DigiBitch

The Biotic Woman: What the Hell is a Femivore?

Brittany Shoot — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:39:14 -0400

I mentioned over the weekend that I was a little too miffed after reading the terribly myopic piece in the New York Times Magazine last weekend, "The Femivore's Dilemma," to write about it then. The internets move quickly, but I figure a few days late is better than never. Since my time here is quickly drawing to a close, I figured I’d revisit the piece because it really deserves some ecofeminist deconstruction.

First, the obvious: "femivore" is a dumb word. Why? Because it implies a diet of women. The suffix vorous is defined as "feeding on a specified food." As I read it in this case, that would be female humans. Did anyone bother to consider that implication? I don’t find it funny word play, particularly since the article largely centered, without irony, on the idea that humans can continue slaughtering female animals and consuming them and their babies. FWIW, Feminist Philosophers also thought the term was problematic.

I don’t even care that Peggy Orenstein calls the article’s subjects “chicks with chicks,” you know? I get it, or I wouldn’t be writing for a mag/blog called Bitch. But Orenstein says some outright classist crap in roundup of the women who choose to build chicken coops, such as this gem:

Given how conscious (not to say obsessive) everyone has become about the source of their food — who these days can’t wax poetic about compost? — it also confers instant legitimacy.

I don’t know about folks reading this, but I know exactly zero people who can "wax poetic about compost." I’m a freaking vegan, surely among people who are more conscious/obsessive about certain food attributes and environmental issues, and I don’t know anyone who has time for that! Money is time, and I’m short on both. One reason I can afford to be vegan is that I do it on the cheap: beans, legumes, surplus root veggies, rice by the five-pound bag, and olive oil by the five-liter tin. Sometimes—rarely—I grow my own herbs because at least all it takes is a packet of seeds and some dirt. Figuring out where your food comes from takes time and money, but when you remove certain questionable items from your meal plan, you do inevitably opt out of buying those eggs from battery hens, for example. I think that’s legitimate, since we’re throwing around value words.

Reclamation—especially the “feminist” kind (you can decide what that word means to you in this context)—comes around quickly. We all know this. But Orenstein’s article fails to consider just how bizarre this sort of can look from another perspective—say, an older one. Do any of y’all have grandmas who can’t quite figure out why young feminists romanticize canning or knitting? My grams, Charlotte and Bernice, are 85, and 92 next month, respectively, and frankly, they’re bewildered why hip young gals want to crochet for kicks. Bernice—the 92-year-old one—got her Master’s degree decades ago, put my grandpa through graduate school by teaching, and though she eventually stayed home with her own kids, I think she’d honestly be appalled if I chose to be a homemaker. For what it’s worth, I have several close friends who are stay-at-home spouses/parents—and I work from home, which some people seem to misunderstand and equate with being unemployed or a house spouse—so I don’t have scorn for whatever choice works for you. What does bother me is the implication that something we found oppressive seventy-five or even fifty years ago is now suddenly empowering. Context shifts, no doubt, but aren’t we sort of screwing up our own progress by going back and forth on these things?

My pal Shannon/Vegan Burnout has a next level deconstruction of this and claims Ima do one her one better. I think not.

To frame the choice between working a soulless 9-to-5 or building a backyard chicken coop and learning to can tomatoes as the only feminist options is reductive and insulting.

Well said, Shannon. Go read her thoughts too because she breaks this crap down so well. Then tell me why you think urban homesteading is awesome, stupid, or the best option we have right now.

Further reading:

I’m a femivore, and I’m having a dilemma, Rurally Screwed

Please disseminate widely about backyard birds, Eastern Shore Sanctuary Blog

The Biotic Woman: A Conversation About Rewilding with Caroline Fraser

Brittany Shoot — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:00:00 -0500

Ecosystems—systems, mind you—are as much interconnected and interdependent on us as we are on them. It’s a simple premise, but understanding how to mitigate and undo the harm done to the planet by humans is another matter. Caroline Fraser, author of the recently released Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution, says it very simply: "Lose the animals, lose the ecosystem. Lose the ecosystems, game over." It isn't just pollution that can be solved by riding a bicycle; exponential population growth, destructive agricultural practices, and the widespread extinction of countless species of native animals are all critical environmental issues that demand the attention of young activists, perhaps moreso than any other issue. And yet, there are so many hopeful examples of people doing just that: responding with the determination and clarity needed to address the growing list of problems our generation faces.

