Infidels of Every Denomination

A Witches' Brew of Bad Arguments

Reading the Slate article "Witches' Brew At Winter Solstice: How Wiccans Do Themselves In" by Mark Oppenheimer, I actually found myself checking the date it was published. Surely this was written in, say, 1987 and re-published to fill in for a missed deadline? But no, there it is, today's date.

The only other conclusion I can draw is that the majority of the research he did in the Wiccan community consisted of visiting AOL chatrooms full of eager newbies and looking for "Never again the Burning Times" t-shirts on CafePress.

Dressing Down

The comments thread on this Pandagon post that smacks down a WaPo article hyperventilating over the sexiness factor of teen girl fashions inspired this post-- I was just going to leave a comment but realized I had a rant in the works, so I moved it here.

The whole "weep for how the girls are dressing today"/"Female Chauvinist" etc apocalyptic debates that crop up from time to time completely grate on me because of an important point that almost always seems to get missed.

Namely, that girls who are "dressing modestly" or "appropriately" are NO LESS dressing according to our sexual mores than girls who dress "trashy".

If you think girls shouldn't show so much skin or wear such tight fitting things, you are still buying into the notion that being a "virtuous" girl of "good character" depends on dressing the part, and more specifically doing so in a way that equates chastity with "good" and sexuality with "evil".

If you think girls should wear more boyish clothes (a la the eternal butch/femme struggles in the bi/lesbian community), you are still buying into the notion that masculinity is "better" than femininity and that any kind of feminine sexuality is "bad".

If you are in favor of girls wearing androgynous, utilitarian clothing, you are still buying into the notion that expressing your sexuality through clothing (and that sexuality itself) is "bad", and that traditionally feminine clothing is bad because it is "frivolous" (Lindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise had a wonderful take recently on the assumption that only women's trivial passions are frivolous).

Targeting Tarzhay

First, go read this post at AMERICAblog about Target's ongoing struggle to defend their anti-woman sucking up to the American Taliban. Their PR people are trying so hard to come up with BS justifications for their nonsensical policies that I imagine their policy meetings look like this:

(I love, incidentally, the whiny tone of the Target exec in the reply letter who moans about "why are weeeeeee being singled out". My response would be much the same as what parents tell their children every day: "This is not about what your little brother did, it's about what YOU did." Oh, and also: "You're big enough now, you should know better.")

Now take a minute to check out BuyBlue.org and look up the retailers you most frequently patronize. Be prepared to be surprised and often depressed by what you find, especially if-- like me-- you live in a red state where the overwhelming majority of shopping options are big-box strip mall retailers.

Here's the thing. Most of us who are at least moderately politically aware want to shop responsibly-- not just choosing retailers who contribute to progressive causes but whose policies are fair and who treat their employees with respect (real respect, like paying them competitively and letting them form unions-- which incidentally Target doesn't-- not fake "we let our employees discriminate because we respect their sexism"-- which Target does). Most of us make at least some effort to support small, independent businesses especially when doing so supports our communities.

But it definitely takes effort to shop according to your principles, not just in time spent researching companies but also, sometimes, adjusting your habits or going a little out of your way to avoid giving your dollars to a retailer with a weaselly reputation. And let's face it, sometimes there are budgetary considerations, or limits on how far you can travel to shop, or just not really anything more than the best of a bad lot to choose from. And who hasn't had a day where you're tired, you don't feel well, you just want to get your errands done and get home and you just pick the most convenient choice even if it's a place you'd normally avoid?

The reality is that it's often a luxury to be picky about where you shop. Back in my couch-change-scrounging days when I had no car, the places that got my money were the ones that enabled me to stretch that money the farthest and the ones I could walk to. And while I certainly encourage responsible consumerism, it's really a choice that everyone has to make for themselves.

Protesting the policies of any given company really comes down to two approaches: Either, I have not given you my business because you do X, and if you didn't do X there's a chance I would change my mind; or, I give you my business because [whatever reason] but I will take my business elsewhere unless you stop doing X. Sure, there's weight in the bad PR of a letter campaign, but I can't imagine that businesses really care nearly as much about complaints they get from people who aren't customers and probably never will be. (Although calling Fry Pharmacy to read them the riot act, as Dan Savage suggests, could probably be a lot of fun!)

