сильные женщины: руки вверх! (Did it again, did it again…)

здравствуйте! как дела?

I’m great, in case you were wondering. And not just because I get to make a reference to my favorite Russian boy-band, Hands Up.  I’m pretty happy because the lovely ladies of Pussy Riot, a Russian feminist punk band have finally gotten their day in court.

Pussy Riot – in full costume

In February, members of the band staged a protest at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, an Orthodox cathedral in Moscow, protesting Vladimir Putin as a presidential candidate. The video below intermixes footage of the protest with the band’s public prayer “The Virgin, Putin Banish”.

Lyrics to the song are fearless:

“Black robe, golden shoulder straps- all of the parishioners crawl to bow. The ghost of liberty is in heaven while the gay pride is sent to Siberia in shackles. The head of the KGB, their main saint, brings protestors to prison under an escort.  So that their main saint will not be offended, women must give birth and love. Virgin Mary, mother of God, become a feminist. Virgin Mary, mother of God, banish Putin.”

And precisely because of that fearlessness, members of Pussy Riot have been imprisoned since February. Three women were arrested and charged with hooliganism committed for the motives of political, ideological, racial, national, or religious hatred or enmity or for the motives of hatred or enmity towards any social group under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. (Part 2, Article 213).

As a crime, hooliganism was introduced into the criminal code in Soviet Russia and has since been modified, most recently to break down hooliganism into two separate crimes: 1.) hooliganism aggravated by the use of weapons, 2.) hooliganism aggravated by a special motive.

It is in this second crime that the government has a wide discretion to arrest and prosecute. There are two factors that must be taken into consideration: gross violation of public order and a clear disprespect towards the society. These factors are left undefined, but legal scholars have suggested several options, none of which have been formally accepted into Russian law.

In this case, the three members of Pussy Riot are being prosecuted under the second prong – “special motive” because the  protest occurred in Moscow’s main Orthodox cathedral, and that “special motive” is against the Russian Orthodox Church. It is worth noting that the Orthodox Church has publicly supported Putin as a political candidate.

It is here, in the tricky tangle of Church and State, that the members of Pussy Riot find themselves – imprisoned for months, awaiting trial for protesting, under laws that many Russians are protesting.

You see, these women are facing up to 7 years in jail under the crime of hooliganism. The Church, whose very tenets include forgiveness and compassion, has been the driving force in the arrest and prosecution of Pussy Riot. And the members of Pussy Riot, whose protest movement occurred in Moscow’s main cathedral, are arguing that the protest was against Putin, not the Church. And Putin? Well he’s declined to give a comment on the case, but Prime Minister Medvedev has indicated that if this protest had happened elsewhere, members of Pussy Riot would face harsher punishment.

Russian citizens are divided are in their feelings towards the trial. In her testimony on Tuesday, a witness, Lyobov Sokologorskaya, described the satanic nature of Pussy Riot’s protest and testified that the protest has had lasting effects: “I experienced bitterness and pain and feel it to this day, It all looked like devilish skipping. They raised their legs and everything that was below their waists was visible. And that on the ambo, in front of the heavenly gates”.

Others reject this argument and are concerned with the response of the courts, indicating that Putin’s presidency will strengthen the relationship between Church and State and weaken the ability of citizens to speak out. In his Op-Ed piece in the Moscow Times, Georgy Bovy writes: “In many respects, the state’s crackdown on Pussy Riot is meant  to send a strong signal to the nationalists in Russia. This  strategy is driven by a belief among Putin’s ruling elite that  the Soviet Union collapsed because leaders were unable to cope with  a rising nationalist mood in the country. Accordingly, ethnic  and religious conflict is considered the worst threat facing Russia  today. This explains why Putin reacted with such speed and decisiveness  to the nationalist riots in Manezh Square two years ago. In his  view, nationalist and religious radicalism are interconnected, and he  will use harsh measures to nip them in the bud.”

It certainly is a tangled situation, but the message being given to Russian citizens is clear: protesting the government and/or the Church will not be tolerated, especially if you are a woman.

What are your thoughts on the Pussy Riot trial? The protest? The length of the potential sentence? Has Russian gone too far in preventing freedom of speech?

And how does this compare to the freedom to protest in the United States? Think about the SCOTUS decision granting the Westboro Baptist Church the right to protest military funerals – has the US gone too far in ensuring freedom of speech?

