Ugh. Just came across this article over on Gawker.
It asks the deep question: "Where is Sarah Palin in her cycle right now?"
I'll wait for that to sink in.
I know Gawker doesn't pretend to be the highest-brow website, but holy shit. They're actually suggesting that men were more charmed by a woman ON TV because she's ovulating.
Yes, there have been studies (Gawker uses a stripper study, natch) that show fertile women attract men more than those at a different stage in their cycle. But through a television?
Bringing up Palin's period is just a cute way of undermining her as a potential leader. And yes, those last two words make me gag, but not because she's a woman...it's because I'm smarter than she is.
And I'm not that smart.
But tying her charm to her fertility? That's just low...even if it's a joke. A woman's cycle is simply no one else's business. This ridiculous speculation is just a nice reminder of the many stupid reasons people have given in the past for denying a woman a position of power. Namely, PMS.
Palin did exactly what she needed to do last night. I didn't buy any of her bullshit, but a lot of people did. She can spin, volley, dodge like a pro. She's got great memorization skills. And yes...she's fucking charming. She defied everyone's expectations last night and it had absolutely nothing to do with her eggs.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Ugh. Just came across this article over on Gawker.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
From Everything is Illuminated, by Jonathan Safran-Foer:
(a character writes in her diary about the "Sadnesses of the body")
Mirror sadness; Sadness of [looking] like or unlike one's parent; Sadness of not knowing if your body is normal; Sadness of knowing your [body is] not normal; Sadness of knowing your body is normal; Beauty sadness; Sadness of m[ak]eup; Sadness of physical pain; Pins-and-[needles sadness]; Sadness of clothes [sic]; Sadness of the quavering eyelid; Sadness of a missing rib; Noticeable sad[ness]; Sadness of going unnoticed...I read this and thought it was beautiful. I hope it translates to people who haven't read the book.
A new study has revealed that men with "traditional" values make way more money than men who view women as equals. They also make more money than women who view men as equals...and women with "traditional" values (they are at the bottom of the barrel).
The study compared working men and working women in similar jobs, with similar attitudes, working similar hours.
SO...all those people who think there's a good explanation for the wage gap...um...what do you think?
Here's my theory. Traditio-...eh...we'll just call them...SEXIST men held the power originally, right? So they passed that on to other sexist men...who then passed it on...you get where I'm going here.
So sexist men are in power. When they decide how to spread out the money, they go with someone familiar...someone who makes them feel comfortable...someone sexist, like them. The others might be good at their jobs, so he keeps them around. But he makes sure the sexist men are happy and rich.
Yes, yes...that's way too simplistic. But it's fun to simplify.
The WaPo breaks it down:
Here's the full article.
Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women's place in the world, according to a study being reported today.
It is the first time social scientists have produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.
The differences found in the study were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.
Although men with a traditional outlook earned the most, women with a traditional outlook earned the least. The wage gap between working men and women with a traditional attitude was more than 10 times as large as the gap between men and women with egalitarian views.
If you divide workers into four groups -- men with traditional attitudes, men with egalitarian attitudes, women with traditional attitudes and women with egalitarian attitudes -- men with traditional attitudes earn far more for the same work than those in any of the other groups. There are small disparities among the three disadvantaged groups, but the bulk of the income inequality is between the first group and the rest.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Lately, I've noticed a lot of Democrats slipping out of the abortion question. They steer the conversation to "unwanted pregnancy."
I believe that's because the pro-life camp is really good at what they do. They successfully labeled us pro-choicers as pro-abortion. Lots of abortions for everyone! We love abortions!
No one likes abortions. But pro-choice people think women should have the option NOT to deal with the product of a rape...NOT to raise a child they don't want...NOT to carry a child they aren't ready for.
I'm glad Bristol Palin had that choice. I'm assuming Sarah Palin isn't lying about Bristol's "decision." Big assumption...I know.
But I wish she had that choice. I DON'T wish she had an abortion. I just wish she could have had one...if she wanted it.
But back to the "unwanted pregnancy" point. Democrats are trying to bring the conversation back to its essence. Here's Barack Obama on This Week, trying to reframe his abortion answer at Saddleback:
“What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.We're talking about the best way to reduce abortions now. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Would Bristol Palin have gotten pregnant if she had better sex education? The plague of teen pregnancy isn't the "Juno effect," and it isn't a fad, it's a startling example of what happens when kids don't know how to have safe sex. So are the troubling new AIDS stats. I hope this is all the proof we need that abstinence-only education is a crock.
“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.
I'm okay with the new conversation. It's about safe sex, and keeping options open when condoms break, birth control fails, or women can't get emergency contraception when they need it. It's not about your religion, it's about my freedom. It's not about killing "babies," it's about making sure every child in this world is wanted and cared for. Sounds good to me.
