Finger Lickin Bad–KFC Pepto Pinkifies Itself To Cure Our Titties (Updated)

 1 Response »
Apr 122010
 

Oh for pity sake…I was out running errands before and drove past a pepto pink Kentucky Fried Chicken and there but for heavy traffic was tempted to stop and confirm my worst suspicions. Sure enough, KFC has started a Buckets for the Cure campaign:

KFC's eat unhealthy fast food to combat breast cancer campaign

KFC's eat unhealthy fast food to combat breast cancer campaign

On their website you can rotate the bucket to see pictures of women who will tell you their breast cancer story and you can even post your own story.  For each pink bucket you buy, they’ll donate 50 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.  No word on the website how much the bucket costs but clearly KFC is going to make more on this than Komen, although the pink paint on their restaurants probably set them back a bit (will post a pic when I get a chance).

As I’ve said too many times already–selling unhealthy things to raise money for breast cancer is unacceptable as is predatory cause marketing where the cause gets a lot less than the manufacturer of the cute pepto pink thingy. As our alert friends at Breast Cancer Action point out, KFC has said that their goal is to contribute $8.5 million, however in small print, the guaranteed minimum is $1 million and according to the promotion (reprinted here in a reasonable approximation of the pepto pink),

“Customer purchases of KFC buckets during the promotion will not directly
increase the total contribution,”

So we’re buying pink buckets of greasy chicken why?  And what’s with the $7.5 million discrepancy between the goal and the minimum promised–looks like 15 million people have to buy the pink buckets to make that happen.  That’s a lot of breasts for breasts…

If you want to donate money to fight breast cancer in a way that makes a difference and doesn’t involve eating fried, greasy unhealthy food, please donate to Breast Cancer Action.

And while you’re at it, you can tell KFC to keep their greasy finger lickin corporate selves off our breasts here.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on April 12, 2010

Carol P. Christ: Mystifying Male Power As Domination: Theological Roots Of Child Sex Abuse

 Comments Off
Apr 122010
 
Carol P. Christ

Carol P. Christ

Editor’s Note: While this blog focuses exclusively on women’s human rights issues, that is a very big tent and has been very broadly defined for the purposes of this blog.  I am frequently tempted to address issues regarding children’s human rights as well because women are the primary protectors of children on this planet.  However, for the most part I leave that work to the able energy of others who focus on those issues if for no other reason than there are simply only so many things that can be competently dealt with on one blog.

However, in regard to the recent  revelations regarding the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church, particularly male children, it is truly important for there to be a feminist, matridynamic response to the morally unacceptable posturing of the Vatican and it is a privilege to be able to post this essay by Carol P. Christ that addresses this topic.  I am a long-time fan of her work, I think I have read everything she has published, and  her thoughtful analysis and perception has been truly influential in my own thinking regarding religion.  I cannot recommend her essays and books highly enough.  Without further ado:

Mystifying Male Power as Domination: Theological Roots of Child Sex Abuse

by Carol P. Christ

Mary Daly said that when God is man, man is God.  The theological mystification of male power as domination or power-over is one of the key roots of child abuse.  Men in general and priests in particular have been taught that it is their God-given right to exercise power over women and children.  The ability of priests to get away with child abuse and the failure of the Roman Catholic Church to  stop it can be traced directly to the notion that a priest reflects the power of God to his congregation.  Because children are taught to think of priests as holy men who are “like God,” it is hard for them to recognize that priests who abuse are doing something wrong.  Because the Church is invested in maintaining the fiction that priests are “like God,” it has found it difficult to acknowledge that some priests were and are using their power in decisively evil ways.

In its defense the Vatican has stated that child abuse is more likely to be perpetrated by family members, friends, and neighbors than by priests.  This is undoubtedly true. When I taught Women’s Studies at San Jose State University and at Harvard Divinity School in the 1980s many of my students told me blood-chilling stories of abuse by their fathers, brothers, and grandfathers.  However, this only goes to prove my point: not only “the Holy Father” but all fathers and indeed all males benefit from the mystification of male power as domination.  It is hard for victims and other witnesses (including wives and mothers) to believe that allegedly all-powerful males are doing something wrong.  A church that teaches that God is male is responsible when children and adults conclude that the male is God.