You’ve really got to read Caroline Fraser's book to get the full scope of the problem—and the myriad solutions—so hopefully this will whet your appetite for more. An extraordinarily gifted writer and thinker, she recently spoke with me about rewilding, biodiversity, and the pitfalls of modern agriculture.

How has modern agriculture and livestock breeding disrupted natural habitats?

The conversion of land to industrial-scale farming and livestock breeding has probably done more to destroy ecosystems than any other form of human land use. To take just a few examples: the Great Plains of North America have largely fallen to huge monoculture farms and cattle ranching, and the same fate recently befell the unique tropical grasslands of South America, as Brazil converted over eighty percent of that ecosystem to soybeans, cotton, sugar, and other crops. The Amazon is now meeting that same fate. In Australia, huge areas of the western third of the continent were plowed under to grow wheat, despite the fact that the aridity of the region—and salt deposits in the soil—argued against it.

While people have benefited from lower prices and easier access to food, researchers are now discovering that we pay a steep price for monoculture and industrial meat production: climate stability has been undermined by the shift from native vegetation (proven to encourage cloud formation in some areas) to non-native crops; dead zones have appeared in the oceans caused by a heavy reliance on fertilizers and pesticides; and water quality and availability has been drastically affected, both by run-off of pollutants and diversion of water to agriculture.

It was astonishing to see the ancient, traditional forms of agriculture still being practiced in Romania, at least in villages like Şinca Nouă, where I visited biologists who are trying to encourage farmers to stay with the old ways. While the lifestyle is physically demanding, the villagers I met scything in the hay fields and pasturing their cattle seemed to be enjoying their lives, and they seemed connected to a place in ways that few Americans are. They’ve had to change relatively little to bring their agricultural methods in line with organic EU standards. Now they’re receiving higher prices for their produce while benefiting from cultural tourism and ecotourism. It seemed like a model that might well prove successful in other towns in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

What are some of the challenges at the intersection of poverty relief and biological conservation?

A Kenyan biologist named Joseph Kirathe once told me, “Working with communities is very tricky.” Conservation hasn’t always done a good job of combining its own goals with human aid. But I think a lot has been learned over the past decade or so. Some projects seem to be turning a corner, finding ways to respect the rights and autonomy of native people while offering them real incentives to practice land management that achieves conservation. Finding ways to reduce poaching—the multi-million illegal trafficking in wildlife products that has nearly wiped out rhinos in Africa and tigers in Asia—has been particularly difficult.

One country, Namibia, has found a way to attack the problem by granting communities the right to form wildlife “conservancies,” legal entities that grant rights and responsibilities. The conservancy members themselves act as law-enforcement on their own land; in return, they receive the limited right to hunt for meat, harvest native plants, and sell lucrative hunting permits, reaping the rewards of ecotourism. So far, communities have seen significant tourism revenues, and some species—including black rhino—have bounced back.

What are some of the ways everyday people can be involved in conservation?

People can contribute enormously to conservation. Here in Santa Fe, where I live, volunteers are helping local groups plant native species of cottonwood and willow trees along the banks of the severely-degraded Santa Fe River, kids are helping to remove invasive species, and we’re seeing incredible gains in some areas: beavers are returning, the riverbanks are stabilizing, and people are starting to see the potential recreational and tourism benefits. And it looks so much better—like a living river instead of a dead ditch!

In the UK, one university is encouraging gardeners to form interconnected habitat networks out of their backyards: planting native species, putting in nest-boxes, and tending backyard ponds. Backyard gardens and hedgerows provide valuable connectivity for wildlife and stopover-spots for birds; in the British city of Leeds, private gardens cover some thirty percent of the urban area.

When it comes to predators, try to calm irrational fears and phobias: do everything you can to support predator reintroduction and protection. Those top species—wolves, bears, mountain lions—are critical to maintaining functional ecosystems for everyone.

Perhaps the most powerful thing we can do is realize how important ecosystems are and how dependent we are on them. We cannot live without them: ecosystem services are now estimated to be worth $2-5 trillion dollars a year. In the film Avatar, the researcher played by Sigourney Weaver says slightingly of Earth, “There's no green there. They killed their Mother.” We have every reason in the world—economic, political, aesthetic, moral—not to let that happen.