My husband saw this interview while I was on the phone. I was wondering why he was cheering so much...
I watch CNN here and there, and lately, Campbell Brown has been catching my eye. She's really good at her job.
On the Media (NPR) had a great segment this week about the media reaction to Palin. The meat starts about 1 minute in:
I'm not sure what the RNC had on their schedule each night as far as issues go, but the only thing I heard was "the media sucks...and so does Barack Obama." Oh, and "we rock" was another strong theme.
Yes, I know that's what conventions are all about - yay us, boo them. But this garbage about the media is tired. Whenever I hear "East Coast liberal media," I want to scream.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
I love reading church message boards. There's one by the house I grew up in that was always good for a laugh. They put stuff up like: "The light of the world knows no power failures." But this one is the best I've heard in awhile.
For 24 hours, outside Havens Corners Church in Columbus, OH, the sign read: "I kissed a girl and I liked it, then I went to Hell."
The quote is taken from the pop hit "I Kissed a Girl," by Katy Perry (listen, watch). Apparently, Pastor David Allison said he was worried about the influence the song has on teen girls. He also mentioned the pornographic-y video.
He says he took the sign down not because it was a gay-bashing horror show, but because parishioners has no idea what the sign was referring to.
When I think of all the misogynistic trash out there, it's hard to believe that THIS song is the one Allison is concerned about. Okay...no...it's really not that hard to believe.
Great suggestion, Andy. As you can imagine, I have a lot to say about the media.
While Jon Stewart did a great segment on the pundit turn-around for Palin, he didn't address the sexist coverage of Palin.
I just read an article in Bitch Magazine about the sexist analysis of women's voices. This one was centered on Hillary's coverage. And yes, some of the media definitely hit sexist territory during that race. And some of it revolved around her "naggy" voice. But I don't see the vocal mentions as sexist in and of themselves. Obviously I don't, because I mentioned Palin's shaky, accented voice myself.
We evaluate all of our politicians, celebrities, friends on many levels. It doesn't matter if they're a man or a woman, an especially high-pitched voice, a comical laugh, a snort - we notice these things and we comment on them. John McCain's voice is whiny as well. He sounds a bit like Kermit. Am I being sexist?
People have said that Obama is hot. When they say that about Palin, that's not sexist, it's just another method we have of evaluating people. It's unfortunate, but it comes down on both sides.
I can't disagree more with the people who think Palin isn't fit to serve because of her 5 kids. While there are sexist undertones to that point, John Edwards went through the same thing when his wife was ill with cancer and there were 2 little kids in the picture. Of course, it's definitely troubling that his wife had to have a terminal illness before the man was questioned. The sad thing is that I've heard mostly women make the priority argument. My mother even said she seemed like "an opportunist" and that she was "too ambitious." What politician isn't ambitious? What politician doesn't have an ego? If they think they can hold the highest (or second-highest) office in the country, they BETTER have an ego.
As far as the Bristol Palin coverage goes, I feel terribly sorry for the young, pregnant woman. I wonder if she was consulted at all before Palin accepted. They had to know it would get out. It's unfortunate that politicians' families get dragged into the public eye when their mother/husband/wife/father campaign. But the politicians open the floor when they make speeches and talk about their families accomplishments. Democrats and Republicans are free to use their families however they see fit, but the media is not allowed to respond? I don't think either side should bring the families in to it.
Palin's inexperience is getting the same amount of discussion as Obama's. It's just coming from the other side of the aisle.
She did exactly what she had to do at the RNC, but I don't think it changed anyone's mind (for or against). She's playing the folksy card, and she's playing it well. We'll just have to see how many Christian Conservatives are left in the world. If they still outnumber other voters, McCain/Palin will win.
Okay, that just makes me want to cry.
As Gloria Steinem said, "Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere."
Friday, September 05, 2008
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
1. It undercuts his "no experience" argument against Obama.
2. Liberal and conservative mothers (ex. my mother) will have a problem with a woman with 5 kids (including a 5 month old baby with Down Syndrome who she's still nursing) heading into 2nd-in-line situation with a 72-year-old man. In other words, soccer moms aren't quite sure about this "hockey mom."
3. Sure, he gets evangelicals on board, but people who (for some reason) thought McCain was winking when he said he'd be "a pro-life president" are not so sure it's a joke anymore. He's losing the center.
4. As Kim Gandy said, "Not every woman supports women's rights." Palin belongs to Feminists for Life, an organization that believes "women deserve better than abortion." She believes abortions should be illegal, even for rape and incest victims. She also tried to hire a guy who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment. McCain's choice is offensive to many feminists and Hillary supporters who were actually thinking of giving their vote to McCain (as NUTS as that is).
5. Completely surface and cosmetic: her voice is grating. If she keeps speaking like that, she's going to lose her voice fast. I know it's silly, but that stuff gets to me, whether it's a man OR a woman speaking.
