, at the time, having the discussion: would we (my friends and I) vote for her because it would mean having the first female president?

I said no. Not everyone agreed with me. But I’m still of the opinion that sacrificing my actual beliefs for the chance to see a woman–any woman–in office is a bad idea. It would be great. It would be super great! It would be empowering and it would show what was possible and it would also allow the media to show us its ugly misogyny day in and out as it obsessed over the Lady President’s clothes and how emasculating it must be to be a First Husband.

Oh it would be grand to catch up with the other parts of the world that have already had female leaders. Like, um, India or Pakistan or the UK or Israel or Germany…etc? Sigh.

Anyway, here’s where my issue comes in. The president has to make decisions. So if I’m going to throw my weight behind someone, it has to be someone who will make decisions that represent my values. The New Democrats didn’t and do not represent me.

However, I’m with Rachel Maddow on this: not a Clinton supporter, but WTF media? On what planet is it acceptable for Chris Matthews to pinch a presidential candidate’s cheek? (Really, he shouldn’t be pinching anyone’s cheeks, but let’s stick with how people with power are treated depending on their gender.)

It’s an ongoing problem for women with power. Back on my previous blog, I highlighted Bush’s inappropriate touching of German Chancellor Andrea Merkel (below).

Then there was the creepy way Senator Harry Reid placed his hand on Representative Nancy Pelosi’s shoulder during a press conference to interrupt her and left it there. The Daily Show did a great job covering that one:

Anyway, the below clip is a discussion of the media attacks on Clinton, Maddow’s desire to defend her despite not supporting her, and the strangely surreal world in which Pat Buchanan and I agree on anything at all.

I have always taken particular delight in people calling me names. Even guilt by association delights me — the “Warrior of Satan” brand that was thrust upon Angie for being pro-choice; the uncountable number of times I’ve been called a bitch, dyke, feminazi or what have you for being feminist; the plentiful times I’ve been called a socialist for believing we have an obligation to those around us; even the times the letters/op-ed pieces/blogs have caused my name and location to appear (negatively) on pro-gun websites or garnered me hate mail at my home.

Bring it. Those kinds of responses mean that you can’t engage on the issues, that you have nothing to bring to the table. Intellectual laziness.

I’ve been thinking about my ideological journey — and what it means to be an educated, opinionated woman–this week, in part because of the way NOW and Gloria Steinem have essentially accused young women of not being feminists for not supporting Clinton’s candidacy.

Hillary Clinton will get my vote in a race against a Republican, but she will never get it in a Democratic primary. She is too hawkish, too economically conservative to represent my brand of Democrat regardless of her gender.

However, she and her supporters are entirely correct when they say that she is treated unfairly due to her gender. From the outfit critiques (so many pantsuits! - side note on that: I think my mother is right in saying that if HC wore skirts, the media would insult her legs) to super close-ups of her wrinkles on Drudge to her “cackle” to the media’s repeated use of her first name while using her competitors’ last names to calling her Mrs. instead of Senator.

Even worse is how a woman isn’t allowed to be a tough leader. That this was part of some 20 year, conspiratorial Clinton plan.

The truth is that female leaders can’t have it either way. If you’re not as tough as the boys, you’re a weak woman (Patti Wetterling, Ann Wynia), and if you are, you’re a cold, calculating bitch with a shrill voice. Don’t believe me? Google any female politician with discernible opinions (any political party) with the word “shrill.” I’ll wait.

You could expand this game. Now search men. Funny, isn’t it, how it’s only used when trying to make the man histrionic and womanish?

You could expand this game even further. Replace shrill with bitch or cackle or giggle or clothing or fashion or iron my shirt.

In this, I risk you giving me other anti-feminist monikers: overly serious, humorless, blahdeefrigginblah.

Here’s the deal though, folks. Sexism is alive and well. And even though Steinem and my cohorts on the left sometimes drive me crazy with what they do with the truth, it doesn’t make what they say any less true. Clinton has it rough because she’s a woman. She really is trying to break a glass ceiling.

If you don’t believe me, dig a little and find out what your male peers make. If you don’t work in a male-dominated office/field, ask some women who do what their experiences are. And remember, always remember, that the women who ascend in terms of power and money are almost always regarded as bitches.

As for me, I know the monikers I’ve been given: bitch, know-it-all, bleeding heart, feminazi, socialist, dyke, opinionated, godless, knee-jerk.

Again, I say bring it. I’ve been engaged in ideological battles since I could speak (a benefit of a highly educated and political family and a father who heartily enjoys playing devil’s advocate and forcing me to actually debate) and I’ve been successfully battling the sexism thrown at me for all thirty of my years on this planet (a benefit of having a mother who was determined to have a strong and independent daughter), so let’s go!

God, Sara, where’s your sense of humor? Don’t be such a bitch…