So here's a protest idea that talks to businesses in the language they speak-- the bottom line. It really only works if, like me, you obsessively keep receipts long past their usefulness or you're willing to start hanging on to them.

Let's use Target as an example, since they're on my shit list.

Write them a letter telling them that you oppose their policy, in this case allowing their pharmacists to refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions based on sexist "religious" beliefs. Make it clear that you are, or are willing to, take your money elsewhere because of it.

Now, here's the arts and crafts portion of the protest. You'll need to dig up some receipts; Target ones if you shop there, and if you don't, ones from shopping trips for things you can generally find at Target. Tape some of them to a sheet of paper (let's say a month's worth, but whatever you feel is effective-- one receipt is effective if it's for a big enough purchase) and photocopy the paper so that you can black out any personal information you want to. Then write in bold letters (red pen if you have it!) on the photocopy something like "I took $[the total amount of the receipts] worth of my business elsewhere because of your Plan B policy" or "This $[total amount] per month is going to another business next time because of your Plan B policy". Include it in the letter, which could be as simple as this (feel free to crib from it if you have trouble writing your own):

Dear [Target Executive]:

I am outraged by your decision to stand by your pharmacists who refuse to fill women's prescriptions for Plan B on the basis of discriminatory "religious beliefs". Further, I am insulted that you would think I was stupid enough to accept your specious excuse that you are respecting their beliefs in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when you also state that you are selectively applying that standard *only* when it comes to dispensing Plan B. That Act was not intended to enable one political special interest group to discriminate against half the human race, nor does it contain a proviso that says that an employer can cherry-pick which of their employees is worthy of its protection. That you suggest otherwise is sleazy and offensive.

If I refused to do any part of my job duties as I understood them when I accepted the job, on the basis of "personal beliefs", my employer would be justified in firing me. That Target does not do the same suggests that you agree with your shiftless pharmacists and that therefore it is your corporate policy to discriminate against your female customers.

The business from which I purchase my prescription medicines is one that I expect to fill my prescriptions and advise me and my physician of wrong dosages or possible interactions, without delays, hesitations, hand-offs, or any kind of interference whatsoever. That's it. I will not tolerate a business that allows a stranger's "religious beliefs" to butt into my private medical decisions, no matter how smoothly they pull off that sleight of hand in my presence.

I have attached several receipts showing a sample of what I spend [in a month at your business]. If your discriminatory policy is not revoked, and the pharmacists who refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions disciplined or fired accordingly, this is how much revenue you will lose when I take my business elsewhere. Do you really want to see the numbers if even a small percentage of your customer base does the same?

You should know that I will be reporting about your response, and whether or not it is satisfactory, on Target's profile on BuyBlue.org, and I will attempt to influence friends, family, colleagues, and acquaintances accordingly.

Target's hip, urban advertising campaigns are extremely misleading. Your ads would more truthfully depict a pregnant rape victim in a burka being scolded by one of your pharmacists. You should be ashamed of your duplicity.

Signed,

[The Mad Hathor]

An even more effective version of this would be to write it as a group letter and let each signatory contribute their own receipt sheet, coordinated perhaps by a progressive organization.

I'm going to rifle through all my receipts and give this a shot-- you can bet I'll be posting any response I receive here in this blog!

Bushwackin'

First of all, do go check out Harriet Miers' blog. It's l33t, d00d. And totally real. *smirk*

Second of all, although like nearly every lefty in the country right now I'm not quite sure what the strategy behind this pick is yet-- pure toadyism? bait-and-switch? or just being in a weak position?-- I am getting enormous glee out of the right-wing temper tantrums over Miers' nomination. Between that, and DeLay's indictments, and the Plame investigation gearing up, and the sight of John McCain and Gen. Richard Myers having a bitch fight on last night's Daily Show clip, and Bush's ever-tanking ratings, I feel like I'm at a three-ring circus and I don't know where to look first, but damn do I need some popcorn and cotton candy! Let's just hope it lasts, and that Richard Viguerie and Dick Cheney don't end up in the restroom crying together, sharing Bonne Bell Lip Smackers, and swearing to be BFFs for REALS this time.