Yes, it's great that there's a woman on one of the tickets, it's just the completely WRONG woman. She just rounds out the McCain ticket and makes the choice easier for centrists everywhere.
Sure, McCain stole Obama's news cycle yesterday, but that's because the media was picking Palin apart. Biden has plenty to pick at, but it's already been done. This woman hasn't been vetted on a national scale yet...and the media only has 2 months to do it. In my opinion? This thing is going to crash and burn.
Monday, May 19, 2008
I posted this at MobLogic, but it seemed appropriate...
Alright, so we all know there's no way Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote. So why the hell is she still in the race?
Well, it's because she's an American...no, it's because she's a woman. That's it. As Clinton said (quoting Eleanor Roosevelt, who said): "A woman is like a tea bag. You never know how strong she is until she is in hot water."
Okay, this is actually a good tactic: focus on the female part of the candidate and remind people of the fight to break the glass ceiling. Some people may buy it. And some people might think Clinton is perpetuating the stereotype that women are bad at math.
The numbers...the REAL numbers...don't add up to a Clinton nomination. She's not fighting for equal rights or tea bags everywhere, she's fighting for herself. This is a contest. No one likes the wrestler who keeps fighting after he's pinned.
But in her mind, she's not pinned. She's got Florida and Michigan propping her up. Of course, way back when, Clinton agreed not to campaign in either state and she didn't fight the decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. And if you factor in the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan...those two states aren't much to pile your hope on.
The Kentucky and Oregon primaries on May 20th will likely push Obama over the 2025 delegate mark. In the DNC's eyes, he would be the nominee. But Clinton is fighting for her two favorite states, which have been left out of that total number. In Clinton's world, the number looks more like 2209.
So maybe May 31st will spell the end for Clinton. That's when the Democratic Party's rules committee hears challenges to it's delegate strip-fest.
And if she hangs on after that, she should leave after June 3, when the primaries are over. If Clinton really respects the American people, thinks our voices matter, she'll drop out then.
But who knows if she will? Something sure has to change. She's loaned her campaign $11 million and Obama's acting like he's already the nominee (by visiting Clinton's best friends, Florida and Michigan, no less). She's redefining the word "win" and he's giving rational explanations for his decisions and actions.
Maybe if she plays up the hard fight, sisterhood, sexism thing, she'll gain some ground. But right now, she's just giving powerful women everywhere a bad name.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Okay...so they probably will.
The AP is reporting that a woman gets to take her rape case against Halliburton to court instead of hiding it in arbitration. Lucky her!
Jamie Leigh Jones filed a federal lawsuit last year, saying she was attacked while working for a Halliburton Co. subsidiary at Camp Hope, Baghdad, in 2005. Her lawsuit claims that after she endured harassment from some of the men where she lived in coed barracks, she was drugged and raped by Halliburton and KBR firefighters.
Jones...said a KBR representative imprisoned her in a shipping container for a day so she wouldn't report the assault...KBR split from Halliburton last year.
Apparently, she signed an agreement that said "any claims made by an employee against the company that in any way touch on his or her employment have to be settled through arbitration, in which a third party would resolve the case through a private hearing process."
Maybe this is a normal agreement, maybe not. But rape should not be confined to arbitration, and thankfully, U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison agrees with me. But first, "other workplace-related claims" have to go through arbitration. I wonder what those claims involve?Halliburton has gotten away with murder...literally. Maybe they'll finally have to answer for something. Or maybe Bush-ney will step in somehow and 'save the day'."Attorneys for Halliburton, KBR and other subsidiaries that have been sued have disputed Jones' allegations." Shocker.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
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.
Yes, people are actually fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. I know, crazy, right?
Actually, the term "people" doesn't really apply here. According to the Washington Post, it's only supposed to be men fighting over there.
That's right, as affirmed by Bush in 2005, women are still not allowed to fight in combat zones. Kind of hard in this "war" where every place is a combat zone.
18-year old Pfc. Monica Brown, a medic, has brought this ridiculous policy to light. She was in Afghanistan on a mission with a bunch of guys, they ran into trouble, and she did her job. She received a silver star for her bravery (the second woman to receive the third-highest honor since World War II), and then she was relieved from duty.
Of course: women aren't supposed to go on missions. But according to the article, most military officials believe the rule is antiquated and inapplicable to this war. In this case, they needed a female medic for female civilians. And Pfc. Monica Brown stepped up.
The accounts of Brown's behavior during the attack tend to range from "I can't believe a girl did that," to "She was just one of the boys." Her colleagues either look at her as an anomaly, an 'other', or a 'trooper'. They never considered her a regular soldier.
