Rupert Murdoch: “Reporters are mean to me”; or, Feminéma diagnoses our shame differential

Is it any surprise I have trouble telling the difference between satire and true stories? Witness the latest from Rupert Murdoch’s trial for phone hacking in London:

Rupert Murdoch described on Thursday being “mobbed” and “harassed” by journalists and paparazzi, in an exchange rich with irony during his testimony at a judicial inquiry on press ethics prompted by criminal behaviour at one of his papers.

The 81-year-old media mogul was facing a second day of grilling at the Leveson Inquiry, which has heard dozens of witnesses give detailed accounts of being harassed by reporters from Murdoch’s own newspapers.

(Reuters, 26 Apr. 2012)

I’m sorry, but how is it possible this man feels no shame for such a statement? These are the questions that keep me awake at night.

Just recently I was utterly fooled by a satirical story about Ann Romney — a story for which I apologized so profusely that several wise commentators left notes telling me to let it go. “Women apologize too much,” Naomi wrote kindly but tersely. She continued: “Rather, women of conscience do that.” She’s right. But I wonder if the shame differential is not just a gender issue, but also a class matter. Why does my middle-class, female shame button get pushed at the slightest error, and Murdoch’s wealthy male shame button appears to be protected by impermeable glass and Secret Service-protected launch codes?

After all, let’s remember the (true) story about Ann Romney of last month, when she pronounced that she doesn’t “consider myself wealthy,” which prompted the ever-astute Jezebel to offer the headline, ZILLIONAIRE ANN ROMNEY DOESN’T CONSIDER HERSELF RICH. Now, Ann Romney can consider herself in whatever way she likes. But it seems to me that if someone who earns $21 million per year on investment income alone — and pays a minuscule $3 million in taxes (ca. 14%) on it — makes such statements out loud during an economic recession, she might feel shame. There is no sign of such.

Thus, I offer you my Social Science-y Insight Of The Month: the Shame Differential©! (Copyright pending.) Let me explain:

The Shame Differential is the sum total of two separate measures tallied by the Shame-O-Meter® and the Shame Ray®, observable on these two tables (and apologies/ compliments to Jessica Hagy’s blog This Is Indexed, from which I borrow her style of graphics):

You see? As this “scientific” graph shows us, the lower your income, the higher your capacity to experience shame. Since women own only 36% of the wealth in the U.S. (and the stats are significantly more dire for Latinas and African-American women), the Shame Burden falls disproportionately on women at the same time that it hits working- and middle-class men hard, too.

Yet to fully assess the Shame Differential©, this “scientific” finding by the Feminéma Institute for Advanced Study must be paired with the equally “scientific” Shame Ray® Index, which measures the eagerness of specific populations to dish out shame to others:

Now you may be infinitely more enlightened by my research, but perhaps you’re wondering: why does it seem that U.S. Republicans seem so eager to shame women, Blacks, Latinos, and/or the poor? Well, duh! The Shame Differential© explains all! Who do you think the GOP represents: the 99%? Ha ha! Moreover, if you’re a woman, a person of color, or not wealthy, you’ve doubtless become quite skilled in feeling ashamed of a whole lot in your lifetime.

One final note: because Feminéma’s Shame Differential© is not merely an index but a diagnosis of a cultural disease — and therefore a social problem to be corrected — I hereby rename it the Breivik Shame Differential© after the Norwegian responsible for last summer’s massacre of 77 left-wing fellow countrymen and women, 69 of whom were teenagers at a summer youth camp. Now, Breivik is not a member of the GOP, nor is he the consummate ideological media mogul asshole criminal that Murdoch allegedly is, but his utter incapacity to feel shame helps us further understand the sociopathic inclinations of the Shame Differential:

OSLO — The self-described anti-Islamic militant [Anders Behring Breivik] who has admitted killing 77 people in a bombing and shooting spree last July told bereaved families on Monday that he had also lost his family and friends as a result of the massacre.

