A Photo of Rihanna -- An Uncomfortable Reminder of Domestic Violence

James Rainey in the LA Times today says something that Renee from Womanist Musings said last week: the debate over whether to show Rihanna's photo in the media isn't about privacy -- it's about domestic violence. All too often the argument given to ignore domestic violence is that it's "none of our business," but as Rainey says today, that's just one more way of not dealing with the problems of domestic violence:

It's been argued that by posting the puffy-faced, strikingly painful image, TMZ and others embarrassed and stigmatized the pop star. I don't underestimate how difficult this must be for a 21-year-old woman. But I think the media have paid almost no attention to another pressing threat: that domestic violence will be hidden away and suffered silently by victims, alone.

"Actually, it is not embarrassing for Rihanna. It is, however, shameful for the perpetrator," wrote Wendy Murphy, a onetime Massachusetts prosecutor, in a column supporting publication of the photo. "And it isn't a violation of anyone's 'privacy' because crime is not a 'private' matter."

The truth is that victims of domestic violence are experiencing something that is anything but private. The physical wounds they suffer are often visible and they must go through their everyday lives lying about how they obtained the injuries. We use the veil of privacy to avoid talking about the issue. It is often painful for victims of domestic violence to talk about their injuries, but it is also painful to be in a situation that comes to physical blows. As we've seen people have been all too willing to excuse Chris Brown because he is young, or suggest it might have been Rihanna's fault, even suggesting that she "deserved it."

Let me be clear about one thing. No one ever "deserves" to be hit by his or her partner. By ignoring or hiding evidence that this is happening, we're allowing the problem to persist.

Vacation

I'll be on vacation for the next few days, traipsing through Ireland.

Palin Appoints Pro-Choicer to State Surpeme Court

So Sarah Palin surprised everyone again by appointing a former Planned Parenthood board member to Alaska's Supreme Court. From the Anchorage Daily News:

Last week, without explaining why, Palin took the unusual step of asking the Judicial Council to send her all information it had on the two finalists, Christen and Palmer Superior Court Judge Eric Smith.

The council nominated them from a slate of six applicants. It takes four council votes for a candidate to be sent to the governor. None of the other candidates received any votes.

The head of the Alaska Family Council -- a Christian pro-family, anti-abortion group -- on Wednesday sent an e-mail to thousands of people asking them to urge Palin to pick Smith, not Christen.

Perhaps I'm being far too cynical, but I tend to think that Palin selected this woman, only the second to ever sit on Alaska's Supreme Court, to reinforce her "mavrickyness" and paint herself as more moderate for a potential 2012 run.

Sexist Jokes, an Outlet for Sexist Behavior

Not to side with those cheesy human resources videos they make you watch on your first day in the office, but it seems a new study shows that sexist jokes can actually create an outlet for sexist behavior. The study itself is a little weird -- researchers had participants read jokes, some of which were sexist and some of which were not, then asked them to donate to a women's organization. I'm not sure I agree with that method, since it equates women's organizations with women themselves. There are plenty of reasons to be critical of women's organizations that aren't sexist per se. But it does illustrate an important point. Sexist jokes go a long way in diminishing the importance of feminism. If you're willing to laugh about how women are inferior, you're probably less likely to think that what women are trying to accomplish is important.

Who Takes Over for Sebelius?

Yesterday I wrote about Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for HHS Secretary. Today I just wanted to take a look at what might happen in the state if Sebelius is confirmed. The Kansas governorship is term-limited, so Sebelius would have been out after the next election anyway. But the lieutenant governor, Mark Parkinson, has a history with the Kansas Republican Party. Although he's a Democrat now and has always been pro-choice, Parkinson's history of jumping ship on the party might prove difficult for him as he becomes governor.

Former Sen. Sam Brownback, the state's most outspoken national politician on abortion issues, has pledged to run for the seat.

Repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Politico guesses that the notion of repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" will do the same thing it did for Clintion, "knocked him off message, sapped him of auathority, damaged his popularity ratings and left him with a reputation for being wishy-washy that stuck." This was brought about by Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher declaring today at CAP (my generous employer) that she is introducing legislation that would repeal DADT. But as usual, Politico gets it wrong again.

Sure, Obama may not have been looking forward to dealing with DADT this early in his administration, but Congress has already been thinking about repealing this bizarre policy for a few months now. It's not surprising they might start the ball rolling on this one. Furthermore, public opinion has swung in favor -- about 55 percent at last measure -- in favor of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

It's also important to remember that DADT is a policy that was enacted by Clinton and one that created a great deal of problems. Before, there just wasn't a policy about gays in the military. Now, although military officials aren't required to report it, if they are "outed" they must resign. By repealing this policy, it would allow the military to leave their private lives exactly where it should be -- in private.

Sebelius for HHS

The Kansas City Star is psyched that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is going to be (assuming she can get though congressional confirmation) the Health and Human Services secretary. Here's from the editorial:

The job is a good fit for Sebelius, a wonkish (and we mean this as a compliment) Democrat who has enjoyed political success in an overwhelmingly Republican state.

She relishes an executive role and believes in finding efficiencies and in streamlining bureaucracies — traits that should help with running the mammoth Health and Human Services apparatus. Though an outsider to Washington, Sebelius is good at enlisting expert advice and will reach across party lines to get something done. She should be able to work with a White House “health czar,” if Obama chooses to appoint such a person.

The overall sense I get is that people are mostly satisfied with a Sebelius pick -- or at least relived that this Phil Bredeson nonsense has been put to bed. Since I only have a cursory knowledge of what health care reform might entail, I'm not a bona fide expert. But I'd say that Sebelius seems like the appropriate pick. She has lots of regulatory experience since she came from insurance regulation in her state -- and that's a good thing to me. HHS is the kind of position that is primarily about regulation.

What this means for health care reform, I'm not sure. I'll leave that to other health care wonks. What I can tell you is that Sebelius has a history of being on the right side of choice -- she's worked with Planned Parenthood in her state and she was at an inauguration event sponsored by the group this January. She's already been endorsed by a pro-choice Catholic group, Catholics United. After years of having an anti-choice HHS person in charge, it'll make a world of difference to have a pro-choice HHS secretary.