Was woman hating a factor in the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords?  There I’ve said it, because as a feminist it is a question I need to ask and no, don’t start with the mansplaining that I don’t understand the bigger picture or that there are larger issues because the uncomfortable truth is that violence is usually perpetrated against women for different reasons than it is perpetrated against men and the frame in which it is subsequently processed and analyzed is often quite different as well. Woman-hatred is at pandemic levels in this world and that context cannot be ignored.

There are definite reasons to think that indeed there is a misogynist aspect to understanding the Giffords shooting. We know that Loughner had approached Giffords before, in 2007,

Mr. Loughner said he asked the lawmaker, “How do you know words mean anything?” recalled Mr. Montanaro. He said Mr. Loughner was “aggravated” when Ms. Giffords, after pausing for a couple of seconds, “responded to him in Spanish and moved on with the meeting.”

So had he been stalking her since then?  It’s possible. There are also reports that Loughner verbally attacked a fellow student with anti-abortion vitriol and Giffords is pro-choice, so that may have something to do with it.

Amanda Marcotte puts it this way,

Gender is an issue with this specific shooting.  Just as you can’t claim that shooting a congressperson and a judge at a political event is a non-political event, you can’t really just pretend there aren’t gender implications to a young man shooting one of the sadly too few women in Congress.

Marcotte goes on to explain why indeed Gifford’s response to Loughner in 2007 may have a bearing in understanding what happened on Saturday, that it might be interpreted as an extreme way of manplaining his anger with her refusal to be badgered by him.  Her essay is a crucial must read, particularly for her truly cogent explanation of mansplaining and why it is so problematic and damaging.

Jessica Valenti also points out that ‘manning up’ plays an important part in American political rhetoric and the impact of that also needs to be considered.

Gloria Feldt adds this,

We can’t depend on the current leadership of the hypermasculinized political culture that  Jessica Valenti, Feministing executive editor, describes in The Guardian. Our idealization of violent masculinity she says spills over into the political discourse, and is emulated by right-wing women like Sarah Palin, whose electoral target map placed Giffords in her gunsight.

Is it appropriate to frame this incident in terms of hyper-masculine violence? Was there an element of woman-hatred in this incident? It will be awhile until we know enough to fully answer those questions.  The point we need to hold firm on however is that these possible frames be fully examined as an integral part of the analysis and investigation of this horrific crime.

———

Addenda:  This description from the Wall Street Journal lends a great deal of credence to the likelihood that he was stalking her and that while shooting a Congresswoman is a political act, this particular shooting was probably also motivated by a deep misogyny directed specifically at Giffords:

Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner appeared to have been long obsessed with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

A safe at Mr. Loughner’s home contained a form letter from Ms. Giffords’ office thanking him for attending a 2007 “Congress on your Corner” event in Tucson. The safe also held an envelope with handwritten notes, including the name of Ms. Giffords, as well as “I planned ahead,” “My assassination,” and what appeared to be Mr. Loughner’s signature, according to an FBI affidavit.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

As most of you know, I don’t generally do book reviews, but the trailer for Gloria Feldt’s new book, No Excuses, 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power, caught my attention and while I haven’t read the book, I’m totally sure it is a must read and here is why.

For a long time now, whenever I talk about the impact that militarism has on women’s lives, I talk about the concept of power.  I try to point out that militarism is predicated on the concept of power over but that true empowerment comes from power within (our own inner strength) and power among (our sense of community, that we are all in this together).  That said, check out this trailer for Feldt’s new book:

What Gloria is saying about moving from power over to power to is elegant and eloquent and truly expands the way we frame our understanding of power.  Her list of 9 ways is perceptive and thought provoking and clearly opens up a very productive  path towards discussing substantive ways to change the damaging power paradigm that confronts us every day and I”m chomping at the bit (can you tell I’ve been living in horse country for too long?) to get a copy of this book and learn more.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
Nov 132009
 

Wouldn’t you know it– while we silly feminists have been agonizing about the impact of the Stupak Amendment after Nancy and the Cardinals did the C Street Shuffle at the Saturday Night Congressional Jerk I mean Dance Off it turns out that if we really want to keep our reproductive rights, all we need to do is get a job at the RNC or the anti-choice group Focus on the Family cuz their health plans cover, wait for it, ABORTION.  Really.

I don’t even know why this surprises me.  The entire health care debate without end has been one long-winded exercise in stupid.  From the get go the sad thing is that what passes as discourse has suffered from the same malady as the abortion issue–a deeply flawed frame.  In the case of abortion, the minute the word ‘choice’ and the phrase ‘pro-life’ became the descriptors, the discussion we should have been having about women’s reproductive rights was gone.

As for health care, we have had all manner of false flag buzzwords–public option, triggers, yada yada everything centered around the cost of premiums totally losing sight of the fact that health care is a human right, not a commodity that needs to be delivered in a way that keeps pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies afloat  so they will keep funding our elected representatives.  Our health care system is ill, it is a disgrace and it is an affront to human decency.  Ditto our Congress who, with very few exceptions have apparently had frontal lobotomies and seem to be suffering from some painful form of spinal disintegration.  What part of just fix it could possibly not be clear?  The answer of course is apparently the whole damned thing and until we insist that Congress get their little patooties (I leave it to you to decide what part of the anatomy you feel that should describe) pointed in the right direction and back on topic, our health care is going to remain in critical condition.

One of the most galling aspects of the Stupak Amendment is that after months of dithering, pontificating, waffling and other forms of ass covering that pass for political debate these days, Stupak happened in the 11th hour before a Saturday vote leaving reproductive justice advocates doing a lot of WTF-ing.  I am still deeply shocked that the Democratic leadership that has been so unable to use its majority position to act decisively could all of a sudden simply decide that women’s reproductive rights could just cavalierly be thrown to the Blue Dogs for the sake of the last 3 votes.  It is just breathtaking even though it has come to light in recent months that our current system has been shafting women on many health care fronts for quite some time–higher premiums, maternity care, etc.  As I  noted last week, even high risk state insurance pools have been discrimination against women.

But what is the deal with Pelosi making a last minute concession of this magnitude to the Catholic Church? Wendy Norris sheds some light on why this isn’t just a matter of the Catholic Church playing the abortion card on a moral basis, it is also has a  huge stake in the financial ramifications of the health care legislation,

The justifiable anger at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for lobbying on the Stupak-Pitts amendment overshadows what is possibly the bigger motive for the Vatican: the billions of dollars at stake for the church’s hospitals.

The scale of the church’s involvement in the rapidly growing $2.5 trillion dollar American health care industry is staggering.

Abortion may be safe, it may be legal.  But if it isn’t affordable, it is de facto not available and that is detrimental to women’s health and an unacceptable compromise, as is the premise that the health of corporations or the Catholic Church trumps  that of people.  For additional commentary on this  issue, please also read,

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare