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.

Word to the Wise: Never Date a Guy Who Reads Details Magazine
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on October 28, 2009 at 3:19 PM.

Shorter Details: Tricky bitches will get themselves pregnant and then make you pay for it.

Imagine for a moment this perfectly plausible scenario: You’ve had a steady girlfriend for a year or so and everything’s going great. You still hold hands at the movies. Friends tell you you’re good together. You’re both around 30 years old and making plenty of money, maybe living together, but you’re nowhere near considering fatherhood. And though you occasionally get the feeling that her biological clock is set far ahead of yours, she tells you she’s “safe,” so you don’t worry. Why would you? It’s not as if you’d just picked her up on Dollar Margarita Night at Senor Frog’s. But one morning she tells you something has gone wrong. Unlikely as it sounds, she’s pregnant-and she wants to keep it. What she doesn’t tell you, though, is this: She wasn’t being safe all along. She wanted to have that baby— and the way she saw it, this was the only way to make it happen.

You know where this is going, right?

A few experts discuss the “trend” of women tricking men into impregnating them, without offering any hard information or statistics. A few odd people are interviewed, and they confirm that they’ve heard that other odd people are getting pregant accidently-on-purpose. And then we get to “Roe v. Wade for men”:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Should a Woman Change Her Name When She Marries? 70 Percent of Americans Think So
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on October 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM.

Apparently 70 percent of Americans believe that a woman should change her name when she marries, and 50 percent believe it should be required by law. While I would expect most Americans to favor name-changing, I didn't expect that it was that high, and I certainly didn't think that so many people believe it should be legally mandated. I was also suprised that only 5-10 percent of women keep their own names.

I'm not married and so I recognize that this is an easier calculus for me to make now, but I have never even considered changing my last name. I don't think I ever would consider it. My mom, like many women of her generation, took my father's name -- it's just what everyone did, and it was easier. My best friend, who was raised in a pretty religious home, took her husband's name when she got married -- I don't know that she really gave a lot of thought to the whole process. It was just what you did.

Where I actually felt the shock of the name-change was seeing a list of female names I didn't recognize on Facebook, then clicking through and realizing, oh, that’s someone I've known since the 5th grade. Except not really, because I always knew Jane Jones and now she’s Jane Brown. Or maybe she’s Jane “Jones” Brown with her former name in quotes -- because, I dunno, it's a joke? I suppose I'm sheltered, but I assumed that the majority of my female friends (and especially college friends and acquaintences) would keep their own names. I was stunned at how many women I knew changed their names when they married.

What throws me off even more is when I see feminist-minded or liberal women take their husband’s name, and then defend it with "Well it's my choice" or "My last name was my father's anyway" or "I don't care about my name." I can understand the name-change part, even if I don't like it -- it can almost be more of a hassle to keep your own name than to take your husband’s once you're married, especially if you have kids. People may criticize you for keeping your own name. In a lot of communities, it is what everyone does. Your husband may even be upset if you don't want to take his name (although I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that he's kind of self-centered and you probably shouldn't marry him).

What confuses me (and gets under my skin) is the justification -- or at least, the justification based on things other than the very real, tangible sexist reactions that married women face when they keep their own names. Things like, "Well, it was my father's name." Well, sure, but what does that mean? That no woman ever has her own name, unless she was born into a culture where naming is matrilineal? Or, "I like his name better." Ok, but do men regularly change their names just because their partner as a "better" name? I’ve come across maybe one man in my whole life who has done that -- I somehow doubt that it just so happens that 99 percent of people with the “better” name are male. Or, "I want our whole family to have the same name." Again, understandable, but how come he didn’t change his name? Or you can both change your names.

I wish we could have a more honest conversation about name-changing. Instead, women like me who find name changing really, really problematic are cast as simply mean and judgmental, and women who do change their names are just exercising their "choice." I'll cop to being judgmental here -- this isn't one of those situations where I think every choice is equally good and it's a simple matter of preference. That said, there are very real reasons why married women may change their names, and I can certainly understand and empathize with making certain compromises and just not having the desire or energy to fight every feminist battle. I don't think it calls your feminist creds into question if you change your name. But I admittedly do wish that more women would keep their names. I wish more women felt like it was a valid and accessible option.

