DC Madam: A Very Personal Eulogy From Susie Bright

Susie Bright, author of a bunch of great sexual politics books and all-around awesome lady has a touching post up on her blog about Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the DC Madam who hung herself recently.

I have to quote the whole thing, because it offers tremendous insight into Palfrey, and it's a wonderful picture of a woman seeking to understand another woman:

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam" whose call-girl service got busted in the cross-hairs of partisan payback, has committed suicide. She hung herself at her mother's home in Tarpon Springs, Florida.

Susie's talk with Jeane, 2007 (mp3): Link

Transcript of DJP interview: Link

Jeane, I am so sorry. I know you swore to me that you'd never serve another term in prison for prostitution, or anything else. You almost lost your eyesight the first time. I'm sure you asked your lawyers if there was any hope for your sentencing, and I guess it must have looked bleak.

I know how pissed you were. This was an act of revenge, and I know who you're determined to haunt.

You were righteously furious at all the men who "walked away."

I'm sure that goes quite a ways back, but it certainly includes the esteemed gents on your client list: Louisiana fundamentalist, Senator David Vitter; Abstinence Ambassador Randall Tobias, who squashed AIDS funds all over the world; "Shock and Awe" war profiteer, Harlan Ullman.

And that was just the expendable layer. None of them were charged with anything; all are living quite comfortably, in particular because they have no conscience whatsoever.

Was Jeane suicidal, in the first place? Yes, but I'd describe that carefully. She wasn't irrational to think she wouldn't survive another round in a penitentiary; her health was poor. And she was brittle, the kind of person who is aware of her considerable intellect and education, but who finds herself in unlucky and vulnerable situations over and over again.

She was gullible to the wrong kinda guys, the kind of men who turned her out when she was young, whom she mistakenly placed faith in when she was looking for love, or a safe harbor. She's the kind of woman who should've been groomed for university when she was young, and cultivated for her bright mind and sensitivities. Instead, she was exploited and wasted— and her bitterness, her depression, was a result of that cruel awareness.

She tried to "go straight" after the first round in prison, and of course, was undermined by the typical prejudices against her record. She became more angry about the hypocrites, and determined to beat them at their own game. But it's clear that when Cheney bigwigs were on her tail, she wasn't going to beat their surveillance and manipulations.

Why doesn't everyone kill themselves when they're facing hard odds like Jeane did? Well, that's the million-karma question. All I can offer at this point, is painfully prescient rhetoric: Hell hath no fury like a smart woman scorned.... and justice has NOT been served.

"Rape" is a bad word

Well, for the courts at least. Last June, I wrote about a woman who refused to abide by the rules the judge set forth in her trial. The rule she broke? She used the word "rape" in her rape trial.

Sure, it's a powerful word. The judge thought it was too powerful, and that it would sway the jury. So a woman who had been raped was supposed to call this pivotal moment in her life "intercourse" or "sex."

The trial ended in a hung jury (maybe they were confused by all the euphemisms) and Terry Bowen, the woman who is fighting for her right to say "rape," sued. This is what the appeals court had to say (via Feministing):

The lawsuit argued that Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated Tory Bowen's constitutional rights in barring her from using certain words during her testimony in the trial, in which she said Pamir Safi sexually assaulted her.

While Cheuvront barred Bowen from using phrases and words like "rape kit" and "victim" in her testimony, he allowed Safi's attorneys to use words such as "sex" and "intercourse" when describing the encounter between Safi and Bowen.

Oh good. So now he'll ban the words "murder" and "robbery" from the courts, right? We wouldn't want to confuse the jury. What about "knife" is that safe to say? How about "he forced me to have sex"? Is that more appropriate?

Language is powerful (as we've seen demonstrated by the Bush years) and this Nebraska judge is abusing this power. This appeals court decision makes me want to scream.

Rape needs to be shoved into people's faces. It's a fact of life that we conveniently ignore. It's a symptom of a much larger problem: men (and sometimes women) in society who feel the need to demonstrate their power. Maybe that's why Jennifer Baumgardner is selling this t-shirt:The only way to start fixing the problem is by talking about it. If we can't even do that in a courtroom, where the hell are we?

Lindsay Campbell vs. Silda Wall Spitzer

I commented on the site. Here's a little taste. Go check it out on the site. The discussion's getting REALLY heated.