…“When people say they have lost their most beloved, I also lost my entire family, I lost my friends,” he also said. “It was my choice. I sacrificed them, but I lost my entire family and friends on 22 July. I lost everything. So to a certain extent, I understand.”

(New York Times, 23 Apr. 2012)

So the next time you hear a story that appears so hypocritical as to rattle the teeth in your head, and/or the next time you hear a GOP presidential candidate say that the very poorest in the U.S. are cared for by social services, just remember the Breivik Shame Differential©.

You’re welcome.

Declaring inde-fem-dence

Now this is a good idea. Public declarations of “I need feminism because…” — by smart young people, including Duke students, and during an election year. Sing it, brothers and sisters.

Thursday news for your vagina

Well, count me surprised: of all rabid Republicans, Texas Senator (R) Kay Bailey Hutchison announces that she opposes Rick Perry’s defunding of Planned Parenthood for its destructive effects on women’s health in that state:

HUTCHISON: We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low income women to have health care services. We cannot. 

Whoa! I’m not sure I’ve ever agreed with Hutchison on anything!

*****

In other, less enlightening news, a group of anti-abortion activists inhabited the Idaho state capitol building and underwent ultrasounds to show the rest of us how great they are. Not the trans-vaginal kind, mind you — after all, the goal is to show how much ultrasounds are “miraculous” and not “rape-y.” The anti-abortion activist interpreting these ultrasounds “pointed out heartbeats and body parts with a red laser, suggesting at times that the fetuses were waving and making kissing faces.” Question: if the whole point is to force women to have vaginal probes, why don’t the activists have such ultrasounds to show how miraculous it is?

*****

On a lighter vaginal note, a nice line from the Kate Atkinson novel, Started Early, Took My Dog:

Tilly had always rather liked the word “vagina.” It sounded like a scholarly girl or a newfound land.

Thanks, Rush Limbaugh!

Sometime last summer one of my Facebook friends posted something about an outrageous anti-abortion issue in Texas, and I commented by saying something about how it appeared to me to be part of a widespread war on women. She reacted badly. “I don’t like to use hyperbole like ‘war on women,’” she wrote. “I just don’t think liberals should respond with the same overwrought language as conservatives use.”

I gave up. Facebook status updates are not the place to have disagreements about politics.

I’ve been wondering whether any of the intervening events have changed her mind. The vaginal probes. The personhood measures, which would seem to outlaw most forms of birth control and would make women liable to criminal investigation if they miscarried. The overt anti-contraception measures. The idea that giving employers full say over each of their employees’ health decisions is somehow a way to ensure religious “liberty.”

And now we have Rush Limbaugh, who has decided that any woman who discusses contraception needs to be humiliated on the airwaves. Apparently going with the “all publicity is good publicity” philosophy, he railed against the sole woman scheduled to appear before Congress to testify about the many medical uses of birth control. This young woman — a Georgetown law student named Sandra Fluke whose close friend lost an ovary because she could not obtain access to the Pill — was ultimately eliminated from testimony but appeared on various news shows to offer her evidence to the public. To Limbaugh her pitch for the Pill makes her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception,” he said.

People in both parties found that to be too much. Not only did President Obama call Fluke to thank her for publicly backing his regulations mandating contraception coverage, but even Republicans John Boehner and Rick Santorum came out to denounce Limbaugh’s “absurdity.”

Georgetown’s president, John DiGioia, emailed the Georgetown University community to back Fluke and celebrate her intelligent, respectful engagement with civil discourse and to decry Limbaugh’s “behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

Limbaugh has doubled down. In response to the furor, on Thursday’s show he followed up his prior comments with even better ones. “So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”

So why, given this diarrheac mess, do I want to thank Rush Limbaugh? For making the two sides abundantly clear. I want to thank him for taking Rick Santorum’s anti-contraception theology to its logical conclusion. To clarify the Blunt Amendment’s obfuscation of the contraception issue. For reviving his “feminazi” term to apply to all 98% of American women who use birth control.

