November 2008 Archives

By Elizabeth Hemmerdinger

I've always thrown myself into Thanksgiving. You can see in the photo below, from my turn as a Pilgrim in the 1956 sixth grade pageant at Hunter College Elementary School in New York City. Long, long ago. Might as well have been the first Thanksgiving ever. As a playwright I can tell you, I've got the lead in the scene – the others are just villagers. I don't think I'm accused of being a witch; I think I would have remembered that.

Back then, I knew nothing about Sarah Josepha Hale- who helped found Vassar College, and persuaded President Lincoln to establish Thanksgiving.  In her 1827 novel Northwood: A Tale of New England , she calls for the 40,000 American churches to take up collections for a observance to be called Thanksgiving, with the funds to be used to put an end to slavery in the U.S. She meant for it to be a day of sacrifice and generosity, not just feasting.

I don’t remember the script of my Thanksgiving play, but I remember my mother toiling over the costume design. I love the story of the Pilgrims and the Puritans who left their homes to surrender to the tempestuous seas and disinterested terra incognita in the name of freedom. ....

For the full story, click here .

People get so offended when you question heterosexual wedding "traditions" (since none of these things are actually traditions, I'm using quotes because that's what everyone calls them in their defense).

Ever since I was little, I never understood why so many women want their fathers to "give" them to another man, or why women wear engagement rings but men don't, or why men still ask their girlfriend's father for her hand in marriage as some sort of "traditional" formality. I have big problems with all of these things, but to say so is like burning a flag, spitting on the bible, and running over a puppy all at once.

All of these "traditions" seem so obviously and fundamentally BAD, yet smart, educated, otherwise liberal women embrace them and hold onto them as if they are critical elements to the success of their relationships.

I was at an engagement party recently, and it came up in conversation that the boyfriend had asked the girlfriend's father for permission before he proposed. There was no real reason to do it- the couple had already mutually agreed to get married and the father would have no reason to disapprove of the marriage- but the girlfriend had told the boyfriend that her father would like it. Another married couple in the room shared their similar story about how the man had done it because he knew it would make the woman's father happy. I said that it would indeed make my father very happy as well, and everyone smiled and nodded with me until I added "but I would never allow it." At that point I suddenly became a horrible, horrible person, and I received the usual response "but it's just a tradition!"

I went out to dinner at a local bar/restaurant last night with my two guy friends from high school. Toward the end of our tex-mex dining, I noticed that on the wall there was a large painting of a woman holding a tray of drinks. She had a low cut blue dress that showed off her shoulders and part of her chest (no cleavage), and the outline of her left breast and nipple was quite visible once the waiters moved tables out of the way to make room for the band.

This painting got our conversation started about the objectification of women and their bodies in advertising and in the media in general . My conservative Republican counterpart opined it was up to the consumer what was in and hot and now, and that advertisers, television shows, musicians, etc., simply “give the people what they want.” My centrist psychology major friend conceded that what I was saying was true and that change should happen…but it won’t for another 20-50 years. “I’m all about gradualism,” he said, “And what you’re saying and what you’re working for right now, you’re not going to get any results for.”

Conservative agreed. “It’s the undecideds you’re going after. I don’t like people who think they can change my values, my views, my opinions. I’m already set in my ways. Don’t try to change that.”

The conversation continued on for just about an hour, and I even tried to break it down to the simplest terms: patriarchy, who are the determinants of what is “the social norm,” why must we follow those, and another Yuengling later dot dot dot

I want to pose to the community, If this is what I meet in a group of my peers, my closest, what kind of hope do I have in this feminist movement to push forward with change? The kind of change we work for and want to see? How does one respond to that?   Do you have similar stories?

Normally I enjoy Cecil Adams' "Straight Dope" column for my daily dose of weird facts.  But this leaves a nasty taste in my mouth:

"When does human life begin?" (revisited)

Not content with having opened this can of worms in the first place, Adams decides to totally dismiss a woman's response to his original column.

While I'm sure you're a splendid human being in person, in your letter you come across as a self-centered ninny, and you make the kinds of arguments that drive the religious right to new heights of zeal.

Talk about victim blaming.  And:

So lay off with the yammering about how I'm a misogynist. I'm trying to help you out.

Riiiiiiight.

It's one thing to be pro-life.  It's another to be a complete condescending asshole.  And yes, I realize that condescending is part of Adams' shtick, but it works a lot better when you're dispensing facts, not opinions.

I have a couple of friends, whose identities are sadly built around men. One of them feels too ashamed to be single, after splitting up with one bf, always goes back to her ex, because she "might as well," and is too embarressed of being single, as if she needs a man to have an identity.

Another friend, and in hindsight I realise now how she was influencing me of succumbing to sexist ideals, would look at my Myspace and comment on me not being "photogenic" and spending ages lecturing me on the "correct" angles to take my pics, and ways to look sexy. She also got me into shaving my bikibi line, as "guys prefer it so much more" and generally how to be "sexy." Also telling me one time "it feels weird to be single."

Classic line that really gets on my tits? "Have you got a bf YET?" What's with the "yet"? Since when has it been a rite of passage? I used to get so depressed by it, started hating myself for not being able to get guys I like and branding myself "not a real woman" coz of it, and becoming very bitter towards my mates who could get guys.

But as I've grown up, I've seen from many young women, they don't want a particular someone special, they want a Boyfriend (with a capital B) like a must-have fashion accessory.

Hi ,

As an Iranian-American, I often have a hard time listening to americans talk about women in Iran. There is so much ignorance (not that it's anyone's fault, it's because of bad relations between the two countries). So I decided to write a quick note to all my fellow feminists and say these:

1- Iranian women are university professors, parliament representatives, heart surgeons, lawyers and journalists. We are not trapped in our homes, and we do not ride on camels either.

2- there is still a lot of discrimination against women in Iran.

3- Iranian feminists are very active right now.

4- Iranian feminists are under a lot of pressure.

5- you can learn from them and stand in solidarity with them, and support them if they get arrested.

Here are a few websites that belong to Iranian feminists inside Iran (the main sites are in persian so these articles are just a tiny fraction of what is being written):

A little while back there was a thread here on feministing there was a post about Max Hardcore's conviction (here ). Someone mentioned a new film called "The Price of Pleasure ", just recently I discovered that it was viewable online. I discovered a site run by the Media Education Foundation , which I hadn't heard of until just now, Bell Hooks, Susan Fauldi (and others) are on the advisory board (awesome! ) anyway, the full-length documentary can be viewed there if anyone is interested.

The link to the film is HERE (click on "view full length program")

I'd be interested to hear what other think if anyone happens to watch the film and wants to share thier opinion. I'll probably post some comments in the thread a little later, but right now, without providing any commentary from me, I just wanted to simply let people know this film is there if interested.

"The Price of Pleasure" (Summary ):

Once relegated to the margins of society, pornography has emerged as one of the most visible and profitable sectors of the cultural industries, assuming an unprecedented role in the mainstream of our popular culture at the same time that its content has become more extreme and harsh, more overtly sexist and racist. This eye-opening and disturbing film tackles the complexity behind this seeming paradox, placing the voices of critics, producers, and performers alongside the observations of men and women as they candidly discuss the role pornography has played in shaping their sexual imaginations and relationships. Honest and non-judgmental, The Price of Pleasure moves beyond the liberal versus conservative debates so common in the culture to paint a myth-busting and nuanced portrait of how pleasure and pain, commerce and power, liberty and responsibility have become intertwined in the most intimate area of our lives. An ideal tool for initiating classroom discussion about this notoriously difficult subject. 

[Directed by Chyng Sun & Miguel Picker]

Note : (From the site): "Viewer discretion advised: contains violence, nudity, and sexual imagery."

People who aren't interested in seeing "The Price of Pleasure", however, might be interested in viewing some of the other films on the site, which include documentaries under the categories of race, gender, health, politics, consumerism, etc.

Her is the actual URL for "The Price of Pleasure" is here just in case you can't link from the above links.

I know feminists devote a lot of energy and time to thinking about how people have a tendency to "gender" things (and why they shouldn't be at all) but this last week, I sort of got a short introduction into what may be the hardest things we have when it comes to un-genendering...

our names.

As I've said before, my parents have 5 girls. Now, my name is quite sterotypically female, as is the name of my next sister. The 10 year old, however, is named Wesley Ray. My mother picked the name for a very dear (male) friend of hers who passed less than a week before the birth, and she thought it would be nice. My youngest sister is named after my father's police partner, who was wounded while assisting him in a call, and her name is Corey. In between them is Wren (after the bird) and Quinn (which is a very Irish name). Now all these names are not traditionally female, to be sure. If you heard Wesley and Corey spoken, you'd might assume they were male, and Wren and Quinn, well, you may not know what gender those people were.

I just get extremely tired of people who, upon meeting our family, find it prudent to exclaim "I thought you were a boy!" or "Why does a little girl like you have a little boy's name?" And then the kid gets stuck trying to explain why they have the name they do. Wesley got stuck with a blue name tag in preschool on the first day, because the teacher assumed anyone with that name was male, and it sort of irked her.

I understand that we come from a society that has specific "boy" and girl" names, and it seems like we are not meant to deviate from the set-our parameters, but it gets under my skin! I am starting to become of the opinion that strictly adhering to "boy" and "girl" names isn't such a great idea and maybe we'd be better off if we could just name our children what we truly felt reflected on us best and what "fit" them the most! Granted, I think even I would be a bit taken aback were I to meet a woman named Mikey or Dan or Stevie or something to that effect, but I would do my best to get over it quickly and just move on.

So, are there any women out there who have a traditionally "masculine name" or have given a non-gender conforming name to one of their own? I'm really interested in hearing thoughts on the topic, since I have not met a great number of people in this situation before. Should we just, as a society, get over gendered names and move on, or do you think the confusion would be too great if we did?

On Yahoo News:

Health Tip: Hide or Get Rid of Excess Hair

(HealthDay News) -- In women, factors such as hormonal changes, diet, illness, or use of certain medications can trigger the growth of excess or unwanted hair.

To remove or minimize its appearance, the U.S. National Library of Medicine offers these suggestions:

* Bleach the hair so that it is less visible.
* Shave, wax, pluck or chemically remove the hair.
* Use electrolysis, a procedure in which an electric current is used to prevent hair from growing. But several treatments may be required.
* Remove hair with laser treatments.
* Lose weight. This can affect hormone levels, and in turn, reduce hair growth.

(end of article)

Tell me how this is a health tip? When I saw the headline I thought there might be some BREAKING NEWS that having excess hair was somehow unhealthy for women. After all, the title practically reads as a command.

In fact, the opposite is true. Every one of the solutions offered in this article has potentially unhealthy side effects, including chemical reactions, ingrown hairs, eating disorders, trichotillamania (sp?) and a host of conditions both minor and potentially major.

It is bad enough that marketers and beauty magazines drive home the "shave it all off" mentality, to the point that some women wax or shave every bit of hair on their body other than head hair. It is bad enough that almost nobody has full eyebrows anymore, and many women have developed hair-pulling disorders while fashion models and magazines portray even having normal eyebrows as somehow unfeminine.

This article goes a step further by adding the weight of medical science to the barrage of hairless messages bombarding women. That's downright disingenuous.

A true health tip would be to let women know that "excess" hair is merely a variation, is rarely indicative of underlying illness or imbalance, and in some cultures is believed to be a sign of greater libido. In short: there's nothing wrong with being hairy. We are, after all, mammals.

Hey cleaning product companies... want to get me to buy your stuff?

Show a man cleaning!

My boyfriend pointed out something to me yesterday... You almost NEVER see a man doing the laundry, dishes, or cleaning in a commercial.

I know for a fact men clean.  I lived with a father that cleaned, and my boyfriend and I share the workload. When talking to him, I could see how it is almost insulting to guys as well as girls.  I found it sexist that they assumed that we women are "turned on" and "amazed" by the stuff we buy.  But what about men? If you're not in an Axe commercial (herding women like animals), or selling testosterone filled products, does that mean you're not a man at all?  Or a man that is worth being sold to?  Is the Brawny man and Mr.Clean the only men allowed in the kitchen?

What would get me to buy a product?

-Show a man washing dishes and discovering that they're amazing, just like women do in similar commercials.

-Show a man and woman doing the work together, and not just him "helping" or as a secondary do-er.

-Show guys discussing what products work for them.  I know this happens.  It isn't just women who have to get spots out of clothes.  And, please, don't do this as a macho thing.  Don't show me guys comparing their socks in the locker room, with a penis size joke thrown in.   

-Show these things gender neutral.  My vagina doesn't help get the clothes whiter or make the dishes wash themselves. 

Bravo. The University of Calgary, after trying to negotiate with the Campus Pro-Life Club to ensure that the disgusting Genocide Awareness Project placards were not visible to passersby, have called city police to investigate them.

This has been one of those seemingly endless debates between freedom of speech, and violation of women's rights. Not only is GAP extremely offensive to anyone who's pro-choice, it's damned hurtful to women who've had abortions. Being compared to Nazis? Nice, really nice. Holocaust or genocide survivor? Guess what? Your pain is being used against women.

The University of Calgary has also put up warning signs around the display that people have to cross, in order to get to it.

Here's an article about what's been happening. Some exerpts:

University of Calgary officials say they won't kick an anti-abortion group behind a controversial poster display off campus, but have asked police to investigate whether the group has broken any laws.

 

The university also put up signs warning students and staff about the University of Calgary Campus Pro-Life Club's "extremely graphic" poster display, which the group put on display Wednesday morning outside MacEwan Student Centre.

The officials' signs said the group didn't have the university's "permission or endorsement."

The also said, "The university is now taking appropriate legal action."

This essay has been floating around the internet since 2001, and I'm sure I read it a couple years back. I rediscovered it the other day and it's still very powerful. It's the best take on the sexual double-standard I've ever read.

Go read it.

Here's an excerpt:

"Slut" is for kissing boys with tongue. "Slut" is for kissing lots of different boys with tongue. "Slut" is for craving kissing lots of different boys with tongue. That's not right, you know. It says so in the Bible, and in social hygiene films. "Slut" is for loving sex. "Slut" is for needing sex. "Slut" is for thinking sex isn't shameful. Sex is for married people, for diamond owners, for nice girls in twin sets whose mothers hid the Erica Jong, for people totally and completely, like, in total and complete love, and it takes place behind closed doors, with the lights out. Sex isn't fun. Sex isn't casual. Sex is a deadly serious, disgusting, dirty, degrading business. Just lie there. Don't move around. Don't use your fingernails or moan or anything; that's slutty. Don't get on top. Don't go down. Going down is really slutty, especially if you like it as much as he does. Ew. That's so gross. Only a slut would like that. That's so sickening. I bet you masturbate, too. Ew, I can't even think about that. That's so foul — touching yourself down there like that? That's — well, it's dirty and sticky and gross, dude! Nobody does that. Well, boys do, but that's different.

Enjoy.

Dear feministing-community members,
I am currently enrolled in a social science research master, focusing particularly on gender issues. I have to write a paper for my Theorizing Gender course and, out of personal interests, I have chosen to write about post-feminism and the phenomenon of what has been described as female chauvinist pigs. You know the stereotypes: a young, white, urban woman who, in the name of feminism, reclaims her sexuality; who is not afraid of coming over as sexually assertive (aggressive?); who may enjoy pornography, etc. Quintessentially sex and the city-like behaviors and attitudes (anyone who's read Female Chauvinist Pigs will know what I am talking about!). I'd like to use your comments in my term paper if that's ok with you - otherwise I'll gratefully accept your contribution to my researching process :) It is my aim here to get a feel for how the (American?) feminist community feels about these issues.

So, here's the questions!

1. What, in your opinion, does post-feminism (not to be confused with difference-oriented 3rd wave feminism) entail? Do you agree with its assumptions (on female sexuality, on the gender system, etc) and conclusions?
2. What do you think of the emerging ideal of sexually assertive femininity as found in women's magazines, advertisements, popular series on tv)? Do you think this kind of ideals have liberating effects - or do you take a more pessimistic stance?

That's it - I know, not a lot, but to me it would be great if you could give these a thought.

By the way, I hope to put the rise of 'female raunch culture' into a more historical perspective (discuss the anti-feminist backlash) and also contrast the assumptions underpinning this discourse with notions of (female) sexuality as developed by post-sructuralist and/or psychoanalytic theorists. The conclusion will consist of an evaluation of the phenomenon in light of resistance and politics.

Thanks a lot reading this; I hope you find some time to answer my questions.

Kind regards,
Irene (Ziggy)

So a friend e-mailed this to me last night as a joke...and I gotta say, I'm still thinking about rinsing my eyes out with bleach.

I just don't know where to start. This is just wrong on so many levels.

Girls, help me rip this one to shreds!

...and sexless Moms are, at least partially, on the way out.

You know the sexless Moms I'm talking about. They wear boxy V-necks over button-shirts with doily-collars, or pink-tan sweaters hanging hip-length over baggy pants. They have faces you'll forget the moment they turn their heads. Commercial moms aren't really women; they don't have sex, they rarely look feminine, and if they do, it's in a matronly way. It's also better if they aren't attractive – if they were, if their hair bounced and flowed and if they had breasts and identifiable waists (or any shape at all), they would have something much better to do than to fall on their hands and knees to scrub the toilet base screw-joints, or disinfect every possible infectible surface with a disinfecting spray.