In a recent statement the Vatican alleges that only a small number of priests are actually child abusers, arguing that 80-90% of the reported abuse was by “homosexual” priests who were “attracted” to boys between the ages of 11 and 17.  According to the Vatican’s logic, 11 to 17 year-old boys should not be considered children and thus the offense is not so great.  Give me a break!  An 11 or 12 year-old and even a 16 or 17 year-old who has been taught that the priest is his “Holy Father” is still a child and is still a victim of the abuse of power.  The abuse of slightly older children is in some ways a more heinous crime, because such children can more readily be convinced that in some way they “wanted it” or “asked for it.”

In 2008 the Vatican declared that changing male God language to gender neutral terms like Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier would invalidate baptism.  Baptism, it insisted, must be in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The Vatican is quite well-aware that to tamper with traditional male-only language for the Trinity is to question the direct line of male authority that moves from God the Father, to the Holy Father, to priestly Fathers, and to all other fathers.

The project of changing male (dominant) language for God to which I have dedicated much of my life is neither insignificant nor trivial.  Mary Daly was also correct when she wrote that God the Father presides over the “Unholy Trinity” of Rape, Genocide, and War.  Women still need the Goddess and we all need a Goddess/God who is omnipresent but not omnipotent, a Goddess/God who shares our joys and sorrows and who would never ask us to follow blindly or to submit to any abuse of power in family, church, or society.

———-

Carol P. Christ, author of Rebirth of the Goddess and She Who Changes, has worked to end racism, sexism, and war all of her adult life.  She leads Goddess Pilgrimages to Crete to share a vision of an ancient culture that honored women and the earth and did not celebrate war. Space is still available on the spring and fall 2010 pilgrimages.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on April 12, 2010

Jane Roberts–Expanding The Definition Of Gender Based Violence

 Comments Off
Apr 072010
 

As long-time FPN members and  blog readers know, when FPN began, our focus was on the impact militarism had on women’s lives.  Within a short time that expanded to include a definition of all violence against women as terrorism and over the years the lens has expanded to include the full range of women’s human rights and the myriad of ways in which they are violated.

Jane Roberts, co-founder of 34 Million Friends of UNFPA and a member of FPN has an excellent piece out that looks at the need to use a broad brush when discussing gender based violence that amplifies much of what we address on this blog and her piece is a very important read. Here is an few excerpt:

Whether there is an epidemic of gender based violence now, which seems to be the prevailing view among knowledgeable people committed to its curtailment, or whether it has always been just as prevalent but without the communications technology to holler it to the world is debatable. I suppose it really doesn’t matter. What matters is how broadly we define it now, and depending on that definition how we deal with it.

The web site of the United Nations Population Fund lists 16 forms of gender based violence. “Violence against women takes many forms: sexual assault,  child marriage, incest, wife beating, prostitution, female genital mutilation, dowry-related violence, trafficking, sexual violence during wars, femicide, sexual harassment, ‘honour’ killings, forced sterilization, date rape, pornography and bride kidnapping.  Violence against women may also take many forms of psychological abuse, intimidation and harassment. All are unacceptable violations of human rights. Together they form a huge obstacle to gender equality and genuine human progress.”

My view is that psychological abuse, intimidation and harassment are as equally unacceptable as physical violence. In fact they may in some cases be worse. I believe there is a huge opening for scholarly research into the effects of the psychological  abuse of women and of the psychological effects of gender inequality on women and on men.

I would like to expand the definition of gender based violence. Maternal mortality, dying in the process of giving birth, is the ultimate gender based violence. This should not happen in the 21st century. It is just a question of priorities.

Gender inequality where the male model is preferred to the female is a form of violence. To hazard a guess I would say that perhaps sixty-five percent of pro-creating couples would prefer a boy baby at least for the first born.  Is this psychological preference a form of gender-based violence?  Yes, because when the girl baby appears, at least at first, the parents have a feeling of let-down. At some level, this must have an effect on the baby. And then think of the psychological and cultural ambiance that has made both parents prefer the son first.

We all know that there are 1 billion hungry people in the world today.  Joan Holmes, the former head of The Hunger Project has stated: “In much of the developing world, a little girl eats last and least.  She is up to three times more likely than boys to suffer malnutrition.”

Now, I ask you, isn’t this gender-based violence?

With the world’s present balance of decision making power, if men could get pregnant, family planning would be universally available and abortion would be legal and safe everywhere.  The present system is violence personified.

