U.N. Decries Violence Against Women and Girls

Violence against women as a tool of oppression is used every single day all around the world. While I want the media to let the people know about these disgusting acts, I'm disappointed when there's a news story about it. It sends the message that it only happens when someone reports it. But I shouldn't be so picky.

This is one of the best things I've read all day:

"Impunity for perpetrators and insufficient response to the needs of survivors are morally reprehensible and unacceptable," [Assistant Secretary-General Rachel Mayanja, the secretary-general's special adviser on gender issues] said. "Sexual violence in conflict, particularly rape, should be named for what it is: not a private act or the unfortunate misbehavior of a renegade soldier, but aggression, torture, war crime and genocide."

See that, people? Not just a few bad apples.The U.N. also stressed the importance of women in the whole peace-making process, as they are underrepresented.

Judge Southwick Confirmed

The Senate confirmed Judge Leslie H. Southwick to the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, which deals with cases in Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana. Nine Democrats and Independent Joe "I'll Caucus with the Dems" Liebermann didn't think his beliefs that homosexuality is a choice and that White workers can use racial epithets towards Black wokers would keep him from making objective decisions. And with Trent Lott on your side, how can you possibly believe otherwise?

The Politics of Crying

USA Today published a story about crying and gender stereotypes. At the risk of sounding like a blubbering fool, it made me want to cry a bit.

In a recently published study at Penn State, researchers sought to explore differing perceptions of crying in men and women, presenting their 284 subjects with a series of hypothetical vignettes.

What they found is that reactions depended on the type of crying, and who was doing it. A moist eye was viewed much more positively than open crying, and males got the most positive responses.

"Women are not making it up when they say they're damned if they do, damned if they don't," said Stephanie Shields, the psychology professor who conducted the study. "If you don't express any emotion, you're seen as not human, like Mr. Spock on Star Trek," she said. "But too much crying, or the wrong kind, and you're labeled as overemotional, out of control, and possibly irrational."

I just loved that "damned if they do, damned if they don't" line. That's the exact phrase that I used in my Social Inequality class a couple years back when we were asked what "oppression" means. So, yeah, we're are not making it up when we say we're oppressed.

The article also mentions a story that went completely under my radar. Suzyn Waldman, who does commentating for the Yankees on the radio, was ripped a new asshole after she cried on the air after the Yankees were eliminated from the playoffs this season. As a huge baseball fan (of that other New York team at which I'm still a little angry), I can empathize with Waldman. Everyone knew that manager Joe Torre was going to get sacked or offered a truly insulting deal that nobody could accept while still keeping their dignity, as the case may be, and so the end to the Yankees postseason was also the end of the 12-year Torre era. Hell, I cried when the Mets fired Bobby Valentine in 2002, and I wasn't even sure if I could get through the next morning's class without shedding a few tears over it. And the tears shed by Torre and the Yankees for the past 12 years after all their postseason wins could keep Yankee Stadium green for a year. But it was Waldman who got ripped a new asshole (as someone once eloquently put it). Why? Not because sports is a silly reason to cry over. No, it's because Waldman's a woman.

The conclusion of the article talks about what I wanted to post about for days but couldn't find the video for it, as it was most likely lost in the ejection of 9/11 conspiracy theorists: Bill Maher's disgusting comments about the whole Ellen Degeneres/Iggy the dog fiasco.

At this moment when the entire nation is saying 'Hmm, can we have a woman president? Maybe they're too emotional,' I don't think this is helping. If I was a woman, I would be embarrassed right now. I would be embarrassed for all womankind.

Is the entire nation saying that? Because I thought Clinton was leading every candidate in the polls. Anywho, I HATE it when the actions of one individual are somehow indicative of everyone from whatever arbitrary group you want to make look bad (after all, he didn't say he'd be embarrassed for all blonde-kind or gay-kind for that matter). It's as if people attempt not to make a sexist comment by feeling bad for all women when one woman fucks up, especially when the fuck up is a woman being empathetic while the camera's rolling. The truth is, the unfavorable behavior of one woman wouldn't reflect poorly on all women if women weren't already negatively stereotyped. If Bill Maher went on a killing spree, there wouldn't be some dramatic paradigm shift where the majority would exclaim, "White dudes are apeshit, and this is proof! They want to murder us all!!!! They're killing machines!!!!" Of course that doesn't happen, because this logic only serves the purpose to further oppress the oppressed.

Someone Stop This Crazy Lady!

This crazy woman and recent Worst Person in the World nominee named Susan Orr was just appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs. The thing is, she opposes birth control. She worked at the reactionary Family Research Council. She believes that providing contraception is part of "the culture of death." Told you she was crazy. She doesn't need Senate confirmation, but you can still send a message to President Bush and tell him that you oppose this appointment.

Maine Middle School Will Dispense Birth Control Pills

King Middle School in Portland Maine will dispense birth control pills and patches in addition to the condoms they've been providing at the school's health center. I'm all for it. However, the article doesn't say if the students will get some sort of talk from the physician about how birth control works and the fact that they don't protect against STDs and all that jazz. I trust that middle schoolers would know to get contraception if they're going to have sex, but I don't think they're going to know how to use it effectively on their own (that's probably true for most people). I saw this story on the 12 o'clock local news on CBS2. What followed the story was pretty funny.

Dana Tyler: These are young kids we're talking about. And a lot of parents are wondering are there any health concerns here especially when it comes to birth control pills.

Jim Rosenfield: Aside from the moral questions, what about health concerns? Dr. Holly Phillips joining us now with some answers. Holly?

Dr. Phillips: Well, those are some legitimate questions. These are young children. But at this time, birth control, especially long-term oral contraception, is considered safe for the vast majority of women. And it's the most effective from of contraception other than abstinence. In terms of risk, many women ask about breast cancer, but any possible link is still quite controversial. And if you have a family history of any cancer, you should talk to your doctor before starting the pill. Blood clots are a risk for certain women, especially smokers. And finally, the biggest health risk for young girls is that the pill doesn't protect against any sexually transmitted diseases. So that's really one of the main concerns, especially since this group is so young.

Rosenfield: Im just wondering does this move by the school board encourage, send a message to young girls "Okay! It's okay to have sex"?

Phillips: Okay. From a medical perspective, we have to say no. There's some really good research that shows girls are less likely to ask for contraception if they need parental consent, but they're not less likely to have sex. So we certainly don't want to encourage them, but if they're going to do it, we should protect them.

Ding! But why, oh why, is there always one word missing when talking about any kind of birth control? No, it's not kumquat. Well, actually, kumquats are usually missing in a discussion about contraception, but that's not the word I'm thinking of in this case. The word is "boy!" Jim Rosenfield and a lot of other douche nozzles are worried that if girls get birth control pills, the girls will get the message that it's okay for girls to have sex (oh, we wouldn't want that message to get around too damn quick, would we?!). Who are these girls going to have sex with after getting birth control? Themselves? Some may argue that since it's the girls that will be taking the contraception, we don't have to talk about the boys. But contraception prevents pregnancy, and who gets girls pregnant? Boys! Don't you think that if all the boys find out that the girls are getting birth control pills, one of the most effective ways of preventing pregnancies, the boys are gonna be like "Score!"? I think so. They're gonna be like "Double score!" Secondly, I'm tired of people saying that 11- and 12-years-old is too young to have sex when talking about giving minors birth control. That's an opinion, an opinion I hold, at least from a social standpoint, but it doesn't progress the discussion about birth control. The point isn't that they're too young to have sex. The point is that they're old enough to get pregnant and get girls pregnant. And isn't that what contraception is all about?