Leave it to the Moms to do it. Moms will do everything! You got a stink-mess? Yo, Mom'll solve it. And what about that Clorox™ jingle? "Mama keeps whites fresh like the sunshine, mama uses the magic of Clorox Two™." Mama does it. No one but mama knows how to use Clorox™. Or how to do laundry, for that matter.

At least, that's what the ads would have us believe.

Moms aren't just doing it; they're loving it. Recall the woman gleefully dusting her friend's house during an afternoon tea before her friend catches her and accuses, "Are you dusting again?"

C'mon…everyone knows women jones for dusting if they go a day without! We'll ransack your house for a Swiffer™, we will! If we can't find one, you might find us scrubbing your shower grout between servings of diet cakelettes.

It's not just cleaning, though. After wiping up the cranberry spill with the hefty paper towels no one but Mom seems to know how to use, a new job presents itself: how to find a way to accommodate the unpredictable schedule of the family members come dinnertime? This, too, is done with unfathomable pleasure and selflessness. Dad works, and the kids are busy playing and socializing. Mom is, of course, eternally inside the house. The only time Mom leaves the house is to shop, or to watch the soccer game that will dirty her son's clothes, thereby giving her the (no doubt eagerly-awaited) opportunity to use her Clorox Two™. Sure, she shakes her head disapprovingly at the muddy patch on those once-white shorts, but just look at her face when she picks up the Clorox® bottle. Nothing short of sheer lust.

My Parents

Though I am young, I have always been a politically-minded person, partly due to growing up near the District of Columbia, and partly because I grew up in a bi-partisan household. My mother, a practicing Catholic from the mid-west, is a Democrat and my father, a non-practicing Jew from Long Island, is a Republican.

One thing that always surprised me, though, was how my father was not like the Republicans I usually heard about. Even at the age of nine, I noticed how my Dad simply didn’t fit the usual “Republican” archetype. From ages 5-11, I grew up in a pre-dominantly liberal area of Maryland and I remember during the 2000 election hearing school friends and their parents discuss with themselves how Republicans are anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-environment, racist, Christian right-wing Bible-thumpers. That didn’t fit my dad at all.

See, my Dad hates the idea of the proverbial “woman’s place.” He grew up with a kind but passive father and driven, vibrant mother (my late beloved Grandma Julia). My Grandmother had jobs while married in the 50’s and 60’s (and we all know how difficult that was if you were a woman back then), managed to keep a sparkling household, and was always fighting tooth and nail to encourage her children to get an education (something my father noted in his eulogy to her). My father was a Republican since he was eighteen, but that didn’t stop him from letting the example his mother set be lost on him.

This is a direct address to all people who use the term "feminazi" or "feminist nazi" to describe someone you don't agree with. Because, you see, I get sick enough of all the eye-rolling at pro-woman sentiment, but this phrase makes me want to beat the shit out of the person who uses it.

By using that phrase, not only do you show your own pathetic cowardice, you also try to belittle the work, the blood sweat and tears of every woman who fought tooth and nail to acquire respect for herself as a human being. You belittle the work of the foremothers who worked so you, and/or your daughters, sisters, and mothers could vote, hold a job, be respected, acquire higher education, run for elected office and have reproductive rights.

You also take a huge shit on the pain and suffering of six million people who were killed, tortured and starved for being different. You think the Holocaust is funny? You think calling someone a "Nazi" makes you sound intelligent? Or was it tolerant?

You think it makes sense to call someone a "Nazi" because they believe in equal rights? Because they argue with you? Because they see something sexist that you, in your possible blindness, could not?

So you use the term "Nazi." Because someone who thinks that a boyfriend locking their girlfriend in his house to control her, who thinks that rape should be punished, who thinks women should have access to reproductive health is in the same league as those who believe in ethnic "purity" and ethnic "cleansing" at any cost. You think a feminist is in the same league as the group of people who slaughtered six million people.

I understand, it's because they disagree with you. And a Nazi is someone who takes a stand on an issue you're uncomfortable with. That's the proper way that word should be applied.

Anne Frank did not die so you could smear a movement that worked for social equality, she did not die for your effort to belittle a person who opposes you.

This is what Feminism looks like:

And this is what Naziism looks like:

You can't tell the difference?

Is it just me, or does it seem like most queer relationships are always in perpetual state of impending disaster?

Don't get me wrong. I've seen the coolest of queer cats fall in love, get all goo-ey eyed for a few months, and then, outta nowhere, the shit's over and they're plastered on someone's sofa watching the latest poorly made queer HBO series on DVD.

One day everything is cool. Or maybe that day never existed but you still wanna front like it did. The next day you wake up and talk and realize you're triggered by something, or somebody sneezed wrong, and then boom. It's over. Give me back my shit.

I have my theories about it. In my own experience, there are never any huge blow-up's. No cat fights in the streets and, at least at first, no angry emails & shit. Just the reluctant acceptance that either you're too fucked up, or they're too fucked up, and since the world doesn't seem to want you together anyway, it just won't work out right now.

And I guess it's true that for queer folks -- especially queer women & transfolks of color -- love isn't necessarily hard to find because after years of rejection we foolishly love hard and easily when we're around the right people. It's just that love is harder to keep.

So what? Even straight love&relationships suck, so what's my point?

I guess my main gripe is that queer relationships can be very isolating. With me and a lot of the folks I know, I can't share my love with my family, or close childhood friends. Even when you build intentional communities, they still seem hella transient. Folks move away. People grow distant. Family is hard to find.

And especially when you're young and black or brown and queer and dealing with all of this shit on top of the average inadequacies of youth.

I read something a while back in Kai Wright's Drifting Toward Love that really struck a chord. He wrote about the lack of queer mentorship. How older queer folks are afraid of being stigmatized as pedophiles for reaching out to younger folks, and how politically motivated that representation has been since the culture wars of the 80's. And I guess I can imagine how for a lot of older queer folks, their youth was hard enough, so revisiting it through someone else might bring up a lot of shit. 

But seriously, we need it.

We need healthy relationships with older folks who've been through this shit already. As cheesy as it sounds, we need to the guidance of our elders -- even if you're only 30. We need to know how to deal with break-ups -- both romantic and familial. We need to know the basics, like how to survive, or how to recover when you feel like you can't. Even if you can't tell us that shit gets better, at least show us that it'll be okay.

So here's my ask: If you are a queer person over 30, adopt a mentee. F'real. If you know a queer person over 30, tell them too.

And that ends my rambling ass post.

The end.

I found this video while looking up Sarah Haskins clips. Found it interesting, if somewhat staged:

Ever wanted to know how models actually look?

This website is a huge reality slap about the unfair standards of women's beauty. Not to mention this guy's slogan is " Nature gives us beauty - Artists enhance it". What a creeper; I think he's actually proud of his so-call 'art.'

Just wondered what you all thought of the new Tampax advert 'Outsmart Mother Nature'. I had seen full page spreads in magazines with the strapline "Mother Nature calls it your 'monthly gift', but your period is more like a curse" so checked out the website. The video - aimed at young girls/women - reminds us how Mother Nature created all the lovely things in the world, plus all the natural disasters/sinking of the Titanic/your period. Strong emphasis on how your period 'ruins' your life, stops you from doing everyday things, and don't forget that resistance is futile! And if you get on her bad side, she might ruin your wedding!

What a cheerful message to be sending to women, and young girls everywhere! I know that Tampax are in the business of making you feel ashamed ("help keep mother nature under wraps") and resentful towards your period, but this still surprised me!

Sooner or later the people in my life are going to club me over the head or tape my mouth shut so I stop talking about Twilight . But my commentary is not the giggling and fan sighing usually associated with Twilight - it’s in the form of frustrated outbursts every time I pass a massive Twilight billboard or walk by a tottering stack of Breaking Dawn.

I have read so much commentary and criticism, but have yet to add my two cents, and I think, if nothing else, this will be therapeutic for me. My criticism comes from two stand points. I hold a B.A. in English, and consider myself a writer. Currently, I am working on a YA fantasy novel (40K in and rising!). I have read a helluva lot of literature, was the editor of my college paper, and have hosted many a slam poetry night. So you might say I have a passion for language.   Add that to my feminism and you have just birthed Stephanie Meyer’s worst enemy.  

NARAL Pro-Choice New York is throwing a party in your honor as a thank you for all your hard work this election season. Together, we secured a democratic majority in the New York senate and elected a pro-choice president. Now it's time to party!

Come together with fellow pro-choicers for a night of open mic, food, games and prizes.
We encourage new faces to join in on the party.

Please bring something to share: a food dish, song, friend or willingness to get on stage and tell your story. It's your choice!

Thursday December 4th, 6-9pm
the cell theatre 338 W.23rd St. NYC between 8th & 9th
Take the 1, C, or E to the 23rd St. stop or the M23

RSVP to Lalena Howard at 646-520-3506 or lhoward@prochoiceny.org with your name, phone number and what you plan to bring.

Where are the feminists? Male feminists, I mean. Sure there are plenty of 'pro-feminist men', but in reality, aren't they just feminists? Feminism is, after all, the radical notion that men and women are equal. Surely doesn't have to have a vagina to support that view. And just because 'fem' is in the word, doesn't mean men can't be a feminist, which is something I've heard argued. I have one friend who declares himself to be a feminist, which I think is awesome beyond awesomeness.

Now I know there are men who contribute to this site, whether through community posting or comments on articles. Do you consider yourself feminists, or pro-feminists?

Let me just say that feminists are hot. Male or female.

I can speak from personal opinion that often times the women who work in and manage animal shelters across the continent are unsung heros.  Let me tell you, it's not a pretty job and you don't see a whole lot of men stepping up to the plate to care for the world's unwanted pets (although there are a few...). 

Almost twenty years ago I remember standing with my mother in a trashed building as she looked around and scratched her head.  She had decided, in her late twenties that she was going to establish an SPCA in our hometown.  She took this on with little help and today works in that very same building.  Her staff is mainly female and they work these dirty, low paying jobs because they want to.  Because it is important to them.

This (and most) shelters also supports women who are the victims of domestic violence by caring for the pets of women who are forced to flee their partners due to abuse.  Often times part of a woman's reason for staying has to do with her fear for the fate of the family pet.  This relieves them of this fear and allows them to start over knowing that their pet is safe, and will be returned to them when they are able to care for it.

However, this time of year and with the economy so bad we often get wrapped up in other agendas and forget about NPOs that might be struggling to get by the holiday season.  Shelters often experience a dramatic population increase following the holidays because of "pet gifting".  Getting a puppy for Christmas may be a nice idea in theory, but when people aren't prepared to make a life long commitment to that pet, they are brought to the shelter.  Sometimes they are even left on the doorstep in the cold. 

This holiday season please keep a few things in mind.  Animal rights (to the extent that they are safe and unabused at the very least) is a feminist issue.  So is doing good in the world around you.  This year, remember the animals who aren't spending the holidays chewing gift wrap and eating left over turkey.  Remember the ones who are sitting in cages waiting for a home.  Don't give any one a gift of a puppy or kitten, not unless you have talked it through at length and the person is ready to make the necessary commitment.  Remember the hard working women who have taken it upon themselves to be the guardians of smaller creatures who can not speak for themselves.  Donate a can of dog food, a chew toy, or a leash.  Put on your parka and walk a dog.

Hey everyone, I just read a really great article about some young women who have started up a band in Jidda, Saudi Arabia called the Accolade. Even though they cant take pictures for album covers or play publicly due to how overwhelmingly conservative their country is, they still play secret shows and even have an underground hit "Pinocchio" which you can download on the bands MySpace page. You can check out this link to read the article which includes a bit of an interview with the bands founder.

After preparing a mondo thanksgiving dinner with my two roommates (a guy and girl) last night for friends, I was thinking about my love for cooking and what it means for me to want to be in the kitchen, now that women aren't expected to be chained to the stove. 

I've posted on my blog here -- And linked to a NYtimes article from '88 that said 90% of (married) women then were doing the cooking. 

My experiences thus far deal with my living situation with friends, mostly who are guys, and not in a relationship so I'm curious about those of you who are in committed relationships and whether gender roles still impact who does the dirty work in the kitchen, or what it means for women to have the skillet in hand these days. I'd love to hear thoughts about that.

Young women now I think, are wary around things like chores and emotional vulnerability, choosing instead to seem stronger and entirely independent, because we've come to see dependence, along with silence and passivity, as a gendered female weakness. I don't have a conclusion, per se, except the thought that any way a household is set up should best reflect what each individual chooses to do, and wants to do and feels comfortable with doing. 

There has been loads of criticism about Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series; being in the particular target demographic, I've been responding by shoving critical analyses at all my obsessed friends :P

There have already been many wonderful Community posts about Twilight.

But with the Twilight movie coming up (and I'm wincing a lot at that), publicity has been going into overdrive for the series. I was browsing through news articles today, and found an interview with lead actor Kristen Stewart.

While I find most of the interview pretty well-thought-out - and I also find it great that Ms Stewart actually did mention most of the points feminist and literary critics have against Twilight, one bit struck me as a little jarringly off:

Question: Have you followed any of the criticism from the feminist perspective about Bella?

KS: Ugh. I'd love to talk to them. Really. When I read little brief descriptions of the movie, I was like, "I don't want to be part of that." I was working on something else, and I didn't want to have my focus stray. It was like, "I don't wanna be part of this very set unrealistic ideological of love and push it on every little girl because they're never gonna get that." But the vampire in our story is entirely damaged. Bella wears the pants in the relationship. She's the sure-footed confident one. She's naive to the world of vampires and everything like that, but she's not doing it for him. It takes a lot of power and strength to subject yourself to someone completely, to give up the power. It has to start there. You'd be scrambling for it if you needed it. The fact that she is that, she is so trusting of herself.

It really has nothing to do with Edward and giving herself to him and being this weak damsel in distress. It's very courageous what she's doing. She's believing what's inside of her, driving her. It's a very personal thing, what she's going through. It really has nothing to do with Edward. So I don't know why [the criticism].

*Spoiler after the jump*

I'm a gigantic fan of the Dresden Dolls, and when its lead singer, Amanda Palmer, released her solo album in September, I was floored. It's beyond fantastic, and the videos she's made from it so far, including her ironically dedicated-to-Sarah-Palin video for "Oasis" , have been  beyond fantastic.

Today, she put up her new video for "Leeds United". Her and her team spent long hours working on the Leeds video, as she describes on her blog , only to have her label ask to remove some shots of the video that her bare belly, because, they said, she looks fat.

Seriously?? Amanda Palmer, fat?? She is a totally normal and healthy weight. This is just more evidence of how b.s. the music industry is in its treatment of women and how society expects any woman who wants to be successful to also be a size zero. Not to mention that fact that Amanda Palmer is one of the few women artists signed by Roadrunner Records, and I'm willing to bet none of the men on the label have ever been criticized for their bellies.

Thankfully though, she refused. The video stayed as is, and some of her sweet fans started putting pictures of their bellies on her fan forum . Awesome deal.

This weekend I went to see Quantum of Solace, and thanks to my severely reduced expectations, rather enjoyed losing myself in the car, boat and plane chases.  One scene, however, snapped me from my suspended reality back to the misogynist world that Bond operates in.

Trigger Warning

My Grandmother's favorite performer of all time was Tom Jones.

She, known to everyone as June Care, but to her grandchildren only as Mema, grew up in a small steel town outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. To her, the glitz, glam, and fake tan of Tom Jones was something she aspired to have.

Mema married Da, my Grandfather, when she was just 18. He was heading off to Korea and they tied the knot right before he shipped out. When he returned, he went to law school and moved her and the beginnings of their family to Lexington, Kentucky.

My grandmother lived the good live of a wife of a Southern lawyer. She had four children, lots of parties, and even more drinks and cigarettes. When she was in her early 30's, she got the chance to go to Las Vegas and wear her only fur coat to see Tom Jones live, a story that was told every chance she got.

Mema was the family member I most identified with. She was loud and very opinionated. She smoked like a chimney and didn't care what you or anyone else had to say about it. All of her grandchildren, and she had nine, were treated equally. She would measure out the money that she spent on gifts down to the penny. When I opened a present from Mema and Da it was not uncommon to find the random pack of hair ties or couple of jawbreakers; she was just making sure we were all even.

The room was Pepto-Bismol bright pink with books and clothes strewn about in a messy, cant see the floor way. From the various nick-knacks you could tell that the inhabitant was a science-fiction fan, a writer, a believer in unicorns, and lastly a virgin.

Normally, one’s sexual encounters are not obvious in their everyday decorations, but Natalie Holden’s room yells it out from just one wall.

Above the 20-year-old, NYU sophomore’s headboard hangs a hand drawn poster that is almost an exact copy of the poster for the Steve Carrell movie “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” It is almost exact in that where Steve’s face should be appears Holden’s face and where 40 should be there is a bolder, underlined 20.

