April 2009 Archives

I'm a woodworker, which means most of the ads and magazines I read related to my hobby are aimed at men.  I happen to be a man, as are most of the woodworkers I know, so maybe this is natural.  Still, every once in a while, I see something that bucks that trend and makes me smile. 

This Mother's Day ad from Rockler (a woodworking store) is one of those things.  The text of the ad reads, "This year, get Mom something special — like this all-purpose mini lathe! Great for making custom pens, plates and bowls and more, it’s the perfect gift for the beginning wood turner."

Rockler's CEO is a woman, and they're a corporate sponsor the organization Women in Woodworking, so this isn't exactly a surprise, but it's still nice to see.

By Allie Bohm, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

It's only been 100 days, but already reproductive freedom has come a long way. The first 100 days of the Obama administration have brought us more victories than we had in the eight years of the previous administration, and now seems like a good time to recognize and celebrate our success.

On his first Friday in office, President Obama rescinded the Global Gag Rule , restoring U.S. funding to international organizations that use their own, non-U.S. dollars to provide, refer for, and/or advocate for safe and legal abortion in their countries. This decision will both increase women's access to desperately needed family planning services, such as contraceptives, HIV-AIDS prevention, and maternal care; and reaffirm the United States' commitment to free speech and democratic participation.

At the same time, President Obama committed to reinvesting in the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA , which is widely considered the best delivery system for international family planning funds worldwide. Also in the international realm, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been vocal in her support for reproductive health care and family planning services abroad and at home and has made it clear that reproductive freedom will be an important tenet of U.S. foreign policy.

Fortunately, the good news hasn't been confined to our foreign policy. On March 11, President Obama signed the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which, among its myriad provisions, restored access to affordable birth control for all health care providers that serve low-income women and men and all college and university health clinics. The Act also provided the first-ever (!) cut to the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program and increased funding for the Title X Family Planning Program by $7.5 million. These additional funds will help clinics meet the needs of low-income women and men who require comprehensive family planning services, such as counseling, contraceptives, education, and preventive health screenings, and who would otherwise be unable to afford these basic health care services.

Meanwhile, on March 10, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its proposal to rescind the Health Care Denial Regulation . As it exists now, the rule appears to permit institutions and individuals to deny women access to birth control and, moreover, to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic health care services, including information about abortion. The Bush administration pushed the regulation through in the name of religious freedom, but for years, federal law has carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients' access to reproductive health care (PDF) . The regulation takes patients' health needs out of the equation. We hope that the Obama administration will soon follow through and rescind this dangerous and unnecessary regulation .

After all that, the Obama administration did not rest on its laurels. Following a March 24 federal court decision , last week the FDA announced that it will soon make emergency contraception available without a prescription to 17-year-olds . The agency also will evaluate lifting all age restrictions on the drug.

And, finally, just this week, the Senate confirmed a pro-choice Secretary of Health and Human Services .

It's been a whirlwind, but rewarding, three months. We finally have a White House that cares about women's reproductive health care needs. No doubt, there is more work to be done and many challenges in our future . But, today we can sit back for just a moment and revel in what it means to have a pro-choice president. All in all, it's been a good hundred days for reproductive freedom.

I grew up in a small town in central N.H., and I remember at my grade school the most popular insult on and off the playground, by a landslide, was "faggot."  I can't look at this bill as a sweeping change to the mentalities of many people in the state, but that it has made it so far though the state gov't - albeit narrowly - gives me some hope.

As I understand, the bill is only moving forward because of an amendment made to it:

The amendment distinguished between "civil marriage" and weddings sanctioned by religious groups, spelling out that the state would not force those groups to marry same-sex couples. It also clarified that the bill would not eliminate the option to select "husband" or "wife" when applying for a marriage license, even as it would add the gender-neutral term "spouse."

The Senate version "recognizes the sanctity of religious marriages and the diversity of beliefs in our culture" while also addressing a form of state discrimination, Senate President Sylvia Larsen said in an interview after the vote.

Still sounds pretty discriminatory to me, although if the full privileges and benefits of a hetero marriage are applicable after a service by a Justice of the Peace, that doesn't seem like a bad thing.  If someone wanted a religious service they could always call Rev. Gene Robinson <3<3<3.  Is this a different standard than in Vermont or Massachusetts or other states?

Any readers living in NH (or not!) I encourage to contact Governor John Lynch, who is a very popular democrat in the state - he has never said he would pass a same-sex marriage bill, but maybe people can help change his mind:

Office of the Governor
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301

(603)271-2121
(603)271-7680 (fax)

Email

Looking for an opportunity to work at an upcoming feminist magazine in Chicago and beyond? KEEP READING! Wisecrack is looking for college students across the nation(and especially in Chicago and the surrounding area!) to be Campus Liasons in the upcoming school year.

Wisecrack is a new independent quarterly publication, designed to support female comedians, discuss gender and comedy and use humor as an agent of social change.
As a Campus Liaison, you would:

-Connect potentially interested students,professors and campus groups with Wisecrack (through flyers, word of mouth and informative emails)
-Help us stay "in the loop" with what's happening at your campus relating to gender and comedy (to possibly be featured in Wisecrack)
-Gain valuable experience and get involved with a new feminist publication

-Be interested in gender and comedy (gender studies, theater and journalism students encouraged to apply)
-Be available to help for the duration of 2009
-Have an hour each week to dedicate to helping us out (whenever you're free)
-Be motivated and reliable

Every year at Princeton University, the student group Princeton Against Cancer Together (PACT) holds an event called Manicure for the Cure , where they bring in beauty school students to do manicures for Princeton students in the days leading up to spring formals. Formals are this weekend, so advertising for manicure for the Cure are all over campus.

To advertise, they're using the slogan "Save Second Base." The phrase "second base," in case you don't know, refers to foreplay involving breasts, as in "I kissed Jenny under the bleachers and made it to second base." "How far did you let him go, Jenny? To second base?" If it sounds antiquated and ridiculous... that's because it is.

Anyway, "Save Second Base" is a slogan that's used nationwide by breast cancer research fundraisers. And it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. After all, curing breast cancer isn't really about saving breasts, it's about saving women's lives. So it annoys people, but there was no reaction when Manicure for the Cure they used the slogan last year on campus. I think people mostly make their peace with the slogan, figuring that at least it's raising money for a good cause.

But this year is different. This year, the organizers of the event, in an attempt to include men, are offering massages in addition to manicures. To advertise these services, they made posters that said: "Gentlemen: Save Second Base."

And that is when the proverbial poop hit the fan.

Hello all. This is my first time posting, I hope this an appropriate post.

A friend on mine had the following as his "facebook status". I found it highly offensive and responded to it. Perhaps I did not do a very good job responding, I had sort of an emotional reaction. He replied to his original post. I am still angry and offended, but instead of responding again and having a pointless back-and-forth discussion with someone whose mind I cannot change, I would like to hear your responses. What do you think?

(I've changed the name)

"Jim": A light beef: if you are a washed up party girl who has decided to redeem herself by becoming a nurse, when you get on a bus, please do one of three things. Either A) do your best to soften your syphilis-scarred demon face, B) cover up that faded Looney Tunes tattoo on your forearm, or C) stand near the ventilation so the rest of us don't have to endure your cheap tobacco stank. Love, Jim.
1:02pm


Flor
2:01pm April 29
I have a beef with your light beef:

Nurses are so often overlooked and unappreciated for the work that they do. People who are studying to become nurses deserve respect. At very least call her a woman not a girl, she is an adult. People don't have to "redeem" themselves for partying; and why is it that women are expected to feel guilty more than men? It is a gendered issue, if it wasn't you would have called her a "partier".

I have beef with the fact that you are shaming people with syphilis.

I have beef with your sense of entitlement over this woman's body. If you don't like her tattoo, don't look at it.

Love,
Flor

Ok so I posted a little bit about this on my blog - i go off on a tangent mostly about Silvio's wife, which is more about my need to rant than anything else, so just ignore that. :)

The meaning of this post is just what the title suggests, is the Prime Minister of Italy helping society's perception of women in a political forum by lobbying or vetting women to have parliamentary positions simply because they are pretty? It has to be noted that these women aren't especially educated and have gained their fame through television or modeling.

When this subject came up in the lunchroom here at work, we were divided. 1/2 of us feel that Silvio is blatantly objectifying women and essentially mocking hard working, intelligent and very qualified candidates , men and women alike , to further his political/social agenda and spreading the message that beauty comes before brains (concerning women of course). The other 1/2 feel that women in parliament is good, regardless of how they get there.

What do you think , is this good or bad?

-Sophia

So recently I've been active with our local Planned Parenthood. I've felt the need to become an activist for quite some time. I knew that being a feminist was more than just spewing rhetoric on the evils of patriarchy. It's about making a difference and fighting patriarchy on the front line. But as I become more experienced with activism, I've learned that it's so much more than just fighting the good fight. Activism yields a certain quality of life.

Making new friends
I met some interesting people through activism. And I'm not using interesting in a derogatory sense. These people are truly interesting with a fascinating past. I've met a woman who worked at an abortion clinic, and a form NOW MO Chapter President. I've met a woman whose passion for feminism was only matched with her passion for Coca-Cola. And that's only to name a few! As I talked with these women and listened to their stories, I couldn't help but admire them. I felt the urge to capture their image on paper through writing so that they can be admired as well. It's a privilege to have met and talked with these women, and I hope to do so again!

[TRIGGER WARNING]

This is a profoundly heartbreaking story from a gynecologist about a baby girl born into a culture that enforces the disposability and worthlessness of women.  Even more distressing is the difficulty in establishing common ground when there are language and culture barriers preventing any sort of nuanced communication.

Child "selection" of this nature occurs daily around the world, but since we often see it in the form of statistics it is harder to connect with the sexism that breeds such intentions.

That the military is a patriarchal society is a topic we've all visited, and especially the debate of whether women ought to be included in the infantry is a topic that's been tired out. Yet, nothing really has been resolved. To this date, the Department of Defense has yet to provide satisfactory answers as to why women are not doctrinally allowed in the infantry.

For me, it's not so much a matter of feminism theory that drives that discussion, but rather, equality in career progression. After all, if women are excluded from the infantry branch, it also means that there are more of them in other branches, thus the competition for career advancement is much easier for men, than it is for women.

To be sure, the military has done extremely well in its goals of equality - and often times, is the first to drive the equality ship, and in the process, translating equality to its civilian sectors. But in excluded women from the infantry, it is especially wrong.

I am not interested in whether, from a feminist perspective, military service is inconsistent with feminism - or whether feminism requires us to take pacifistic stands. I am interested in equality.

Below is part of a discussion I've been involved with someone from the infantry branch - perhaps it'll give you all some perspectives on the arguments Soldiers in the infantry do not wish to include women. My response is below each claim. What are your thoughts, especially those who have been in the military?

The American humorist Will Rogers once said, "It ain't that we're so dumb; it's just that what we know ain't so."

Certain things we know to be true. We know that the South kept slaves, and the North fought a righteous war of liberation. We know that the slave trade was legal right up to the Civil War. We know that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves, and that the United States has been slavery-free ever since. These things we know - and none of it is true.

On the other hand, most of us do not know that slavery not only exists throughout the world today; it flourishes. Slavery is legal nowhere, yet it is practiced everywhere. With an estimated 27 million people in bondage worldwide, it is the second or third most lucrative criminal enterprise of our time, after drugs, and maybe guns. More than twice as many people are in bondage in the world today as were taken in chains during the entire 350 years of the African Slave Trade. In seeking to place blame, we're tempted to point to the "emerging nations" as the culprits, whereas in fact slavery is alive and more than well right here, thriving in the dark, and practiced in many forms in places you'd least expect.

Protip:  Remember ladies, if you choose to wait for a bus on a major street in the fine city of Portland, you are A DIRTY, DIRTY WHORE and are therefore subject to being accosted by Portland's Finest, rudely questioned, and whisked away in a patrol car to enjoy  the unexpected never-to-be-forgotten thrill of being  fingerprinted, photographed, and booked for prostitution, and held for hours in a jail cell.

Evidently, only whores and wanton sluts take public transportation in Portland-who knew ?!

Yes, this happened to a woman, Ann Marie Selby, on July 30th, around 7:30 pm, on the streets of Portland.  Read the article here.

After reading this, am I the only one that was reminded of the "religious police"?  Thank god she was "...wearing what her attorney describes as a hooded sweatshirt, loose knee-length skirt and Crocs shoes", because who knows where she would have ended up had it been a warm day and she had chosen to wear a whore outfit such as *gasp* shorts and a tank top, or an above the knee skirt! Whorewhorewhorewhorewhore!!!

Fellow feministings, I need your help.  I am a food historian finishing up my degree in history, which is dependent upon one last article-length paper due next month.  The working title of my paper is "Dead Meat: The Genderization of Meat in Twentieth Century America" (dead meat, of course, referring both to the slaughtered animal being consumed, but is also a slang term for a prostitute dating back to the sixteenth century).  The reason for the double entendre is that not only am I examining how the literal consumption of meat has been constructed as a masculine endeavor, but I am also examining the metaphorical presentation of women as objects of meat intended for consumption by a male gaze.  And while I'm trying to present as non-biased examination as possible, I'm hopeful that after reading my paper, a third interpretation will emerge, one that plays on the popular connotation of "dead meat" as slang for one that is doomed.

Here's how you can help:  I'm looking for ads, videos, illustrations, etc... that commodify women as meat objects.  I'm thinking of meat bikinis , the shameless antics of Peta and recent ads for Burger King and Arby's -- the older the example, the better (within the twentieth century).  I'm also looking for personal anecdotes and examples in which men have been shamed or made to feel less than manly because they abstain from eating meat.  A perfect example is this recent Hummer commercial that ends with "Restore the balance." The original tagline, however, read "Restore your manhood," and was changed only after a significant contingent of offended viewers complained.

I plan on posting excerpts from the finished paper on my website , and will also include recommended graphics and/or illustrations in an upcoming online gallery I'm developing, which will also feature my collection of vintage food and cosmetics/beauty products advertisements.  Your help is much appreciated!

I just discovered this link for a website called Signing for Something, for Mormons to sign letters of resignation to their church.  Apparently Prop 8 was the last straw:

"Sign for Something is a diverse group of members and friends of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) united in their desire to speak their conscience on the matter of civil marriage. We each have our own views on this issue, but we stand united in the belief that each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities. This runs contrary to the LDS church’s current policy, which asks its members to actively work toward making marriage between one man and one woman the only legal option. Our goal is to empower members of the LDS church in sharing their views and making political decisions for themselves."

Very interesting...

By the way, this is coming from a fellow queer Christian, so is not an attack on any Mormons or other people of faith!

I was shocked reading this recent story about a police officer who asked women to flash him so that they would not get a ticket. But it makes me wonder how often this sort of thing occurs.

Its no secret people use craigslist to find ways to get their rocks off, so to speak. Unless your head has been buried in the sand, a medical student has been accused of the craigslist killing and attacking a masseuse. News reports have been out about the fiance wanting to stand by her man. People are wondering how she could not know he led a double life and automatically calling her a codependent. Its easy to say if that happened to me, I would end the relationship. We don't know what she is really going through. Just hearing what the media has chosen to sensationalize.  Is it her fault and is she really in denial about her fiance? How embarrassing for her and her family.

I am not saying she should deny everything, but the issue I have is she is already being blamed for "not knowing he had a double life".  Isn't that why the term double life exists? Its interesting to know how brilliant these people are about leading a double life, but don't realize the truth will come out. The classic blame the woman. I think she is still in shock about her fiance being accused. I hope and pray the fiance does what she really knows is right. I think she knows deep down, but does not want to face the truth yet. Its hard to realize someone you love and trust has a dark, evil side. The media needs to stop attacking her and I hope she has family and good friends standing by her. Honestly, I feel bad for her and hope she finds the strength to face the truth and get some help. You think you know someone, but don't.

I posted the letter to my non-survivor friends which received a lot of attention. Thanks for all your support. (And thank you to all of my friends, if you're reading this!)

But it also received some criticism, especially this post which cast doubt on the validity of my 'recovered' memories.

Look, everything should be open to debate. And there have been, especially in the 1990s, some horrific cases of false accusations. But:
• The science - it's definitely true that it is pretty easy to convince people that something happened that didn't, in fact, take place. That is particularly true in children. But for false memories to happen, someone has to plant them there. No reputable therapist would ever 'lead on' their patient. The individuals I've met who also recovered memories did it outside spontaneously. And there's plenty of science to support the idea of recovered memories. For a good summary see this site. For some very interesting imaging studies see here.
• Why would so many people invent such a thing? Ask yourselves, would you invent such a horror story about YOUR parents? At the beginning, when my memories started (spontaneously) to surface I didn't want to believe. I desperately went through the thoughts in my head and tried to convince myself that my father's hand didn't in fact go there; if there was any manipulation, it was me trying to forget what I had just remembered. It took me a long time to talk to people who knew me, to reexamine my life and reach a certain peace with the truth. And the truth is that my father sexually abused me.
• The main organization pushing the 'false memory syndrome' idea, used to have sketchy characters such as Dr. Ralph Underwager as members. For more about him, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Underwager and http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html. This organization is spearheaded by people accused of sexual abuse. Don't you think they have other interests?
• This is purely anecdotal, but the people I know who recovered memories of sexual abuse didn't do so after their therapist said to them 'I think you were sexually abused'. Something external triggered them outside of therapy, and they managed to various details. Like one woman who found that her cousin was abused by the same person, who then apologized. And the mother who confirmed to her daughter that yes, the mother's then-boyfriend had touched her when she was a child. When I started remembering, I wasn't even thinking about sexual abuse - I was thinking about my past, yes, but honestly it had enough fucked up things in to justify my emotional problems without the incest.
• Allegations of false accusations are a regular phenomenon when people talk about date rape as well - you always see 'men's rights activists' posting angry responses about the 'epidemic' of false rape accusations. Well, guess what - that's not true either.

There really wasn't enough information in my post for anyone to conclude that my memories were false. I'm actually kind of shocked to see the response, especially on Feministing. It was completely inappropriate, to say the least. It were one thing if the author had raised the subject generaly - but to accuse a specific individual, without any information whatsoever?

Luckily for me, this is the first time anyone has cast doubt on my memories. My brother (to whom I was never close) believed me immediately. So did my friends. Why? Because they knew the context. They knew me, they knew my father, they knew the kind of life I'd lead. There was really no reason to doubt.

I have come to love living in Iowa.  I suppose that before I took up the fight as a feminist, and prior to coming out of the closet and taking up the same-sex marriage fight, I hated it.  I pretty much still hate the weather, but that's besides the point.  This month has been a wonderful month, historic in Iowa! 

April second, I drugged myself up with my sleeping pills.  Not smart, I know.  But the Iowa Supreme Court was to rule the next morning, and I totally knew I wouldn't sleep.  I was terrified that we would loose, or that it would just be too close.  I mean, with the election of Barak Obama and such, we just can't have too much good news around here.  Obviously, I'm an optimist.

The ruling came out at the same time I had to go work, so I had an old friend text me.  At a stop light, I picked up my phone and it said "Welcome home.  Iowa is YOUR state now.  It was a unanimous decision."  My reaction?  The same whenever something big happens.  Nothing but a sigh of relief and a smile.  After fighting so long, it's hard to revel in the fact that you won.  (Here, anyway, there's still a lot of work to do!)  I went inside and hugged my best friend, also a lesbian, and got to deliver the news to someone that she could get married.  Througout the day I knew I helped in something life changing for many Iowans, potentially many people in the US.  (As Iowa goes, so does the nation!)  I was proud to be here. 

Monday was the first day that same-sex couples could apply for their marriage liscenses.  The atmosphere was...I cannot explain it.  There was so much excitement and bliss hanging in the air.  I was a little fearful, knowing the Westboro Baptist Church was planning to show (the God Hates Fags people) but they cancelled at the last second because our police officers would not provide them additional protection. 