Lindsay and I debate:

Amanda

A couple beefs with your argument:

1. If she hadn't shown up, if she'd been out at under-funded schools, Slida Wall Spitzer would've been attacked, just like she's being attacked now. This is a lose/lose situation for her. Just imagine: "What a bitch! She can't even support her husband as he apologizes to her!" Here's the headline: "Slida Wall Shuns Disgraced Husband." This is all about his career. If he resigns, she can't do all the good it seems she's trying to do. At least not as easily. (She's trying to convince him not to resign - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336688,00.html)
2. What would a visit to under-funded schools do? She'd get press, but for all the wrong reasons.
3. If this was a woman politician and it was her husband standing up there with her, he'd be considered a sensitive, forgiving man. This is how the game is played. It's a silent show of support when someone fucks up.
4. The "downcast eyes" - it looks to me like she was reading his speech along with him. Maybe she helped him write it.
5. In this case, as in the other cases you mentioned, the personal has become political. Slida Wall Spitzer made a personal choice to stand up next to her husband. The implications of her NOT standing up there would've been just as bad.

I like your rage and the discussion it starts, but I'm not going to judge Slida Wall Spitzer for a careful choice she made. Yes, it would've been cool if she had made another choice. Interesting, at the very least. But imagine how many people would've been calling her a bitch if she'd made that other choice. She may have taken the easy, expected way out, but she chose to keep her battle personal by not making any public waves. I can't blame her for that.

lindsaycampbell


"She may have taken the easy, expected way out, but she chose to keep her battle personal by not making any public waves. I can't blame her for that."

Yeah, Amanda, this is the exact part that I find so distressing. If there's no way to keep it personal, then the choice you make can't truly be your own anyway. You have to think about the headlines. And your job and your husbands job. Where is the humanity is all that?

I disagree that the same pressure would be on the husband of a powerful female politician. We've yet to test that out but I think the standard would change.

Amanda

There is no humanity. But it's not Silda Wall Spitzer's fault. It's politics. Games, deception, hypocrisy, it's all in there. Silda Wall Spitzer was essentially doing her job. She could've quit, yes, but she didn't want to. That's her choice.

It's hard to know if a husband would get as much pressure to stand up, but in a world where the positions in this situation were flipped, and Eliot stood next to his wife Silda, I think the reaction would be very different.

STDs for Everyone!

A recent study from the CDC shows that ONE IN FOUR American teenage girls (age 14-19) have STDs, reports the BBC News.

Nearly half of black teens surveyed had at least one STD, while only 20% of white and Mexican-American teens tested positive. This is from a "representative" sample.

The most "popular" STD? HPV. Hmmm...maybe we should get a vaccine for that and make it available to poor people.

I couldn't find the study on the CDC, which worries me. I don't like to just take other people's words for it.

But this is just another sign that we need to teach sex ed in high schools. Abstinence-only education OBVIOUSLY doesn't work. These girls are going to have sex no matter what. Teach them how to protect themselves. We're leaving them defenseless because our president is an Evangelical, and it pisses me off.

According to the BBC, the CDC is recommending mandatory screening and an HPV vaccine. Okay, fine. But why don't we try to solve the problem before it starts? Hand out condoms in the streets, lower the cost of birth control, and TEACH these girls how to keep themselves safe.

ARGH!

Antifemipsuedoscience

Another gem from Adam. He calls it "feminasty," but there's nothing femi about this. That's why I went with antifemi- prefix.

In an "article" in today's Washington Post ("We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?"), Charlotte Allen attempts to discover why women can't admit how stupid they are. Fascinating.

Yes, it's a little disconcerting that there have been "five separate instances in which women fainted at Obama rallies since last September," but I'm not sure I'm convinced it's true (her source is a Connecticut radio talk show host). And if it is true, so the fuck what? Is that evidence that women are weak? Maybe Obama has magical powers. Maybe it was a hot, crowded day. Maybe these women have physical/mental problems. MAYBE you should stop listening to radio talk show hosts.

But don't take my word for it. Let me give you a taste:

I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial.

You can close your mouth. Actually...wait...it gets worse. Better just to keep it open.

After disparaging remarks about the popular but unrealistic Grey's Anatomy (because "male" shows likeThe Unit and 24 are so realistic), the pseudo-science enters the stage:

I swear no man watches "Grey's Anatomy" unless his girlfriend forces him to. No man bakes cookies for his dog. No man feels blue and takes off work to spend the day in bed with a copy of "The Friday Night Knitting Club"... At least no man I know. Of course, not all women do these things, either -- although enough do to make one wonder whether there isn't some genetic aspect of the female brain, something evolutionarily connected to the fact that we live longer than men or go through childbirth, that turns the pre-frontal cortex into Cream of Wheat.