Driving to school on Friday morning after getting my morning coffee at my favorite Starbucks; I drove by Planned Parenthood like I do everyday and for once there were pro-life protestors. I've never seen protestors out there before and they completely ruined my day. Holding up there signs that said things like, "Adoption not Abortion," or just simply holding up a picture of a dead fetus. I don't need to see this first thing in the morning, and it's not fun to get pissed off right off the bat. Don't you people need to be somewhere at nine in the morning on a Friday other than tormenting innocent women going into Planned Parenthood? I hate these people...don't force your beliefs on other people; it's none of your business what is right for someone else. You make me sick.

Hi

I've been reading Feministing for a while but this is my first post. At home on a freezing Sunday, trying to write a paper, distracted by the article in the UK Independent newspaper.

It's a great piece, I think, about new legislation in the UK that criminalises those who have sex with anyone who is coerced or forced into it. This is a legislative response to the widespread problem of sex trafficking.

What amazes me is the vitriol and hate expressed by (male, it has to be said) commenters on the article.

Don't have anything positive to say about it, but wanted to share. What do you all think about these remarks? I find them scary..

It's about 10am on Sunday morning, and about half an hour ago a stranger called my cell phone. It was a restricted number, so when I answered I expected it to be someone misdialing--instead, it was a strange man claiming I'd given him my number. Normally, I would just assume that he was trying to call someone else, but he rattled off my number and asked if I was busy. I told him I was, and that I didn't know who he was or why i would have given him my number (i've had the same one for 8 years--it's possible at some point I did give him my number, or he could have been lying). I told him I was going to hang up, and he said he wanted to ask me a question. Hoping that would get him to just go away, I sighed and told him to go ahead.

He asked me to "play with your pussy." Obviously, I was disgusted, and told him to get the fuck off the phone and never call me again. Not exactly the most crushing thing I could have said, but it is what it is. I hung up, turned on some music to make my apartment feel less empty, and called my mom to vent--I was more annoyed than anything else.

My mom's theory was that it was just some loser trying to get a reaction. Which, she pointed out, I had pretty much given him by swearing. For a second, I agreed with her and wished that I had just hung up the phone.

But you know what? I'm glad I reacted. I'm glad I made it clear that I did not find it acceptable (or clever) to call anonymously and say offensive things just because I'm a woman and I can't stop him. Anonymity does not give someone the right to reduce me to an object for his own pleasure. Being a woman does not mean that I can be disrespected that way, which I think was the underlying (if unconscious) justification behind the voice on the phone.

Was he just looking for an angry reation? Yeah, probably. Should I have just hung up without saying anything? Maybe. But I'm glad I asserted myself. It's not the biggest thing to ever happen to me, but I'm glad I got angry and had my say, instead of hanging up the phone in fear.

Okay, so it's almost definitely not my last word on Sarah Palin, because we all know she's not going away any time soon, but I'm trying to think positively. I just had to briefly comment on this quote .

Speaking as she returned to her native Alaska, Mrs. Palin claimed to be baffled by what she claims was sexism on the national stage. "Here in Alaska that double standard isn't applied because these guys know that Alaskan women are pretty tough, on a par with the men in terms of being outdoors, working hard," she said.

"They're commercial fishermen, they're pilots, they're working up on the North slope in the oil fields. You see equality in Alaska. I think that was a bit of a surprise on the national level."

So Sarah Palin just wasn't prepared for how backwards and sexist we all are down here on the mainland because she presides over Alaska: Utopian Land of Gender Equality. Got it. There's just one tiny problem. Here's what the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has to say about this magical place where, under her fine leadership as governor, all men recognize the strength and ability of women and everyone treats each other with respect. [Link via Huffington Post .]

• Alaska's rape rate is 2.5 times the national average.
  
• Alaska has the highest rate per capita of men murdering women.
• Almost 75% of Alaskans have experienced or know someone who has experienced domestic violence or sexual assault.
• Almost 90% of Alaskans would vote to increase funding for victim service programs, and over 90% would support increased penalties for domestic violence and sexual assault perpetrators.
• Child sexual assault in Alaska is almost six times the national average.
• Almost 30% of Alaskans were not able to access victim services or encourage others to do so because there were no services available in their area at the time.

The Huffington Post piece also mentions the unsuccessful attempts of Alaska's Alliance for Reproductive Justice to get Governor Palin to take action on some of the major problems affecting Alaskan women and children. Here is ARJ's explanation of what they asked for and the lack of any meaningful response from the governor:

In 2007, Women's Summit attendees delivered an open letter to Governor Palin asking to work together on five issues of concern for women and children in Alaska. Although we disagree with her anti-choice position and support of abstinence only education and teaching creationism in public schools, we hoped that she would understand that there are issues we could work together on to find solutions.

Governor Palin did not deliver and did not take a leadership role on any of these issues. In fact, this year when there was a 7 billion dollar state surplus she did not step up to the plate for the women and children of Alaska to help increase the income guidelines for health insurance for low income women in Alaska. We were truly disappointed with her lack of action on this critical public health issue.

Our letter asked for her support and leadership to:

Increase funding for Denali Kid Care (Alaska's SCHIP Program, Alaska is one of a minority of states that fails to fund health insurance for families at 200% of the federal poverty level.)

Decrease the incidence of domestic violence and sexual assault in Alaska (Alaska’s rape rate is 2.5 times the national average, Alaska is #1 in the nation for women murdered by men)

Provide state support for shelters that accept women with children (Many shelters are at capacity and many can not accept women with children.)

Support working mothers by enacting laws that allow for breastfeeding in the workplace (There were bills in the legislature each year that would have required breaks for women.)

Provide medically accurate sex education in public schools (In Alaska, we lead the country in the rates of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea and have high rates of teen pregnancy.)

This is the place that Sarah Palin looks at and sees a state of equality that is free from double standards. The huge disconnect between "you see equality in Alaska" and the reality about what life is like for Alaskan women gets right to the heart of why so many women across the country opposed her so vehemently - it is not because she's dumb, but because she's willfully and selfishly blind and deaf.

[cross-posted from Evil Slutopia ]

Tonight my cousin Maizie who's 7 years old stumbled upon my copy of The Guerrilla Girls' Bedside Companion to the History of Western Art. She read some parts, but mostly asked me to read various captions to pictures of all the "nekkid people". She wondered why all anybody did back then was paint naked people? And some parts were just too naked for her sensibilities. But she did ask me why the book was written and why it would need to be written, because aren't girls good painters too? Now, obviously she has no appreciation for the way women are treated differently than men, and I did skim the portions that I thought were too graphic. She asked a lot of interesting questions. She marveled at the fact that women weren't allowed to read or write, and were basically property of their husbands, fathers, and brothers. I think that maybe just talking about it, especially in a home environment and community that indoctrinates kids with the ideas of Good Girls and Bad Girls is hopefully a step, albeit small, in the right direction.

Crossposted from my own blog.

We held a fantastic event at our medical school Wednesday night. We were a little disappointed in the student turn out, but otherwise, it was wonderful. We had a panel of eight female physicians speaking about being a woman in medicine. Seven of the eight are mothers, so there was a lot of discussion about pregnancy, babies and family. I was happy with the diversity of our panel. We had one Chinese doctor, a few hispanics, a lesbian (who humorously advised us to wait until menopause and then let our partner carry the baby), a few Jewish doctors, and only two WASPs like me. Unfortunately, the two black doctors (I don't like the term African American, which rarely applies to the frequently Caribbean born blacks in South Florida) who we invited were not able to attend, and neither were the Indian doctors. We are blessed with a diverse pool of professors and physicians associated with our school.

I wish we videotaped or had transcripts of the discussion. We got great advice, from having a fire drill-like plan of what to do if we get groped by a patient or a fellow physician (which has happened to members of the panel), to how to answer (or not answer) illegal questions in interviews about how soon we were planning on getting pregnant, how to manage when our kids our sick, and other wonderful bits of information and experience.

The next morning, I was driving 4 year old Z to school. He was sitting next to the big contraption the catering company rented to me to keep the food warm for the event. He was confused, somehow thinking it was for me to bring food to the people at the hospital. I explained to him that I was still in school to learn to be a doctor, then I would go to the hospital to help people.

Z paused for a second and then asked, thoughtfully, "When you are a doctor and you go to the doctor place, will you still be my mommy?"

"Yes," I said. "I will always be your mommy."

"Will you still come home to me?"

Oh, kid, you're killing me. "Yes, I will still come home to you." In my head, I was thinking, sometimes, during residency, it may seem like I don't. But I will always come home, eventually. When all the babies are born, all the sutures are closed, all the cases are presented, I will come home. And I will try to find out about your homework and listen to you and hug you and kiss you before I collapse into bed.

First off, let me say that I have been aware of the blatant sexism in the comicking industry for years now. However, it wasn't until I saw this picture that it really hit me how sexist comickers really are.
What really pisses me off, however, is that the author realizes that he's being sexist, and doesn't even try to apologize for it. He even tries to justify his sexism by saying, "I am a guy, a red-blooded, American guy."
I'm sorry, but your gender doesn't make it okay to view women in terms of their "breasts," "butts," or "legs."

So today Yahoo news and other news sources have articles proclaiming the "World's Sexiest Woman." Not too long ago, the "World's Sexiest Guy" came out as well. I severely have issues with these types of articles and the fact that the media..in this case E! deems one woman as the sexiest.

Everytime I look at the list, I do not see my neighbor, my friend, me or anyone else I know, I see famous people. Famous people that are always models and actresses. This is where I have a serious problem with the word "World." How could you deem someone as the "World's Sexiest Woman" if you did not look at the world as a whole and take into account every female from every country, city, town etc. Models and actresses only make up a VERY small portion of the world's population. And, I have seen many women out on the street that are ordinary citizens that I would deem "sexy." In case you were wondering, this is the new list that E! came out with as the "World's Sexiest Women..."

1. Karolina Kurkova  (model) 2. Bar Rafaeli (model) 3. Angelina Jolie (actress) 4. Gisele Bundchen (model) 5. Scarlett Johansson (actress) 6. Adriana Lima (model) 7. Heidi Klum (model) 8. Penelope Cruz (actress) 9. Manuela Arcuri (actress)  10. Shakira (singer)

Did anyone else notice that a good portion of the people on this list are Victoria's Secret models? Coincidence? I think not. Everytime I see this type of list, I just want to rip out my hair and yell at these media sources for not being realistic and taking into account every woman out there. They also do not take into account curvy women, except for maybe Scarlett Johannson in this case. But then again, she is not full-figure curvy.

These types of lists and articles I am sure do a lot of damage to women's psyche and self-esteem. All the list shows, is beautiful models and actresses that are all thin, and does not show any "real" women. Men, on the other hand, are probably proclaiming "Hell yea..I'd do her..she's hot." The funny thing is, that most of them do not realize that the images they look at of these models/actresses many times are airbrushed.

I really think that the media has to change it's approach to pointless articles like these. It does no body any good, and everytime I see one of these, I just want to scream. Come on, how many times do we, as a society, have to be reminded that Angelina Jolie is sexy?! We all know who she is, what she looks like and what she does. I would really like to see something more realistic next time, but sadly, I know that is not going to happen.

These are rad:

Caption: Feminississimo (adj.,adv.) feminism - The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. -ississimo - As in fortississimo (fff), a directive to perform a certain passage very, very loudly.

I thought I'd share, since the holidays are coming up and many of you may be looking to spread the feminist cheer with clever wordplay.

They can be purchased here. Enjoy!

Where to begin?  Especially in light of the TDoR...

Forums can be such catalysts for thoughtful articulations! Arguing with people has always been much more fruitful for my brain than analyzing by myself. Recently, as in, over the last two or three days, there has been a conversation going regarding the murder of Angie Zapata.

Now, any feminist who's been around the block has seen this exact same rationale leveled at women who are raped, "well if she didn't [whatever she did] then [that] wouldn't have happened to her!" And we call this rape apology.

I don't know if there is a term for this that I simply haven't come across yet, but there should be a term for the blame I see leveled at trans people for "getting themselves murdered" which is basically what I have been dealing with. In contemplating all the overlapping issues I could think of, I came up with a few things, which I'd like to share with y'all.

There seemed to be a few different concepts underlying people's responses to Angie's murder. The most prominent, which I have seen just about every time this topic comes up anywhere, is that she was "lying", she "deceived" the man she slept with, and don't we all get angry when we're lied to?!

I don't know how other parents with little girls feel about all the Princess crap that is constantly crammed down their throats in this culture, but I have had enough.

A sample exchange between the bank teller and our resident 4 y/o:
BT: "Here's a pretty Princess sticker for you sweetie"
4yo: "But I like Cars" (seeing the other stickers in the basket)
BT: "Well, Princesses are for girls. Don't you like them? They're so pretty."

I realize that most of this is well-intended, and I've tried to politely reject Princess crap, to ask our friends and family not to give them Princess (or Bratz!) toys, etc. None of this seems to work. The world is bent on turning all little girls into tiara-wearing Princess-worshippers. After getting into a number of arguments over this, I've developed a set of stock responses to all the claims people make in favor of Princesses:

Princesses are nice to everyone
1) Being nice to everyone is a female virtue that often works to disadvantage women in the real world. And anyway, one can "be nice" to those who deserve it and still kick some ass when necessary. Look at Princess Fiona (who is really an anti-princess, in many ways), for example.
2) Classic fairy tale Princesses (including the Disney variety) generally are nice. But the pop-culture notion of a princess has come to involve the idea of a materialistic, spoiled, self-centered, bossy little brat who will do anything to get her way. And we're supposed to be all indulgent of these characteristics, as long as the child displaying them is cute enough?

Princesses are beautiful and have beautiful voices
Being beautiful and having a beautiful voice is not the most important thing about a woman.

Princesses are "sweet"
What exactly does "sweet" mean here? Sexually pure? Acquiescent and passive? Tolerant of inconsiderate, rude, and/or abusive behavior?

Princess play boost a girl's self-esteem
Traditional princess mythology ties a girl's self-esteem to her appearance and her desirability from the perspective of the prince. In our culture this translates into the necessity to be thin, pretty, and white.
As for the pop-culture princess ideal, a spoiled and self-involved child may initially appear to be confident and have high self-esteem. However, there's a world of difference between being self-centered and having high self-esteem. A small amount of experience in the real world will shatter her vision of this imaginary world where she's the boss of everyone, and then she'll have no other skills or abilities to fall back on, having put all her eggs in the pretty, pretty princess basket.

Via The New York Times .

This is a victory.

While I know she is a fantastic senator, and the State of New York will be sad to have anyone else represent it, I think this can only be welcomed as very positive news!

On yesterday's Democracy Now they interviewed Father Roy Bourgeois. He has been a staunch (and vocal) opponent of the Army's School of the Americas as well as the Iraq war. Now, the Catholic church wasn't thrilled with that, but it wasn't until he showed support for women that they really freaked out.

He has spoken out in favor of allowing women to be ordained as Catholic priests. Because of this, the Vatican is threatening to excommunicate him if he doesn't recant his beliefs.

This is my favorite quote from the interview:

"But what we have here, at its very core, is the sin of sexism. And like racism, no matter how hard we try to justify it or bring in, you know, God to bless discrimination, in the end it is always immoral."

Now, I'm no fan of Catholicism (or religion in general). I went to Catholic chirch as a child and it's definitely not for me. Pope Benedict has only made things worse - going even farther to take away women's rights and focusing less on the humanity aspect of religion than John Paul II did. But I feel that if a woman wants to be a priest, that should be her right.

No one should be denied their right to exercise their religious beliefs because of their gender. As long as they aren't hurting themselves or others, no one should be denied their religion for any reason. And if someone feels called to become a priest, that's what they should be.

I have a tremendous amount of anxiety problems: Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder.

So...

I have a lot of trouble mustering up the courage to speak up in class or at work, and lot of times just general interactions with co-workers and accquiantances will be hard for me. When I have time to rehearse what I want to say it never comes out that way, or at least that is my analysis.

The physical reactions of this are apparent. My face, neck, and chest turns blotchy deep red. I can literally feel the blood pumping like mad throughout my body all the way to my toes. I feel like I am burning up, but I am shivering and trembling like I was freezing. Its kind of like whatever the opposite of an awesome orgasm would be.

So, believe me when I say that speaking out about human rights issues, feminist issues, and the like is hard for me.

But I do it.

Cross-posted from Fundamentally Flawed , where anti-equality idiots have their shining moment in the sun!

"I also wanted to ask why you think we hate gays. Just because we believe they should not marry doesn't mean we hate them. If you take something away from your child that's not theirs do you hate them because of it? No, its just not theirs and they should have it, simple as that no emotions are attached to the action. Now the child may hate YOU for it but can you blame them they are only children. This is the same case."  ---Sacramento Bee reader comment

We don't hate you---we just think of you as undisciplined four-year-olds who require strict control and discipline by the government! .....Of course, there are the same people who grow enraged at the very notion of a "nanny state," but don't point out their inconsistency to them, or you'll find yourself on the Naughty Chair.

By: Jennifer Donahue

Its been a long road for Senator Hillary Clinton. The road has led to her consideration as Secretary of State in a world full of uncertainties. Article after article, pundit after pundit describe why she is not the right choice (see Politico today, NYT, Huffington Post, the cable nets and many other sources.) In the aftermath of the campaign, people have forgotten that Hillary Clinton is more than who she was as a presidential candidate. I realized I was guilty of this too. The most significant thing I had to remember after all that has happened is who Hillary Clinton is to the rest of the world. To the rest of the world, Hillary Clinton is the truest leader of women's rights on earth.

