Monday, August 28, 2006

Billie Jean King Honored by Having a U.S. Tennis Center Bear Her Name

For those who are not tennis buffs like I am, Billie Jean King is awesome. She has been an advocate for recognition and respect for women's tennis for her entire career, and has also been an activist against sexism and for women's rights off the court. Her greatest claim to fame is whipping Bobby Riggs' ass after he made a number of sexist comments and claimed that he could beat most of the top women even though he was a 55-year-old man.

She now has a tennis center named after her. A ceremony was held tonight, with tennis greats like Venus Williams, John McEnroe, Chris Evert, and Jimmy Connors. It was pretty neat. I'm very glad that she has gotten this recognition, as she has contributed greatly to women's tennis and tennis in general. I hope this will lead to even more recognition for women in the sport, and in sports in general. As we all know, Wimbledon has still yet to pay men and women equally.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Plan B Over the Counter But Still Limited

The FDA finally approved OTC-status of Emergency Contraception, also known as Plan B and the archaic "morning-after pill." As we all know, the sluts only come out at night. Unfortunately, over-the-counter Emergency Contraception is only available to women 18 and over, even though the greater medical community accepts that this drug can be taken by any female of reproductive age. Girls 17 and under will need a doctor's note to take advantage of Plan B.

Although this seems like a victory, it is a very minor one. With doctors still denying patients prescriptions for Emergency Contraception and other prescription birth control methods and pharmacists refusing to fill the prescriptions, there are still huge barriers that need to be broken for complete and fair access to reproductive services. Several acts have been introduced to increase access to and coverage of birth control, prevent unintended pregnancies, protect abortion rights, and support healthy families. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) recently sent me a list of all of the legislation he supports regarding reproductive rights.

Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Responsibility, and Opportunity Act: "This bill would increase funding for comprehensive and medically-accurate sex education programs and develop classroom and after-school initiatives to help young people build positive life skills."

Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraception Coverage Act: This act "would prohibit health plans from restricting" prescription birth control.

Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act: This "would guarantee a patient's prescription is filled without delay or harassment. This bill strikes a careful balance by allowing a pharmacist to refuse to dispense contraception, but requires the pharmacy to ensure that there is someone present who will fill the prescription."

Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emeregencies Act: This act would "require hosptials that receive federal funds to provide information on and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape."

Freedom of Choice Act: "This bill would forbid government interference in a woman's right to make dceisions about family planning and her reproductive health."

MOTHERS Act: This act would "ensure that new moms and their families are educated about postpartum depression and that mothers are screened for symptoms and receive necessary services.

Contact your Congresspeople and tell them that you support these acts and reproductive freedom. Science before politics!

Career Girls Ruin Marriages, Homes, and Lives Apparently!

The original source for this article no longer exists, so I posted it at my other, quieter blog Womb of Doom. I know it hurts, but I suggest you read the whole thing.

The author of this diatribe, Michael Noer, makes many outrageous claims:

Men who marry women with careers "run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage."

"[P]rofessional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it."

"[W]omen--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner."

"[T]he more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you."

"[M]arrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research)."

"The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you."

"Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat. And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease."

"So why not just stay single? . . . . "[A] good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids."

I was waiting for him to conclude with a statement of men's oppression by these wicked career women. I mean, if he marries a career woman, he totally suffers from various illnesses, incompetent offspring, and a dirty house. Yet if he doesn't get married, he'll contract herpes and commit suicide by mixing anti-depressants and alcohol. Poor men! However, this article provides a solution for these oppressed men: Marry June Cleaver. Done and done!

To the astute feminist reader, this article further proves women's oppression. Women who want to have fulfilling, well-paying jobs sacrifice their happiness because they have to juggle being a woman, being a wife, and being a mother. Oh, did I just repeat myself? Women have to take on both traditional masculine and feminine roles to ensure the well-being of themselves, their children, and their seemingly incompetent yet somehow socially superior husband. The possible solution of allocating domestic duties equally between husband and wife in order to alleviate the stress that comes with being a full-time participant in both the private and public spheres never occurred to Michael Noer or the other penises that control this country, probably because he's too busy worrying about how oppressed he is. On the other hand, women who choose to stay home, or are told to by their paranoid husbands who read Forbes, play the invisible mom role, and are both taken for granted and openly told that their work means nothing because they don't get paid day after day after day.

But hey, at least she'll live to be 100 in her happy, healthy, traditional marriage.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Teacher of 54 Years Fired for Being a Woman

A minister of a Baptist church fired a female Sunday school teacher, Mary Lambert, in Watertown, NY after realizing that the Bible should be taken literally as a guide on how to oppress women. Rev. Timothy LaBouf sites 1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." Even worse, this man is a member of the Watertown's "non-partisan" City Council. He says this one sexist belief won't interfere with his decisions made as a councilman, since he believes that women can do any job she wants, as long as it's outside the Church. I don't buy it.

