:: The Ugly, and Non-Naked, American

Sexist is as sexist does - even if you write for Salon's Broadsheet.

Yesterday, a short article appeared in Salon (in the stupidly named "Broadsheet" section on lady issues) about the Women's Party of Poland. Formed about a year ago by a group of electeds, activists and card-carrying members of the intelligentsia, the Women's Party is competing in the October 21 national election. A decent article about them appears here.

But Salon didn't focus on the Women's Party's ideas, nor on their electoral prognosis. Instead, Tracy Clark-Flory, one of Broadsheet's (did I mention how much I hate that name?) resident "feminists," chose to focus - exclusively - on their current ad campaign. Here's a taste:

How best to advertise Poland's newfound Women's Party? Nude chicks, of course! That seems to be the thinking behind the party's latest billboard, which features seven of its candidates in their birthday suits. A handful of the candidates cover their private bits with a sign reading, "The party of women. Poland is a woman." Two other women sit in the forefront, curled up to conceal themselves.

Manuela Gretkowska, founder of the Women's Party, explains: "This poster is intended to shatter stereotypes in the anachronistic world of politics, which is more often dominated by uncommunicative men with their black tie outfits." She continues, "We are beautiful, nude, proud. We are true and sincere, body and soul. This is not pornography, there is nothing to see in terms of sex, our faces are intelligent, concerned, proud."

The Salon piece is titled "Poland's Female Politicos Disrobe" and appears to be based solely on the article "Polish Women Strip Off in Bid to Woo Voters," from the U.K. tabloid The Telegraph. But the "lookit - nude chicks!" attitude is straight outta the frat house. And the rest of the Salon article is even more cringe-worthy. I'll get just get out of the way and quote it in its entirety:

Their decision to publicly disrobe might make more sense in light of the conservative government's tight restrictions on abortion -- the billboard could possibly, by a stretch of the imagination, be seen as a statement that women own their own bodies. But it certainly doesn't seem to "shatter stereotypes"; instead, it seems to bolster them. Is flashing your flesh the only way to be noticed or taken seriously as a woman -- wouldn't refusing such cheap ploys do a better job of seizing power from the "uncommunicative men with their black tie outfits"?

Playing to the lowest common denominator as a means of getting brief, hysterical attention hardly seems any more communicative. In fact, it seems a surefire way of causing anachronistic male politicians to simply shrug and wave off those silly female candidates.

I let my thoughts on this gestate overnight, and this morning birthed a lengthy letter to Salon that I fully realize no one will read. And yet, this seemed like a good way to spend my time. Now I post it here, for only three people to read. Still, I think Zippy especially will have a laugh, so here goes:

Given the choice between trusting the judgment of Clark-Flory versus that of the Women's Party - a group of intelligent and experienced activists, politicians, writers, etc. who live and breathe Polish politics - the smart money's on the Women's Party to know what's what.

Note to Clark-Flory: the next time you're thinking about publicly slagging off a group of accomplished women's rights activists you know nothing about, working in a political environment you know nothing about, consider at least calling one of them (on Salon's dime) to pose your critique and ask for a response rather than judging them by an article in the Telegraph. Or is that too much to ask? Its not for nothing that European feminists criticize their American sisters for being superficial, ignorant of different political cultures and lacking in solidarity.

With regard to the Women's Party's electoral situation: Poland's national elections are scheduled to take place on October 21st. The current ruling party, PiS (Law & Justice - just a hair's breadth from fascist) is polling significantly ahead of their closest competitor, the center-right party Civic Platform. If things go as expected, PiS will have to form a coalition government, which will be difficult because they have alienated most of their former allies. In this equation, the support of even the smallest parties is key. I believe I read that the Women's Party is currently polling at 3 to 5% of the vote, with 5% being the threshhold for joining the Parliament.

Under the PiS, Poland has veered sharply right wing, not only defying the European courts with regard to abortion but also cracking down on liberal educators and the rights of gays and lesbians, fomenting anti-semitism, opposing the EU's anti-death penalty consensus, and so on.

