The Peeled Apple

Happy Anniversary, Roe v. Wade!

2010-01-22T10:16:00.003-05:00

On the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I want to remind everyone that there's a reason we pro-choicers use the word "choice." And that reason is what (I hope) we're fighting for.

It's not about abortion. It was never about abortion. Find me someone who actually LIKES abortion. We're not for more abortions, we're for freedom. For trust. For choice. For autonomy.

The moment abortion becomes illegal, that freedom, that choice has been taken away. The nation is effectively saying, "Women shouldn't be trusted to make this decision for themselves."

When pro-lifers frame the argument around the potential for life, they de-rail the focus. We're not automatically on opposite sides of the argument, because they're arguing apples and I'm arguing squares. It's not an either-or argument. It's this-and-that. And this is why we all end up nowhere. Pretty soon, the argument becomes about pinpointing where life begins, and we're in a hamster wheel of cyclical arguments where no one trusts anyone with any decision and both abortion and masturbation end up illegal.

I'm firmly pro-masturbation, for the record.

But back to my point. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. If you're pro-choice, you're most likely for any method that WORKS (I'm looking at you, abstinence-only education) to decrease the number of abortions. Like almost everything else in this world, it starts with education, continues with availability of resources to enable women and men to make smart decisions, and ends (in my dream world, anyway) with a world full of WANTED children and happy people, both pregnant and non-pregnant.

For this world to become a reality, abortion needs to exist. It needs to be accessible and safe, because accidents happen. Stupid decisions happen. And that's what makes abortion a necessity.

I've met people who can't quite bring themselves to accept the "pro-choice" label. I get it. Labels suck. But sometimes, like abortion, they're necessary. We're in a fight, and we need you. You may be morally opposed to abortion for yourself, but if you believe people should maintain control over their bodies, you're on this side of the line, I'm afraid. Come join the picket line.

OBSERVE and Report...a confession

2009-04-13T11:09:00.005-04:00

I was shocked...outraged...pissed. I hate shock comedy and hate movies in general, but a film that mines date rape and serial flashers for comedy is NOT a film I want to see. Observe and Report is all of these things. Here's the R-rated trailer:

And here's Seth Rogen's explanation of why his rape scene "isn't" rape:

SETH ROGEN: when we’re having sex and she’s unconscious like you can literally feel the audience thinking, like, how the fuck are they going to make this okay? Like, what can possibly be said or done that I’m not going to walk out of the movie theater in the next thirty seconds? . . . And then she says, like, the one thing that makes it all okay:

BRANDI: “Why are you stopping, motherfucker?”

Never mind that she passes out after saying it. And forget about how messed up she is. We won't even mention her vomit-covered pillow.

This is obviously rape. Funny rape. Cue feminist outrage.

Then I remembered: I haven't seen the movie. I've read a bunch of reviews and feminist analysis of the TRAILER, but I haven't actually watched it. I forgot to observe before I reported (ha ha ha).

In short, I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

This isn't a movie for everyone. Obviously. Reviews range from rave to pan. I THINK I'll be on the pan side, but I don't know. I forgot to think for myself. I used other people's words, other people's outrage. And that makes me sad.

Barbie Confusion

2009-02-13T14:30:00.004-05:00

According to Deadspin, "The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has awarded its first TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young Children) Award to Mattel's 'Barbie Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader Doll.'"

I always hated "playing Barbie." It would be cool if I could say that I was conscious of the way Barbie made me feel about myself and my body, but I just hated her. She was too perky. And my friends sounded stupid when they tried to make her speak.

I voted for video games over the large-breasted plastic dolls.

But once I found my feminism, I realized that there was a lot to hate about these dolls. The unrealistic proportions, the pink theme of it all, the outfits... Despite some efforts to the contrary, Barbie is not a cool, normal chick.

And she's not supposed to be. She's supposed to be glamorous, skinny, hot, pink...whatever. That's what our society aspires to. Don't believe me? Take a look at some of the "hottest" movie stars around today.

Blaming Barbie for instilling an unhealthy body image or unrealistic expectations in young girls is like blaming GI Joe for aggression in boys. Barbie is just a symptom. Yes, there's a problem, but complaining about Barbie or even discontinuing the doll (never gonna happen) isn't going to fix it.

So that's why this random award for a particular Barbie in a "skimpy" outfit puzzles me. What is so different about this Barbie? And how, exactly, does it oppress anyone? That's a lot of power for one plastic doll.

Look, I get where these people are coming from. I hate that there's a doll out there who wouldn't be able to stand if she was a real woman. But there's a reason these things sell so well. I think it's misguided to blame a toy for our problems.

Sexist Ad of the Day: Ikea

2009-01-29T17:08:00.002-05:00

"Every woman needs her space."

Find more videos like this on AdGabber

Medicaid Family Planning State Option FAIL

2009-01-28T14:03:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, Obama caved to Republicans and facilitated the removal of family planning from the stimulus package. I find myself thinking about many scenes from The West Wing (again):

"This is about getting votes from white men."

I wish Amy Gardner was a real person. (I know we have women like her out there...I'm just feeling mopey right now.)

Planned Parenthood lays it out better than I ever could:

The Medicaid Family Planning State Option is a simple way to make health care affordable for millions of Americans. It would do two important things:

1. It would allow millions of women to obtain basic health care. It would extend safety-net health care coverage for millions of people, including many who are losing their jobs and health insurance in the economic downturn. Studies estimate that 2.3 million low-income women would receive coverage under this provision by 2014, and 500,000 women would be able to avoid unintended pregnancies.

2. In these difficult times, this provision would save states money. State budgets are being squeezed by the economic downturn, just as millions are losing their jobs and health insurance. The Medicaid Family Planning State Option not only would help states extend their coverage, it would generate savings for states and the federal government by expanding access to preventive care.

Please, take two minutes now to help us raise a public outcry.

Call the White House (202-456-1111). Let them know that during this tough economic time, expanding access to basic health care is more important than ever for women and families.

For more details, click here.

Conundrum of the day: Shin Saim-dang's picture on a South Korean bank note

2009-01-28T12:40:00.003-05:00

According to the LA Times, the decision to put Shin Saim-dang's picture on the 50,000-won bill is controversial, both because she's a woman and because she is known as the "wise mother."

So...basically...no one is happy. A convenience store worker doesn't want "a woman's face on [his] money." A university student hopes "people don't think she represents women in this culture. She doesn't."

From the LA Times article:

While some applauded the move as an equal rights gesture in a country where men control nearly every facet of society, others say choosing Shin reinforces sexist stereotypes about women's roles.

Known as Eojin Eomeoni, or "wise mother," Shin for 500 years has been a model of both excellent mothering skills and filial piety, according to Bank of Korea officials.

Shin was the mother of seven children, including Yi I, a famous Confucian scholar whose image adorns the nation's 5,000-won note.

The officials point out that Shin was a respected female figure in Korea's Joseon Dynasty, which ruled from 1392 to 1910.

Shin's success in fulfilling her duties as a mother, wife and daughter while succeeding as an artist has brought her great respect in modern-day South Korea, the proponents add.

I don't know enough to have an opinion on this one (hence the heavy quotage), but I thought it was an interesting story. Any thoughts from people with more knowledge on the subject?

The Bright Side: Iceland appoints openly gay, lefty woman as PM

2009-01-28T12:12:00.003-05:00

Yay, Iceland! It's only a matter of a bajillion years before a former flight attendant-turned socialist lesbian becomes president in the US. That's right...I think Iceland's a bajillion years ahead of us on that front.

Of course, Johanna Sigurdardottir will only be PM until the general elections in May (the former PM stepped down because he so royally screwed up the economy...or because he was sick...right...that's it). And she's got an economic disaster on her hands...

But still...this is awesome.