Names and naming matters. It is bigger than just an individual, personal choice. While I certainly respect the rights of people to make their own choices when it comes to their names, and while I can’t fault women who decide that keeping their own name is not a battle they want to fight, let’s not pretend like these choices exist in a vaccum, or like they don’t have a wider impact when it comes to normalizing sexist cultural practices.

I've been to a couple of weddings in the past few months, some where the bride changed her name and some where she didn’t. I'll admit, on a very basic level, that I felt a little gut-punched when the name-changing couples were announced as "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith." The woman was totally erased; she entered into what I would like to think of as a partnership, and instead she was just absorbed into her partner.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

You Don't Have to Dress as a Bigot or a Slut for Halloween: Here's Some Better Ideas
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on October 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM.

This round-up of ridiculous and offensive Halloween costumes is sort of amazing. And then, of course, there are all of these. Consider this post your “what not to wear” guide.

Luckily, the Awl offers some great DIY costume ideas for those of us who hate having to choose between Slutty Nurse, Slutty Cop and Slutty Cat every year. (Not that there’s anything wrong with wearing a revealing costume, but October is a cold month, and it’s irritating that there are limited options for women).

But like every Halloween, this one has the potential for disaster. Of course there will be That Vagina Guy, but I suspect that the potential offensive costume quotient is heightened for Halloween 09. Unlike last year when the election was looming and Sarah Palin was the big story — and the most common Halloween costume I saw — this year I suspect that we’ll see a lot of Kanye West/Taylor Swift pairs. I also suspect we’ll see a lot of Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga and Beyonce (if you need a leotard, I’d suggest going to American Apparel now, since I’m sure they’re going to sell out). There’s nothing wrong with going as Michael, Kanye or Beyonce in theory, but you know some idiot (or idiots, plural) are going to break out the blackface. If anyone reading this is wondering whether blackface may be a good idea, allow me to answer: No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances is blackface a good idea. Please pass this message on to a fraternity near you.

PSAs aside, I still don’t know what to be for Halloween. I really want someone to dress up as Slutty Balloon Boy (basket as a skirt, mylar tube top), but I’m not sure it’s going to be me. I’m considering Colonel Qaddafi, just because who wouldn’t want those clothes in their closet? (I’m also considering carrying around the text of a 90-minute rambling speech). I have the boots for Zardoz (really), but not the rest of the, uh, package. And I’m hopelessly devoted to Lady Gaga, but without her thighs of steel I’m not sure I can do her justice in all her pant-less glory.

What are you all going as? Any great costume ideas?

Women Should Cut Out the "Fat Talk"
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on October 19, 2009 at 5:36 PM.

Via Kate comes this great website combating “fat talk” — the constant little comments that women make to other women about themselves.

I hate “fat talk.” It makes me uncomfortable when other women do it. I never quite know what to say — I don’t want to issue the knee-jerk response of “You’re not fat!” because that kind of implies that being fat is The Worst Thing Ever. I also don’t want to ignore the comment, because then the commenting friend walks away thinking that I think she’s fat, and for her, that is a Very Bad Thing.

And yet I’m the absolute worst when it comes to fat talk. Like many women I have a whole slew of body issues; my weight is always on my mind, and I feel like I’m in a constant battle with my body. I’ve started to make my peace with how I look, and I’ve started to accept the fact that I love physical activity and exercise, I love to eat (and I like to eat food that feels nourishing, clean and healthy), but my body is just a certain build and shape and I’m never going to be 5′10″ and 110 pounds. I can turn things I love — physical activity and food — into things I resent in order to be thinner, but it’s not worth it. I’ve done it, and it makes me unhappy. Deciding “I would rather be happy” sounds simple, but it’s psychologically challenging when for so long I associated happiness with thinness — as in, “I’ll be happy when I’m 20 pounds thinner.” I’m learning how to allow myself to be happy and not thin. It’s a process, though, and as I go through it I still find myself complaining to my friends about the way I look. I also have a group of friends who are mostly very thin — significantly thinner than I am. It can be very difficult to always feel like the “fattest” in the group. And when I spend time with women who are larger than I am, I also find myself feeling envious — of their curves or of the way clothes fit them or of their confidence or of whatever else they have that I don’t. I feel like I never measure up.