Christie Vilsak, the former First Lady of Iowa and founder of the Iowa Initiative to Reduce Unwanted Pregnancies, says this of Senator Clinton: "She is the woman everyone is looking to. She is a model for women aross the world. All those women out there are looking to see how she reacts. If she doesn't do this, what does it say about the rest of the U.S.?" Mrs. Vilsak went on to say that in Liberia, a Liberian Cabinet Minister said that Hillary Clinton has changed the world women live in and has created and presented an image to the women of this world.

Senator Clinton has led the cause of women's rights since her early days as first lady, when she travelled to the Summit in Tokyo in July of 1993. As Gwen Ifill reported then, "Hillary Clinton Wins Friends in Japan." Ifill observed that,

"in a country where the courtship and wedding of an independent-minded woman to Crown Prince Naruhito held people in thrall for weeks, Hillary Rodham Clinton is also viewed -- favorably -- as an independent sort. At Waseda University today, the very mention of her name drew murmurs of approval. And when she slipped into a meeting hall, most in the otherwise reserved crowd craned for a look at her blond head bobbing in a sea of shiny black hair, and burst into applause."

In 1995, reporter Patrick Tyler wrote of Hillary Clinton, "

Speaking more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil, Hillary Rodham Clinton catalogued a devastating litany of abuse that has afflicted women around the world today and criticized China for seeking to limit free and open discussion of women's issues here. "'It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights," Mrs. Clinton told the Fourth World Conference on Women assembled here. "'It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls,' Mrs. Clinton said, or 'when women and girls are sold into slavery or prostitution for human greed.' "'It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small,' she continued, or 'when thousands of women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.'"

At first, it appeared that President-elect Obama was trying to bring in Senator Clinton as a "team of rivals" Secretary of State. But on deeper reflection, perhaps the Obama transition team is showing the discipline the campaign showed. If global women's rights is an issue, which it most certainly is, Senator Clinton is matched by no one in her past words and deeds in advance of this cause. And she has the bona fides to match any other contender on foreign policy issues not related to human rights. To pick her would send a message indeed: that the U.S. is a leader on women's rights across the world.

Got this off Huffington Post.

I agree with Donahue, what do all of you think?

What is it with remakes of classic designed villainesses in full body spandex being redesigned to show more skin?.

Harley Quinn was a character originally made for a single appearence in Batman the animated series, a hench-woman for The Joker. Her character unexpectantly took off with fans to the degree that she now has a few comics of her own and has appeared alongside the Joker in recent game adaptions.

The newest game to come out is the upcoming Batman: Arkham Asylum with Joker as the main villain. I read recently that Harley Quinn will be appearing in the game.

It's surprising that a game that must have at some time referenced Batman The Animated Series would forget one of the main reasons it was so popular. 'Fans took Batman TAS seriously because it took them seriously.'

Batman: Arkham Asylum looks to be trying to be as 'darker and edier' as possible. Missing the fact that adding sex and violence will not appeal to mature audiences as a whole if they are not dealt with in a mature way.

Harley Quinn's new 'outfit' is said in the article to be a'a corset and short skirt combo.' the more I think about it the less excited I am to play the game. Harley's costume has been just as iconic as joker or batman's. She's a henchmen and a super villain in her own right but we're apparently going to be fighting her in an outfit that sounds like she was out clubbing? Add to this that Harley is a rather tragic character and that her relatioship with the Joker is abusive (he has tried to kill her once or twice) and I get even more worried about how Arkham Asylum is going to handle her.

I haven't seen pictures yet but in the mean time I'll be drawing my own redesign pictures to prove it didn't have to go this way and possibly drawing revenge pictures of Bats and Joker in inappropriate outfits...

I go to a Catholic college, and there is, understandably, a lot of 'pro-life' rhetoric and 'pro-life' events.  I don't have a problem with this.  I understand what I signed up for when I came here.  In fact, though I am a staunch feminist, I have some moral questions myself when it comes to abortion (though not of the religious variety).  I know, however, that the issue is one of immense ethical complexity, and it irks me to no end when people fail to present the many shades of gray in the abortion debate.  This goes for 'pro-choice'-ers as well (sorry, but I feel all abortion terminology is loaded, hence the quotes- not intending any disrespect).  However, we have virtually no 'pro-choice' contingency on campus, partly because religion often seems the only force against apathy here, and partly because we are not ALLOWED to have a 'pro-choice' club.  In my not-so-humble opinion, it's a university's responsibility to promote discussion; a 'pro-choice' club would not necessarily raise money for the cause, but would provide a necessary counter-argument to the 'pro-life' line.  This school cannot be a great Catholic university unless it is first a great university, and stifling discussion precludes that.

This is why I often find myself speaking up for the 'pro-choice' side of the debate; I want some responsible discourse here on campus.  Recently, the (male) president of the College Republicans wrote an opinions article in the paper titled, "Obama's Fatal Stance," about -you guessed it- Obama and abortion.  Some of the assertions he makes are specious at best and, at worst, down-right lies.  I suspect that the latter is the case. For example, he makes the ridiculous argument that legally allowing abortions increases their number.  I would like to write a letter to the editor, or perhaps write a response article, refuting some of these inaccuracies.  Could anyone direct me to some impartial sites with abortion statistics, especially ones about foreign aid to family planning organizations? I really want to create a responsible dialogue.

With all the anti-gay legislation that has recently passed and the following protests, there can be no slowing on this important issue.  So I came across this website today and felt that it was important to share with all the women that I know read this site, which I have read for a long time now. 

This is a very different type of non-violent resistance without a public protest persay.

Keep up the movements to change the anti-gay legislation that ultimately hurts both women and men equally.

I am a longtime reader of feministing. I think a big part of being a powerful woman in this world is to be proactive in managing your finances and taking an active role in planning for your future. Building wealth on your own -  whether you are male, female, gay or straight - and planning for the distribution of that wealth is vital. In that spirit, I am started a blog where I will discuss estate planning for unmarried people: single men and women, same sex couples, the single elderly, etc...I am an attorney and currently pursuing a master's in tax law with a focus on estate planning. My blog is brand spanking new - I am new to the blogging thing so it's not fancy, but hopefully it will grow over time and give single people a place to start from when considering their options.

For my first post I thought I'd try and crack one of the major pro-life arguments I come up against. The argument is two fold and thus:

That a) the fetus is a separate, individual human being, and b) the fetus is not part of the woman's body because it has different DNA.

None of this is actually true. Here are three definitions pertinent to my counter-argument.

human being
  –noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.

The key word is, of course, "individual". Now, let's look at the definition of "individual".

im trying to gauge the interest in a happy hour in the dallas/fort worth area.  i cant be the only reader in the not on the east coast.  im in west fort worth so im partial to doing it in fort worth, but whatever's clever.

i would also like a child/mother-friendly venue if there are women unable to find child-care or have nurslings.  friday night or the weekend is also preferable.

any takers?

This is it. Today, the Bush administration is poised to issue a last-minute regulation that will impose harsh new restrictions on women’s access to reproductive health care any moment now. Will you help?

The new rule is Bush's parting gift to the anti-choice extremists who have supported him for the last eight years. The rule could allow health care organizations that receive federal funding to redefine abortion to include the most common forms of birth control — and then refuse to provide these basic services. For any health provider to intentionally withhold information about widely embraced health care options from a patient is absolutely unconscionable under any circumstances. The federal government has no business funding providers who do not abide by this most fundamental standard of care.

But that’s exactly what the Bush administration is proposing. More than 35,000 Planned Parenthood supporters have already signed our petition demanding that the Bush administration withdraw the proposed regulation. And just moments ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Patty Murray spoke out saying,

"In the final days of his administration, the president is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most. Senator Murray and I are standing up once again to the administration against this rule and will continue to fight for women's reproductive rights."

It's so important to have prominent allies like Sen. Clinton and Sen. Murray speaking out, but we also need to continue to raise the voices of citizens everywhere

The Bush administration promised not to release any new regulations after November 1. Sneaking this regulation through at the last minute could have a devastating effect on countless individuals who rely on their health care providers to provide complete and accurate reproductive health information. Tell the Bush administration: Keep your word. Stop the attack on women’s health.

With the economy in such bad shape, more and more people are being locked out from receiving complete medical care. This is the worst possible time to undermine patients’ ability to access the comprehensive health care they so desperately need. This proposed rule will force women and families who already have limited health care access to pay a dreadful price for the administration’s anti-choice ideology. Please, tell President Bush: Keep your word. Stop the attack on women’s health.

Thank you so much for your help today on behalf of the millions of women, men, and teens served by more than 880 Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers all across the country

Just wanted to let everyone know Women in Games International is having an eBay auction of some really cool gaming merchandise, including some signed items. Here is the link to view the items.

The bidding starts Saturday and all the money goes to promoting the inclusion and of women gamers. More power to women gamers!!

Reported from Cruella-blog.

I have just changed my Facebook profile so that it no longer has my gender on it. Not that it's a secret or that I can't remember what it is any more - I'm just really fed up with every time I log on being bombarded with hundreds of adverts for diet products. I'm not on a diet. I have a BMI in the normal/correct/healthy range, I exercise regularly and I eat when I'm hungry or near a sushi restaurant.

The Facebook advertising system is supposed to allow advertisers to target the customers most likely to be interested in their product. But I don't seem to be getting any adverts that are hitting me because I'm a university graduate, because my favourite film is Secrets and Lies or because I'm a member of the group "I have more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin". You would think Republican adverts for foreign policy researchers would be over-loading my system. No instead the only measure I am being profiled on is "has vagina" (tick) therefore "must hate own body and want to be size zero" (uh-uh).

Now as a teenager I suffered quite seriously from anorexia. I made a pretty full recovery, but there are lots of women out there who aren't as lucky as me - those currently experiencing eating disorders anorexia, bulimia and binge-eating. And BDD (body dismorphic disorder) along with other related issues - like feeling the need to have extensive sugery or bottulism injections on their healthy bodies. Is Facebook checking to make sure it doesn't send adverts like these inappropriately to those with or at risk of developing issues with their bodies? Maybe they could add an extra box to people's profiles. Are you interested in starting an extreme weigh-loss diet based exclusively on grass seeds and acai berries? No? Oh, ok we'll leave you alone then.

But it works - since going gender-neutral on Facebook I have very few diet ads. Instead my adverts are mainly for theatre tickets, loans, legal services, other facebook apps and christmas shopping sites. I seriously recommend other women do the same if they want to be able to surf the web without having their self esteem sureptitiously eroded!

The Canadian parole board is set to release a convicted child rapist and murderer into the city of Regina, Saskatchewan.

Harold David Smeltzer was convicted for the rape of two preteen girls as well as for the murder of a little 5 year old girl. He is also suspected of commiting 40 rapes on women and children.

After 25 years in prison, the parole board has determined that Harold David Smeltzer is cured and no longer presents a danger to the community. Despite community outrage, he will soon be released to a halfway house.

Canadian citizens interested in signing a petition to protest the release of violent sex offenders into society can do so here.

This is just a short thank you to some guys I know.

...to the guys who are comfortable enough in their straightness that they can hug and lean on other guys without needing to make homophobic remarks to make up for it.

...to the guy I worked with on a project for Gov/Politics where we had to represent the Republican side on same-sex marriage, and with whom I had many lovely conversations about what utter BS it was when we should have been planning.

...to my calculus teacher, who makes it clear that he doesn't care about anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity as long as they remember to take the derivative of the inside.

...to a certain friend of mine who is comfortable enough in his masculinity to list Vanity Fair among his favorite books on Facebook.

...to the guys who backed me up when I called out another guy in my English class for saying that the miller's daughter in the Reeve's Tale wasn't raped because she didn't scream.

...to Brian, who writes about feminist issues with me at a little blog called, somewhat awkwardly, City of Ladies.

Thank you.

I'm using this post to share my favorite search engine with all you Feministing folks. Goodsearch.com allows you to donate to a charity of your choice every time you type in a search. Each search donates a cent to your charity. It's pretty awesome, so I suggest you try it!

How do you feel about women who donate their eggs?
Do you think it is wrong because it is selling a part of your body?
Do you feel it is right under certain circumstances?
Are you completely against it?
Any other thoughts?

Tell me how you feel... I have gotten mixed reviews about this from other women. I don't think it's something a woman should do just for the money. Maybe for a friend, sister, or family member who really wants a baby and can't have one? I don't know if it is something I would do, but I was curious about how other women feel about it.

So I was listening to the radio a little earlier when they announced that Katy Perry, singer of hit songs "I Kissed A Girl" and "Hot N' Cold" (I think) will be preforming on YouTube, for millons. Let me remind you that these are the people we can't reach when we sit in their class rooms and define words like acceptance, abuse, empowerment and gender. It begs me to wonder who is paying for her to come on one of the world's most effective world wide information sharing systems to pump her over defined gender sterotypes.

"I kissed a girl and I liked it" sounds like oh, maybe that could be a good song to help create awareness and foster an welcoming for the lesbian community. But then it switches and you hear something about how it's okay because she has a boyfriend and you start to realize, hmph... never mind, no one's ever going to be on my side and get that much airtime.

Then her next single hits the airwaves and in her smooth voice you hear the words "you change your mind like a girl changes clothes" well, if that hasn't already sent you spiraling.. you find out she's getting free advertising on YouTube. Marvelous.

My question; who's paying for this? Who is using her full, lullaby perfected voice to undo all of our progress? Because, it is starting to look like one hell of an effective tool.

I love my feminism class. It has opened me up to my new favorite identity that I've discovered about myself...my feminism side. That said, today in class I gave a presentation on Vaginal Rejuvenation (no thanks to my partner who showed up an hour late with nothing to contribute to the project). My presentation focused on the comparison between voluntary vaginal reconstruction surgery anf Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Africa and the Middle-East. In fact we watched a case in Africa where a young girl is having an FGM performed on her, and all we were thinking is this is awful and how can this be happening? But then I had to wonder don't we do the same thing in our society but with baby boys when we circumsize them? The only difference is that the young girls lose their entire clitoris and labia leaving only a hole. But besides that it's almost the same thing, removing a part of the sexual organs of a young child without anything given for the pain...and it is socially accepted!! Any thoughts on this??

The governing Canadian Conservative Party, who recently won re-election in October, have just finished holding their national party convention. They could call it their "anti-woman" convention, because they've passed a number of misogynistic policy resolutions.

Resolution P-207 resurrects a bill that was killed earlier this year, "the unborn victims of violence," in which a violent act against a pregnant woman which results in harm to the fetus can result in additional criminal charges.

Translation: Let's define the fetus as a separate person under the law, entitled to legal protections, which immediately opens to the door to anti-choice legislation.

Another policy adopted is for "income splitting" in which couples can choose to be taxed on their combined income, which is great if one member (as in, almost always the man) is in a higher tax bracket.

Translation: Let's make it more economically attractive for women to stay at home rather than pursue careers.

As well, there is a resolution (P-213) that rewords their policy on women's equality like this:

The Conservative Party supports gender equality through all policy and legislative considerations the full  participation of women in the social, economic, and cultural life of Canada.
i) The Canadian workforce has evolved to include more women than ever before. The Conservative Party  believes all Canadians have the right to freedom from discrimination in the workplace and equality of  opportunity.
ii) Individuals should be judged on skills, qualifications and merits. Women must be entitled to equal pay for work of equal value equal work.

Translation: Conservatives don't believe women should be equal.

They have also advocated that Canada's Human Rights Commission (HRC) should no longer investigate or adjudicate "hate speech" provisions of Canada's Human Rights Code (this one is not specifically anti-women, but women are protected under the code). Hate speech legislation is controversial because it does indeed impede freedom of speech, and I'm not totally in favour of it. That said, it's no surprise that the social conservatives are in favour of ditching it, because surprise, surprise, it's sexist, homophobic and racist people who are most likely to be hauled in front of the Commission.

Translation: We want to be free to be as vocally bigoted as we want.

Now, the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has said that party policy resolutions may not be enacted by the government. He wants to be "pragmatic." Translation: He has a minority government and he's worried that too much social conservatism could bring him down.

One can only hope.

This Thanksgiving, as my family sits down to their traditional dead animals, I'll be munching on Tofurky and vegan stuffing. Whatever, I've been a vegetarian for eight years, I'm used to being the odd girl out every fourth Thursday of November. And, just like every Thanksgiving since I stopped eating meat, I know I'm going to get the comments and the jokes, even though it's hardly a novelty after all this time.

What is it about Thanksgiving that brings out the super-traditional? Even in my fairly feminist household (my parents are proud of their egalitarian marriage, split the chores and childcare responsibilities pretty evenly, my dad had no problem moving for my mom's job, etc.), my dad and uncles and brothers will still watch the football game and chug beers after the big dinner while all the womenfolk clean up the kitchen. No one even pretends that there's an equal distribution of responsibilities. Sure, every year Dad ceremoniously asks if there's anything he can do, but much like the ceremonious cutting of the turkey at the beginning of the meal, it's all for show. The men have nothing to do with the preparation of the meal, and they certainly have nothing to do with the cleanup. Their role is to eat and digest, and compliment to gals on a job well done. I don't know what would happen if this year Mom answered, "Sure, we've got dishes for thirty people to clean and about fifty pots and pans that need scrubbing...there's the sink!" It's as unfathomable as my meat-and-potatoes family deciding to share some Tofurky and forgo the bird carcass.