But I've gotta ask, what exactly is up with Preznit "Family Values" Bush's groupie habit? Is it just me or does it seem like the women who make it to his real inner circle have a tendency to be unmarried, childless, and devoted to him with a rather disturbing passion? You've got Condi "My Husb--I Mean The President" Rice, Harriet "He's The Most Brilliant Man I've Ever Met" Miers, plus strategist/diplomat Margaret Tutweiler (admittedly more of an outer court groupie, but also chronically single), and Secretary of Education Margaret "NoEvery Child Left Behind" Spelling, who has been married on both ends of her association with Bush but who was a single mom and Bush devotee from 1997-2001.

Plus, both Miers and Rice are frequently present during Bush's family time, tagging along after him at the ranch. Bush is real kissy with women, too, I've noticed, in photo ops in general but in particular he seems to kiss every woman he works with when she gets appointed to a position. Now this might just be one of those retro things in the old-boy world of politics (did other Presidents kiss people that much?) but it still strikes me as really inappropriate. Most of the women I know would be profoundly uncomfortable if their bosses kissed them, even on the cheek.

These Women's Words

Fascinating article here about the Chinese language known as Nushu, an ancient language that developed in the Yao community of Hunan, remarkable in that it is known and used only by women.

The language, in danger of becoming dead, is being preserved partly through the passion of Chinese who feel it is a vital part of their heritage, and partly due to a thriving tourist trade that has become fascinated by this secret language of women singing, speaking, and sewing together (the characters were not only used for writing but were often employed in women's embroidery as another form of communication).

The article is really interesting-- definitely worth a read. What struck me most about it is how it is an extreme example of the peculiar bonding of women throughout history, one that has a great deal to do with the shared experience of oppression and subjugation. Women used Nushu to commiserate with their "sworn sisters" about their arranged marriages and the womanly duties society forced upon them:

But there are heretical expressions of independence and frustration with men. One Nushu tale describes a wife in an arranged marriage who runs away on her wedding night after discovering how ugly her husband is. Another tells of a woman who is so impatient that she marches off to her fiance's home demanding to know why he has not yet married her.

In most writings, however, the dominant theme is resignation rather than rebellion. The happiest Nushu poems are those exchanged by girlfriends when they become "sworn sisters". The saddest - and most famous - form of Nushu literature is the third-day book, a lament for the loss of a sister to marriage. These books, presented to brides three days after their wedding, also contained space at the back to be used as a diary. Wives considered these so precious that they had them buried or burned with them when they died, so they could take the Nushu from their sworn sisters to the next world.

Only a handful survive, one of which belonged to the great grandmother of Hu Meiyue. As she leafs through the embroidered indigo cotton-and-linen-bound book, the 100-year-old pages look in danger of crumbling. But the words still have power. "Now we sit together because our feelings are disturbed by the imminent marriage of one of our sworn sisters and we must write the third-day book. We cherish the days when we are together and hate losing one of our sisters. After she gets married it will be difficult to meet her so we worry that she will be lonely. For a woman, marriage means losing everything, including her family and her sworn sisters."

For all the jokes that have been made about women and men speaking different languages, here's a literal example. And the writing points up the brutal truth that, when women speak amongst themselves, historically marriage is seen as an inescapable burden, a hardship, hardly the joyous occasion it is supposed to be. To some extent that's changed, but not entirely-- even now that it's much more common for women to choose when and to whom they will marry, the pressure to marry is still tremendous. Women are still accused of neglecting their children if they work outside the home, and the health benefits to marriage are still far greater for men than women. Even the process of getting married traditionally burdens the woman-- the man, in asking the woman to marry him, is essentially handing her a year or more of extra work to plan the event while he does next to nothing. (This is speaking of the strictly traditional model-- although many couples are more flexible and egalitarian about their wedding plans, I've still watched many friends take on the lion's share of the work for their wedding while their fiance had it relatively easy.)