It is in this context that the Women's Party is trying to rally support for a different way of life - one in which women (and men) have autonomy, individuality and self-expression are valued, and the culture more closely resembles that of Western and Northern Europe and less so that of Putin's Russia.

I don't think the Women's Party effort has much to do with American-style consumer culture objectification of women. These are strong, intelligent, confident women who are presenting themselves as such.

Among their concerns is the fact that there are some powerful women who hold public office in Poland who don't know or care much about women's rights. The Women's Party is saying that they will do good things politically, and that they won't forget they are women / abandon women's rights once they are elected.

Their makeup and hairstyles - as well as their evident comfort with their own bodies - indicates they are modern rather than traditional, part of the future rather than the past.

In addition, the honesty vs. corruption issue is very, very important in Poland, and the partial nudity (nothing to hide) and accentuation of their "femaleness" (there, as here, women tend to be seen as more trustworthy in politics) get that message across uniquely and powerfully.

Of course, such an ad campaign would be a laughing stock in the United States, where for the most part admitting you are a feminist is still taboo and women in the public eye are viewed first and foremost as sex objects.

And of course, there will be plenty of immature people who will point and snicker. Lowbrow media types will report on the Women’s Party solely because of the nudity, and will denigrate them as nothing more than the empty-headed perpetrators of a “sexy” publicity stunt (recognize yourself, Broadsheet?)

Note to Clark-Flory: its easy to be derisive and shallow. Its more difficult to be insightful and generous. Your job may reward the former, but the latter is good for the soul.

Oh dear. I think I just paraphrased a Smiths song.

Read more!

:: Classy Move

Mayor Jerry Sanders (R) of San Diego announced that he's changed his position. It's a repetitive, rambling announcement, yes, but moving too. On a catty side note, what's up with his wife's plastic posture?

Thanks, Peter, for pointing this out.

P.S. I learned how to post video! I'm so proud...

Read more!

:: Arrrrh!

Ahoy, lassies! It's International Talk Like a Pirate Day. If ciccina refuses to post any Fred updates, and noone else has anything to add, then I can only say ARRRHHH!! Read more!

:: The Daily Fred, Thursday Edition

Your Fred Thompson gaffe du jour - because with each passing day, it just gets better and better

Okay, this guy is making it just too easy - so easy, in fact, that I can post The Daily Fred and stay true to my lazy nature. He appears to be constitutionally unable to prepare himself for questions. Is there any subject in which he has expertise? Is there any conflict during which he pays attention? He's actually giving Bush a run for his money in the hoof-in-mouth department.

Today's entry is: "Thompson Gives No Opinion on Schiavo" courtesy of the AP. Emphasis added. And this is in Florida, no less.

THE VILLAGES, Fla. - Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson gave no opinion Thursday when asked about efforts by President Bush and Congress to keep Terri Schiavo alive, saying he does not remember details of the right-to-die case that stirred national debate.

Thompson was asked in an interview for Bay News 9's "Political Connections" program whether he thought Congress' intervention to save the life of the brain-damaged woman two years ago was appropriate.

"I can't pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best," Thompson said. "That's going back in history. I don't remember the details of it."

Tee hee hee! Hee hee! I love it. Read more!

:: The Most Unexpected Places

Today I alert you to a George Will column that is mightily entertaining. In it Will expresses his utter frustration with Fred Thompson, candidate. It is but one of a cluster of pieces by conservative and "non-partisan" pundits rapping Thompson for being sub-par on an ever-growing number of counts. I myself was thinking of posting a daily "Today's Fred" item on whatever new nonsense he was spouting - it occurs that frequently. And then I remembered that I am lazy.

My favorite part of this column is the bit about campaign finance reform... emphasis added.

He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know.

Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from "giving large sums of money to individual politicians." But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively.

Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold's ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified "they" who "added on" that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise. But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002.

In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson's committee recommended a statutory "restriction on issue advocacy" during "a set period prior to an election" when the speech includes "any use of a candidate's name or image." And in 1999, Thompson co-sponsored legislation containing what became, in 2002, the McCain-Feingold blackout periods imposed on any television or radio ad that "refers to" a candidate for federal office -- a portion of which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in June.

Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham, "I voted for all of it," meaning McCain- Feingold, but said "I don't support that" provision of it.

Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress's especially "compelling interest" in squelching issue ads that "influence" elections?

Sweet. Read more!

:: A Fine Idea

To defeat anti-choice legislation, attach a rider making the state financially responsible to the women who are influenced by it.

By now, all state legislatures have considered bills designed to pressure pregnant women to not have abortions.

I’m not talking about provisions that remove obstacles for women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, such as improved health services, maternity and paternity leave, subsidized child care and other forms of public assistance, and better enforcement of child support orders.

I mean the anti-choice legislation designed to hector, guilt-trip or scare women away from abortion by means of government-scripted lectures, waiting periods, misinformation about physical and psychological consequences (the bogus “abortion causes breast cancer” claim; “post-abortion trauma syndrome”) and tax-payer funding for fake “crisis pregnancy centers.”

The usual strategy for defeating this legislation is to fight it head-on with arguments based in fact and ethical reasoning. Alongside that, I suggest another tactic that I think would be effective. It occurred to me after reading the following article:

Woman awarded damages for pregnancy

28 August 2007

THE HAGUE – The IJsselland Hospital in Capelle aan den IJssel has been ordered to pay damages of EUR 400,000 to a mother who was incorrectly informed about her fertility.

This has emerged from a ruling by the appeal court in The Hague. The court upheld a ruling from a lower court in this case.

The gynaecologist had told the woman she could no longer become pregnant. The woman subsequently became pregnant with twins, who are now 13 years old. The hospital is being required to contribute to the costs of raising the children.

In the early 1990s, the woman, 37 at the time, and her husband asked the now-retired gynaecologist if the woman could still become pregnant. After an examination the woman was assured that she could not become pregnant.

Not long after the woman did in fact conceive. The family already had three children at that point. As a result of the pregnancy the woman had to leave her job.

The hospital and gynaecologist have always denied that they failed to alert the woman to the risks of a pregnancy. The court said that the dossier indicates the opposite.

The court also rejected the hospital's argument that no damage would have been caused had the woman opted for an abortion at the time.

Hospitals have been ordered to pay damages in previous cases involving failed sterilisations. This is the first time that damages have been awarded for the birth of a child after the administration of inaccurate advice on birth control.

There you have it.

Every bill that seeks to impede access to abortion by funding fake crisis pregnancy centers, spreading false information through advertising or state mandated lectures or impeding access through waiting periods should carry a rider making the state financially responsible for any pregnancies brought to term that result from these efforts.

Its only fair, isn’t it? If a woman goes to a taxpayer-supported crisis pregnancy center and they tell her that if she has an abortion she will get breast cancer (false), and she decides not to have an abortion only to find out later that she was lied to, the crisis pregnancy center and the state that funds it should be held accountable for the resulting expense of raising the child.

Physicians who give bad information to their patients are already subject to malpractice lawsuits; if the government wants to play doctor, it should face the same risks. And tobacco companies have been ordered to pay damages to people with lung cancer who claim they were influenced by misleading cigarette advertising. Efforts to penalize the purveyors of junk food for influencing people to become obese are stirring around out there.

Once proposed, the rider could be used in a public relations context to refocus the debate on what it really means for the state to “support life.” If attached, it would be an effective poison pill and would give wavering electeds cover for voting against the legislation.

Read more!

:: Amnesty, Aguilera and the Birth of a Hoax

An anti-choice group has duped the press into promoting a hoax

to hurt Amnesty International

This is how a hoax is born. Today’s topic: Christina Aguilera, Amnesty International and the Vatican-sponsored boycott of Amnesty.

[For more about this intensely solipsistic boycott, see Zippy’s post "Oh, I forgot that human rights were only for boys" and "Irish Times Column on Amnesty and Abortion"].

On June 19, 2007, a sad little group called Rock for Life sent out a press release called “Musical heavyweights duped in the name of Darfur; CD raises cash for pro-abortion Amnesty International.”