I did not get to go to the courthouse to witness the events, but I have known Shelley and Melissa Keeton, the same-sex couple who was first to get married here, for a few years.  They have a beautiful son, and they are expecting a second.  (Which was the reason for the waiver being granted to bypass the waiting period.)  I did go to the Des Moines Social Club for a marriage day celebration, and watched the cake be cut.  I may not be partaking in this ruling at this time, however, you cannot help but just grin with all of these jubilant couples behind you!  These men and women, many of which have been together for a decade or more, all together celebrating equality being granted to same-sex couples in the state. 

Now, as I mentioned, I am not getting married any time soon.  But the really cool thing is that I never bothered to think about a wedding...I mean it wasn't going to happen anyway, so why think about it?  Ok, that's not the cool thing, but I actually do want a wedding, and now I can start dreaming it up.  Don't worry Jessica, my partner, whoever she will be, and I will hyphenate our names.  Or does it really count with lesbians?  Hmmm....at least now I can think about it! 

I'm planning up my next topic, in my love affair with Iowa equality...I hear we have signed a bill to put equal wages of women into the bill of rights and tripled the penalties to companies!  More research to be done before I really go into it.  :)

The Artivist Film Festival ONLY accepts films and videos that address a human rights, social, or political issue, children's issues/advocacy, animal issues/rights, or environmental issues -in essence, "activist" films that raise awareness about a particular issue or topic. Artivist also accepts films of individuals and organizations creating or inspiring positive change around them. Artivist screens shorts, feature-length films, documentaries, narratives, music videos, experimental, and animated film and videos directed by international filmmakers.

Films that have screened at Artivist in the past include "Fast Food Nation" and "Born into Brothels."

Details may be found here.

Are your reproductive rights more secure today than they were 100 days ago? How about the human rights of women around the world? Are we making progress toward universal access to basic sexual and reproductive health services, comprehensive sex education and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment here and abroad?

On the 100th day of the Obama Administration, RH Reality Check evaluates whether the Administration makes the grade on these and many other critical sexual and reproductive health issues. After 8 long years of attacks on sexual and reproductive health and rights here and abroad, it is clear that the Obama Administration intends to - and indeed already has begun - to take women's rights and sexual and reproductive health seriously. Even in the first 100 days, progress has already been made in several critical areas. We recognize that this period represents only one-tenth of the entire first term of the Obama Administration and many changes are in process. For that reason, this scorecard should not be viewed as definitive either in regard to the ultimate outcomes on some of the issues in progress, nor on the issues covered here overall. We also recognize that Congress plays a critical role - whether positive or negative - in changing policy and funding streams. Nonetheless, we feel it is critical to measure whether campaign and Administration rhetoric on these issues is backed up with concrete actions, and how effectively the administration pushes Congress to make good in these same areas.

Hello. First off, I would just like to say I am extremely new the feministing community. So, hi to everyone. I am very excited to be here and be able to voice my opinions.

Okay, so if anyone hasn't really noticed... Facebook has become a political battle ground, especially since the 2008 elections. I think it was great during the elections that the candidates had facebook pages, for in my opinion, it got much of the youth involved and excited... especially about our current president, President Obama.

However, it came to my attention from a note by my friend that some of the youth who dislike Obama, are now turning into infantiles. To me, I am very ashamed that my generation has reduced its knowledge and vocabulary to make this statement about their dislike for Obama:

"O.B.A.M.A = One Big Ass Mistake America! These words where twittered but Glenn Beck, my hero."

Yes, thanks Glenn for simplistic and quite idiotic statement. No, but seriously... I am tired of the name-calling when it comes to Obama's presidency. (Also, if you are going to try to insult our president, at least the proper form of "were"... please). This is what especially angers me about my generation involving some of their dislike for our president. I find it quite funny that when many of the youth didn't agree with Bush's "War on Terrorism" there were many protests and educated vocalization about WHY they didn't agree with Bush's stance on war. This is obviously not the same story for the ignorant individuals who will just sit on their asses and call our current president names. Come on. How fucking old are you?

If someone, especially a younger adult, has a problem with some of Obama's viewpoints and/or laws he has put out there, at least formulate an opinion of why you disagree with him. Do not just simply call him an "asshole" and leave it at that. I think it is important for my generation to start assembling knowledge and facts with their opinion to BE educated on their viewpoints and to show older generations that our vote is not simply a waste.

Another thing that gets me on Facebook are some of the groups that call Obama a "fascist" or, my favorite, "the anti-christ." I honestly have no comment on the anti-christ name-game... it's just rediculous. However, the fascist comment particularly gets me. Simply because many Republicans are sore losers does NOT make Obama a fucking fascist. Get over it. You lost. In fact, Obama's presidency is exactly what makes this country democractic: the system of checks and balances.

So, to all you Obama haters of Facebook... back your opinions up with facts, not ignorance.

by Karina
Web Editor
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund

So perhaps you might have heard about the Good Friday Protest earlier this month at our clinic in St. Paul? Well, today on the blog we’re featuring a video about that protest, which drew nearly a thousand anti-choicers, as well as a large group of supporters who marched in solidarity with Planned Parenthood.

(If the youtube embedding doesn't work, you can watch the video HERE.)

Thanks to all those Planned Parenthood supporters who made this such a positive, productive day!

You can subscribe to our podcast in itunes here or follow us on twitter.

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Yesterday, Senate Republicans prioritized human life over anti-abortion grandstanding and confirmed Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the world totters on the brink of a pandemic, slow-walking the future health secretary begins to look unseemly.

As Dana Goldstein reports in TAPPED :

Sebelius' confirmation has been delayed as her home state Republican legislature has forced her to deal with a series of abortion-related bills. Her latest pro-choice veto inspired a Republican backer of her nomination, Sen. Sam Brownback, to hint that he may change his mind and vote "no" on her appointment.

This week [April 26-May 2] is National Crime Victims’ Rights Week and this year, for the first time, the President has issued an official proclamation recognizing April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.   The increased attention to sexual violence and crime victims is important – and it should cover all survivors of sexual assault, including people who were sexually assaulted while incarcerated.

Sexual assault is devastating in any setting. People healing from such abuse in a prison or jail face extreme challenges. Incarcerated survivors are unable to move about freely, lack privacy, and may be forced to share living quarters with the perpetrator.

Inmates brave enough to report sexual assaults tend to be viewed with skepticism and are often subjected to punishment instead of support. Many corrections officials isolate inmates who have been victimized, claiming it is for their protection. In the worst facilities, prisoner rape survivors are disciplined for participating in sexual activity. Retaliation by other inmates or staff, including further sexual violence, is not uncommon. “When I was assaulted the first time, I was afraid to ‘snitch’ because I was in fear that my life would end,” says survivor Shakria, who did not report her first rape . Shakria is a transgender woman, currently housed in a men’s facility.

As so succinctly stated on a message board I frequent, the Noblegarden annual event in World of Warcraft amounts to, “Click on eggs before anyone else clicks on eggs to win!” Timed and themed analagous to Easter in the real world, the event's mind-numbing at best.

Apparently, the game's developers rightly realized that hours of staring at one spot on your computer's monitor and clicking blue orbs isn't appealing enough for its public. Their solution: Let's introduce sexism! Hey, it makes all other media content popular, and no women play online games anyway, right?

Here's a little background for those who aren't familiar with the game. Late last year, taking a cue from the Xbox Live service, Blizzard introduced the 'achievements' system. Perform a novel, difficult or repetitive action in the game, and you get 10 achievement points, which at this time, are used for nothing. Several, after achieving them, give you “cosmetic” items, such as clothing, that don't affect gameplay. One of the few exceptions to the gameplay rule, out of the more than 750 achievements, grants the fastest mount in the game.

Recently, Noblegarden (formerly a day-long event) was extended to a week, and numerous achievements related to it were added to the game. Most are pretty banal (eat 100 chocolates!), a few are cute (find a rabbit a suitable mating companion,) and one is unconscionable: Shake Your Bunny-Maker.

How this works: In the course of participating in Noblegarden, the player will receive an item that will cause bunny ears to sprout from the head of any one player the character chooses that's in close proximity to them. The achievement is gained by doing this to female characters only of all playable races. Combined with the title of the achievement, it's a pretty unsubtle reference to Playboy. As an additional attempt to be cute, a side requirement is that the character be at least 18th level. (18th level = 18 years old. Get it? Hilarious!)

Now, the player being “bunnied,” as it were, doesn't have a choice in the matter. There's no way to prevent having these bunny ears pop onto your head until after the action's already been performed. I've personally witnessed a female real-life player be made very uncomfortable by the notion, and there's a very real scenario that some female players are avoiding social spaces, which are the entire point of playing these types of online games. 

Abortion was made illegal in all cases in the Dominican Republic last week.

Well I am Dominican and I have something to say about all this. I wrote to Feministing about this a few days ago. I live in the country and watched with horror as most legislators argued that they 'took the Church´s position' on this on live TV.

First of all, I think it is an outrage that this piece of legislation was passed on first lecture, I believe in a woman's right to choose particularly because I live in a country where 100,000 women risk their lives every year to get the procedure done, I know all the methods, from teas to jeans water to instruments to places where to go. Some of my friends have had illegal abortions but there are deeper issues at hand when you talk about illegal.

I have some money, or better said, my family has some money so if I, my sister's or my friends need to have an illegal abortion we know of places that are relatively safe and clean. We also can take pills or provoque the abortion ourselves and then go to a gyno that is accepted by our health insurance and problem solve. Or we can just fly ourselves to Miami or Cuba where is perfectly legal.

The women that are affected are not the rich ones or the well off. The scary thing is that these pregnancies are forced, sometimes literally, on women who are poor and whose child would make them even more so. Sometimes women as young as 12 and 11 years old, repeatelly raped by their relatives or young women in college or rural parts of the country.

Abortion has always been illegal in the country. Always, but now they have taken this one step further and add the 'since the moment of conception' part. Some legislators in the same party of Pres. Fernandez had proposed the use of the words 'in general' so that women who are raped, victims of incest and whose health is at risk could end the pregnancy but the Cardinal, a real piece of work who calls pro-choicers and feminist 'butchers and carnivors and murderers', a man whose job is to mind everything political and every decision made in the country, lost all of his shit and started demonazing the people who supported this special cases abortions. So two of of the tree mayority parties started making speeches in congress that usually began with: 'As a catholic...', 'I am a christian...' or the always useful 'God said very specifically...'

There where legislators, about 32 that did no wanted this to happen. The society of ob-gyn protested against this, dominican feminist groups to but they would be call ignorants or murderers or worse yet, in national masses the priests would pray for them to convert in their positions because they just didnt know what they where doing.

Women and young women in the country and also men have to be pushed and quizz to get their real positions. The country if polled would say that they are against abortion but if you ask about their daughters being raped, their wives life's being threaten or incest, they would reconsider. I know that because I have asked. Some wont give shit but most understand if you tell them that what the woman feels and thinks about a pregnancy, a forced one, is important.

Some people in other sites have look at President Fernandez, the man who proposed the change in the legistation, and blamed him and curse him, people in the international community because they understand that we as a society are high past the time when a woman had to die helpleslly because of a pregnancy.

Last night, for various reasons, I found it difficult to get to sleep. And, in the way that can happen from time to time, I remembered a conversation I had at home one evening with my brothers. I had said to them that I was keeping my name upon my getting marrried next year. Why would I do that, they asked? Because I was a Feminist, I explained. Well, slap me silly if they didn’t wonder why.

A feminist! Why on earth do I consider myself a feminist? Surely we wimmin all enjoy a life of equality and delight, now that legislative rights have been accorded to us. What on earth would I have to campaign about? What was there to complain about, now that us lucky ladies were permitted to speak, etc?

I was browsing cnn.com for daily news when I ran across a lifestyle article with a title immediately put my "single by choice" hackles up: "Why some single women just need to shut up ."

Written by a woman, let me point out, and a non-single one (she alludes to an SO--and I will use the gender-neutral term even though the author clearly is speaking only to heterosexual women, here).  So much sisterhood goin' on in here, telling other women that they shouldn't voice their thoughts and feelings because * gasp * someone might find them annoying!

First, woo hoo I can finally post!

After laughing at the fireman joke from the Miss March Trailer (they can't turn around)and Netflix telling me I should watch the Whitest Kids U'Know. I watched the first Season, and then the second and now the third. I didn't see Miss March so I can't say anything about that. Here is my problem, often the five guys, Trevor, Sam, Zach, Darren, and Timmy, make jokes about rape, domestic violence and how stupid and shallow women are. I think I can take a joke, I work with all men and I went to school with almost all men so I can take and I can dish but there just seems to be a very unapologetic sharp edge to the humor that rubs me the wrong way. I keep watching because there are also some seriously funny parts (moon bears!).

Today is Equal Pay Day in the U.S., which marks the point in 2009 when the average woman’s wages finally catch up with those paid to the average man in 2008.

My first job was as a hostess at a steakhouse in my hometown — the kind with a giant all-you-can-eat salad-and-baked-potato bar and a bestselling Tuesday night half-priced-prime-rib special. I made $4.75 per hour, which I thought was excellent, since at that time the minimum wage in Virginia was $4.25. I thought that, anyway, until I found out that the busboys at my restaurant made $5.25 an hour — plus, they got tips.

The busboys were all male. The hostesses were all female. Both of us spent our shifts running around trying to accommodate temperamental customers and even more temperamental managers. But they got paid more than I did.

Was that fair? I have no idea. Maybe the fair market rate for steakhouse busboys in Roanoke, Virginia, in 1995 was indeed higher than that for hostesses.

I recently stumbled upon feministing.com's response to Nikita Buyanov's female-oriented laptop concepts. The concepts are all rather ridiculous and do very little to address the technology needs of women. Actually, most technology products geared at women do very little to address their technology needs.

Many times female consumers are treated as a niche market- don't get me started on how unwise this is, considering they constitute 50% of the market and influence 80% of consumer electronic purchases- and little thought is put into the products designed for them.

Clearly, the "shrink it and pink it" method for designing consumer electronics for women does not suffice. What features and characteristics would actually aid women in their technology needs? What do you women use your laptop for and what needs to be improved?

(I'm reposting this from my own blog. Here is the original post.)

I was reading PostSecret and one of the postcards really struck me. As I read it, I realized that it was my secret, something that has been at the back of my mind, always lurking and nagging, for a very long time now.

I was molested once, when I was 12. I didn't tell anyone until I was a bit older -- just before turning 17 actually. By that point, it was too late. The person who should have believed me didn't. I've learned to live with what happened, and draw strength and wisdom from it. Maybe one day I'll feel strong enough to write about it in a public forum. For now, I want to discuss something else.

I'm not particularly proud to admit that I visit Sparknotes occasionally (and would like to blame the poor quality of some college courses for inspiring me to do so).  In any case, imagine my suprise when today, on the front page of this website aimed at high school (and yes, college) students I see: "Confused? The gender test will help you sort it out."

Yesterday I went to see Let the Right One In. I thought it was going to be a film about vampires but actually, the whole super-natural thing was kind of incidental. What the story was really about was the relationship between a 12-year-old boy who gets bullied to shit in school, and a lonely girl who just happens to be a vampire.

The story is incredibly moving. The little girl doesn’t want to be a vampire. A devoted grandfather figure takes care of her in a poverty-stricken flat and makes the killings for her. In one scene where she is forced to kill her own victim, she ends up crying over the body in the snow, blood dripping from her mouth and tears falling from her eyes. The murdering vampire-ess is, in fact, the biggest victim in the film.

There have been past posts on feminist web-comics and feminst comic books.  I just wanted to add one more comic that I don't remember seeing on this:

DAR: A Super Girly Top Secret Comic Diary is a (NSFW) webcomic about the life of the artist, Erika Moen.  It typically focuses on her identity of herself, gender, and sexuality.  She started it in college in 2004, during which she identified as lesbian.  She writes about her relationships and heartbreak s as well as about her life in general .  Additionally, she writes about her family's feelings about her sexuality.  Then, after she gets out of college she meets a man who she *really really* likes.  This confuses her, and she has a few comics about that too.  It further goes into her relationship with him, and anything more would be a spoiler.

(This and this are two of my favorites. It's really not safe for work. There's a penis in it.)

I just finished reading an amazing book, and I'd like to plug it here, since it deals with issues of control over female bodies, tied to sexuality and multi-racial couples. I heard about this book only because I heard a lecture by the author a few years ago.

In Ontario (Canada) there was a law called "The Female Refuges Act". Under this law, girls and women between the ages of 15 and 35 could be deemed incorrigible by their parents or husband, and sentenced to a term in a house for wayward girls, mental hospital or prison. Irregardless of where they were originally sent, most women charged under this act ended up in the Mercer Reformatory in Toronto.

cross-posted at Politicoholic

A friend of mine just tweeted: “Susan Boyle gets a makeover. At last.” And then linked to this article . It’s a piece of crap, for many reasons. But I want this to be a short post with one main point, so I’m only going to highlight the most important thing. The article talks about how Susan Boyle has now died her hair, and got new, supposedly more fashionable, clothes.

“Susan Boyle, the frumpy “Britain’s Got Talent” sensation, has had a makeover. Boyle, 47, dyed her tangled gray hair a rich brown, and ditched her “drab dresses” for more fashionable attire. It’s heartwarming to see that having the opportunity to share her “beautiful voice” with millions has given Boyle new enthusiasm for life.” [emphasis mine]

When exactly did changing your looks to conform more to society’s standards of beauty become the same as a “new enthusiasm for life”? I’m not faulting Susan Boyle if she felt pressure to change her looks. Lord knows no one can talk about her WITHOUT talking about her looks. But I am faulting society for basing a woman’s worth, or at least part of it, on her looks. It doesn’t matter, apparently, how talented you are, unless you at least somewhat fit the description of what society thinks a woman should look like. No one is talking about Susan Boyle’s voice without simultaneously  talking about her looks and how “frumpy” or “drab” she is. It’s sending the message that her talent isn’t worth anything unless she were better looking.

I know I’m going to get at least a couple comments saying, but it’s not bad to be more attractive if she wanted to update her look. No, it’s not. But it is bad that everyone is judging Susan Boyle - and her worth - based in part on her looks, rather than JUST on her talent. Her looks shouldn’t matter, people.

Jian Ghomeshi, host of the national show Q on CBC radio, talked to Susie Orbach yesterday about our relationships with our bodies, and how in the years since her book 'Fat is a Feminist Issue,' things have gotten worse in terms of our body image, rather than better.

You can download a podcast and listen in here.

At first glance, I was outraged by this ruling on the front page of today's Globe and Mail: A judge has ordered a mother to pump breastmilk  for her child so the father can have more access to the child.

However, reading the article, the child in question is over two years old, and the mother has claimed that, since she was still nursing, the father could not claim joint custody of the child. (It's an interesting case; the parents only had a brief relationship, and the father is trying to be positively involved in the child's life). The judge rules that the child will benefit more from developing a relationship with her father, which will compensate for any loss in having to drink pumped breast milk. 

I'm rather inclined to agree (due to the age of the child and the reasonableness of the arrangement outlined in the article), but I was interested in hearing what the community here thinks. Do you agree or disagree with the judge's ruling in this situation? If the mother's view is breast is best, should she be able to set the schedule for weaning, regardless of the father? Or should there be some set time for reasonable weaning to allow for joint custody arrangements? 

Hey, Feministing!

I'm a longtime follower of Feministing, but this is my first time posting to the community. I would like to let you know I have started a little blog of my own called "I'm Not a Feminist, but..."

As a young, feminist, Midwestern, queer activist I wanted to share my perspective of what it was like to live in the generation of "I'm Not a Feminist, but..."

So, please stop by my blog and let me know what you think!

Thanks,

Rachel Gadd-Nelson

The bumbling man and/or dad---if you've watched a sitcom chances are you know him.  He almost always does something wrong during any given episode; his most common offenses include lying, forgetting, breaking, ruining dinner, or saying the wrong thing.  The wife or woman is often smart as a tack, well-balanced and all-knowing.  She comes through the door with kids in tow and groceries in hand to find that "dad" couldn't even handle the simple task of putting the lasagna in the oven to heat up (the stupid male let it sit out on the counter, fed it to the dog, used it as a chair cushion---the more absurdly moronic the better).  He is chided, belittled, and given a kiss---she still loves her husband even if he is a stupid man.

