Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.

I don't have time to blog extensively about this, but basically, she's withdrawing because she doesn't want to give information about herself or her views. Which makes the whole situation reek of some kind of scary secret that she and BushCo don't want getting out...

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."

Rosa Parks died yesterday.

Her legacy speaks for itself.

From an angry post about how radical feminists are hijacking the cause of domestic violence prevention, I ended up here, at a site called "Hate Male Post," one of those crazy "men's rights" bloggers.
Normally, I just laugh these fuckers off. Because when they use words like man repellant and seriously post beliefs such as this:

1) Men don't have any rights anymore, and

2) Unfortunately, many, even the majority of rape and assault claims ARE made up, irregardless (sic) of what NOW and the gender-feminists tell us.

it makes me want to either vomit or punch a wall.

But the most recent post on this "men's rights" blog about the problems of the VAWA legislation has a teeny bit of merit (when you ignore the majority of the post, which is so anti-feminist that it gives Jerry Falwell a run for his money).
Mainly, this: that there is, in fact, an undercurrent of domestic and sexual violence against men, especially sexual, that goes almost universally unreported. While it remains that the majority of these men's perpetrators are also men, there are women violators of this as well.
I haven't studied the language of VAWA ad nauseum (or at all, really), but it seems to me that the name of the legislation -- Violence Against Women Act -- implies that it may, in fact, not extend these protections to male victims of domestic violence. In that sense, at least, it is perpetuating the underreporting of these incidents.

These men's rights' groups do have at least some relevance, then, in their pleading for VAWA to be a gender-neutral piece of legislation. This seems reasonable enough.

So, my question is this:
Can this be done without minimizing the fact that the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women? Would neutralizing the gendered language in the legislation make it less effective or less of a "feminist issue"?

I have my thoughts, but I'd like to hear others.

(x-posted to where the revolution's gonna begin)

The NY Times just published an "opt-out" revolution piece, saying basically that more women are consciously choosing motherhood over careers.

This article focuses, on women in "elite colleges" (Harvard, Yale, and the like...of course not including any women in single-sex institutions that really are quite comparable to these "elite" institutions..I somehow doubt that the majority of students in single-sex colleges would agree with this getting-an-MRS-degree thing...), and how while they're going to college and intending to get "useful" degrees in things like law and such, they "say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment."
Ugh.
Think outside the box, kiddles.
Please.

One (male) dean at Yale has it right, at least...

"What does concern me," said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, "is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles."

I have sooo much more I could say about this, but no time to do so, so instead, I'm going to pimp out other bloggers.
Jessica at feministing
Echidne
And ms. musings

From Jill at Feministe, I found this article By Antheia at Mad Melancholic Feminista:

"How long did it take you to get over it?"

Really, I'm trying to keep this short so I can get on with my feminist theory reading (because I *heart* Angela Davis), so...I won't comment on it other than to say that it hits the nail on the fucking head.
In the words of my dad back in his hippie days...
Right on, man.*
Right on.

(Psst. Go. Read it. Now.)

*disclaimer: Used in the non-gendered sense of the word "man." I'm very conscious of the problematic use of the word "man" to encompass all humans, and I only use it to keep with the hippie-esque language that I'm going for. Because that's what they did back in the Days of MaryJane.

Ok, I know I've been slacking as a blogger lately, and I apologize. But I'm here now, emerging from my bubble of peace and getting back to Socially Aware Jen.

So, as a somber back-to-blogging post,

Why I'm Going To UFPJ's Anti-War Demonstration in DC in September:

My older brother, Jim, who's been in the Navy for years (he graduated from boot camp in either '92 or '93, I think), is something of a pacifist. He doesn't particularly like war, and would rather avoid it, but being under a commander in chief like le Shrub, he's fully convinced that this bullshit in Iraq is necessary (at least, that's what he tells us. I'm not sure how much he believes it himself though). Not being too keen on killing other people, he entered into medical training in the Navy, and is now a certified EMT and works in the medical aspect of the Navy Reserves. (His idol has been Hawkeye from M.A.S.H. for as long as he can remember.) Since he's not too keen on fighting, he's been in the Reserves since he got in, with one very short-lived stint on Active Duty when recruitment rates were severely low and they needed to put him on AD.

He also has a hero complex. He absolutely loathes seeing his friends on Active Duty with wives and children come home in body bags. Since he has no wife and no children and, therefore, no immediate dependents, he thinks that he should be over there instead of them.
So, he put in his request to be taken off of reserve status and put on Active Duty.

He's been stationed on Coronado Island (outside of San Diego) for over 5 years now. He's being transferred to Austin, Texas in January, where he will undergo more field training before they ship him out to Iraq.

Now, granted, he's a medic, so he won't exactly be on the front lines. But this isn't exactly a conventional war where the fighting is restricted to the front lines. It's not just the soldiers that are ordered to suppress the insurgency that are being killed. Therefore, he is hardly out of danger by being a soldier with a big red cross on his uniform.