Photo from factory takeover

The Biotic Woman: Ecopsychology

Brittany Shoot — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:02:14 -0500

This weekend, the New York Times Magazine—a publication I admittedly adore—asked what I consider to be a very simple question: “Is There An Ecological Unconscious?” The story opened with details about coal mining—fwiw, the profession of my great grandparents—but quickly moved on to the psychological aspects of ecological concern.

While I’m pleased by the piece and thrilled that concepts like ecopsychology, solastalgia, and rewilding (a topic that will soon be featured in this space via the work of Caroline Fraser) could be introduced to such a wide audience, I also wonder why the idea of ecological and psychological unity is novel. Shouldn’t it be apparent that the destruction of one’s home—the fact that many people around the world are forced to witness and survive the demolition of their communities and lives—would become a larger, collective problem as people en masse prepare for and deal with climate-related catastrophes?

This isn’t a new phenomenon; the article glosses over the ways that indigenous communities have long been the ones to bear the brunt of this problem. Even today, some of the most overlooked areas of the world—low-lying island nations like the Maldives and coastal regions in Bangladesh, to name a few—continue to face the biggest challenges associated with climate change and environmental degradation, and some groups are at unusually high risk of becoming climate refugees. Mass displacement sure seems like a cause for widespread grief, if not outright psychosis.

I get that major publications aren’t going to jump on what they consider to be a fringe movement or issue until it gains some popular support. But what always bothers me about these write-ups is that someone with publishing clout has the authority to finally decide that the topic is worth exploring. It reminds me of guys like Jonathan Safran Foer or Matthew Scully, who suddenly have an epiphany about eating meat or animal welfare and want to tell everyone (at least, when it’s politically convenient). Problem is, women have been working on these issues for decades without the recognition that comes from high-profile book deals or NYT Mag write-ups. Should we be thankful when these issues are covered by mainstream media or annoyed that our work has once again been relegated to the margins of the larger movement?

Further reading:

Aftershock: Confronting Trauma in a Violent World: A Guide for Activists and Their Allies by pattrice jones (whose work will also be explored in this space in the coming weeks)

Photo from factory takeover

The Biotic Woman: Reclaiming "Cow"

Brittany Shoot — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:59:57 -0500

If you’re reading the Bitch blog, chances are you’ve decided that you aren’t too terribly offended by the b-word. But what about the c-word? In contemplating the state of modern environmental issues and food politics, I’m thinking that it might be time to reclaim the big C—cow. We human animals have more in common with our bovine friends than we think, and I for one think it’s kind of cool to be compared to a cow, an unusually sturdy but gentle animal. I’m not a religious person, but as many folks know, there’s an argument for cattle respect there too. What’s not to like about any of those things?

In modern factory farming, there are all sorts of reasons to be offended on behalf of cows. The environmental degradation caused by large-scale farming deserves its own post, if not series of articles, and gives the livestock that we breed a very bad name. Widespread bovine growth hormone use has far-reaching effects for both animals and humans. Mothers and babies—hens and their chicks, cows and their calves—are regularly and prematurely separated in most animal production facilities. Sick or injured animals are sometimes left to languish without care for days or weeks. But in thinking about reclaiming the word cow—and animal abuse on the whole—as a feminist issue, I’ve started to wonder if it isn’t the practice of forced artificial insemination—the process that enables most of our dairy milk production—that will most resonate.

It’s tough to find a feminist who does not, in some way, crave reproductive justice. We’re quick to decry our barbaric history of forced sterilization of women of color. Almost every woman I know, even if they never intend on having an abortion, wants it to remain legal and available. Everyone has some sort of opinion on Octomom Nadya Suleman. So why do we blindly accept that in order to consume dairy products, we participate in an exploitative system of forced pregnancy? Because another species is the target rather than human females?

Imagine my surprise that last week, ABC’s World News Tonight and Nightline both ran feature exposes on the dairy industry. While the actual information revealed is horrifying, I’m always pleased to see supposedly “fringe” issues like animal welfare (dare I say animal rights?) considered by a mainstream news outlet. Both pieces featured dairy farming footage from Mercy for Animals, and for the sake of reducing our own human trauma, I’m not embedding the video here. I’m not someone who needs to watch more horrific footage of animal abuse; I’m convinced of my own truth and avoid graphic imagery in the interest of caring for my own empathic photographic mind. On the other hand, if you’ve never seen footage of cattle abuse or need to be reminded of the barbarism of factory farming, you can follow the link to watch the videos. Watch for the man elbow-deep in the cow, impregnating her. Or just think about that sentence for a while.

