feminist blogs in english

Project Censored

These are the headlines no one wants you to read. Go to the link above to find links to the stories.

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2007

1. Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
2. Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
3. Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
4. Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
5. High-Tech Genocide in Congo
6. Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
7. US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
8. Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
9. The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
10. Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
11. Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
12. Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
13. New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
14. Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
15. Chemical Industry is EPA’s Primary Research Partner
16. Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
17. Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
18. Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
19. Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
20. Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem
21. Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
22. $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
23. US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
24. Cheney’s Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
25. US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region

If you aren't scared, pissed off, and thinking of the phrase "French Revolution" then you need to wake the fuck up. It's almost too late.

Earth Hour US - Earth Hour 2008

People all over the globe are turning everything off for an hour tonight at 8 PM. Try to participate if you can. For more information, follow the link above.

On the heels of the Spitzer and "Kristen" scandal, NY Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof reminds of the brutality faced by most "street" prostitutes, many of whom are young girls of color.

While I tend to be skeptical about statistics, the numbers of girls--particularly black girls--infected with STDs, according to a recent national study, is quite alarming. Though the research sample of 838 girls was random, I can't help but wonder how class and education weigh into the mix. I wonder how many girls have access to good health care facilities, what they have been taught (if anything) about sex at school and at home, whether they have access to and know how to use condoms. How many girls still think they can't get infections if they only have oral sex?

The study doesn't seem to offer many solutions to what should be perceived as a national health crisis (this is of course presuming our nation cares about the healthcare of women and girls, which, um, it doesn't). Clearly sex education is critical (beyond the ridiculous abstinence-only models) as is better counseling services for girls who need to discuss sexual matters and may not be able to with their parents. But I also worry about what we teach (or rather don't teach) girls about their sexual agency. Sex is often portrayed for (straight) girls as something that is done to them rather than something they can have some agency in. I think the study is telling: girls are the acted on, the endangered, and the infected. But this study should also reshape our approach to boys' health education. What should be clear from these results is that boys should also be getting annual screenings (just as girls have to go to the gyno).

Perhaps most importantly, parents and educators need to encourage girls to use their voices and assert their agency when they enter into intimate relationships. Part of the problem has to do with self-esteem and self-worth I think. It seems to me that too many girls are still afraid that if they don't put out they won't be accepted or liked or desired. Too many girls are afraid to ask male partners to use condoms. In some cases, men over 18 (sometimes in their 20s and 30s) are preying on teenage girls. As someone who has always thought that black communities' almost singular focus on the "crises" of young black boys has virtually ignored the problems young black girls are going through, I think the national attention this study has gotten can spark some overdue interventions.

So I've been looking into daycare programs for little Bamm-Bamm, as I've been told that I need to get him on waiting lists ASAP. We wouldn't need daycare very many hours a week, and not until late August/early September, but obviously we want good care.

Yesterday, I called a Methodist church that has been highly recommended to me by people I trust, only to be told that their daycare program (called Mother's Day Out, which doesn't seem to be an uncommon name for daycare programs) is "only for non-working mothers."

Mmmmkay.

Now it could be that the person on the phone just told me that because they don't keep babies past 2:00 in the afternoon, and for most people who work, those hours aren't feasible. I think Jonathan and I may be able to swing it, though.

But -- what if it really is "only for non-working mothers"? Where do I start? There are so many problems with this, even if we're just talking about heteronormative households:

• I object to the very idea: there's no such thing as a non-working mother (or parent in general, for that matter).
• What if the mother works and the father stays at home? The at-home dad would still need days out to run errands. Would this kind of family be ineligible?
• What if both parents work (say, for the sake of argument, the mother works part-time) because they have to in order to pay the bills? Would this kind of family be ineligible?
• What if the mother works from home? Would this kind of family be ineligible?
• What about single-parent households in which the parent (father or mother) HAS to work, or the family has NO money? Would this kind of family be ineligible?

I want to join this church and use this daycare, but if they would actually ban us from the daycare program because I am employed, that's a huge red flag. I don't want to be put in a position of concealing the fact that I have a job.