Posts by Jill Filipovic

Jill Filipovic is a New York-based freelance writer and a law student at NYU. More of her writing is available online at her blog, Feministe.

Anti-Clinton Misogyny Reaches New Low
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on April 23, 2008 at 4:23 AM.

This is really beyond the pale. And really, if the “What election sexism?” Democrats can’t see how over-the-top this is, I don’t really know what to say.

Progressives should be better than this.* I haven’t been a Clinton supporter, but the misogynist crap she’s gotten throughout the election has made me a whole lot more sympathetic towards her. There are a lot of questions to raise and a lot of skepticism to be had about both Democratic candidates — we can do that without resorting to sexist and racist crutches. And we can cut the whole “She’s tearing the party apart!” nonsense. You know what tears the party apart? Insulting and attacking the party’s base by launching racist and sexist attacks. Drawing big fat lines between Clinton and Obama, as if either he or she were the bad guy — and in doing so, giving John McCain (the real bad guy) a great big pass.

For thoughts on sexism in the election in general, I refer you to Rebecca Traister and Amanda Fortini.

Contact the TNR editors (letters@tnr.com) and tell them to stick to the issues — not sexist caricatures.

Thanks to Linda for the link.

_________________________________

*And yes, I realize that TNR is not “progressive.” But it’s (pathetically) seen as moderate to left-leaning. And it’s only one example of the nasty misogynistic attacks that have been directed at Clinton.

Please Stop The First Lady Bake-Off
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on April 21, 2008 at 4:21 AM.

There are a lot of things I hate about election season, but the competition of which potential First Lady has the best recipes is perhaps my least favorite. So I’m actually kind of glad that “Farfalle-gate” has broken, and it turns out that Cindy McCain’s favorite family recipes were pulled directly from the Food Network — and that she didn’t even offer them up herself, some unpaid intern found them and claimed they were McCain family traditions. The whole thing is BS, and it makes me happy that Cindy didn’t waste ten minutes of her life transcribing her recipe for rosemary chicken (although, of course, she should have just said the whole thing was crap and given Rachel Ray the proper credit).

I like food as much as the next person — actually, I probably like food a whole lot more than the next person — but I don’t really understand why Americans care which First Lady has the best cookie recipe. And I really don’t understand this:

In the meantime, The Huffington Post reported that the passion fruit recipe had appeared under Mrs. McCain’s name in the Jan. 16 issue of The New York Sun, in an article that also included a recipe from Michelle Obama (apple cobbler) but not one from the spouse of the other Democratic presidential candidate. The article did include Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recipe for oatmeal chocolate chip cookies.

Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Which one of these is not like the others?

Which isn’t to say that Hillary Clinton is above recipe-swapping because she’s a real competitor and the other ladies are just wives. It’s to point out that the whole thing is stupid and sexist, and that it’s not about presidential spouses. It’s a country-wide reminder of a woman’s place, and a nice little national smack-down of feminism and gender equality.

Plus, people cook with recipes that are not their own. The only thing I use my own “recipe” for is gemelli pasta with sauteed garlic, crushed red pepper, black pepper, cilantro and asiago cheese (plus whatever else I have in the fridge that sounds good — chickpeas, avocado, parmesan etc). And I’m pretty sure I picked that up from my old room mate. Now, if I were in the race, I would totally submit the Barefoot Contessa’s recipe for steak au poivre, since that’s the only non-pasta, non-quesadilla thing I can cook — but I wouldn’t even try to convince the American people that it’s an old family secret. I would just send them directly to Ina Garten, and everyone would be the better for it.

Chastity Clubs: Bringing the Hymens to Harvard
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on April 4, 2008 at 6:51 AM.

I have very little to say about this article, other than:

1. Talking about condoms and safer sex is not the same thing as demonizing abstinence, and if you're under that impression, I sure hope that you were a legacy admission to Harvard, because otherwise that's just embarrassing.

2. You look dumb when you complain that "there is just one lifestyle that doesn't get recognition" and that's abstinence. Abstinence gets recognition to the tune of more than $140 million in federal funding every year. Abstinence is discussed constantly. It is brought up in every single sex ed program. It is the subject of Congressional investigations and debates. It is studied by researchers. It is discussed in the classroom, in churches, in homes, in the news, and on blogs. Abstinence-until-marriage is discussed perhaps more than any other lifestyle choice made by less than five percent of the population.