You can contact LaBouf by callling (315) 788-7363 or by e-mailing him at

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Ghost-like apparitions who have no wrinkles and smell like laundry detergent, er, women. Patriarchy's wet dream!

I watch a lot of TV. If I'm being honest, I watch too much TV. But in my television watching, I often notice certain paradigms portrayed in advertising. I know, I know, we've already had posts on advertising and how big of a shaft it gives to women and gender equality. And good posts at that. :)

But certain commercials bother me, and this is my place to rant about them. So, rant I will.

Commercial That Bothers Me #1: Suave.

This commercial bothers me for two main reasons. It buys into the less woman-friendly patriarchal gender roles and it further demeans the women within said gender roles, whether they're there by choice or not.

Now for the description:

An invisible person is doing a variety of things. They are pushing a grocery cart, feeding a baby, carrying laundry upstairs, pulling a child away from a television screen, picking out a man's socks, and cooking dinner. Then you see that the invisible person is the, I guess, ghost of a woman who would be doing those things, but she has somehow escaped long enough to wash her hair with Suave products and become beautiful again.

Honestly, I don't even think this commercial NEEDS feminist analysis to seem really bad. But, I've been dying to do it because I "argh" at the screen every time it comes on.

I'm just wondering, why is it that said man in this commercial cannot pick out his own socks? Is it too hard to open a drawer and pick them up? Does the ghost woman put them on his feet, too? Once again, why is it that women have to make up for "male weakness" by being domestic slaves? Why is the ghost woman the only one to feed the baby? Why is she the only one doing laundry?

And now to my last question: What makes women who do these things not beautiful? Why do they have to spend their money on beauty products to be "beautiful"? I don't see anyone telling the man who's socks she picked out that he's not beautiful because he works for a living.

/rant #1.

Commercial That Bothers Me #2: Tide

This commercial bothers me for one reason, but it's a big bother.

Description: A woman is shown feeding her baby, with a voiceover of "smelling like a mom" or some variant. Then, after she uses Tide on her clothing, she is shown in a romantic scene with a man and the voiceover changes to "smelling like a woman".

This bothers me. I'm wondering why a woman can't "smell like a mom" and "smell like a woman" at the same time. It's a classic example of the trap set for women by patriarchy. If you don't procreate on cue, you're just a floozy slutbag. If you do, you're no longer sexually desirable and you stink, apparently. Again, this is turning women into simple roles rather than people who have numerous facets to their personality, not to mention people who can display all of those facets at the same time. Motherhood isn't shameful, and it isn't the antithesis to womanhood. I see no reason why it should have to be hidden from men like it's "unsexy".

Commercials That Bother Me #3: Wrinkle Cream

There isn't one specific commercial for this rant. It's all of them. I don't care how they're displayed, constructed, introduced, any of it. I don't care about that.

I'm worried about the concept of wrinkle cream more so than the commercials themselves, although the commercials are misleading and dishonest, considering they seem to make anti-wrinkle attitudes out to be the ideas of women as opposed to the ideas of the men they're sleeping with or the culture around them. Every time I see a wrinkle commercial I ask my mom a question and I'm sure she's tired of hearing it.

Why the hell don't MEN have to make sure they never have wrinkles? Women make less on the dollar, and they have to spend much more on grooming and making sure they never age, which is another impossible feat. Women always have to be given impossible feats to accomplish, and it boggles my mind.

And now my huge rant is over. It probably didn't make much sense, but in all actuality, neither do any of these commercials or concepts. That's all I have to say about THAT before my head explodes.

Poor Women's BETTER Access to Contraception Could Save US $1.5 Billion

The Alan Guttmacher Institute recently conducted a study* estimating the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, and unplanned births that can be prevented if there was equal access to contraception provided by Medicaid. As of now, Medicaid can cover prenatal and limited postpartum care for poor families that are otherwise uneligible for Medicaid benefits, which are families who earn less than 133% of the poverty level. Some states have expanded their benefits to include family planning services to families who make up to 200% of the federal poverty threshold with favorable results, since pregnancy-related care is much more expensive than pregnancy-reducing measures (surprise!). The study also estimates how much federal money can be saved if Medicaid benefits expanded to include the same population's access to contraception. According to the results, the following could happen three years after the implimentation of the program:

  • "secure women’s access to contraception and allow some women who were using less effective contraceptive methods to switch to more effective methods;
  • "prevent between 375,000–720,000 unplanned pregnancies, 180,000–345,000 unplanned births and 150,000–290,000 abortions;
  • "generate significant cost savings ranging from $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion for federal and state governments."