Gender Verification at the 2012 Olympics: New IOC Regulations for Female Athletes

With the Olympic games fast approaching, there’s been a lot of chatter about the games, the teams, and even the most sought-after swag by the Olympians themselves.

Did you know that Cuban gear is the most sought-after? Apparently, it is because the Cuban athletes are often surrounded by guards and don’t get to mingle as much with the other Olympians so there is less of an opportunity to trade swag. Also, I guess their gear is pretty cool and retro-looking. I heard this from an anonymous Olympian on NPR this morning, if you’re interested.

Another topic that seems to be trending in the Olympic discourse is gender testing.  This year, the International Olympic Committee issued regulations for gender verification for men and women competing in the games. And this year, the so-called gender verification regulations are fairly different from in prior games.

In the past, sex examination efforts instated by the Olympic Committee have been humiliating and crude. Initial attempts included a sort of naked parade of female athletes before a bunch of doctors and direct gynecological exams. In the 1968 Olympic games in Grenoble, the standard for gender verification became a buccal smear for sex chromosomes and this lasted until the 1990′s.

Using a chromosomal inquiry prevented female athletes who did not possess XX chromosomes from competing in the Olympic games. This testing method would bar female athletes whose internal and external morphologic sex appeared female, but whose chromosomes contained an ambiguity. Many women who disqualified under this chromosomal testing had variations of androgen resistance, like Maria Patino the Spanish hurdler who was disqualified for her androgen resistance.

Testing solely for the presence of XX or XY chromatin proved to be an unreliable test for gender because, as is generally accepted, gender is determined by a multitude of factors. Like Maria Patino, an athlete could have the internal and external sex organs of a female, the secondary sexual characteristics of a female (breasts) but have a hormonal condition that would cause disqualification under the test.

Throughout the 1970′s, 80′s and 90′s, concerns over chromosomal testing to determine gender were voiced repeatedly.  In response to these concerns, the International Olympic Committee instituted a more in-depth inquiry, utilizing DNA-based methods to detect Y chromosomal material. This method was used from the 1992 games through 1999, when the International Olympic Committee’s Executive Board decided to discontinue the practice.

Then, in 2009 the International Association of Athletics Federations requested that South African runner, Caster Semenya undergo a gender test after her win. The IAAF stated that the motivation for the test was to determine whether Semenya had a “rare medical condition giving her an unfair competitive advantage.” The results of the test were not released to the public and Semenya reached an agreement with the IAAF to keep her medal from the Beijing games and her prize money.

Perhaps due in part to the great controversy drawn in connection with Caster Semenya, the International Olympic Committee has issued regulations to “identify circumstances in which a particular athlete will not be eligible (by reason of hormonal characteristics) to participate in the 2012 OG Competitions in the female category.

The regulations call for an expert panel made up of an endocrinologist, a gynecologist, and a genetic expert to review cases of suspected female hyperandrogenism to determine whether the condition exists and whether it provides the athlete with an unfair competitive advantage.  If the panel determines that the athlete has an unfair advantage as a result of “male-level” testosterone from female hyperandrogenism, the athlete will not be able to compete as a female, but may compete as a male provided she qualifies in the athletic category.

These regulations differ from previous gender verification tests in several ways:

• Not all females are required to undergo testing
• Only certain persons/entities can file a formal request for testing for female athletes
• The regulations make clear that the test does not determine sex or gender.

This is an interesting way for the IOC and the IAAF to get around “gender verification” and it kinda, sorta feels like the regulations were crafted with an eye to American constitutional law. To me, it feels like the crafters of these regulations knew they were creating rules that discriminated against women, so in order to address an unfair competitive advantage, they drafted the rules pretty narrowly.

What do you think? Should the IOC have gender verification for all athletes? Should the IOC have testing for female hyperandrogenism? What is the broader message here about male and female athletes? About male and female bodies?

(Oh, and OMGOMGOMG how excited are you for the Olympics?!)

 

Does how we play decide who we’ll be?

What was your favorite toy when you were a kid?

This was mine:

Yup, that’s exactly what it looks like - a wooden iron and ironing board made for a child. And I loved it. I would spend hours ironing my father’s handkerchiefs, singing songs about being some sort of Cinderella or washerwoman, and imagining that I was a character in a fairytale.

Today, my real-life adult ironing board and iron is shoved into the closet with my washer/dryer and in the last year I have been more apt to throw my clothes into the dryer to get wrinkles out than to iron.