You MUST be joking: Dating a Banker Anonymous

2009-01-28T10:43:00.006-05:00

Dating a Banker Anonymous is a support group for women who are "stuck" dating a banker. Here's the full text from the intro:

Are you or someone you love dating a banker? If so, we are here to support you through these difficult times. Dating A Banker Anonymous (DABA) is a safe place where women can come together – free from the scrutiny of feminists– and share their tearful tales of how the mortgage meltdown has affected their relationships. DABA Girls was started by two best friends whose relationships tanked with the economy. Not knowing what else to do, we did what frustrated but articulate girls have done since the beginning of time - we started a blog. So if your monthly Bergdorf’s allowance has been halved and bottle service has all but disappeared from your life, lighten your heart with laughter and email your stories to dabagirls@gmail.com. Warning all stories sent will be infused with our own special brand of DABA Girl humor.

The "humor" they mention is the Gossip Girl/Sex and the City "look at me, I'm really spoiled and unhappy" brand of wit. To be fair, they've found a niche and they're running with it. Fine. And if they have emotionally and/or physically abusive boyfriends (or 'FBFs' - financial boyfriends), then they should have a support group.

But most of these women are talking about everyday depression. Their boyfriends are watching their lives disintegrate and it's "not what they signed up for." Their rich boyfriends aren't making money anymore and they're all mopey and "clingy." What's a girl to do?

How about...be a good partner? Everyone goes through bad times. The nice thing about being in a relationship? Your other half wants to make you feel better. They...you know...CARE about you. That's comforting when everything else in your life is turning to shit.

I could continue with the appalling quotes, but you get the idea. This is a group of selfish, whiny women. They act like they're victims of the recession. If they're so unhappy, just BREAK UP with the guy. It'll probably be better for him in the long run. Of course, then you'd be forced to change your "facebook status from 'in a relationship' to 'I ain’t saying I’m a gold digger, but I ain’t messin’ with no broke banker.'" THE HORROR!!!

Talk about false victimization. I wish these women would either grow a pair and help these guys out, or get out before they do any damage to their "FBFs."

UPDATE: Here's the NYT story about these ladies.

RIP "Feminist"?

2009-01-24T10:55:00.005-05:00

I'm tired of writing about Palin. Really, I am. But she did pose an interesting quandary for those of us who call ourselves feminists. Because...you know...SHE called herself a feminist.

A Feminist for Life.

That's a feminist who doesn't believe women should have a choice about what they do with their own bodies. A feminist who believes equal rights is being "one of the boys."

For a long time, I've believed that anyone who identifies as a feminist IS a feminist. Who am I to say they're not a "real" feminist? And then Palin came on the scene.

I don't think she would've kept the feminist thing going if it hadn't come out that she was a member of Feminists for Life. But it did, and she took it and ran with it. Smart.

Still, I don't think, as this article suggests, that she killed the word itself by "eliminating the taboo."

I don't want people to be scared of the word. I want everyone who truly believes in equal rights to be able to proudly say that they're a feminist. We don't need a taboo to keep us going. We need people on our side.

And that's what bugs me about Palin. I don't think she's on our side. Obviously, feminism means something entirely different to her. She can call herself a feminist, but a politician who believes "that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway" is not someone who is fighting for women's rights. It seems like she just wants to maintain the status quo. And that's not enough.

But the KKK didn't kill the word "Christian" and Palin didn't kill the word "feminist." She can call herself whatever she wants, but she doesn't represent feminism. She doesn't speak for us. And terrorists who call themselves Muslims don't speak for Muslims everywhere.

I'm not, in any way saying Palin is comparable to a terrorist or a member of the KKK, I just think people can use words to describe themselves without changing the definition for everyone.

I don't think Conservative Christians are anywhere near co-opting the word. I think it's still scary, just not AS scary. And that's a pretty good place to be.

Michelle Obama is not ready to call herself a feminist (she "doesn't like labels"). And I think that proves the point. People are still afraid of the word. I would love for that fear to end, but it hasn't.

It isn't time to read the "feminist" obituary, but when that time comes, it will be because it's second nature to believe that men and women should be on equal footing. (That's why we don't call people man-ists.) The death of "feminist" won't come from some female good ole boy, it will come from hard work and revolution. When everyone's a feminist...THEN it will be time to retire the word.

Ding, dong the global gag rule is DEAD!

2009-01-23T12:29:00.003-05:00

Some were pissed that Obama didn't lift the global gag rule (which denies funding to any NGO that gives abortions or abortion counseling) yesterday, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Instead, he did it today. Yesterday, he said the issue was too emotional to make the decision on such a symbolic day. So...one day makes such a difference? I think he just wanted to stand out from the crowd (both Clinton and Bush addressed the rule on January 22nd).

Plus, there's this:

His choice to lift the gag today rather than yesterday, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade decision and the date that both Clinton and Bush made their announcements, is being read as a sign of respect toward antiabortion activists, who staged a large march in D.C. yesterday. That may be true, but it's also true that by making more pro-choice news today, after issuing a very strong statement in support of Roe yesterday, Obama is ensuring that his lift of the gag rule -- which really does change the landscape for international health and family services -- can stand as its own news story, rather than just getting mashed in with the rest of the January 22 "abortion day" news.

You know what? I don't care why he did it today. I'm just ecstatic that he did it. More access and funding for contraceptives, counseling, and education means fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions. And that's what we all want...right? RIGHT?

Soft, Squishy White House Girlz

2009-01-23T11:27:00.004-05:00

Ty, Inc., of Beanie Babies fame, released a set of dolls before the inauguration. COINCIDENTALLY, the dolls are two girls with dark skin and dark hair. Also COINCIDENTALLY, their names are "Sweet Sasha" and "Marvelous Malia." Not coincidentally, Michelle Obama is pissed.

The toymaker says they were "inspired by" the Obama girls, but that they chose the names because they are "beautiful." These dolls are not supposed to be exact replicas of the girls.
It's true. I don't think Sasha and Malia have hearts attached to their wrists. And the girls aren't as busty as these dolls since, you know, they're 7 and 10 years old. But this is far from a coincidence. Hey, at least they're not china dolls. Cause...well...plush dolls are pretty tough. Even if they DO have boobs.

Let the exploitation of two little girls begin!

Feminist Freak Out: Ms. Magazine's Obama Super-feminist cover

2009-01-19T12:39:00.005-05:00

The stage is set. Tomorrow, Obama will be our President. It's historical and wonderful, and I'm still feeling the chills from that performance of "This Land is Your Land." For the first time in my life, I feel like that song might be true very soon.

So Ms. Magazine decided to get in on the action with a "special Inaugural issue." The cover of the issue has caused a lot of femi-freak. Here it is:

Some feminists are upset at what they feel is a misguided image of feminism. Right. Who wants the President on our side? We want people fighting for our rights, just not the man who beat what this article calls the "real live" Wonder Woman candidate (Hillary Clinton). We're bitter, we're hurt, and we'd rather just sit in our meetings and complain.

And I'm saying, no. That's not what we're about. Feminists are PEOPLE who believe in women's rights. And while I don't think he's a God or a superhero, we want him fighting for us. While The Super-Feminist would make for a boring comic book, it's great in real life. Sure, we haven't broken the presidential glass ceiling, but all women are not feminists (Palin, anyone?). Yeah, yeah...so we don't need men to rescue us. But if that man is President, we need him on our side.

To the Second Wave Feminists who are still bitter about Clinton, who still think of feminism as an exclusive club, I say: Get over it. Wait till he screws something up, then complain. But maybe this time, he'll actually listen to us.

Gawker thinks Palin had a little help

2008-10-03T16:53:00.003-04:00

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.

Free Sarah Palin

2008-09-25T10:41:00.001-04:00

Campbell Brown goes off on the McCain campaign. I'm assuming the sexism talk is tongue in cheek.

Quote

2008-09-23T19:48:00.003-04:00

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.

Sexist men make more money

2008-09-23T18:25:00.004-04:00

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:

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.

Here's the full article.

A gay rights advocate hits back at Havens Church

2008-09-08T20:24:00.002-04:00

Via Feminist Avengers:

Moving the abortion conversation

2008-09-07T11:17:00.004-04:00

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.

“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.

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'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.

Campbell Brown is a force

2008-09-07T11:04:00.003-04:00

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.

"I kissed a girl and I liked it, then I went to Hell."

2008-09-06T11:45:00.003-04:00

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.