Because here’s the thing: I am really fucking sick of having male politicians tell me their vaginal probes are about a “freedom of information,” or that their denial of women’s reproductive health coverage is about “religious liberty.” Thanks for articulating the War on Women in the starkest possible terms.

At last, a real rain has come to wash all the doublespeak away. Women who have health needs are sluts, and women who speak about those needs should be publicly humiliated. Whew! The fresh air is exhilarating.

(Democrats: this is your cue to start winning elections. Do you really need more ammunition than this?)

What will it take for you to get angry? And do something about it?

How would you feel if Jerry Sandusky’s lawyer came out and said, “If there are any more boys out there who’re thinking about coming forward with sexual assault charges against my client, you should think twice”?

How quickly would he be censured? His license revoked?

Yet that’s exactly what Herman Cain’s lawyer did, except he (safely) delivered that threat to women. “Anyone should think twice before you take that type of action,” Lin Wood said, addressing sexual harassment victims considering coming forward with charges. “And I think it’s particularly true when you are making serious accusations against someone running for president of the United States, but I think it’s equally true if you are making those accusations against your next door neighbor.”

Think twice. As if women who’ve experienced sexual harassment haven’t already thought twice — as she weighed the costs of reporting a boss or co-worker. As she thought about feeling derided and violated, yet worried the backlash of her reporting would be worse. As she wondered whether he was serious when he suggested she’d lose their job unless she succumbed. As she got glares from the other women in the office who thought she was flirting with him. As she wondered how to find health insurance if she quit. As she received no help whatsoever from the human resources person to whom she reported it.

This isn’t about someone else. This is about you.

Wood’s threat — from a lawyer! — has to do with the public shaming women will experience if they come forward. Rush Limbaugh has already started piling abuse on Sharon Bialek, the most visible of the accusers. (Can you imagine if Limbaugh tried to make slurping noises about the boys abused by Sandusky?) But this isn’t just a question of verbal insults: I can’t imagine how many death threats have been thrown at Bialek and Karen Kraushaar.

The Cain campaign has raised $9 million since news of the sexual harassment charges came out on October 1. He thinks it’s really funny to recommend that Mitt Romney get charged with sexual harassment to help his poll ratings, because polls still place Cain at first, or tied for first, in the pack of GOP hopefuls.

Readers: what will it take for you to get angry enough to do something about this misogynistic culture? When will you say to yourself, this is enough — I’m willing to stand up for myself and other women?

Because at the rate we’re going, we’re getting to a place where no woman is a “good enough” victim; we’re all bitches now. No rape or assault will be enough to protect you from the charge of being a bitch for reporting it.

You know how to start? Talk about the sexual harassment you’ve received, and talk about why it put you in an impossible situation. Talk about how hard it was to talk about it. Talk about how the frustration is doubled when you feel both violated and silenced. If they’re telling us we are all bitches now, then they’re going to have to hear something in response. Basta!

“The Black Power Mixtape, 1967-1975″ (2010)

I’ve probably noted before that if I ever have any extra money to spend, I’m going to buy this Shepard Fairey poster of Angela Davis — in part because I find it to be the pinnacle of Fairey’s art, and in part because I’ve been moved by Davis’s open mouth and articulation of the importance of protest since I was in college. It gives me pride to see this print, and I could use it as a visual reminder of the power of words to stop the wheels of the machine.

The poster’s on my mind again after seeing the Swedish documentary, The Black Power Mixtape, 1967-1975. It’s a film that has left me surprisingly unsettled, and not just because it’s a “mixtape” with no conclusion, no moral. A compilation of original documentary footage made by a Swedish crew and intended for Swedish television, it doesn’t just show the public images of proud and defiant African Americans that we’ve all seen in those documentaries. It also features amazing, intimate interviews with some of those individuals.Most moving of all is when Stokely Carmichael (before he renamed himself Kwame Ture) takes the Swedes’ microphone and turns to gently interview his own mother. They talk about their family’s struggle with poverty, their family’s many memories of discrimination. You also get a sense of the generational divide between them. It’s almost impossible to capture how meaningful such a moment is — until, that is, you see an interview with Angela Davis during her prison term in which she forcefully schools the clueless interviewer about why black power has not eschewed violence as a tactic.