But it's not the army's fault. The rule forces them to look at her differently. Women in the military have a hard time being accepted. There are many accounts of rape and abuse. Maybe things could start to change if women had the same right to fight as everyone else.
If women want to enter the army, if they pass all the tests and meet the same requirements as everyone else, they should be able to fight. It's not for every woman, just like it's not for every man, but a lady should be able to get some action if she wants to.
And, jesus christ, this woman was really good at it. She didn't want to be pulled out. They're letting stupid and old people fight, why won't they let women? If this nebulous war on terror encourages military officials to request a change in policy, at least it will be good for something.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
The search for the little blue pill's counterpart for women continues. I wonder if they made Viagra blue just so women would know which pill is theirs.
Our Bodies, Ourselves recently posted an article expressing concerns about the marketing of a woman's sexual dysfunction drug.
They also linked to another post about the "feminist view on female sexual dysfunction."
Apparently, my sistren believe that, should scientists discover a "pink" Viagra, commercials would target women who are just not interested in sex. Young, stressed, busy, unfortunate women.
Okay, I can see that. But is that a reason not to discover this drug? Many older women experience a lower sex drive because of a MEDICAL PROBLEM. Why shouldn't they use something to help them?
There are men that are too busy, stressed, and depressed to have sex, too. No one's worried that they'll feel like something's wrong with them.
I understand the concern. I get it. Marketing campaigns could easily try to make women feel bad for not wanting to have sex. And I'm sure they won't use the female version of Bob Dole for their commercials.But Viagra is for dudes who want to have sex and just can't get it up. This drug should be for the same thing. Women don't have a physical indicator that they're ready for sex, but a drug that increases blood flow to the genitals could increase lubrication and relax the vaginal muscles.
According to Discovery, around 43% of women experience sexual dysfunction, compared to 31% of men. If a woman wants to want sex more than she does, she should have the same tools men have to take care of that. Sure, drug commercials manipulate people. But why is this one more heinous than...say...Prozac commercials that make everyone think they're depressed? Yes, this drug targets women. But isn't that the point?
Isn't this "concern" equivalent to the concern that birth control pills encourage women to have sex more? Why do we think women are more easily manipulated than men?
According to CNN, three residents of Lesbos have filed a lawsuit against the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, the first gay rights group registered in Greece to use the word "lesbian" in their name.
At least one of the plaintiffs is male. Not sure about the other two.
The name of the association apparently "insults the identity" of the people of Lesbos. They're also known as lesbians.
But don't worry, it's "not an aggressive act against gay women," Dimitris Lambrou (one of the plaintiffs) said. "Let them visit Lesbos and get married and whatever they like. We just want (the group) to remove the word lesbian from their title."
But he also said: "My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos." (emphasis mine)
Why, exactly, can't his sister say she's a Lesbian? Does she really think people won't understand what she means?
Sappho was born in Lesbos, and yes, it's where lesbians get their name, but come on.
Should I sue Tampax because I'm from Tampa? We're known as Tampons (some would spell that Tampans, but this spelling could make me some money, apparently).
And if your sister is so concerned, why doesn't she sue? Something seems wrong here. A lot of things seem wrong here.
Lambrou also maintains that Sappho wasn't gay, though many of her poems refer to passionate love affairs with women. "But even if we assume she was," he said, "how can 250,000 people of Lesbian descent -- including women -- be considered homosexual?"
Newsflash: THEY'RE NOT. Sure, if you're that worried about it, you might have to explain a little bit, but suing this association seems like a futile gesture. The name is out there. Deal with it.
An Athens court will hear the case on June 10th.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The concept for Pauper to Princes is bad enough alone.
"8 ordinary girls" are placed into a house where they learn etiquette and culture. We all know how tea parties can boost a woman's self esteem. And it all took place in my home state, Florida.
Yes, that alone is enough to make me throw up in my mouth a little bit. But Tampa Bay's 10 reported that these women were locked in the house. They were not allowed to leave or use their cell phones. They broke out over the weekend and called the police. The director of this lovely show, Marc Brilleman, has been arrested for false imprisonment.
The exec producer denies allegations that Brilleman locked the door and told them they couldn't leave.
Ugh. Reality TV just gets better and better.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
I don't speak for anyone at MobLogic when I say this, but this week there were some great feminist-y shows. I always enjoy sinking my teeth into a MobLogic blog, but I was especially psyched to write about the fact that porn is legal but prostitution is not and a study that confirms the g-spot's existence, just not for every woman. I should say that I have nothing to do with picking the shows.
Here are the shows. I love my job!
Saturday, April 05, 2008
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?