Sarah Palin and the media

2008-09-06T09:44:00.005-04:00

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."

Samantha Bee for VP?

2008-09-05T20:14:00.002-04:00

Sorry to do another Daily Show embed, but I couldn't resist...

The Daily Show Rocks My World

2008-09-04T20:34:00.000-04:00

What's wrong with McCain's Palin choice

2008-08-30T11:09:00.008-04:00

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.

Domestic Abuse

2008-05-19T16:49:00.001-04:00

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.

Maybe Halliburton Won't Get Away With This One

2008-05-10T11:07:00.007-04:00

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.

DC Madam: A Very Personal Eulogy From Susie Bright

2008-05-04T11:14:00.003-04:00

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.

Hey, There Is A War Going On In Afghanistan...But

2008-05-04T10:07:00.003-04:00

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.

"Pink" Viagra: Why's It Always Gotta Be Pink?

2008-05-03T11:40:00.007-04:00

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?

Lesbians Suing Lesbians

2008-05-03T11:05:00.005-04:00

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.

I Think I Threw Up A Little

2008-04-15T11:03:00.002-04:00

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.

MobLogic Gets a Feminist Bump

2008-04-06T10:43:00.002-04:00

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!

"Rape" is a bad word

2008-04-05T11:19:00.004-04:00

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?

Fox News is Fucked Up

2008-04-05T11:00:00.002-04:00

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.

This is What a Feminist Commericial Looks Like

2008-03-26T10:17:00.002-04:00

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.

Stick to Thin Mints

2008-03-26T01:00:00.002-04:00

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...

Dolls Can Get Implants Too!

2008-03-26T00:27:00.006-04:00

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.

Is Women's Studies Irrelevant?

2008-03-23T10:10:00.005-04:00

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.

Lindsay Campbell vs. Silda Wall Spitzer

2008-03-12T12:35:00.002-04:00

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:

Amanda

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.

lindsaycampbell

"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.

Amanda

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.

STDs for Everyone!

2008-03-11T14:55:00.005-04:00

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.

ARGH!

The Boobs Save the Day

2008-03-10T22:19:00.002-04:00

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.

I'm Uber-Late On This One...

2008-03-10T22:16:00.001-04:00

Can't say I'm surprised.

MobLogical

2008-03-07T18:04:00.003-05:00

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.

Difference...MADE

2008-03-06T12:00:00.003-05:00

I love this clip, but it makes me sad as well. Colbert makes all the obvious points for me, but are women really this desperate? And why the hell can't they pay for their own boob jobs?

YIKES.

Antifemipsuedoscience

2008-03-02T13:36:00.007-05:00

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.

Happy Women's History Month!

2008-03-01T16:28:00.004-05:00

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.

Rape-ity Rape! Ha ha!

2008-02-28T18:46:00.002-05:00

Via Feministing
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.

How is This Legal?

2008-02-28T08:04:00.004-05:00

Via Feministing.

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.

Clinton Carnage

2008-02-27T10:19:00.001-05:00

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.

Emma Thompson Stands Up for the Right To Eat

2008-02-26T08:28:00.003-05:00

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.

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.

Proof that ultimatums CAN do some good.

Not So Fast, Clinton

2008-02-20T18:08:00.005-05:00

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 .

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.

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.

Oh well! Guess we'll have to have a Republican! Oops!

Feminteresting, Indeed

2008-02-20T16:51:00.006-05:00

Adam brought a new movement for gender-based taxation to my attention.

Gender-based taxation: women are taxed less than men.

From a paper by Alberto Alesio et. al, via The Atlantic:

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.

Missouri: the place to be if you're a fetus

2008-02-20T16:14:00.003-05:00

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.

"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.

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!

What the HELL is wrong with Missouri?

Help! She's Cutting Her Hair!

2008-02-20T15:29:00.002-05:00

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?

Oh, All Right. She Deserves it.

2008-02-19T18:57:00.003-05:00

Every feminist in the world is swooning over Ellen Page.

In an interview with The Washington Post, the actress said these now immortal and worshipped words:

"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.

No One's in the Kitchen with Robert

2008-02-19T17:28:00.009-05:00

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.

Which Came First: the Tabloids' Double Standard or Our Own?

2008-02-18T18:13:00.004-05:00

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.

Hey! She Has Boobs! How Many "Cute" Euphemisms Can We Use?

2008-02-18T12:16:00.007-05:00

Via Gawker.

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:

Scarlett fever ... actress busts out

All four one ... Scarlett, Natalie and the Johanssons

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?

"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao..."

2008-02-16T17:46:00.004-05:00

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)
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)

And Mao wasn't the only bastard in the room:

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.
Kissinger: It sounded very attractive to the Americans present. (Chairman Mao and the girls laugh.)

Oh but wait...

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.
Kissinger: The chairman has fixed the idea so much in my mind that I’ll certainly use it at my next press conference. (Laughter)

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.

I'm not surprised, but it's scary to see it in writing.

The New York Times Gives EcoMoms The "Housewife" Treatment

2008-02-16T11:57:00.007-05:00

I realized, as I clicked the link to read the New York Times article "For ‘EcoMoms,’ Saving Earth Begins at Home," that I would be dangerously close to the line.

You know, that line. The one we feminists are accused of all too often, but that sometimes actually applies.

"You're just reading it through a lens."

Right. Yes, sometimes feminists go too far, placing their own values on something without thinking of context.

But this article, about women who start conserving at home (you know, so we don't have to fight pollution overseas), is not a case of over-analysis. It's purely sexist.

Let's start at the beginning, where "housewives" are thrown back to the '50's:

The women gathered in the airy living room, wine poured and pleasantries exchanged. In no time, the conversation turned lively — not about the literary merits of Geraldine Brooks or Cormac McCarthy but the pitfalls of antibacterial hand sanitizers and how to retool the laundry using only cold water and biodegradable detergent during non-prime-time energy hours (after 7 p.m.).

Move over, Tupperware. The EcoMom party has arrived...Here, the small talk is about the volatile compounds emitted by dry-erase markers at school.

Oh, isn't Patricia Leigh Brown whimsicle, assuming women gather strictly to talk about books and tupperware. Gasp! Can you believe these ladies are talking about something important? I'm shocked! (Brown gets NO credit for the mention of Cormac McCarthy, because his book was recently selected for Oprah's Book Club.)

The tone continues throughout the article:

Perhaps not since the days of “dishpan hands” has the household been so all-consuming.

More unnecessary assumption that women have nothing interesting to say, think about nothing but their house-life.

Re: the EcoMom movement:

Part “Hints from Heloise” and part political self-help group

What the hell is a political "self-help group"? Can't it just be a political group? Do women need self-help for politics now?

Also rampant in the article is the assumption that all these women have no other job. I'm fine if someone chooses not to work, but it's just not the case with the EcoMom Alliance (which is NOT linked to in the article). Robin Wright Penn is a member (who, I think is still an actress), and the group was started by a social entrepreneur who co-produced an event for the United Nations World Environment Day.

But the article's not all bad, there is a little of the idea that women are powerful in the changes they can make at home:

Women have been instrumental in the environmental movement from the start, including their involvement in campaigns a century ago to save the Palisades along the Hudson River and sequoias in California and, more recently, Lois Gibbs’s fight against toxic waste at Love Canal.

In public opinion surveys, women express significantly higher levels of environmental concern than men, said Riley Dunlap, a professor of sociology at Oklahoma State University.

And the EcoMom alliance itself pushes the history of women's meetings. Of course, it doesn't refer explicitly to Tupperware:

Much as kitchen table conversations have inspired women throughout history, the EcoMom Alliance is a call to action asking moms to help protect our planet and create a more peaceful, just world.

(from the website)
I'd say the tone is a little more about power, a little less about women gabbing about the best way to iron shirts. The tagline on the website: "Because one of nature's strongest forces is a network of mothers."Despite the brief mention of power, the NYT article ends on a sour note, noting the "domestic strife" eco-housewife-ism can cause and (natch) the cat-fighting within the movement:

And ecomotherhood is not always sisterly.