Part of the reason why Fat Talk is so harmful is that it’s a constant reminder that women have an obligation to look good, always. It’s our burden as women to present an attractive face to the world — to be ornamental and to decorate. It’s also about fat-hate and fat-shaming, but even for the not-fat among us, it’s that little whisper of you aren’t doing your job.

What’s especially difficult, I think, is balancing the need for honest conversation and support with the obligation to not do harm to other women. I want to be able to talk, even in feminist spaces, about body issues, but I also don’t want to engage in Fat Talk or trigger women who have have histories of eating disorders. Even more importantly (at least for me), I want to be able to have honest discussions with my closest friends — not in a vent-y “Blah I feel fat today” way, but in the intimate way we discuss everything else in our lives.

All of that said, though, it’s good practice to nix the Fat Talk. So that’s what I’m going to do this week. No Fat Talk starting now. Only positive body talk.

It’ll be a good exercise. Who’s with me?

NYers Want Sex Ed in Schools - And it Looks Like They Need It
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on October 8, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

A few numbers for you: One in three New York City high school students are sexually active. One in five have had sex with four or more partners. Only two-thirds of high schoolers report using condoms at all. One in five sexually active high school girls report not using birth control the last time they had sex.

Seventy-seven percent of parents believe that sex education is required in New York schools.

They’re wrong. Sexual health education is not mandated in New York City or New York State, despite the fact that 85% of parents want it.

Thankfully, Planned Parenthood is trying to bridge that gap with a campaign to make sure that NYC students receive sexual health education. Head over there, check out their plan and help where you can.

Patiently, Sotomayor Schools GOP Senators
Posted by Jill Filipovic, RH Reality Check on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 AM.

If there's one thing that this week's Senate confirmation hearings made clear, it's that Judge Sotomayor is not just a great mind, but a patient and generous teacher.  Surrounded by senators who seemed primarily concerned with topping each other in condescension, Sotomayor responded with respect, nuance and a solid grounding in the law - to the point where the hearings sometimes felt like a high school civics class, with Sotomayor explaining the fundamentals of our legal system.  The biggest surprises of the hearings so far haven't come from Sotomayor herself, but from the ignorance and arrogance shown by some members of the GOP.  And the biggest pay-off won't just be from Sotomayor's confirmation - although that will certainly happen - but from the GOP's torching of any goodwill it hasn't already set aflame with women and racial minorities. 

In the hearings, Sotomayor faced down Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama senator with a notoriously racially troubled past.  Sessions sat in Sotomayor's seat when Ronald Regan nominated him for a federal judgeship.  The Senate Judiciary Committee killed his nomination after it came to light that he joked that he used to think the Ku Klux Klan wasn't so bad until he found out some of them smoked marijuana, and he believed the NAACP and the ACLU to be "un-American and "Communist-inspired" - his biggest grievance with the groups being that they "forced" civil rights down our collective throats.  Watching Sotomayor respond to Sessions' sneering questions with insightful and polite answers was simultaneously infuriating and inspiring - I'm not sure I could have been nearly as composed, but she certainly put to rest any concerns about her "temperament."   

Or at least, she put those concerns to rest in the minds of reasonable people.  Sen. Lindsey Graham wasn't satisfied, and had the nerve to read off several anonymous and unattributed statements about Sotomayor's "temperament problem." His point was that Sotomayor is too mean and too harsh in her questioning to be a good judge - a concern rarely raised with aggressive male judges like Antonin Scalia.  But instead of making her look unreasonable or "temperamental" (what is she, a racehorse?), he succeeded only in making himself look like a bully and a fool, targeting her personality instead of her record. Like many others in the GOP, he threw in some references to her "Wise Latina" comment for good measure - after all, someone in the studio audience may not be aware that she's not white. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Gasp! New Study Reveals Mothers Drink Sometimes, and Other Scandals
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on June 23, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

Sit down, kids, because I have some terrifying news: Sometimes, women drink. And smoke. Sometimes they even smoke marijuana. To top it all off, some of those women are mothers.