I know. You're shocked. Fox News? Horribly racist, sexist, and nurse-ist? No way! Here's the proof, my friends. (via Feministing)
It's obvious that this show is some sad attempt at a comedian round-table. Fox News Friday Night Stand-Up Extravaganza or a sad, bizarro attempt at Daily Show humor. (Apparently, it's called "Red Eye with Greg Gutman) But holy shit! They took an important news story and turned it into laugh-a-palooza. And yes, this is a real story. Nurses in Spain are being forced to wear mini-skirts for bonuses. Unbelievably oppressive and sexist, but look what I'm talking about? Fox News. Guess they won this one.
I don't know when I'm going to stop being surprised by the sexism and utter ridiculousness that is Fox News.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Yes, it's a commercial, but how many feminist commercials are out there today? I only wish it was on TV. There are so many people out there with the wrong idea about what feminism is today. You are a feminist as long as you believe in equality for everyone.
I like this commercial, even if it is a little cheesy. It makes me feel all warm inside.
Wow. The Girl Scouts are trying desperately to convince girls to be joiners by...letting them be themselves...-ish?
Faced with a 'nonjoiner' society, the Girl Scouts are making major changes, teaching how to keep a busy schedule and letting girls wear their own white shirt under the typical vest or sash with badges.
Oh, this is so sad. A conformist, antiquated organization is being left out in the cold as girls become individuals. Maybe some people had good experiences in Girl Scouts, but I was miserable. It forces girls with nothing in common together to compete for who has the most badges and who can sell the most cookies.
And don't think the Mama Scouts don't see that. They're working to encourage girls to sell the organization along with the cookies. Hey, they're already at your door, it's a perfect opportunity. Or maybe they'll just start spiking the Samoas. We'll all be Girl Scouts soon...
Okay, so maybe this is all an ironic, social experiment. But I don't think so.
Last month, the Miss Bimbo virtual fashion game launched in the UK. Each girl on the site gets a naked bimbo who they have to dress, pimp, and pervert until they're the "hottest, coolest, most famous bimbo in the whole world."
They compete for bimbo bucks, which they can then apply towards breast implants and facelifts. Those give them bimbo attitudes (popular points), which help them win the 'game'. Oh, and make sure to keep your bimbo "waif thin."
If this is ironic, it is severely misguided irony. The website says the competitors are between the ages of 7 and 17. Children don't understand irony or sarcasm. It's the last thing to fall into place.
But aside from that, the competitors need to give her bimbo bigger breasts, sexy outfits, and rich boyfriends to win this game. 234 515 "bimbos" are competing right now.
There's a sister site in France, Ma Bimbo.
It's only a matter of time before this hits the US. I'm shocked one of us didn't come up with it first.
I have to go cry now.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
A piece in The Independent today focuses on Metropolitan University's decision to stop offering a degree in Women's Studies. Apparently, it represents the irrelevance of feminism, the waning interest in the field, and the end of an era.
I agree that it's horrible that this university has stopped offering the course of study, but is does one university's decision make that much of a difference?
Maybe. I took a bunch of women's studies courses in college, but my college didn't offer a degree in it. This is a definite problem. But I think it's a shift. I think women are still interested in feminist theory, the feminist movement, etc., but I think they want to know how it applies to them. Because it DOES apply to them.
I hope we start seeing a new course of study. Or at least new courses. We're in the third wave of feminism, and it's time schools stepped up to the plate. Look at feminism today vs. yesterday. Look at how feminism IS relevant today. And maybe the schools should take a little more time to promote the field of study.
I might have gotten a degree in women's studies if it had been offered, but I'm not sure it would have been the right choice. Unless you're going to be a feminist scholar or historian, it's not a good choice for the future. Of course, neither is philosophy or history.
I just think women's studies needs a face lift. If we have to change it to gender studies, that's fine. We should look at how both sexes got to where we are today. Maybe students have been swayed by people like Cristina Hoff:
British and American societies are no longer patriarchal and oppressive 'male hegemonies'. But most women's studies departments are predicated on the assumption that women in the West are under siege. What nonsense.
But we need to fight this. It's not nonsense. We're not directly under attack, no. It's under the surface now, and it would be beneficial to society to have women who realize what's happening.
It's sad that the school doesn't think Women's Studies is worth promoting. But hopefully this will give us the opportunity to revamp the program. I took some great classes in school. I'd hate for those opportunities to fall by the wayside.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
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:
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.
"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.
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.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
We can count on FoxNews to report this one.
A Japanese pin-up model has had a legal verdict overturned after successfully arguing her breasts were too big to allow her to squeeze through a hole a man alleged she used to gain entry into his room.
Serena Kozakura was convicted last year of property destruction after a man accused her of kicking in his door and crawling inside to confront him about his activities with another woman, Agence France-Presse reports.
Kozakura won her appeal Monday after the Tokyo High Court agreed her 44-inch bust was indeed too large for her to gain entry through the hole, AFP reports.
"I used to hate my body so much," she told local media, according to the report. "But it was my breasts," she said, that won in court.