Sam Brownback to Drop Out of Presidential Race

Yay! Here's what McCain had to say about it:

"I'll miss him in this debate . . . . He's a voice for the pro-life movement and community in America."

If by pro-life you mean forcing rape victims to remain pregnant because they don't fall under the category of "innocent . . . ."

Another Reason to Love Keith Olbermann

This story starts with Bethany Wilkerson, a two-year-old who appeared in a pro-SCHIP ad by True Majority Action. See, Bethany's parents make a combined $34,000 a year. Bethany was diagnosed with a serious heart condition when she was 3 months old. Her parents can't afford health insurance, and SCHIP paid for Bethany's life-saving surgery. Yay for SCHIP, right? Not according to Mark Hemingway of the National Review Online:

"While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad behavior . . . . On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was “unmanageable.” From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway, presuming that others would pay for it and certainly long before they knew their daughter would have a heart defect that probably cost the gross national product of Burkina Faso . . . . I think it’s rude to accept huge amounts of public assistance and then express gratitude by asking taxpayers to extend a Children’s health program to cover college-age kids who come from households making more than $80,000 a year. Which brings us to another salient point — Bethany Wilkerson is healthy. She is covered by existing programs and has already received the much of the medical care she needs."

Did you take that all in? I'm not even going to get into one of the inconsistencies of his argument -- if a life-saving procedure costs the GNP of Burkina Faso, wouldn't it cost more than $80,000? I think it would. Or that Bethany is healthy but only has received much of the medical care she needs (or did she receive the medical care she needs. Looks like Hemingway changed his mind in the middle of typing that sentence but forgot to go back and correct it). Or that Mrs. Wilkerson voluntary left her unmanageable job. The bigger inconsistency is the fact that Hemingway calls the Wilkersons irresponsible for having a baby, while the right-wing fringe uses that exact reasoning for being anti-choice. Which brings me to another reason to love Keith Olbermann. From Tuesday night's show:

Keith Olbermann: Why does a group of people proclaiming themselves to be pro-life see no barrier to preserving the life of fetuses or Terri Schiavo, but when it's actual people who are already up and running, kids like Bethany and Graeme Frost, they literally want them -- in Graeme Frost's case somebody called for a public hanging -- and this little girl's case, the argument was that they didn't have sufficient medial insurance so she should never have been conceived. Is there any straight line in there?

What a great question. That's what I'd like to know. Watch the video if you want the answer given by Paul Krugman of The New York Times (at around the 3:30 mark).

Emasculated? Nope, Just Plain Misogynistic

Apparently, journalist Vanessa Grigoriadis hurt Page Six's pride when she said that their writers are emasculated. I wouldn't call a career in celebrity gossip emasculating. Shallow, but no emasculating. This was Page Six's retort:

"As for us being 'emasculated,' Grigoriadis ignores that fact that half the Page Six staff is female. The male half might take her someplace private and disprove her theory, but we don't like a woman with a mustache."

Did the goons at Page Six just openly threat someone with gang rape? I think so. Then it's a good thing she has that mustache.

Riot!

Above is the trailer for Jamie Babbitt's new film, Itty Bitty Titty Committee. Watch it. This movie is amazing. It's serious and funny and, at times, truly analytical. Plus it's got a killer soundtrack. Yay, Le Tigre!

Anyway, this movie is great. It's about an 18-year-old Latina lesbian (Anna) who works at a plastic surgeon's office. She just got rejected twice, first by her school of choice and then by her girlfriend dumping her. So she meets this one girl, Sadie, who invites her to join her radical feminist group, Clits in Action. And, well, hilarity happens from there.

This movie is great because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's got a lot of awesome feminist content, a great cast, and a good story. Also, I love the fact that the movie isn't about Anna's coming out as a lesbian as a lot of films are. She finds herself, not her lesbianism. None of the movie is focused on the fact that its main character is a lesbian. It's just treated as a "Yeah, of course, why not?" sort of thing. That was one of the coolest things about it, I thought.

Anyway, check out the trailer and this review for more info.

Blaming Women's Lib for Black Single Mothers

This was really rich. Bill Cosby and Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint went on Meet the Press this morning to discuss their new book, Come On, People: On the Path from Victims to Victors.

TIM RUSSERT: What happened within the black community that we got to a point, since 1950, where 70 percent of the children are born with single parents? What happened?

DR. POUSSAINT: Well, I think all kinds of things. Some of it has to do with the fact that things changed for women with the women’s liberation movement. In the past, there was a stigma if you had—a big stigma if you had a child out of wedlock. That’s not true anymore for, for white women or black women. So a lot of the black women do not feel compelled to get married. And then the other issue is the availability of black men and whether they’re eligible to be married. You have so many black men incarcerated, so many black men unemployed, underemployed. In colleges now, black women outnumber black men two to one. And so the chances of hooking up in a marital relationship in the way our society works is more difficult. So I think that’s changed as well.

I find this just hilarious. First of all, feminism wasn't always exactly Black-friendly. The women's suffrage movement was more accurately the White women's suffrage movement -- Susan B. Anthony didn't want to go overboard with the equality. And Betty Friedan's discovery of the feminine mystique, a discovery that may very well be one of the greatest achievements of feminism, didn't apply to lower-class women of color who couldn't afford to stay home. Black women were left out of the women's movement, and some still feel that way.

Furthermore, did Dr. Poussaint imply that there's no stigma to having a child out of wedlock anymore? That's news to me! Single motherhood is still a stigma. This especially applies to women of color, since every little socially unacceptable thing that a brown woman does is attributed to her skin color. If a Black woman is strolling a child in the mall, you don't even have to check her left ring finger to see if she's married -- she's just another Black welfare 'ho draining the system. White women might get similar crap, but people usually give them the benefit of the doubt -- maybe she's a divorcee.

He is right about the women's movement letting us know that we don't have to get married. And we certainly don't have to marry the -- how did Dr. Poussaint put it? -- "incacerated, unemployed, and underemployed" dudes. But it seems like he believes this is a bad thing.

But what was that about Black men and women in college? According to him, because there are twice as many Black women as Black men in college, these women just won't be able to find a mate. Maybe, just maybe, women, even Black women, can marry whoever the fuck they want. Maybe Black women can marry, for example, a Hispanic guy. Maybe the Hispanic guy is in BSU. Maybe the Hispanic guy is President of BSU. Now how 'bout that. Perhaps such a phenomenon completely blows Dr. Poussaint's mind.

Cool Blog

"I Am Emily X: The True-Life Diary of a Frontline Planned Parenthood Worker and Activist"

A Planned Parenthood worker is blogging for choice during some pro-life thing called "40 Days for Life" (not any woman's life, obviously). She's collecting donations for every anti-choice activist outside her Planned Parenthood clinic. She's already raised over $1,000. You go, girl! Great name, by the way.

Bush Administration Funds Homophobia in Uganda.

This is truly horrifying.

"As Ugandan officials and the Ugandan media intensify attacks on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, the US government should condemn these threats, and clarify that it does not support using its HIV/AIDS funding to promote homophobia, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to US officials.

“'When the US funds abstinence-only programs in Uganda, it tells people that LGBT people’s sexualities are dangerous and must be denied,” said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “Supporting prejudice with cash is an approach with deadly consequences for all.'