Now of course, I'm generalizing.  There are sitcoms out there where the man isn't a complete moron, or the wife is a bit dumb as well.  But I see a disturbing proclivity of men who simply cannot handle a task if it doesn't involve sports or drinking.  This is a direct reciprocal of the stereotype that women can't handle anything that is outside of fashion or caring for the home.  The airhead wife has been replaced by the bumbling dad.  And the problem isn't restricted to the realm of sitcoms.

I'm bi and my Facebook lists both men and women in my "interested in" section. I'm also a member of bisexual and GLBT rights groups. It should come as no surprise that queer site ads show up on the site. But it's always lesbian, never bisexual. I get "Need a Gay Girlfriend?" and "Lesbian Dating" along with gay pride products. I never get bisexual dating ads or bi pride products. The SpeedDate app only allows you to see matches for one sex, not both.

But to be fair this may not be entirely Facebook's fault. Maybe no bisexual dating sites pay for ad space. I'm not sure if the SpeedDate app was developed by Facebook. If it wasn't then the blame lays on the developer.

Holy Cheez-Its!!

So I was randomly flipping through my suitemate's issue of Vogue when I noticed that I was actually looking at an abnormally continuous flow of advertisements. I had gone a good ways into the magazine before even reaching the table of contents on page 110 . Ya...that was a fifth of the magazine - there were 510 pages total!! This is probably not shocking to you guys, but for someone who made the conscious decision to stop reading fashion/beauty magazines at the age of thirteen, I couldn't believe my eyes. After that, I had to go through ten, fifteen pages of make-up and clothing advertisements before encountering a single page of text. They had crammed a few pages of article continuations at the back of the magazine, and that was about it.

About a year ago I was taking an English class that involved reading a story called "The Yellow Wallpaper." For those of you who aren't familiar with the story, it's about a Victorian woman, Jane who has a nervous break down just after having a baby, which involves pealing off all of the yellow wallpaper from her walls. This is an early piece of feminist literature, as the breakdown she suffers occurs due to the way her husband locks her up in a single room. During the class discussion of this book feminism came up (obviously). And one man in the class (who had proved he was a misogynist previously) brought up a point: because Jane didn't want to be married, that made her a lesbian. This is clearly ridiculous and the professor made this clear. The man in the class went on to (intelligently) point out that the character's name is Jane and the movie character G.I. Jane was a lesbian, so Jane must equal lesbian. Very well thought out, I know.

There has been a lot of great dialogue recently on Feministing about femmes and female gender expression. It raised a few questions for me, and I truly value the thoughts of feministers, so please try to answer if you can.

Firstly, I'm a ciswoman. My experience is that I enjoy being a woman, and that I want to communicate my enthusiasm and pride about it. However, the usual forms of female gender expression--heels, makeup, fashion, long hair--just don't sit well with me. I consider myself essentially a femme, but can't there be another way of expressing it?

Ok, that was inexcusably lame, but this isn't. It's naked Margaret Cho!

http://punchlinemagazine.com/blog/2009/04/margaret-cho-does-nude-interview/

I love that she gives a shoutout to Liz Phair, too, one of my other all-time "would take barrage of bullets for" fabulous femmes.

Do this mean that Exile in Guyville and Notorious C.H.O. sync up, dark side of the rainbow-style? One can only hope.

On Wednesday, April 29th at 8pm, Jessica Valenti will be speaking about her experience and work involved in co-editing Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World without Rape. The event will take place at Held Auditorium (304 Barnard Hall) on the Barnard College Campus.

This event is free and open to the public. Q&A session following the talk. Questions or concerns may be directed to Anna Tekippe at art2110@columbia.edu.

Tomorrow, the Senate plans to hold a debate on confirming Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of health and human services. Unless we make our voices heard loud and clear, right now, anti-choice senators may succeed in blocking her confirmation.  Tell your senators to confirm Gov. Sebelius as secretary of health and human services.

Anti-choice activists have been pressuring their allies in the Senate to block Gov. Sebelius' confirmation — and those allies are playing along. They've already managed to postpone the vote to confirm her, and now they hope to stop her altogether.

Gov. Sebelius is a leading health policy expert, a popular governor, and a strong advocate for increased health care access. But none of that matters to the radical groups that have decided to protest her nomination.  They are dead set on blocking any nominee with a history of supporting access to full reproductive health care services.

After eight long years of attacks on women's health care and with more and more families left uninsured, we face a true crisis.  Countless women and their families are struggling to afford quality health care during these difficult times, and we can't afford to let anti-choice extremists use their influence in the Senate to block confirmation of Gov. Sebelius. Please stand with me now in urging your senators to vote for confirmation.

Thank you so much for your quick response — by speaking up now, you're helping us move toward real health care reform. 

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Action Fund

cross-posted from Paradoxes and Paradigms

I admit it freely, I am all too guilty of being a Top Model fan. Beyond that, I'm all too guilty of being a Tyra Banks lover. And beyond that, I'm ALL too guilty of spending weekday mornings (when I can) watching the Tyra Show.

Many remember Tyra's personal act of beauty analysis a few years ago, when she spent a day walking around in a fat suit and prosthetics, experiencing first-hand the oppression of large women. After this endeavor, Tyra was criticized greatly. I compare these criticisms to those I've heard from skeptics of my college's Homelessness Awareness Week. Throughout this week, students sleep in cardboard boxes outside of the campus' chapel. They cannot shower unless a shower is offered to them, they cannot eat unless food is given to them, and they may not ask for anything from anyone. But at the end of this week, the students shower, eat big plates of food, and sleep in their heated dorms. They cannot fully experience this oppression or truly understand it when they know they will go back to their privilege when it's all over. Critics believe this to also be true of Tyra's experience. But can we not give credit where credit is due? These students, and in that situation Tyra, have their hearts open to attempt to understand. They crave a spiritual communion with their oppressed brothers and sisters and others, and want to experience what they do, if not only for a short period of time.

I am, at this very moment, watching a re-run of "Celebrity Poker Showdown" on Bravo. The celebrity contestants are currently Sarah Silverman, Matthew Perry, and Michael Vartan.

Not only is Sarah Silverman the only self-identified woman on the show (even the hosts, commentators, and dealer are all men!),  but Bravo has displayed another bit of misogyny, sexism, or however you choose to classify it: when Silverman lost, she entered the losers' lounge and said "I hate my thighs, but I love my vagina." The only problem with this statement is that it was edited so that "vagina" was bleeped out (or rather, silenced).

What's the deal, Bravo? Do you have a problem with vaginas?

The Baltimore Choice Avengers (formally known as the C.R.A.B., Communities Resisting Abortion and Birth Control Bans) invites you to a pro-choice happy hour at The Windup Space. Enjoy the company of like-minded activists while we discuss important pro-choice issues affecting your community.

Happy hour specials available until 8pm! FYI: The Windup Space does not serve food, but allows customers to bring in food, so feel free to purchase dinner from a nearby restaurant or pack a snack.

*Originally posted on Amplify*

A few weeks ago I married my sweetheart in a beautiful outdoor civil ceremony. We've been together for years and have been talking about marriage for just as long: did we want to be married? Is it fair to enter into "opposite marriage" when same-sex couples in most states can't? How do we throw a fun party while not getting sucked into the draining wedding industrial complex? What does marriage entail for couples' finances? Family obligations? Names?

Leading up to the ceremony, my honey and I spend lots of time sorting out future marriage matters, amongst which was a joint decision to each retain our own names. And while we had worked it out for ourselves, but the name issue continues to be, well, an issue. During what was otherwise a very happy time leading up to the ceremony, I found myself getting a little frustrated at the volume of lovely cards addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. HisFirstName HisLastName." Why would getting married erase any trace of me being Meghan Rapp? Did I take an invisible pill when I said "I do"?

This hasn't just come from our (conservative, traditional) family members. While most friends asked us before the nuptials what we intended to do--something I think is good in it acknowledges that, yes!, we have options!-- I've been a little surprised by progressive friends who asked post-ceremony, "So, what is your new last name?" Um, what? It's everywhere...My insurance representative did the same thing when I called to add my sweetie to my account. I responded, "It's the same as my old last name." This confused her greatly. She assumed that meant that his last name is also Rapp (what are the odds?) and that by changing it to his I was keeping it the same. Again, what??

Ultimately, I couldn't visualize living life under a different moniker, and I know I made the right choice. Mr. AFY_Meghan recognized that he also didn't want to change his name, and, as he explained to his parents, wouldn't ask anyone to do something he wasn't willing to do. Marriage has raised some very interesting questions about identity for me, especially when I think about it through a feminist lens. Both of us strongly identify with our surnames -- is it fair to have one person's sense of identity trump another person's? I've had articles and other work published under Meghan Rapp - could I continue building a career on a different name? As a feminist, could I be happy becoming a "Mrs. Someone Else"? Why, as a woman, am I expected to be absorbed into a man's identity? If we have children, why is the automatic assumption in our society that they will get his last name? He's an only child, but I'm one of 4 daughters...don't we both have a stake in "continuing our line"?

I'm curious about what others have decided to do in relation to marriage and naming, and why they made that choice (and I recognize that it is indeed a deeply personal decision). Have you ever thought about what you'd do with your name if you got married? Would you have a preference for your spouse?

Or, if you are married, how did you reach your decision about your name? If you made a non-traditional name choice, what did you say or do to let people know?

(crossposted at Amplify )

When the National Abstinence Education Association gathered on Capitol Hill last month for their annual lobby day , the sense of fear in the room was palpable. Independent studies had definitively shown that abstinence-only programs are a failure , and their many millions of federal tax dollars were in serious jeopardy.

Faced with these facts, the NAEA and its allies discussed a new strategy to continue its federal funding stream. Instead of abandoning their demonization of condoms and adherence to social conservative ideological over sound science, they would simply rebrand themselves as curriculum that “wasn’t just about abstinence”, but was all about “holistic approaches” to “healthy lifestyle choices”.

In other words, if they just put a new wrapper on their old product, they might fool the federal government into continuing to give them millions of dollars.

Earlier this month in Chattanooga, TN, we may have seen the first clear sign that this rebranding has begun.

WhyKnow, one of the most well-known and well-funded abstinence-only programs in the country, held a large public ceremony to celebrate their sudden change of name . With the assistance of the PR company Maycreate Idea Group, WhyKnow is now known as OnPoint, and they have “broadened its focus and taken on a whole new look”.

Why the big change? Well, read this and see if it sounds familiar:

As to the new direction for the group, in the tech and media-driven world of teenagers, smart decision-making means making smart choices. It’s all about providing teens with the tools and skills needed to successfully navigate life.

“The idea ,” said Lesley Scearce, executive director of OnPoint, “is to get teens involved in new, positive directions that lead to a healthier, more fulfilling life. Without a re-naming, re-branding and re-positioning, this new direction wouldn’t have been possible. And Maycreate Idea Group was the creative force behind it all. ”

The event was highlighted with a look at the new name, logo and promotional materials created by Maycreate. The result is new graphics, new colors, a new message and a new tag line—“Direction for life.”

Yes, instead of touting abstinence, it is all about teaching “healthy decision-making skills”. Same garbage, different packaging.

And here is the “garbage”, so to speak, within WhyKnow’s curriculum, according to SEICUS :

Like many other abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, Why kNOw? offers limited information about important topics in human sexuality such as puberty, anatomy, and human reproduction, and no information about sexual orientation or gender identity. Why kNOw? does contain some detailed information about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV/AIDS, however, much of this information is outdated, inaccurate, and misleading. In addition, the curriculum presents information about condoms which is focused on exaggerated failure rates, and contains almost no information about other forms of contraception.

Instead, Why kNOw? relies on negative messages, distorts information, and presents biased views on gender, marriage, family structure, sexual orientation, and pregnancy options. In addition, Why kNOw? teaches a “traditionalism” that is patently religious in nature, and even goes so far as to teach Bible stories as history. These biased and inaccurate messages are clearly out of touch with the health needs of America 's youth.

The reason that this rebranding matters so much is that WhyKnow was not just one large abstinence-only program. It is one of the largest providers of abstinence-only curricula to public schools all over the country. As WhyKnow rebrands itself and its curricula, it will provide abstinence-only programs all over the country the opportunity to rebrand themselves as something other than the social conservative junk-science peddlers that they are.

This is why it is so important that we let our government officials know about this rebranding rouse of abstinence-only organizations. President Obama is currently finalizing his 2010 budget, and he will decide whether we continue to fund these programs that have already milked $1.5 billion from our federal government, with nothing to show for it. We must not let Obama and Congress fall for this silly rebranding scheme.

Please send President Obama this letter urging him to zero out abstinence-only programs.

And let your Congressperson know that whatever Obama ultimately decides on, we can’t afford to continue funding these programs.

As an art student, I'm well aware of the typical art school stereotypes and clichés. One of the widely known archetypes, unfortunately, is the "unfunny feminist." While I consider myself a rather "funny feminist", I'm sure several of my peers in my Research class would roll their eyes and disagree.

My Research class is about incorporating the "funny" into our projects. For our last assignment, we had to create three variations on a project and display them for critique. However, a particular piece happened to irk me a little bit as a female. One student hung up a drawing of a faceless woman, legs over her shoulders, with... prepare yourselves... a 25 cent coinslot for a vagina.

I uncomfortably spoke up and asked if anyone else in the room felt uneasy about it. Now, first of all, my Research professor is one of those guys with the mantra: "If it's not offensive, it's a failure", which I suppose is a good motto in some cases. But, he applied it to this case as well.

"Kimberly," he said, after I made my somewhat weak statement, "do you think he [the artist] thinks that a woman's vagina is a coinslot?"

I shook my head, and needless to say the rest of the class snickered in unison. Yet, now that I look back on it, I can't help but ask myself, "Was I just being an unfunny feminist? By being offended, was I contributing to the 'greatness' of this student's piece? Are we already at that point in history where we can laugh at subtly sexist art as if it were an old, ridiculous PSA from the 1950's? Am I on crazy pills?"

The thing is, I am still unsure of whether or not this student was aware of what he made and what he was putting out there. However, knowing him, I kind of doubt he was thinking on a number of levels. I know it was only a simple assignment. So was it worth it to speak up when I felt uncomfortable by a silly little line drawing made by some horny 19 year-old boy?

Whatever the right thing to do was, I can feel at ease knowing that I'm speaking out, no matter how uncomfortably, when something just doesn't seem quite right. I may be the "unfunny feminist" cliché of my class, but, hell, I at least I'm a Feminist!

I’m one of those women who only in my 30s started recovering memories of my father sexually abusing me.  This discovery caused both a terrible upheaval in my life and a new found hope.

I have a terrible relationship with my family and a disaster of a romantic life.  But I have managed to make some friends: the kind I can call at 3 A.M., who would find the time to talk even after their twins were born, who will lend me money if I need to.  We challenge each other and made each other laugh.

My friends are all wonderful people with a strong sense of justice.  They could easily be any of the posters here.  None of them, however, are abuse survivors and perhaps that’s where the problem lies.

But most of my friendships have experienced strains once I started talking of my past.  So here are some things I want to say:

This is just gross. Somebody decided it would be amusing to point out that celebrities might have yellow teeth, and (gasp!) hair on their bodies!

Even worse is the fact that they zoom into parts of their bodies not normally looked at in order to point out the "problems." I don't even need to go into the reasons why shaming people, especially women, about their friggin' body hair is messed up.

Feel free to leave a comment of disapproval.

Hi everyone, I've been a fan of feministing for awhile now, and am a senior at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee finishing up my last semester here. I'm doing a research paper for my Senior Seminar class on feministing.com and focusing on body images. I was wondering if you guys could help me out and just give me your thoughts on these two questions that I've posted here. I'd really appreciate it...

1. How does talking about body images on feministing.com help you in your off-line life? Please give examples if you have any..

2. Do you feel that being a feminist helps you have a better understanding of body images and not buying into the stereotypes of ideal body types that the media tells us? Please Explain.

Again, thanks for your help!

First and foremost , I would like to introduce myself. Well, sort of... I have been a long time lurker. Finally got up the nerve to post my own blog and voice my opinions , so to speak. Anyway, I have written recently about an article on newsweek.com about the Economic Theory of the Lipstick Index. (This is also on http://www.wantonintentions.blogspot.com)

Jessica Bennet of Newsweek knocks this one out of the park.

In an online editorial Ms. Bennett decries the "Lipstick Index", an economic theory the CEO of Este Lauder created, which essentially states:

When the economy is crap, we can't afford to buy the latest "it" bag or
expensive pair of "Sex and the City"-inspired Manolos. So, to make our poor
little shopping-obsessed selves feel better, we spend on things that make us
feel pretty: colorful tubes of lipstick

Upon learning of this enormously popular term/theory a couple years ago, I was really pissed. This is clearly a huge scheme by Este Lauder to drive publicity for their products (they own several other makeup brands such as grocery store cosmetic L'Oreal)-and it's at a woman's expense. Sadly, since the phrase was coined, 8-ish years ago, it has stuck and become the norm for TV analysts/radio personalities to explain away the uptick in sales of a specific product when the market is otherwise on a downward spiral.

Ms. Bennett agrees:

So yes, I buy makeup. And so do my girlfriends. But what irks me about the so-called Lipstick Index is how everybody feels the need to talk about it, constantly. Story after story tells of frivolous women turning to frivolous items--whether it's lipstick or foundation or Botox or whatever--to cheer themselves up when times get tough. All because one makeup executive once told us so eight years ago--probably in a brilliant marketing scheme to sell more of his own product.

Thankfully, this theory is actually turning out to be false:

James' firm recently surveyed some 2,000 Americans about how the recession is affecting their values, and found that--of all the things people are scrimping on--"looking good" was the thing they were cutting back on the most, its importance down by 10 percentage points from 2007

So let's get the word out, ok??? Thanks people!

Sophia

So, I don't know if this is the place for this post, but I feel that I need to write it, as it will make me feel better. Here it goes...

I have never been what the patriarchy would consider beautiful, or even pretty. I'm tall and white, but I'm not thin, my hair's not blonde, my face is assymetrical, and I'm quite introverted (yes, extroversion is a big part of patriarchal beauty...because, hey, if you're not the life of the party what are you worth?). But I've always been the smart funny girl; thus, (some) people like to be around me. And these are two things that I consider to be attributes, as they're something I look for in people (romantically or otherwise). However, it has never given me much luck in love, because boys just want to be friends with me. Don't get me wrong, I've gone out with a few guys but these have never worked out, which hasn't been a bad thing thus far. Recently though, I met someone who I thought was perfect for me.

We started hanging out and we really connected. He's smart, funny, and basically everything I've wanted in a partner. And things seemed to be going well. Last night, however, he told me that he didn't like me for more than a friend, esentially because I'm not pretty enough. This was shocking to me, because just before he told me that he gave me a list of things he liked about me...I didn't think he was that shallow. But, I guess he is.

Any and all qualms with cooking shows aside, I find the Food Network to be surprisingly healthy when it comes to food and the relationships that the women on the network have with their bodies. Although it is mostly women doing traditional women's work (cooking), many of them also have syndicated talk shows, cooking books...they all run their own businesses and make independent decisions every day of their lives.

Even watching Paula Deen makes me happy sometimes (as long as I don't make her food - I'd have type 2 diabetes by now if I did).  She eats really unhealthy food, but she has fun with it.  So many women have such complex relationships with their bodies and food that can lead to eating disorders and that ilk.

None of the women on the Food Network, however, are ridiculously stick-thin (they have average, healthy bodies), and in a culture that mostly values women for their looks, the women on the Food Network pride themselves on the value of what they DO rather than how they look.

It's the reason cooking shows are the only thing on TV (besides Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, of course), I really bother watching.

I've been reading a lot about Jessica Valenti's wedding lately: there have been articles on Jezebel, in The Guardian, and of course, on Feministing itself. It's not that I have any ill will towards Jessica -- quite the contrary, I really admire her -- but the fact that one of the most public feminist figures of my generation is getting married just makes me feel so . . . well, disappointed and downhearted. To me, it seems like a confirmation that women really can't escape the clutches -- weakening though they may be -- of patriarchy in our society.