*Yes, the article is 84 pages long. The Executive Summary is an overview of everything, and the first four chapters go more in depth. Everything else is tables and junk.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

New Survey Shows Majority of Voters Support Candidates Who Respect Privacy

Whooda thunk?!

A study designed and conducted by Lake Research Partners for NARAL Pro-Choice America surveyed 1,000 registered voters age 18 and over on their views of the politicization of abortion and other reproductive services. Here's a summary of the results:

77% agree overal and 56% strongly agree that "government and politicians should stay out of a woman's personal and private decison of whether or not to have an abortion."

64% of voters would favor a pro-choice candidate who believes that the government and politicians "should not interfere in a decision best made by a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God." 65% would favor a pro-life candidate with the same stance.

8 in 10 voters are tired of the politicization of abortion.

65% are unfavorable towards candidates who support the refusal of emergency contraception by pharmacists. 61% are unfavorable towards candidates who do not support emergency contraception being given to rape and incest victims in hospitals. 61% don't favor candidates who don't support public funding for birth control and family planning services.

65% disapprove of Louisiana's and South Dakota's extremely restrictive abortion laws.

6 out of 10 voters disapprove of the fact that "Congress has voted 145 times in the past 10 years to restrict reproductive health services, including abortion, birth control, and other forms of contraception."

For full results, method of obtaining results, and some of the questions that were asked to the participants, check this out.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

So baybees are entitled to use women's bodies, but only if men are done with them?

A new study has just come out. It states that, surprise surprise, less than 4 years into marriage, less than half of 30-year-old women wanted regular sex. Now, the bovious reason for this, for anyone who is normal and NOT stupid, would be "Oh, women are probably tired because they work harder than men, on average". Well, knowing that this is the logical, most correct response, let's take a dive into Wingnutland!

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach knows the secret to making married couples have more sex: Give breasts back to their rightful owners, men. He says that women who breastfeed their children make their breasts into something useful, and that turns men off. The minute a baby touches a woman's boob, it's no longer appealing as a sex object, and thus, men no longer find their wives appealing.

This is a wonderful example of male entitlement, not to mention the very strong existence of mixed messages being sent to women. From one angle, they're bad mommies if they don't breastfeed, and from another, they're bad sex-slaves if they do. So now Boteach has created a world where women must choose between their children and their spouses. It's ridiculous, it's misogyny, and it's completely incorrect. There is absolutely no truth to the notion that women's breasts are no longer appealing if they breastfeed with them. Not only that, but that shouldn't matter anyway! Men do not have breasts. They cannot get them through marriage. Sorry, Rabbi.

Amanda at Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister have more on this topic. I just couldn't help but touch on it myself it made me so sick to my stomach.

Support Dr. Shirin Ebadi & the Center for the Defense of Human Rights

Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Shirin Ebadi is the founder of Iran's Center for the Defense of Human Rights. This program is in danger of being ended by the Iranian government, claiming the organization is illegal because it supposedly does not have the proper permit. According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, it is not against the law for social organizations in Iran to operate without a permit. Even so, the CDHR has requested a permit several times but received no response from the Iranian government.

To support Dr. Ebadi's noble humanitarian work, contact the United Nations and the Iranian government to let the CDHR continue to exist. For more information, you can check out Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Nobel Women's Initiative.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Support the REAL Act . . . Please.

Moving in with your boyfriend is like . . . .

Well, that's what, a part of the rampant crisis pregnancy center provider Care-Net, wants you to think. This website provides abstinence-only propaganda in place of truthful information about sex, sexuality, contraception, and STDs. Their campaign is directed at teenage girls, because everybody knows no amount of sex-ed can possibly benefit guys, even if it is false. Or maybe they just think girls are naive enough to believe it.

The possibility that this garbage is taught to our middle and high school students and the certainty that abstinence-only education causes more harm than good makes me very anxious about the future of our society. I should be thankful that this sort of thing doesn't literally scare the pants off me; that might be mistaken as an open invitation to my vagina.

To support accurate information about sex being taught in American public schools, urge your Representatives to pass the Responsible Education About Life (REAL Act). I'm proud to say that one of my state's Senators, Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), is a co-sponser of this act. Protect our youth from unintended pregnancy, STDs, and right-wing politics!

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Gender Equality According to Hummer

How nice it is that Megan warned you all, although I was looking forward to barging in. I guess I'll introduce myself. I'm Emily posting as FEMily! I'm 21, and I'll be starting graduate school in the fall, which means I'll be a student by night and hopefull a feminazi all day!

I was going to write about these Hummer commercials that I've been seeing lately in my other blog, but they made a slight change to one of them. Despite the change, I can still bitch about it. Huzzah! In case you're confused about which Hummer commercials I'm talking about, here's a description.

