Sexist Ad of the Day: Ikea

"Every woman needs her space."


Find more videos like this on AdGabber

Gawker thinks Palin had a little help

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

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

Sexist men make more money

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.

Sarah Palin and the media

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?

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

The Daily Show Rocks My World

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

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.

Fox News is Fucked Up

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.

Dolls Can Get Implants Too!

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.

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

Can't say I'm surprised.

Antifemipsuedoscience

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.

Rape-ity Rape! Ha ha!

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?

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.

Not So Fast, Clinton

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!

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

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?

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..."

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

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

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.