What the hell is she even saying?

Based on the people I know, here's how my argument would go:
Men are generous, selfish, stupid, smart, creative, boring, and tend to like/hate sports.
Women are...(see above)

Wow! I can formulate arguments based on non-evidence too! Men and women are human! That was easy.

She finishes off with a ridiculous statement:

The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence.

And...this:

So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home.

Holy fuck!

I understand that she's making an attempt at straight talk, trying to see the world for what it is, without any dreams of how things should be, but she does a horrible job of it. Instead, she simply forces her own misconceptions into a meandering, pointless "argument." Got to hand it to her, though, it takes balls to take your self-hatred to print.

Of course men and women are different, but it's a fluid difference. Some men are more like women, and vice versa.

And if making a house a home is one of the most important thing in life, I need to re-evaluate my priorities. But before I change my life to suit my sex, I'll have a few of my friends come over to help me.

What if this article had been written by a man? It never would have been published, at least not in the Washington Post, because it's extremely sexist. Oh, but it's okay, she can call us fucking stupid bitches because she's one herself.

How is This Legal?

Via Feministing.

Playboy ad hits women where it hurts:


Porn is great, but only when it involves consenting adults. When it humiliates unsuspecting women, there's a definite problem. Plus, it gives porn a bad name. This should be taken down. I don't think there's a debate.

More Powerful Women Fighting Back

Women are so helpless. Via the AP:

Women Teach Suspects a Very Hard Lesson

10 hours ago

MARYLAND HEIGHTS, Mo. (AP) — It looks like a couple of suburban St. Louis purse snatchers picked the wrong women to attack. The victims fought back — with a snow shovel.

Police in Maryland Heights released details of the Sunday incident outside a Schnucks grocery store. The women were unloading groceries when the thieves tried to steal two purses from their cart.

One of the women grabbed a shovel from the suspects' pickup and smacked one of the men upside the head. The other woman jumped into the cab and attacked the other suspect, then grabbed the keys so he couldn't drive away.

Police tracked the men to a hotel. The man struck with the shovel required staples to close the gash in his head.

Both are jailed and charged with robbery.

Information from: KMOV-TV, http://www.kmov.com

Right on, ladies.

Blogging for Choice

Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade!

On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, let's look at where we are.

People continue to try to strip away abortion rights by getting around Roe v. Wade. The decision was based on a Right to Privacy, a right that isn't constitutional, but is based on the 14th amendment, which guarantees a right to due process.

The court recognized a state's interest in the protection of fetuses (or, as I like to call them, fetusi).

In other words, Roe v. Wade is an unsteady basis for our right to choose.

If pro-life activists get their way, they would pass amendments stating that a fetus is a person. This would effectively counteract Roe v. Wade.

Men are now arguing that they should have a say when it comes to abortion. These pro-lifers are creative, I'll give them that.

Certain presidential candidates *cough* (Fuckabee) are towing the new pro-life line that doctors are to blame. We should protect our poor, stupid women from getting abortions. They don't know what they're doing.

If said candidates get elected, we'll have to speak through our votes. If you believe a woman should have power over her own life, is responsible to herself before the state, is of sound mind to make her own decisions, please, vote pro-choice.

To me, voting pro-choice means not only voting against all the efforts to strip away our rights, it means voting for candidates who will provide more access to sex education (to keep abortion rates low), voting for access to contraceptives, voting against all the little seemingly innocuous, bills that give the government, state, husband, father, sister, brother, mother, cousin the right to decide what's best for you.

Come November, a lot of people will be out there voting pro-life. Let's show them we're not going backwards.

Wait, maybe I should make it "cool" for the "young people."

Hey, dudes! Do you want to have ask your dad for an abortion even if he's the one who raped you? Do you want to be forced to have a baby when you're twelve? Do you want to pay a lot of money to have a coat hangar shoved into your vagina? That's right! No fuckin' way!

Get out there and Vote for your Vag!

I don't think that worked. Eh, it was worth a try.

The United Women's Front

No, it's not a union for the porn industry. It's the first political party made up (almost) entirely of women for women. There are a few issues - the women need men to help them, fund them, etc., but men are not allowed on the national scale.