At the EcoMom party recently, some guests took the hostess, Liz Held, to task for her wall-to-wall carpeting (potential off-gassing), her painted walls (unhealthful volatile organic compounds) and the freshly cut flowers that she had set out for the occasion (not organic). Their problems with the S.U.V. in the driveway were self-explanatory.

The organization is about power, it's about concern for the environment. This article cut it down to coffee talk and internal strife.

NOT good, in my book.

Maximeter

2008-02-15T18:17:00.005-05:00

It's no surprise that I hate Maxim.

And it's not surprise that they had a "5 chicks I shouldn't want to fuck but would anyway" slideshow.

But I read it, so I must condemn it.

These are the "5 Women We´re Not Supposed to Want (But Do)"

"Are these women hot by traditional standards? No. Would we still do dirty things to them? Hell, yes!"

1) Meg White
2) Pink (not hot by traditional standards? what?)
3) Lisa Lampanelli
4) Juliette Lewis
5) Tina Fey

There you are, ladies. Be grateful that Maxim thinks you're worthy. They're bucking trends to do it (gasp)! We should give them lots of credit for forgiving these ladies for their lack of "traditional" hottness.

And I gotta quote the copy under Meg White's picture:

We´ve always wanted to bag a drummer, and for us it came down to a coin flip between Meg and the one-armed guy from Def Leppard. She´s 12 pounds of sugar in two 5-pound bags, and has both arms. If she humps like she drums…

Classy.

Happy V-Day...Literally!

2008-02-14T17:54:00.004-05:00

Via The Raw Story.

In honor of Valentine's Day, The Today Show let Jane Fonda say "cunt."

Okay, not really. But the censors missed it on the East Coast feed. Oh! The horror! We're all going to die!

Raw Story has some nice quotes from conservablogs:
Newsbusters.org:

Besides her left wing activism, famous North Vietnamese propagandist Jane Fonda spouts foul language on morning network television, when some children almost certainly saw it.

Michelle Malkin:

The woman has no class. You already knew that. But here’s more confirmation. Another reason not to let your children watch TV in the morning.

Here's the earth-shattering clip:

Hmmm..."the secrets to making your love last." Nice segue.

Anyway, thanks for the Valentine's gift. Love hearing women's genitalia on television. And no, I don't care about these so-called "children."

1. If they're watching The Today Show, they're losers.
2. If this word ruins their lives, they need new ones.

It's a word. It doesn't mean anything.

Shiny, Happy Texans

2008-02-13T18:34:00.002-05:00

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Texas ban on sex toys, saying it violates the right to privacy under the 14th amendment.

How did this get this far? The ban is clearly unconstitutional. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Update: Shuster Suspended, Not Expelled

2008-02-13T18:30:00.002-05:00

TPM reports that Shuster is on suspension, but he'll be back.

Good.

THIS is what's wrong with Clinton's campaign

2008-02-13T17:03:00.003-05:00

Unfortunately, I think this cheesy, unrefined, untalented performance represents Clinton's campaign perfectly. I'm not talking about the issues here. But come on, how the hell does cheese like this compare to this?

Sure, it's manipulative. But it's hot. Like Obama. I think these videos are a great representation of the differences between these two. Again, this is playing into the idea (which is, I think, obviously true) that a lot of people vote based on the feeling of a candidate, the vibe.

I can't resist putting this one up.

A perfect representation of funny Americans. I love this.

Well, That Sounds Good

2008-02-13T15:36:00.003-05:00

Via the AP:

Amsterdam, famed for its red light prostitution district, on Wednesday gave escort services six weeks to apply for official city licenses.

The order is part of a campaign to combat money laundering, human trafficking and abuse in the sex industry, which was legalized in the Netherlands in 2000.

If that's really why they're doing it, this sounds good. Hopefully, it's not just a way to control the sex trade. I mean, it won't affect individual prostitutes, only the escort services. I think it's good. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Sexism is Hilarious! (Cracked Edition)

2008-02-12T14:35:00.000-05:00

Cracked.com has a real winner today. The article is called "If Valentine's Day Cards Were Honest."

Women always say they want a relationship built on honesty. This Valentine's Day, give her a card that will prove she doesn't really mean it. (emphasis mine)

That's right, be careful what you wish for ladies. You might get a card like this and realize your boyfriend is a complete asshole. Better avoid that bullet as long as you can! And...drumroll please...the FUNNIEST VALENTINE'S CARDS EVER!!!

Hey, at least this next card has some equality.

I have no idea what this means.

What the fuck? Some people have issues.

I'm only dating you for sex! HAHA!!

Note that this was just the hall of fame. There are more at Cracked. The post has 868 diggs. I hate us.

Super Delegates Have Crappy Lives

2008-02-11T16:50:00.000-05:00

Via ABC News:

Jason Rae is 21-years old. He's a junior in college. And he's a super delegate.

Yeah, that means he gets to vote for whoever the hell he wants, but it also means he has strangers calling him. Sure, their last names are Kerry and Clinton, but they're still strangers. And they're calling to influence his vote.

I would hate every second of the conversations described in this article. Someone calls me who's clearly trying to manipulate me, I hang up.

But there's another angle to this story. It starts with the fact that Rae had breakfast will Chelsea Clinton this morning. It's not clear if Bill Clinton set up the meeting, but he did call Rae on January 25th. THIS is what Shuster was referring to. He was saying Bill and Hillary Clinton are using Chelsea. Sure, Shuster chose an apparently inflammatory phrase, but it's a valid opinion. I don't happen to agree. I think she's doing it because she wants to (okay, maybe they're pushing her a little bit).

But again, it's a valid opinion. I feel like Shuster's suspension is misplaced anger at Chris Matthews. He's the one who should get the boot if anyone should.

Hillary Overcome

2008-02-11T16:09:00.000-05:00

Via Feministing:Fuckin'

NOW Freaks Out Again

2008-02-09T12:07:00.000-05:00

I know NOW isn't the only organization going crazy over David Shuster's 'pimp' comment, but NOW's press release is the first one I've read.

NBC News President Steve Capus announced this afternoon that MSNBC's David Shuster would be suspended from appearing on all NBC broadcasts because of his "irresponsible and inappropriate" remarks -- I would call them disgusting and sexist -- suggesting it was "unseemly" that 27-year-old Chelsea Clinton is campaigning for her mother, and then characterizing it as "being pimped out."

After Shuster's damaging remarks on-air, the National Organization for Women and others called on Capus to take action. After all, NBC has had a track record of employing sexist on-air personalities and for taking its time to deal with their behavior.

The article then mentions Don Imus (natch) and Chris Matthews.

I wouldn't even think of characterizing Shuster's comments as sexist. Here's what actually happened:

Oh yeah, he took a real stand there. He was talking about the fact that she's out there, clearly campaigning for her mother, but she is untouchable by the press. There's a double-standard there. Sure, it's not a great metaphor, but he was clearly grasping for the right words.

Comparing this dude to Chris Matthews and Don Imus is ridiculous. But I do think, like some of Imus' and Matthews' comments, it slipped out because Shuster was trying to fill time. 24-hour news sucks.

The Huffington Post Becomes Cosmo

2008-02-09T10:43:00.000-05:00

Ugh. I knew there'd be plenty of fodder for this blog for the upcoming commercialized, forced, "romantic" Valentine's Day, but I didn't expect it to come from The Huffington Post.

Jodi Lipper and Cerina Vincent (it took two people to come up with this shit?) posted a cutesy, euphemism-filled column today titled: "How To Celebrate Valentine's Day Like A Hot Chick." Yeah, I know.

Yes, the title is a play on Jodi Lipper's book "How to Eat Like a Hot Chick" and it's ostensibly an empowering notion that we all have an "inner" hot chick, but that totally doesn't fly for me. What does it mean to have an inner hot chick? Is there a woman with great hair an a kickin' bod trapped inside my body? Is she the one that needs all that junk food? I think I need an exorcism.

Anyway, back to the article. I guess I should make clear that I am a V-day hater. I don't like to feel manipulated by the greeting card industry, and I don't like forced romanticism.