"An August 16 press conference by a coalition of LGBT groups in Uganda that launched a campaign called “Let Us Live in Peace,” has led to a month-long backlash in the country. Most recently, on September 9, the tabloid paper Red Pepper published a list of first names, workplaces and other identifying information of 39 alleged homosexuals, all men. Headlined “Homo Terror,” the article promised to “name and shame top gays in the city.”

I don't think the Bush Administration purposely gives abstinence-only funding to poor countries to knowingly discriminate against gays. I think the Bush Administration are ignorant of this phenomenon -- Can George W. Bush locate Uganda on a map? It's pretty clear the homophobia that is in abstinence-only education in this country, but we're free to believe whatever we want despite what we learn in school. I don't think most people, especially middle school students, are stupid enough to believe that homosexuality is wrong because their teachers of all people tell them that. Obviously, that's not the same in Uganda. However bad the social climate is for homosexuals in the United States, it obviously pales in comparison to what's happening in Uganda. But that doesn't mean that homophobia can't get worse in the United States, especially when you create an safe environment for it. And I honestly don't think that the Bush Administration realizes how bad homophobia can get when you let it.

Legal or Illegal, Abortion Rates Are the Same

According to a new study by members of the Guttmacher Institute and World Health Organization, abortion rates are the same whether or not the procedure is legal.

"In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe."

"Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury."

"Unsafe abortions" were defined as "those performed either by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards."

Couldn't find any official pro-life opinion on this study.

Women Activists Beaten, Tortured in Zimbabwe

Activists from the organization Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) released a preliminary report of the violence they experience by the police.

"The women endured various forms of torture, including beatings with a variety of instruments ... baton sticks, booted feet, wooden planks, being slapped, and falanga (beatings on the bottom of the feet)," Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) said in a report.

"The forced removal of underwear when in custody is recorded separately as it implies threatened sexual violence," said WOZA.

"Other forms of degrading and humiliating treatment the women suffered included being forced to kneel or crouch for prolonged periods and being insulted and threatened by police.

"Some of the women are subjected to cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment together with their children, as the police do not separate the mothers and their children when they suffer this treatment," it said.

WOZA hasn't posted the report on its website. I'll post the link when they do.

I Have to Talk About This

I wasn't going to talk about the new advertisement promoting abstinence until marriage by the Bush Administration. I saw the video this morning on Feministing, and it sounded stupid then. But when I heard it on The Rachael Maddow Show this evening on my way home from class, it sounded even stupider. Here's the text:

Dad?
Mom?
We gotta talk.
Talk to me about sex.
'Cuz my friends do.
It's all over the Internet.
Now, it's your turn.
Tell me what you want from me.
An education.
A family.
Happiness.
Tell me you want me to wait --
To have SEX.
I may roll my eyes.
Act all bored.
But I'll hear you.
[voice over] Tell your kids you want them to WAIT TIL THEIR MARRIED to have sex. Tell them early and often, and they're more likely to have success.
Come on, Dad!
Speak up, Mom!
You can do it!

I assume the "tell them early and often" part was only said by a disemobided voice because it's wrong to put lies in the mouths of children -- Abstinence-only education is ineffective. Honestly, this wouldn't be a bad ad if "married" was replaced with "ready." I firmly believe in sex education early and often as much as the next person, but it has to be accurate. But, hey. Accuracy isn't exactly the Bush Administration's specialty.

But my favorite line by far is "It's all over the Internet." How about "It's all up in my pants." Sex is biological. It's natural. It's not something that people learn. It's something that people do. What does the Bush Administration think people did back in cavemen days to procreate? That is, where does Bush think Jenna and Barbara came from? The Internet?

Validation!

Not just any validation. It's validation from a conservative. I'm sure all of you read my post about the Values Voter debate when I said that everyone is a values voter -- It just might not be your values that I'm voting for. Well, George Will said the following on This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.

"Social conservatives should grow up. If they want to rally around somebody, why don't they try that? Huckabee needs support right now. If the social conservatives are half as important as they think they are, they would rally around one of these people. . . . But there's a vanity in this group right now. They call themselves "the values voters." I have news for them: 100% of the electorate are values voters. They vote [based on] their values. And this kind of semantic imperialism that they have where they say 'We vote values.' Everyone else votes what?"

Now I'm not going to get into who copied whom and whatnot. The only thing that matters is that it was said . . . twice!

LOL! That Way You Can, Lyke, Pretend You're Still Extracting Free Labor From Women, Lawlz

Heh heh. Because, you know, what else are moms for but washing your dirty underwear?

Funny Sarah Silverman Program Videos

I missed the season premiere of The Sarah Silverman Program last night because I thought it was on tonight. Didn't the first season air on Thursday nights? Anyway, it was about Sarah getting caught up in a pro-life organization, Operation Baby Justice, because she took their "killing babies is wrong" rhetoric literally. It begins with Sarah helping with getting ready for a protest outside the clinic. Then, Sarah realizes that Operation Baby Justice is planning to blow up the clinic. It ends with Sarah aborting an arrowhead from her friend's ass. Funny. Stuff.

Bush Vetoes SCHIP Bill

George W. Bush has vetoed 4 bills in his 6 years in office. The latest is for SCHIP, a bill that would have given healthcare to about 10 million children from families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to get good insurance, because he believes it is "a step towards federalization of healthcare." As you might remember, two of the veotes were to expand stem-cell research, because it "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others."

But vetoing a bill that would insure millions of American children wouldn't be supporting the taking of an innocent human life, if any of those children were to die because they had no healthcare benefits. Right . . . .

In other news, up is down, left is right, and women have equal pay.

Bill Maher Has to Stop

I don't know if it's silly of me to expect a man who's dated Ann Coulter to know anything about women, but I do know that it's standard to treat your guests with respect. On September 28, Bill Maher interviewed Maria Bartiromo from the Wall Street Journal Report. Here's the first thing he said to her:

"May I say, just to begin with, I love watching you. And one of these days I'm going to turn the sound on."

Tee-fuckin'-hee! She's just too pretty to be listened to, even if your livelihood depends on her expertise. Oh, but he's joking, right? He doesn't do this kind of shit on his show all the time, especially not in the same segment.

"To me, the stock market is like a woman. It goes off on the slightest thing. It's very emotional, doesn't seem to be logical. Am I wrong about that?"

Yes and no. The stock market is more like Bill O'Reilly, but for the same reasons Maher suggests.

ENDA to Exclude the Transgender Community

Still don't think there's a huge element of sexism in homophobia? The Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA, H.R. 2015) was supposed to protect workers from being (not) hired/fired based on sexuality and gender identity. But because House Democrats believe that H.R. 2015 won't get enough votes, they will vote on H.R. 3685, which does not provide protection for the transgendered.

Of course, I believe that the original draft of ENDA should be passed. However, if I were a Representative, I don't know how I'd vote. Actually, I do know how I'd vote, and either way, I would be put on trial. I would not vote Nay simply out of principle. I don't think it's a good idea to hinder great progress because my ideal for a discrimination-free society isn't going as quickly as I'd like. I'd rather vote Yay on the watered-down version and give protection to homosexuals than vote Nay until the more inclusive version was up for a vote, which could be never, and be responsible for not giving protection to anyone. But either way, it would look like I'm discriminating against somebody. During my few minutes on the floor, I would talk about this APA article and hope to convince a few.

If you don't find your Representatives name on the list of co-sponsers for H.R. 2015, give them a call or send them an e-mail telling them to at least support H.R. 3685.

Not Until I See Synchronized Puking, Thanks.

Seems like David didn't realize he had a uterus.

There is one phrase that bothers me beyond anything else. It is more than a pet peeve. I seriously cannot stand it when people utter the words. . ."We're pregnant".