Via Women's eNews:

"We are not against men," [Suman Krishan] Kant [president of the party] says. "We need men to work with us and we need their support."

However, she draws certain lines.

"Men will not be part of the national committee," says Kant firmly. "Men will be members of state chapters only; but we will have only women at the national level."

The party hopes to correct some of the inequality throughout the country:

India is often called a land of contradictions and that pertains to the status of women here. The national constitution guaranteed women's legal equality in 1950. India also elected Indira Ghandi in 1966, making her the world's second female prime minister after Sri Lanka's Sirimavo Bandarnaike, who took office in 1960.

This past July Pratibha Patil was elected the country's first female president, a mostly ceremonial position that nonetheless leaves India with a female head of state.

Women hold top cabinets posts and at least three states have female chief ministers. Village councils reserve 33 percent of their seats for women.

On the other hand, millions of women live in poverty, illiteracy, malnourishment and ill-health. In November, the World Economic Forum's latest gender gap index put India among the world's 10 most gender-biased economies, with women's participation in the paid work force at 36 percent.

Hey, hopefully they'll do some good.

Abuse is okay. The Qu'ran tells me so.

Picture (right) and story via the The New York Times.

Abused Muslim American women aren't much different from regular abused women, except that their religious text condones the abuse (it's usually public abuse of women that's condoned in the Christian bible.

The current interpretation of Chapter 4, verse 34 in the Qu'ran gives "husbands the right to strike their wives as the final step in an escalating series of punishments for being rebellious."

The problem is widespread. Even more so because within the Muslim community, the abuse is accepted. Even by women. If a woman asks for help, she is usually met with a cleric who offers marriage counseling (WITH the abusive husband) and/or family telling her to suck it up and be obedient.

If an American Muslim woman seeks help at a shelter, her faith is held in question. The article details this woman's story:

After enduring seven years of beatings from her husband, a young Yemeni-American woman recently fled to a local shelter, only to find that the heavy black head scarf she wore as an observant Muslim provoked disapproval.

The shelter brought in a hairdresser, whose services she accepted without any misgivings. But once her hair was styled, administrators urged her to throw off her veil, saying it symbolized the male oppression native to Islam that she wanted to escape.Instead the woman, who asked for anonymity because she feared further violence from her relatives, decamped to the Hamdard Center for Health and Human Services in suburban Chicago, a shelter that caters mainly to Muslim women by not serving pork and keeping prayer rugs handy. Such shelters are extremely rare nationwide, activists say, because Muslim Americans only recently began confronting the issue of spousal abuse.

Do we really need separate shelters for Muslim women? That's really sad. A shelter shouldn't be a place to question someone's beliefs. A woman comes to a shelter seeking help, and that's what she needs. She doesn't need someone to tell her that her entire life is based on something that oppresses her. And this woman filed for divorce, sought help from imams and family, and endured tremendous abuse because of it. The headscarf does not equal oppression for this 29-year old woman. The husband and family do.

It's good that she had a place like the Hamdard Center to go, but it's extremely sad that she needs it. Shelters are hard to start in Muslim communities, because they like to pretend it's not a problem. Well, I guess it isn't if the verse you take literally tells you it's okay.

People are working to change the interpretation, but it doesn't look good. I guess we should feel lucky that Christian and Jewish fundamentalists are a little wishy-washy on the whole literal thing. If I had to leave the city every time I had a period, I would probably have to kill someone.

Well, as long as it comes in pink...

It's a Taser party! It started with Tupperware, moved to Discovery Toys, then Pampered Chef, now Tasers! Okay, maybe it's just that my mom is a sucker for these kinds of things. At least I left out Longaberger Baskets.

Since Tupperware, the party sale has been an elusive yet tantalizing occupation for women in all walks of life. And Dana Shafman wants to bring the tradition into the self-defense field. Shafman travels around Arizona and hosts parties where women can hold, test, and buy Tasers. According to Shafman, most women go for the pink taser. "It's a girl power kind of thing," she says.
(Is that dude over on the top right of the picture part of your girl power? I would need a lady showing me how its done at MY Taser party.)

As far as self-defense goes, I think I would shock myself trying to get it out of my backpack or purse. But hey, I guess it's better than SLEEPING WITH A KNIFE UNDER YOUR PILLOW, as Shafman claims to have done!