I have no problems with long-term partnership or with monogamy -- I think both these things are wonderful. But both the words "marriage" and "wife" make me absolutely cringe, especially when I think about them in reference to myself. I guess I really struggle to understand why any feminist would want to participate in an institution defined by a history of sexism, that for years has been a method of maintaining and perpetuating male hegemony. Furthermore, I think that sexism and inequality largely dominates marriage today -- it seems to me that truly equitable marriages are few and far between, and even if you establish equality within your relationship it can still be difficult to have that equality recognized or legitimized by the world around you. I know there are many feminists who say that they choose not to define marriage by its sexism, but is that really possible? Can we choose to simply ignore the aspects of marriage that we, as feminists, don't agree with? I would like to think so, but I have a really hard time believing that this is true or finding any way of rationalizing marriage to myself.

So I'm asking you, feminist readers and commenters: what redeems marriage and how can we, as feminists, feel okay about participating in this institution? Furthermore, why marriage? Why not partnership? What is it about marriage, in particular, that you feel drawn to, or unwilling to give up? Why are we so intent on redefining marriage -- why not create an alternative to marriage that is free from all the many, many problems that we, as feminists, must necessarily have with the institution.

To avoid any possible misinterpretation of my tone, I think I should add a caveat: I am genuinely interested in the answers to the above questions. The fact that feminists whom I respect and admire (e.g. Jessica) choose to marry has caused me to want to re-examine my own opinions of marriage, and what better place to entertain smart, interesting rebuttals to my argument than on Feministing? Also, I don't mean for this to be personally about Jessica, not at all: I'm asking about you and your personal experiences, or just thoughts about feminist marriage in the abstract. 

In the past week, I've been following the "Craigslist Killer" story with great interest. For those who may not have heard the story, 23-year-old medical student Philip Markoff is under arrest, charged with the murder of 26-year-old masseuse Julissa Brisman, whom he met via the Internet service. In addition, Markoff has also been charged with the robbery of another sex worker in Rhode Island.

Despite around-the-clock coverage of the story, it appears the military has once again gotten it all wrong. Not only are the articles written about this story - which should serve as a chance to have an open dialogue about violence against women - written with sexist slants, writers also fail to examine the story through feminist lens. Of course, I am not asking that every article be a feminist discourse, but now and then, it'd be nice to see stories written that will positively affect women's lives.

For starter - I am extremely offended that in this story, Brisman is described as a "Bronx-beauty." It seems, rather than focusing on the fact that a human being is dead as a result of, no doubt, violence against women, the media is focusing on Brisman's looks.

But it just isn't Brisman who is being viewed by the media based on looks. Markoff's fiance, Megan McAllister, too, is being described by reporters as a "love-struck bombshell," who "stands by her man," in supporting him through the ordeal. Again, what does McAllister's looks have to do with possible Stockholm Syndrome or that fact that millions of women are currently in relationships with violent men?

this took me from zen to harpy in no time flat.

Approaching my Junior year in college, I am yearning to read more feminist literature.  I have taken quite a few classes that have let me sample the subject, but I would like to compile a list of books to read this summer.  And I thought, where better to ask for help?

Here's what I'm looking for:

1.  A variety- not just fiction, not just theory, a nice mixture of everything.  So I can switch it up now and again.

2.  Diverse authors- I want lots of women perspectives, the classic white woman movement, the bell hooks, the lesbian perspective, the third wave thinker, EVERYTHING!  Well, at least a little bit of everything.

3.  A good read-  Remember, this is summer reading, and as much as I enjoy Judith Butler, I just don't think I could focus with so much sun in my eyes.

So please, suggestions, comments, whatever!  I want to further my feminist education this summer.  Also, if you have other media suggestions, such as movies, I'd welcome that too.  If people are interested, I'll compile suggestions into a useable list for every eager young feminist like me out there.

So I, being the feminism-craving dork that I am, decided to type 'feminism' into Google for fun. The first result was Wikipedia's entry , the little description under the title reading "Feminism is the belief that women should have political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights equal to those of men." That made me stop and think for a bit, because I feel like that's such a confining definition to the term; it's a very one-dimensional take to a concept that is so complex. I mean yeah, we want gender equality, but I think there is so much more to feminism than just matching up to our male counterparts.

For me, 'feminism' has been closer to bell hooks' definition: "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." It's not just looking at things from a woman/man dichotomy, but examining hegemony, intersectional analyses, and so much more. Wikipedia is by no means the most reliable source one can look to, but it sucks many people will be given a limited impression of feminism because of it.

I was wondering what others thought of the No Comment page in the last issue of Ms (spring 2009).  They are encouraging readers to protest a Calvin Klein ad for jeans that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine.  I'm not sure what's offensive about the ad, so I wondered if there was something more that I don't know about.

The ad shows an attractive young woman with three young hunks.  Two of the guys are making out with her and the third is lying on the floor looking spent.  There's nothing that looks coercive or violent in the picture.  They all look quite happy.  Am I missing something?

So reads the final line of the introduction to the interactive "joke" used as a promotional tool for "Obsessed," which opened in theaters yesterday.

For context, here is the paragraph preceding "Don't worry, it's only a joke:"

"Now it's time to put your friends in harm's way... that is to say, as the new object of Lisa Sheridan's affections.  Simply upload their photo, give us some tasty info, and we'll do the rest."

The interactive site, "Get OBSESSED With Ali," does exactly that: you give them a photograph and a handful of details about your friend and they insert them into the pre-made stalker-template message, replete with the language associated with stalkers' communication to their victims.

In 2000 the National Violence Against Women Survey found that "[stalking] is more prevalent than previously thought: 8.1 percent of surveyed women and 2.2 percent of surveyed men reported being stalked at some time in their life; 1.0 percent of women surveyed and 0.4 percent of men surveyed reported being stalked in the 12 months preceding the survey.  Approximately 1 million women and 371,000 men are stalked annually in the United States" (Shaw & Lee, 428).

According to the Stalking Resource Center, stalking is generally defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear" (Stalking Fact Sheet).  As discussed in "Stalking Victimization in the United States," Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS), funded by the Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, measured the incidence of particular behaviors associated with stalking: "making unwanted phone calls," "following or spying on the victim," "leaving unwanted items, presents, or flowers," "sending unsolicited or unwanted letters or e-mails," "waiting at places for the victim," "showing up at places without a legitimate reason," and "posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth" (Baum, et. al, 1).  Though each of these acts, individually, don't necessarily amount to criminality, "collectively and repetitively these behaviors may cause a victim to fear for his or her safety or the safety of a family member" (ibid.) 

Here are a few facts (from Stalking Resource Center's "Stalking Fact Sheet"):

So I've really been enjoying all the talk about feminist weddings in the blogosphere -- because I'm in the middle of planning my wedding. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one trying to balence my beliefs with all the wedding industrial complex bullshit. And mine is a same sex wedding (in a place where it is currently not legally recognized), which just makes the planning full of extra difficulty.

So I was really excited to read Jessica's latest article at The Guardian about planning her feminist wedding . Overall, the article was great. At least until I got to this part of the last paragraph :

So, while our wedding will be politicised, it won't be a feminist caricature: I won't be sporting Birkenstocks under my dress and we won't ask the "Goddess" for a blessing.

That's when I started to see red. Because both my fiancee and I are Pagan. And we will be asking the Goddess for a blessing on our marriage -- and we won't be doing it in "scare quotes".

It makes me really angry to see my faith thrown out there, by someone who doesn't share it, as a caricature. The definition of caricature is " exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics". And for some of us, invoking the Goddess at our wedding isn't ludicrous or distorted, its a fundamental part of our spiritual belief.

As reported by the New York Times on Friday , over a dozen colleges and universities have recently been the unexpected recipients of anonymous donations. In total, about $70 million has been given, with 50-80% of each donation earmarked for scholarship money. The remaining money can be spent at the discretion of the universities.

This is tremendous news for students, many of whom are struggling to cover tuition and educational costs in a weak economy. But it's even more exciting for two reasons:

1. The scholarship money is designated specifically for women and minorities.

2. Each insitution has a female president.

In fact, having a woman president is one of the only commonalities. The schools aren't linked by geography and are a mix of public and private. Female presidents are the one common denominator.

The president of Binghamton University, Lois B. Defleur, put it best, saying, "the actions say, 'I'm investing in an institution because it has made achievements and I blieve that with women leaders it will have future accomplishments... That's pretty powerful in my view.'"

I agree. It is pretty powerful.

Every single time same sex marriage is discussed in the media, the reporter will find a conservative who will say that we are redefining marriage away from its "historical" definition: one man and one woman. Here's a quote from an article on same-sex marriage becoming legal in Connecticut:

"The sad day was the state Supreme Court changing the thousands-of-years definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, across cultures, across times," said Carol Gignac, who wore a sticker on her lapel that read: "Religious Liberty: Our Freedom First."

This is what I'd like to say to Ms. Gignac and all her ilk:

Stop lying.

You're either willfully lying, which doesn't say much about your commitment to your religion, or you're woefully ignorant. Cultures around the world and across time have defined marriage differently and continue to do so.

Same-sex marriages existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, China, Japan, Africa and other places. Polygamy is mentioned in the Bible multiple times, and has been practiced for centuries in many tribal societies, Islamic countries, and lest you forget, the United States. In India, it is currently possible to be ritually married to an animal or a god. Native American tribes recognized various forms of marriage including polygamy and same-sex unions.

It's so common. You and her have been best friends since you both were 14, and the older you get, the less you hang out. Not because you don't love the shit out of each other, but because she tends to spend much more time with her boyfriend, and <I>his</i> friends, rather than her own.

Why is this so common among hetero women?

When I confront my girlfriends, they basically say that as we get older, we just naturally spend every waking moment with our significant other. And that it's just "growing up".

Yes, I understand that when we get older, we spend less time with our friends, and more time with our husbands, wives, kids, whomever. We have more responsibilities. But why then, do our girlfriends spend so much time with him and HIS FRIENDS?

Maybe I'm just bitter. But I was discussing the movie "I love you, man" with my boyfriend, and I was saying how awesome it is that both people in the relationship respect the others need for outside relationships. And it made me think about how jealous I am of the woman in the movie and all of her awesome friends in the movie.

I personally think that women believe that guys won't want to hang out her and her friends, because of __(insert sexism here)____.

But guys bring their girlfriends along to hang out with them, because the women are okay with hanging out with him and his buddies. It almost seems like women don't believe their friends are worthy enough for the boyfriend to hang out with them. Or that their boyfriend might not like her friends. They want to keep it separate but unequal. 

I know that some women share friends with their signifigant other. But what about the women that pretty much don't hang out with their girlfriends anymore?

I mean, maybe I don't have the right friends, or maybe my friends aren't the perfect feminists. But whatever the reason, it sucks and I feel I'm probably not the only one. I want to know everybody else's take on it.

So I'm currently working on an essay (which might turn out to be very, very long) about an issue that I think has been overlooked in regards to education.  I want to make it clear that I have enormous respect for educators.  They do their jobs and (most of the time) they do them extremely well.  However I have a major beef with the American educational system.  The recent news of the two 11-year-olds who committed suicide because of homophobic taunts has pushed me to this point now where I am quite frustrated and in trying to organize my thoughts I've come up with quite a few ideas.

"What does this have to do with sexism?" you may ask.  Well it has a lot to do with sexism, as well as racism, classism and various other -isms.  There are major, major issues with our schools the way they are now.  For example: it's no secret that some schools get more funding than others due to the way the system is set up, and this is a problem.  Various forms of discrimination still pervade in our schools, as the cases of the 11-year-olds demonstrate.  But there's more to it even than that.  This has to do with the very moral foundations on which America was built. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "...if we think [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."  I am proposing not that kids should be taught what to think.  I am proposing that kids should be taught TO think.  Think about each other, think about consequences, think about everything they're taught, instead of just learning it.  Think about the meaning of truth and justice and compassion.

From my experience and in my humble opinion, our kids are not being taught the basic tenets of American citizenship, that is, HONESTY, ACCOUNTABILITY, RESPECT, COMPASSION, EQUALITY, and RULE OF LAW.  We teach our children work hard and "get ahead", in competitive environments which harbor dishonesty and an us-vs.-them mentality.  Those for whom the system doesn't work are denigrated; those for whom it does are rewarded with that great American promise of opportunity.

What I want to ask my fellow feminists, American or not, how hasthe system worked for you?  How has your education shaped your values?  How (if at all) has it changed the way you view your country and your citizenship?  Do you feel that your experiences with public education have helped you to become a better person?

Feel free to answer just one, none, or all of the above questions if you'd like.  The main question I will be asking in my essay is, "What is the role education must play in a democracy and are our needs being met by the current system?"  I'm still in the beginning stages of fleshing out my argument (still I haven't touched the tip of the iceberg here... this is gonna be a long one >.<), but I'm leaning toward "no" in response to the second half of the query.  Let me know your thoughts on this.  Thanks!

Some of you may have seen this piece in the New York Times yesterday, telling the story of Encarnación Bail Romero, a Guatemalan woman who had the custody rights to her son, Carlos, removed by Judge David C. Dally of Circuit Court in Jasper County.

The reason: abandonment.

The catch (from hell): Ms. Bail had been detained in an immigration raid at a poultry processing plant Carthage, MO two years ago and has been in jail ever since, awaiting to be deported when her time in jail is over.

Carlos was given to a couple, about which the Judge said:

"the couple made a comfortable living, had rearranged their lives and work schedules to provide Carlos a stable home, and had support from their extended family. By contrast, Judge Dally said, Ms. Bail had little to offer."

“The only certainties in the biological mother’s future,” he wrote, “is that she will remain incarcerated until next year, and that she will be deported thereafter.”

I find these news extremely saddening, not to mention unjust and cruel. Ms. Bail was consulted about the possibility of the adoption, which she rejected, requesting that his son would be put in foster care. Moreover, the communications were not sent to her in Spanish, and no legal help was provided to her to defend her custodial right.

There is SO much that is wrong with this measure (which is only one in several other cases, as the article in question, as well as this other article make clear), but let's just start with the fact that the judge seems to think that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to the right to a family, and the state does not have the obligation to do what's possible to maintain families together:

“Her lifestyle, that of smuggling herself into the country illegally and committing crimes in this country, is not a lifestyle that can provide stability for a child,” the judge wrote in his decision. “A child cannot be educated in this way, always in hiding or on the run.”

Being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, and the only reason why Ms. Bail was in detention was that she was charged with using false identification. This maneouver, also used in the high-profile Iowa raid, is used to make imigrants into criminals and ease their deportation procedures, even when the identity theft law was enacted to prevent fraudulent transactions in the name of a person from whom the identity had been stolen. This is not the case for immigrants, who are often provided with the fake identification by their employers, and they simply use them to be able to work.

A second issue that transpires in this ruling, although it's never explicitly acknowledged, is the narrative of motherhood, in which poor, non-white women are deemed inherently incapable of responsible motherhood, and the state seems to think it's entitled to intervene in their reproductive and family decisions to a greater extent.

There are many more issues that I could list on this post, but suffice it to say that I hope the Obama administration works toward a change that exceeds policy, and addresses the culture of hatred and de-humanization that accompanies our immigration debates.

So, recently I've been following Meghan McCain. I didn't really pay much attention to her during the campaign; I had heard she was writing her Blogette, but I didn't know much about her besides that she was John McCain's daughter. But when she spoke out against Laura Ingraham's comments about her weight, I started to pay attention. As a young woman writer who is about my age, I thought it was pretty cool that she was pro-body image and so secure with herself. I know that we differ a lot of many issues, but I still think she's a cool and admirable gal.

I began following her on Twitter and saw that she was guest-hosting the view, so I made sure to catch that episode. They asked her if she was pro-choice and she said that she was pro-life, but then said she doesn't plan to have children. Assuming she is not abstinent, wouldn't that mean she is pro-birth control? If she wants to decide for herself when and if she wants to have children, shouldn't she be supportive for other women to have those same choices?

I'd like to give a huge feminist fuck yeah to my girlfriend, Jenn. She has been the biggest inspiration for me and other people in the feminist community around her. She has done everything from blogging for SAFER to being one of the prime catalysts in reforming her university's sexual assault policy.

Recently, she was the main push to create open conversations in lecture halls about the schools sexual assault and rape policy, branching out to every student and faculty member to get them involved. Last night she brought life to the university's lame attempt for a Take Back the Night event. Not only did she get people from out of state to come, but she improvised an energetic and inspiring speech for the event. She also made a TBTN shirt for our dog who also walked over the bridge with us!

I can go on forever about how awesome she is, but I'll stop and conclude. Jenn is the best feminist I know, I am so happy that she is recognized for something she is so passionate about. I want everyone to know that she is an inspirational feminist and I love her.

Fairly recently I subscribed to Life Magazine's mailing list because I'm a photographer and was interested in seeing the type of work they have on the site. I only got a few emails from them which were all nothing really exciting.

Today, however, I got one with something that caught my eye. At the bottom of each email, Life lists the "popular photos" which they define as "The photos that made our readers click like crazy". In this category were the following headlines: "Civil Rights: Rare Photos", "38 Cute cheerleaders", "The Real Women of 'Grey Gardens'", and "Crazy Miliary Parades"... all in that order.

That's right, "38 Cute Cheerleaders" came right after "Civil Rights"...

Anyway, after looking at the photos which are pretty soft porn-y - especially the line of cheerleaders bending down... not even kidding - I wrote a complaint to the list and unsubscribed.

The photos are here.

I thought, as a photographer, that Life Magazine was supposed to be about something more real and sunstantial... how do you go from showing the conditions that people were in during the Great Depression to this sexist bullshit??

If you are so inclined, please write to them and let them know that it offends you.

Girls can't match up to boys right?

This just in.......:

In New Jersey, twelve year old Mackenzie Brown pitched a no-hitter last night in baseball. It was the first time in the city of Bayonne's baseball league history that a girl has done that.

The New York Mets have invited her to throw out the ceremonial first pitch for her achievement. ESPN even showed highlights of her.

Definitely a wondeful achievement by her.

crossposted at amplify

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, and let me say, she rocked! If you want to watch the whole hearing, or clips, go here. 

I have to say that my favorite parts were in her exchanges with Rep. Smith, Rep. Fortenberry, and Rep. Inglis. They tried to challenge her on international family planning and the administration's stance on abortion, and she basically owned them. Some choice quotes-

In response to Rep. Smith's and Fortenberry's questions on how she could admire Margaret Sanger (a leader of the birth control movement in the US) when Sanger also advocated eugenics, Clinton said:

Well, Congressman, let me say, with respect to your comments about Margaret Sanger, you know, I admire Thomas Jefferson. I admire his words and his leadership, and I deplore his unrepentant slave-holding. 

 We, obviously, have a profound disagreement...We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal and rare. I've spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions and it has been my experience that good family planning and good medical care brings down the rate of abortion. Keeping women and men in ignorance and denied the access to services actually increases the rate of abortion.

We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care.

We have great leadership in Secretary Clinton. Now let's get some work done!

crossposted at amplify

Last night I was watching an episode of the tv show "Dexter". I quite enjoy this show a lot and find it to be very intelligently written. However, last night I saw an episode with a segment that rubbed me the wrong way. In this particular episode, the main character, Dexter, is getting married and the token pervert at his work (not his best man) throws a Bachelor Party for him. In the show, it was just a given that there had to be strippers there. None of the men at this party were even that close to Dexter, and it was clear that this really wasn't what he wanted anyway. There were a couple things that rubbed me the wrong way though. Mainly it was the female character's reaction to the party. The party involved a lot of strippers (maybe 10?) in a room just standing around topless and giving lap dances to all the men in the room.

***non-important Fringe spoilers***

Normally, I'm kind of pissed when a show that isn't Buffy brings in the chaste girl-on-girl action for titillation and show-stimulation. Buffy has an excuse - it started the lesbian kiss on the television screen. It was revolutionary.

But I was pissed when Grey's Anatomy did it, even though I liked the actresses. And Sara Ramirez is a lesbian favorite on AfterEllen.com, so the show has a significant lesbian following. But it still felt less like a lesbian shout out and more like something to attract more male viewers (or keep them interested).

