gwytherinn.com

I’ll be using this on a few posts in the future. If you want the password, email me or use the means you know to get in touch.

I really need to remember when I visit web sites that are liberal but not expressly feminist that I’m going to see the same heaping misogyny and sexism I do everywhere else. It’s kind of like one of the great mysteries of life - who to hold more in contempt. Conservative men, for saying outright sexist things and supporting anti-woman policies but are at least honest about it? Or liberal men, who may pretend to have some sort of grasp on women’s rights/the issues/feminism but then say and do outright sexist things - defending themselves with “That wasn’t sexist! I love women, I have a mother! AND ROE V. WADE IS IN DANGER, LOOK! (Despite the fact I just used it as a bargaining chip in an effort to endear me to conservative voters everywhere!)”

Most of the time, liberal men win the day. And they sure did when I came across this a few days ago! Huffington Post columnist Michael Seitzman wrote a “humor” column on Sarah Palin awhile back. In it he states:

And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to “first wipe off Palin’s tranny makeup.” I married well.)

Note the “tranny makeup” slur too!

Apparently, some people expressed their ire over his sexism so the next day he writes a column “Sexist? Not so fast.” The typical non-apology after a man makes a sexist remark and is confronted about it. His main argument is - I didn’t mention her gender!!! And that means I wasn’t sexist!! (Because there isn’t a consistent pattern in our culture, a continuum, that reduces women to objects solely for sexual gratification or anything.)

Oh goodness. I could only blink in awe at this utterly simplistic line of reasoning. I’m sorry, and we were talking about Sarah Palin….? I can almost forgive her for “you can see Russia from Alaska” after reading this. He has the nerve to say HE feels insulted that he’s expected to take her seriously and apparently this is justification for being a sexist pig. Not only does the media expect me to vote for Sarah Palin because she has a vagina, but I’m supposed to agree that he wasn’t spouting sexist tripe. I’m supposed to take his pat on the head and the entreaty to remember that there are “real” issues at stake here and “real” sexism to pay attention to.

And one of those things is a padlock on your uterus. Now let’s talk about sexism.

HE feels insulted?? Oh, the absurdity.

But hey, someone has a post on it way better than mine, and with awesome comments! I went over to Shakesville to report this to the “Sarah Palin Sexism Watch” series only to see with relief they had covered it already.

Watching the most recent Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin makes me sad. I do believe she is woefully unqualified, and it makes me cringe to see her doing badly. As much as I felt I could not fully support a Clinton candidacy (But then, will there ever be a candidate I can fully support? It was naive of me to think Obama would be any different on the issues I’m concerned about, or any Democrat for that matter.), I was never cheering for her loss as others were. The LAST thing I wanted to see was Clinton’s downfall due to how many were gleefully waiting for it. I feel like that’s gradually where my opinion is going in terms of Palin despite feeling that many of her policies are abhorrent and indeed a step back for women.

It seems that with the economic crisis, the Republican use of sexism as a tool to shut people up when talking about Sarah Palin has abated. And while I outlined the sexism I saw being leveled at Palin in a previous post and see more everyday (more to come, trust me) I was incredibly frustrated with the men and some women who began to use it in some cynical bid to women. The “gender and victim cards” of the Clinton campaign were all of a sudden welcomed talks of the sexism towards Palin! My stars! There are many issues that aren’t partisan. This is one.

So.. here is a run down I began in the midst of the furor after the Palin pick. It’s not great, but it’s been bugging me so I’m just going to post it already. It’s been holding up a backlog of other posts.

Read More

I find I often have this compulsive need to gather and disseminate information.

Awhile back I posted a page featuring all the videos I had gathered of women’s speeches and talks on Youtube that were incredibly inspiring and interesting to me. I’m going to be expanding this to include pages on bios of women you’ve (most likely) never heard of (Hat tip FemmEssay for that idea!) as well as a listing of organizations dedicated to women.

Also pondering adding a political section, as I keep updating my posts on the Economic situation and Bolivia with the new things I come across…. decisions decisions.

I hate my second post on Palin and the Republicans and at this rate it’s so out of date I feel weird even posting it.

A woman called up to proclaim a few things about herself on the Sean Hannity show in an oh-so-chipper manner - A Christian who rents with her husband because she understands she can’t afford a home!

And Sean!! We love to give!!!

Well, that makes me feel so much better about you, considering you felt the need to backhand people who are losing their homes in this crisis. I’m so much more convinced of your sterling character now.

(Proceed to some drivel about how if Obama gets elected it will destroy her “giving spirit.”)

I was pointed to this NPR program - The Giant Pool of Money - as a means to try and better understand what’s going on right now, and I have to say, so far I am really liking it.

Naomi Klein has also been writing about this, and I’m a little disturbed since I’m about halfway through the Shock Doctrine - ESSENTIAL reading and rather frightening.
Free Market Ideology is Far from Finished
Now is the Time to Resist Wall Street’s Shock Doctrine

EDIT 9/24: This was posted today at What About Our Daughters - Very good video about stopping the bailout!

EDIT 9/25: In and around Wall Street and Washington at Toban Black - A chronology of quotes pulled from a large number of articles on the subject.

Read More

Installments on Palin-Mania/Republican hypocrisy is slow going, and at this point I think the intended two part post may go into three.

In the meantime, an incredible speech showed up in my feed from the Association for Women’s Rights in Development. It is about how integral it is for “peacekeepers” in Africa to take stronger measures to STOP the horrifying sexual violence and rape that women are experiencing. It feels absurd that I’m even typing something like that, as if this shouldn’t be obvious or something.

More long quoting, and I’d like to plug the Association for Women’s Rights in Development a bit more. I added their site to my reader a little while ago, but forgot to categorize it so it languished at the bottom…. Noticed it today and have been looking through it… seems like an amazing site with news concerning women all over the world.

The title of this speech resonated with me - “Peace is a mere illusion when rape continues.” I don’t want to belittle what African women are going through. It is a horrific nightmare. But it also made me think about the concept of rape tourism, where white men seek out Native American women on reservations for the specific purpose of raping them - knowing that they won’t have to face any consequences. It made me think about how certain women are deemed “unrapeable” due to their color or their profession. The numerous GANG RAPES that have occurred in the US in the past few years that have gone unpunished. It made me think of the low convictions of rapists in general, how the deck is stacked against a woman who seeks to press charges and the number of women who don’t report their cases at all.

This is terrorism.

So, onto quoting some excerpts of the speech by Stephen Lewis, or read the full text here.

Here is an unassailable truth: if sexual violence is not addressed during the course of a conflict, then sexual violence will haunt the post-conflict period, and make of the ostensible peace a mockery for half the population.

Three days ago, I returned from Liberia. While in the country, I met with President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, with senior officials of the Ministry of Health, with the Minister of Gender, with the leadership of the Clinton Foundation, with the consultant who drafted the legislation for the special court to try sexual offences, with the UNICEF Representative and significant numbers of the UNICEF staff. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to meet with UNMIL, but the UN Mission in Liberia and its peacekeeping forces were inevitably a part of every conversation.

She was speaking about the contagion of sexual violence that currently engulfs the country and causes such intense concern. The statistics are horrifying: a recent study by UNICEF indicated that more than fifty per cent of all reported rapes are brutal assaults on young girls between the ages of ten and fourteen. The gender advisor in UNICEF felt that the percentage was probably on the rise, and it’s feared that increases in the HIV rates among female youth will not be far behind. The Minister of Gender showed me figures for March, 2008, indicating that the majority of reported rapes in that month were committed against girls under the age of twelve, some under the age of five, and she narrated stories of gang rape so insensate and so depraved that it reminded me of exhibits in a Holocaust museum. A further survey, of all fifteen counties in the country, found that girls and boys were united in their conviction that young girls were the most endangered group in Liberia, and incredibly enough, that there was no place and no time of day or night where adolescent girls could be considered safe.

The context of my discussions is encapsulated in the words of the Deputy UN Envoy for the Rule of Law in Liberia when she said, as recently as May 20th: We cannot expect the future leaders of Liberia, the doctors, nurses, and engineers of Liberia to be brought up amongst men who are rapists and women who are angry, degraded, frightened, depressed, embarrassed and confused. Predictably, President Johnson-Sirleaf is thunderstruck by the force of the sexual violence. In a very real sense she is staking the integrity of her tenure on her ability to confront and subdue the war on women.

—————-

You may succeed in manufacturing a semblance of peace, but for the women of the country, the conflict continues in the most painful and eviscerating of ways.

In the case of Liberia, it isn’t a matter of a contentious mandate: as I said, Resolution 1325 is built into the obligations of peacekeeping. Anyone would argue that when a peacekeeper in the field knows of acts of sexual violence having been committed, or has reason to believe that acts of sexual violence have been or will be committed, then he or she has the obligation to intervene or, to use the language of the day, the responsibility to protect. But let me be even clearer about this. Peacekeepers aren’t mere passive observers of the human family. Peacekeepers move into a country; they learn its social architecture; they watch the roiling political terrain on a day-to-day basis. They come to know the foibles, to know the extremes, to know the anomalies. More often than not, they can tell when trouble is brewing. They can intuit when men might hurtle out of control. They have the pulse of the culture. When it unravels, they’re there to bear witness. I’m saying that when patterns of sexual violence emerge, peacekeepers are rarely surprised. In some cases, they alone have anticipated the atrocities in the offing. And with that knowledge comes obligation. With that insight comes responsibility. It isn’t enough to stop the shooting when the raping continues apace. The only worthwhile armistice restores peace for the entire population, male and female. There can be no satisfaction in claiming a truce or a peace treaty which is soaked in the carnage of the women of the land.

Trying to get a handle on recent events in Bolivia beyond what the mainstream news is going to tell us, a search for “Bolivian opposition funded by US” yields an article at Democracy Now. An interview with Benjamin Dangl reveals that Peace Corp volunteers were requested to spy on Venezuelans and Cubans in Bolivia, and FURTHER, that USAID is funding rightwing groups in Bolivia to help oppose Evo Morales.

USAID is the US government’s development agency but I’ve always wondered where the “helping hand” stops and the imperialism begins.

Interesting that when Morales was elected, funding for their program targeting Coca growers was frozen. I guess it was being directed…. elsewhere!

Andean Information Network - Bolivian Coca Growers Cut Ties with USAID

EDIT - Found this last night 9/16 - darkdaughta posted an email from School of the Americas Watch on the situation in Bolivia.

EDIT - 9/25 - Is a U.S.-Approved Coup Under Way in Bolivia?

…as it was to justify the Iraq war. Sadly we had some of the more prominent women’s organizations advocating the war along with male politicians who all of a sudden got this yen for freeing oppressed women from evil brown men! Yeah, ok. Iraqi women thank you for skyrocketing rates of rape, trafficking and prostitution and the destabilization of their families as you sit bandying about the idea of women’s rights being in the Iraqi constitution.

Now we get to see the hypocrisy in action all over again. I think I’ve been in a state of mild shock since Palin was announced as McCain’s VP pick. I admit that I was a little resentful about Carly Fiorina and other Republican women jumping to defend Palin off the bat, but I figured, at least SOMEONE is speaking up about sexism. At the same time, defending a woman from sexism isn’t about whether she’s part of the same political party as you are. I figured Fiorina’s statements would fade off and be forgotten in an “isn’t that quaint” way.

Not so. The Republicans have picked up the idea of sexism and RUN with it. People who were pegging Clinton with using “the gender card” a few weeks ago are discussing sexism on the evening news as if it’s SOMETHING THAT MATTERS TO THEM. I’m angry at this cynical ploy to draw in those of us who ACTUALLY CARE. Sean Hannity is now apparently an expert on what feminism is and declared Palin a feminist the other day. Why? Well, because she’s part of the group “Feminists for Life”! I mean, duh.

So, let’s get a few things out of the way. I think the “gender card/race card” stuff is UTTER BULLSHIT. It prevents actual dialog and REAL conversation about sexism and racism because people are so ready to pounce on anyone who points out injustice. It’s a way to maintain the status quo.

Now - what HAVE I seen sexist towards Sarah Palin? This idea runs rampant that as a mother of five children she could not handle the Vice Presidential position. If Todd Palin were the one up for VP, no one would be asking this question because children are never considered an integral part of a man’s identity. Yet she would be under scrutiny as his wife and would be expected to ACCOMMODATE his bid for VP in whatever way necessary - as a wife, she is considered to have no agency of her own but exists to prop up her husband’s ambitions. Todd Palin the husband and father is not someone who ever enters these conversations of whether as a mother of five, she can do it.

I’ve seen the typical sexism and misogyny coming from liberal men towards any woman they don’t like, a continuation of the hateful diatribe that was leveled towards Clinton and her supporters.

I see the misogyny in the blogs that have appeared to concentrate on her fuckability, because a woman can never be honored solely for her accomplishments and who she is as a person. She is first and foremost a semen receptacle, NEVER a human being. Really boys, I’m sure she’d be flattered you find her worthy. Perhaps the story isn’t WOMEN WILL VOTE FOR ANYONE WITH A VAGINA but rather MEN WILL VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE THEY THINK IS HOT. And let’s not forget they’ll slam a woman who has the nerve to be in the public eye when in their estimation, she’s NOT attractive - how dare she!

Sarah Palin HAS had to endure sexist attacks, and I’m not going to withdraw my support in that arena based on party lines DESPITE her firm belief in policies that will be detrimental to women if they go into effect. AND YET, the Republicans have used the idea of sexism to shut down ANY criticism of Palin, when two weeks ago they were crucifying Clinton for using THE GENDER CARD. This is utter nonsense. A month ago all these men standing up to valiantly defend Palin from “sexist” attacks weren’t batting an eye at the daily stream of misogyny.