3. You look even dumber when you complain about how mean and alienating the comprehensive sex ed folks are, and then you say stuff like pre-marital sex "deeply compromises human dignity" and leads to "personal unhappiness and social harm." I can recognize that it is hard to remain abstinent, especially in the face of a very sexualized culture. I appreciate and applaud the personal strength of individuals who decide abstinence in the best choice for them. But what I can't support is the constant attacks on sexually active people. People who have sex do not feel a constant need to tell abstinent people that their human dignity has been compromised, or that they're dirty, or that they are secretly unhappy, or that they're headed for total life ruin. I can understand how abstinent people may feel like society regards them as freaks because it seems like everyone else is having sex, but, statistically, most adults do have sex before marriage. It doesn't mean you're a freak if you don't, but it does mean you're making a different choice than 95 percent of the population. You can't really expect that the choices made by the overwhelming majority won't be normalized; you can, however, expect that your choices be recognized and respected. Unfortunately, the most vocal abstinence crusaders don't do that. They instead choose to tell the rest of us that we're making bad decisions and that we're compromising our dignity as human beings. That's far more fucked up and judgmental than anything I've ever heard a sexually active person say about abstinent folks.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Formula One Racing Head with a Nazi Fetish: the Craziest Sex Scandal Yet
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on April 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM.

What. The. Fuck. And here I thought we couldn’t do any better than “Evangelical mega-church preacher does crystal meth with male prostitutes.”

(Sidenote: You know a sex scandal is insane when the first thing you think of is an Overheard in New York quote).

I’m not going to quote at length from the article because the whole thing just makes me feel too weird,* but the gist of it is that the head of Formula One’s governing body was caught on video with five prostitutes playing concentration camp fetish games. And don’t worry, the cracker-jack reporters at ABC news explain that “While the Nazi concept is not unusual in sadomasochistic circles, playing both sides in such a kinky ritual is unusual, say sex experts.”

He played both sides? Well in that case, he really is a pervert!

In an interesting twist (as if there had to be anything else), the guy’s father was the founder of the British Union of Fascists and a supporter of Adolph Hitler. It’s almost the perfect storm of sex scandals — if only he were a right-wing politician playing Nazi dress-up with dudes it would seal the deal.

And, sweet Jesus, there is a video. I haven’t watched it because I’m not such a fan of that stuff, but I’m going to guess that it is neither work-safe nor for the faint of heart.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sexy Hot Vegans
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on April 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM.

Shocker: Animal rights activism can be sexist.

TWO things that you can find a lot of in Portland, Ore., are vegans and strip clubs. Johnny Diablo decided to open a business to combine both. At his Casa Diablo Gentlemen's Club, soy protein replaces beef in the tacos and chimichangas; the dancers wear pleather, not leather. Many are vegans or vegetarians themselves.

But Portland is also home to a lot of young feminists, and some are not happy with Mr. Diablo's venture. Since he opened the strip club last month, their complaints have been "all over the Internet," he said. "One of them came in here once. I could tell she had an attitude right when she came in. She was all hostile."

Mr. Diablo isn't concerned with the "feminazis," as he calls them. As a vegan himself, he says he hasn't worn or eaten animal products in 24 years and is worried about cruelty to animals. "My sole purpose in this universe is to save every possible creature from pain and suffering," he said.

Except for women, apparently.

I am glad, however, to see feminist vegetarians, vegans and animal rights activists speaking out against sexism while still promoting animal liberation theory. I’m happy to see that they don’t buy the line that any means to promote veganism are a-ok.

Isa Chandra Moskowitz, a cookbook author, is among those who believe such images twist the vegan message. "As a feminist, I'm not keen on the idea of using women's bodies to sell veganism, and I'm not into the idea of using veganism to sell women's bodies," she said.

Ms. Moskowitz is the host of an online forum, Post Punk Kitchen (www.www.theppk.com), some of whose members are debating Mr. Diablo's vegan strip club. (Last week Mr. Diablo put the club up for sale, although not because of the criticism, he said. He may have overestimated the appeal of stripping to vegans, or of vegan cuisine to striptease fans; an earlier vegan restaurant he ran was poorly received.)

The issue of sexism in vegan circles is "extremely polarizing," said Bob Torres, an author of "Vegan Freak," a guide to living a vegan lifestyle, which generally means avoiding the use of animals for food, clothing or other purposes. Mr. Torres, like many vegans, disavows the "essential idea at the heart of some animal rights activism that any means justifies the ends," he said. Certain activists, he added, care only about "animal suffering and ignore the suffering of humans," a category into which he would put women who are exploited.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Reproductive Tourism
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on March 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM.