I was pissed when they did it on Bones , even though I can see why it fits Angela's character, and I still love the show (and Bones's philosophy on relationships ... I hope they don't change it ... there have been suggestions).

It just seemed like the shows were trying to make themselves edgy by implementing a socially acceptable form of gayness (not very many men kissing in mainstream television). The men will be interested. The lesbian and female bisexual fans will be appeased, although most of the female viewership is going to roll its eyes and think "boys will be boys." But the viewership of Grey's Anatomy is probably primarily female. Bones probably has pretty equal viewership between men and women. But it still always seems to be the whole "girl-on-girl-for-guy" kind of vibe. It doesn't help that every lesbian kiss on mainstream shows now seems to be the same exact tender kiss. And the kiss isn't intended for my eyes. It's weird how you always know. I can tell in most girl-on-girl porn intended for men. I always feel like the third wheel, not the audience.

It was different for Buffy . Willow and Tara's first kiss in Season Five was the first lesbian kiss on television (and there's was the first open lesbian relationship on television, too, if I'm not mistaken). It began as a kiss of comfort when Buffy's mom died rather than one of romance, which made it very different from the lesbian kisses on the above two shows. It always seemed more real and less choreographed when Willow and Tara were kissing (less so when Kennedy came along... that's another rant).

So why - when Fringe has a viewership that is probably majority male and provides a pseudolesbian scene (rather than an actual lesbian scene) with Olivia as a mental proxy for the male subject - am I not pissed?

I can't say. Part of it is that it didn't seem to be made a big deal of - no romantic music, no typical "lesbian" tenderness. No tongue, just lips and cautious sexuality. It seemed to be organic to the plot in that the same man-proxy-Olivia who accidentally murdered also accidentally stimulated another. But part of me knows that the scene, because it wasn't even a woman kissing a woman in the plot, was mostly titillation for the audience.

I know why I'm aroused. But why am I not pissed?

Crossposted at Amplify

As the ridiculous ruckus over the sexting scandal in Tunkhannok, Pennsylvania grows to a din, I find myself in disbelief. 

For those of you who have managed to avoid the sexting controversy, I’ll give a brief summary: some photos of semi-nude and scantily clad teenage and pre-teen girls as young as eleven surfaced in a rural Pennsylvania high school.  This apparently provided grounds for the District Attorney to consider charging the teenagers, (some of whom are children, really), on the justification that they were partaking in child pornography.  But, since he was so nice, he decided to give them the option of attending an “education program” (whatever that means).  Simple as that: educate or incarcerate.  Last month, three of the teenagers in question and their parents turned the tables, teamed up with the ACLU, and sued the District Attorney for violating the teenagers’ right to freedom of expression, and for interfering with their parents’ abilities to raise their children in the way they see fit. 

As I was surfing the internet today I ran across this video on the front page of Yahoo.

Listen to what the three V's for being a "man" are according to Janis Spindel (a highly sought after matchmaker).

It's a good thing I stumbled into this video so I can be told that I should be focused on how women look and how superficially shallow I am. How silly of me to consider woman as anything but objects.

We need a movement for a new form of masculinity. This video is not only degrading to women, but it reinforces the abysmal, society driven, degrating form of the "masculinity" of today. As a feminist male, this clip sickens me.

I saw this on CNN the other day and have been thinking about posting it. With Jay Smooth's blog on the front page (we keep overlapping... weird), I think it's impetus enough for me to post.

Now, on the Jay Smooth post, I did write that I do think Miss California is right to be able to express her opinion no matter who is asking and how it can be taken. While I have my reservations of the absolute sincerity of her comments, I do staunchly defend her right to express her opinion, even if she is against my interpretation of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause as well as the premise of Brown v Board ("Separate but equal is inherently inequal").

Roland Martin and I agree on that level. However, he starts getting into politics as his example as to why the "Left" shouldn't really be angry about what happened and why the pundits should just cool it down. I could not begin to disagree more on his standards, and it shows as a point of commentary in its own right, as well as an expression of political manuevering as its understood in American politics.

So I wouldn't really consider myself a feminist but I have a very close friend who is.  I have been having some issues at work and she recommended that I post something on here because she said it would make me feel better so here it goes...

I have been working the same job for 4 years.  I recently switched shifts, but not positions.  I went from evening shift to day shift at the begining of this week.  I now work with 2 men.  These 2 men have worked together for probably close to 20 years.  They very obviously do not want me there.  It isn't necessarily that they are harassing me or even being mean to me, they won't even give me the time of day.  Everything I do they do over, if I ask if something has been done they say yes even if it hasn't been just because they don't want me doing it, I will say something then they will say it 5 minutes later like I never pointed it out earlier.  They think I am a complete idiot!! 

I have 2 bosses, one male one female.  My female boss is very supportive and is doing everything she can to help my situation but they just talk down to her too when she tries to help me out.  I have been in my main boss' office, the male, 3 times in my 4 days on this shift.  He has told me that these 2 men are "just very old fashioned."  That they are not used to working with a woman and that I just need to let them know that I am not going anywhere and that they need to learn to work with me.  He is the boss, why can he not fix this problem???  Why is it even a problem?  I have been doing this job for 4 years, I am not an idiot and I don't deserve to be talked down to everyday.  It is making me miserable.  I considered going back to my old shift but that is exactly what they want, then they win.  I shouldn't have to go to work and defend my position everyday because they are "old fashioned" and don't like working with a woman.  I am just as good at my job, if not better, then they are.  They just won't give me the chance to prove it.  It's wearing me down...and it's only been 4 days.

I caught this preview clip of the Oprah show that is set to air today, and was surprised to see that the word penis is bleeped out as though it is a swear word. Since when did names for our body parts become vulgar? It will be interesting to see if penis is bleeped out during the entirety of the show, and would certainly send the wrong message to young viewers in that it makes naming genitalia somehow shameful and dirty by the omission of the word.

Also, this is the only preview clip of the show that is up - notice that it is focused on the penis of Lorena's husband, and not the events that led up to what caused her to cut off his genitalia.

This is crossposted at The Feminist Agenda.

I've been involved in a number of conversations lately about the social construction of gender, and it occurs to me that what it means for gender to be a social construct, along with the implications of a social construction theory of gender, is not clear to a lot of people. So here's an explanation that may clarify things a bit.

A social construction is something that doesn't exist independently in the "natural" world, but is instead an invention of society. Cultural practices and norms give rise to the existence of social constructs and govern the practices, customs, and rules concerning the way we use/view/understand them. In other words, we all act as if they exist, and because of our intersubjective agreement, they do.

The classic example of a social construct is money. Various cultures utilize paper, gold, silver, or other items as a medium for trade. To do this, we invest the object with value that we all acknowledge (we act as if it has value), and this informs our practices when it comes to money. But money is not a thing that occurs independently of human activity in the natural world. Thus it is a social construction. It's very real - calling it a social construct does not amount to calling it imaginary or non-existent. But its existence is dependent on our culture and our practices. This means that its definition, use, meaning, value, etc. is entirely contingent on culture.

As our culture changes, so do our constructs. Some constructs come into being and then fall into disuse and thus go out of existence. Others remain but change from one culture and historical period to another. Gender is one such construct. The traits and behaviors that are thought to be "masculine" and "feminine" differ dramatically from one culture and time period to another. Appropriate ways of behaving, the labor that's assigned to gender groups, beliefs about natural abilities and propensities, etc. change significantly. And this variation and adaptation to conditions and social pressures reinforces the idea that gender is a social construction rather than some sort of essence that arises from biology. Because if gender was determined by physical sex, then it wouldn't vary in this way, but would remain constant, just as other biologically determined attributes remain constant. Instead, gender varies with cultural change.

I just keep on finding epic FAIL all around me as I read the news, and the fact that two of them with similar themes found their way to me at about the same time, I couldn't resist wrapping them together for a community post.

The first is news capitalizing on the oh-so scandalous admission from male singer Marilyn that, long ago, he and Gavin Rossdale had a five-year affair. Assuming it's true (as corroborated by Boy George in his autobiography), I couldn't be happier. Yay for bi visibility!

Of course, I've braced myself for the current headlines that I know are coming (and have come: "Gavin Rossdale Gay- Crossdresser Alleges Romance With Gavin Rossdale") written by writers and approved by editors who apparently have never heard of the word "bisexual". (Reminds me of the Lindsay Lohan headlines- editors who love alliteration so much- because of course, "Lindsay Lohan lesbian" rolls off the tongue so much better than the accurate "Lindsay Lohan bisexual".)

Michael Coren wrote a column in the Edmonton Sun about the death of Corporal Karine Blais that is breathtaking in its sexist twaddle and infantile sexual fantasies.

Coren says, "Look at the photograph of this beautiful girl. Look at the innocence, the gentleness, the grace. All of them precious aspects to the human character. So when I say that she was 'dressed up as a soldier' I mean it as a compliment."

So, can I say that he's a sexist asshat and mean it as a compliment too? Blais was assigned to the 12e Regiment Blinde' du Canada and the Royal 22e Regiment, the most famous Francophone organization of the Canadian Forces. These are crack regiments, not marching bands.

Can we really imagine for a moment that if a group of Taliban tribesmen rushed a trench or encampment this poor young woman could fight them off, could deal with the thrusts of their long knives and heavy clubs? Do we seriously think that the men in the unit would not risk their own lives to protect a pretty young girl who was inevitably being beaten to the ground by salivating killers?

Someone's salivating here, Coren, but it ain't the Taliban. Nice use of phallic imagery there. And don't Canadian soldiers have...guns? They tend to even the playing field a bit. Btw, he doesn't mention how Corporal Blais died. She was killed by a bomb, not a Taliban fighter, but he leaves that out because bombs don't care what gender a soldier is.

We rightly condemn Islamic extremists in Afghanistan because they treat women so badly. Then we allow one of our own to give her life so we can congratulate ourselves on how liberal and egalitarian we are, lie about how gender differences don't matter and then encourage our generals and politicians to obscure the truth on television about soldiers and causes.

What hypocrites we have become. Poor, poor Karine--this is not the way it should have been.

You and your country deserved better.

michael.coren@sunmedia.ca

Deserved better than what? The opportunity to volunteer to fight for the principles her country upholds? Lemme get this straight--the Taliban treat women differently than men, so they're detestable. The Canadian military doesn't treat women differently than men, so they're also detestable? Corporal Blais wasn't drafted--she chose to join up, she had the determination and willpower to make it through training, to be deployed--she didn't just happen to have a set of camos handed to her so she would be a pretty ornament to the regiment.

Mr. Coren, Karine Blais absolutely did deserve better--better than this pile of steaming condescension and fetishization you were paid to write that trivialized and demeaned the truth of her too-short life and service.

I'm not sure if anyone's already posted this, but I'll just quickly mention it.

Apparently, not only is Anna Farris's character, Brandi, crazy messed-up from slamming shots the night Seth Rogen's character rapes her, Seth also gives her his medication for bipolar disorder.

Which is just even more fucked up.

Video review link

Thoughts?

I'm a long time lurker and this advert disturbed me, so after not seeing it written about I decided to join up.

It's a UK ad, and there's so much wrong with it, from the stereotypical (pink) 'female' fishfinger to the shock the 'males' show when 'she' strips despite their initiating of the interaction- double standards anyone?

Besides these fact, they're creating gendered fish fingers. The only thing I can say in its favour is maybe it's satire and I didn't pick up on it.

Today is Denim Day and for those of you who don't know what Denim Day is here is a little info:

Italy, 1992

An 18-year old girl is picked up by her married 45-year old driving instructor for her very first lesson. He takes her to an isolated road, pulls her out of the car, wrestles her out of one leg of her jeans and forcefully rapes her. Threatened with death if she tells anyone, he makes her drive the car home. Later that night she tells her parents, and they help and support her to press charges. The perpetrator gets arrested and is prosecuted. He is convicted of rape and sentenced to jail.

(crossposted from Amplify )

When it comes to sex, one would think that Bill O’Reilly would not attempt to take the moral high ground. With his checkered past of being sued for sexual harassment and the recent heat he’s taken for blaming young victims of sexual violence , Bill O’Reilly does not exactly come off as the most credible person in the world on this subject.

But hypocrisy is no stranger to O’Reilly, as he chose to give a softball interview to Elayne Bennett from the D.C. abstinence-only group Best Friends, in order to show the “success” of abstinence-only education.
 

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire blogger

Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have set a timetable for healthcare reform by this fall--a major step on the road to passing legislation this year. The Senators' plan, set out in a letter to President Obama, calls for a bill by June, committee markups over the summer, and a final vote in the fall. (Just in time for delayed-action budget reconciliation, should the Republicans prove recalcitrant.)

As Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly notes, timetables matter , politically. Furthermore, as Ezra Klein explains at TAPPED , a pact between Baucus and Kennedy is a big step forward: these two key committee chairs NOW have a plan to avoid the turf wars that stymied reform in 1994. This time, the two Senators have pledged to work together to write similar bills, instead having their respective committees very different legislation, like they did last time.

Experts agree that successful healthcare reform must work on two fronts: Paying for care while simultaneously keeping the cost of care in check. Elsewhere on TAPPED, Klein discusses why American healthcare costs so much compared to other countries. He points to a study by the famous McKinsey consulting company showing that the extra cost is not because we're sicker, nor because we consume more healthcare:

This is a story I know well. Or, at least I believe that I know well. Lisa Stebic has a "contentious" split from a "controlling" husband. When she files a protection order to get him evicted from the house, she disappears. Her husband is the prime suspect, but has not been charged, will probably never be charged, unless they find her body.

This brings to my mind one of the saddest, scariest and most depressing facets of domestic violence: that when the  victim/survivor tries to leave, that's the most dangerous time, the time when they are most likely to be hurt or killed, because when an abuser sees that his victim is slipping out of his grasp, or trying to free herself, that's when that abuser panics, that's when their basic insecurity and cowrdice assert themselves in the strongest way, and that's when they become desparate to hold on to the power they have.

For everyone who blames women for not leaving their abusers? Fuck. You. I don't know exactly what was going on in this relationship, and I admit that I'm looking at this story through a particular lens, but everything in this article screams out to me that this is another victim of domestic violence who has been killed while she was trying to free herself. And you know what? That fact that women or men in these relationships, who know in their heart or hearts that their partner is very sick and very scary, don't want to rock the boat because they know how dangerous it could be, that they have to hear a lot of numb-nuts telling them how stupid they are to stay-that boils my blood.

(Cross posted at Pam's House Blend )

As a bisexual woman I'm constantly finding myself having to negotiate the flood of prejudices, stereotypes, and restrictive expectations of others.  It is difficult and overwhelming at times.  Which is one reason why I rarely go to AfterEllen.com honestly - because every time I go there, I find things that range from problematic to outright offensive.  I want to respond to the latest example. The title of the article is The Trouble with "Bisexual" and the author is "Senior Writer" Malinda Lo.  The most problematic part is :

When I say that I am a lesbian, my ex-boyfriend — my first love, my first adult relationship — is erased from the picture. Yet if I say that I am bisexual, I feel like a liar, because I have only ever been in a straight relationship once.

Bisexuals are not Cheetos.  We don't come with an expiration date.  It's not like we go bad if we are not used in a timely fashion.  I don't know where this idea came from, which I often see banded around in the lesbian and gay portions of our community, that if you haven't been actively dating both sexes concurrantly and very currently, we are not really bi.  

That idea ties directly into that pernicious myth that there are no real bisexuals.  See, there is this common wisdom that if you are a bisexual in an opposite sex relationship, you are straight.  If you are a bisexual in a same sex relationship, you are gay or lesbian.  Poof!  See you don't have to deal with bisexuals being there because you can so easily erase us when it is conveniant!  And worst of all, people like Malinda Lo will erase herself and her own experience because she has bought into this myth that she didn't score highly enough on the bi-detector quiz to truly deserve the label.  

A while ago there was some discussion about sex-segregation in public restrooms. Some clever folk at my school put up these two signs:

These were put up at the entrance to the library bathrooms, which for most of the year had been unmarked.

Sorry if this is a repeat . I need to rant. To put it nicely, I have a problem with people who say stupid things and make stupid comments out of jealously or curiosity(whatever their motive). I live with my boyfriend and I have for some time now. I was born and raised here in Brooklyn , so it's not like I am dealing with people from small sheltered areas ( nothing wrong with small towns ). At my CUNY college, some of my classmates( who i am with for all my classes,unit projects,peer review of student teaching) would say" oh my father would never let me live with my boyfriend" or "wow that would never happen". I do not defend my stance. My BF has a career and I am almost done with school and I will be teaching soon, we are both hard workers, that's is all. I just become increasingly annoyed when people make these comments and then say "oh I wish I could".

No, no, they are not really going to have it? In this day in age? Isn’t that like illegal or something? Holy cow,  the Nazis? They are still around?

Not only are the Nazis still around, but they held a rally on Saturday under the Gateway

Arch in St. Louis. Being a tour guide at the Arch has brought interesting experiences from the Obama rally of 500,000, to people from all over the globe, and rednecks from all over the state, to a Nazi rally. How many people get to go to work and watch the Nazis? Of course we were not allowed to call them the “Nazis” they were the “National Socialist Movement” and the Arch being a federal site we were very strictly informed that we cannot give our opinion to any guests or anyone while in uniform.

While procrastinating at work today I came across this article on People.com about how Kendra Wilkinson of The Girls Next Door fame will no longer be posing nude in Playboy as she is about to get married. She goes on to say that her fiance, Hank Baskett, is very conservative and

"He gets really mad when I do stuff like that."

Now, I'm not a fan of Playboy and I'm not fan of Kendra particularly either but this still left a not too great taste in my mouth. I'll admit that I did watch the first season or so of The Girls Next Door (UnFeminist Guilty Pleasure for sure!) and got to know a bit about Kendra. She loved being nude and loved Playboy. It was basically her dream to pose in that magazine. She started off as a painted model at one of Hef's parties (which if you don't know means you're naked and just covered in body paint). Now this isn't something I understand per se but it was something she loved. And now she's giving it up for her husband because he's uncomfortable with it.

I encountered a REALLY tricky situation that I'm sure happens all the time. But this is my first post here on feministing and I thought this would be a good story to tell.

My 12 year old cousin was having her birthday at six flags this weekend. It took around 2 hours to get there, since we live in San Diego, and got really hyped up to see all these huge rollercoasters coming closer. It was a really hot day, and as we got out I went to the back of the van to get a water. My cousin brought two of her friends from catholic school, her little brother, her parents, and two family friends. As we were packing our stuff in the back, I was sipping on my water when I glanced over to see my cousin and her friends huddled together snickering. I walked over and heard one saying "that's SO gross!!" I looked around and saw that the car next to us had a group of young men, probably 24 or younger. They were stretching and looking ready to have a fun day at the park, and two of the men embraced each other and shared a (in my opinion, very sweet) kiss. My other little cousin, her brother, who is around 7, was astounded. Suddenly, I heard their father say "

Two entreprenuerial sisters have fused their love of art and environmental activism to help Mama Earth! Their small, green business, Green Eyed Monster , tackles the BYOB (Bring Your Own Bag) movement from a fresh, artistic angle.  In response to the world's growing water crisis, the sisters have created a limited edition designer tote bag that raises awareness about critical water issues. 40% of the sales from this reusable bag will be donated to TreePeople . The bags are made under sustainable conditions in the U.S.A. by an all-woman owned manufacturing company. The material is 100% post-consumer recycled cotton. Purchase yours here .

And if you've got an artistic edge, submit to their current design competition focused on the ECOnomy . The ladies want to bring awareness to how living green can SAVE green! And if you win the competition, you'll win some green in the form of $500!

Keep living ENVIably.

I was just browsing the New York Times Health section and came across an article by Tara Parker-Pope interviewing Trisha Meili, also known as the Central Park Jogger.

The article focuses mainly on health and wellness issues, such as Trisha's return to running and how she recovered from her brutal attack. It's an interesting read and I certainly feel for Ms. Meilli, but the comments on the website were appalling.

First of all, many readers were frustrated that Ms. Parker-Pope did not include information about the young men of color who were arrested in relation to Ms. Meilli's attack 20 years ago. These teenagers ended up going to jail for a crime they didn't commit.