One commercial stars a mother playing with her young son at the park. A heart-warming scene indeed! Then she realizes that motherhood in public is unbecoming, so she races to the nearest GM dealer, trades in her mini van that just screams "Mom Mobile," and buys a shiny new Hummer. The commercial ends with Hummer me to "get my girl on." I guess that means buy something that'll expel more carcinogens into the air my hypothetical children breathe.

The other feautures a young man buying a supply of vegetables and tofu at the grocer's check-out counter. He looks behind him to see another man buying more manly groceries of red meat and beer. Of course, the vegetarian feels his masculinity has been threatened. I'm sure in the micro cosm of "Patriarchy at the Grocery Store" such a manly man would be gossipping to all of his friends about "that vegetarian with a penis" in between tearing through a bloody steak and chugging a Bud Light. Naturally, our bean curd-loving protaganist trades in his small, fuel-efficient auto for a Hummer behind the slogan "Reclaim your manhood." This last bit was eventually changed to "Restore the balance," probably after they donated a large sum to The National Right to Life.

Even with the change of the commercial aimed towards men who like tofu, both commercials are still sexist for the simple fact that they exist. For the first commercial, a conflicting message that is sent to every female in this country is reinforced: While motherhood is something to be desired by every woman and girl, it is also a life path that is suppressive; a woman can't be a mom and the person she was before she was a mom (unless she buys a Hummer, that is). As for the second commercial, taking out the word "manhood" does not fix anything if they replace it with a phrase that is equally patriarchal and the overall themes of the commercial remain. The belief that men who don't eat meat are somehow lesser men is still a motivating factor in buying a Hummer. Driving the Hummer "restores the balance" by doing a "manly" activity to cancel out eating his chick food. I mean, if he can't get cancer on his lean protein and high antioxidant diet, he might as well get it from breathing in smog!

Don't take my word for it, buddies. You can see the commercials on their official website!


Feminazi by Night is undergoing some renovations and some additions to what was the one-feminazi staff. Things they are a-changin', so I just wanted to give my, what is it, 2 readers a heads up. New introductions will take place soon. :)

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

She Was Made a Target By Being Born With a Vagina

Or in other words, a first day of school adventure. :)

Lunch is quite the time for drama. You see it all the time in those cheesy teen soap operas. Today was no exception in Feminazi By Night land, and I had to become the Feminazi by Night during school hours! It's like Clark Kent turning into Superman right in the middle of the newsroom! It's crazy talk!

It's also not important. What's important is the issue that made me go into Feminazi mode.

I believe very strongly that the strongest indicatorsw of patriarchy can be seen in the way society acts toward the abortion issue and the rape issue, especially when the two are meshed. However, I'm going to take on one of the two in this post. Your good old fashioned victim blaming! Yaaaaay!

You've all heard it before. "She was wearing a short skirt", "She was drunk", "She was hanging all over him".

So, I had a lovely screaming match with a fellow student today. That was the inspiration for my post title, as it was the last thing I screamed at said student. Once again, names are being changed to protect the not-so-innocent (speaking of which, *puke* I saw Bob today). Today's unsuspecting victim (or maybe not? After all, the argument is "personal responsibility" isn't it?) will be called George.

And George, if you're reading this, I urge you to comment. That way I can't scream over you like you said I did today when I pwned you. :)

Anyway, to get down to it, George brought out the age old many times disproved dehumanizing misogynistic argument of "personal responsibility" for women to stop rape. What George doesn't know, however, is that rape is a male problem. Men rape, so men need to stop. For a better example that someone like George can understand, burglars steal, so they need to stop. Anyone that they steal from is a victim. It doesn't matter if they had their door wide open. The burglar STILL has no right to steal from them.

It is not the victim's job to stop the crime from happening, because such a feat is impossible. A person walking home from the bus stop does not have any responsiblity to stop someone from mugging them. By the same token, a woman does not have to wear a burka to stop men from raping her. That is not a society in which women are free, and a society in which women are not free is a sexist society indeed. Anyone who can't see that needs to get their head out of their (I hope cleanly shaven in case of ass-rape) sphincter. Women have a right to feel safe just like any human person, just like any citizen. Men feel safe in this society. There is no reason why women should have to cater to male whim or incorrect myths about why rape occurs for them to feel safe, too.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

As Martha Stewart would say: It's a good thing.

This is awesome.

I've been wondering, in all my years of skateboarding and X-games fandom, when the women who skate would get a chance to shine. Seems like now it's going to be next year.

Now That's What I Like To See!

First and foremost: For my next birthday, minions!


That brilliant shirt comes from, one of the many stores, boutiques, and organizations funding and sponsoring Pro-Choice/Pro-Fashion, a great event that proves that a woman's right to choice about her body shouldn't (and hopefully won't) ever go out of style.

See Feministing's post about it. They have a complete list of sponsors. Check 'em out. There's some awesomeness there.