Washington, D.C. — "The human suffering going on right now in Darfur is horrific," said Erik Whittington, American Life League's youth outreach director and director of Rock for Life. "To add insult to injury, however, using this tragic abuse of human rights to raise money for a pro-abortion organization is hypocritical and beyond belief."

“Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur,” a double-disc CD whose proceeds will support Amnesty International, hit record stores on June 12. Featuring covers of John Lennon tunes, the CD is loaded with music heavyweights including U2, Christina Aguilera, Avril Lavigne, Green Day and many more. As part of the fundraiser, Yoko Ono donated the rights and publishing royalties from Lennon’s songs to Amnesty International as well.

We will be educating not only the youth of America on Amnesty International’s pro-abortion policies,” said Whittington, “but the artists as well. We intend to send information on Amnesty International and its support for abortion to all of the artists participating in this project. Hopefully, they will stop supporting Amnesty International and its advocacy of the greatest human rights abuse of all time – abortion.

The press release appears to serve the dual purpose of threatening Amnesty with repercussions and rewarding them by promoting their fundraising CD. No small feat, that, but despite the creative messaging the story got no traction until Monday, when the Times (UK) ran an article called “Pro-life Rockers Clash with Amnesty.”

The second paragraph of this article is:

The group [Amnesty] has been accused of “duping” the singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion and are among contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the atrocities in Darfur.

Hmmm. It would appear that Rock for Life’s effort has paid off – two of the artists on Amnesty’s CD are pro-life and now feel betrayed because they were tricked into raising money for a pro-abort group. Wow - good work, kids!

But wait a sec – what’s this? Rock for Life’s own website lists Aguilera as “pro abortion” with the mysterious notation “March for Women’s Lives.” So who is right – Rock for Life, or Rock for Life?

Here’s what I think: a reporter asked Rock for Life’s Erik Whittington if any of the musicians on the CD actually felt duped, and Whittington threw out two names. Either he didn't bother to check his own website first, or he gambled on the reporters being too lazy to do any fact-checking. If so, that was a good bet because the reporters didn't check the facts. Way down in paragraphs 11 and 12, we read:

The views of singers who have contributed to the album - who also include George Harrison’s son Dhani - on Amnesty’s change of heart are not yet clear.

But Aguilera, 26, is a devout American Catholic. She is reportedly expecting her first child and has taken part in a television show in which she interviewed a teenager who had kept her baby rather than have an abortion.

The “evidence” that Aguilera is offended is based not on any she has said - instead, it is inferred from the information that she is (1) a "devout" Catholic, (2) a mother, and (3) once talked to teenager who had a baby.

Of course, the reporters don't tell us that:

1. Aguilera participated in the 2004 March for Women’s Lives;
2. Aguilera’s videos are not the work of a “devout Catholic” [no link; you know what I'm talking about], nor is there any evidence that she has called herself that; and
3. Aguilera interviewed the baby-bearing teenager, among others, as part of an MTV special on sexual and reproductive health and rights in advance of the 2004 elections (and you know what a bastion of conservative thinking MTV is, especially on the topic of sex).

The Times interweaves its bit of myth-making with the unfounded claim that Amnesty will face serious repercussions because its policy change has offended the Catholic church. It exaggerates the influence of the church’s directives on ordinary Catholics and, by doing so, actively contributes to the pressure campaign to punish Amnesty. And it allows Rock for Life to claim a wildly popular celebrity as an ally without any evidence and against all probability.

And then, the step that is essential to mythmaking takes place: subsequent news stories quote the incorrect original article, and repeat its claims as if they are factual. Hey, if you attribute a claim to its source, you don’t need to do fact-checking, right? No, you’re off the hook because you’re not reporting on facts; you are reporting on what another reporter said!

The following day WorldNetDaily ran with “Pro-life rock stars 'duped' by Amnesty: Anti-torture group's new support for abortion called betrayal of musicians on fundraising CD.”