I agree wholeheartedly that people need to know the truth about this case and that perhaps Parker-Pope should have included information about the wrongfully incarcerated men in her introduction. But the comments often tangled up frustration over racism and justice ("How could you not include this in the article?") with blatant victim-blaming. A few comments clearly made it sound as though Ms. Meilli asked for it by jogging late and by herself. Many commenters were upset that Ms. Parker-Pope did not ask Meilli about the innocent boys, or even that Ms. Meilli did not admit her own culpability in their incarceration. [Example: "I would respect and admire Ms. Meili even more if she would acknowledge that her reckless actions (I am a lifelong female runner and ex-NYC resident who even in my youth would not have considered running alone in Central Park that late) led to 13 years in prison for completely innocent young black men." ]

Excuse me??

Luckily, feminism literature and blogs have given me the tools to recognize this as victim-blaming and I am astounded by how often I see it. I am so grateful that I can identify it as such, whenever I see an article that discusses what a rape victim was wearing or how much she drank or how late she was running in the park.

Listening to the stories (or reading them) online of those who have experienced sexual assault, I also know that it's up to the survivor to decide how he/she wants to respond and heal. Prosecute your rapist? It's up to you. Share your story to many people or just a few? It's up to you.

Parker-Pope made it clear that Meilli has no memory of the event and no firsthand knowledge, so she doesn't feel its appropriate to comment. "I have to leave it to the justice system," she said, "It's part of my own healing to accept that I'm never going to know."

If people want to work on addressing our racist, classist, malfunctioning justice system, believe me: I am in full support. But it's not the responsibility of the survivor to take this on. Their job is to heal and move forward with their lives.

While gender-based street/public harassment occurs year round, it can ramp up in the spring. And hey look, it's spring ...

As some feministing community members may know, but most may not, I maintain an anti-street harassment website with strategies and resources for dealing with/fighting street harassment, and a companion blog with stories from contributors and my commentary on street harassment-related news. Recent stories you may have missed elsewhere but I covered on the blog include Anti-Harassment Day in Egypt (April 18), the one-year report on Boston's anti-sexual harassment subway campaign , the murder of a woman runner in Vancouver , sexual harassment on the New Delhi metro , and a subway harasser in NY who was recently arrested.

Having personally cowered in the face of harassers for years without knowing where to turn or realizing how widespread the problem is, I hope the website & blog can help you if you're feeling frustrated/angry/helpless/scared because of street harassment. I hope you can realize you're not alone in facing this problem, gain strength from reading the stories of others/sharing your story, learn new strategies for dealing with harassers, and gain resources and ideas for becoming an activist on this issue in your community.

Ultimately, street harassment won't end until the harassers stop, but I hope raising awareness around the issue - especially through our stories - can help us reach that point.

And while I'm already doing a post on this, male allies, this is for you .

(and </shameless self-promotion>)

Next Tuesday, April 28, is Equal Pay Day, which marks the point in 2009 when the average woman’s wages finally catch up with what the average man earned in 2008. It's an opportunity to reflect on the movement for pay equity — and the impact of unfair pay. Women still earn only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men — and for women of color, the numbers are even worse.

On Tuesday, you're invited to take part in Blog for Fair Pay Day 2009 by blogging, tweeting, or posting to Facebook about pay equity for women. Last year, more than 80 bloggers participated.

More details on pay equity and on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that's already passed the House and is now pending in the Senate, are available on NWLC's website. 

Thanks to everyone who's signed up so far to join us for Blog for Fair Pay Day 2009! If you haven't yet, please sign up to blog, tweet, and post to Facebook next Tuesday — and help us spread the word!

For all of my Whedonites out there I found this wonderful article discussing the issues of complicity and ambiguity in the show Dollhouse. The author even gasp, claims to have hated Buffy.

I think its very well thought-out and looks at the question of consent from a whole different angle, as I know many feminists have been struggling with the very real portrayal of gray rape and sexual slavery in this show. I would love to hear other people's thoughts on how successful you think the show is in dealing with these issues.

There is a fascinating discussion going on at the Chronicle of Higher Ed right now about family leave, gender, and the rights of childless people.

An untenured male professor wants to use FMLA to care for his soon-to-born child. He was essentially told by his chair that this would amount to career suicide, as would not coming in regularly during the summer, even though he is on a 9 month contract.

The comments go on for many pages, but some interesting questions arise:

Is FMLA a "benefit" to parents that is thus unfair to the childless, even though it is government madated and unpaid?

Is it ever okay to bring a child to work? If so, when and how often? Does bringing your child entitle the childless to bring in dogs and talking parrots?

Should the childless ever make any concession of sacrifice whatsoever for the benefit of those with children?

And finally, should fathers be considered parents, as epitomized by this comment:

I don't mean to be snarky--well, OK, maybe a little--but I don't get it. I know I come from blue-collar country folk, and maybe that's the difference, but how the hell is it that my dad never had to take off work when my sister and I were born, way back in the stone ages of 1950 and 1960? And my husband didn't take off work when I had our girls in 1988 and 1991, save the days I actually gave birth. Even when we were discharged from the hospital, we arranged it so he could get us after he got off work. (And no, I didn't have a house full of help--my mom stayed 4 days after the first was born, because I had a C-section, and not at all after the second, who wasn't a section.) And for the record, my dad was extremely close to both of us girls, as is my husband with our daughters, so apparently life went on and both men bonded just fine with their children. Seriously--I'm just asking. I honestly don't get it. Would it have been nice to have the dads around for us? Sure, but it was OK the way things worked out, too.

There is a fascinating discussion going on at the Chronicle of Higher Ed right now about family leave, gender, and the rights of childless people.

You can read the whole thread at here.

i originally wrote this as a piece when me and couple other people in chicago were trying to start our own femme mafia (http://www.myspace.com/femmemafia). i thought it would be useful for people to ponder here at feministing as well, since i have seen some femme-bashing in some of the comment threads.  i hope this can open up your minds to what a queer femme identity looks like.

on any given night, approximately 293584577432 hot queer women of all shapes and sizes, races, ethnicities, ages, religions, abilities venture into their local queer bars in search of a good flirt, fuck, or maybe even someone to fall in love with.  they wear dresses, lipstick, long hair, and heels.  they are outgoing and shy, the most dominant of tops and the most submissive of  bottoms.  they are funny, brilliant, and friendly.  one thing is for sure and that is that they are HOT.  and yet so many complain that no one approached them, that no one even saw them, and that everyone assumed they were straight.  because queer femmes are largely ignored by the 'mainstream' queer community.  the fact that they are even separate from the 'mainstream' just shows how fucked the whole thing is anyways.  because that means that they are the 'other' and that the 'mainstream' are the people who look stereotypically gay.

okay so i like to wear lacey bras and undies.  i live in dresses.  hot pink lipstick makes my lips look amazing.  and i wear eyeshadow.  i like to knit and i want to learn how to sew.  when i have time, baking and cooking are actually fun for me.  all this and i love women.  everything about them is beautiful to me.  they make me excited about life and love and sex.  i am femme and i am queer.  if people can't see both of those things as being complementary to each other then it shows nothing more than their FEAR of the gender that i have chosen for myself.

Reading Ted Casablanca's gossip blog on the E! website is an embarrassing guilty pleasure, but I was delighted to see yesterday's update about a supposed altercation between Woody Harroldson and Gloria Steinem.  While the "confrontation" is nothing exciting, Ted adds a link to an article at Feminist.com and calls out Hustler Magazine for its pro-rape past.

He's also railed against Twilight infantalizing its female protagonist. 

The page is here (and fear not, the comments aren't even upsetting).

At the Miss America pageant last night, Miss California was asked a question about gay marriage:

“Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

To which she responded:

“Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” she said. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

There is plenty to say about the ordeal, from the Miss America pageant as a whole to her answer to the crowd's reaction.  I would like to highlight two things that struck me:

The classic, "No offense, but..."  I hear this comment all the time from colleagues, who are about to say something entirely sexist, homophopic, racist, you name it.  With this disclaimer, the reaction of the person/people at whom the statement is directed is devalued, because they aren't supposed to feel offended by offensive comments. (Especially if such comments are really people just standing up for what they believe in, like Miss California is apparently doing.)

More notably, I'm finding (in discussions such as that on the CSmonitor ) the theme, "why bring up such a controversial topic in such a wholesome program?"  Since when is controversial and wholesome mutually exclusive?  God forbid these "wholesome" women be expected to be able to articulate thoughtful arguments about meaningful topics.  They shouldn't be thinking human beings with agency, but rather pretty and one-dimensional.  And why bring up "controversial" topics like same-sex marriage at all?  Why not just silence the entire discussion?

Doing violence prevention work in middle and high school for over a year now, I have seen many scary, inaccurate stereotypes about sexual violence going around, but never like today I realized to what extent the schools are perpetuating false information about rape as part of the educational curriculum. During a break between two classes today I was looking at one of the Health class book for the 7th grade and stumbled upon the chapter on sexual violence. I took pictures, but I am transcribing it for clarity.

Protecting Yourself from Rape

Hey, I've posted once before quite some time ago.  I'm a 14 year old student, who is having difficulty in History class.  We are currently studying the women's rights movement, and since I'm an avid history lover and feminist, took as very keen interest.  Everytime we talk about important feminist figures (Most of whom I've already read about), one boy in particular seems happy with making jokes and being sexist.  Now, I love sexist jokes.  I love making fun of men with my guy friends, so I love it when they make fun of women in jest too.  I'd be a sexist hypocrite if I got mad, besides, it's usually funny.  But the extent this particular person (Whose had pretty supermacist tendencies in the past not just to women) has gone to is downright horrfic.  From laughing at women's abuse and the maiming of children in factories, to making jokes about beating his own future girlfriend, I'm starting to see him as a sadist.

(NOTE: I have a lot of complicated, possibly un-feminist, conflicting reasons for choosing to lose weight. My personal thoughts about why I lost weight are indeed interesting things to discuss, but this discussion is not about that. This is about the body I now inhabit, a body that about 3 years ago was 60 pounds heavier than it is today.)

In 2007, I was clinically obese. I am now approximately 8 pounds away from obtaining a healthy BMI rating (by the way, the BMI is not an accurate measurement of health ). I lost this weight by following the Weight Watchers eating plan and exercising regularly. I did it the “right,” a.k.a. socially accepted, way. Yet my body is still not “good enough” by popular standards. And this fact adds to the monumental amount of evidence that in this society, with this level of objectification, when we devalue women’s lives and focus instead on their bodies, “good enough” does not exist.

First Post - Thought I'd share this story with you all.

I was recently sitting down with my friend/housemate and we were talking about the Real World : Brooklyn Reunion Special ( Yes I feel bad already for watching but since I needed a form of procrastination this year, it became my drug of choice.) Anyhow we were discussing Katelyn - The MTF Transexual housemember - being mad at Chet ( the metrosexual Mormon) and Ryan ( the small town soldier) for cornering her about coming out as Transexual and specifically at JT ( the designated gay male) for telling them she was Transexual because she told him in private. I was talking to my friend, who is also a gay male, about the power of "coming out" and how forcing someone out is pretty traumatic and scary especially when you do not trust the people who are gaining this information. JT, who has worked with LGBT youth, knows this well and should have known better. As I begin to talk about the power  Ryan ( the straight male) has by asking her "if she was a man" because of his privileged social position and how it was a lose/lose situation for her to say yes/no/or none of your business, my friend becomes extremely angry with me.

It really shocked me.

Tamora Pierce is a young adult fantasy author whose novels are all, so far, narrated by strong, independent young women.

In her first quartet, young Alanna wants to become a knight, but her twin brother is to become one while she goes to train to be a 'lady.' Instead, they switch places, Alanna pretended to be a boy, her brother going to train as a mage. She proves herself to be just as good, and better than, the boys. In the final novel, she brings a powerful artifact to the king and saves her kingdom, becoming the King's Champion.
Still, she's seen as a woman. She has lovers, and, in other books, she is a mother while still being King's Champion.

This book also touches on racism, when Alanna travels into the deserts and meets the dark-skinned Bazhir. She helps to restore peace between the Bazhir tribes and the kingdom of Tortall.

The bbc (accessed via their website) has been doing a series of readings from the book "Singled Out" by Virginia Nicholson.  It's a historical account of post WWI western socieites when unmarried women greatly outnumbered unmarried men.  Discusses how gender relationships were affected by this imbalance.  The final section is titled "It Takes a Valiant Woman to Remain Unmarried." It will only be available for the next few days, so check it out pronto if you're interested.

Singled Out at the BBC

Hey sisters (and brothers and others)!

I've recently started a feminist theory, news, and culture blog called Paradoxes and Paradigms, and I would LOVE to get a reader-base going. If any of you would be so willing as to add another blog to your long list of daily readings, it would be AMAZING! I'd love to see lots of people registered as followers so I can know at least a little bit who I'm talking to! It's on Blogspot, so if you already have a Blogspot account it is just a click, and if you don't it's a super quick registeration!

The site is: http://paradoxesandparadigms.blogspot.com/

Thanks, and read on!

(cross posted at Oh You're A Feminist?! )

I've been thinking a lot about bullying lately, specifically bullying among girls and women. The more research i did on the topic, the more i found relating to bullying's effects on the victims, how girls bully, and the difficulty of breaking free of bullying. What i didn't find much of is WHY girls bully and how this bullying translates to adult female relationships.

Bullying among girls has been on the rise since the early 1990's. Also, the bullying isn't stereotypical physical violence you think of when "bully" comes to mind (though it can be). Bullying among girls usually takes on more subtle and calculated characteristics. The NCPC defines a female bully as a girl who "is popular, well-liked by adults, does well in school, and can even be friends with the girls she bullies. She doesn't get into fist fights, although some girls who bully do. Instead, she spreads rumors, gossips, excludes others, shares secrets, and teases girls about their hair, weight, intelligence, and athletic ability. She usually bullies in a group and others join in or pressure her to bully."

No wonder I came to the conclusion of "hating girls" in middle and high school. Obviously i didn't, because i am female myself, but it was the best way my 12 year old self knew to cope and to separate myself from the stereotypically female characteristics that were supposedly bad. You know, girls being portrayed as catty, oversensitive, and manipulative. Grown up me recognizes that not all women (and girls) are those things (though some sure can be...) but 12 year old me, who needed external validation, knew she'd get it most by identifying as little with stereotypically female traits as possible. I've heard women, again and again, note that "women (or girls) are so difficult to be friends with" or all their close friends are male because "men are easier to deal with." When i started to really think about this i realized we were being socialized to hate ourselves.

For those of you who read this brilliant post from April 17, you'll know that my friend Ami has written two letters to the editor of the Minnesota Daily , the school newspaper of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.  Well, the problem column "Network" is at it again.  Today the column printed a letter calling Ami "some insecure little girl" and ranting about how she wants to take away the freedom of speech.  Here's the quote:

About the offensive comments that have been floating around by some insecure little girl:  I don't agree at all with what she has been spouting.  As Laharl* said, "...(Net) is therefore completely within Network's rights of free speech, just as you have the rights to be offended..."  Well, this statement has a lot of truth, and I want to end on this:  Our Bill of Rights grants everyone in this country the freedom OF speech, not the freedom FROM speech.

*Laharl is the name or pseudonym of someone who wrote to Network the other day.

You can read the rest of the column here .  The writer calls her/himself "A Net Supporter."

The freedom of speech argument, which in itself is problematic, though I do not think it is an invalid point in a discussion of what should or should not be published in an academic newspaper.  I get the sense, however, that this writer is using the argument to shut Ami and those of us who support her down, rather than launch a discussion on the Minnesota Daily and the freedom of speech.  What I find more troubling, though, is the fact that the Daily prints such snide, offensive comments that are meant to insult Ami.  An insult can go a long way toward shutting someone down.  In addition, it is just plain mean!  What is the responsibility of a school newspaper like the Minnesota Daily to publish or not publish such comments?  Personally, I think it is abhorrent and they should publish neither these petty insults nor sexist comments. 

if you are interested in Network and Ami's exchange, here is a chronological list of Network's columns and Ami's letters. 

1st Network column:  04/07/2009

Ami's Response:  04/12/2009

2nd Network column:  04/13/2009

Ami's response: 04/14/2009

3rd Network response:  04/15/2009

4th Network repsone:  04/16/2009

5th Network response:  04/19/2009

This article was crossposted at Empowher's Women's Health News This week's French Elle magazine had me thinking about the long debated issue of retouching photos and how it might affect women's health. The magazine features Monica Bellucci and several other female celebrities photographed without any makeup or retouching work. Last month, French public health officials, in an effort to prevent normalizing eating disorders, proposed that magazines state the extent to which their photos are retouched. An op-ed video by Jesse Epstein in the NY Times argued why this may be valuable: retouching and piecing together images of models negatively changes our standards of beauty and perceptions of health. A quick glance at retouching examples on the internet shows how standards of beauty or perfection are manipulated by photographers and artists in order to sell a particular message. The studies that show the prevalence of body image issues among young women are plentiful. A 1997 Garner survey found that 89% of female respondents wanted to lose weight. A 1980 survey found that young girls are more influenced and affected by cultural standards of body images than boys. And a 1999 study found that 70% of the 550 young working class women surveyed believed that images in magazines influenced their notion of the ideal body shape. Unhealthy body image could lead to unhealthy dieting, overeating and other eating disorders, which could lead to larger mental and physical health issues. Women who are not comfortable in their own skin may be unsatisfied in their romantic, personal and sexual relationships. Like nutritional information on the side of food packages, I think there could be value in letting readers know to what extent pictures have been reconfigured. Readers would be constantly reminded of the work that goes into creating particular images for marketing and advertising purposes. Perhaps it would be a step towards being open about the relationship between women's health, body image and media representation. Still, there is much more work to be done in providing proper education about beauty and health standards for women, especially among young adolescents. Access to healthcare, proper health education, maintaining a healthy diet and focusing on one's well being will be bigger steps to reinforcing positive body image for all women. I leave you with a clip of Susie Orbach, who was interviewed on The Colbert Report about her new book, "Bodies"

There has been a lot of talk on this blog lately about trans issues, and how they relate to feminism more generally. There has also been a lot of tension – should cis women get involved? What level of ignorance or knowledge should be expected? In light of this, as a trans woman I have some questions to pose, this time, specifically for the cis women here. I want to gain a better feel for what people think, and how you feel about things.

Should trans issues be an integral part of this space? Feminism more generally currently holds to the idea that promoting trans rights is an important part of the feminist movement. However, it has frequently been my experience that movements (such as feminism and GLB) frequently invite trans people in, only to then tell us to wait our turn while matters more personal to the majority of the movement get their own issues sorted out. In some ways, this is perfectly fair. My attitude towards this sort of reaction has always been “you don't have to help us, but if you're not gong to, then please, stay out of our way.”

Promising us safe space and then not providing it is getting in the way (we could be at other blogs instead). Building an expectation that certain issues can be freely discussed, and then being unwilling to discuss them, gets in the way. I appreciate that cis women are oppressed in many way, but I am not willing to sit back and ignore my own issues until these are resolved. At the same time, I don't want to be getting in the way of anyone else doing the same.

This is a feminist blog. As such, certain knowledge and views are expected (ie: a basic understanding of offensive vs respectful terms, rape, patriarchy, etc.) Obviously, this is not true of all topics. If I thought that some topic in say, thermodynamics was relevant – I would expect that most readers knew next to nothing about it.

So, should trans issues be part of the expected knowledge at this blog? Should a basic acceptance that trans women ARE women, and trans men ARE men be expected? Or do you feel that this is simply not the place for it? And, out of curiosity, do you feel that only trans women are a part of feminism, or are trans men as well? And, why?

Please, don't feel nervous about commenting anything – I want to know how people really feel.

1. Reacting to the tone of the OP is not constructive. We all write posts when we’re really happy, others when we’re concerned, and still others when we’re angry or upset. The emotional tone of the writing doesn’t preclude us from reading and thinking about the ideas expressed in the post. I, for one, like to hear other feminist’s ideas, no matter their mood.