I’m not saying it’s perfect. It’s interspersed with some clunky modern-day blah-blah-blahing by academics and others. But it’ll stick in your mind, and it’ll make you thirst for clear-throated articulations of social problems.

…in which Feminema tears her hair out

“Ladies’ Man or Sexual Predator?”

That’s what they’re asking at ABC News about Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund (as if I needed more reasons to hate the IMF), in the wake of charges of sexual abuse and rape. That’s right: let’s offer the public one more chance to excuse his behavior as harmless flirting, and fill comments sections with suggestions that Strauss-Kahn’s victims are whiny bitches. I’ll bet you $1000 when the pundits debate this question, they’ll get a woman to defend the “ladies’ man” side of this important question.

Meanwhile, the news about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “love child” (as the press invariably terms it; why not just “child”?) begs the question: you’re surprised? Oh, I get it — you didn’t believe all those women who came forward with reports of The Governator’s predatory nature back when he was running for governor.

And then there’s Roseanne Barr, who’s penned an unforgiving essay in this month’s New York Magazine about her experience being undermined, ridiculed, and dismissed even as Roseanne became a #1 TV show. Tina Fey observed earlier this year in that terrific New Yorker piece that men will call any of us a “crazy bitch” once they no longer want to fuck us. I’ll bet you $1000 that 70% of the response will debate the question, “How much is Roseanne Barr a crazy bitch?”

Message: you can’t win, ladies! So let’s debate whether Schwarzenegger is a ladies’ man or a sexual predator (and let me advise you that if you argue the latter, you will be termed a crazy bitch!).

Update, 11:15 am Tuesday: Our hero, Twisty Faster, has some sparks-flyin’ words at her blog, I Blame the Patriarchy, in which she points out that both Strauss-Kahn and Schwarzenegger shtupped “the maid.” Oh, “the maid.” The media barely treats such women as human, much less worthy of respect.

Excising women from news images

Thanks to the amazing blog Sociological Images, I now know that ultra-orthodox Jewish papers can choose to photoshop images to expurgate the women. Apparently these papers usually make the argument that the images are “sexually suggestive or show women interacting with men in ways that are considered inappropriate.” But how does one explain the images below, which compare the original situation-room photo during Osama Bin Laden’s capture with the photoshopped one below that appeared in a Brooklyn newspaper?

The paper below is Der Tzitung, targeted to the ultra orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn. But this isn’t the first time such papers have purged images that don’t appear obviously “sexually suggestive” or showing “inappropriate” relations between men and women, or images that create “impure thoughts” in readers. See for example these below (again from Sociological Images; see that site for helpful links) from an ultra-orthodox Israeli paper. Again, compare the top (original) image with the one below, which has been highlighted to show how all the girls have replaced, somewhat awkwardly, with duplicate images of boys:

We might disagree about whether eliminating sexually suggestive images is a good idea; but these images simply eliminate anyone designated female. Including Hillary Clinton, a woman of significant power in the world who is highly respected in Israel and amongst many American Jews. No comments here — make your comments over at Sociological Images, which deserves full credit.

Late-breaking update, 11 May 2011: Jill at Feministe has posted an update on this story along with an alternate image of the situation room in which the men have been photoshopped out. Excellent.

No equity for Title IX women’s sports

Why should we care that colleges have found ways of shirking Title IX rules that seek to create greater equity for women in college sports, as reported in last week’s New York Times? Because those rules never demanded true equity to begin with. Everyone needs to stop acting as if colleges have been under some crazy burden to give women 50% of all resources. Title IX was never intended to deliver exact parity. To offer an analogy: it’s as if the federal government passes an equal pay act and 50 years later women are still only getting paid 77% of what men make, only to have men argue women are getting paid too much and stealing resources away from men. (Hey, wait a second…that’s pretty much true, too!)