Who is this "we" that people who use this phase speak of?

Take this thread on The-N, for example.

I expressed my displeasure with the phrases "she's having my baby" and "We're pregnant", and chaos strikes.

Check out this quote:

No, what's silly is the fact that you seem to have some sort of burning hatred for the male sex. Every little thing that someone has to say about this subject is automatically incorrect to you because you're too stubborn to take down your walls and accept someone else's opinion for once.

That was in response to this statement by me:

Saying "Hey, don't take credit for what I'm going through that you're not" isn't dismissing him. It's just saying "Hey, don't take credit for what I'm going through that you're not. I mean, you did a good job with that ejaculation thing and all, but you're not pregnant now."

Sperm makes a zygote. A woman makes the kid. Getting her pickles and ice cream at 3 in the morning doesn't mean he's pregnant. Sorry. He's doing just that: Sticking around. You don't have to attribute something that he's not going through to him just because of that. That's silly.

So, in conclusion, because I don't think that men get pregnant, I hate men. Or, perhaps it's my unwillingness to attribute pregnancies that men don't go through to men that makes it obvious that I hate men. I'm not sure which option it is. All I know is that men do to get pregnant, and as such, they don't get to take the credit for pregnancies that women go through. Saying things like "We're pregnant" and "she's having my baby" erase the fact that women contribute much more to the process of reproduction than men do. "She's carrying my baby" is just downright unnecessary possessiveness. It unnerves me that some of the girls on that thread thought it was "sweet". "We're pregnant" bothers me even more than that because it's a more subtle sort of sexism. I know that it's supposed to imply that the man is staying with the woman, but I don't understand why one needs to attribute the actual pregnancy to him in order to do that. Can't you just say "I'm pregnant (or my significant other is pregnant) and my male significant other is staying with me (or I'm staying with my significant other)"?

I'm sorry, but "we're pregnant" won't stop bothering me until men are puking up their breakfasts and squeezing bowling balls through straws alongside the women who are ACTUALLY pregnant. If that means I hate men, well, I hate men quite a bit.

Alcohol Increases Breast Cancer Risk

A new study shows that drinking any type of alcohol increases a woman's chances of developing breast cancer.

Researchers found no difference in the risk of developing breast cancer among women who drank wine, beer, or liquor. Compared with light drinkers - those who had less than one drink a day - women who had one or two drinks a day increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 10 percent. Women who had more than three drinks a day raised their risk by 30 percent.

More Roles for Women in Mexican Military

While military women in Mexico are still not allowed in combat, they will now be trained to become piolts, engineers, and other careers. I'm anti-war, but I'm more anti-sexism, so I'm glad that women in Mexico's military are getting more opportunities to support their country. At the same time, it's unfortunate that women in the military who are not in combat aren't recognized for their contributions to the military as nurses and doctors.

Women first joined Mexico's armed forces in 1938 as nurses. By 1973, they could become military doctors, and three years later, dentists. Today, women have access to 17 of the military's 39 career schools. And with access has come increased interest: 3,326 women applied for military schooling in 2007-2008, up 61 percent from the year before.

The article fails to mention if the new influx of female recruits will result in more health services for military women and extra protection from sexual harrassment and assault. I'm not even sure if that's as big of an issue in Mexico as it is in the United States. But after reading the following quote, extra protection for women seems needed:

[Agustin Radilla, who oversees military education] said that, so far, the male cadets have welcomed the women into the new schools, and he credits the changes for a "healthy competition" between the sexes.

Should there be any competition between fellow soldiers? After all, they're fighting on the same damn side.

Take Action Friday -- and Good News!

Megan's post yesterday was the 100th of the year and 200th on FTTR. Woo!

Back to business. You might have heard about Verizon not allowing NARAL Pro-Choice America to send text message alerts to activists because their messages are "controversial or unsavory." Well, after over 20,000 complaints to Verizon (including mine) in less than 2 hours, they reversed their policy! See? Taking action does work.

Want more good news? The Senate passed the Matthew Shepard Act (60-39), which extends hate crime laws to include bias crimes based on gender, sexuality, and gender identity. Bush has threatened to veto this legislation calling it "unneccessary." One in 6 hate crimes are motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. What's unneccessary now?

I guess we could call this the Hound Bush Edition of TAF.

Support UN peace-keeping missions to Myanmar and Sudan (especially now).

Tell Bush that children's healthcare is more important than a cigarette tax increase.

Protect Your Valuables, Ladies!

I am so tired of men comparing women's bodies with jewelry or money or cars and whatnot. My vagina is not a fucking car, assholes.

When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight.

Why do we still think of rape as a property crime? Yes, a woman's body is her property, but it's not something you can throw in a lock box or something, despite the brilliant suggestion of one Wanda Sykes.

Imagine is someone said that about men's asses. Don't want to get ass-raped, well, you better put a lock on that shit. Keep it out of sight! Don't let anyone know that you have an ass! If people know you have an ass, well, you're gonna get raped and you should have taken more precautions. I mean, people lock up their houses, so you should lock up your asshole, too. Because, you know, you can lock up boy parts.

This is not the 1800s. People really should realize that rape is an ASSAULT. That's why they call it sexual assault, people. It's not a property crime. It's not stealing something from a home. It's assaulting someone. It is violating a person's BODY.

Some of the comments are almost worse.

"Why shouldn't they be advised that to get themselves into a drunken stupor in the company of a frisky male could carry risks?"
Come, come David. It's their right, don't you know. Responsibility is soooo 1950s and misogynist.

Putting different standards on women simply because they have vaginas that men want to put things into without permission of the owner isn't responsibility, at least not on the person who should be held responsible. I'm not one to promote heavy drinking, but if a woman gets drunk, the onus to not be raped is not on her. It never was. Men have the right and the ability to get drunk and go to hotel rooms without the prospect of being raped, so why is it that women have a "responsibility" to adhere to a different standard? Yeah, is it smart? Probably. Is it just? Not at all. Acknowledging one without acknowledging the other is ridiculous, and it IS misogynistic. If men were held more accountable for their actions rather than inhibiting what women are allowed to do without being blamed for being assaulted because of it, perhaps rape as a crime would decrease.

It's just ridiculous. There's nothing responsible about turning rape back into a property crime when it's actually violent assault. And yeah, it is from the fifties to do such a thing. The 1850s.

Comment if you have the patience to deal with these types.

Those Bradys Are a Funny Bunch

I know that the actor who played Mike Brady was a closeted homosexual. I heard a rumor about Florence Henderson and the actor who played Greg Brady dated. But I didn't hear about Marcia and Jan experimenting . . . .

I know this goes under the "who cares" column, but you gotta admit, Keith Olbermann is sexy -- wait, let me try that again.

I know this goes under the "who cares" column, but you gotta admit, that's pretty funny. And Keith Olbermann is sexy.

Love, Love, LOVE this commercial!!!!

As someone who was rejected by eHarmony, I was delighted to see advertisements for Chemistry.com, a part of Match.com that doesn't reject anyone looking for love. One population that Chemistry.com serves that eHarmony doesn't is the LGBTQ community, as shown in this commercial (all of their ads are hilarious, so watch them!). But the real great thing about this ad is the message that you can't "cure" homosexuality, no matter how many naked women (or men) you look at. It's just a great change from all the hypermasculine and sexist commercials out there. I just might e-mail their PR department.

Take Action Friday

Sign Amnesty International's petition to end the genocide in Darfur.

