RSS | Archive | Random

About

This is the Tumblr for Cand86, a.k.a. Gwen, just a crazy girl who spends far too much time online.


This is the tumblr for my as-of-lately rarely updated blog, Pop Shot, a simpler place for me to drop off all the random thoughts in my brain and a dumping ground for every one of the amazing things I happen to find whilst meandering on the Internet- pictures, videos, songs, quotes, and websites that would otherwise languish in folders or on my browser's Favorites bar until I felt I could organize and post them "properly". Enjoy the unorganized mess!

Ask Me Anything

Following

16 July 14

I dunno, I just can’t seem to get all that upset about Renee Elmer’s supposedly controversial statement … if you listen to it in full context, she’s arguing for the belief that the political is personal, and that you can’t divorce policy from people’s lives and experiences, especially women, who are disproportionately helped or hurt by governmental policy (or lack thereof).

Telling Republican male politicians to stop talking in grandiose abstract ideas and start dealing in the real, complex lives that women lead is a good thing.

11 June 14
quietly-creeping:

pandorasprings:

a whole study asking the important questions

(transcription of the abstract)
Despite the popular belief that feminists dislike men, few studies have actually examined the empirical accuracy of this stereotype. The present study examined self-identified feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men. An ethnically diverse sample (N = 488) of college students responded to statements from the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999). Contrary to popular beliefs, feminists reported lower levels of hostility toward men than did nonfeminists. The persistence of the myth of the man-hating feminist is explored.
*places hands on chin* Hmm, would you look at that.

Completely unsurprising, of course … I mean, look: there is a lot of harm done by men and by the institutions that are controlled by men, and it’s pretty hard to pretend that’s not the case.  So you then have two options: either you embrace the majority feminist viewpoint* that society and the patriarchy creates these problems, or you must concede that men, by dint of simply being men, are evil/violent/etc..  Clearly one of these is going to breed hostility, and it ain’t the feminist one.
* Excluding the minority of Valerie Solanas-types.

quietly-creeping:

pandorasprings:

a whole study asking the important questions

(transcription of the abstract)

Despite the popular belief that feminists dislike men, few studies have actually examined the empirical accuracy of this stereotype. The present study examined self-identified feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men. An ethnically diverse sample (N = 488) of college students responded to statements from the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999). Contrary to popular beliefs, feminists reported lower levels of hostility toward men than did nonfeminists. The persistence of the myth of the man-hating feminist is explored.

*places hands on chin* Hmm, would you look at that.

Completely unsurprising, of course … I mean, look: there is a lot of harm done by men and by the institutions that are controlled by men, and it’s pretty hard to pretend that’s not the case.  So you then have two options: either you embrace the majority feminist viewpoint* that society and the patriarchy creates these problems, or you must concede that men, by dint of simply being men, are evil/violent/etc..  Clearly one of these is going to breed hostility, and it ain’t the feminist one.

* Excluding the minority of Valerie Solanas-types.

Reblogged: asfadedasmyjeans

18 May 14

The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service

image

I read The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service after I’d already responded to bebinn’s call to expand her reading list on abortion.  But boy, oh boy, would I recommend it heartily to anybody and everybody.

I’ll go right out and admit it- while I’ve always believed it’s incredibly important for stories of pre-Roe illegal abortions to be shared and widely disseminated, I’ve tended to pass over collections of such in favor of books with current discussions about abortion as it exists today.  I mean, yes, those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it, but once you’ve got the general gist- it was awful, women died, whole wings of hospitals were able to close after Roe- what more is there, really?

I’m glad I didn’t let that attitude dissuade me when this title caught my eye on the library shelf.  And perhaps that’s just it- The Story of Jane is about illegal abortion, but unlike most of the other stories, for once, the illegal abortionists are not the villains, but the heroines.  The tales are, for the most part, happy rather than sad.  And perhaps most promisingly, the tale told within deviates from the standard, tragic narrative of women’s helplessness and exploitation during abortion’s criminalization, instead presenting the reader with one of action, pragmatic efficacy, and yes, empowerment.

The title of the book promises exactly what’s inside: the story (told by one of the members, with information and quotes supplemented by interviews of other members) of an underground abortion service named “Jane” that ran in Chicago in the years leading up to Roe v. Wade.  But unlike the shady, fly-by-night illegal abortionists who still live in the public consciousness at best as opportunistic criminals and at worst as butchers, Jane was a non-profit, ideological feminist organization with two goals in mind: to help women access safe and empowering abortion, and by doing so, raise her feminist consciousness.

It felt almost alien to read about, to be quite frank.  I’m used to abortion as a feminist discussion- we talk a lot about bodily autonomy and control and the full complexity of women’s lives and the misogyny rampant in the anti-abortion movement.  But of course, the feminism of the early 70’s looked a lot different than it does today, too.  And so it is so striking to read about the approaches Jane took- consciousness-raising discussions in the waiting room, strictly demanding at least some payment (even as they subsidized the remainder) with the understanding that doing so put the woman in charge of her decision, strongly insisting that women were obligated to pay it forward to their sisters if they had the means, that the women of Jane were risking arrest to help her and so she too had debts to pay to womenkind.