Readers of this site know, perhaps more acutely than others, how generational many women's responses to this election have been. And weat WVFC decided to query a mother and daughter for their gut responses.

Dr. Cecilia Ford offers some thoughts from the Baby Boom generation:

As millions of people all over the world celebrated the election of Barack Obama last week, it struck me that this moment, while a national and international event, was a personal one for each of us as well. I began to realize that everyone was reacting to it in a way that was unique in its emotional content, through their own personal lens and history. I imagined that African-Americans particularly may have had strong feelings about this election. In the days before the election, I saw a number of black people interviewed on TV who said they were not going to watch the election returns because the tension would be too unbearable....

Meanwhile Ford's daughter,  25-year-old Kate White tells us what Grant Park felt like to her on November 4:

I was seventeen years old in 2000 when George W. Bush was  elected, and thus too young to vote in that election.   Not only could I not believe how long it took to come to a resolution, but I was also extremely disappointed by the outcome. I felt the same when he was re--elected in 2004.  This year, in the months leading up to Election Day, I had a sense of doom because  I was convinced that the Republicans would play “tricks,” and that Barack Obama would lose despite the polls indicating he would win.

My sister and I were lucky enough to be in Chicago in Grant Park  election night,  because our father is a longtime aide to Senator Biden. Nearly everyone I encountered  was celebrating early in the night, before the huge projector in the park declared that Obama was the President-elect, but I wouldn’t let my guard down until it was official.  When the announcement was made, I screamed for almost  five minutes straight.

We'd love to hear comments on Women's Voices for Change - including which of these two feels closest to your own.

Daddy is logical and cold. Mommy is emotional. Too much of daddy makes you autistic. Too much of mommy makes you manic depressive.

Here's an excerpt:

"Dr. Crespi and Dr. Badcock propose that an evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father's sperm and the mother's egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways. A strong bias toward the father pushes a developing brain along the autistic spectrum, toward a fascination with objects, patterns, mechanical systems, at the expense of social development. A bias toward the mother moves the growing brain along what the researchers call the psychotic spectrum, toward hypersensitivity to mood, their own and others'. This, according to the theory, increases a child's risk of developing schizophrenia later on, as well as mood problems like bipolar disorder and depression."

How scienced-based is this, exactly? We are informed that it's from "two scientists, drawing on **their own powers of observation** and **a creative reading** of recent genetic findings".

(emphasis mine, of course)

Source:

In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition
by Benedict Carey
New York Times
November 10, 2008

The whole thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/health/research/11brain.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Normally, I enjoy reading most of the posts put up on rolfrazzi.com and icanhascheezburger.com, however today not so much...

The caption on the photo already rubbed me the wrong way...but the comments made me even more irate.  Only two of the commenters (as of 12:48 EST) indicated that there might be something wrong with the equation our culture seems to live by:  women+sexuality=slut .  Apparently women aren't allowed to be sexual entities without asking to be disrespected.  And apparently we're also not allowed to show natural parts of our bodies, like breasts, hips, what have you, without it being sexual. 

Hi, all! This is my first time posting in the community section here.  I'm getting my master's in literature, and I'm prepping for my comprehensive exams next semester.  My topic right now is American Women Writers in the 20th century, and I was hoping y'all could help me put together a reading list of women's and feminist literature from the USA.

So far, I'm thinking about Eudora Welty, Flannery O'Connor, Zora Neale Hurston, and Katherine Ann Porter.  Some of the themes I'm most interested in are women's roles, spirituality and religion, the South, and multiculturalism.

What authors and works do you suggest?

And as a bonus: Who are your favorite female writers and why?

This is pretty funny, or pretty dismal, depending on how you look at it. Somebody called Lyle Rossiter, who some conservatives are calling a 'top psychiatrist' and an 'eminent doctor', that 'Liberals are clinically mad'. If you follow the link you'll see he's written a book about it, subtitled 'The psychological causes of political madness.' Here's a quote from Rossiter:

'A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population - as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state - as liberals do.'

Riiight... It's LIBERALS who ignore the individual! Silly me. I thought denying women rights over their own bodies and equal pay and arguing that hetero-marriage is the only right choice for everyone was more deindividualising than fighting for those freedoms, but I stand corrected.

Of course, the guys over at Conservapedia are loving it. I would highly recommend looking at it if you want to laugh and cry at the same time at the idiocy of its authors, who've answered to Wikipedia, which they believe is liberal-biased. I can't help thinking they're doing their cause more harm than good. What depresses me most is it isn't even a hoax.

So, I just read this article in the Post about some pro-life activists who have decided that overturning Roe v. Wade is an insurmountable goal, at least for the next four years.  Instead, they are focusing on ways to assist pregnant women , hoping to reduce the numbers of abortions. 

"Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies. " (emphasis mine)

My first thought-- AWESOME!  Affordable/Free access to healthcare, child care, and more money for education are all things that I am 100% behind! Some women who want to have children can't because they don't have access to health care and wouldn't be able to afford child care for their children.  Paid maternity leave (although it is a controversial topic) would also be very helpful to women who are worried about being financially able to carry a pregnancy to term. Heck, equal pay for equal work would also be helpful for women questioning their financial capability of raising a child.  Maybe the pro-lifers can slide that into their list of goals as well.

The issues of better, more affordable health care, affordable day care, and access to affordable education have been on the minds and in the legal pushes of feminists for quite a while, but they (we) have made very little headway. Yes, there are some childcare subsidies for low-income women who have children. Yes, there are some healthcare centers and government-sponsored healthcare plans that will provide assistance with the high price of delivering a baby. Yes, there are some scholarships and programs for low-income women with children to go to school. But, obviously some is not enough!! I don't by any stretch of the imagination think that the few anti-choice groups who have decided to take this new approach will be the deciding factors in putting pro-woman legislation through.  What I do think, though, is that it's always better to have more people lobbying on your side.  Legislation to help women have affordable access to healthcare, childcare, and education can only HELP women, and that is what we, as feminists, should want to do.

Then, of course, there is the other side of the issue. If these anti-choice groups assist in making legislation that helps women, at what cost?  The legislation will have to pass their standards, which can be wildly different from the standards proposed by pro-choice advocates for the same kinds of legislation.  Obviously, if access to abortion or information about abortion is limited by any of the legislation, then it isn't helpful to women.  This really becomes an issue with things like CPCs--these centers, as many other feministing posts have pointed out--do not give out factual information and use the guise of helping pregnant women to further the center's anti-choice agenda.  So, if healthcare, childcare, and education access are only given through institutions that do not give women choices, then they're not very helpful. 

And of course the article is quick to point out that while these particular anti-choicers are joining up with pro-choicers to lobby for support for pregnant women, they definitely aren't on board for any kind of measures that might prevent unintended pregnancies.

"To preserve the coalition, activists have avoided taking positions on the more sensitive aspects of the issue, such as laws that restrict abortions, contraception, sex education and abstinence-only programs. "

And to me, access to affordable contraception and sexual education is paramount to the pro-choice movement. I feel like having the choice to take a pill or use a condom is one of the ways that women have control over their bodies and their reproductive lives.

Tonight, H*yas for Choice (the unofficial pro-choice group of students at Georgetown University) will have a fundraiser/bar night:

Rhino Bar
$20 Open Bar
9pm - midnight
3295 M St NW
Washington, DC 20007

Facebook Event

I know it's short notice, but if anyone in the DC area can come, we'd appreciate it!

As a Pro-Choice group at a Jesuit institution, H*yas for Choice does not receive any funding from the university. We are also the only source of condoms within 6 blocks of our campus and rely entirely upon donations to provide this resource. This event is a fundraiser to help us make sure that we can continue to provide condoms and comprehensive sexual education on our campus. H*yas for Choice runs into many bureaucratic issues trying to provide this as we are only allowed to operate in "free speech zones" on campus and are not even afforded the "privilege" of using the university name (hence the asterisk).

So, if you're in the DC area and want to support free access to condoms and sex ed on a college campus in need (or just want to hang out with some awesome, pro-choice, feminist college students) please come by!

For more information about the history of H*yas for Choice please visit our website.

Prop 8's passing has pissed off a lot of people, since 48% percent said they wanted gay marriage to be allowed (I'm still confused why this is even a question). Shouldn't all the American people have the same rights? And isn't it considered discrimination if you eliminate the rights to one specific group of citizens? Isn't that why slavery and the holocaust were all about...discrimination? One of my biggest pet peeves through out the election was when prop 8 supporters kept saying that they have gay friends and that they love them to death...well, it seems to me that if you have friends that are gay you would want them to have the same rights and happiness that you have?

Dear members of the Bush Cabinet,

Recently, I understand you've been considering regulations that would prevent women's health centers from "discriminating" against those who, based on religious affiliations, do not believe in allowing women access to birth control. Personally, I think this is a fantastic idea! Since when have we Americans stopped people from exercising their rights to religious freedom in the public sphere? (except those pesky Native Americans. What did they think they were doing, building sacred sites in the middle of prime logging terroritory?).

Anyway, I was thinking maybe you could implement this idea in the other departments besides HHS too. I've always wanted to work for the military, but the trouble is, my religion specifically forbids fighting or helping others fight. Do you think the Defense Department could tell the army not to discriminate against me for my religious beliefs and let me in anyway? Also, I'm really interested in working for a big oil company (I mean, who wouldn't be? That's where all the money goes!), but my rabbi told me to respect the earth and keep it clean, so I wouldn't be able to, you know, help them drill for oil or anything. But hey, they shouldn't discriminate against me for that, right?

Thanks for your consideration, and here's hoping you can make the next 8 years just as wonderful, exciting, and real-American as the last (even with that pesky Obama in the Whitehouse. I mean, when did sharing become an American value?)

Sincerely,

Me

Heard about this? Apparently she's known for her somewhat rare sidearm knuckleball. Don't just break that glass ceiling, break it with style!

E.J. Dionne, Jr. recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post reminding President-elect Barack Obama to keep his "promise to pro-lifers." It was a pretty bullshit op-ed, riddled with logical inconsistencies. But here's the part that bothered me most:

Abortions did become rarer during Clinton's time in office, dropping by 11 percent. But since Clinton made no major public moves on abortion reduction, many pro-lifers who had been inclined his way felt he ignored the third word in his motto [i.e., "rare" in "safe, legal, and rare," which is actually the 4th word]. There's no reason for Obama to make the same mistake -- and no reason for advocates of abortion rights to get in the way of his trying to build a new consensus. 

I think it's funny that reducing the number of abortions by 11% without kissing pro-life ass by passing ridiculous legislation that only attacks women's bodily autonomy is considered a "mistake." If anything, I think that's evidence that having someone who believes in reproductive rights running the country reduces abortion more effectively than someone who doesn't.

However, it's the last line that pisses me off to no end -- "and no reason for advocates of abortion rights to get in the way of his trying to build a new consensus." This is not the first time I have read or heard someone say that it's the pro-choice movement who has to back off and make their position "less extreme." I know it's hard to look at one's own political positions and critique them objectively, but I don't see my position on abortion all that extreme. It's similar to the one that's held and promoted by the major feminist and pro-choice organizations. I believe there should be no laws keeping women from obtaining an abortion for any reason, including age, socioeconomic status, and gestation of pregnancy. Believe me, these laws are unnecessary at best, and deadly at worst. Furthermore, I believe our government should invest more in providing all people with accurate sexuality education and birth control methods. That's a position that gives everyone more freedom, both in their beliefs and their actions. Learn all about it, and use it if you want to. These policies encourage healthy expression of sexuality, promote safer sex practices, prevent unintended pregnancies, and reduce abortion, all while still respecting women's human rights. Not all that extreme, but we're still told to moderate our already all-inclusive position. We don't need everyone to agree with abortion when pro-choice policies reduce unintended pregnancies.

On the other hand, the pro-life position is to ban abortion in all circumstances. It's to implement personhood amendments that put women's health and lives on the back burner for the sake of the embryos or fetuses that live inside and feed off of those women. Most pro-life organizations and Republicans demonize birth control and shame those who dare to have sex without intent to reproduce. These policies shame sexually active women, increase unintended pregnancies, and disrespect women's human rights by forcing them to give birth. No sex? No birth control? No abortion, even if it could save the woman's life? That's extreme. And even though that's extreme, nobody asks the people who believe in this position to move to the center. Why is that?

I really don't know what to say about this. If I were to voice my discomfort, I'd put it down to arguing that the author of the op piece is putting forth the idea that the humanisation of a girl is her heterosexual interest in the opposite sex, and that that nullifies her being "brainy and driven".

It's two in the morning and I'm a bit groggy so I'm not feeling very articulate, but is it just me who finds that post somewhat offensive? Because "talk of boys and complaints about school work still trump debates on world affairs" does not constitute, in my opinion, an optimistic viewpoint.

And I'd personally rather talk about politics than my love life, four out of five times.

It's disheartening that this comes when a recent Feministing featured post was on women in math and science. Especially when considering the future generation of scholars. *sigh*

Ok, that is really the wildest and most egregious conversation I have ever seen on The View.  I have always thought Sherry Shepard isn't very smart (the world is flat) and Elizabeth cannot even think about any view that doesn't confirm her puny ideas but today they talked without even knowing the nouns they are using and talked as if they had authority.

I saw the latest installment of the 007 franchise this weekend, "Quantum of Solace." Everyone else? Loved it. Me? Eh... I suppose I'm a "humorless feminist."

Here's my issue. Why can't there be an awesome female role in these sorts of movies? The latest Daniel Craig version has been touted as "new" and "progressive." Is it? Maybe. There is a "green message," and less emphasis on the fancy gadgets, but aside from that, it seemed to forget that women watch movies too.

I've never been the biggest Bond Fan.... But I always see the movies. The hard part for me is to take them seriously when the only roles for women are those of the motherly "M," or the power-hungry women who have beat the odds to become Bond's bedmate.

OK, so I'm a journalism student.  I'm taking a magazine writing class and for the final project I have to write a feature length article.  My topic is feminists who participate in traditional "woman's work" hobbies, such as knitting, sewing, baking, etc.  I'd love some feedback from any of you who participate (or don't but have an opinion).

I'm going to say that if you comment, you consent to me quoting you in my article.  Chances are, it won't be published, but I may try to submit it to some magazines, so publication is a possibility.  If you'd like me to use your real name, please leave it (you can email it to me if you'd rather); otherwise I'll refer to anything I use by your username.  I'd just rather not have to sift through answers that say awesome things but don't want to be quoted.  :)

I've written some questions, please answer any or all of them, or feel free to stray and say whatever you think on the topic.

In general, what is your view on feminists reclaiming traditional “woman’s work” as leisure activities?

My friend, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of MD, brought this to my attention. Has anyone seen this? It is so vile and disgusting, I don't know where to begin. How is this even legal?

I think the people behind this deserve a "fuck you" for an entire year's worth of Fridays...plus some.

Ok, I have hedgehogs. Little prickly balls of quills with tantalizingly soft underbellies just aching for scritchies. Which is not the point of this post, but rather, the lead-in.

Because of my interest in small prickly creatures I belong to a hedgehog mailing list. And the majority of the posters seem to be women. Occasionally guys show up, but most of us are female.

PETA came up in a thread where someone was trying to expose abusive practices by a licensed breeder. She'd already complained to the cops (didn't do anything), the Humane Society (also zilch) and was trying to figure out how to contact the USDA, when someone suggested PETA.

A couple of us piped up with their hypocrisy in having a nearly 85% euthanasia rate in their shelters, and I mentioned their rampant sexism. The response was, "Can you point to any sexism in their ad campaigns? I don't remember seeing anything sexist by them."

So I listed the fur campaign, the lettuce bikini campaign, the young women in bikinis wrapped in saran wrap and blood, and the nearly nude woman in the sow cage. I haven't gotten a response yet, but we'll see. I'm trying to be politic, but part of me just wanted to type in all caps, "HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE OF THEIR ADS? THEY ALL SUCK!" I didn't. I just informed and we'll see how it goes from there.

By Brigitte Amiri, Staff Attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

Each year, thousands of young people come to the United States without their families; they are fleeing war, violence, and abuse, including sexual abuse. Some have been trafficked for labor or prostitution, and some have been sexually assaulted during their journey here. Once they make it to our shores, they need our compassion and care. It is our government's legal and moral obligation to care for them by providing shelter, food, and medical treatment. But when it comes to reproductive health services, such as abortion and contraceptives, our government is putting up roadblocks rather than helping these teens.

Yesterday, we asked a court to step in . We waited nearly three months for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to respond to our request for information about U.S. policy related to providing time-sensitive reproductive health care to undocumented and refugee teens. We could wait no longer. We sued under the Freedom of Information Act and are asking the judge to order the federal government to provide us with this crucial information.

Even absent a response from ACF, we already know enough to make us deeply concerned. This past summer, the media reported that four employees of Catholic Charities in Virginia, one of the government subcontractors that receive taxpayer dollars to care for these young people, were fired after helping a teen obtain an abortion and contraception. After the incident, we learned that ACF issued a policy that limited access to abortion. The incident also prompted Catholic Charities — which cares for these teens around the country — to reiterate their policy that prohibits their employees from providing or referring for abortion and contraception.