Urge your Senators to pass the Matthew Shepard Act.

Tell your Senators to support equal pay.

Support ratification of CEDAW, because women's rights are human rights.

Ready for a Woman President?

The Daily Show aired a segment called Ready for a Woman President? with correspondent Samantha Bee a couple days ago. Very funny stuff! Special guests include NOW President Kim Gandy and Kim Cattrall.

There Was a "Values Voter" Debate Last Night?

Yes, there was. And since bodily integrity and civil rights for homosexuals aren't valuable, this was a Republican debate. The real story according to the mainstream media, however, is the absence of the big names in flip-flopping and bigotry: Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Fred Thompson. The real story according to me is what was talked about: abortion and homosexuality. Cuz nothing says small government like regulating what goes on in your body and bedroom!

"All seven participants [Huckabee, Brownback, John Cox, Alan Keyes, Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter] said they would work to keep federal funding away from organizations that perform or promote abortions; to revive an attempt to reform Social Security by offering personal retirement accounts; and to oppose a government-run universal health insurance system. They all vowed to increase funding for abstinence education, to veto hate crimes legislation and to oppose embryonic stem cell research. They all agreed multiculturalism 'weakens and divides' the country."

In short, these are the values of the "values voters," the so-called largest voting bloc in the country. Turning women into baby-making slaves is a value. Making it more difficult for retired senior citizens to pay the bills is a value. Making it more difficult for Americans to get healthcare is a value. Lying to teenagers about sex is a value. Hating people for their race, ethnicity, sexuality, or gender and harassing, assaulting, raping, or killing them because of it is a value. Not allowing the United States to research potential cures for the most debilitating diseases is a value. Ethnocentrism is a value.

Those who sponsored the Values Voters Debate has one thing right. Values voters are the largest voting bloc in the country. That's because it's the only voting bloc in the country. Everyone votes on values. I, for example, value human and civil rights, so I will vote for candidates and legislation that support human and civil rights. I value education. That's why I will vote for candidates and legislation that will make our public schools give accurate information to children and encourage them to be creative. And you get the idea. What makes this values voter different from those values voters who held the debate is that I don't believe my values make me superior to everyone else.

Oh, and Mike Huckabee won the debate, apparently.

Saudi Women Lobby for Right to Drive

Women in Saudi Arabia have formed the Committee of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars to lobby for driving rights. The created an online petition to send to King Abdullah. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that has a ban on women drivers, and it seems to be a pretty dividing issue.

"Conservatives, who believe women should be shielded from male strangers, say women in the driver's seat will be free to leave home alone and go when and where they please."

We certainly can't have that, now can we? Critics of the ban say that there's no religious support for not allowing women to drive. The founder of the Committee, Fowziyyah al-Oyouni, says that the electronic petition has many signatures from both women and men.

Apology Issued by Southwest

Long time no blog, I know.

Anyway, it seems that Southwest Airlines has issued an apology to Kyla Ebbert in order to save face. after these fiascos.

Still, I'm not sure I like some of what was said by the company's chief executive.

"We don't have a dress code at Southwest Airlines, and we don't want to put our employees in the position of being the fashion police," he said, "but there's a fine line you walk sometimes in not offending other passengers."

They didn't seem to think hot pants would offend any customers when they advertised them as a means to make money for their company. I guess women choosing to wear revealing clothing as opposed to wearing it because it's part of what they're meant to wear to bring in male customers is what's really offensive.

NJ Supreme Court: Jury's Still Out on When Life Begins

The New Jersey Supreme Court voted unanimously that a doctor has no obligation to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the embryo is an "existing human being."

"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," New Jersey Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court.

So basically, people can think what they want. This ruling in essence dropped a lawsuit of a woman whose story is quite convoluted. In 1996 a woman named Rose Acuna went to her doctor at around the 6th or 7th week of her 4th pregnancy. The doctor told her that she needed an abortion because her kidneys were "messing up." She asked if "the baby was already there," and the doctor said not to worry, "it's only blood." The doctor performed the abortion, but she had to go back to the hospital because the abortion was incomplete. One of the nurses told Acuna that the procedure was necessary because the doctor "had left parts of the baby inside of (her)." Acuna took this to mean that she consented to an abortion under false pretenses.

When it comes to arguments between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, I don't even like to call it a battle of semantics. It's really an argument of whether or not we're going to tell women the truth and give women medically accurate information. I have to give Acuna the benefit of the doubt. While I don't know how a woman who has been pregnant four times can not know what pregnancy is, I'm not going to judge her for her ignorance. It could be a product of a bunch of environmental factors. What I do know is that medical professionals have to be medical professionals. If I wanted to know whether there was blood inside me or what pregnancy and babies are, I would have consulted Wikipedia. The doctor should have told Acuna the truth; obviously a pregnancy is more than "just blood." The nurse shouldn't have called parts of the embryo still inside Acuna "the baby." Sometimes I just want to yell this through a megaphone: "Women are not too weak or stupid to handle the truth!"

But my favorite reaction to the ruling . . .

Marie Tasy, executive director of the anti-abortion group New Jersey Right to Life, decried the ruling. "My reaction is that once again the court relies on an outdated schizophrenic mentality to the detriment of women and indulges in semantic gymnastics to avoid the indisputable fact that a child in the womb is a human being," she said.

"Outdated?" She's the one who wants to roll back women's rights. "Schizophrenic?" What can be more "schizophrenic" than pro-lifers who believe abortion is murder but don't know what should happen to the women who get them? "The indisputable fact that a child in the womb is a human being?" Who's "indulging in semantic gymnastics" now?

Senate Votes to Repeal Global Gag Rule

Hooray for Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe! In a 53-43 vote, the Senate overturned the Global Gag Rule, which denies federal aid to foreign countries for abortion and contraception services.


Of course, Bush has promised to veto it because he hates women. He also must not have seen this video.

Happy Conception Day!

"Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you this will mean much less breeding, for me, much much more." Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, episode [AABF18] They Saved Lisa's Brain

A region in Russia is holding a day of conception for the third year in a row in order to reverse Russia's population decline.

Ulyanovsk Gov. Sergei Morozov has decreed Sept. 12 a Day of Conception and is giving couples time off from work to procreate. Couples who give birth nine months later on Russia's national day - June 12 - will receive money, cars, refrigerators and other prizes.

More than 500 women signed up for the contest in 2006 - resulting nine months later in 78 babies, or more than triple the region's daily average. So far this year, the region's birth rate is up 4.5 percent compared to the same period last year.

In Ulyanovsk, everyone who has a baby in a local hospital on June 12 gets some kind of prize. The winners of the grand prize - a locally made SUV called a UAZ-Patriot - are couples judged by a committee on criteria such as "respectability" and "commendable parenting."

The Russian government provides subsidies to women who have more than one child at any time of year, so this isn't really much of an attack on family planning (which Russia doesn't seem to care about anyway, since contraception is scarce and they have one of the highest abortion rates in the world). The complete lack of knowledge about pregnancy is what's offensive. Women don't get pregnant the same day they have sex. That takes about a couple of weeks. Furthermore, how many women actually give birth 9 months to the day after becoming pregnant? Probably not that many.

It just makes me want to scream whenever people assume that women are simple.

Take Action Friday -- on Thursday!

I'm doing the TAF post today instead of tomorrow because I'm spending the weekend in Washington, D.C. with my friend. Don't miss me too much!

Show your support for an abortion clinic in Aurora, Illinois that is being seiged by anti-choice activists.

Hurry up and tell your Senators to repeal the Global Gag Rule. They vote today!