This article isn't about that, which, you know, is fine, if you're into expectations and obligation. Lipper and Vincent want to answer the question no one's asking: "Isn't it ironic that the same day that is supposed to inspire love, romance and bliss often ends up filled with arguments, disappointments and loneliness?" (No, it's not ironic it's exactly what the holiday is set up for.)

The article has two sections, one for couples, one for singles. Each has three different options for the supposedly big day. Each one assumes women expect to be pampered, surprised, adored...sorry, I have to throw up.

There are condescending suggestions:

If you have a Valentine and want all the frills..., then we know a way for you to get exactly what your little heart desires. Ready? Plan it yourself! Many women have super high expectations about what they want on V-day, but they don't communicate these wishes to their man and get all pissy when they don't get what they want. Well, here's the scoop, Hot Chicks - he can't read your mind. Sometimes we have to take the lead when we want something done the way we want it.

Suggestions of bribery:

...Steak and a BJ Day. This is a holiday on any day of the year when you take your man out for a giant steak, buy him beers and/or whiskey, and then... well... you get it. Not only is this a great way to make your man feel loved and give him a special treat that he deserves, but it's also a genius way to ensure that your Valentine's Day is a good one. Trust us, if he knows this holiday is coming, he will use all of his resources to make sure that your holiday is just as enjoyable as his is going to be.

Impulse purchases:

Buy yourself those earrings you've been eyeing online or get in your car and drive to a nearby city and spend the day exploring. Go for it - spoil yourself the way you deserve to be spoiled and you won't feel lonely at all.

Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that, if you happen to place a lot of importance on a made up day, maybe you should stop. Maybe you should take a cue from history. Valentines were martyrs. Don't let yourself be one.

To be fair, the article's last suggestion:

Valentine's Day is about passion, so take this opportunity to indulge in the things you are passionate about, whatever they may be. You don't need a guy to feel like the fabulous, sexy creature that you are - you just need the things that you love.

This would be great, if the rest of the article didn't contradict it. Huffington Post, I'm disappointed.

Woohoo! Spain is Awesome

2008-02-07T18:39:00.000-05:00

I know some disagreed with Spain's decision to ban crazy-thin models from run-ways, but size 8 mannequins was a definite step in the right direction.

And now, they're really talking my language. The AP reports today that Spain is making clothes for...wait for it...non-stick women.

No, not a "cute" new marketing campaign for I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, it's a new set of guidelines from Spain's Health Ministry. Over 10,000 women took part in a 5-month study to standardize clothes sizing. There will be three measurements: bust, waist, and hips. Wow. It's taken them this long to figure out women are as different from each other as men are? I don't know why I'm surprised.

I only wish we could get the three size thing down over here. I've got some birthin' hips growing on me now.

FoxNews Makes it "Classy"

2008-02-07T16:43:00.000-05:00

Romney's suspended, Rove is on FoxNews, and I'm feeling better! Anyway, on with the post.

In a creepy attempt to wrap things up in a tidy bow, Oliver North (through FoxNews) has written this gem.

"Women, Children and Mentally Disabled are New 'Martyrs' For Al Qaeda
North gives us a history lesson about where the phrase "women and children first" came from to illustrate how tragic Al Qaeda's recent use of mentally challenged women was.

The best part:

The natural instinct of civilized human beings is to protect those who are more vulnerable in the face of danger. Civilized cultures have placed women on a pedestal, not because they are less capable, but because we honor them and hold them in a special place in our society.

The article notes this was not the first time, and that children have been taken advantage of in this way as well.

It then gives an example of women who were used as front-line soldiers. North ends the article with a sigh and a tear: "In radical Islam, the slogan “women and children first” has taken on a whole new meaning."

But the article doesn't talk about all the women who are volunteering for al Qaeda because they're angry, because everyone around them is dying, because extremism makes sense to them. These women aren't being used because they're "vulnerable," they're as angry as the male suicide bombers. Don't get me wrong: there's nothing good about any of this (North's article included).

At the base of this article is the assumption that women are (again) vulnerable, special. At the base of this article, women are not equal to the men around them. And while that is true under Sharia law, it's ostensibly no longer true here.

Clinton Wins

2008-02-05T22:33:00.000-05:00

I'm just guessing. This is a crazy night, but I'm sick and tired, both literally and figuratively.

I'll get back into the game, even if I am right about tonight's winner. But for now, it's time to go to bed.

Here's hoping I'm wrong.

Femininity Will Win the Election?

2008-02-04T16:14:00.000-05:00

There was an interesting but, I think, misguided article yesterday on PopPolitics about campaign theme songs and their greater meaning.

The general thesis of Bernie Heidkamp's article is that presidential hopefuls should take a cue from Clinton and Obama and run on a platform of femininity. (He cites Obama's association with Oprah as an example of his feminine side and Clinton's woman-themed campaign songs as hers.)

Heidkamp notes:

For awhile I felt that Hillary was going to lengths (and the media was complying) not to make gender a part of the campaign. Learning the Pat Schroeder lesson, she rarely showed emotion. Going further back, moreover, she had long been positioning herself in the Senate (until her infamous vote endorsing the Iraq War became unpopular) as a defense hawk. No one was going to accuse her of being "soft."

So for her to make the music of Parton and Gloria Estefan a central part of her campaign rallies -- and to choose a song from Big Head Todd that focuses on how a woman is changing the world -- is an intriguing choice.

Part of it can be explained, though, by her fairly recent realization that her perceived weakness is her greatest strength...

It can also be explained, though, in the realization that Americans -- or at least Democrats -- are sick of the rugged individualist, hyper-masculine narrative that Rove-Bush has sold us the past eight years. Feminine is in.

Don't believe me? Just try to picture Barack hunting for votes in camouflage. His authenticity and sensitivity (or at least his construction of an authentic and sensitive image) wouldn't allow it. He's the Oprah candidate.

He goes on to warn Republicans to get with the feminine program.

Oh, how I wish this was true (aside from that horrible perceived weakness=feminine part). But come on. Is he serious? Sure, lots of people find a feminine side comforting. But when it comes down to the election, people are going to go for the POW over the sentimental man or woman every time. I mean, seriously, how could a woman or a womanish-man protect us from the billions of terrorists out there plotting to kill us? Newsflash: everyone is still afraid. And the majority of Americans do not believe a woman (or anyone resembling a woman) could protect us.

I know. It's sad. But it's true, god dammit.

Michelle Obama Backtracks

2008-02-04T15:15:00.000-05:00

From Talk Left:

The site seems to think that if Bill Clinton had said this, everyone would be up in arms. I'm not so sure. Would anyone really be surprised if he said that?

According to Politico, there was a little more backpedaling in the interview. Directly after the above clip:

ROBERTS: That's not a given?

MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

I feel the same way, but you'd think she'd have been better prepared to answer this. I've thought about it, and, like Ann Coulter, if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, I'd vote for her over McCain (or, even more resolutely, Romney). Like Michelle Obama, though, I'd much rather vote for her husband.

I do think this was a bit of a gaffe, but nothing incredibly shocking.

More Powerful Women Fighting Back

2008-02-02T09:51:00.000-05:00

Women are so helpless. Via the AP:

Women Teach Suspects a Very Hard Lesson

10 hours ago

MARYLAND HEIGHTS, Mo. (AP) — It looks like a couple of suburban St. Louis purse snatchers picked the wrong women to attack. The victims fought back — with a snow shovel.

Police in Maryland Heights released details of the Sunday incident outside a Schnucks grocery store. The women were unloading groceries when the thieves tried to steal two purses from their cart.

One of the women grabbed a shovel from the suspects' pickup and smacked one of the men upside the head. The other woman jumped into the cab and attacked the other suspect, then grabbed the keys so he couldn't drive away.

Police tracked the men to a hotel. The man struck with the shovel required staples to close the gash in his head.

Both are jailed and charged with robbery.

Information from: KMOV-TV, http://www.kmov.com

Right on, ladies.

Little Feminist

2008-02-01T18:38:00.000-05:00

"The Guy's Guide to Cooking For Girls"

2008-02-01T17:43:00.000-05:00

Via Techcrunch:

Culinary Seductions is a new site that bribes men to cook for women. How? It'll get them into bed.