No real conclusions here...just an interesting phenomenon leading to musings about how much things have changed, and how much they are the same.

Grrl Power on the rise in India

One thing I have to give India-- even though they have a long, long way to go on the road to women's rights, its leaders put their money where their mouths are when it comes to working to change the plight of women in their country. I wrote previously about proposed legislation to battle domestic abuse; there have been efforts to specifically set aside a percentage of government seats for women; and now the government is making secondary level education totally free to families that have only one child who is female (with scholarships for further education and discounts for two-daughter families).

The incentive is aimed at both encouraging people to value girls more highly as well as controlling population growth (apparently many families continue to have children until they have a son). It also addresses the shortage of women in India, which is a direct outgrowth of its anti-female culture.

These are all noble goals, and I am all for measures that help women become better educated. However, there are some big problems with this program. First, even though secondary education is free for both public and private schools (possibly allowing parents of girls to enroll them in better schools far out of their means), post-graduate scholarships are limited to "non-professional" courses, however that is defined, which will almost certainly impact women's ability to match men's earning potential and therefore impact their independence and political clout. Second, the poor families who could most benefit from measures like these are also going to be the least likely to have access to reproductive health services that help them choose how many children to have. And if part of the goal of this program is actually to reduce the abortion of female children, it's going to fail spectacularly if there is a clear financial incentive to abort *additional* female children.

I think this quote sums it up:

"It is definitely a step forward in empowering women", Veena Nair, President of Women's Political Watch told the BBC.

However, she added: "The government must adopt a more holistic approach at empowering women by looking at a whole spectrum rather than this schematic or piecemeal approach".

RIP

Artist, feminist, activist, and matriarch of the Goddess movement Monica Sjoo died of cancer back on August 8th, so I'm not quite sure why The Guardian is only running an obit article now. However, it's a very nice overview of the life and work of this fascinating and powerful woman.

We have also lost this week a remarkable, courageous man with the death of Simon Wiesenthal. An indefatiguable Nazi hunter, I have a personal profound respect for his insistence that the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust deserved to be remembered and honored (my grandfather, who survived the camps, is in this number), and he believed that each individual has the responsibility to guard against the rise of neo-Nazi or fascist regimes. Wise thoughts for these times, indeed.

The world is poorer for their loss, but richer for their lives.

Fumbling Towards Empowerment

This Outlook India interview with Kiran Bedi, India's first female IPS (Indian Police Service) officer talks about a piece of legislation expected to be signed into law any time now, that would set out a specific legal procedure for helping women who are victims of domestic abuse.

On the one hand, it's good news. India's track record on women's rights is pretty abysmal and the cultural view of women as lesser human beings is so ingrained that government programs aiming to improve the lot of women and girls have to work just to convince people that females are worth the effort and shouldn't just be drowned at birth. The problem of domestic violence against women, rooted in this attitude, is compounded by the value placed on a peaceful home free of negative influences from the outside-- and since women still frequently go to live in their husbands' family homes, a woman who complains about her treatment or goes to the authorities is accused of breaking that peace and bringing in those negative influences. Women's complaints of domestic abuse in India are often overlooked or dismissed, and the responsibility is placed on women to wait it out, or to try to "compromise" with husband and in-laws or brothers and fathers. So really, in some sense, any progress is good news.

The legislation, though, is not enough and might even further endanger abused women. Ms. Bedi goes to great lengths to assure the callers whose questions she is answering that police intervention is a "last resort, not a first"-- you get the impression that this legislation is crafted with a mind almost as much to sparing the man and his family any embarassment as to actually protecting the victim. The procedure requires the woman to file a complaint, at which point a *civil* case is heard between the woman and her attacker; if she wins, she can get "security" (which at least here is not clearly defined) so that she can *continue to live* with her attacker, who has been ordered to stop abusing her. It's only if he ignores that and abuses her again that the police can be called in and the abuser can receive a sentence of three to seven years (which seems light to me, but I'm not up on how long a man can go to jail in the US for similar offenses).