Vote for an organization in the Peace Primary and help them win $100,000 to get their message out there during the '08 campaigns.

Demand justice for the Jena 6.

Women Heart Patients May Need Different Care

According to a new study, women with heart problems may be harmed by certain procedures.

A small study of 184 women conducted by Dr. Eva Swahn of the department of cardiology at University Hospital in Linkoping, Sweden, found that women who had major heart operations like a coronary bypass were more likely than men to die.

Last month, the American College of Cardiology revised its treatment guidelines to recommend that doctors should think twice before subjecting women at low risk of heart disease to invasive procedures.

Doctors are not sure what accounts for the discrepancy. But women tend to have smaller hearts and vessels, which could complicate any surgical procedure. For example, when catheters need to be inserted into the artery to take photos of what is happening inside the body, having smaller arteries does not help.

Women also tend to have more side effects from medicines. Hormonal factors could also play a role, though doctors are not exactly sure how female-specific hormones affect the cardiovascular system.

Compounding the problem is the fact that women are usually about a decade older than men by the time they develop heart problems, so other health problems associated with old age could also worsen their chances of surviving heart surgery.

See what happens when "Women should be treated equally" turns into "Women and men are exactly the same in every way"? See what happens when males are considered the norm and what's good for the gander is good for the goose? The geese die. So hopefully some pro-woman cardiologists out there are trying to come up with a way to help women heart patients with effective and safe treatments.

Watch "Made in L.A."

Made in L.A. is a documentary about three immigrant women's struggles as garment workers in Los Angeles. I think the rights of garment workers is a feminist issue in several ways. Obviously, the majority of garment workers all around the world are women. They often work in sweatshops in deplorable conditions all day for little or no pay. Then, the clothing is sold in a variety of stores, from Banana Republic to Wal-Mart. Women and girls are pressured to wear the latest trends, so we rush to the mall to spend $100 on a pair of ultra low-rise jeans that was made by a young woman who can't even read because her parents didn't let her go to school. If we're poor and/or have to by clothes for the whole family, we go to Wal-Mart where the clothes are cheap and the labor is cheaper. Furthermore, women make up the majority of the minimum-wage workforce, and many of these women work as sales associates for trendy clothing stores owned by millionaires. It's hard for women not to endorse sweatshop labor across the world in one way or another.

Made in L.A. premieres on Tuesday, September 4 at 10 p.m. on PBS.

Take Action Friday

Urge your Senators to pass the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 and bring Katrina survivors home.

Appear at a Dream for Darfur Olympic Torch Relay to show China that they must divest from Sudan.

Call your local pharmacy and ask if they supply Plan B.

Remind Bush that the genocide in Darfur is still "on his watch." That can be a birthday present to me: Save Darfur.Org is hoping for 100,000 signatures by September 18.

Support the Broadband Data Improvement Act. Quicker Internet connections means quicker access to your favorite activist websites and blogs.

What's Up with Women's Healthcare in Japan?

A pregnant woman on her way to a hospital miscarried after the ambulance crashed outside of Osaka. That might not be a reflection on access to prenatal care in Japan, but the fact that she was en route to a 10th hospital is. The previous 9 hospitals turned her down, saying they were full and couldn't care for her.

Since I've Been Gone

I've been gone for a while so I haven't been able to update. So here I am catching up on anything you and I have missed this week.

Yesterday, August 26, marked the 87th anniversary of women getting the right to vote. Some assholes think women should have been satisfied for the past 87 years because, according to them, voting equals equality. Oh, really? Here are some things we still need to remember while we continue to fight for equality.

August 24 marked the first full year of over (or behind) -the-counter access of Emergency Contraception for adult women. But there is plenty that needs to be done, as seen in this new report by NOW.

And speaking of anniversaries, I missed my anniversary of joining Megan here at Feminists to the Rescue. My first post here was on August 13, 2006. Memories . . . :)

And now to what I really wanted to talk about.

Every barista at a Washington coffee shop, Lola Bean Espresso, have quit because their boss imposed a new "skimpier" dress code. "Military Monday, Cowgirl Tuesday, Bikini Wednesday, Schoolgirl Thursday and Fantasy Friday" says it all. There are so many things wrong with this setup. Military Monday sexualizes dropping bombs on civilians, enslaving children, raping women, and all the other sad realities of war that are not at all sexy. Schoolgirl Thursday isn't a far cry from pedophilia. Cowgirl Tuesday shows us that anything can be perceived as sexy as long as a woman does it, even if it's shoveling manure. Leave the cowhands alone, damn it. They're just doing their job! And I don't even want to know what Fantasy Friday means. *shudders* But the saddest part of it all is that one barista says she will be unable to pay her mortgage now that she has had to quit her job. The boss of Lola Bean Espresso says he was surprised that every one of his workers quit, but he is hiring new ones who are willing to conform to the new dress code.

Some may say that if the women who quit were more like the women who will take their places, then they wouldn't have to worry about not paying the bills. I say it's the fault of miogynistic bosses who are out to make an extra buck on the backs (or busts) of their workers.

Awesomeness.

More On Why I Hate Catchy Little Lists. . .

This is why I hate catchy little lists.

Here we go again.

Mistake #10: Thinking That Your Great Date Actually Meant Something

Have you ever had a man say how much he likes you, how sexy you are, and how he's serious about finding a long-term relationship? Ever have an amazing date where the chemistry was great, the conversation flowed, and you hooked up with him afterwards?

Have you ever had a man do all of these things and then NOT call?

No, you're not crazy or delusional. Your mistake is thinking that what a man says on a date actually means something. It doesn't. It means he's being in the moment. So don't put too much weight on a great date. The only way you can tell how a man REALLY feels about you is by how quickly he follows up for another date.

In short, ladies, your mistake in is expecting men to follow up on their word. Your mistake is to expect more out of men than what they normally give you as a second-class citizen. That's your mistake, not theirs.

Mistake #9: Ignoring Your Own Intuition

How many times have you been across a table from some guy, wishing that you'd rather be anywhere else on earth? How many times have you felt deceived, angered, manipulated, or just plain turned off by the man in front of you?

Now, how many times have you considered that it was actually your fault that he was sitting there?

I'm not blaming you. I've been there myself. But the common denominator in all your bad dates is not the awful men themselves, but YOU. If you find yourself losing hope that there are any great guys out there, do yourself a favor and only go out with men who truly interest you. Instead of meeting total strangers, filter out men by email and phone. This strategy will prevent most bad dates before they happen.

I'm not blaming you, I'm just telling you that the fact that the men you find yourself on dates with are all douchebags is entirely your fault.

Mistake #8: Waiting for Men to Write You First

Have you ever sat in front of your computer, reading emails from losers, and asked yourself why the winners never write to you? You look at your favorites list and wish you could say hi to them, but you know better. It's tradition: men approach women. And you wouldn't want to come across as desperate. After all, what guy wants a woman who's so needy that she has to write to him first?

Actually, all men do. We love it. If you have a good photo, an original profile and you write a confident email, most guys will drop everything they're doing to talk to you.

If you don't have a good photo, however, you're out of luck. Okay, so I have to say that this one isn't that bad.

Mistake #7: Expecting Him to Tell the Truth in His Profile

You don't like to be lied to. Nobody does. And once you've gone out with a man who claimed to be 5'9" but is really 5'5", it's hard to keep dating. But haven't you ever done the same thing? The typical woman exaggerates her height by one inch and lowers her weight by 20 pounds. And it's not just a coincidence that the most popular ages for women on dating sites are 29, 39, 44 and 49.