The ridiculously sexist site never calls women "girls." In fact, they ask girls to upload pictures of themselves.

(From the site) We're looking for photos and videos of sexy girls admiring their favorite foods! Send us photos of yourself or your date. We'll post the ones that make us the hungriest!

The picture in this post is their "Bite of the Month."

I know I'm lucky. My husband cooks dinner for me a lot. All I can do is hot dogs and frozen dinners. I know a lot of men don't cook, but is this really necessary? Maybe it works as a gimmick (a big MAYBE), but the site is just an excuse to gawk at beautiful women.

Here are some more gems:

Tease Her Taste Buds

You'll be sure to find the perfect dish for any doll.

Click the menu tab and you'll find a Meat Loving Madam (who is, apparently, breasts)

The deeper you go, the worse it gets. Ugh.

Truly Disgusting

2008-02-01T17:16:00.000-05:00

The biggest attack since the surge killedat least 98 people and wounded over 200 today.

Two women were sent in to busy Baghdad markets and exploded.

Notice I say "were sent." That's because they were MENTALLY DISABLED women. The bombs were detonated by remote control.

Before it was reported that the women were mentally challenged, I was complaining about the fact that all the headlines said "female suicide bombers." They never say "male suicide bombers." I know, I know, it's much less common for women to kill themselves this way, but still, it feels wrong.

But this is an entirely different story. I hate delineating good and evil, but jesus...this is pure, untainted evil.

Julie Newmar: Alive and Kickin'

2008-01-31T22:43:00.000-05:00

Via Copyranter:

Desperate? Maybe. Awesome? I think so.

Julie Newmar bought an ad on the back cover of this week's AdWeek.
The new 70 indeed. The copy reads:"Untouched and unretired movie star, ex-Catwoman a quintessential quality advocate.

If this is what she wants to be doing, someone better hire her fast. Any company would be lucky to have her.

This is the point where I step back and look over at my other shoulder. The little devil is asking me if I would feel the same way if Newmar wasn't 74. Would I feel okay about a woman begging for a job this way? The photo is pretty weird. She's on some sort of desk, but there's a picture of herself there.

Nah . She can do whatever the fuck she wants. In a world where everyone tries to hide from death and aging, I love that "ex-Catwoman" is ready to flaunt her beautiful 74-year old self.

Don't Resist Laughing at Those Scabby Ankles! It's Feminism!

2008-01-30T22:23:00.000-05:00

Ugh. This Guardian article literally had me grinding my teeth.

Though, admittedly, there were some paragraphs I couldn't make sense of (I suppose it's that British wit I keep hearing about), I think I got the gist. Julie Burchill wants you to feel free to obsess over Jennifer's cellulite or Braxtey's dry skin. Glamour rags who feature the latest celeb-gone-wrong are ... promoting feminism!

"How so?" you might ask. I'll let Burchill tell you:

"Ooh, a hundred years of feminism gone down the drain!" a certain sort of killjoy Jeremiah is wont to whinge when they see a civilian chick sniggering over a Heat snapshot of some starlet's un-fake-tanned ankles. To which I would reply no, it's you that's a disgrace to our living, mutating feminism, with your apparent feeling that to be a "proper" woman one must never bitch, smirk or get a cheap laugh out of someone wealthier's imperfections. So a woman should be pure in thought, word and sense of humour, eh? A veritable Angel of the Hearth, indeed! How very Victorian - and how very boring.

I warned you about the Britishisms.

What Burchill has completely wrong (and I'm sorry if it's England moved to another planet where it's different) is the argument. Who the hell is talking about "proper" women? I hate these sad excuses for journalism (celebalism? sounds like the disease it is) because they make normal people like feel like shit. Maybe people are laughing on th outside, but on the inside, they're thinking, "damn, I wish I had that kind of body." If a size 2 movie star is getting criticized for her supposedly flabby stomach or her natural face, what kind of message does that send people like me? No, forget me, I'm old enough not to give a crap. What kind of message does that send to a self-conscious adolescent?

Not to mention the fact that Burchill's article only talks about women. The green light of crapmags only seems to hit famous women. Does Burchill not have a problem with that? Are famous men too real for her already?

Sorry to rant, but this is just ridiculous. Sure, if these were simply pictures shot with a goal of showing us real people in honest moments, Burchill's argument would stand. But I'm supposed to laugh at these women. I'm supposed to feel glad that I'm not them. Women are being criticized for being real.

And that's not okay.

NOW That's a Level-Headed Response

2008-01-29T14:42:00.000-05:00

At least the national chapter of NOW has it right. Here's the sane response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama (as opposed to NOW-NY's insane response).

NOW's Response to Sen. Kennedy's Endorsement

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

January 28, 2008

The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.

Hillary Clit-on

2008-01-28T23:10:00.000-05:00

Get it? If you take out the 'n' her name is like clit but with an 'on' at the end. It's funny, cause it's true.

That's about the caliber of the Hall of Sexism out there on Cafe Press. There are some seriously unfunny sexists out there.

Broadsheet did some research. Unfortunately, I don't think they had to look very hard. Click on the link to find every horribly sexist thing you could think of to say about Hillary Clinton.

But no, it's okay, because it's about a woman. And it's on a t-shirt. Isn't free speech great sometimes? It's a great way to see how fucked up this "cunt-ry" is.

NOW it's Time to Take a Breath

2008-01-28T22:52:00.000-05:00

I know. No organization can be perfect, but come on!

Today, NOW came out with a press release shaming Senator Ted Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama. I'm not kidding. Here's the headline:

Senator Ted Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President;
Ultimate Betrayal Felt by Women Everywhere

And here's a taste of the release:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal...

...Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills.

And this is a good thing? This is making me angry at women. Why do we care about Kennedy again? Oh, right, because he's an important endorsement. What's a little compromised principle for a couple votes? The shit continues to rain down:

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one)

That's right. He owes us for being doormats.

Jesus Christ! In no way is this okay. And hey, where's the equal opportunity? Don't you feel "betrayed" by Caroline Kennedy? Where's the hate?

This is a symptom of the problem I blogged about earlier. 2nd-wave feminists are not helping the cause with this shit. NO ONE should be forced to vote for someone "because they should."

Feministing says it best: "NOW-NY does not speak for me. And it does not speak for all feminists."

Argh! So much anger on my way to bed!

Attention Ladies: Keep Proof of Your Academic Past On Hand at All Times

2008-01-28T22:40:00.000-05:00

This HuffPo article really pissed me off just now:

"OC" alum Mischa Barton went to Sundance to promote "Assassination of a High School President" and to try to shift focus from her recent DUI arrest. She talked to Fox News and insisted that she was really an academic girl. (emphasis mine)

Sure, drunk driving is idiotic, but why the hell does this woman have to insistshe was an academic girl? Is there some evidence to the contrary? Is it because she's beautiful? Or because of a DUI? Apparently, she was even responsible about going to the press about said DUI. Sounds like a bright woman to me.

The tone of this blurb is ridiculously insulting. Why the hell would Barton lie about her academic past? I mean, we all know men like stupid bitches anyway, right?

Ms. is Making Me Reconsider

2008-01-28T09:27:00.000-05:00

I've always had a little chip on my shoulder about Ms. Magazine. I'm not thrilled about Gloria Steinem, and it was all a little too mainstream for me.

But maybe I've been wrong. Looking at the website, the magazine truly seems to be working to educate people on global issues that affect women. Maybe I should give it a shot.

What brought the magazine to my attention this time? Israel.

The American Jewish Congress tried to buy space in the magazine for the ad pictured here. It shows three Israeli women, one of which is profiled in the issue in question. Though I'm not sure why the magazine originally agreed to publish the ad, it's clear why they rejected it in the end.

According to the magazine's press release on the subject,

"Ms. policy is to accept only mission-driven advertisements from primarily non-profit, non-partisan organizations that promote women’s equality, social justice, sustainable environment, and non-violence."