She also talks about how she thinks the law is really needed for the "helpless" women (because educated, reasonably independent women never get abused?) and says:

We also want to tell men that we do not want any confrontation, nor is the new law for breaking homes, it rather for strengthening them by way of ensuring equality for both. So please do not slap and abuse anymore.

That's all dandy and stuff, but anyone who knows anything about the abusive mentality knows that an abuser considers any form of resistance or complaint to be a confrontation, so trying to take a soft and appeasing "hey guys, can't we all just get along" attitude towards them is completely useless. Those women are not going to be helped until the taboo of "breaking homes" is lifted in favor of the reality that an abuse victim cannot be safe until she is able to leave the abusive environment. Domestic abuse laws can't be about "ensuring equality" as if there's a squabble about who owns the toaster. They must be about ensuring justice and the safety of those abused in the home.

I can't help thinking that India's domestic abuse problem is only going to get worse before it gets better, because any woman who becomes emboldened to take this legal action and is then returned to the abuser's side *after* fighting with him in court is only going to be in more danger. It does, however, at least sound like more women are willing to come forward and file complaints, and there seems to be a real effort to promote women's rights in general in India, so I suppose there's hope that when the new law makes first contact with reality, the legislators will soon see its failings and correct them.

Open Letter To An Anti-Feminist

To A Sister Who Disdains The Title "Feminist":

Today marks the 85th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote.

Maybe that doesn't mean much to you, just a trivial blip on your daily radar, a "this day in history" type soundbite. Something to be filed away under "done deal" and forgotten. We don't really have a context for this, you and I and most of the women alive today. The oldest living women in this country were just girls the year suffrage passed. We've never known what it is like not to have the right to vote, just as we never knew child labor in factories-- hell, maybe you, like me, are even too young to have witnessed segregation. We've had the luxury of taking a lot for granted in our lives.

You say that you are not a feminist. You can't even say the word without curling your lip a little. You get insulted if someone calls you one. Most of the time you just profess it privately, to friends or co-workers, to women who nod and think you're upstanding and righteous, or maybe they admire your postmodern irony and your independent mind; to men who, hearing it, move a little closer, smile a little broader, find you a little more attractive or a little less threatening. You're not one of "those" women.

Evaluating The Left

This NY Times op-ed 'The Message Thing' by Jim Wallis takes on an important discussion: what values should the Democratic Party embrace?

Well, I'm not a Democrat (though generally sympathetic), and I'm wary of seeing the left end of the spectrum get too mired in the idea of "values politics" promoted by the right. It becomes something of a zero-sum argument, as though there can be no coexistence of different beliefs, and the political discourse devolves into a contest where one side must be crushed by the other. (This is currently the SOP of the right, but my fear is that if the left buys too deeply into this, we could end up doing the same thing.)

On the other hand, it became clear during the election that the whole concept of "values voting" struck a nerve with a sizable segment of the American population-- to the point where working class voters were voting against their own best interests because of the perception that the right cared more about values than the "secular left".

The issue for the left, as I see it, is to separate out the discussion of values from the sole perspective of religion, and to re-cast it in national terms-- that is to say, what values do we share *as Americans*? One issue I take with Wallis's column is that he still seems to be defining values through the lens of Christianity, but if the progressive left is truly going to try to unite and inspire the voting population, we need to be talking in terms that not only can progressive Christians get behind, but also Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, and especially secularists. We need to talk about issues that we can all reach some consensus on, and put less emphasis on *why* any one of us or any group of us feels it's important. If we're all for protecting the environment, it really doesn't matter if the Christian progressives think it's because it's humanity's duty to steward the earth and Wiccans think it honors Gaia and atheists just want clean water and a lack of natural disasters. Let's stop at "protecting the environment" and put our efforts towards figuring out the best way to make that happen.

Wallis makes some good points about areas in which we can all at least begin to find common ground, but I can also think of some other issues that the left can embrace.