Now there’s something you won’t find in most abortion counseling sessions today.

Indeed, there’s something intensely disturbing to realize you’re reading a book about illegal abortion and longing for those days … but of course, that longing is really to have the sort of effect these women did.  Uniquely situated in secrecy due to its illegal nature (albeit amidst police who looked the other way and doctors who agreed to provide post-abortion care), Jane was able to create quite a different operation to anything existing then or now.  As the only reputable place to get an abortion in the city, everybody but the ultra-wealthy (able to fly out of country or, later on, to New York) were forced to co-mingle and witness firsthand the universality of their experience- sitting in rooms as they were with women of various races, ages, and socioeconomic backgrounds.  Beholden to no hospital (and certainly no HMO or other modern care network), the women of Jane were free to intertwine feminist messages of empowerment with their abortion provision.  And with their locations secret, there were no protesters there to harass and inflict shame and judgment.  Unlike other social justice work whose problems seemed insurmountable, whose labor frustratingly bore little short-term fruit, or that required placement in positions of power to effect change, Jane was immediate and direct.  You needed no qualifications to join but someone to vouch for your trustworthiness, training was on the job and hands-on, and every single woman who left no longer pregnant was a concrete example of the good they had done, a crisis conquered.  And as their own collective, the women who eventually came to provide the abortions could create their own standards of care, which included pre-abortion counseling, warm kindness, detailed explanations of what was happening at each step, making the woman a participant in the procedure rather than someone “having something done to her”, contraception counseling, and even offering other well-woman services near the end.  To put that in perspective, one of the women, a patient who later joined Jane, explained that she called her boyfriend afterwards to tell him “I can’t believe I’ve just had the best medical experience of my life, and it was an illegal abortion.”

The Story of Jane is the product of it’s time- it’s difficult for someone as young as I am to keep in mind that while certainly changing, the 1970’s was still a time before patient’s rights, patient-oriented care, and easy accessibility to medical information by laypeople.  The vast majority of doctors were men acting as medical gatekeepers- and in an era only beginning to burgeon with the idea of women’s liberation.  After Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, the book notes, a few Jane members attempted to work on the legal side of abortion provision and most found it untenable; the cold, clinical attitude and strict insistence on maintaining a barrier between doctor and patient-as-object-to-be-acted-on turned them off.  It really speaks, I think, to the revolutionary nature of Jane- if it were only about the abortions, Jane members should have been able to slide seamlessly into the new, legal system.

Obviously, some things have gotten better in that regard (interestingly enough, rather than moving to a more holistic approach to remedy the problem, we seem to have simply compartmentalized: doctor plus the addition of abortion doula, but that’s a discussion for another time), but I still think that The Story of Jane will be inspirational food for thought for anybody interested in reproductive healthcare.  And while I doubt many abortion providers today can achieve what Jane did- particularly in this political climate where even keeping a clinic open can be a challenge in some states- it should be our goal.

Read this book.  I urge you.  Not only is it meaningful and important, but it’s also incredibly well-written and engrossing and difficult to put down, too.  It reinvigorated so many of my interests- reproductive healthcare, abortion, feminism, activism- through the sheer hope it offers.  At a time when the future of Roe v. Wade is tenuous, when the past was tragic and we may well be hurtling backwards towards it, when the work feels like a stop-gap measure, I think it can really help to hear a feel-good story about women who took matters into their own hands and created something amazing.  At least it did for me.

7 April 14
I found it, guys.  The epitome of #solidarityisforwhitewomen, as evinced by Jezebel commenter TexasTexasTexas.
Jezebel is supposed to be a website for women … just not women of color, apparently.

I found it, guys.  The epitome of #solidarityisforwhitewomen, as evinced by Jezebel commenter TexasTexasTexas.

Jezebel is supposed to be a website for women … just not women of color, apparently.

11 March 14
Sometimes I really, really, really hate atheists.  And I’m one of them!  Or maybe I just hate most atheist activists who are men?  This showed up on my Twitter feed from AtheistWorld (charmingly captioned “Dear Women”), re-tweeted by Religulous.
I did find something happy-making in my anger, though: PINK magazine’s article “I Am Not A Terrorist” profiled Anousheh Ansari, the world’s first private female astronaut, and a Muslim woman.  From the snippet:

"Space was always the ultimate goal," says Anousheh Ansari, who calls her faith "a never-ending source of knowledge and inspiration."