You want to be given a chance. You don't want to be judged before you meet. And you're insecure that telling the truth won't get you in the door against younger, thinner women. So if there are good reasons why an honest woman might be tempted to misrepresent herself, wouldn't it make sense that an honest man might be tempted to do the same thing?

Expecting men to tell the truth is. . .a. . .mistake. So, when the next guy tells me he's NOT a serial rapist, it's okay if I kick him in the balls and call the cops because I'm supposed to assume he's lying, right?

Mistake #6: Thinking You're Now Dating the Man You've Met Online

Have you ever gone on an amazing date and saw that he was online right afterwards? Have you ever emailed a man who seemed interested then suddenly disappeared? Have you ever gotten intimate with a man who never called again?

You're not alone. All of these things are common in the world of online dating. So instead of taking it as a personal rejection each time a man comes and goes, take a step back. Think of all the guys who have written to you that you weren't interested in. Imagine all of them taking it personally. It's ridiculous.

It's easy to forget how many choices men have. It's easy to forget how many other women they're contacting. And if you think that you're exclusive with every new guy that gets you excited, you're in for a lot of disappointment.

So don't be upset when he hits it and quits it. Because, you know, writing to someone and fucking them are the exact same thing and require the same amount of effort and interest. That's why my marginalization of your pain is okay, lolz!

Mistake #5: Meeting for a Coffee Date to Save Time

Have you ever spent a month getting to know someone online and discovered on the date that they were a real-life dud? I have. I remember vowing not to waste that kind of time on a stranger ever again. You probably did, too. You probably started meeting guys right away to make sure that you had that "in-person chemistry." And at some point, on your tenth (or twentieth) bad date, you probably asked yourself, "Why do I even bother?"Online dating is NOT about meeting men as quickly as possible. Moving quickly means there is no screening. There is no getting-to-know-you process. You might as well have cute men at a bar pick a number to meet you. The ONLY way to enjoy online dating is by going out with fewer men. It's far better to go on one comfortable date on a Friday night than five blind coffee dates during the week.

That way you'll only be lied to, manipulated, and fucked around by one guy, not five.

Mistake #4: Expecting That You'll Succeed Online Because You're a Catch

You're sweet. You're fun. You're attractive. You have no trouble meeting men in real life. You figure that with all your good qualities, online dating should be a piece of cake. Except that's not how it's worked out. The only guys contacting you look like they've been let out of jail or a retirement home. There have to be better men out there. Then how come they aren't writing?

Simple. Any man who you think is a great catch has hundreds of options. And when a guy has that many choices, he's often going to search for younger women. Why? Because he can. So forget these guys and their unrealistic Playboy fantasies. Mr. Right is the man who wants YOU. Focus your attentions on the men who are searching for you, instead of the ones who aren't, and you'll have far greater success.

"Great catches" treat women like shit. So go out and get the guy who's been let out of jail. I'm sure he won't treat you like shit! Oh. . .wait. . .

Mistake #3: Trying to Stop the "Wrong" Men From Writing to You

Have you ever had a profile that just seemed to attract all the wrong men? You want a man who is attractive, successful and honest, and all you get are ugly unemployed guys who lie about their height. So, to stop them from wasting your time, you decide to spell it out in your profile: "If you're over the age of 50, live in another state, or have a substance abuse problem, don't even bother writing". And yet they STILL keep on contacting you! What can you possibly do to stop these annoying men who can't read?

Nothing. Ignore them. But don't try to stop them. After all, if you have any standards, most of your emails are going to be from the "wrong" guys. That's okay. They're allowed to write to you. And you're allowed to delete their email. As a quality woman, you're going to get all sorts of men who are interested in you. Your job isn't to scare away the bad guys, it's to attract the good ones. And profiles with negative warnings to the "wrong" men only make YOU sound bad.

Um, why? Why does not wanting creepy men to contact you make you sound bad? Do men say "Oh my gosh, a woman with self-respect! Oh noes, my cock is falling off"?

Mistake #2: Signing Up for a One-Month Subscription

Even though you know how difficult it is to find a soul mate, you signed up for a one-month subscription on a dating site. One month! You're going to fall in love before you get your next phone bill! Clearly, you've created an unrealistic timetable. So while you may not want to date online forever, you're shortchanging yourself if you act as if you have only 30 days to find a husband.

Remind yourself why you started dating online -- it's hard to meet people in real life.And quitting is not an option.

Oh my goodness, now we have to marry the guy who just got out of jail, too.

Mistake #1: Searching for the Right Dating Site

If a girlfriend told you that her biggest problem in losing weight was that she couldn't find the right gym, you'd probably shake your head. You know that it's not the gym but your friend's dedication to using the gym that makes all the difference. Yet you may think that you can cure your dating blues just by choosing the right website. Newsflash: ANY website with lots of single men can be the right website; your success is ultimately determined by how you use that site.

You can use Yahoo! to search all day long to find a place that is populated with tall, honest, successful men. But at the end of the day, it's not the site that will determine your fate. It's you. The question is how committed you are to turning yourself into a success story.

Exactly. Kiss patriarchy's ass and grovel at the feet of men over the internetz and you'll have yourself a great jailbird husband in no time! Hooray!


Oi. Hate catchy little lists about what's so wrong with women that they can't get a wonderful man to date them. Really hate them.

On the upside, however, I am currently blogging from my laptop. It is a big accomplishment for me. Haha.

Anti-Feminist Women. . .WTF?

I do my best thinking while I'm driving. Today, my (deep, I assure you) thoughts went drifting into the feminist realm, as they so often do, and I pondered this post by Amanda over at Pandagon. This characterization of liberals by conservatives got me to thinking. This is exactly what anti-feminist women do to feminist women.

Anti-feminist women accuse feminist women of being against women making choices because sometimes we disagree with the choices being made, or even express concern about why such decisions were made. Aside from being the cause of global warming and other such world crises, feminists hate stay-at-home-moms, girls who abstain until marriage, women who have lots of children, etc., etc.

However, like in Amanda's post of about liberals, these are all strawfeminists, of course. However, I think anti-feminist women really need a way to justify what would seem like a really stupid decision on their parts. They'll denounce the right to vote, and if a feminist disagrees with that or calls them on their bullshit, it's a chorus of "Well I thought feminists were supposed to support women's choices. I choose not to support woman suffrage". Then you get the real crazies who then take that to Ann Coulter-like proportions and just won't shut up about how feminists are now just like the system of oppression they claim to oppose. Sort of like how since liberals don't want to shoot brown people, they must support terrorists. Very logical stuff.

I consider "Choice Feminism" to be authentic feminism as much as I think "Pro-life Feminism" is authentic feminism. Basically, not at all. A woman's choices aren't free from scrutiny, nor should they be. For example, 70% of women in Uganda choose to believe that a husband is justified in beating his wife in some situations. Feminist should just take that as face value, right? I mean, it's okay as long as a woman believes it, right? Just like liberals should be more tolerant of racism and sexism, feminists should be tolerant of the misogyny that can, amazingly, crop up in the minds of women everywhere, apparently.

The equivocation of fighting for what you believe in, even without the use of legislation or old-fashioned lock-and-load intimidation methods with fascist crazies shooting the person that thinks Neil should have won so You Think You Can Dance in stead of Sabra is ridiculous, and both crazy conservatives and anti-feminist women should be called out on that bullshit.