2.    Related to this, the ability to ignore someone is a sign of privilege. When people are humiliated in areas where they lack privilege, they can’t ignore it because they don’t have the power. If a bi-girl hears a lesbian woman say she “would never date someone bi, because they’ll always leave you for a guy,” the bi-girl is going to remember that, because she has less power as someone attracted to more than one sex. If a lesbian woman hears a bi-girl say she “doesn’t get why gay marriage matters so much,” the lesbian woman would probably be offended. When someone looks at you and says, “I’m ignoring you, for this reason” they are saying that they’re in power and therefore don’t have to listen. Use your power wisely- ignore those who are hurtful, not those who are hurting.

3.    Don’t automatically assume you can’t ask questions anymore. Instead, think about your question before you ask it. Consider whether your question will benefit the entire audience on the post or just you. If it’s a personal question, think about whether it makes sense to ask it in a more personal venue. Consider whether your question is relevant to the topic. If not, look elsewhere for an answer (we are on the internet right ;-) ?). Consider how you would feel if someone asked you that question. And, consider how you would fell if someone asked you that question for the millionth time, just in case.

4.    Respect how people self identify. If someone says they’re a feminist, don’t tell them they’re not. If someone says they’re Jewish but their mom is a Catholic, don’t inform them that they “aren’t really Jewish”. If someone identifies as a Trans woman, don’t call her a man who likes to dress, talk and act like a woman.

5.    Know the power of apologies. I don’t see apologies often on community feministing. Maybe we’re all busy rebelling against the fact we’ve been socialized to apologize more because we’re women. But sometimes, like when you slip up, an apology is a good thing. It acknowledges where the mistake was, which helps other people learn and it enables the discussion to continue. I know I have a few apologies waiting for the brilliant commenters who point out the flows in this post.

In case it’s not clear, I wrote this because I am really upset and disappointed by some of the reactions to recent posts about Trans people and because I think we are totally capable of reacting more appropriately and constructively.

It seems to me that, quite often recently, there have been extremely hostile environments in comments here on Feministing.

The first and most obvious issue that I believe contributes to this is related to moderation - how much is too much, how little is too little, etc.  It seems that the Feministing community is divided about this issue, and I will make a call for the editors to revise their commenting policy, to make that available to the community, and then to enforce it strategically and effectively.

There is, however, a much more pervasive problem here, which is the behaviour of the commenters.  Putting the responsibility for the threads on the shoulders of the editors is correct, but there must be some element of education, so that we can actually have open discussions with some degree of freedom, while still maintaining a safe space in which to discuss them.

In my opinion, the essential problem is a sense of entitlement to the threads from commenters in various positions of privilege.

As a third-wave feminist, I am committed to disabling the three fundamental ways in which privileged groups assert their power.  Those three things are, in my opinion:

1. Ommitting the voices and experiences of oppressed groups from conversations, texts, etc.;

2. Labelling (directly or indirectly) the members of oppressed groups (and their ideas and experiences) as inferior, and;

3. Dichotomising their experience and knowledge to that of the oppressed group, ie, making them appear opposite to what is normalised.

This is clearly recognisable in the atitude that men have historically shown towards women, and was the second-wave feminists' focus.

However, third-wave feminists and other activists from other oppressed groups began to highlight the hypocrisy within the feminist movement regarding people of colour, people with disabilities, queer people, etc, etc, and the ways in which the feminist movement was inadvertantly (hopefully) using tactics 1, 2 and 3 to focus feminism onto a small but powerful group of white, upper-middle class, educated, heterosexual women.

I am disappointed that people who describe themselves as feminists now are so unaware of these developments in feminist theory, and have not understood the ways in which they are trained to omit, address as inferior and dichotomise other people's experiences and their ideas.

With privilege comes responsibility. 
A responsibility not to weild it in the faces of those who do not have it. 
A responsibility to use it as a powerful tool. 
A responsibility to listen to those who have experienced a specific form of oppression, which a privileged person cannot even begin to understand without information that is unavailable anywhere else. 
A responsibility to educate oneself as much as possible on correct terminology, history, social belief and other topics about those whom, due to privilege, have less power in society than you.

Most importantly, we have a responsibility to respect the fact that there are some places where privileged people are welcome to listen and participate, but are to do so upon the request that they recognise themselves as privileged and act accordingly, and not allow themselves to use their privilege as a tool to do 1, 2 or 3.

I hope that this post is read as from an alliance and not an attacker - I believe that we are all still learning, and that is the beauty of it all; that we could have a place here in which to learn, and share knowledge with each other.

Let's make it into a place where everyone who truly wants to learn - and teach - feels safe and supported enough to do so.

All it takes is thought.

Cross-posted from Art of the Possible

Lots of drama, (via). Okay, let's start at the beginning with some vocab: "cis" or "cisgender", (if I am understanding it correctly by way of context as well as this post on Feministe), means that your genetic gender and the way your mind perceives itself gender-wise match up; cisgender people are people who are not transgender or otherwise gender-queer. For a lot of people (including those who are offended by the term), being cis means you are "normal", and I think that perception is what's causing a lot of the drama in Feminist Bloglandia. For some reason, some people just don't understand that pluralism applies to everybody. If we get to live in a pluralistic society and have whatever sexuality we feel is normal or natural, that means everyone else does. And it doesn't stop at sexuality or religion or racial issues, it extends to gender. The funny thing is that feminism started as a gender issue, yet radical feminists are the last people to get on the gender-plurality bandwagon, and stop being assholes to people whose gender doesn't fit in with the binary gender our culture has forced upon us because our biology (mostly) limits us to one or the other.The issue is that some feminists think that trans women aren't women. They get offended at the idea of a woman who was born male using the women's restroom. They think that the woman who was born male really is still male, and so will act like a man, and of course the transwoman, who identifies as a woman, who dresses as a woman, who experiences society as a woman -- who sometimes experiences society on even worse terms that ciswomen because she gets the sexist end of the stick from men and the cissexist end of the stick from some women -- is a woman. Period. We've got all of this shit floating around about what makes a "real" man, what makes a "real" woman; but the large and small of the whole thing is that if you identify as a man, you are a man and if you identify as a woman you are a woman; if you identify as something other than a man or a woman, you are something other than that. And believe it or not people, there are those out there who identify as neither male nor female, or as both; those people exist and they need to be acknowledged as part of society and as part of feminism. Feminism isn't just for women who were born female, who were born white, who were born middle class. Feminism is for the betterment of all women everywhere, and that happens to have a pretty cool side effect (in theory) of making the life better for everyone else who do not identify as women.The real issue here is prejudice... and well, outright hate in some cases. We can't do this. As feminists we can't do this. Those of us who are not transgender/genderqueer need to educate ourselves rather than expecting people who are transgender/genderqueer to do it, thereby othering them (either purposefully or subconsciously). After we get educated, we need to reach out to trans and genderqueer people and tell them we are sorry for excluding them from feminism and from society. These women (and men) are women and men. They experience society differently from cis-people, but part of that is because we make them. That's not fair. And I'll tell you something about forcing someone to experience society differently because you think they deserve it: it's not okay. Men have done it to women because "god" made them bigger and stronger. White people have done it to non-whites because "god" advanced their technology faster so they could colonize the rest of the world. Straight people have done it to gay people because someone's god somewhere said that being gay was "an abomination". And now cis feminists are doing the same fucking thing to trans and genderqueer feminists (as well as poor, nonwhite, etc feminists) because god has made it so their brains and biological gender are the same? Come on. We feminists rail against sexism in all of its forms... but when we start acting like assholes because the people we're being sexist against were born male -- this is okay?Newsflash: it's not. Sexism is wrong. Racism is wrong. Homophobia is wrong. Transphobia is wrong. Cissexism is wrong. We can't play this game, feminism. We can't cut people out like this. It's only going to make our job as feminists harder and our world uglier for all women.People don't get to be treated well because they were lucky enough to be born "normal"; you treat people well because it's the right thing to do.

As a feminist, a guilty pleasure I have is yaoi.  For those of you who don't know what that is, yaoi is a genre which originated from Japan, the word yaoi is a acronym for yama nashi,  ochi nashi,  imi nashi .  Which means, no climax, no point, no mean. To understand yaoi fully, it's important to understand aspects of Japanese culture.  Yaoi also deals with male/male relationships, what's interesting about yaoi is while it is basically two men having sex, their sexual orientation may or may not be an issue.  Another interesting thing about yaoi is that it's written by heterosexual women and for the most part, the target audience is also heterosexual women.

 As yaoi made its way to the North America, it has developed into a subculture.  There's even conventions that are dedicated to yaoi, as well as several publishers to translating and publishing yaoi.  Not surprsingly, people have begun to take notice of the yaoi subculture.  In my opnion, part of the reason why is due to the fact that it's mostly made up straight women and teenage girls.  

Now why would a straight women be interested in two guys having sex?  This question comes up whenever there's discussion of yaoi, I was even asked this question several times. The thing is, the idea of a woman liking yaoi is very confusing to many. But why is it confusing?  Is it because women aren't supposed to enjoy guy on guy sex?

As a yaoi fangirl, I have to explain and even defend why I like yaoi.  There has been analysis from academics who are devoted to studying this subculture, who are also trying to understand why it appeals to many women. There are theories of course, some say it's because women who read yaoi don't feel "threatened" by the women they read in heteroseuxal romance ( I don't agree with this theory).  Others say it's idealism, the men in yaoi are always attractive, and of course, the reason why some women like it, because *gasp* they like idea of two guys having sex.  This reason seems to shock people the most. However, I never seen this much devotion to analyzing why some men enjoy yuri (which is essentially the opposite of yaoi). I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but not to the degree of yaoi.

But I suppose my question is, does enjoying reveal something about women's sexuality or sexuality in general?  To me, it only reveals that sexuality can be complex.  The characters are portrayed as being, bisexual, gay, or sometimes even straight, yaoi is one of those genres can that show this complexity.  Which is one of the main reasons why I enjoy it.

So, I've been thinking recently that my college needs a "student organiziation" that concerns itself with feminism, women's rights or something in that lovely genre.  However, I really can't think what I would want to call said group, or what it would focus on.  I was wondering if those of you who were and/or are in a group in college would share about any feminist or women's rights groups you were active in in college so that I have ideas to start one on my campus!

If you could have any feminist issue that is something our federal government could do? What would it be? A new grassroots feminist movement is forming around a call for a new Presidential Commission on the Status of Women to look into the problems that women still face here and around the world.

This week WomenCount is asking what you want a presidential commission on women to do? Take a look at the text of the legislation and offer your suggestions on WomenCount's blog. They'll summarize the responses and submit them to Rep. Jackie Speier's office.

Also if you wish join the Call for a Presidential Commission on Women on Facebook. It's time for your voices to be heard in the halls of government.

New Line Theatre in St. Louis, MO is seeking submissions of smart, original, dynamic scenes and songs for a new musical theatre piece focusing on Rush Limbaugh as a snapshot or crystallization of this moment in American culture. The chosen pieces will be assembled into a full-length musical, tentatively called Rush Limbaugh Saves the World, to open New Line's 20th season in fall 2010 for a four-week run, as part of the 2010 St. Louis Political Theatre Festival.

New Line is a solid wonderful local theatre company that does edgy musical theatre. Instead of just ranting and raving about good ol' Rush Limbaugh, lets put it tot creative use!

I have a new TV addiction: Being Erica. If you haven't heard of it, it's an hour-long drama produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and airing on Canadian television since early January. Here in the States, I've been watching it on SoapNet, where it has quickly absorbed the Thursday night anticipation I usually reserve for Grey's Anatomy (a show that has steadily slipped in my must-see lineup the last couple years). Being Erica airs on SoapNet Thursdays at 10/9 Central.

The premise is this: Erica Strange, a 32-year-old single Jewish woman living in Toronto, periodically goes back in time to address the regrets of her life. In this endeavor she is assisted by her psychiatrist, Dr. Tom, who acts as a mentor-type character, showing up in various disguises and roles to offer her words of wisdom. He's been a janitor, bondage-style bouncer, dog-walker, and all-around lurker, in addition to his usual place behind a huge desk in a huge, dim, musty office where Erica sits opposite him during their sessions, entering and exiting abruptly due to her time-traveling (which he instigates).

Although I haven't even gotten into exactly what I like about the show yet, this is perhaps the one aspect I don't like about it. Although Dr. Tom has his enjoyable moments, overall the positioning of an older male as Erica's spiritual/psychiatric mentor creates a creepy paternalistic vibe that brings to mind the unhappy history of women being subjected to male psychiatrists who supposedly understand them better than they understand themselves. See Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, Erica Jong's Fear of Flying, or the character of Betty Draper in the first season of the TV series Mad Men. And if Erica and Dr. Tom somehow end up together at the end of all this, that would probably ruin the entire show for me. I don't think that's going to happen, but still, yuck.

That said, there is a lot I love about this show. One of the blurbs SoapNet likes to flash around compares it to Sex and the City. I don't really agree with this, however, though it's not necessarily a bad thing. But Sex and the City was clearly a show focused on opposite-sex relationships and same-sex friendships, rather than the influences of family or life choices as a whole. Carrie was the main character, nudged slightly ahead of the other three friends, but it felt like you really only knew her through a certain scattered lens, and saw her from one particular angle that presented an incomplete picture of the character. (Did she have siblings? Did she go to college?) And of course, there was all that shoe shopping.

The character of Erica Strange feels more holistic to me... and less superficial. For one thing, Erica has a family. And that (often troubled) family takes center stage just as often, if not more so, than any of her romantic interests. We learn that Erica had an older brother Leo who died thirteen years ago; not long after that, for multiple reasons, her parents divorced. Erica also has a younger sister Sam, and the ups & downs of their sister relationship, as well as the mother-daughter/father-daughter angles, has been a major part of the family storylines. And because of the time travel flashbacks, we are able to get to know the brother Leo and see his relationship with Erica and the rest of the family. There's also a bit of a mystery angle here, since we don't have complete information at all times, and details of the past fill in gradually. As a result, the family element feels complex and layered.

The show also deals quite a bit with Erica's struggle to find a career path she can be happy with. One of the main issues examined here is how do you reconcile your true self with the compromises you often have to make in order to be successful? Erica regrets that she wasn't as cutthroat and ambitious in college as she could have been -- as a literature major, she was more into cultivating her interests, writing poetry, and finding herself, rather than lining up a solid job future. (As an English major myself, I can totally relate to this.) Yet, when she goes back in time to do just that, she finds she is unable to force herself to be someone she's not.

A decade ago today, two high school seniors from Columbine High School in Littleton, Co., made headlines by opening fire on their fellow students, subsequently killing 13 and injuring more than 20 others prior to killing themselves.

Then the deadliest school-related shooting until the Virginia Tech massacre eight years later, Columbine remains in the hearts and minds of Americans, and is a centerpiece of discussions about gun control and violence.

But there's nothing special about the Columbine shootings - school shootings took place before Allen Klebold and Eric Harris ever opened fire on those students, and they have taken since. Case after case, the blueprint is similar, and shows a disturbing trend: young men using violence to solve problems, and in the process, killing themselves and those around them.

This is hardly a phenomenon, and is often the rule rather than the exception, yet each time a shooting takes place, the same tired record is played - questions about gun control will be answered, the role of parents will be discussed - and yet, each time, nothing will be changed. Boys, it appears, will be boys.

But what if we approach the problems of violence differently? What if, rather than blaming the evil media for the violent programs put forth on TV, or the availability of guns, we actually discuss the messages we're teaching young boys, and look at violence from a gender perspective? If Cynthia Enloe's arguments of looking at international conflicts through feminist lens makes sense, then perhaps, Jackson Katz' arguments of looking at men's acts of violence through feminist lens also makes sense.

After shootings like these, social commentators will always have someone to shift the blame. Social conservatives will point to the decline of family values, and encourage parents to turn off the television and focus on being parents. Peace-loving liberals will focus on the lack of gun control, and say that to cure the sickness of our society, we've got to make it harder to obtain guns. Those who look for cultural changes will point to the rap industry, and try to get parental controls on the records children buy, and the movies they watch.

But herein lies the problem: if children are learning from their parents to embrace violence, to whom do they turn to learn any differently? If fathers continue to beat mothers, will any amount of teaching their children help? Violent men, after all, are just grown up violent boys. On gun control, we can take away all the guns we wish, and with that the knives and sticks and stones, it does not mean young men will stop the cycle of violence. Children, after all, can get quite innovative. We can also turn off the violent music, and the censor the movies they watch, but until we show young men a different outlet, they will always take up violence as a way to solve problems.

After every shooting, it seems, talking heads - the supposed authorities on the social ills of the world will tell Nancy Grace and Larry King that we need to be on the lookout for warning signs of persons most likely to commit violent acts. But if we'd just stop for a second and view society from a different lens, the so-called "warning signs" are all there, being played out everyday.

A new online job board seems to promise better jobs to ATTRACTIVE people. Not modeling jobs, but regular jobs (sales, marketing, etc.). What is this, the 1950s and "Mad Men"? Thoughts???

I just went to see the movie Monsters vs. Aliens with my brother. I knew nothing about the movie walking in except that it was marketed almost exclusively to the middle-school-aged male demographic. Walking out, I wondered why this movie hasn't been marketed to girls.

The story focuses on Susan, "Ginormica", and her transformation from blindly romantic bride to superhero. When her character is first introduced I grumbled to myself, assuming it would be a movie about a woman who needs saving all of the time. Instead, Susan becomes a powerful woman who doesn't need her ex-fiance, or anyone else, to save her. Like most movies for kids, there was a teamwork aspect to the "rescue" and Susan needed the help from fellow monsters, but they were a team with equal members.

So my real question is, why wasn't this movie marketed to girls? A lot of girls would benefit from, and enjoy, this movie. I know it's the kind of movie I would have liked to watch as a 12-year-old. I enjoyed it today. But in commercials, Susan is barely mentioned. I don't know if I ever even heard her voice. Why can she star in the movie but not the commercials?

President Ahmadinejad has urged the Iranian court system to provide a fair trial for Roxana Saberi and ensure that all of her rights are met, including her right to defend herself. Ms. Saberi's first trial for spying and her sentencing to 8 years in prison in Iran were conducted in secret without any legal representation for Saberi. BBC reports today that the Iranian President claims to want to "ensure that the process of examining the charges against the aforementioned individuals are being carried out carefully and fairness, justice and regulations are observed." So, it seems as if Saberi will be allowed an appeal trial with proper legal representation.

Read the article here.

For Saberi's sake, I hope that this is not a political move and that she will be able have a defense lawyer who can secure her release, but I am skeptical. Frankly, this sounds like way to legitimize Saberi's imprisonment. Now, once Iran sentences her again, they will be able to point to the President's nice little letter and her defense lawyers and say "See, we gave her a fair chance" before they throw her in prison for nearly a decade. I remain hopeful for her release...

T.E.N. is working to fight this unthinkable reality by helping survivors rebuild their lives, as well as working to stop slavery in high-risk areas before it starts. One of the ways that T.E.N. empowers these women is by helping them to learn new skills and sell their handicrafts through the Made By Survivors store, helping them develop a sustainable income.

In order to raise more awareness for this cause, I'm holding a giveaway on my blog for a gorgeous necklace handmade by a survivor in Bangkok. Anyone can enter just by leaving a comment - so if you'd like a chance to win free swag and learn more about this important organization, you can do so by clicking here.

I am a white female college student.  I have privelege.  I know I have privelege.  But, until a couple of days ago I didn't understand that I have white privelege.  I intellectually knew many of the aspects of privelege, but until I heard an African-American woman talk about her daughter's infant/toddler classroom and how her daughter, as less than half African-American with very light skin was treated differently than another little boy in that class who has darker skin, by adults who should know better, and probably do, and don't even realize they are doing so.  Until I heard out loud, in person, how much it was hurting her, I didn't get it in my heart, rather than just in my brain.  It was the first time I had a truly serious political discussion with an African-American person who identified as such. The areas I have lived in have a demographic that doesn't even make that surprising.

I have white privelege.  I understand that better than before.  I especially understand better what that entails.  I was practically in tears as that woman in my class talked, at the injustice of our society, at the pain that little girl and little boy are already being set up for.  I was nearly in tears for the young 4th grade girl at the childcare where I work, the second grade twins, in a way I have never been before, because I didn't realize, truly, what they will go through in the future.