Tell me this woman would've gotten off if she just had a really big stomach. I don't think so.
Friday, March 07, 2008
This is a little off topic, but the new show I'm blogging for, Moblogic, was born today. The team did an amazing job getting everything together. And Sean Tice blew my mind with his web design. As always, Lindsay is stunning, brilliant, and awesome. (Couldn't think of any more vague adjectives, but she knows I love her.)
Here's a little taste.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Sunday, March 02, 2008
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.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
It's March, Spring is coming, and it's our month ladies!
In honor of this, our month, Women's Voices is putting the spotlight on female bloggers.
If you like this blog, or have another favorite feminist blog, go nominate it here.
I think the whole concept of themed months is a little misguided. Each time the month rolls around, we have to remind people to celebrate a certain portion of the population. It's a nice sentiment, but it's a reminder that these people aren't celebrated year round.
Anyway, just some quick thoughts.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Like Jessica at Feministing, I'm tired of this shit. I'm tired of everything. It's why I haven't been posting. The Hillary/Obama stuff, the Virginia Senate is taking away funding for Planned Parenthood, doctors are refusing to perform paps on unmarried women, I'm just tired.
What is fucking wrong with this world? I'll get my ire up soon, but right now, I'm a little resigned. Meanwhile, go complain about the t-shirt here.
Let me just state the obvious: rape is NOT funny.
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Does anyone else think the Clinton’s have adopted a “look over here!” method of campaigning?
Yes, some of it can just be chalked up to dirty campaigning, but just before the last debate, the Clinton camp pulled the whole plagiarism thing.
And now, they’ve come out with this picture of Obama.
As the article I linked to says, Obama wore the clothes after he was presented with them by people from his father’s hometown. Sure, that hometown is Kenya, and the “people” were tribal elders, so the fuck what?
How many times have politicians wore things presented to them for diplomatic and friendly reasons? Plus, yes, this is a part of his heritage.
It’s ridiculous that Clinton (I’m assuming it’s Clinton despite her camp’s denial) is using this to spread the fear that Obama’s a muslim. Playing on the American people’s ignorance and fear is not the way to get me to vote for someone.
But on to my point: does anyone think Clinton’s using this shit to derail the debates? She definitely used the pagiarism in the last one, and I’m sure this picture shit will come up in tonight’s debate.
Why, oh why, can’t debates be about issues. Yes, people vote on character, but personality comes through as they talk about policy. And THAT is Clinton’s problem. That’s why she needs dirty campaigning to win her presidency.
She’s not the first, (anyone remember McCain’s black baby?) and she’s certainly not the last, but damn if this doesn’t just give me more reason to root for Obama.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Gotta quote this Feministing post:
I love this. Hayley Atwell is starring in Woody Allen's new movie, Cassandra's Dream, but Miramax Films asked her to loose weight.Proof that ultimatums CAN do some good.
Says Atwell: "I went round to Emma's one night and she was getting very angry that I wasn't eating all the food she was giving me. I told her why and she hit the roof." The no-nonsense Thompson was so outraged that she called the producers the next day and threatened to resign from the film if they forced Atwell to lose weight. Faced with Thompson - a two-times Oscar winner - on the warpath, Miramax Films swiftly relented.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Jessica at Feministing is right. This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
In an article from The Concord Monitor, Dick (wad) Marple pops a blood vessel over the fact that the 19th amendment does not explicitly say women can be president. That's why his article is called: "Legally, a woman can't be elected president"
It's fucking hilarious. Here's a taste:
Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered .Better be scared, Clinton. Oh, and Obama, you better start looking at the 15th amendment. I don't see anything in there about black people holding office.
Not so. They will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required.
Oh well! Guess we'll have to have a Republican! Oops!
Gender Based Taxation (GBT) satisﬁes Ramsey’s optimal criterion by taxing less the more elastic labor supply of (married) women.So married women are taxed less than men. A convoluted way to make sure women get equal pay for equal work. A convoluted way to pay housewives for their work. Is there no better way?
Well, The F Word posted a Daily Mail article that reports researchers have found that housewife work is worth 30,000 pounds a year.
I feel like I've seen this before, in countless economic surveys. It doesn't make a difference. I think both ideas would eventually fail. Married people already get a break on their taxes (I think). We need to figure out a better way to get women the money they deserve. And a paycheck for housewives, like Jess McCabe at The F Word says, would invite scrutiny and criticism from the public and the government. Will all housewives have to teach their children abstinence? Do they get extra if they homeschool? Do they get days off? Who is their boss? The kids? The husband? The government. Yikes. Sounds horrible.
Neither of these proposals fixes the inequality ingrained in our economy, the sexism we've come to expect in our work system. They are band-aids that will quickly fall off.