But, that’s not to say that the gendered rearing of children doesn’t have an effect on how we do gender as we age.  In fact, how we play as kids is an important contributor to how we develop cognitively. We know that gendered toys have long-term consequences for our later cognitive and social development and because of these consequences, the media and the family (as institutions) reinforce gendered play consistently.

Girls play with toys designed to foster nurturing and motherly role-play, while boys play with toys designed to foster activity and manipulative play. Gender stereotyped toys reinforce gender roles through these stereotyped activities and roleplay.

So does that mean that all girls have to grow up to be princesses or mothers or shop-til-you-droppers? (I’m reaching into my murky memory for childhood toys and games and I keep thinking of Mall Madness, forgive me.) Or that all boys have to grow up to soldiers or train engineers or ninjas?

Clearly not. But that doesn’t mean the marketing for gendered toys isn’t out there.  Check out this little girls awesome rant about gendered marketing.

The thing is, though, that even though me and this little girl know that all this marketing gender roles stuff is bs, it’s still out there. And it’s kind of tough for us not to give in. I mean, Riley’s giving this rant while carrying a baby doll and I’m writing this blog while wearing high heels and a push up bra (I also have clothing on, don’t be alarmed). Clearly both of us have given in to gender roles a little bit.

Is that from how we play as children?

For me, the answer is yes. Every time I put on a pair of heels, I remember back to those tiny Barbie high heels. Every time I put on a pair of flats, I think of poor Skipper and her flat feet.

Can we ever move away from gendered play? Or will Cinderella continue to eat our daughters?

What do you think? Are gendered toys necessary for child-rearing? Do you use gendered toys with your kids? Why or why not?

Baby you can drive my car…

My very first car was a Volvo. But before you send Muffy and Buffy over to play tennis, you should probably know that the car had the same date of birth as I did.

I lovingly plastered bumper stickers all over the back of that car that expressed my personality. I had a peace sign, an ACK sticker, and the Sublime sun. And I had a reserve license plate with three numbers and an L for Liz. In Massachusetts, having a reserve plate used to carry a lot of cachet - plus, it was pretty nice to only have to remember a few numbers.

I was pretty sure I was the coolest chick in Massachusetts. Old station wagon, low numbered plate, no stereo? The. Coolest.

And then charity plates started appearing. There were people who had SINGLE NUMBER license plates. And their plates had pictures on them. Suddenly, I was being trumped.

And then one day, I was driving along and I saw this plate:

I was not amused.

See, I’m all for people speaking their mind and having their own opinions. Pro-choice/Pro-life? As long as you have an educated viewpoint, I don’t care which side you stand on.

But when I see your political opinion on something the government requires appear on all vehicles lawfully on the road, I start to get a little worried. Does this mean the Massachusetts government is sanctioning the Choose Life organization? And does that mean that Massachusetts is a Pro-Life state? And then what does that mean for contraceptive legislation? And abortion legislation? And is my money going to that organization even if I don’t want it to?

Well, I did some research and it turns out that in Massachusetts any non-profit organization can petition the registrar of motor vehicles for a distinct license plate design.  They just have to offer up a $100,000.00 bond and have 1,500 people with filled out applications ready for the plate.  If they don’t sell 3000 plates within 2 years, then the organization loses that $100,000.00 bond for the costs of production.

The only money that goes to that organization is the money individuals pay to get that specialty plate made.

Ultimately, this means that all non-profits have equal access to the license plate game in Massachusetts, but I still have some concerns about what these license plates are saying.  I mean, doesn’t this seem like speech? And kind of like government sanctioned speech?

Turns out I’m not the only one with these concerns, but there aren’t that many easy answers. In fact, specialty license plates and the First Amendment issues that go with them have gone before several different federal courts in the US.

In the 11th Circuit, abortion-rights plaintiffs brought suit challenging the Choose Life license plate in Women’s Emergency Network v. Bush. The Court ruled that the abortion-rights plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the plate – meaning that they weren’t injured by the plates (or that their injuries weren’t a direct result from those license plates).

In the 5th Circuit, the same standing issue came up when the Court ruled that Planned Parenthood didn’t have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Louisiana statute authorizing Choose Life plates.

