feminist blogs in english

In spite of a fiercely patriarchal fascist dictatorship that lasted for 36 years and only ended in 1975, Spain is far ahead of the US in what concerns gender equality. It's simply fenomenal to observe how successful Spain is in its quest to eradicate the last vestiges of the patriarchy left behind by its anti-women regimes.

Recently, for example, Aragon took a huge step forward by rehauling its custody laws (I have to warn you that the link is in Spanish.) Before this new law, in cases of divorce the custody of children was given to women in over 90% of cases (more or less the same as it is everywhere.) Now, however, 90% of custody cases in Aragon will automatically be resolved in terms of shared custody. Divorced parents will thus continue to bring up their children together.

Kudos to Aragon for fighting against the stereotype that parenthood is somehow more of a female chore. From now on, people who have decided to have children together will have to keep bringing them up together in spite of getting divorced.

You really have to admire the people of Spain for their dedication to the cause of gender equality. I wish more countries followed in its footsteps. The US could definitely benefit from following Spain's example.

I read in the Boston Globe yesterday 18 New Hampshire legislators are trying to change the language in the state’s constitution so it is gender neutral. Specifically, the group wants to strike the word men and references to the word and replace them with gender-neutral words. Currently, the constitution reads, “All men are born equally free and independent.’’ It was ratified in 1783. Today, the New Hampshire State has a female majority.

From the Globe article: “We have women in leadership roles, and to have the Constitution reflect that changing status of women makes sense,’’ said Sylvia Larsen, the state Senate president.

and

“When fourth-graders come to the State House, they are amazed to hear that the Senate has a majority of women,’’ said (state Senator Kathy) Sgambati. “Those young girls should see themselves in the constitution. They shouldn’t have to try to figure out that it applies to them.’’

Fixing the language bias seems a simple enough fix. But opponents of the legislation say, no way. They say the constitution is “sacred” and changing the language would destroy it. Here’s another argument form the Globe article,

“It’s a waste of time,’’ said Charles Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and former executive director of the state’s Republican Party. “It doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t do anything.’’

I disagree. Language matters. We tell our daughters they can grow up and be anything they want to be. But then they read and hear about selectmen and aldermen and congressmen. What is the cumulative impact on girls as they grow up and notice their gender is invisible in news stories, job descriptions and charters of freedom? Certainly, they can’t rely on visual images to inspire their dreams. Our girls don’t see very many women running universities, or newsrooms, in board rooms or on Capitol Hill.

In the online comment to the Globe story, readers argued a change would make for “unlovely” prose and that gender-neutral language is “bland.” How sad that readability is more important than equal representation. Others argue the constitution is a historic document and should not be revised. And then there is my favorite objection –that intelligent people know the term “men” implies all humans, not just males. It’s in the dictionary, after all.

So I propose a compromise.  Leave the document as is. But moving forward, all legislation and all new editions of Webster’s will use the word “women” instead of “men.” Mankind will be written as womenkind. This compromise will maintain the beautiful prose, preserve history and more accurately reflect the U.S. population, the majority of which is female.  

Any objection, ladies? (And by ladies, I of course mean you guys too.)

This series of women and politics is inspired by a recent article by Sociology Lens that discussed the presence of a traditional gender symbolic order at a political, social and economic level. It argues against recent arguments that claim we are moving towards gender equality due to the increase of women in the workplace (economic level), as it rightly states that we need to address all levels of the gender symbolic order – so political, social and economic. The level I will be concentrating on is the political.

Representation is increasingly becoming a contested concept, especially among the post modernists. Their main problem with the term is their disbelief in the ability to speak of representative group interests, such as women, when we are increasingly living within a fragmented and individualised society. Whilst I can see where they are coming from, the representation allows minority groups to utilise a political identity in order to mobilise a collective movement that results in changes that help improve the lives of many (e.g women) in society.

A key area on the topic of representation and women in politics is the selection process. Here, it is interesting to consider debates around selection procedures such as all-women shortlists. None of the three main parties have a good record on all-women shortlists, as personally I reject the method due to it being patronising. It promotes the view that women need ’special’ assistance in order for them to obtain the same jobs as men. This then takes the attention away from the real problems within politics, to do with culture and structure, which obstruct women from becoming move involved in politics.

Improving childcare is fundamental to increasing women’s representation within politics. This is evidence of the structural and cultural changes that are necessary for increased representation of women. It is structural as providing universally free childcare would allow many women who cannot presently afford childcare to pursue a career if they want to do so. Furthermore, there is the need for cultural change, as too often women who go to work and do not look after their children are stigmatised. This would allow women more scope to take part in politics, as politics is known for long hours and weeks – as a famous saying goes “a week is a long time in politics”. Related to this is the ability of some women to afford running for political office. This is a problem for men too, as politics is becoming too connected to big money, but as women are far more likely to be in poverty than men and there is the existence of inequalities such as the pay gap, then this is more likely to affect women.

There again, it does depend what you mean by politics. Maybe we should talk about the new social movements, especially associated with feminism, that has resulted in the rise of women in politics? Thus, again there is the need for further classification in debates surrounding women’s representation in politics.

Fawcett society have done a lot of research into women and politics. Whilst I disagree with their support of all-women shortlists, they have provided some valuable research into the discriminatory attitudes that take place (and sometimes sexual harassment) within candidate selections. Thus, the next part to this series, after this introductory blog, will look at research by the Fawcett society into women’s experience in Liberal Democrat parliamentary selections.

For any of you interested in the CI-102 petition, Montana Cowgirl over at Left In the West has posted some very interesting and potentially disturbing info about the folks behind CI-102.  Please check out her post.

Part of me rolls my eyes, and another part of me cringes when I contemplate the premise of “Dollhouse,” Joss Whedon’s new television series for Fox which premieres tonight. Joy Press at Salon sums up the premise of the show: It stars former “Buffy” star Eliza Dushku as Echo, a young woman — known on the [...]

[This is a content summary only. Click on the headline for full links and additional content. Thanks!]