I wish there was a simple answer, but there's not. Both of these proposals scare me, because the implications extend far beyond their original intentions. I understand that these people are trying to make the world fair, but they can't. Not this way, at least.
This week, Missouri has given me not one, but two reasons to pull my hair. And that sucks, cause I really don't have that much of it.
Via Bush v. Choice, Missouri lawmakers want to reclassify EC as "abortion-inducing medication."
Legislation presented to a House panel last week would classify emergency contraception as an abortion-inducing medication, contrary to the definition used by the Food and Drug Administration.
The bill also would protect pharmacies from lawsuits and from punishment by state regulators for refusing to sell or fill a prescription for any drug defined as triggering an abortion.
First of all, it's just a lie. Plan B does not induce an abortion. RU-486 induces an abortion. You start taking Plan B "the morning after" intercourse.
Oh right, because the minute a guy's sperm enters some woman's body, there's a baby there.
And number 2: Via Feministing:
Missouri lawmakers are considering giving tax deductions to "parents" of stillborns for a year.
During a hearing on Monday, the bill's sponsor, Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said he wanted to honor families' losses.So will all parents get tax breaks for their dead children, regardless of age? Or is it only non-people who get deductions? I'm sorry these people had to experience this, but come on!
"This bill recognizes that the person was a child of this state, a child of a family of this state," he said.
Dempsey noted that the Legislature passed a measure in 2004 that allowed parents of stillborn children to receive a birth certificate. The state tax deduction, he said, is the next logical step.
What the HELL is wrong with Missouri?
The China Post reports today that short hairstyles are signaling the end of Japan's booming economy.
Apparently, Japanese cosmetics company Kao Corp has a survey that shows women tend to wear their hair long when the economy is doing well, and to cut it short when it's getting bad.
Okay, so either:
1) Japanese women are so connected to the economy that they feel the heat when things are getting bad and respond to it literally by cutting their hair
2) Long hair encourages a booming economy, short hair makes people not want to spend/invest
3) This is a ridiculous survey that has no bearing on reality; hairstyle has nothing to do with the economy
I vote for number three.
They do have some evidence:
Until the early 1990s, when Japan's economic bubble burst, 60 percent of women in their twenties kept their hair long, the Nikkei said, citing the survey.
During the 1990s economic slump, short hair -- defined as above the collarbone -- became the dominant hairstyle for Japanese women. But since 2002, long hair has regained some popularity -- just as the economy started to expand, the Nikkei said.
So the fuck what? Why does this prove anything?
And if I'm wrong, and it does prove something. What the hell does it prove?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
"I call myself a feminist when people ask me if I am, and of course I am 'cause it's about equality, so I hope everyone is. You know you're working in a patriarchal society when the word feminist has a weird connotation."Hippie" has a weird connotation. "Liberal" has a weird connotation.""'Cause it's about equality."
Simple words from an interesting woman. Got to love it.
Oh, jesus. Vanessa Richmond posted an article on AlterNet today that made me never want to cook again.
I'm lying. Cooking makes me never want to cook again. But not according to Richmond. She writes that feminists don't cook because they think it's demeaning and oppressive. If they have time to cook, they should use that time to "enjoy life" some more.
So men are taking the reigns. Richmond says it's because cooking is "sweet" when men do it. They get praise. Women are expected to cook, and thus feel pressure.
How does Richmond get to this point? Quotes from her friends, her own interpretation of their tones, and a general sense.
Yes, my man cooks for me. But he J cooks because he's good at it, and he enjoys it. I reap the benefits, and I make sure to thank him very much. If I were cooking, he'd do the same.
Anytime I've tried to cook, I've found it annoying, tedious, and time consuming. I have not found, as Richmond states, that "anyone who's ever cooked will tell you the act of preparing food makes you more powerful and sexy." Oh, is that a fact? Tell my stained jeans and sticky cheeks. Tell my husband that when I've burned or somehow fucked up the meal.
I think the base of Richmond's argument (that women are cooking less because they don't think they "should," because it's too oppressive) is ridiculous. Her survey is unscientific and based completely on feeling. I find it offensive to be accused of thinking that much about cooking (or not cooking in this case). Frozen meals and hot dogs are fine for me. And it's NOT because I'm a feminist. It's because I'm a horrible cook.
Monday, February 18, 2008
An article in The Huffington Post pointed me to this New York Times article about celebrity coverage and the double-standard in celeb coverage.
It's a really good article, and it illustrates the difference between coverage of female celebrities and male celebrities.
We all know the Heath Ledger, Owen Wilson, Robert Downey, Jr., etc. coverage doesn't even compare to the Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, etc. coverage.
But the article touched on something important, through quotes from tabloid editors and celebrities.
1) women read USA Today and People more than men
2) women tend to feel sympathetic toward male celebrities
3) there's a schadenfreude that comes with female celebs-gone-wrong
which equals more time spent on the failures of female celebrities.