First, a few truths about Title IX: this law does not demand exact equality between men’s and women’s sports. Rather, colleges can comply with it in one of three ways:

1. by showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment
2. by demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women
3. by proving that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of their female students

Considering that women make up 57% of college student populations nationwide, it’s obvious that colleges are not complying via path #1. I know of no school that gives female students a majority of funds and resources. Instead, according to the best statistics I can find:

• Division I institutions: women make up 53% of college student bodies but only 46% of athletes
• Universities overall: women make up 57% of college student bodies but only 42% of athletes
• Female college athletes receive 42% of athletic scholarship money
• College women’s sports receive 36% of sports operating funds
• Women’s teams receive 32% of recruiting funds

Again, all of this is legal so long as colleges show that they are doing their best to increase athletic opportunities for women or are otherwise meeting the athletic interests and abilities of female students. There is no equality for women’s college sports. Men’s sports still get the vast majority of university funds. And this does not count the vast amounts of booster funds that come in to support specific sports, creating vastly disproportional funds going to football and basketball. (How else do you think top-shelf football coaches can get paid $5 million per year?)

Title IX has been fought from the outset. The NCAA went to court in the 70s fighting to be excluded from the law but was denied a victory. Instead, many colleges simply disregarded the rules since there was no governmental regulation or punishment for noncompliance until 1992, when a Supreme Court case determined that individuals could receive monetary damages in court. In 2003 and 2004, a public battle took place again over Title IX, resulting in the Bush Administration opting to soften the rules even further. The Obama Administration quietly reversed that decision in 2010, returning Title IX to previous rules and seeking more enforcement of the law. But now it seems colleges are at it again, giving college women’s sports short shrift.

Here’s a quick rundown of the story (with quotes) from the NY Times: colleges have found ingenious ways of flouting the rules. Some schools count male athletes as women: 15 of the 34 players on Cornell’s women’s fencing team are men, while “Texas A&M, which just won the women’s Division I basketball championship, reported 32 players in the 2009-10 academic year, although 14 were men.” Or schools populate women’s teams with ghost players, as at the University of South Florida, where only 28 of the 71 women on the cross-country roster ran a race in 2009. “Asked about it, a few laughed and said they did not know they were on the team.” Still other schools engage in voodoo math: Quinnipiac University was found guilty last year of “requiring that women cross-country runners join the indoor and outdoor track teams so they could be counted three times,” according to the Times‘ story, and guilty too of adding names to a roster in time for the count but cutting those players a few weeks later.

Are colleges engaging in this duplicity because they can’t find women interested in participating in sports? No: they do it because they must submit annual reports listing the total numbers of women and men in athletics, and whereas it costs money to start a new team that women might want to sign up for, it costs a college nothing to add names, however fraudulently, to existing teams (honestly, 71 cross-country runners?). No one has shown that college women don’t want to engage in organized sports.

Nor should we confuse the question of whether a sport earns a profit in ticket sales with its value to the university. I understand the impulse to celebrate football teams that earn money for their universities, but not only is this relatively rare, but most men’s teams are as equally unprofitable as most women’s teams. Besides, as I’ve already mentioned, much of that income goes back into the coffers of profitable teams; it’s not distributed widely.

These facts make it all the more aggravating when journalists on the ever-reactionary, often anti-feminist Double X podcast (you guessed it, Hanna Rosin again!) last week offered this slew of false information and misinformed commentary on the issue. Rosin is introduced by her colleague Jessica Grose by saying, “So, Hanna, you have done tons of research on this topic. Can you tell us a little bit more about college women’s sport and Title IX more generally?”

Rosin: “Yes. I did not have the expected response to this article. You’re supposed to have the expected reaction of, just, you know, isn’t this is terrible, how could they be fudging the numbers, they’re giving it to the boys once again. But I raise my hand in exasperation and, just had the words Title IX reform! It’s time for Title IX reform! This is a law that was passed in the 70s that really doesn’t seem to any more reflect the reality of American colleges and there’s so much shenanigans they have to go through in order to comply with this law that it seems like we need to rewrite the law. Now that’s not to give credit – not to take away credit from all the amazing things that Title IX has done in terms of making it possible for women to be competitive and aggressive and participate in sports the way they never have been. But, like, if you’re padding the running team with people who have never run a race in their lives, like, what does that mean? You should force the women to run the race? I just, I just don’t know a way around this except to say, you know, ease up on the proportionality a little bit! It doesn’t have to absolutely be exact. Like, isn’t there a way to rewrite the law in which it’s not exact? So am I being, like, a crazy anti-feminist [unintelligible] here?”