Sometimes, that in-person experience is what is needed to make privelege be realized.  I wonder if the lesson from this is an idea for a method to explain privelege.  Get a group of eloquent people, ones lacking in certain kids of privelege, as many as possible... male, white, cis, straight, religious (and not just religious vs. non, but majority vs. minority), age (which goes in several directions), weight privelege... there's lots out there, and lots of people lacking in certain kinds.  I know hearing one woman talk about her experiences brought things home to me, maybe others can learn the same way.

I read romance novels.

I suppose I should feel ashamed of that fact. There is, after all, a stigma about reading romance novels. Further, as a feminist, I am generally opposed to heterosexist or sexist schlock.

Stigma? Yes, I am embarrassed by some of the appalling covers on romance novels . Further, I don't usually advertise the fact that I read romances, mostly due to the fact that there is, as Candy Tan points out, an "assumption that if you read romance, you have to be one dumb broad ." 

So, what about the schlock? Well, I can, in fact, think for myself, and I'll reject the heterosexist/sexist crap in a novel, any novel, as much as I'll reject it in the newspaper, on the television, or coming out of your mouth. That crap is pervasive, but it is not an inherent quality of every romance novel.

Having read romance novels since I was young, I've learned a lot from them. Some of the things I've learned don't fit in to my current feminist, social justice-oriented mindset, and I'm sure you can guess what they are. Yet many, perhaps even most, of them do, and I believe the positive benefits far outweigh the negative consequences. Here are the two of the most influential lessons I've learned at least partially from romance novels:

Well, if you haven't yet, you are surely soon to hear about the comments Jamie Foxx and others made on his radio show regarding Miley Cyrus- rude, misogynyistic, sexist, racist, and rather hateful comments (as can be listened to here ).  Neither star ranks very high on my radar- but the issue was forced into my line of sight thanks to my father's out-of-place reaction to it late last night.

He plopped down onto the couch and immediately began to rail on about it- how incredibly horrible it was, saying these things about the poor young girl.  I couldn't help but wonder why my father was up in arms over the whole thing (although his sounding like a hot regurgitated mess from some conservative talk radio host might have been a good guess).  He's simply not very interested in celebrity culture and certainly not in Disney teen idols.  The outrage was odd, to say the least, and I pointed it out- why, exactly, did he care?

Delara Darabi is a 23-year-old Iranian woman who allegedly stabbed her 58-year-old cousin to death when she was 17. However, Delara claims that, at the time, she took the blame for the murder to protect her boyfriend, since she was under age and thought she could not be sentenced to death. The autopsy revealed that the stabber was right-handed. Delara is left-handed. But Delara was nevertheless sentenced to death by hanging, and it is believed that she is scheduled to be executed next Monday, April 20. She will be hanged in public and her body will be exposed for 5 hours.
According to Iranian law, she could have her sentence commuted if the family of the deceased accepts a sum in money given by Delara's family. But they refuse to accept this money. Her only hope now is international pressure, which has been previously found effective.

There are several ways you can try to help Delara have her sentence commuted:

Do you need to be sexually active and happy about it to be empowered? Do you need to be "ready" to have sex? Do you need to experiment  sexually? Do you need to be comfortable when experimenting? Or is it something else.

I'm a young woman a month away from reaching the age of consent. So these thoughts about being a sexually empowered young woman have been occurring to me.

If you're in the Milwaukee area or love Julia Serano so much that you are willing to drive to Milwaukee, WI, please feel free to come to her speaking event at Marquette University (I know, props to the Jesuit uni for putting this through!). 

With all the recent trans discussion here on Feministing, I thought people might be interested in Julia's appearance

Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009

Time:7PM

Location:

The event is being sponsored by the student feminist group (Empowerment), the Gay Straight Alliance, and Marquette University Student Government. 

Please come and support this awesome, FREE, event!

I know trying to talk to us can be scary.  We have, like, all of these opinions and sometimes we call you on your privilege.  Frightening, I know.  But it’s okay, I’m willing to give you some tips on how to talk to us, or about us:

1. In a discussion about trans people or trans issues, we want to talk about trans people and trans issues. Stop centering the discussion on cis issues.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a post on a major blog about trans issues be derailed into a discussion of birth control, BDSM, or other unrelated topic.  Cis people, sometimes the discussion isn’t about you.  Stop forcing everything to be framed by your perspective.  That is privilege at work.

2. Do your homework.  Don’t know what cis means?  Look it up.  The burden of education is on you, not on us.  If you want to engage with us, don’t expect us to teach you everything we know.  You’re going to actually have to put effort into being an ally.  You’re actually going to have to self-educate and self-reflect.

3. Trans man, trans woman.  Not transman, transwoman.  Put the space in.  Seriously.  Just do it.  I believe in you.

4. Don’t belittle us.  We’re not here as objects for you to use.  If you learn while talking to us, that’s wonderful.  But we don’t want to see self-congratulatory posts later about how your time among the (oppressed class, in this case trans people) has made you a better person.  If you’re frustrated with other people who are hateful to us, wonderful.  But don’t use us as a group or your ally status as a bludgeoning weapon to attack other people with.  Both times, you center the discussion and the concerns of cis people and you assert your privilege.

5. Finally, DO participate!  I’ve seen too many cis people give weak “what do I have to say about it?” responses.  We need your engagement.  If you can set aside your cis concerns for a moment, we can even have a productive conversation!

While riding the bus in London, I couldn’t help but notice the large furry porn billboard seductively staring me in the face. Apparently Cadbury’s bunny “still has it.”

Beats me why any business would spend loads of dough to  sexualize their mascot. This bunny rabbit really makes me scratch my head. Cadbury assures us that Little Miss Carmel is “back with more curves and makeup.” Because that’s what we want from a caramel chocolate bar?

Using female image and sexuality to sell a product has  been used as a marketing strategy for a long time. But turning cartoons into seductresses? Does this bridge sexism or bestiality and who is the intended audience?

In my Gender and the Visual Arts class today we started talking about post-feminism. There were two main things that bothered me and I wanted to hear other opinions to try and clarify my own. 

The first issue was that I was the only self proclaimed feminist in the room. Everyone else either 'didnt want to be labeled' or thought that being associated with feminism meant that people 1. Wouldn't listen to you because they'd already think you were militant, and 2. Argued that feminism is an outdated concept that no longer has a place in the world and does more harm than good.

The second issue was when we discussed what this current generation is fighting for. If we are evolving from the last, where are we evolving to, and what are we becoming? Some suggested that we are the 'Whatever' generation, a generation that no longer wants to deal with these issues and doesnt want the effort of always fighting. That we do what we want to do and are no longer constrained by those around us. (obviously there are some very clear problems with this argument but perhaps theres some truth to the whatever concept)

But I want to know what you think? Why do most women not want to be feminist anymore and where is feminism going? I know these are questions that everyone answers but I do wonder, why do you connect yourself with feminism? Why not choose your values and create your own sense of identity rather than using a pre-prescribed set?

PS I still identify as feminist and have my own reasons but Im interested to see other peoples ideas....

So I stumble across this new blog via The Frisky, and find that these "fucking hipsters" happen to look a lot like non-conventional representations of gender. AKA, these people look "gay" or andro.

Check out this pic.

Caption: "How is it that I'm the dude and you're the woman?"

Hateful? I think yes.  But this is possibly an overreaction.

Jillian Barberie (aka Reynolds) is a quasi-sportscaster on Fox Sports. Really, she's the weather girl (not surprising that Fox wouldn't make her an actual sports reporter), but she claims to love sports and often calls herself a sportscaster. Thus, she is in a unique position to represent other female sports fans on a national stage. Too often women who enjoy sports are deemed "sexy" for their love of football, baseball, etc. but not taken seriously on an intellectual level.

Male sports fanatics will often discuss together certain rules, strategies, and players; however, they typically ignore the opinions or ideas of their female counterparts and are shocked when an insightful observation comes from one of them. Many men seem to believe that women could only possibly enjoy sports on a superficial level, and that most of us only watch them to impress/attract men. Countless times, while I have been in a bar watching (often rather loudly) football, men have approached my date and told him how lucky he is to have a girlfriend who will watch sports, wink wink. The assumption here, I presume, is that my love of sports is somehow done for his pleasure rather than, or at least in addition to, my own. A woman's fanaticism is not admirable, like a fellow man's would be; it is "sexy".

As an academic and a woman, I am often faced with judgment about my love of sports. Academics often feel that sports are somehow beneath them and men, as I have mentioned above, see my fanaticism as 'sexy' but not as a serious love of the game(s). So, I am constantly working against these stereotypes and become disappointed and disheartened when I see a fellow female sports fan reinforcing these stereotypes. Which is exactly what Jillian does in her Nutri-system commercial.

Jillian's commercial only reinforces the view of female sports fans as superficial sex objects. Her claim that she's "not your average gal" because she "loves sports" while wearing a lingerie-type top that barely contains her giant breasts only furthers the notion that women who like sports do so to attract men. Even more insulting is her obnoxious quip "How many girls can do that?" after catching a football that looks like it was thrown underhanded from about 10 feet away. Um, let's see Jillian.... ALL THE GIRLS I KNOW can do that! Her demeaning insinuation here is that women are not only trying to be sexy by watching sports but that we are also all incapable of participating in any kind of sporting activity.

This commercial is absurd and insulting and shame on Jillian for promoting this type of image.

Even though it's early Saturday morning and I'm tired, I still have to give a giant Friday Feminist Fuck You to Sarah Palin for invoking the anti-choice argument that pisses me off the most at a recent Right to Life rally:

I can look at a scared, embarrassed unwed teenager carrying a child, and I can look at a desperate adoptive parent's eyes, see their longing for a child, and I can know for sure, Vanderburgh Right to Life, you are doing the right thing, because you are planting those seeds, reminding us that children are meant as perfect gifts, not as burdens.

In other less convoluted words, Sarah Palin is suggesting that women have children they don't want so that they can give them away to a woman who can't get pregnant. She is telling women with unwanted pregnancies to think about every other woman in the world and put herself last before she decides what to do with her pregnancy.

Fuck you, Sarah Palin. No woman has to rent her womb out to anyone who is so "desperate" to have a child that they'll only adopt one from a knocked up teen who considered having an abortion. There are millions of kids around the world who don't have parents and are waiting to be adopted. Most of those kids will never be half as healthy as little Trig Palin or live to see their first birthday like he will (although, thankfully, most of them won't be political pawns like Trig. Speaking of which, fuck you again, Sarah Palin, for using Bristol and Trig as political pawns.). There are more adoptable kids in the U.S. than there are parents willing to adopt, which leaves a lot of foster kids out on the street on their 18th birthday. The couples who are that in want of a child can adopt one of those children. So can you, Sarah Palin, who has yet to adopt a single child. Guess she's not ready to walk that walk.

I am a student at the University of Minnesota, which has one of the greatest student newspapers in the nation. I read it everyday at lunch. Toward the back of our newspaper there is a regular feature called "Network". It is a joke column, but one that I regularly ignore, because it is rarely witty, or thoughtful, or in any way capable of making me laugh.

One of the reasons for this is that Network frequently refers to women as "hos". Recently, a very thoughtful (and in my opinion, courageous) woman, Ami Wazlawik wrote two letters to the newspaper protesting the sexist language in this feature.

Also on the same page as Network is a romance column called Dr. Date. The author of this column has joined Ami in calling for Network to be disallowed to continue with the use of such offensive language, and won my heart. Today Dr. Date called for women at the University to join Amy in her critique of Network.

I was content to ignore Network until I saw the response printed in that section today. An excerpt follows:

"Network is not, not NOT a sexist. Whether it's sexy little co-ed bunnies, fugly women's studies majors, CSOM douchers or those tools on the football team, you're all equal in the eyes of Network."

"Network doesn't have the TIME to respond to foolish little college students whose daddies didn't love them enough."

Network followed these comments by printing a letter, which included comments like this:

"Not only does Network's discussion have next to nothing to do with gender as I have proven, but the fact that someone would use it as a staging ground actually works against the movement for the elimination of sexism: By jumpin on every little thing that looks like sexism, you devalue your own cause by making the movement look radical."

Yes, because women can't do two things at once! Seriously? I really just want to email them the "Derailing for Dummies" thread.

Some are responding on the online forum that really, we shouldn't have any problem with Network's language because his column is satire...I love satire and Network has never seemed particularly satirical to me. I'm pretty sure the author that wrote in to Network in that last comment was sincere.

So I am looking to take up Dr. Date's call to "pick up the slack". Any good lines I can drop in a letter?

Oh and this is why I said Dr. Date has forever earned my admiration:

"Together, through a concerted effort to inform the Daily's management about our dissatisfaction with Network's near-infinite suckage, we can have a world where Backtalk readers don't have to suffer the idiocy of that fool (who I am pretty sure approves of drowning kittens in burlap sacks and clubbing baby seals)."

As you can probably tell, this section of the newspaper is very informal. However, is there any planet on which Network's comments can be construed as acceptable for publishing in the newspaper of an academic institution?

If you want to read some comments on patriarchy by people who so clearly don't grasp the concept, that will make your head spin, I suggest you read Ami's second letter and the comments that follow here.

You have to admire Ami's patience!

The recent bout of cis-centric/transphobic commenting on some of the bigger feminist blogs highlights a problem that exists throughout the feminist community. There are very good reasons for solidarity between the transgender community, that is people whose gender identity is self-identified as different from that assigned to them at birth, and cisgender feminists (by cisgender I mean people who identify with the gender identity they were assigned at birth). However, a binary view of gender and lack of understanding of trans life experiences often leads to the exclusion of gender non-conformists from feminist analysis and to transphobic attitudes within feminist circles.

In patriarchal cultures the oppression of women through exclusion, marginalization, and violence is oppression of people who have failed to be men . When power has been deliberately concentrated in male hands and men have positioned themselves as the norm, women experience violence because they are treated as an other, as less than. Less worthy of life, less worthy of choice, less worthy of bodily autonomy. Women’s consent is deemed unnecessary because they are seen as less than human.

There are many people, including too many women, who experience marginalization, oppression, and violence because of their failure to be men but who also fail to fit a definition of woman rigidly defined as those who were identified female at birth, self-identity as female and also dress a certain way, speak a certain way, move a certain way, desire a certain way. In fact, failure to fit perfectly into the woman box is also an excuse for oppression.

In my personal efforts to ramp up the women's presence on Examiner.com, I'd like to invite you to apply to be a Women's Issues Examiner or spread the good word to some gals of your choice.

So what am I looking for and what does this all mean? Here goes:

If you're the go-to gal in your neighborhood with your finger on the pulse of all things women's issues and what's good for gals around town, then listen up. Brit Horvat, Content Program Manager at Examiner.com , is seeking in-the-know women in any U.S. city to be Women's Issues Examiners. What are Examiners? They're credible, passionate, local writers who are changing the way Web users get their information. Read more here .

If you're foreign to online publishing or social marketing, don't fret. Where there's a bad-ass women's writer there's a way, and the Examiner staffers will help you build a following. Examiner.com is one of the top 300 most-visited Web sites, so if you're looking for exposure, it's definitely the place to be. From the Real Cougar Lifestyle Examiner appearing on The Today Show to the Seattle Parenting Examiner getting picked up by The New York Times , these gals are getting heard.

On the feminism front, check out what National Women's Issues Examiner Juliette Frette (artist, writer, feminist and Playboy Playmate) is saying.

Today is the Day of Silence, of course. Thousands of young LGBT people and their allies are keeping their mouths shut in an attempt to echo the silence our LGBT brothers and sisters face in the name of oppression. I am one to believe that winter is a time for gathering information and developing theory on issues, and spring, summer, and fall are times to manifest it into action (though these are not necessarily mutually exclusive). In this light, I'm considering this year's Day of Silence to be my kick-off for summer grassroots action.

I also believe that queer activism is an essential part of feminist activism (as well as racial justice activism and classism awareness and action). This simply boils down to this: there are upper-class Black bisexual women, there are middle-class Native American straight women, there are working-class Asian queer women, there are impoverished Caucasian transwomen. Women can be any combination of anything. Hence, if you are in the business of women's right activism, you must also be in the business of activism towards the other oppressions women face.

For those of you who are celebrating Day of Silence today. Post here letting us know how its going/ what you plan to do tonight to break the silence.

Here is mine:

Personally, I am at school sitting on the computer during lunch. I have accidently talked four times today already. I have a handmade rainbow shirt on and rainbow shoelaces. i also am carrying some Human Rights Campaign balloons with me from class to class. I currently have no plans on how I will break the silence. So far no one has harassed me today which is wonderful.

So yeah, here are some questions to help you respond to this. You don't have to answer them, but I am personally curious.

1. Has anyone harassed you or tried to trick you into talking?

2. Are you wearing any Day of Silence related gear or gay/bi/trans pride clothing?

3. Did you accidently talk? If so how many times?

4. How do you plan to "break the silence"?

If you have no idea what I am talking about go here:

http://www.dayofsilence.org/

Happy Day of Silence everyone!

Like so many of us, I've been watching (and re-re-watching) Susan Boyle's moving, ass-kicking, stereotype-defying performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" since it exploded across the net a couple days ago. And like so many of us, I'm genuinely moved to tears every time, and so proud of this woman for having the confidence to overcome the odds (read: judgement) stacked against her.

But something still didn't feel quite right. Finally, I came across a piece by Dennis Palumbo on Huffington Post, titled "What If Susan Boyle Couldn't Sing?", that absolutely nails down what's been bugging me. Palumbo writes:

The unspoken message of this whole episode is that, since Susan Boyle has a wonderful talent, we were wrong to judge her based on her looks and demeanor. Meaning what? That if she couldn't sing so well, we were correct to judge her on that basis? That demeaning someone whose looks don't match our impossible, media-reinforced standards of beauty is perfectly okay, unless some mitigating circumstance makes us re-think our opinion?

Please read the whole piece. It's insightful, and humbling, and a good reminder that "not judging a book by its cover" isn't just about talent: it's about respect for the whole person, secret rockstar or not.

Rebecca Traister deconstructs the latest euphamism for sexually active women:

The enthusiasm for the "Wild Kingdom" analogy is a sign of how strange and hysterically funny the idea of energetic female sexual desire is....How sad and backward that we have to give it a nickname, animalize it as if it's outside the boundaries of civilized human behavior, make it a trend, pretend that Demi Moore invented it. That's not progress, and it's not a step forward for women.

I'll admit, I've thought about "bitch" "pussy" and "cunt," but I hadn't put a lot of thought into the implications of "cougar."  Interesting article.

Hot Cougar Sex!

First community post . . . *eek!*  But I wrote this and really want to kind of hash it out in a discussion, and I know everyone here would do wonderfully.  So please, be kind, but definitely dissect it.

I just finished reading Russell Brand's autobiography, or, should I say, his first autobiography, "My Booky Wook".  And, by the way, I am rapidly falling into fannish love with him- he is utterly charming, almost enough to make me want to throw away all my Libertarian principles and and everlasting faith in democracy to join in his revolution and as-of-yet-unrealized utopian commune . . .  But I digress; back on topic.  Russell is especially tabloid-worthy (in British press, at least), for his amorous escapades, following in the footsteps of Casanova and Don Juan, having been given the somewhat notorious award of "Shagger Of The Year" three years in a row.  He's not apologetic for it, either, in his book, and there was one quote in particular that has stuck with me:

"To this day, I feel a fierce warmth for women that have the same disregard for the social conventions of sexual protocol as I do. I love it when I meet a woman and her sexuality is dancing across her face, so it's apparent that all we need to do is nod and find a cupboard." ['Cupboard' here being Britspeak for 'closet'.]

I couldn't quite put my finger on why this quote resonated so strongly with me, and then it kind of hit me all of a sudden- it has a completely different tone than anything I've heard from men of similar sexual repute.  Typically when I hear about promiscuous men (a term that feels funny to write, even- so well-entrenched is the idea that promiscuity is a female phenomenon, its male equivalent considered merely average), my mind instantly conjurs up these words and judgments- womanizer, player, playboy.  They are predatory images, ones that imply a loss on the part of the woman, a victory on the part of the man