As Ryan of The Veg Blog said, “These dairy cows are not naturally pregnant and happily giving their milk to us. We’re raping them, confining them, and then stealing the milk meant for their offspring, all so we can have our next hit of cheese.”

And because I do my best to have solidarity with humans and non-human animals alike, I’m trying to reclaim “cow,” along with other gendered animal nicknames. Just because the cows are here because of us doesn’t give us the right to use and abuse them.

Further reading:

Farm Kind by Harold Brown, a former dairy farmer turned animal rights activist

Making Farms Friendlier: Watchdogs Expose Myth Behind “Humane” Food Labeling by Michelle Chen, The WIP

Subscribe to Bitch and win!

Kjerstin Johnson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:25:11 -0500

We're thrilled that we're moving towards our goal of 600 subscriptions by February 1st. But we're not there yet. Help keep Bitch Media strong by subscribing today, and get the "Old Issue" (preview the cover here!) at the "old" price of just $19.95.

And speaking of $19.95, we'd like to quote the late, great Billy Mays: “That’s not all!”

If you subscribe/renew now you’ll be eligible to win a fabulous Bitch prize pack, complete with a chance to make your own BitchTapes mix for the website AND a snazzy Bitch tote bag! So what are you waiting for?

Subscribe! Renew! Give a gift subscription! Do it online or dial 1-877-21-BITCH today. And please do it by February 1, so you can help us reach our goal of 600 new subscribers. Then cut a piece of celebratory pie for doing your part to keep independent-feminist media strong.

The Biotic Woman: Talking to Ruby Roth

Brittany Shoot — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:16:53 -0500

You don’t have to be a full time animal rights activist to spread the good word about healthy food, climate change, and women’s and children’s rights. Ruby Roth, author and illustrator of the recently released That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals: A Book About Vegans, Vegetarians, and All Living Things, recently spoke to me about her woman-friendly artwork and why children are smarter than people often think.

What was the inspiration for That's Why We Don't Eat Animals? What made you decide to write about veg*nism and animals for such a young audience?

In 2003, I went vegan as a health experiment and it was like taking off a heavy jacket and starting to run. The more I learned about food, animals, climate change, and our food and health industries, the more the choice was validated. Fast forward, I was teaching art at an elementary school and the kids were all curious about my veganism. Little by little, and very matter-of-factly, I shared my reasons and they responded with incredible insight. Many kids wanted to go vegan, but there was no support system in their schools or homes. I looked, but couldn’t find a book on the subject that wasn’t based on a talking animal or vegetable-which I felt they were too smart for. So I decided to create a supportive book myself.

Was it difficult to find a publisher for a political children's book?

Yes, and I’m working on replacing the forest of trees that were my rejection letters. Everyone thought it was too subversive a subject for children–even though there are nations of vegan and vegetarian families. I realized there is a pervasive notion about children–that smallness equals frailty, which I find insulting to the astuteness I witnessed with my students. Lucky for me, North Atlantic Books and Random House saw the relevance and timeliness of the subject and had the backbone to move forward.

Your adult line of art focuses primarily on the feminine form. Do you consider your work to be feminist?

In its making, my art is certainly pro-women in that I celebrate a wide range of bodies, from 80-something-year-old figure models to thick-legged pin-up queens. Drawing female figures, especially from life, has been greatly empowering because it has given me an appreciation for all kinds of bodies and has helped me reconcile with and love my own scars and imprints leftover from thirteen years in a back-brace for scoliosis. I hope that sense of love for the body comes through in my work, whether it’s manifested in a sketch of a stripper or a wrinkled old woman.

However, in its taking, I don’t aim for my art to be read by the viewer any one way. I hope for people to love my art because they connect with it somehow, whether it’s because they understand the girl walking the tightrope, or because they think the burlesque queen is super sexy, or because they feel empowered by a portrait of unconventional beauty. A gymnast once bought a print because she loved how it celebrated big calves and cut shoulders, things she never felt good about having. A guy friend of mine hung the same image in his house because he loved the subject’s big butt and near-nakedness. Go figure.

For you, what is the relationship between feminism and animal rights?