So, on September 24, I will be marching against the war, surrounded by other people with loved ones who are in Iraq, on their way to Iraq, or who have come home in body bags.
And then, I'll be participating in the mass civil disobedience action.
Because I'll be damned if I let the Shrub kill my brother.

Will you be there with me?

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

all i know is that those
who are going to be killed
aren't those who preside
on capitol hill
i told him,
don't fill the front lines
of their war
those assholes aren't worth dying for
(ani d)

Pointing you all in the direction of Lauryn's recent post on feministing.

On August 26, 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified, making Friday the 85th anniversary of women's right to vote. To commemorate the big day, the Library of Congress has created a web-based slideshow of 448 photos documenting the suffrage movement.

The National Woman’s Party, representing the militant wing of the suffrage movement, utilized open public demonstrations to gain popular attention for the right of women to vote in the United States. Women of Protest: Photographs from the Records of the National Woman's Party presents both images that depict this broad range of tactics as well as individual portraits of organization leaders and members. The photographs span from about 1875 to 1938 but largely date between 1913 and 1922. They document the National Woman’s Party’s push for ratification of the 19th Amendment as well as its later campaign for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. This online presentation is a selection of 448 photographs from the approximately 2,650 photographs in the Records of the National Woman’s Party collection, housed in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.

(Globe staff photo, John Tlumacki)

The Boston Globe reported last week that the two famous swans in Boston's Public Garden, named Romeo and Juliet, are in fact both female.

"We should still cherish and love our swans, no matter whom they choose to swim with." (Marty Rouse, campaign director of MassEquality)

According to Reuel Marc Gerecht, former Middle Eastern specialist with the CIA, on Meet the Press yesterday, the 21st, women's rights don't really matter anyway:

It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

Wait, wait.
You mean, women don't have to have rights in order for it to be considered a democracy?
Silly me, I thought democracy meant this:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

But I guess dictionary.com is just plain wrong.

I mean, including women as part of that group we call "people"? That would be like assuming women had as much personhood as men. And that would be just plain silly.
And women as "individual[s] within a community"? Like, giving them as much importance as the male individuals of a community? *gasp* No way!

Pshaw
Women aren't people. Women are second-rate versions of the real "person" - aka men. As long as men have basic democratic rights, that's all that matters. Women come second. Maybe. If they come at all.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but it seems that the American ambassadors overseeing the drafting of the Iraq constitution were being fececious when they claimed that women's rights were important.

Because the U.S. is so hell-bent on getting a constitution -- any constitution, it seems -- drafted and out there so that it looks like we're actually doing some good over there, my fabulous home country has "dropped its opposition to enshrining Islam as Iraq's main source of legislation in a bid to secure agreement on the text of a new constitution by a Monday deadline."

It is hardly my intention to bash Islam as a religion or a guideline for one's personal moral codes. I know, from many lectures from a few Muslim friends, that Islam isn't inherently misogynistic or anti-women's-rights (at least, no more than Christianity or pretty much any other organized monotheistic religion). I cannot, however, advocate constitutional law based on any religion, Islam included.

From the NY Times:

Maintaining secular authority over family matters is especially important to secular Iraqi women, who fear that Islamic judges will take away the rights they now enjoy under Iraqi law.

Religion is fine and dandy for one's own personal life. And it's fine and dandy for a community life, provided that every single person in said community fully believes without dissent in the tenets of the given religion and agrees fully with all the laws.
However, when you put religious moral codes into official nationwide legislation such as a constitution, it becomes a bit of a problem. Religion is personal. Religion is private. No religion has any place in any country's legislation.

And by the way....no, "social mores" can't be used as a replacement word for "religious morals" either.
In the same MSNBC article I linked to above, there's this quote from Salama al-Khafaji, a female Iraqi member of the Shi'ite group, the United Iraqi Alliance who supports Islamic rule and, therefore, restrictions on women's equality in Iraq:

We have a lot of tribal areas where they don't like women having the same rights as men in inheritance. If you put this (in law) you would have a big mess in the country.
Iraqi society does not accept that a woman should be outside the house at night in jobs with night shifts. We've got used to it in hospitals but we reject it in other facilities.

(This woman, I think, is the Iraqi version of Phyllis Schlafly. Scary.)

Evidently, because social mores, or norms, in Iraq are "naturally conservative," it makes it ok to continue such oppression, because obviously, that's what the people want.
And in the Jim Crow era in the South, the social norms of segregation should have been left untouched, since obviously, that's what the people want.

What she's not acknowledging here is that these social norms that keep women in the house, holding only daytime jobs, and coming second in priority after the men in their lives, are dictated by men interpreting Islamic law for their own best interest.
Kind of like the social norms that kept segregation alive and well in the South were dictated by old white men opposed to positive change.

Just because something is socially accepted does not mean that it is right or in the best interest of all involved. A novel idea, I know. But somehow, I don't think I'm the first or only one to acknowledge this.

Pam has this to say about Bush & Co's flip-flopping on the importance of women's rights:
"Women's rights mean less than doing what is right for the long-term health of this country's prospective foundation. This is sickness beyond belief."