The article includes a pic of Aguilera and states:

Amnesty International, which formally announced two weeks ago a new worldwide policy backing women's right to abortion in some cases, is being charged with having "duped" pro-life pop stars who contributed their time and talents to a CD released to raise money by the anti-torture group for victims of violence in Darfur.

"The human suffering going on right now in Darfur is horrific," said Erik Whittington, American Life League's youth outreach director and director of Rock for Life, an organization of anti-abortion musicians.

"To add insult to injury, however, using this tragic abuse of human rights to raise money for a pro-abortion organization is hypocritical and beyond belief," he said.

In particular, Whittington accused Amnesty of deceiving singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion, according to the London Sunday Times.”

As you can see, the first paragraph uses the passive voice to make it sound as if the singers themselves are angry with Amnesty, and doesn't clarify the matter until paragraph four. And Aguilera's appearance on the MTV special in which she talked to a former teen mother has morphed into "made statements against abortion."

And Rock for Life doesn't need to another thing, because the celebrity factor of the story sells itself. The word is out: organizations that support the right to choose will face serious consequences.

By now the WorldNetDaily story has been picked up by a slew of online publications, and I doubt any of them will do their own fact checking. The claims will be repeated until they become “true” and voila! instant celebrity support for the Amnesty boycott. In fact, I just received my first email from an Aguilera fan (yes, I know an Aguilera fan) who was disappointed that she has taken such a reactionary stand on Amnesty, and I've seen a few blog entries / comments deriding her as a hypocrite for calling herself "devout" when she so manifestly (again, the videos) is not.

I really hope Aguilera is offended by this misuse of her name and makes a statement of support for Amnesty. And I hope she commits to doing a special fundraiser for them, because it would be great if Rock for Life's adventures in mythmaking resulted in more, not less funding for Amnesty - not to mention sending the message to these liars that yes, the truth actually matters.

Epilogue

I was just catching up with The Daily Howler and saw this paragraph, which I think bears repeating given that I ascribe bias to the reporters from the Times and WorldNetDaily.

We’re all accustomed to analyzing the press corps’ work in terms of bias. That’s an important type of discussion, but it sometimes obscures the astounding incompetence of this least-capable cohort. And let’s be clear: The mainstream press can survive such blunders because they alone, among American professions, control what is written about themselves. In other professions, clownish incompetence gets discussed in the press. But when the press corps bumbles in its time-honored ways, nary a word is spoken.

Indeed.

Epilogue II

I just contacted the good people at the official Christina Aguilera website - http://www.christinaaguilera.com/ - and asked whether Aguilera has said anything about abortion, Amnesty, etc. So far the replies I have gotten indicate that she hasn't said anything about being anti-abortion, about being displeased with Amnesty, or even about being a devout Catholic. Some of the fans say she even went through a phase where she took to calling herself "Xtina" to emphasize, oh, well, you get the picture. And yes, I had to join the fan club to get access to their fan forums. This is what my life has become.

Epilogue III

Several hours later, a growing number of conservative, pro-life and even completely neutral sites have picked up the Times story and running it as if Aguilera and Lavigne were the ones who said they feel duped by Amnesty. They are also repeating the bit about Aguilera having made anti-abortion statements. And no one is doing their own fact-checking. Of course. These are links to some of the stories.

• "Christina and friends blast Amnesty International"
  
• "Rockers may abandon Amnesty International"
• "Unexpected Pro-Life Activism: Artists Slam Amnesty's Abortion Shift"
• "Pro-life Bloggers Clash with Amnesty" - and this is on an important Sudan activism hub website, with no fact-checking, no clarifications and no way to comment. Nice.
• "Amnesty and Abortion"
• "Pro-Life Rockers CLASH with Amnesty"
• "Well It Wasn't a Joint Statement" ("You know it is an odd day when the USCCB and Christina Aguilera both issue statements against Amnesty International for their change on abortion.")
• "Pro-life Rockers Clash with Amnesty's New Abortion Policy"
  
• "Pro-life Activism from Unexpected Quarters: Artists Slam Amnesty's Abortion Shift"
• "Cardinal Resigns from Amnesty Over Abortion Row"

Read more!