Yes, this is the news that USA Today brings us, in an article about post-pregnancy “substance abuse” -- a term apparently so loosely-defined that it includes any alcohol use at all.

Women drink in fairly low numbers while pregnant -- only one in eight women has a drink during the entire course of her pregnancy, and most of that seems to be in the first trimester, when some women don’t realize they’re pregnant. The number of women who drink alcohol — not binge-drink, mind you, just drink -- within three months of giving birth is 31%, a figure that strikes me as fairly low (I haven’t ever had a baby come out of my body, but the day I do, someone had better give me a glass of wine). And despite the fact that women with children use alcohol, cigarettes and drugs in low numbers, USA Today still thinks you should be Very Concerned:

The portion of pregnant women using alcohol dropped during pregnancy (19% the first trimester, 7.8% in the second, and 6.2% in the third).

"Women are getting the message and are reducing their drug use across the board when they’re pregnant," Delany says. "We need to do better in helping women understand: Not only should you not use while you’re pregnant, you should continue not using."

According to the study, 31.9% of women used alcohol within the first three months after childbirth.

The study also found that the number of postpartum women who used drugs and alcohol was significantly less than the number of non-pregnant women who were using substances, except in the case of cigarettes.

The implication, Delany says, "is that having children creates a protective factor so that women may not be going back to drug use."

Delany says the study highlights the importance of getting the message out to women to not resume substance use after pregnancy.

"It’s just something we need to work better on as a nation," he says. "Women just aren’t stopping the way we would hope."

I'm all for efforts to help people -- all people, not just the ones with uteruses -- curb substance abuse. I'm in favor of efforts to encourage parents not to smoke around their small children. But I can’t get on board with the message that women need to stop all substance use after pregnancy. And I definitely can’t support those efforts when they conflate "use" with "abuse." Mommies are people too, and it doesn’t make someone irresponsible or an addict to have a beer or a cigarette after they have a kid.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Should the Burqa Be Banned?
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on June 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM.

French legislators are considering introducing legislation to ban the burqa in their country, in the name of respecting women. The burqa, these politicians argue, is a “prison” and “degrading” to women.

I’m personally of the mind that calls for women to cover their bodies because the female form is somehow inherently tempting or representative of sex are misogynist, regressive and certainly out of line with the most basic tenets of feminism. But women make choices about the way we dress for all kinds of reasons -- sometimes to follow a religious tradition, sometimes to be perceived as attractive, sometimes to be invisible, sometimes to just cover our bare asses. Most of our motivations aren’t feminist or anti-feminist. When it comes to religious requirements especially, we know that outlawing certain garments in public doesn’t make women shed the offending item of clothing; it just makes women refrain from public interactions.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Slate's Horrifying Headline Dishonors Dr. Tiller
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on June 2, 2009 at 9:57 AM.

Slate, I know you get off on publishing thoroughly moderate and traditional arguments couched as contrarianism instead of, say, anything actually groundbreaking or intellectually hefty, but the headline “Is it wrong to murder an abortionist?” is too far.

First: “Abortionist” is a word made up by right-wing fanatics. They use it to downplay the fact that abortion providers are doctors, often OB/GYNs. It would be like calling a dermitologist an “acne-ist.” It doesn’t really make sense, and there’s already an actual term for what those doctors do. “Abortionist” is a loaded and totally incorrect word, and it’s appalling to see it used over and over again in an article written by a supposedly pro-choice person.

Second: Tiller is not the pro-choice equivalent of Scott Roeder, and Saletan should be ashamed for suggesting as much.

Third: The headine “Is it wrong to murder an abortionist?” suggests that there’s actually some debate amongst reasonable people on that issue. There is not.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Actually, Comparing Sonia Sotomayor to Sarah Palin Is Kind of Insulting
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on May 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM.

No, Sotomayor is not getting Palin-ed.

I’m the last person who is going to stand up for the media’s crappy treatment of Sarah Palin during the Presidential elections, but I do think intelligence and achievement are fair issues to bring up when considering an elected official or a Supreme Court justice. And while I don’t think Sarah Palin is dumb, do think it was pretty clear that she did not know the necessary basics to fulfill the role of Vice President (I also think it’s pretty clear that Bush didn’t know the necessary basics to fulfill the role of President).