In this case, society has failed. Women are encouraged to go off the rails, men are encouraged to get on with their lives, triumph over addiction, crime, etc.
The other side of the equation:
1) women read USA Today and People more than men
2) there is more coverage of female celebrities than male celebrities in those magazines
3) readers of the magazine come to expect stories of female celebs in the dumpster
4) they start to like these stories
5) they buy more magazines when female celebrities are covered.
In this case, the tabloids are active participants in a double-standard that has hurt gender equality in this country. But in a way, the blame still falls on society.
Either way, it sucks.
I've been thinking a lot lately about how we call female celebrities and politicians by their first names. The only exception I can think of is Amy Winehouse, who is usually referred to by her full name. Not sure how to explain that one. Maybe because there are too many famous Amys out there.
But with men, it's always either their full name or their last name. I think this is a symptom of the same problem: the public generally respects men more than women. Long ago, someone decided that a first name is a sign of familiarity. The full name or last name is a sign of respect.
"Hillary" isn't respected as much as "Obama." Sure, Hillary Clinton's campaign adopted this tendency in an attempt to make Clinton seem more friendly, but the media has co-opted it as a way of reminding everyone of her female-ness, her weakness. And why shouldn't they? The campaign opened the door, and it's what society's used to. They should've thought twice.
I don't think Hillary has the best personality, which is why she's attacking Obama for his "cult of" it, but unfortunately, every election is won, at least a little bit, on personality. It's not like anyone voted for Bush because of his policy. No, they voted for him because they thought he was one of them - someone he could drink a beer with.
I went off on a tangent - sorry. Anyway, there is clearly a double-standard, which I can't lay out better than the NYT article did. The worrisome part is that society is responsible for it. But I don't want to hear how we're responsible. I want to know how to change it.
I, for one, like hearing about powerful women doing good things. I don't want to talk shit about people, I want to hear about successful women making the world a better place. I know this is only entertainment, but, as you can see, it's seeping into politics. Any famous woman has to try twice as hard to maintain her privacy, and succeed twice as much as a male celeb. And it's unacceptable.
The Sun crossed the line yesterday, ruminating over Scarlett Johansson's breast-coming out party at a screening of The Other Boleyn Girl in Germany.
Gawker had it's own take about the breast-plosion, namely, that Johansson is trying to show the differences between herself and co-star Natalie Portman.
The Sun, on the other hand, was too distracted to give any sort of take.
The article is titled "Scarlett Shows Off Johanssons," and that's only the beginning. At the end of the article, there is an italicized "quip": "I'm surprised she didn't win the award for Bust Actress..."
And then there's the slideshow of pictures (both of which are included in this post), which, in my opinion don't really show much. The dress is tasteful. But anyway, get ready for more wit:
Wow, wonder how long that took them.
I don't think Johansson had an ulterior motive in wearing this dress. She's got big boobs, so the fuck what? She can wear stuff to show it, or not. Why is this a big deal?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
USA Today has this gem.
The state department released minutes from a 1973 meeting between Henry Kissinger and Chairman Mao. Mao offered up 10 million Chinese women...but he was just kidding.
But really, it would've been a great plot. As Mao said, "By [sending Chinese women to the US] we can let them flood your country with disaster and therefore impair your interests. In our country we have too many women, and they have a way of doing things. They give birth to children and our children are too many."
HAHA! The meeting sounds like it was a blast. Women were accused of destruction, faulted for having children, and spoken of as commodities. HAHAHAHA! What a pair of cards Kissinger and Mao were!
More from the transcript:
Mao: The trade between our two countries at present is very pitiful. It is gradually increasing. You know China is a very poor country. We don’t have much. What we have in excess is women. (Laughter)And Mao wasn't the only bastard in the room:
Kissinger: There are no quotas for those or tariffs.
Chairman Mao: So if you want them we can give a few of those to you, some tens of thousands. (Laughter)
Prime Minister Chou: Of course, on a voluntary basis.
Mao: Let them go to your place. They will create disasters. That way you can lessen our burdens. (Laughter)
Mao: Girls. (Prime Minister Chou laughs.) Today I have been uttering some nonsense for which I will have to beg the pardon of the women of China.Oh but wait...
Kissinger: It sounded very attractive to the Americans present. (Chairman Mao and the girls laugh.)
Mao: You know, the Chinese have a scheme to harm the United States, that is, to send ten million women to the United States and impair its interests by increasing its population.Ah. It's so funny that such powerful people are sexist! It's good Mao can joke about a "problem" that led to loads of baby girls' murders.
Kissinger: The chairman has fixed the idea so much in my mind that I’ll certainly use it at my next press conference. (Laughter)
I'm not surprised, but it's scary to see it in writing.