I’m the first person to point out how sexist and misogynistic religion often is (and let me make clear that I’m in no way accepting the premise that the niqab is inherently or always either of those), but can we please fucking stop acting like all religion leads to female oppression (or that the lack thereof never has and never does)?
Edited to add a picture of said awesome lady astronaut, particularly as a palate cleanser to the above:

Sometimes I really, really, really hate atheists.  And I’m one of them!  Or maybe I just hate most atheist activists who are men?  This showed up on my Twitter feed from AtheistWorld (charmingly captioned “Dear Women”), re-tweeted by Religulous.

I did find something happy-making in my anger, though: PINK magazine’s article “I Am Not A Terrorist” profiled Anousheh Ansari, the world’s first private female astronaut, and a Muslim woman.  From the snippet:

"Space was always the ultimate goal," says Anousheh Ansari, who calls her faith "a never-ending source of knowledge and inspiration."

I’m the first person to point out how sexist and misogynistic religion often is (and let me make clear that I’m in no way accepting the premise that the niqab is inherently or always either of those), but can we please fucking stop acting like all religion leads to female oppression (or that the lack thereof never has and never does)?

Edited to add a picture of said awesome lady astronaut, particularly as a palate cleanser to the above:

13 February 14

I discovered that TED and TEDWomen have never featured a talk on abortion.

…When I asked around, the consensus was that the omission was simply an oversight. But it turns out TED is deliberately keeping abortion off the agenda. When asked for comment, TED content director and TEDWomen co-host Kelly Stoetzel said that abortion did not fit into their focus on “wider issues of justice, inequality and human rights.”

“Abortion is more of a topical issue we wouldn’t take a position on, any more than we’d take a position on a state tax bill,” Stoetzel explained. She pointed me to a few talks on women’s health and birth control, but this made the refusal to discuss abortion only more glaring. In the last three years, the United States has seen more abortion restrictions enacted than in the entire previous decade; the United Nations has classified the lack of access to abortion as torture; and Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland because a Catholic hospital refused to end her doomed pregnancy. Just how is abortion not an issue of “justice, inequality and human rights”?

The Empowerment Elite Claims Feminism, my latest at The Nation (via jessicavalenti)

Was Diana Whitten’s talk one of the “two TEDx events [that ] have [covered abortion], but these local, independently organized conferences are not conducted under the auspices of TED”?

Reblogged: jessicavalenti

11 February 14

Reblogged: sunny-burn

19 December 13
8 October 13

underhuntressmoon:

lustyloveylady:

dawningofnovelty:

catbountry:

littlecatlady:

allthingsinsidious:

I found this book in a pile of things my grandma planned to give away, and read it. At first glance it looks like a positive, empowering book on becoming a stronger woman by overcoming social stigmas. It’s not, by any means. Most of the things I’ve underlined are what the writer claims to be lies. With the exception of the last two photos, where she says things she believes to be ‘truths that will set you free’. Please, just read the captions for yourself.

Anyway, I was just wondering. Should I burn the book and post pictures of the ashes?

wow

That’s terrifying.

googled her name, found out shes a jesus freak. figures.

^^^As soon as I read the submit thing, I guessed as much.

I found this on my bookmobile :/ Hopefully I can get a chance to switch it out for something better.

This is by no means new for anybody aware of complementarianism and/or conservative or fundamentalist Christianity, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important to keep on pointing it out.

It’s never just “Men and women are both special, but different in God’s eyes!” … it’s literally teaching women that having rights is a lie society tells them.

(Source: princessreliant)

Reblogged: underhuntressmoon

25 April 13
antichoicescreencraps:

An anti-choice graphic.

Reducing us to our reproductive capacities even in fucking utero.
Like, I just don’t understand what this stupid poster is trying to say.  That female fetuses require forced pregnancy because they’ve got reproductive cells already in them?   And I guess the slaughter of boy fetuses can start in earnest because they don’t start producing sperm cells until puberty?
(Nah, I know what it’s attempting to do- trying to take pro-choice slogans and turn them anti-abortion.  It doesn’t fucking work.  I wish I could find this beautiful quote I read once from a woman about how meaningless it would be if she was made to die in childbirth for the sake of producing a daughter, who might then go on to do the same, an endless line of being nothing more than brood mares.)

antichoicescreencraps:

An anti-choice graphic.

Reducing us to our reproductive capacities even in fucking utero.

Like, I just don’t understand what this stupid poster is trying to say.  That female fetuses require forced pregnancy because they’ve got reproductive cells already in them?   And I guess the slaughter of boy fetuses can start in earnest because they don’t start producing sperm cells until puberty?

(Nah, I know what it’s attempting to do- trying to take pro-choice slogans and turn them anti-abortion.  It doesn’t fucking work.  I wish I could find this beautiful quote I read once from a woman about how meaningless it would be if she was made to die in childbirth for the sake of producing a daughter, who might then go on to do the same, an endless line of being nothing more than brood mares.)

Reblogged: antichoicescreencaps

Themed by Hunson. Originally by Josh