This kind of out-of-control globalization, wherein wealthier women are able to rent the wombs of poorer ones, makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the plight of couples who can't conceive for whatever reason. And it certainly makes sense for women to voluntarily carry someone else's pregnancy if it means making a lot of money. But I think it's possible to be skeptical of this situation without passing judgment on the people involved in it, most of whom are doing the best that they can in tough circumstances.

An article published in The Times of India in February questioned how such a law would be enforced: "In a country crippled by abject poverty," it asked, "how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?"

One could argue that surrogates are simply providing a service like any other. But I'm not sure that we want to turn reproduction into a service industry. The inequalities here are so stark -- and the carrot of thousands of dollars so tempting for women in a country with astounding poverty rates -- that writing if off as purely business is inadequate.

"Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop," Dr. Kadam said. "This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don't think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Do We Want Judges Who Have Profited Off of Private Prisons and Locking Up Children?
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on March 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM.

These are the kind of people that President Bush is nominating to the bench -- for lifetime appointments.

Gus Puryear is a well-connected Republican attorney who, after working for Bill Frist, went on to serve as general counsel for Corrections Corporation of America, a massive company that feeds off of the American prison system. CCA made $1.5 billion in 2004, and is the fifth largest prison system in the U.S. -- behind the federal government and three states. CCA also runs the notorious Hutto detention center in Texas, which detains immigrants and their children in prison conditions.

But it isn't Gusyear's CCA employment that's drawing criticism; it's his membership in a discriminatory country club.

Yes, it is true that the club does not allow women to vote. In fact, women have their own class of membership—they're called “lady members”—and lady members can't vote or hold office, even Martha Ingram, who is listed on the club's membership rolls. The only people who can vote are the club's resident members and, lo and behold, all of them are men. The club's “constitution,” which Puryear, as a judicial candidate essentially completing a take-home test, must have reviewed before answering Kennedy's questions, notes the following about resident members: “They alone, to the exclusion of all other classes of membership, shall have the right to control, manage, vote and hold office in the club.” So that means that non-resident members, associate resident members (younger members like Puryear) and, of course, lady members can't have any say in the governance of the club.

The club technically allows people of all races to join, but they only have one black member. And he lives in another state.

While I think it's fairly clear that Puryear's club membership -- not to mention his apparent inability to answer straight-forward questions about it -- should disqualify him on ethical grounds, it's his work on behalf of CCA that I find more damning.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Wing Response to Rape: Deny It, Then Blame the Victim
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on February 28, 2008 at 5:26 AM.

Because if women don't call it rape then it's just not.

This op/ed is one of the most ridiculous I've read in a long, long time (and that's pretty impressive). Heather MacDonald argues that high rates of sexual assault on campus don't exist because women don't always define their experiences as rape; she then goes on to say that women who say they were raped are lying sluts who exaggerate the truth and were probably asking for it. Compare:

A 2006 survey of sorority women at the University of Virginia, for example, found that only 23% of the subjects whom the survey characterized as rape victims felt that they had been raped -- a result that the university's director of sexual and domestic violence services calls "discouraging." Equally damning was a 2000 campus rape study conducted under the aegis of the Department of Justice. Sixty-five percent of those whom the researchers called "completed rape" victims and three-quarters of "attempted rape" victims said that they did not think that their experiences were "serious enough to report."

Believing in the campus rape epidemic, it turns out, requires ignoring women's own interpretations of their experiences.

With:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bill Clinton Stands Up to Anti-Choice Hecklers [VIDEO]
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on February 22, 2008 at 12:17 PM.

Clinton to Hecklers: "We disagree with you. You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth! Tell the truth! If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother, as an accessory to murder, in prison, and you won't say you wanna do that, because you know that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions, instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally."

He's right that anti-choicers have done nothing to decrease the abortion rate. It's been the pro-choice movement that has taken the most effective steps to reduce the need for abortion and promote healthy families. That needs to be repeated again and again.

via Amanda.

Boys Treat Girls Like People: Thanks to Feminism
Posted by Jill Filipovic, AlterNet on February 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM.

A new study shows that most teenage boys view teenage girls as actual human beings, not simple sex toys:

The stereotype of the 16-year-old boy is that he has sex on the brain. But a fascinating new report suggests that boys are motivated more by love and a desire to form real relationships with the girls they date.