They go hand-in-hand, both being vehicles of cultural critique and ultimately self-determination. If you call yourself a feminist but you eat animals, there is a good chance you have not yet examined the sexual politics of eating meat, let alone how we allow our well-being, our health, and our physical body to be determined by the interests of certain food and chemical industry leaders. Also, you may not yet truly know how animals suffer impossible atrocities without rights, just as slaves and Holocaust victims did. As liberal as I was, I would have arrived at veganism sooner, by the way, if the American Studies program at UC Santa Cruz (a mecca for vegans and Women’s Studies) had included food as a subject we turned our race-class-gender-sexuality-lenses onto, right alongside history, culture, labor, music, politics, etc. It is incredibly hypocritical to be an activist for freedom or civil rights or equity or equality if you eat animals today. To me, a meat-eating feminist and a meat-eating environmentalist are more alike than they are unlike.

The Biotic Woman: Strays and Breeders Edition

Brittany Shoot — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:05:40 -0500

It’s been a tough year for feminist sensitivity in South Carolina’s elected ranks. During a press conference last summer, Governor Mark Sanford declared, while occasionally shedding tears, that a woman other than his wife was his soulmate. For what it's worth, Jenny Sanford has since filed for divorce, upending the “stand by your man” stance of many political wives, and is working on a memoir.

But last Friday’s comments by Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer take the proverbial cruelty cake for thoughtlessly conflating the suffering of people and animals, victim-blaming during the recession, threatening those on government assistance with unnecessary and unrelated stipulations to receiving their benefits, and using sexual shaming tactics and mocking decision-making abilities that he conflated with willpower, age and intelligence. You thought Sanford did a number on his whole family and his state with his public confession? He could learn a lesson in heartlessness from Bauer, who said, in part:

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

The entire audio from this appalling speech can be heard in the YouTube video below.

Bauer’s comments came as part of his argument that government benefits should be taken from those who fail drug tests or don't attend parent-teacher conferences or PTA meetings. I’m all for parental involvement in the schools, but further penalizing people scraping by on government assistance because they don’t have time to go wrangle with other PTA moms is absurd and wildly out of touch. He also equated low test scores with schools that provide free or reduced-fee lunches, which directs blame at all of the wrong institutions and systemic problems. Perhaps most problematically, he moves without irony from complaining about government assistance rewarding “bad behavior” to fretting about “babies having babies.” Is he upset about welfare or teen pregnancy? Why so many judgment values? Why conflate personal choices with tough economic times?

[Aside: does Bauer think Gov. Sanford should have thought further than his own attempts at breeding? Or is Sanford off the hook for his sexual transgressions because he’s a wealthy, well-educated white dude? Sanford’s “bad behavior” arguably cost the state more in wasted time and resources than government assistance programs, but I digress.]

What does this have to do with ecofeminism? Predictably, some liberal and progressive blogs have seized on Bauer’s statements in the same ways I have, but no one bothers to call out the most basic issue here: that comparing people to animals is a strange, inconsistent insult that devalues all living beings. Many people would argue that in fact we are all animals—human animals. Why assistance for necessities like food would be treated as a way to speak down to others is more confusing than anything—we all need help now and then—and no doubt the history of using animalistic insults towards people of color and low-income people is lost on Bauer.

The other problem I have with this argument is about the closeness of need and how we care for so-called “strays.” What is it about getting too close to someone else’s pain? Is it that you’re afraid you’ll end up caring too much, or is it that once you come within a certain proximity, you become (self-imposed or otherwise) “responsible” for others? As I see it, you do become responsible. You are charged with the knowledge of suffering, and the moral and ethical choices about how you will use this knowledge. Bauer contends that if you feed a stray, it will return. But why is a system of care and support so widely disparaged? So what if a stray animal or person returns? “Stray” implies impulsivity, rootlessness, lost. I’d argue a stray person or animal acts on perfectly rational instinct to go towards food, shelter, community.

Bauer, who has “a reputation for reckless and immature behavior” according to the Associated Press, issued a non-apology on Monday that included the sentiment: “I wish I’d used a different metaphor.” I’ll take it one step further. I think he oughta stick to talking about issues he understands and leave the metaphors out of it entirely until his level of awareness of intersecting issues catches up with his prominence in state politics.

Photo credit Brad Warthen's blog

The Biotic Woman: Intro to ecofeminism

Brittany Shoot — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:46:14 -0500

ecofeminism, noun: a philosophical and political movement that combines ecological concerns with feminist ones, regarding both as resulting from male domination in society

With “green” being all the rage the last few years, it’s no wonder environmental issues have become so mainstream. But media savvy and socially responsible feminists know that environmentalism and ecofeminism are not new ideas, even as many of the relationships between the planet and women’s rights become more salient as the earth warms and we suffer the effects. Bitch has always been keen to deconstruct naked PETA advertisements and sexual meat metaphors. To continue some of that analysis and add a whole mess of my own, I’ll be blogging here about ecofeminist issues—an admittedly wide range of topics that will incorporate many ideas about the planet, animals, and feminism, and the relationship between the subjugation of all three.

To me, ecofeminism is not a rigid belief system but instead incorporates many aspects of feminist activism under one environmentally conscious umbrella. For me, a large part of that work is veg*nism, by which I mean either vegetarianism (which I used to practice) or veganism (which I currently practice) or some combination of the two. Admittedly, I don’t see much disconnect between environmental issues, feminism, and animal rights issues (not to be confused with animal welfare, which I’ll discuss in another post).

I appreciate that many of these ideas have been circulating in feminist and/or lesbian communities for decades, and I’m so pleased to continue to learn from those who came before me. The myriad communities fighting gendered and speciesist injustice and environmental degradation are widespread. Indigenous women in communities of the Global South are living the extreme and often horrific results of global warming and are working to make this reality understood. The recent crisis in Haiti is a stark reminder of how much environmental issues are so closely linked to everyday survival. In the United States and Canada, rural women have also been longtime leaders in environmental feminist movements, and as someone with a family background rooted in rural poverty, I’m excited to explore that history as well. Despite this well-documented past—and much like other schools of thought or ideological labels I’ve embraced over the years—an ecofeminist model made sense to me long before I knew there was a word to describe it.

I’m someone who values firsthand experience, which is admittedly ironic since when I write I often ask my readers to take my word for something. Personally, videos, photos, and even horrible stories are only so effective without the real world counterpart. It can be easy to shut out facts removed from your own experience, but it’s much harder when you’ve met people living with the damaging effects of climate change, or you’ve spent an afternoon with an abused sheep who decides to trust you anyway. As a writer and journalist based in Copenhagen, I live in an unusually eco-friendly city and had the pleasure of meeting some of the women at the forefront of the environmental movement during COP15 last month. Before I moved to Denmark, I lived in Boston and volunteered at a small farm animal sanctuary outside of town, which was where so many of these issues finally crystallized in my mind. For me, all of this is a practice, a journey. I accept that I can always do more and make imperfect decisions along the way, and I don’t believe in monolithic definitions of most things. Environmentalism and veg*nism are certainly two diverse sets of beliefs, though I do hope they often overlap.

In the next weeks, I’ll be looking at a variety of intersecting issues including the human cost of chocolate, the use of fur in northern climates and indigenous cultures, soy and soybean farming, nuclear power’s environmental effects, ideas for carbon-free transit, the links between racism and animal oppression, and how you can be a pro-choice vegan. I’ll deconstruct and highlight ecofeminist issues in the news, like today’s New York Times editorial about Big Food. I’ll also be looking to a lot of female and feminist leaders on environmental and animal rights issues and featuring their words hopefully even more than my own. I’m looking forward to critically engaging in these issues, receiving your feedback and comments, and learning from the Bitch community!

Photo from Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, first posted on factory takeover.

Douchebag Decree: Special Two for One Edition

Malori Maloney — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:28:25 -0500

Every now and then there are just too many d-bags committing too many acts of douchebaggery to pick just one. Plus there's the whole 'is-this-person-alone-even-worth-blogging-about' question to reckon with. But hey, that's why god invented the Special Two for One Edition, right? Here goes...

We begin with Pat Robertson, infamous host of The 700 Club, whose predictably offensive take on the disastrous 7.0 earthquake in Haiti puts him at the top of today's list. In order to explain the tragedy, Robertson cited the people of Haiti, saying,

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.
But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle, on the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island.
They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.

Watch the clip below:

Uh huh. Well thanks for that insight, Pat.

Hey, remember a few years back when that loony fringe-religious-conservative dude blamed Hurricane Katrina on abortion? Yeah, same guy. Enough said.

Meanwhile, please consider donating to MercyCorps or another similar organization to aid in disaster relief.