In Ms. magazine’s judgment, the ad submitted by AJCongress for consideration was inconsistent with this policy. Not only could the ad be seen as favoring certain political parties within Israel over other parties, but also with its slogan “This is Israel,” the ad implied that women in Israel hold equal positions of power with men. Israel, like every other country, has far to go to reach equality for women. As the Israel Women’s Network notes: “Women have consistently received symbolic representation in Israeli politics, at least sufficient enough to generate the myth of an open and egalitarian system.”

The AJCongress press release compared its ad with the cover story Ms. ran when Congressmember Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House. However, when Ms. featured Speaker Pelosi on its cover with the words “This is What a Speaker Looks Like,” we did not claim that “This is what the USA looks like.” Far from it, since women comprise only 17% of the Congress, ranking 65th in the world in women’s representation, and continue to face discrimination in every aspect of American society.

If this is truly the reason the magazine rejected the ad, good for them. They make a great point.

If they're wary of appearing to favor Israel over Palestine, I think that's okay too.

Anyway, I think maybe I'll give the magazine a shot.

More Slate: How Chris Matthews Would Talk to Men if he Was an Equal-Opportunity Offender

2008-01-27T17:31:00.000-05:00

Sorry about all the quoting, but here's another great article from Slate:

According to the Web site Media Matters, MSNBC host Chris Matthews has a history of drooling over female guests. For example, on Jan. 4, Matthews told Elizabeth Edwards, "You've got a great face, Elizabeth. I love your smile. ... I'm sorry. I don't want to patronize you. You're great." To Laura Ingraham, Sept. 12: "I get in trouble for this, but you're great looking, obviously. You're one of the gods' gifts to men in this country." To CNBC's Erin Burnett, Aug. 10: "[Y]ou're beautiful. … [Y]ou're a knockout."

Matthews also recently apologized to Hillary Clinton for saying that the "reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." It's ridiculous for Matthews to have to apologize to the women he's interviewed. What he needs to do is treat the guys equally.

*****

To Rudy Giuliani: I love the smile. Guys, can we get a tighter shot of his face? Close in on the eyes. Oh, yeah. You're beautiful. You're a dreamboat. You're America's Mayor. I bet Judi took one look at those high beams, and, bam, you were in the sack. Am I right? Look at him! That's a 9-1-1 smile! Dial 9-1-1, somebody! I'm having a heart attack.

Battle of the Bods

2008-01-27T17:21:00.000-05:00

I'm just going to quote this Slate article (picture is from the article as well):

The embarrassment one feels at participating in the spectacle of The Moment of Truth is nothing compared with the feelings evoked by Battle of the Bods (Fox Reality, Sundays at 1 a.m. ET), an approximate hybrid of Hot or Not? and a marketing focus group. On the first episode, five Los Angelenas were trotted before the camera and a two-way mirror. On the other side of the mirror sat three men, identified merely as "surfers," who discussed the sexual desirability of each of the women and then, having reached consensus, ranked them from one to five. There were separate evaluations of the prettiness of their faces, the niceness of their gams, and the hubba-hubba-osity of "the full rack." The women stood to earn money, collectively, by anticipating how the rankings would shake out. I'm not sure what was in it for the dudes and therefore must presume that they share some obscure paraphilia and receive unnatural gratification from being seen to look like jerks.

It should be clear that Battle of the Bods is innovatively vile. Further, it is virally vile. To watch it is to play along and to start sizing up the women like a frat boy during orientation week. Worse, it is boringly vile. About half of the program finds the female contestants yapping about whose knees are better than whose. Ultimately, upon being ranked fifth by the boys, the most obnoxious of the girls teared up and stomped backstage. Her comrades went to comfort her and cheer her up, with one mentioning the $300 they'd each won. "Three hundred dollars?" came the retort. "That's not a Louis Vuitton purse. That's not even half of a Louis Vuitton purse!" Poor dear. Doesn't she know there's a sale on at Coach?

Oh, Fox Reality, don't you have anything better to do with your time? Oh wait...I guess not.

It's bad enough these women are being scrutinized, but they have to bet on who will win? That's some creative sexism: women are not only parading around half-naked, they're arguing over their bodies. Oh, and it doesn't hurt that they're snobby bitches either. Yep. That's some good reality tv. Whoever came up with this is an evil genius.

Great Colbert Interview with Deborah Dickerson

2008-01-25T20:00:00.001-05:00

Little Beauties!

2008-01-25T17:41:00.000-05:00

Via Feminist Law Professors:

Little Beauties: Ultimate Kiddie Queen Showdown is a one-hour documentary special that will take a light-hearted look into the wonderful world of children’s beauty pageants through the eyes of four, precocious six-year old girls. This documentary reveals the humor and love behind an American tradition; the always colorful characters on the pageant circuit; and the “sparkle” it takes to win a crown.

Aren't they adorable? See how the pounds of make-up create a doll-like essence? See the love the stage mother showers on her girl when she wins (ONLY when she wins)? See how they're learning to be little princesses (ONLY little princesses)? See how disgusting this is?

I have to go throw up.

"Cuntry" is "funny"

2008-01-25T17:26:00.000-05:00

Broadsheet's all over this one.

Apparently, it's okay to call Hillary Clinton a cunt if you say it in a t-shirt. And a word puzzle is an added bonus:

The Short Bus

2008-01-24T22:50:00.000-05:00

Mexico City announced today that they are rolling out women-only buses. There are (of course) pink signs in the windshield to ward off men.

Verbal and physical abuse is a daily occurrence for women in the city, and most residents seem very happy about the whole thing.

I'm glad women won't have to worry as much as they used to. No one should dread going outside because they fear they'll be groped or hooted at. (Do those assholes think we like that?) But is segregation really the way to go? Women are being forced to separate themselves because the men refuse to behave like people.

Yes, it fixes the problem right now, but I don't see this being a temporary thing. In addition to protection around the city (REAL protection), they should educate men, put laws in place, hell, advertise how horrible it is to terrorize women.

Hey, Hollaback, get your message out there for us!

I know all this is easy for me to say. I don't have to live there. And I'm happy Mexico City found a temporary solution that will help keep women safe. But I hope it's just temporary. History says it's not.

Oh, C.U.N.T

2008-01-24T19:16:00.000-05:00

I resisted posting about this initially, because I didn't want to give them any undue press, but I'm just a little blogger with no readers, and more powerful people have already put it out there.

The PAC in question is Citizens United Not Timid, or C.U.N.T.

The object of the PAC is to "educate the public about what Hillary Clinton really is."[my emphasis] Republican Roger Stone is responsible.

How, exactly, are they educating us? By selling t-shirts, of course, with the slogan emblazoned right across the breast underneath a vagina-ish graphic. The image to the left is from the website. Girl in a tight t-shirt with no face. Nice.

Pure misogyny, pure disgustingness.

Some think it's a trick to create backlash so people will vote for Hillary Clinton, who will then be defeated by whatever Republican wins the nomination. I think it's a bunch of dicks being horrible people.

Creepy?

2008-01-23T22:48:00.000-05:00

Via Gossip Boulevard:

This is either the story of very level-headed adults making good decisions or it's really really creepy.

Jamie Lynn Spears, the "oh my god, she's pregnant?" of the year, is handing her baby over to her mom. You know, the one with two daughters in the middle of crises?

No, no, I don't blame the mother, but I will blame her if she's forcing Jamie Lynn Spears to do something she doesn't want to do.

It starts to get creepy towards the end:

“She wants Jamie Lynn to continue her show business career after the baby is born and Jamie Lynn also realizes she wants to enjoy her teenage years without the responsibilities of caring for a baby. Lynne is convinced that having a baby on her hip will not help Jamie Lynn’s future in the business and she’s expecting her daughter to pick up where she left off as soon as the baby is born.”

Sure, she'll just pick back up as the star of a kids' tv show. No weird issues there. And, I know this is the year of skirting around "schmaschmortion," but wouldn't that have been better for everyone in this case?

Okay, whatever, no abortion. Let's have some more creep:

"Jamie Lynn’s managers also agree and have advised Lynne (Spears, the mom) that the best thing to do is have Jamie photographed with the baby as soon as it is born, sell the pictures and then take over raising her own grandchild.

Well yeah, the managers have to make money somehow after all that "vacation" time Spears is getting...