In practice, this means that these teens will not have access to reproductive health care. By virtue of who they are and where they find themselves, these teens are wholly dependent upon the federal government and its contractors: they don't speak English; they have no other means of support — financial or otherwise; and their mobility may be severely restricted by the government. Without our government's and its contractors' assistance, these teens must forego vital reproductive health care. Effectively prohibiting access to such care may further traumatize these vulnerable teens, and it also violates their legal rights.

Our government must ensure that these teens are being provided access to reproductive health care and must ensure that its contractors do the same. We hope the case moves quickly so we can assess the extent of the violations and determine what further steps are needed to guarantee that unaccompanied refugee and undocumented teens can get the services they need.

I and my friend were working on a project for class when she showed me this website. At first I had trouble believing this was true. But yes, it is. In a society that tends to glorify the thin standard of "beauty", we have to deal with this. Pro-Ana and Pro-Mia deny that Anorexia and Bulimia are eating disorders, and some Pro Ana Mia sites promote what they call the Anorexia "lifestyle choice". Then there is this horror: PrettyThin or Thinspiration, which is an actual website. Not only does this site give fasting tips, but for "inspiration", they use photos of super-skinny celebs like Paris Hilton and stick-figure Keira Knightley. At first I did not think these sites could be legal, but then my friend told me that apparently, as soon as one site is deleted, others pop up in its place. Here is a link to this website.

"Focus on Your Own Damn Family" is a phrase consistently used at gay rights protests, especially when James Dobson and his hateful religious "ministry," Focus on the Family, has anything to do with spurring said protest.  In fact, I saw a few of these signs at City Hall in NYC this weekend.

But the phrase took on an entirely different meaning to me today when I read an article off Huffington Post stating that the group is having to lay off 20% of its employees .

Really, James?!  Really?  I mean, I'm feeling a little bit like Amy Poehler here, but, REALLY?!?  Ohmygod, are you serious ?!

You were so worried about gay marriage ruining the familes of Californians that you donated over $500,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, and yet you now have so many budget cuts that you can't afford to keep your OWN DAMN MEMBERS in paying jobs.  What about THEIR families, James?  Apparently you don't care too much about families being ruined by hunger or debt, only by the possibility of them being "threatened" or "unsanctified" by a lesbian couple down the street (logic which I don't think I'll ever understand).

It's one thing for you to eat the debt from your own discriminatory donations; it's quite another for you to fire your own employees for lack of funds after so happily giving the money that could have kept them employed to a cause that will undoubtedly be overturned by the courts.

Granted, since they work for/are members of Focus on the Family to begin with, they barely even deserve my symapthy at the loss of income, but somehow I just find this appalling.

James Dobson--asshole to his OWN people, too!

UGH!!!

Has anyone else seen the new Circuit City commercials? If you haven't here's my synopsis: Joe six-pack is talking on the phone to what would seem to be his mistress who has a very "sexy" voice. But then (oh boy they got us good!) they cut to show who's talking and it's a new flat screen tv who he's really been coveting! Then he goes to pick her up just so we can see her skinny legs that are always posed oh so sexily.

There's another one where he's talking to a tv from another store who was advertised as one price online and then when he goes to pick her up she's asking another price and she so coyly says something like "that's how we all do it" and the whole time they're so cleverly playing on the double entendre of this FLAT SCREEN TV BEING A WOMAN!

I am so disgusted. I wish I could find a video of either of these on the internets. Could anyone else find one? You really need to just hear how disgusting it is.

Personally, I'm so bothered I am not going to shop at Circuit City anymore. What are other's thoughts on this? I mean if moms could ban the Motrin commercial, I think we could do something about this, I'm just not sure how to go about it.

 A week or so ago I was stuck at a Borders Book Store near my school for a few hours, and, being the enthusiastic teen feminist I am, I spent a good deal of time viewing the Gender Studies section. I of course thumbed through a copy of Backlash and several books on the social views of virginity (Going to a Catholic School and being a young woman, I have a particular interest in the anti-woman ideal that is the Virgin/Whore complex, and have talked about it a lot on my blog). But one book that caught my eye in particular was called “Hating Women : America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex ” By Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.

I skimmed through the summary and it seemed to be basically a commentary about the growing misogyny in Western Culture, particularly in pop culture. Now, I had recently read both of Jessica Valenti’s books and seen the third installment of the Killing Us Softly documentary series, so of course I was interested in reading more on the modern cultural view of women. Reading about it from the perspective of not only a man, but a prominent religious figure like Rabbi Boteach, seemed like an interesting opportunity. Now, I’m not going to claim I read the whole book, because I didn’t. I didn’t have the money on hand to buy it and I didn’t want to rip the store, publisher, or author off by reading it without paying for it. I did, however, pour over it for about an hour or so, reading large passages from the chapters and trying to get as clear a view of the book’s contents as I could. There was, of course, a lot of commentary in the book regarding the awful stereotypes presented of women in the popular media, how men are being groomed to view women, and the over-sexualization of young women in popular media and culture that I heartily agreed with, but there were passages of the book that annoyed me greatly, as a feminist and as a humanist in general. Not only was it his criticism of the feminist movement for concentrating too much on being like men and leaving behind their “natural feminine virtues” (I’m not taking this word for word), or his belief that women were respected more prior to the twentieth century (though that really got to me, but it’s a point to pick apart for another blog), but it was also his stressing of how men and women are not equal, but that women are superior beings.

i stumbled upon this today....it's funny because i was on reddit and it was listed like some sort of porn gallery almost....i ended up clicking because i've been spending a lot of time on like del.icio.us and reddit etc and it's always strange to me how everybody seems to have one whole category of NUDES XXX SWEET DUDES but they usually end up being these sort of photo-journalism projects that make me think a lot and tear up.

not to mention i think it's insane how overly sexualized breasts are in the united states. seriously totally insane. anyways just wanted to share! a lot of the quotes are very beautiful and raise a lot of interesting points.

am i curious as to why so many sites like reddit, fazed etc seem to continually confuse these sort of projects with GALLERY OF BOOBIES TEE HEE...any thoughts?

In honor of Larry Summers' return to the media spotlight, I thought I'd take a moment to recognize the women in math and science whom I look up to.

One of the biggest names in my own field, quantum computation, is Julia Kempe.  At age 34, she has degrees in math (bachelors, masters, PhD), physics (bachelors, masters) and computer science (PhD).  Yeah, she has two PhDs.  She also has in impressive list of publications, including two hugely important results.  Along with co-authors, she showed that building a quantum computer requires being able to interact at most 3 "quantum bits" at a time.  She also showed that two types of quantum computers, circuit-based and adiabatic, were equally powerful.

In other fields, I have a lot of admiration for Nora Volkow and Alison Jolly.  Nora Volkow is the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.  She has pioneered the use of brain imaging techniques in understanding addiction, and has done a lot bring her results to the attention of the general public.  Alison Jolly is a primatologist, and author of Lucy's Legacy , one of the best popular science books I've ever read.

So who are your favorites?

I think it's interesting that a group of people that have been notoriously discriminated against are now spreading hate about another group of people. I don't agree with the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints on basically everything but you can't blame one group of people [as a whole] for Proposition 8 passing. There are people who are homophobic and don't believe in equality in marriage (basic civil rights) but it's not one sole group of people ascribing to a certain religion. It is bigoted people. There are mormon people who agree and disagree with gay marriage being legalized and to target all of them and say that they are why this didn't pass is futile and childish. This spreads hate and prejudice. It does no good. Thinking of people in groups you put stereotypes to and not as individuals is how hate thrives.

Today, actually less than two hours ago, I was taking the bus to and from a Target across the city. I wasn't by myself, my boyfriend tagged along with me. When we were getting on the bus back to my house, I notice the bus was occupied with mostly males, all these thoughts in my mind started to occur. What if I decided to go to Target by myself?

Or worse, sometimes I go with my 13 year old sister. The thought of being alone with about six guys, including the bus driver himself, scared me. I immediately felt like all eyes where on me and I realized what I was wearing. An adorable black skirt that was above my knees and leggings underneath, with that I thought of the times I heard about women in rape cases getting blamed for their own rapes, because of what they where wearing and how they where "asking for it", because you know, women ask to be raped all the time!I felt a sudden fiery and rage and mostly shame on my part, for even thinking this way, and even more guilt when I thought, "at least my boyfriend's here to protect me".

The guys great guy, but the thought that I wasn't feeling safe without a male protector, ticked me off. Why can't I feel safe taking the damn bus at 6 at night? Why can't I feel safe walking down the street with whatever I have on, without worrying about if "I'm asking for it?". WHY????? Why was it that when I was only 15 years old, this creepy ass old guy followed me out of the library and sat with me at a bus stop, inches away from me, asking me questions, and sitting closer and closer to me, in broad daylight, and I couldn't move out of fear. I remembered his fingers touching my keychain I had hooked to my jeans, and asking where I lived. Thankfully, my best friend called my cell phone and I pretended it was my mom and he took off. But the point is, I want to be able to do things, without fear, EVEN MORE I want guys to fear the same way women fear every single days of our lives, whether we realize it or not. Because it's there and it simply has to stop.

[ggbfdsghvnsjg!!!!]

Check out number 11/15 in particular...A little bit of sneaky anti-feminism perhaps? (Working off the stereotype, of course, that feminist = man hater)

This isn't the only article on AOL "HEALTH" (yes, I keep putting "HEALTH" in quotes because many of these poorly composed articles and comments do not seem to be promoting good health for women or men) that I have found offensive.

Browse their site and the links pertainging to sexuality. Here's one more link to an article brimming with gender stereotyping fun.

Its title does not specify if the article is aimed at males, females or both, which first led me to believe it would be gender neutral. But alas, and not surprisingly, owners of small penises are relished and encouraged in this article, while women with bad smelling/ odd looking vaginal areas are told that it's understood if they feel shame or embarrassment about those things. "Women should feel comfortable and attractive unless their partner is indicating otherwise." Why thank you Dr. FuckUp, for placing my comfort and worth in the hands of my male counterpart.

Read on for other gems such as, "Men's fantasies tend to be more sexually explicit than women's, which are more emotional and romantic."

I don't know about you folks, but I'm going to find some contact info for these people have myself a good e-yell.

The unfortunate sucess of Proposition 8 in California leading to the denial of marriage rights for homosexual couples in California has put the Mormon church in the spotlight. With the fervent support/spmorships of Prop 8 from many bigoted Mormons, it would seem on the surface that Mormonism and feminism are completely incompatible—what with the Church of LDS history of being sexist, racist, and most recently—highly homophobic.

Fellow Feministing community member, ohmissjulie, recently blogged about being “Mormon, Feminist, and Kind of Afraid.” I think it is important to point out to her that she is most definitely not alone as a Mormon feminist. Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard University History Professor Laurel Thatcher Ulrich-- the woman who coined the phrase (that we have all seen on t-shirts or buttons at one rally or another “ Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History” is a devout Mormon AND feminist.

In light of recent events, I thought it would be fitting to revise Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speach for LGBT'S.

My fellow Americans, gay and straight sisters and brothers alike,
I have a dream...

... In a sense, I have come to you to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all people would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a humanitarian crisis today that stretches from Maine to California, which is made worse every day by the ignorant behavior and hateful rhetoric of political parties, voters, politicians, churches, and schools, who are using their social and political power to take away the human rights of gay people to be free to love. These shackles of oppression significantly undermine the liberty and pursuit of happiness of all Americans because a loss of freedom for one group is a loss of freedom for all groups who are proud to call themselves Americans.

Alright, so.  I am currently working as a research assistant for a professor who is looking to extend her dissertation: she has previously done a lot of research on feminist mothers and the children raised by them, but for a variety of factors was limited to studying the outcome of feminist parenting on female children only.  Therefore, she's decided to extend her project by looking specifically at feminist parents and sons (and, you know, generally keeping up with research on feminist parenting).

Here's where you folks come in:

Hello, this is my first post here.

But I feel like I need your opinion.

I'm an university student in Germany and I had last week this class that is still bothering me.

It is mainly about Migration in Asia (since my major is Japanese language and culture) and this particular class was about Gender in Migration.

We had this text about the gender stratification of migration.

It seems that migration law in Asia is really strict and in some countries you only get accepted when you are a skilled worker or some exception.

It seems a lot of countries don't give women the education to become a skilled worker migrant so they have to migrate illegal or as a domestic worker. (Exceptions to traditional health care or teaching jobs it seems)

In the text was stated that one of the main reasons a women is migrating is because the job situation is bad in her country and her husband is permanently unemployed and cant support the family. So the women is migrating to a country either as a domestic worker, entertainer (mostly working in a bar hostess etc) or illegal (prostitutes). It seems even when they entered the country legally e.g. as a domestic worker, there are no proper laws to secure them, so they face things like domestic violence & rape.

These things are not new I know so here comes my problem:

Also it was stated that when the women earns the money the relationship faces “reversed gender roles” and causes in most of the cases difficulties in the marriage.

Ever since a friend mentioned this to me it has bugged me, but recently I have finally gotten around to looking at this
People take pictures of strangers walking around minding their own business and post it to this website so people can judge their fashion or more often, their bodies. This makes me nervous when I go out in public, I wonder if someone is taking a picture of me without my permission and putting it online. What do you all think of this?

Some men really piss me off and I thought that I would share. So i'm walking my dog, minding my own business, when these fraternity guys are walking by me. I don't have a problem when people want to say hello, but when a stranger says something to you, just to seem "cool" or "macho" in front of their friends, it really pisses me off and I certainly can see through it.

He approaches me and says, "hello there" and i'm like "hey." He giggles and as he walks by me, he's like "hey you dropped something!" So, obviously, I turn around, and he's like "you dropped your smile!!"

Is he serious? I didn't see him smile! Why do I have to smile? Do they expect me to giggle and smile, wide-eyed like i'm so thrilled some asshole is saying hello to me? Absolutely not! Why do women always have to be so cheery or giggly at all times? Am I supposed to be impressed in front of his buddies? Well, fuck that and fuck him.

ugh. well, thanks for letting me share. But really, am I over-exaggerating or is he just an ass?

Janel

So I finally get up the gall to write my first post on this site.

I’m a frequent to Digg.com, and some of what I’ve seen posted on there recently I can’t just let go without a fight. It started with a Dugg photo of the Miss Universe pageant competitors, and ended with the final straw today in a dugg interview with Beth Murphy, Director of Marketing and Communication for Digg.com, and the answer to the question: “Are sexist comments defined as hate speech?”

A few weeks ago, a photo of the Miss Universe pageanteers in their bikinis surfaced on Digg.com, and by the time I got to the photo, it had well over 2000 Diggs already. However, the comments in reply to the photo—slugged “plenty-of-yes-please.jpg”—were absolutely disturbing. Thousands of times over, “Thanks for my new wallpaper!”

Plus, some countries’ competitors were singled out:   “I’ll take Nicaragua please, with a side order of Ghana.” “The one from Malaysia is probably a dude.” “Dugg for Mexico. Mamacita!!!!!”

Then there are the general comments: “Dugg for tits.” “Dugg for hooters.” “Dugg because I AM MAN” (and clearly MAN = inability to use verbs…) “Hey look! Bimbos..” “so many open mouths. where to insert!” “top left white bottom bikini. u can see through it.”

Finally, there were the few that tried to inject some kind of other commentary:

“A shame that white guilt means the girls representing Latin America look more European than the European representatives.”  

“Every day we make assumptions by what we can see physically. Even in the supermarkets, we distinguish good products from bad products based on how they look.” “YES. Because it's easier to judge women based on their looks, not on what their intellect or what they have to offer as intelligent beings!   Because it's fantastic to have an entire photo of scantily clad women to stare at for our viewing pleasure! Sickening. BURY THIS.”

-10 diggs for the user on that last comment, by the by. No one wants to hear about how they’re basing their opinions on the looks of a hundred or so scantily clad women. Nor do they want to hear that their disgusting comments are, in fact, disgusting and degrading.

I could go on about all the reasons why I don't read Cosmo, but I wanted to share this example.

On the website there is a sex positions section, and each lists "Why You'll Love It." Besides the fact that it is only supporting heterosexual sex, it is extremely sexist (as much of this magazine is...)

This one says this:

WHY YOU'LL LOVE IT:
This passion pose supplies the kind of naughty sex scene that all men yearn for. It gives him a full-frontal va-va-voom view of you in action, one that'll undoubtedly fuel his dirtiest fantasies for a long, long time. Plus, because you're the one who sets the speed and timing, you can treat yourself to the exact motions that make you moan with desire and take you over the edge of ecstasy.

Notice how the first half is not about why the man will love it - and the reason is that it's supposed to be fulfilling some naughty-porno-like-sex-scene fantasy. That just irks me on so many levels.

Hey, longtime reader and huge fan of Feministing... first time poster.

Has anybody read this? Or this ? Or this?

Just wondering. I had some thoughts on it myself, but I was wondering what you guys over here felt.

Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it.