But then in South Carolina, a federal district court found that Planned Parenthood had standing because the statute authorizing Choose Life plates is “preferred” under the statute ”over whatever motto or slogan Planned Parenthood might employ to promote their point of view.” This was later affirmed in the 4th Circuit when the Court determined that the state committed viewpoint discrimination by favoring the Choose Life message and excluding the pro-choice message stating ”Discrimination can occur if the regulation promotes one viewpoint above others, and this is precisely what happened here.”

So what does all this case law mean?

Basically, that there’s no easy answer. There’s no agreement in the courts that specialty license plates are speech promoted by the government or that certain groups have a right to challenge them. In addition, there is disagreement in the courts about whether this is private speech or government speech and that adds to the tangled web.

In order for there to be a conclusive answer, it looks like the Supreme Court will have to address the issue. Until then, specialty plates will continue to be a contentious issue.

What do you think? Should specialty plates be allowed? Does it seem like the government is sanctioning the message on those plates?

(In case you were curious, here’s the list of specialty plates available in MA: The birthplace of basketball Basketball Hall of Fame, Massachusetts Environmental Trust, Bruins - Massachusetts Youth Hockey, Celtics – Boston Celtics Shamrock Foundation / Boston Children’s Hospital, Cape Cod – Cape Cod and Islands: economic development, – Choose Life – Choose Life Inc, Conquer Cancer Conquer Cancer Coalition, Cure Breast Cancer – Diane Connolly-Zaniboni Breast Cancer Research Fund Tufts Medical Center, Fenway Park – build Kids Replica Ballpark, Inc, Firefighters MEmorial – Massachusetts Fallen Firefighters Memorial, Invest in Children – The United Way, I’m Animal Friendly – Massachusetts Animal Coalition, Olympics U.S. Olympic Committee, Patriots – New England Patriots Charitable Foundation, Red Sox – Jimmy Fund/Red Sox Foundation, United We Stand – Mass. 9/11 Fund Mass. Military Heroes Fund local police and fire departments)

Related articles

• State General-Issue License Plate Gets New Look (dfw.cbslocal.com)

Strength is Beauty

When I was twelve years old, I sat down at a desk across from a teensy little girl with incredibly long blonde hair and ridiculous oversized glasses. It was my first day in a new school and I didn’t know a single person. She peered across the desk at me and said “Hi, will you be my best friend?”

I shrugged my shoulders and said “Sure.”

And now, more than fifteen years later, I am sitting behind a desk with my legs elevated, deeply regretting this decision. You see that teensy little girl grew up to be a successful and highly sought after personal trainer and she kicked my ass yesterday. If only I had ended this friendship years ago, my quads might not be trying to escape my skin.

Yes, I am being a giant baby. One decent workout that didn’t involve me reading my Kindle on the treadmill and I am acting like I have just endured an Olympic-level training session. And since I now consider myself an Olympian, I thought I’d share with you the awesomeness that is my fellow Olympian Sarah Robles.

Sarah is 23 years old and is currently the STRONGEST PERSON IN AMERICA. How incredibly, undeniably, unequivocally awesome is that? Sarah can lift 568 lbs. 568 lbs. 568 POUNDS.

But wait a minute. Not only is Sarah the strongest person in America, she’s also a super positive role model for women and girls when it comes to body image.  Sarah admits to having bad thoughts, but has learned to love herself the way she is. She says “I may look like this, but I’m in the Olympics because of the way I am.” Her mantra, Strength is Beauty, is repeated over and over on her facebook, twitter, and blog. Get. It. Girl.

Sarah will be competing in the London Olympics and there is currently an IndieGoGo fundraising campaign to help fund her training and her coach’s travel to the Olympics. You see, Sarah lives on $400/month because being an Olympian doesn’t pay the bills. If you want to donate, click here!

In the meantime, I’ll be waiting (and trying to contain my excitement) for Sarah’s trip to the Olympics. It would be pretty freakin’ cool to be able to tell people you are the strongest person in the world – I hope Sarah can soon!

Related articles

• The Strongest Woman In America Lives In Poverty (buzzfeed.com)

On the Road

I am back from the Great Mother/Daughter Road Trip of 2012 and am happy to report that there was only one tiny tiff when we couldn’t locate Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s house using the walking map, the GPS on my cell phone, or our brains.

In fact, the whole weekend was pretty great – full of sunshine, gorgeous vistas, discussing politics and women’s rights, and sampling some of the delicious wines and local brews that the Finger Lakes region has to offer.