“Lynne is completely on board with the plan. “She always wanted Britney to raise her babies in Louisiana. She couldn’t have that but now she’s going to raise Jamie Lynn’s baby at her home in Kentwood. Jamie Lynn will be back at work and trying to remind people of her talent and not that she is an unwed teenage mother.”

Two points there: first, I hear the rumblings of a completely overbearing mother. Second, "remind people of her talent"? Yikes. And, I'm afraid to say, this isn't going to be an easy one to shake.

On the plus side, she's a celebrity, so she's not being shunned by the community in Kentwood:

Kentwood local Pam Wright said: “How many 16 year-old girls get pregnant every week? It doesn’t mean that she’s a bad person. I don’t think this will end her career, life will go on.”

Tim Russert's "Irony"

2008-01-23T17:05:00.000-05:00

From Media Matters:

In the January 19 edition of MSNBC's Tim Russert Show, Russert asked New York Times columnist Gail Collins:

RUSSERT: Is it ironic that this self-avowed feminist went to New Hampshire, showed some emotion, and that seemed to be a real help to her with women voters?

Translation:

The minute someone who calls themselves a feminist does something "unfeminist" (in the words of Patty Noonan on Meet the Press) and it gets her votes. Does that mean feminists don't have any voting power?

----

The assumption that showing emotion is "unfeminist" is required for this situation to be considered irony. Let me just say for the billionth time: feminism is the belief that women should have the same rights and privileges men do. Showing emotion mixes with that just fine.

Blogging for Choice

2008-01-22T00:03:00.000-05:00

Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade!

On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, let's look at where we are.

People continue to try to strip away abortion rights by getting around Roe v. Wade. The decision was based on a Right to Privacy, a right that isn't constitutional, but is based on the 14th amendment, which guarantees a right to due process.

The court recognized a state's interest in the protection of fetuses (or, as I like to call them, fetusi).

In other words, Roe v. Wade is an unsteady basis for our right to choose.

If pro-life activists get their way, they would pass amendments stating that a fetus is a person. This would effectively counteract Roe v. Wade.

Men are now arguing that they should have a say when it comes to abortion. These pro-lifers are creative, I'll give them that.

Certain presidential candidates *cough* (Fuckabee) are towing the new pro-life line that doctors are to blame. We should protect our poor, stupid women from getting abortions. They don't know what they're doing.

If said candidates get elected, we'll have to speak through our votes. If you believe a woman should have power over her own life, is responsible to herself before the state, is of sound mind to make her own decisions, please, vote pro-choice.

To me, voting pro-choice means not only voting against all the efforts to strip away our rights, it means voting for candidates who will provide more access to sex education (to keep abortion rates low), voting for access to contraceptives, voting against all the little seemingly innocuous, bills that give the government, state, husband, father, sister, brother, mother, cousin the right to decide what's best for you.

Come November, a lot of people will be out there voting pro-life. Let's show them we're not going backwards.

Wait, maybe I should make it "cool" for the "young people."

Hey, dudes! Do you want to have ask your dad for an abortion even if he's the one who raped you? Do you want to be forced to have a baby when you're twelve? Do you want to pay a lot of money to have a coat hangar shoved into your vagina? That's right! No fuckin' way!

Get out there and Vote for your Vag!

I don't think that worked. Eh, it was worth a try.

Female Circumcision

2008-01-21T15:32:00.000-05:00

Every so often, a new article comes out about female circumcision. Yesterday, it was the New York Times' turn.

The NYT takes us to Indonesia. And I mean they take us there, to the annual free circumcision fest. There's a slideshow and everything. (The pictures are from the slideshow. I weeded out the heartwrenching ones - a little too manipulative for my taste.)I'm horrified at the practice, and even more so because they don't care if they cut the clitoris. But we circumcise men. Is there that big a difference?

Well, yes, because rather than the original idea of circumcised penises, cutting doesn't mark you as "chosen" or "worthy." According to Lukman Hakim, the foundation that gives the free female circumcisions, the reasons are three-fold:

“One, it will stabilize her libido,” he said through an interpreter. “Two, it will make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband. And three, it will balance her psychology.”

Still, as far as I know, circumcised men feel less pleasure during intercourse than those who are uncircumcised.

The problem with cutting is that it stems from religious law that sees women as unstable temptresses. We're trying to get rid of a symptom of the problem, when we should be looking at the problem itself.

Some people feel it's right to call this torture, just like they call burkas oppression, but to dismiss someone's entire upbringing through your own paradigm is never excusable. Mothers who bring their baby girls to get cut are just doing what society expects of them.

It's like I always say, a lot of problems can be fixed with education. Let's help to educate these women, not by giving them a tirade on what's right for their children, but by showing them other options and creating those options for them.

Another parallel I can draw with out society is a topic I've been posting a lot about lately: plastic surgery. Some women are actually getting vaginal plastic surgery. Sure, the women aren't babies when they do this, but I wonder how many of them do it because "it will make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband."

I just don't think we should be so quick to paste our ideals on top of other countries. We have to look at the cause of the problem. Fixing the symptom will get us nowhere. Look at Iraq.

Is the UN actually helping?

2008-01-21T15:03:00.000-05:00

There's a serious of articles that may prove the UN's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women might be working in Saudi women's favor.

(US participation in the CEDAW is not yet ratified, natch)

On January 18th, the committee called Saudi Arabia, a participant in CEDAW, out, pointing out that women have basically no rights in the country.

The committee sited these examples of oppression(via AFP):

Without the presence of this tutor (guardian), a woman cannot study, access health services, marry, travel abroad, have a business or even access an ambulance in an emergency," said one of the experts, according to minutes from the meeting.
"What is the legal basis in Saudi society that justifies this guardian system?" asked the same expert. "Is it necessary to maintain this system in the 21st century?"
Members of the committee asked the Saudi delegation why Saudi women do not have the right to drive.

In addition, they raised the case that made headlines around the world of a woman -- since exonerated by King Abdullah -- who had been convicted to six months in prison and 200 lashings after being gang-raped.

Saudi Arabia's response:

The Riyadh delegation reminded the committee that the country signed the convention with amendments made for Islamic law.

The kingdom is governed by Wahabism, a strict interpretation of Islam that -- in the name of Sharia law -- imposes complete separation of the sexes. As such, it is illegal for a woman to be in the company of a man who is not in her immediate family.

In its report, Riyadh also wrote that "Islam, as a realistic religion, admits that total equality between man and woman is contrary to reality, as various scientific studies on their psychological differences have shown".

On the subject of polygamy, the Saudi representatives replied that in the kingdom, men are permitted by law to have up to four wives.

Sometimes the sexual appetite of a man is not satisfied by his wife and he must take another wife to satisfy this, otherwise he would be obliged to satisfy it an illegal manner, outside of marriage, explained the delegation.

Yikes.

But something may have gotten through to Saudi Arabia. The Telegraph reports today that women will soon be allowed to drive, and four hours ago, the AP reported that Saudi women can now stay in hotels alone.

(I guess it makes sense not to let women stay in hotels by themselves. I mean, they're much better off sleeping on the streets.)

Are these just small concessions to keep women from revolting? To keep the UN off their backs? To keep the world out of their business? Or are things really changing. I find the latter pretty hard to believe.

Now Oprah's a Traitor

2008-01-21T11:17:00.000-05:00

The Times Online reports that Oprah is in some hot water with some of her female fans.

On her website, and interesting little discussion thread popped up: OPRAH IS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!. Yes, the topic title has NINE exclamation points.

Why is she a traitor? Because she's backing a political candidate she supports instead of a woman. "Choosing her race over her gender."

She's been absent at the last bunch of rallies, but she's also trying to negotiate her new network, OWN with Discovery.

If she is stepping back because of the backlash, I understand why. Her fans are important to her success. But Oprah, if you're reading this, get back in there and support the person you believe will make the best president. And I know you read this, O.
The whole celebrity endorsement issue is another story. Oprah is pretty influential and her support of Obama did something. If she stays out of the limelight on his campaign trail, it could hurt him.

Bottom line, this is ridiculous.