In other d-bag news, Fox News correspondent and commentator Tucker Carlson launched conservative website The Daily Caller on Monday. On the first day of the site's existence, readers met (or perhaps, were reacquainted with) Matt Labash in an aptly titled column called 'Ask Matt Labash.' In the inaugural Q and A sesh for The DC, Labash succeeds at offending a great range of demographics with his clever, clever brand of humor. He begins by introducing himself,

For those unfamiliar with me from my day job at The Weekly Standard, I’ll give you a capsule bio by way of introduction: I have the gift of wisdom. Does that sound arrogant? I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intention. I didn’t choose wisdom. It chose me. If I had my druthers, I’d have chosen another gift, perhaps the untold riches of Lil’ Wayne, whose teeth are made of actual diamonds, or to be the sexiest man alive, like Rachel Maddow.

Get it? Because Rachel Maddow is gay! Aka, a man! ROFL, right? Ok, just wait, it gets better.

When asked what fly fishing and dating have in common, Labash responds,

Both involve the excitement of the chase. Both require skill and cunning. Both involve making effective presentations, so that the pursuer can get the pursued to take something firmly in its mouth before it has a chance to spit it out. Finally, being successful at either will probably require you to wash your hands afterwards.

Zomg, this guy! Referring to a sexual partner as 'it'? Playfully referencing sexual assault? I sure hope he's getting paid well for this because he deserves it! Yuk yuk yuk. *sigh*

Maybe the real kicker is his straight-up rape joke. Responding to 'AJ,' who asks Labash what three government programs he would eliminate, he lists 'legalized rape' at number two:

Legalized rape. What’s that you say? Rape isn’t sanctioned in this country? Then you must not live in a city with red-light or speed cameras, where it happens every day. Forget for a second that in one-fourth of all automated ticket cases, the ticketed car owner wasn’t the one actually driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction (what other crime-fighting technology do we consider reliable that nabs the wrong person 25 percent of the time?) Just as heinous is that every year, more and more municipal governments pretend that they plant these all-seeing menaces in the interest of “safety.” Yet every year, their revenues tend to increase from the very same technology. Meaning that the only deterrent effect the technology has is deterring your government from being honest about raping its own citizenry. If you’re going to slide me a roofie, Government, at least take me to dinner and a movie first.

I have no words for that one.

Adventures in Feministory: Doria Shafiq

Sara Reihani — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:19:18 -0500

Doria Shafiq: Egyptian feminist, activist, author, poet... and probably someone you've never heard of. UNTIL NOW! Shafiq worked tirelessly before and after the Egyptian Revolution to secure equality for women in the context of an Islamic society; her strong feminist consciousness converged with her country’s surge of nationalism to create radical change for Egyptian women in a short period of time.

Born in provincial town of Tanta, Doria Shafiq grew up in a modest, traditional middle-class Muslim family. The reformers of the 1920s and 1920s had expanded educational opportunities for women, and Shafiq took advantage of these opportunities. She was sent to the Sorbonne University on an Egyptian government scholarship; in 1940, she received her Ph.D in philosophy with honors at the age of 29.

Upon returning to Egypt, she applied to teach at Cairo University but was rejected because of her gender. Instead, she became an editor of a journal published by the Daughters of the Nile Union, a women’s liberation movement founded in the late 1940s. The journal was an important part of the DNU’s ongoing mission to educate Egyptian women. In addition to writing for an editing the magazine, Shafiq worked tirelessly as an activist. She stormed onto the public stage in February 1951, when she led a crowd of 1500 women to break into a session of Parliament and demand that the council take action on women’s issues. A week later, the council granted Egyptian women the right to vote and run for political office.

Shafiq’s propensity for direct confrontation and aggressive campaigning propelled the DNU into greater prominence in Egyptian politics during the turbulent years before and after the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. When British army units occupied the Suez Canal in 1951, Shafiq led the DNU in a boycott and protest of the British-owned Barclays Bank in Cairo. She also organized a paramilitary group of women to fight against the British army units on the Suez Canal and to provide medical assistance.

After the revolution, she successfully campaigned to have the DNU recognized as an official political party – Egypt’s first political party with an openly feminist agenda. She traveled the world to speak about the rights of Arab women with leaders from Egypt, India, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran and audiences in Europe, the US and the Middle East.

In 1957, she organized and participated in an eight-day hunger strike to protest the populist regime of General Abdel Nasser. In response, he sentenced her to house arrest. For 18 years, Shafiq lived in the seclusion of her home in Cairo, writing for the Daughters of the Nile magazine, composing several books of poetry, memoirs, and translating the Koran into English and French. She continued to produce work until 1975, when she threw herself off her balcony to her death. General Nasser had her name barred from all Egyptian texts and had most of her original documents destroyed. Very few have survived.