It’s ridiculous to compare someone like Sarah Palin to someone like Sonia Sotomayor. Yes, they have both endured sexist attacks. But suggesting that they’re being attacked in the same unfair way? No. It’s a little more complicated than “Sarah and Sonia are both being called dumb.” The reality is that Sarah Palin was a governor with very limited political experience who sold her candidacy on her “values” and attacked intellectualism as “elitism.” Sonia Sotomayor has more experience than nearly any other current member of the Supreme Court at the time of their appointment. She got into Princeton by the sheer force of her hard work and intelligence — not an achievement that many (or even most) college students can claim. She graduated at the top of her class, and went on to Yale Law, where she was an editor of the Law Journal. She was appointed to the federal district court by George HW Bush, and then to the Second Circuit by Bill Clinton, where she penned hundreds of opinions and heard thousands of cases.

It’s a slap in the face to mention her name in the same sentence as Sarah Palin, let alone argue that the two women are intellectual equals. I have no desire to discuss Palin’s intelligence or to bring her down, but I’m confused as to why we’re bothering to bring her up here.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Shorter Catholic Church: The Right to Life Ends at Birth
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on March 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM.

This is an interesting piece, but one part in particular stands out:

I asked my colleague Elizabeth Tenety, producer of Divine Impulses and our former “Campus Catholic” blogger, to explain [why the Church targets Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, but not those who favor the death penalty]. “From a Catholic perspective, I don’t think it’s about diminishing the death penalty’s wrongness, but saying that the right to life is the primary dignity afforded human beings,” she said. “Once you get out of the womb, life gets a lot more complicated and so does the working through of the ’seamless garment,’” she said.

“Seamless garment” is a New Testament phrase. In 1983, the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then the most influential U.S. archbishop, used the phrase to defend linking opposition to capital punishment and nuclear weapons to opposition to abortion. He argued that all of these “prolife” policies constitute a “”consistent ethic of life,” a “seamless garment.”

In other words, the right to life isn’t absolute — it ends at birth.

Good News About Women and the Stimulus Package
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on January 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM.

We didn't win the birth control battle, but the stimulus package is still very good for women.

So, what's in the package for women? "Expanding health for them, child care, unemployment insurance, direct help in higher food stamps and energy assistance," said Joan Entmacher, vice president for family economic stability at the National Women's Law Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group that has worked closely with the Obama transition team and key members of Congress. "It also protects a lot of jobs for women in education, early education and social work services."

"You don't get everything you ask for," said Entmacher, "[But] we're pleased with the funding specifically targeted to child care and Head Start and other investment for children with disabilities."

Other feminist leaders are also guardedly positive about the stimulus.

"We're pretty happy with what we're seeing so far," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, "But we're waiting to see details."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Artificial Virginity Hymen: Faking that Vacuum-Fresh Seal
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on January 14, 2009 at 10:11 AM.

I'm not really sure what to say about this, other than if he wants to re-live you losing your virginity in all of its blood-oozing glory, or if you have to fake losing it to please him, dump the motherfucker already:

A reader tipped us off to the "Artificial Virginity Hymen", which the company, Gigimo, claims "will expand a little and make you feel tight." The hymen also includes a packet that is activated during sex, which will "ooze out a liquid that look like blood not too much but just the right amount." As if that wasn't horrifying enough, the company claims, "Add in a few moans and groans, you will pass through undetectable."

Unfortunately for us ladies, the "artificial virginity hymen" doesn't come with an "artificial virginity penis" that jackhammers for 22 seconds before shrivelling and passing out next to you in the backseat of his parents' car.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Shocking: "Keep Your Legs Crossed, Sluts" Sex-Ed Strategy Fails
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on December 30, 2008 at 8:41 AM.

Shockingly, the "Keep your legs crossed, sluts!" sex-ed strategy is an epic failure.

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

I suppose abstinence-only education has one thing going for it: It threatens that sex will bring disease and unwanted pregnancy, and for abstinence-pledgers, that threat is more likely to be realized.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Horrific: 12-Year Old Girl Beaten By Police for 'Resisting Arrest'
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on December 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM.

This is horrific.

It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn's home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on.

As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me."

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »