Monday, March 29, 2010

Ick.

 Via Jezebel.

An opinion columnist at American University has written a piece attacking feminists and queer activists as overly sensitive and anti-sex, comparing them inexplicably to the "great religions of the world." 

The anti-sex thing might actually makes some sense, given that his own view of being pro-sex somehow equates with being pro-date rape. Date-rape and consent, he argues are too loose of concepts to be applied to "the sexual arena" and "the volatility of its practice."

Helpfully, he breaks it down further: "There's rape and there's not rape." 
"Rape," apparently means a violent attacker jumping out of the bushes, "not rape" seems to be just about anything else. A woman drinking alcohol and going to a man's room is "indicating" consent to sex (emphasis mine). Sex is not about "contract-signing" (read: normal, healthy communication between partners, like, "Is this okay?"); rather, it is about "control" and "surrender."

O, rlly? Ew. 

At least you have a handy example next time someone asks you what rape culture is or why feminism still matters.



Sunday, March 21, 2010

Abortion and the Healthcare Bill

Anyone who has been following the healthcare debate has noticed that reproductive and abortion rights have been used as a means to detract debate away from affordable healthcare. Often, individuals have made the argument that if they do not agree with abortion, then they should not have their tax dollars pay for it. This argument is a frustrating one. Why is it only with abortion that taxpayers should be able to opt out of funding something that they are against? I am a pacifist and would prefer to not fund military operations. The argument is flawed considering that abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure (which people often forget) in addition to the fact that taxpayers often have their money go toward funding areas to which they are opposed. Should taxpayers be able to determine what their taxes fund, even if it is legal?

Jay Smooth, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and other bloggers created this PSA to discuss this very issue. While it specifically addresses the Hyde Amendment, I believe it raises valid questions about the status of abortion rights in the United States and how millions of low income women and families are disproportionately affected when abortions are not accessible and low cost.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Wealth Gap Among Women

As posted on Feministing, a report recently was released by the Insight Center for Community and Economic Development showing how extreme the wealth gap is between white women and women of color. A few key statistics highlighted:

- Single black and Hispanic women have a median wealth of $100 and $120 respectively; the median for single white women is $41,500.
- Nearly half of all single black and Hispanic women have zero or negative wealth, the latter of which occurs when debts exceed assets.
- About one-third of single Hispanic women and one-fourth of single black women have no checking or savings account.
- On reservations where unemployment rates can be as high as 70 percent, Native American women are hard pressed to fulfill "job search" requirements to qualify for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
- While 57 percent of single white women own homes, only 33 percent of single black women and 28 percent of single Hispanic women are homeowners.
- Only 1 percent of single Hispanic women and 4 percent of single black women own business assets compared to 8 percent of single white women.
- While 66 percent of white men and 60.4 percent of white women receive retirement income from assets, the same is true for only 40 percent of Asian women, 25.4 percent of black women and 23 percent of Hispanic women.

To read the entire report, click here.