I have never in my life been aware of militant pro-lifers admonishing men to prevent abortion by the most obvious means.  Men share equal responsibility with  women for abortions that result from “not wanting a baby at this time.”  Only  women are screamed at, prosecuted, prayed for, and blamed. It was Eve who ate the apple. Only she is the embodiment of sin.

There is so much more to this  article–usually it is easy to pick out an  excerpt that really stands out–that was not the case here, the whole article, particularly  Jane’s conclusions, difficult as they are to read in their truth-telling, is a must read.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on April 7, 2010

Afghanistan–Murdering Pregnant Women In The Name Of Democracy

 Comments Off
Apr 052010
 

According to the New York Times,

After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.

In fact, it is worse than that, much worse.  As we pointed out on this blog last week,  according to Kathy Kelly,

…the NATO report insisted that the two pregnant women at the party had been found bound and gagged, murdered by the male victims in an honor killing. A March 16, 2010 U.N. report, following on further reporting by Starkey, exposed the deception, to meager American press attention.

So we tried to make this look like something done by what we frame as the enemy, but at the risk of being repetitive, wait, it gets even worse, via the NYT:

NATO military officials had already admitted killing two innocent civilians — a district prosecutor and local police chief — during the raid, on a home near Gardez in southeastern Afghanistan. The two men were shot to death when they came out of their home, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, to investigate.

Three women also died that night at the same home: One was a pregnant mother of 10 and another was a pregnant mother of six. NATO military officials had suggested that the women were actually stabbed to death — or had died by some other means — hours before the raid, an explanation that implied that family members or others at the home might have killed them.

Survivors of the raid called that explanation a cover-up and insisted that American forces killed the women. Relatives and family friends said the bloody raid followed a party in honor of the birth of a grandson of the owner of the house.

On Sunday night the American-led military command in Kabul issued a statement admitting that “international forces” were responsible for the deaths of the women. Officials have previously stated that American Special Operations forces and Afghan forces conducted the operation.

“International forces”? Do they seriously not know who conducted the raid?  Not highly likely.  But wait, yes you guessed it, it gets worse:

And in what would be a scandalous turn to the investigation, The Times of London reported Sunday night that Afghan investigators also determined that American forces not only killed the women but had also “dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath” and then “washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.”

In other words, cut to the chase, not only did these maybe American or maybe mysterious international forces commit an atrocity, they clearly knew that was exactly what they had done and they tried to cover it up by falsely implying the barbarity of innocent civilians.  This is an horrific crime, a clear violation of international law and it needs to be investigated and prosecuted fully.

In this country, since late 2001 we have been subjected to a steady drumbeat from our government and media telling us how important it is to fight terrorism, beat Al Quaeda, find Bin Laden, beat the Taliban, defend the homeland and on and on.  Oh yeah and while we are at it, we will liberate the women of Afghanistan.  And the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, 2 of them pregnant, one the mother of 10 beautiful children who are now motherless accomplishes this how?

What we’ve been told are lies, bloody, bloody lies.  Later this week, I’ll be lecturing on the impact that militarism has on on women’s lives and I will be dedicating that talk to the women who were murdered in this raid.  Safety and liberation is not achieved by such atrocities, they only serve to make the world a far more dangerous place, especially for women if we allow them to happen with impunity.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on April 5, 2010

16 Year Old Afghan Girl Sold, Raped And Put In Jail

 Comments Off
Apr 052010
 

The never ending lie of liberation in Afghanistan:

For the shy Afghan girl who sat quietly in a detention center with a pale blue headscarf, teenage rebellion had come at a heavy price: seven years in prison.

Engaged to an older man who had offered $5,000 to her father but in love with a boy she spoke to on the phone, the 16-year-old girl was hauled before a court that found her guilty of running away from home, according to an account she provided.

“I was engaged to an older man and I was not happy. He was painting his beard black,” said the girl, who cannot be named because of rules protecting juvenile detainees.

Now pregnant, she said she did not know who the baby’s father was, adding she had slept with both the boy she was in love with and the man she was engaged to. She also said she had been raped while in detention before being sent to the Kabul facility.

I’m guessing that President Obama didn’t visit  this young woman in jail when he went to Afghanistan a few weeks ago to cheer on the troops.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by Fempeace on April 5, 2010
 Older Entries  Newer Entries