For the record, I was determined not to write about Proposition 8 passing in California. (Because really, how many times and in how many ways can you say, "I hate you, 52% of California. I hate you. I hate you"?) But then I read the article in this past Wednesday's New York Times about Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. He resigned earlier this week after activists outed his $1,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 folks and several prominent gay men in theater complained — including Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer ("Hairspray") who called Eckern to say that he would not let his work be performed in the theater.

Now Eckern, along with Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the ballot measure, are defending their bigotry as a constitutional right and complaining that those who protest their actions are being intolerant. Per Schubert: "No matter your opinion on Prop. 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate or harass anyone for exercising their constitutional rights."

No sense of irony, straight guys. But hearing them play the you're-the-real-bigot-for-punishing-me-for-exercising-my-right-to-free-speech card just got on my last gay nerve. So here we are. I'm writing about Prop 8.

A few months ago, we highlighted  on WVFC the achievements of Annette Gordon-Reed ,  professor, attorney and historian, whose new book The Hemingses of Monticello comes four years after DNA evidence finally quieted most critics that had claimed that Thomas Jefferson couldn't possibly be the father of the children of the enslaved Sally Hemings.  (Click the first link for video of her conversation with Charlie Rose.)

Last week, Gordon-Reed talked to WVFC editor Chris Lombardi about sexual power, how working at Rikers Island prepared her for controversy, and how it felt to raise a 15-year-old daughter while writing about a teenager who became pregnant by a President.

So, I was searching on Mr. Movie Times when I saw this advertisement on the side of the page:

If you have reliable vision, you will notice that the before picture is of a stereotypical image of a woman of color who is bulging and the after picture is a medium-sized white woman. My initial response was to laugh loudly and call everyone in my apartment to come see, but one has to wonder what was the idea behind this marketing. Or, perhaps, did they simply let a stupid person create the image?

The image linked to Life of Lisa, a website that seems to be some kind of blog-façade advertisement.

So I don't know if anyone else remembers reading this Newsweek article that came out in the aftermath of the Summers controversy, but I think it contains a few gems that we really should keep in mind.  If he thought that these quotes would score him any points with women, he really is quite dense.  

“Starting in the fall, Harvard will offer home economics for women who find economics too tricky,” said Summers, who called the move “long overdue.”

Summers said that the new courses would help women at Harvard improve their grade point averages, adding, “When it comes to getting busy in the kitchen, women are second to none.”

In a meeting with the protesters, Summers promised that he would recruit additional women to the Harvard faculty but refused to tell the protesters how many. “I don’t want to fill your heads with a lot of big numbers you won’t understand,” he said.

You would think that if he really was a smart guy that he'd be able to apply some critical thinking to his own views on women and realize how dumb they are.

Help stop health care providers from being able to redefine abortion to include birth control.

The Bush administration promised not to issue any new regulations after November 1. But now, it is poised to implement a rule that could allow individual health care providers to redefine abortion to include the most common forms of birth control — and then refuse to provide these basic services. A woman's ability to manage her own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology. We need you to speak out now , before the administration implements this rule.

This summer, the Bush administration tried to keep the proposed rule a secret, but with your help, we forced Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt to make the plans public. More than 200,000 people — including more than 90,000 Planned Parenthood supporters like you, and more than 150 members of Congress — called on the Bush administration to withdraw this damaging proposal that could keep millions of people from receiving basic health information and necessary medical care.

This new rule could allow almost 600,000 health care entities that receive federal funding to redefine abortion to include the most common forms of birth control — and then refuse to provide these basic services. For any health provider to intentionally withhold information about widely embraced treatment options from a patient — for any health condition — is absolutely unconscionable under any circumstances. It’s outrageous that President Bush is using his last days in office to implement a rule that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate reproductive health information.

A woman's ability to manage her own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology if this regulation goes into effect.

The exam room is no place to play political games.

Speak out now.

Learn more about the opposition to the rule.

Awesome story about how far women in the army have come. However, as the article notes, it also shows just how few female leaders there are in the army.

"Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey recalled that when Dunwoody was commissioned as an officer in 1975, an Army survey of both male and female soldiers that year concluded that the best career path for women in the Army was to serve as cooks. He said her career has mirrored how the Army has evolved since then."

"Her climb up the ranks highlights the widening role that women play in the armed forces, but also their low numbers at the very top of the command structure."

Hi Feministing Community!  I am struggling with finding some resources on acquaintance sexual assault and thought that maybe someone here would have some suggestions.  I have found some decent academic articles, but am having a very tough time finding good books, specifically books geared towards survivors and not counselors. I have found some great resources for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, but nothing specifically geared towards acquaintance sexual assault survivors.  I have sifted through a bunch of books that are chock full o' blame and have ridiculous and harming 'safety' and 'prevention' tips and feel like I've hit a wall in finding any really stellar books.  Does anyone have any suggestion on books geared towards survivors that deal with acquaintance sexual assault, drug-facilitated sexual assault or stalking?

Well, I myself am not a UVA (University of Virginia) student, I thought I'd forward my friend's plea out to the feminist world.

UVA is putting on a production of The Laramie Project tonight (11/14/08) at 6:30 in the chapel, and apparently Fred Phelps and his "church" are coming to protest it. They plan on standing in the back of the chapel and disrupting the presentation by creating a ruckus.

UVA students are putting out calls for help in the Charlottesville area and anyone who is willing to make the trip to physically block the WBC from entering the chapel.

So if you're in central or western Virginia, please help out the students! As a Virginia Tech student, I remember all too well when the WBC wanted to come and disrupt our campus and the funerals of those who died nearly two years ago. I will not be there due to an exam, but several of my friends will be.

A local club comes out with these advertisements about once a week. They end up all over our school and tucked under the windshield wipers of all of the cars.

This gives new (and terrifying) meaning to supporting our troops.

...I never go to the club without my boa of ammo.

Liquid Ice...Liquid Fail.

In Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale , she argued there were two kinds of freedoms. Freedom to and freedom from. Freedom to is what we have now, well, mostly. It's the freedom to make our own decisions and the freedom to do what we will until we begin interfering with other's freedoms. Freedom of speech is a freedom to.

Freedom from is protection from other people's freedom tos. We have freedom from murder and violence.

Atwood argued that freedom to is far more important than freedom from. This is not to say freedom from is not important. Obviously we need to prevent murder, violence, and rape. But sometimes, the two freedoms come into comflict. I don't mean my freedom from conflicts with a rapist's freedom to, I mean my own freedom from conflicts with my own freedom to. Atwood's argument was when the two conflict, we should always give the adult woman freedom to before we give her freedom from, lest we wind up like the society of the republic of Gilead.

I agree with her. Walking alone at night is a freedom to; just because denying it to me increases my freedom from rape, doesn't mean I should be denied it. I think most of us can agree that when our freedom tos and freedom froms conflict, it's more important that we have freedom to.

And yet I see tons of women here claiming the opposite about certain groups of women. Women in heavily gendered relationships. Religious women. Surrogates. Stay-at-home moms. Prostitutes, strippers and porn stars. "Well, they didn't REALLY consent! They are a product of their society or their circumstances, they don't want to do it, we should protect them from it!" Well, sure, many women are forced into a bad situation. So we should always make every possible effort to give women more opportunities. Free job training for sex workers, plenty of supportive family services, etc.

I did a Youtube search with the word "feminist," and they kindly suggested that I also try the word "sinister."

[Cackling] Youtube has finally figured us out! [commence to petting my cat and shifting my eyes deviously...]

As many of you may know, I haven't exactly held my tongue when it comes to speaking out against the sexism and homophobia of the US military. In fact, for doing so, I've been pulled off the air for "re-training" or been asked to just play music many times when I was a younger journalist. Here, without the constraints of someone telling me what I can and cannot say, I'd like to explore the topic of the US military as a form of patriarchy toward other nations, and specifically, their women.

Imagine yourself a young, conventionally attractive woman from a war-torn, economically depressed country the US current occupies. Although traditions dictate that you belong in the private sphere, as a young woman, you are also the one responsibility for well-being of your family, to include making sure everyone has enough to eat, and that there is a roof over your heads.

To accomplish these tasks you have a few choices: you can either work at one of the many American factories, standing in long assembly lines all day, producing clothing and other products to be sold in America, being paid only enough for food, and most certainly, less than the minimum wage mandated in America (the reason many jobs get shipped overseas.).

The results are out!

"Norway (1) leads the world in closing the gender gap between men and women, according to the overall ranking in the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2008. Three other Nordic countries - Finland (2), Sweden (3) and Iceland (4) - also top the Report's Gender Gap Index. Previously higher ranking countries such as Germany (11), United Kingdom (13) and Spain (17) slipped down the Index but stayed in the top 20, while Netherlands (9), Latvia (10), Sri Lanka (12) and France (15) made significant gains. Featuring a total of 130 countries, this year's Report provides an insight into the gaps between women and men in over 92% of the world's population."

So, who wants to move with me to Scandinavia?

Take a look at the Global Gender Gap Index to see how your country ranks compared to others.

Karen Kornbluh is Obama's chief policy advisor and I found this CNN article that includes an interview with her. In addition to talking about how she became his chief policy advisor, she talks about the need for family friendly workplace policies and related topics. This excerpt is from a section where she is talking about how the one bread winner, one stay at home person model doesn't work for most families anymore and the CNN person is asking how to fix this.

"Kornbluh: It's a really great question. The way to think about it is we need not new policies but reform of existing policies -- for the new economy and the new family. Programs were put in place by FDR that were built around the breadwinner and the homemaker. Now the family is different, and the economy is different. But the policies haven't changed.

So health insurance and pension coverage are dropping; we don't have early childhood education or child care, and we're one of two developed countries that doesn't offer paid maternity leave. And we also need to have a discussion about how important parenting is, the challenges parents face, and what can be done in the workplace to make that easier. Many companies have figured this out, and we need to share those lessons more broadly. And parents shouldn't feel alone -- they should feel that what they're doing is of national importance."

She also talks about the challenges of being a high ranking female employee and a mother. It's worth a read. I didn't know about her before and now I'm going to look up some of the articles she's written.

I try to be an understanding person, but more and more, people just make it hard for me. The other day, a little old lady on a street corner tried to hand me a Christan pamphlet, I smiled and said no thank you. A few paces ahead I passed a younger man sitting on a square block of cement. He glared at me menacingly.

    “Take it,” he said. “You should.”

It seems like everyone's edges are a little sharp these days, with the election a little over a week behind us. With oppression and discrimination written into the state constitution, you'd think the bigots would be happy. But they seem even more incensed, perhaps angered by our own shows of force, that we're not just rolling over and playing dead.

What bothers me most about the Yes on Prop 8 crowd is their use of the word “morality”. What morals could be better than to love and be good to one another, and try not to do anyone harm? If we follow their example, morals are just arbitrary rules by which one lives one's life. How can two people marrying be immoral, when taking someone else's rights away is not? The way I see it, they're the ones who are immoral. Heartless. Cruel.

And it hurts. Even more than the first time. You see, I've done this already. Four years ago, I was living in Michigan when Proposal 2 passed in a decisive victory for the homophobia brigades. Gay marriage never did happen in Michigan, but now it's really, really illegal. The language of the proposal banned the government from recognizing same sex marriage or “similar unions,” meaning that now public institutions—like city and state governments, public schools, and universities—now cannot offer same sex domestic partner benefits. Queer folks at my alma mater, Michigan State, used to get domestic partner benefits. Now they don't.

Hey Feministing! I am a college student in NYC, and I am subjected to street harassment every single day. I am sure many of you (and not just women can be affected by this) are familiar with how enraging and degrading this feels. If I am on a safe street (where it is busy and not dark and lots of people), I call them out or flick them off. They get flustered and don't know what to say (because they don't expect a woman to speak up or defend herself, I suppose). My thinking is if they can call me out, I can call them on their bullshit. However, I NEVER do it when I don't feel safe and I watch what I say (because there are some crazy people in this world).

Anyway, Jessica mentioned this website in her books, and it is truly awesome: http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/
It's a place where women can take pictures of the street harassers and share the stories.

Now, the reason I am writing this post...
I want to write and editorial piece for my university newspaper on street harassers. I feel that many people who are harassed on the street don't do anything because they think "there's nothing they can do" or that "men can get away with those comments." That's the kind of mindset that this rape culture wants people, especially women, to have and it needs to stop.

I want to write an informative piece about how young women should handle these situations and the facts they should know, like the laws (or perhaps the lack there of) that pertain to this situation.

If you have any resources or ideas I could use, that would be much appreciated, too. =]

After I write the article I will probably post it as well.

Thanks everyone!

I've sort of been following the news coverage of Obama's selection of cabinet and staff, and I'm feeling a bit uneasy. Is it just me, or does it seem like women are really underrepresented here? I think I've heard the names of two women so far, in spite of the fact that there are a number of women who would be qualified for cabinet positions that women have never held. I've also heard the argument that Obama doesn't have to concern himself with the diversity of his staff and cabinet since his presidency is already so historic, but this sounds like BS to me. Has anybody heard of other women who might be under consideration? And what do you think about this argument that he doesn't have to worry about diversity?

Hi all, I haven't posted before, so perhaps it's a bit cheeky to ask you for a favor straight off the bat!

I am currently writing a piece (for pro-choice people largely) about the conflict of interest between the right to choose and the advent of designer babies. If anyone has a particular take on this issue, knows of any good sources of information or has any stories they are willing to share please let me know.

I am also interested to know your opinions on the idea that some of our opponents have: "pro-choice is pro-death"... Are we heading for a moral mine field in the future? I am particularly interested to hear whether anyone has encountered the opinion among pro-choicers that the upper limit should be raised (i personally have never come across this so am hoping to use that fact in my arguments)...

Any help, advice or opinions would be welcomed and appreciated!

After her husband became the first black president of the US on Nov. 4, Michelle Obama made "the power statement of her political career" earlier this week when she... wore a red dress to the White House. What's more, that statement was apparently that she is "powerful but not threatening."

Yeah, they went there.

It's probably true that at this time, in this campaign, Barack Obama winning the presidency was the most important goal. And the article does pay lip service to the fact that double standards that make it necessary to "soften" smart (and black, but they don't say that ) women are unfair.

But if that's so, then why does this article claim that making "The Dress her uniform" is the most important message we've gotten from her? Why is her "power statement" supposedly that she is "too feminine" and "sexy" to be "sitting in on cabinet meetings"? That's not power, sounds more like subordination.

Michelle Obama has made, and will continue to make, incredibly powerful and important statements. And they have nothing to do with dresses or being "too feminine" to do anything.

Much to my relief, my period started a few hours ago, so I will not be needing a judicial bypass to have an abortion. However, during my 4 days of uncertainty, I went to a crisis pregnancy center. My experience was so awful.

I went in because I was curious of the BS that they are telling women (not to mention they had free pregnancy tests). Since I am a strong feminist and very pro-choice, I was confident. When I walked in the building, it smelled very weird... like old people. I sat down and some lady walked me into a room and asked me many questions, like age. Then she asked me and my boyfriend's views on abortion, and I told her we were both pro-choice.

Then I went to pee in a cup, and I had to carry my urine to the room. The lady got me some oreos (the only good thing to come out of the situation, trust me) and she made me watch this totally BOGUS movie. I mean it was just aggravating. The video interviewed a woman who had an abortion because she was raped, and she said, and I QUOTE, "it was easier to forgive my rapist than myself for killing my child". I was shaking with anger, but attempted to maintain my composure. My urine sample just sat on the desk the whole movie.

When that was over, she started telling me absolutely stupid crap, like the classic, fake "post-abortion syndrome". I calmly explained that the American Psychiatric Association proved that to be false, but she said "that's what they want you to think." I rolled my eyes and endured "abortion causes breast cancer" for a few minutes, and I just got up and left. Part of me wanted to throw my urine sample on her face, but at that point I didn't care, and I wanted to get the hell out of there.

Ladies, that place was AWFUL. I think I felt my IQ lowering when I was there. I may be only 17, but I would NEVER fall for the lies that lady was spewing. Why do taxes fund that crap? And what I hate the most is that just to get the pregnancy test they make you go through all of those lies! Honestly, the closest thing I could compare a CPC to is a cult.

This isn't a Friday, but fuck you, CPC's!!!

I found this article at work. Because kids seeing their teacher make a commitment of love is sooo inappropriate. I fail to see how this is different from inviting kids to a hetero marriage.

I can see why parents wouldn't want their kids to miss school, but somehow I don't think it would have caused the outrage if the teacher married a man.

Hello Ladies,

This is my First post and I'm still a little un-sure of how this works..here I go. I am in a Kinship, Marriage and Human sexuality class and we were randomly assiged debate roles. My role is a FEMINIST PROFESSOR WHO ARGUES THAT SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD EXPLOITS WOMEN. I have no idea what to say??? I consider myself a Feminist but I personally dont know why surrogate motherhood is a bad thing. Or maybe I am just seeing things one sided because I think that any couple that are willing to go through all that hard work to get a baby and want a baby should have one no matter their disabilities and if there is a women that is willing to give them a baby is a great person.Can any one out there help me?

written by Tim Love and Morgan J CurtisCross posted at Speaking Out.