I was pretty inspired by this trip and am working on the early stages of a novel – I won’t post any of it here, but any self-publishing advice would be appreciated! (Ahem, super commenter Nadine Feldman…)

In the meantime, I thought I’d share some of the pictures I took along the way so you can see just how moving the scenery and history can be.

We hit the road around 10:30 a.m. on Friday. (My mother insisted we stop at “Bay Bank” for some cash first… Bostonians might recall Bay Bank from the early nineties, but don’t worry we didn’t time travel.) With a cooler packed with waters and some lunch, my mother took the wheel for the first couple hours. We talked about the health care decision, hospital safety net funds, and the impact of Medicaid funding for special ed students on health care costs. We listened to Call Me Maybe twice.

Around Blandford, Massachusetts (great name for a town btw) I started to get hungry, so we stopped at a rest area and had our picnic lunch at this beautiful picnic table on the side of the highway.

After many more hours of driving, cow spotting, serenading my mother, and playing the license plate game, we arrived in Seneca Falls. Checked into a hotel and headed out for dinner and drinks at Wolffy’s – a quaint little restaurant on Lake Cayuga. Our seat overlooked the water and the view and warm sunset paired well with cheap wine and delciously bad cover music.

The next morning, I was so excited I could barely speak. As we drove towards the Women’s Rights National Historic Park I’m pretty sure I kept “meep!”-ing and saying things like “Suffrage!”, “Lucy Stone!”, “Look how pretty!”

We parked right in front of the visitor’s center, directly across from the site of the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. My mother read the informational posters while I took approximately 258 pictures of the street corner where Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott and Lucy Stone and Frederick Douglas met to discuss the rights of women.

We wandered into the visitor center and a friendly young park ranger welcomed us heartily. There was no one else there, so we got a private screening of the documentary detailing the convention. After the screening, we posed with the statues and I rambled on to my mother about the National Women’s Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Asssociation, the 13th Amendment, and the 19th Amendment. My mother may have left already at this point, but I was very involved in talking to myself.

We attempted to walk to Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s house and couldn’t figure out where it was. But we did find the statue of Elizabeth Cady Stanton meeting Susan B. Anthony. After snapping a photo and then snapping at my mom, we headed back the the visitor center and toured the exhibit upstairs.

My mother was particularly interested in this piece of “art” hanging on the wall. Neither of us could tell what it was, but she was certain that it was made out of human hair and reminded me that I have yet to give her a lock of hair. (This is at least the 10th time she has asked. At first, I thought it was for a keepsake but now I’m frightened she wants to make jewelry out of it.)

The visitor exhibit was wonderful. I wish I could have bottled it and brought it back with me to share with my students in my intro to Gender Studies class. There were interactive stations for kids – my favorite let kids put their heads into cutouts and peer into their futures. Will you be a surgeon? An astronaut? Here’s me peering into my future as the President of the United States:

After the exhibit, we left the visitor center to drive (with the GPS) to Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s house. We paused to admire the monument to the Declaration of Sentiments and take photographs of the water flowing over the carved stone version of the document. My mother has a picture of me kneeling in prayer in front of it… but this photo will have to do for now.

Then it was on to Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s home, but since we missed the tour we could only see the outside of the house.

And to wrap up our Women’s History voyage, we popped in to the National Women’s Hall of Fame. This museum showcased great women in history with mini biographies and memorabilia from just some of the amazing women in history. Of course, I gushed over Sally Ride’s space suit:

And just had to have my mother take my photo in the “Future Inductee” mirror. Seriously, I am a huge nerd.

We finished up our women’s history tour and popped into several local wineries and breweries. I highly recommend Swedish Hill Winery – $2.00 tasting, delicious sparkling wines, and there was a great BBQ going on out back with wine slushies!

At the end of our adventure, my mother said something to the effect of “It’s funny you have such strong feminist interests – I don’t remember your father or I being particularly outspoken or holding you back…” and I don’t know if I responded. But now, after looking through the photos, I think I finally have an answer.

You see, to me, being a feminist is about seeking equality and embracing opportunities. It’s about valuing the contributions of every member of society and striving to make the world a better place. And maybe my parents didn’t stand on soap boxes and shout this message to the masses, but they acted on it every day. From my mom’s decades of work with special needs kids to my dad’s time as a public defender and girls soccer coach, I sure got the message.

Plus, I’m pretty sure the road trip gene is hereditary.

Related articles

• For Women’s History, It’s Christmas in July (blog-aauw.org)