Well, yes, Hanna, you may be a crazy anti-feminist, but mostly you’re a bad journalist who offers up false information about the subject you’re discussing. I’m not a journalist, but was able to find this information and statistics using reliable sources online in a single morning. Next time you use your journalist credentials to spout off — especially after being introduced as having “done tons of research on this topic” — do just a tiny amount of research ahead of time.

What’s wrong with being sexy? Oh, sexIST.

Ladies:  you must let men do whatever they like to you, otherwise like the entire public will want to hurt you.  Or at least that’s the message from the Inés Sainz case last week.  A 9-year veteran reporter and an on-camera sports reporter with Mexico’s TV Azteca, Sainz appeared on the sidelines of the NY Jets’ football practice with two of her camera crew.  She’s awesome-looking, so those scamps! insisted on throwing passes near Sainz so they could catch it in her vicinity and get a better look at her.  After the game, during the 30-minute period when both male and female reporters are allowed into the locker room, she was subjected to an onslaught of catcalls from the players so loud she had to cover her ears.  Another reporter present filed a grievance with the Association for Women in Sports Media (AWSM) that was addressed immediately by the NFL, which found after an investigation that “she was never bumped, touched, brushed against, or otherwise subjected to any physical contact by any player or coach.”  Because unless one of these guys touches you, you’re not allowed to feel threatened.

Here’s the upshot:  The NFL sent a memo to all 32 teams reminding them to treat women in a professional manner.  What a bitch!  Don’t you totally hate getting memos?

Except that’s not all:  Sainz has been called a bitch and a tease in every possible way.  News stories about the incident invariably feature unrelated photos of Sainz wearing low-cut dresses and bikinis.  Here’s a typical account of the incident:

“Sainz, who has previously appeared in several magazines wearing just a bikini, defended her appearance at the Jets practice session, insisting she dressed modestly, and posting a photo on Twitter to back up her claims.

‘Jeans and a white button-up blouse [are] in no way inappropriate,’ she tweeted.”

Golly, I wonder how most readers will interpret that:  If I can find a photo of her in a sexy bikini, she must be a slut who wants this kind of attention from men.  Actually, I don’t have to wonder how they’ll interpret it, because their interpretations flew fast and furious and invariably made the same point:

“You play with fire, you get burned.”

“Boys will be boys (especially jocks!!) and this chick is only doing this for attention and she is loving it!! Soak it up lady cuz when your looks run out, you will be nothing!!”

What’s a girl to do?  With the public breathing fire, Sainz not only backed off from her initial complaints, but attacked the AWSM for launching a grievance.  Of course she did.  Would she still have a job if she actually stood up for herself?  Hey everybody, Sainz is on board now — let’s go blame the feminists for this incident!  (No kidding: she now says the hasty action by the AWSM set back the women’s rights movement by “at least 50 years.”  Which is actually a pretty confusing claim, but I’m sure it guarantees that Sainz won’t be shunned by athletes.)

Which brings me back to my headline, from “This is Spïnal Täp,” in which the band’s manager tries to defend the cover on their new album, “Sniff the Glove,” from an irate woman.  “You put a greased naked woman on all fours with a dog collar around her neck, and a leash, and a man’s arm extended out to her, holding onto the leash, and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it.  You don’t find that offensive?  You don’t find that sexist?”  He responds:  “This is 1982, Bobbi, c’mon!” while the dim-witted band members express confusion.  “What’s wrong with being sexy?”

This is 1982, man.  You must let men do whatever they like to you, otherwise we will hurt you.