TAASA has recommitted itself to social justice work, thus moving our anti-oppression work to the forefront of our efforts. As we have taken our anti-oppression approach to sexual violence prevention out into the communities and rape crisis centers across the state, we've discovered many programs and communities struggling with both oppression in their community and ways to get their organizations to support social justice work in concrete ways. Inspired by the TAASA membership resolution process, we decided to create a personal resolution to address two interrelated forms of oppression that are closely linked to sexual violence - heterosexism and homophobia. We hope you will find the resolution a useful tool as you work to address homophobia in your life, within the organizations you work with and in your community as a whole.The following resolution highlights some key problems with homophobia and heterosexism, including its impact on all people, regardless of sexual orientation. There are a variety of ways this resolution could be used. Hanging it up in your office could spark conversations with co-workers and community partners. Sharing it with people during your anti-oppression and prevention trainings gives them an opportunity to take action in a meaningful way, something that people often seek after attending such trainings. How else can you envision using this resolution? Are there any key points that you think were not included in the resolution?Stay tuned for a follow-up post on additional ways the resolution can be used as well as tips for how to carry out your commitment to ending homophobia and heterosexism. Please indicate in the comments section if you post this commitment and where you post it.You can download a pdf of the resolution here.

Rolling Stone did a recent poll to determine the greatest rock singer of all time . Paul McCartney? No. Robert Plant? Def not. Elvis Presley? NOPE. Not a dude at all, but the revered Ms. Aretha Franklin. FUCK YEAH. I love her and it makes my day that she won this. Keep rockin' out Aretha!

In the 50s and 60s, the Civil Rights movement galvanized around the Black community. In the late 60s and 70s, women got into the movement in a more serious way, and in the late 70s and 80s (especially after the AIDS epidemic began) gay people got into the movement in a more serious way. But ever since then, there's been a debate about whether gay rights is a civil rights issue.

It is. Period. I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but being gay isn't any more of a choice than being straight. I never chose to be heterosexual anymore than my sister chose to be homosexual. Ergo, this argument that "gay rights isn't civil rights, cause being gay is a choice" is bullshit. Gay rights is civil rights.

Homosexuals are a subset of our population, and hating someone for being gay is bigotry. I'm sorry to have to break that to you, but it is. Hating someone for being a woman is bigotry in the form of sexism. Hating someone for being Jewish (a choice, oddly enough) is bigotry in the form of antisemitism. Hating someone for being Hispanic is bigotry in the form of racism. Hating someone for being from Iran is bigotry in the form of xenophobia. Hating someone for being gay is bigotry in the form of homophobia and/or heterosexism. I think that, in the 21st century, we can all agree that bigotry is not a desirable characteristic in our society or government.

But bigotry isn't just hate. A lot of the time, bigotry is a lot more subtle. It's voting for measures that prevent gay people from having rights -- or in the case of Prop 8, voting to take away rights that a subset of the population had been granted by a court interpretation of the state Constitution. Gay people had the right to marry in California for about 3 months. Now they don't. Californians voted to take away rights that gay people already had.

Watching the clip from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, I was moved by his insight and honesty on the issue of Proposition 8 in California.  He spoke eloquently about the human heart, love and opportunity.    His insight is one into the Human Condition, not on a simple(?) matter of politics and lawmaking in California. 

With all due respect to Olbermann though, I must point out his introduction to this issue.  He noted out he is not gay, nor does he have a great deal of friends in the gay community.   I understand his point; it is not a personal issue for him .     All this accomplishes however, in a macro context is reaffirming his heteronormative viewpoint and the validity he is privileged on such a stance.    That being said, I believe his views are rooted in a paradigm of honesty and a desire for equality for all, so he may be accused for this minor sin.

I'm a food historian and my graduate research is on the social history of food-related disorders, so I've amassed quite the collection of vintage advertisements.  I posted these ads on my blog recently, and thought I'd repost them here as well.  Old advertisements are always quirky and ridiculous, but ads from the pre-feminist glory days always make me laugh.  That is, until you realize how some things really haven't changed at all.  Click on each to see a larger-res version. 

1927 Frigidaire Electric Refrigerator vintage advertisement. "Give her a real thrill this Christmas!" Note to husband: Buy me a household appliance for Christmas and I will punch you.

I'm a Republican.

Well...I'm a fairly liberal Republican (no, that's not an oxymoron).

Okay, maybe I'm more of a moderate than a Republican.

Why I, along with many others, feel the need to define myself politically is currently beyond me. In the wake of our historic election, not only am I a bit deflated (it feels like the day after Christmas) from the absence of election coverage, but I'm also wondering why we so zealously align ourselves along party lines. My ponderance is really rhetorical because I know that in our governmental system, we have to make choices and those choices typically place us on one side or the other. But when someone asks me who I voted for, or what party I identify as my own, I feel like someone's asking me what my favorite Metallica album is. If I answer honestly and say its the Black Album, then of course I'm labeled as a poser because that's EVERYone's favorite ('everyone' here meaning those not-die-hard Metallica fans). Should I claim that Master of Puppets or Ride the Lightning is my favorite? It's such a defining question! What will people think of me?! What do I think of me!?

As a student and instructor in academia, I often received sympathetic or disgusted looks when I admitted my Republican leanings. Scrambling to clarify, I'd say that growing up in a military family leads to certain opinions about spending on defense. I'd say that local government is better for the people. I'd say a lot of things. Invariably I'd be asked about abortion. Answering that I am and always have been pro-choice, the question would then become gay rights. Well, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a crock (this coming from a military brat), and I can't fathom how people can claim that a ban on gay marriage or gay adoption does not have some correlation to religion. Two people who love one another have the right to marry and live the American dream, including having children and contributing to the community. Well, what about...? The questions would continue until people were either frustrated enough to stop asking, or tired enough to move on to a new topic.

So why is it that we place so much importance on the big question: Republican or Democrat? Because, like the Metallica question, it IS a defining part of us as individuals. It's an identifier, a mark of commitment or connection. You're either with us or against us. Maybe it's the binary that I have had such trouble with...can't I be a Republican with certain Democratic leanings, or vice versa?

As a feminist who came to consciousness a bit late in life (mid-twenties), I've seen my political tendencies bend and twist. Acknowledging the privilege of growing up as a white, middle class woman has aided in my feminist journey and helped me see the the power of white, male patriarchy. Living in a town full of cultural diversity and influence, and teaching at a diverse university, my view on life, politics, and certainly education have undergone a metamorphosis. That change has been a gradual process, one that will likely (hopefully) not end.

So, I keep coming back to my initial question, one that I've been thinking about intensely since the election, if not before:

What's a Good Republican Girl (Woman) to do?

The answer - she admits that she's a Democrat.

Through my membership of the group ...stop violence against women... on facebook I've been made aware of a group by the name of Fuck Sexism: Punch Women Too! Claiming to be a civil rights group to "Support true equal rights and fight sexism" it advocates the equal treatment of women through violence. It has 475 members.

I'm astonished that such a group would be allowed on facebook. Complaints have been made and the group reported by a number of people, but it seems facebook is unwilling to act. When submitting a report, it is made clear by facebook that "Groups will not be removed as a result of disagreement with the subject matter." It has been suggested that this group is a parody, and that is why it has not yet been removed. If it is a parody, I'm not sure what it is parodying.

There has been some debate here on Feministing about whether the rape joke in a recent episode of The Office was appropriate. Understanding the humour of The Office is an important part of understanding the purpose and message of the writers in presenting this scenario.

There does seem to be attempts at humour on this facebook group. It is, however, rather gauche and a miserable failure. I do suspect that it is not serious in its advocacy of violence against women. Just what is it's point? What is it's message, if not the advocacy of violence against women.

The claim of rape made by Kelly  in The Office was very dark humour. The humour failed for some viewers, and succeeded for others. But whether it failed or succeeded, I think it has acheived the part of the intent of the writers: it got us talking about the issue, exploring not only the appropriatness of the joke itself, but the use of humour to highlight important social issues and how best it is achieved. Just where is that invisible line?

I think that joke in The Office was on the appropriate side of the line, and support the writers' inclusion of it in the episode. I think that the joke - if that is what it is, though I'm not sure what it is aimed at - of the facebook group has crossed the line. But am I guilty of an unfair standard? If the attempt at humour succeeds then it is okay, but if the attempt at humour fails then it is not okay? The groups offends me, and I have reported it, but I do wonder if I am guilty of a double standard because I don't get the joke.

So, I've just spent like two hours searching for an empowering gift for my 10 year old cousin. I was thinking that I could maybe get a bunch of dress up costumes for her (ie; doctor, president, astronaut), but not only would that be a little pricey, but she's probably getting out of the dress up phase. Maybe books? She is the youngest, and her two older brothers always get the fun things, while she gets Bratz dolls (which I promptly told her were unrealistic images of women) and makeup kits.

I'm sure y'all have some great ideas. Please, throw them at me!

I know some people might not read this.  And I know that some people might flame me.  But dammit!  I'm mad!  No.  I'm Beyond mad.  I'm furious!  Samhita has often blogged about her weight issues and they are something I can much relate to and today's Adipositive post wasn't that different. Usually I find the whole comments section along the same line around hatred and bigotry on fat-hating.  Only that not what was there.  There were comments of that bigotry and hatred.  Okay.  No big deal.  Those typically don't bother me.  I don't invest much in blog comments.  Too much time and energy.  Until I read the quote:

"How about we do smoking acceptance next? Or how about alcoholic or abusive partner acceptance?"

Whaa???

Suddenly my fatness will lead to abusive partners?  *tries to follow logic, but brain explodes*

I'm 5'9" and I"m 240 lbs.  *gasp of horror*  Yes.  You read correctly.  Two-hundred and forty fucking pounds.  Most of it is on my belly.  Some on my ass.  It's basically everywhere except my calves and scalp.  To clarify, yes I do have body image issues.  There are days where I think, "If the fat were gone, my problems would be over,"  but I know that isn't going to happen.

So being fat is unhealthy.  Okay.  I'll give you that.  Being overweight is unhealthy according to every medical science journal.  Fine. 

So what?

Why is this bad?  How does if affect you?  Why should you fucking care whether I'm healthy or not? I don't know you.  I certainly don't care about your health.  You want a bag of chips? Go ahead and eat one.  Have some soda and chocolate while you're at it.  I couldn't care less.  But don't you try and tell me I should fucking lose weight or that I'm unhealthy/lazy/ugly/unnattractive/anything derrogatory.  Seriously.  Don't.  And don't go on about health.  How's your health?  Did you run out of breath taking the stairs?  Or did you take the elevator?  How many miles have you walked this week? How many hours did you spend being sedentary?  What was the fat content of your last meal?

If you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. 

And by the way....

Fat people can be healthy.  Runners can have heart attacks.  And naturally thin people can be as unhealthy as the next.  So I don't want to hear it.  I'm fat and I'm proud.  Fat haters, get over yourself.

The first thing I heard anyone say about Michelle Obama following her husband’s historic election on November 4th were these three words: “What was that?” And no, they weren’t talking about a radical speech that this Princeton- and Harvard-educated woman had made. People on the streets, buses and subways decried Michelle Obama’s election-night fashion choice on the morning of November 5th.

The stir that Michelle Obama’s fashion “faux pas” caused may look like usual tabloid fodder, but the attention paid by the mainstream media to our future first lady’s sense of style starts sounding a little more dubious when we view it through the multiple lenses of racism, classism and sexism. During Barack Obama’s campaign, conservative news outlets circulated analyses of Michelle Obama’s unwomanly ‘anger’ (these accusations brought on, might I add, by the understandable statement that, as a black woman, she hadn’t always been proud of her country). The title of her Princeton thesis, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” concerned nervous voters. Shallowly beneath the surface lay the real problem: A whole lot of Americans felt pretty uncomfortable that this highly educated black woman was actually discussing racism, instead of pretending that it didn’t exist.

With this short campaign history in mind, the debate around Michelle Obama’s election-night dress is revealed for what it truly was: A shoddily constructed effort to avoid the reality that a strong, smart, fiercely capable black woman will soon live in the White House. As much as the tabloid news might want to dumb her down as another fashion icon or victim, Michelle Obama is much more than either of those things. She’s someone who might confront us with some tough issues. Whether or not you voted for Obama, that sounds like just what we need right now. 

This afternoon I attended a panel discussion on Human Trafficking and Violence Against Women which was really interesting and sad. But there was one thing that got me thinking, and I'd like to know everyone's thoughts on this.

One of the speakers mentioned the problem of female feticide (defined by the speaker as the abortion of fetuses because they are female, due to a cultural preference for boys). Now, obviously my gut reaction to the idea of female feticide is, wow, that's totally wrong just to abort a fetus because it's female. But then, I ran into a big brick wall in my brain dealing with abortion rights, because the argument essentially seems to be, "It is wrong to discriminate against fetuses based on their sex." But if I make that argument, it seems to imply that fetuses have rights that protect them from discrimination. And that means fetuses have rights. And we all know where that leads, right? This is my problem: As a feminist, I really don't like that people would abort a fetus just because it's female. As a feminist, I support the right to have an abortion. Period. How do I reconcile that with my complete disagreement with abortions on the grounds that the fetus is female? How do I reframe the argument that female feticide is wrong without falling into the "fetal rights" trap?

Also, one of the countries mentioned where female feticide is commonly practiced is India. Now, I don't know how the abortion issue is framed in India; I don't know if there's an anti-abortion movement in India that is comparable to the one in the United States. Does anybody know anything about that?

Sorry for the long post (and sorry if it's a little disjointed/incoherent/just plain ignorant.) It's just a problem that popped into my head and wouldn't leave, and I'm having trouble articulating it.

EQUAL PAY COALITION NYC

cordially invites you to attend a breakfast forum

FAIR PAY:  THE TIME IS NOW!
A roundtable discussion on strategies
to end the wage gap and build our economic security

Moderator
Maria Hinojosa, PBS Journalist

Panel

Ellen Bravo - Author and Former National Director of 9 to 5

Lilly Ledbetter - Supreme Court Plaintiff
Hon. Carolyn Maloney - Congresswoman NY- District 14
Edward Ott - Executive Director, NYC Central Labor Council

Donna E. Pedro - Diversity and Compensation Expert

________________

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008
8:00 - 10:00am

HUNTER COLLEGE
Faculty Dining Room­ - West Building, 8th Floor
Lexington Avenue at 68th Street (southwest corner)

RSVP by Nov. 10th  -  CALL:  212-937-2411 or  ONLINE

CO-SPONSORS: Hunter College and the New York Women’s Foundation

PARTNERS: National Council for Research on Women and Demos

HOST: EQUAL PAY COALITION NYC , a consortium of civic organizations, advocates and experts working together for Pay Equity in NY. Members include: A Better Balance ? AAUW–Manhattan ? AAUW–NYC ? Catalyst ? Center for the Women of New York ? Coalition of Professional Women in the Arts and Media ? CUNY-Howard Samuels Center ? Junior League of the City of New York ? League of Professional Theatre Women ? League of Women Voters of the City of New York ? Legal Momentum ? Manhattan Chamber of Commerce-Women's Business Committee ? NOW-NYC ?  NOW-Brooklyn/Queens Chapter ? National Association of Female Executives ? National Association of Women Business Owners NYC ? New York Coalition of 100 Black Women ? New York Women's Agenda (Coordinator) ? 100 Black Men ? Roundtable of Food Professionals NYC ? Women in Development-NY ? Women in Health Management ? Women on the Job Taskforce-NYSPEC ? Women's City Club of New York ? Women's Center for Education and Career Advancement ? Zonta Club of Greater Queens ? Authors Ellen Bravo, Debra Condren, Barbara Ehrienrich (in formation) EPCNYC was created in 2007 by NYWA, a coalition of women professionals and community activists who support the diversity and interests of New York women through collaboration, advocacy and education. NYWA is a New York nonprofit charitable corporation.

We all know that New York City is not immune to anti-abortion activism. By blocking entrances and exits and following and harassing clients, anti-abortion activists move beyond peaceful protest and seek to prevent women from exercising their right to access critical health care services. Our current law does not adequately protect reproductive health care facilities, workers, or consumers from harassment or intimidation. Join us as we let the City know that we need a change!

Proposed Int. No. 826 would prohibit someone from knowingly obstructing or blocking another person from entering or exiting a reproductive health care facility with the use of physical contact. In addition, people would be prohibited from knowingly obstructing or blocking the premises of a reproductive health care facility. The bill would create a 15-foot area around a reproductive health care facility in which someone may not follow and harass any individual or place them in fear of physical harm. Further, it would specifically prohibit blocking clinic entrances or exits. None of these changes, however, would prohibit people from peacefully gathering and protesting.

Please join us next Tuesday at City Hall to stand up for women and show your support for this important piece of legislation. Together, we will show that NYC will fight for our right to choose! The hearing is next Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 10am in City Hall Chambers. Please contact Lalena Howard at lhoward@prochoiceny.org or 646-520-3506 for more information and to RSVP.

Cross-posted from Fundamentally Flawed , where the wit and wisdom of the anti-marriage-equality brain trust is on display for all to enjoy and ridicule.

"Yes on 8, the gays claim its all hate, but that argument is weaker than my sisster Kate, who likes to date (men), lawsuits attempt to retailate, but just like the election they will meet the same fate, so again I say YES ON 8!" --Orange County Register reader comment