The report, published in this month’s Journal of Adolescence, paints a far different picture of teen boys than the stereotype of testosterone-fueled youth. Psychology researchers from the State University of New York at Oswego surveyed 105 10th-grade boys whose average age was about 16. The boys, most of whom said they were heterosexual, were given surveys asking them to select various reasons why they asked girls out, dated and pursued physical relationships. Most of the boys had dating experience, and about 40 percent were sexually active.

The boys were asked their reasons for dating and were allowed to mark more than one answer. Notably, being physically attracted to someone wasn’t the primary motivation they gave for dating. More than 80 percent of the boys noted “I really liked the person.'’ Physical attraction and wanting to get to know someone better were the second most popular answers.

Among the boys who had been sexually active, physical desire and wanting to know what sex feels like were among the top three reasons they pursued sex. However, the boys were equally likely to say they pursued sex because they loved their partner. Interestingly, only 14 percent said they sought sex because they wanted to lose their virginity, and 9 percent did so to fit in with friends.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dear Progressives: Stop Slamming Identity Politics
Posted by Jill Filipovic, AlterNet on February 7, 2008 at 5:54 PM.

Dear fellow progressives,

Please, please stop using the term "identity politics" as a negative. "Identity politics" is a term adopted by conservatives (and moderate-to-right-leaning lefties) in an effort to insult the political action of women, people of color, the LGBT community, and other traditionally marginalized groups. It assumes that advocating for gender, racial or sexual orientation equality is about promoting particular "identities" as opposed to doing what white men have always done -- engaging in the political system, often in a self-interested way. If you're going to use the term "identity politics," go for it -- but own it as a good thing. We are all influenced by our identities; but since white, straight, Christian male is the default, it's only commented on when the rest of us voice our opinions.

George W. Bush dressing up as a cowboy and appealing to "authentic" American men? "America's Toughest Sheriff" swaggering around Arizona and making inmates wear pink underwear to emasculate them? John Kerry donning a hunting vest to prove his toughness? Not "identity politics."

But Hillary Clinton recognizing that she's female and perhaps that matters? Obama being black? Feminists promoting women's rights? People of color promoting racial equality? LGBT communities challenging heteronormativity? Suddenly identity politics are ruining America and harming the elections.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Questions for Pro-Lifers
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on January 8, 2008 at 6:13 PM.

This post has generated some confusion and a lot of questions from pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. I have a bad habit of assuming everyone who is reading this is well-versed in feminist theory and pro-choice politics, and that simply isn't true. So I'm going to back up a bit and try to lay out some of the issues.

There are a lot of different pro-choice arguments out there. Most of them revolve around the ideas of bodily autonomy and personal privacy -- that is, a pregnant woman should be allowed to decide for herself whether or not she continues the pregnancy, and the government should not be empowered to legally compel her to remain pregnant against her will. There are a lot of moral, legal and ethical arguments as to why the government shouldn't be able to do this, and why women should not be forced to sustain a fetal life. I'm not going to get into those here. Instead, I'm going to address the standard pro-life view that life begins at conception, and that we should invest every fertilized egg, embryo and fetus with full personhood rights. And I have a few questions about that.

The ultimate pro-life goal is the passage of a Human Life Amendment. The texts of such an amendment vary, but they generally include the basic idea that:

The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of dependency.

In other words, life begins the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. Personhood begins here. Sounds simple enough, right? But I have some questions and concerns (numbered for easy answering from the multitudes of pro-lifers who I'm sure will be happy to address them):

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani Campaign Co-Chair: "I Don't Subscribe To The Principle That There Are Good Muslims And Bad Muslims"
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on January 2, 2008 at 5:20 AM.

(click for larger version)

I'm very consciously about to break Godwin's Law here, but I think it's warranted: The rhetoric coming from the Republican party is so hateful that I nearly expect to hear someone propose a final solution to "the Muslim problem."

John Deady, the co-chair of New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, is standing by the comments he made in the controversial interview with The Guardian we posted on below, in which he said that "the Muslims" need to be chased "back to their caves."

In an interview with me, Deady confirmed that when he made the comments, he was referring to all Muslims.

"I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims," Deady told me by phone from his home in New Hampshire. "They're all Muslims."

But he was probably just taken out of context, right? Well...

In the earlier interview with The Guardian, Deady said of Muslims: "We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves or in other words get rid of them."

Emphasis mine. Deady later clarified:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What Do Conservatives Spend Their Time Thinking About?
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on November 27, 2007 at 5:29 AM.

This post, written by Jill Filipovic, originally appe