Senator Clinton Thanks Women's Lib

She didn't say those exact words or "feminism" or any variation of the word. However, she closed the Democratic debate by recognizing the women's movement as the reason she can run for president today on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. When asked when was the decisive moment in each candidate's life to enter politics or run for President, Senator Clinton said,

Well, when I was growing up I didn't think I would run for president, but I could not be standing here without the women's movement, without generations of women who broke down barriers, the civil rights movement that gave women and people of color the feeling that they were really part of the American dream.
So I owe the opportunity that I have here today to many people; some of whom are known to history and many who aren't.

Take Action Friday

Homophobic judge Leslie Southwick might be given a lifetime job on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Southwick believes homosexuality is a choice and ordered an 8-year-old girl to be taken away from her biological mother because she's a lesbian. But you wouldn't know how big of a dick he is if you just read what the White House thinks of him. Tell your Senators to block the nomination.

Urge the Iranian government and the UN to free feminist scholar Dr. Haleh Esfandiari from Evin prison, a place notorious for the torture of political prisoners.

Demand investigation into the horrific treatment of transgender activists in New York.

Contact Manhattan Mini Storage and tell them how awesome their ad is.

Support the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraception Coverage Act.

Join the Planned Parenthood Pill Patrol!

Write your representatives about the Education For All Act.

Mifespristone as Safe as Surgical Abortion

A new study of nearly 12,000 women in Denmark concluded that mifespristone (RU-486) does not increase a woman's chances of having a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. But check out how the study was done.

In the new study, researchers used a national abortion registry to identify all women in Denmark who had abortions between 1999 and 2004, and then got information on later pregnancies from national patient and birth registries.

Denmark is the only country with an abortion registry . . . .

National abortion registry? So the women didn't give their consent to be part of this study? Hopefully an ethical research team will replicate the study and get similar results.

Crazy Sexy Cancer

Campaign slogan for Camel No. 9 cigarettes for women? Nope. It's the documentary debuting on TLC on August 29 at 9pm.

Crazy Sexy Cancer is more than a film, it's an attitude! It's about rising to the challenge of life, and no matter what, refusing to give up who you are at your core. This story is as funny as it is frightening, as joyous as it is outrageous. Ultimately, Crazy Sexy Cancer is a thought provoking film about, friendship, love and growing up.

Okay. I understand the whole "don't let cancer get you down" concept. And I fully support women with life-threatening diseases giving the medications that make them fat and bald a big "fuck you, I'm still sexy." But must we call a disease that kills millions of people a year "sexy?" Would anyone call Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer sexy? I don't think so.

On Biblical Models of Equality

I guess I should stop having expectations when it comes to fundies. They raise the bar in flimsy explanations every time I talk to them.

This problem really only gets worse when you apply the fundie equation to tweenies over the internetz, so I probably shouldn't be surprised about the state of this thread on The-N. I knew things weren't going to go well when the original poster equated a man not smacking women around to submitting to them.

A direct quote, just in case it's too incredulous to be believed (and you people are too lazy to follow the link):

Likewise a man restricting his self from hitting a woman he is being submissive to her, not because he’s weaker but the fact he knows he’s much stronger than her.

Great. It's so fabulous to know that a man is submitting to me when he decides not to beat the shit out of me. Silly me, I thought he was just, oh I don't know, respecting the fact that I'm a person with rights.

The poor guy also subscribes to the notion that a woman saying she wants more rights is a woman saying that she's better than everyone else and and that she should have rights over men. Of course. It's kind of like reverse psychology, right? Or a classic case of projection? Maybe "I'm rubber you're glue"?

I've just noticed that when people bring up the question of whether or not The Bible is sexist, EVERYBODY starts wringing their hands right and left.

"No. The times were sexist! It means nothing that a hell of a lot of the sexist tripe that went on was created and/or condoned by the Old Testament!"
"No! It was just mens' interpretation of what God said!"
"No! God didn't REALLY mean it when He told women to submit!"
"No! When Paul said 'Women be silent in church' he was actually talking about some group of uppity bitches who thought they could handle the church better, which is why he went for a bit of hyperbole by telling women in general to be silent and acting like a sexist prick!" (One of my favorites, by the way, especially when it can't be backed by scripture by the person arguing it)
"No! If Jesus had had women disciples, well, he wouldn't have been taken seriously! Never mind the fact that he was tortured to death with common thieves!"
"What? God is TOTALLY a dude and it's TOTALLY not sexist because guys can just relate to a fatherly influence better!"
"When God told women to submit and men only to love their wives, well, God actually meant to tell them to submit! Love, submission, same thing, right?" (This is the argument the original poster in the thread on The-N is going for. Oh it's great fun.)

I have been told all of these when talking about this subject. I've gotten a different excuse from every person I've talked to.

Not only that, but now we've gotten into talking about the Biblical (in a fundie's view) model of marriage. Oh. My. Goodness. this is exactly why I never want to get married. These people think GAY PEOPLE ruin marriage for others? Phew.

These girls that are going to these churches and learning that it's great for a man to "lead" them have my pity. It really breaks my heart that girls are being told these things. One girl in this thread told about her lesson on relationships in her bible class. She said that men were supposed to lead in 5 ways, and then she outlined them all. Here's part of her post:

Righteousness - he must set a good example. He must strive for keeping his own purity as well as his wife's. [In the words of my teacher, "DON'T BE AN OCTOPUS!" meaning don't be all grabby and pervy, touching her lady parts all the time.] This one definitely applies before marriage. Another quote from my teacher "To all you gentlemen, imagine it's your wedding day. It's beautiful and pefect. Then, your bride walks into the chapel, wearing a beautiful, flowing, scarlet gown." That's not what you want, is it guys? She should wear white! [White = pure]

A woman wearing red instead of white to show you how her hymen is still intact? BOOOOOO! *throws popcorn* Terrible! Dicks will be limp everywhere! The earth will shake and God himself will smite thee, lustful hussy! Thinkin' you can wear the color you want to on your wedding day, or worse, thinkin' you can do what you want to instead of what Daddy or Hubby wants.

But keep in mind, Male ownership of women's bodies is TOTALLY not sexist. It's great!

Another gem:

Before marriage, a girl should be submissive to her father, not her boyfriend.

Her boyfriend hasn't bought the merchandise yet, so hands off! That pussy belongs to Dad!

Look at it this way... if a husband leads a wife in the 5 ways he should, then wouldn't it be easy for a wife to submit to him?

Not if she has a mind of her own and wants to use it.

She wouldn't be following him into sin at any point if she was submitting to his leadership in righteousness. She would not be acting as a slave to him if he was treating her with selflessness.

First of all, the very fact that all of this fairy tale hinges on very big ifs in the first place is unnerving to me. I love the assumption that men will be perfect leaders. Or if that's not the assumption, it's assumed that women should shut up and handle it. It seems to me that in most cases, the assumption is that women should take their second class treatment with a smile.

Secondly, these people don't seem to realize that those who value gender equality have a problem with the fact that women are told to follow JUST FOR BEING WOMEN. There is no part of that that is conducive to gender equality and/or freedom. There is no part of that which is equal.

At the end of the class, my teacher asked all the girls who would submit to a husband like the one described above to raise their hands. Not one girl had her hand down.

It really upsets me if this is true. These girls are being told fairy tales, and then they promise to stick to the fairy tale even when it's not a fairy tale any more, and they're held to those promises despite any consequences. These girls are sold to the highest bidder while being told lies about how great it is to submit and have no power. It's absolutely shameful.

I just don't understand why people think this is equality. It's OBVIOUSLY not. If someone has power over you, how can you be treated equally to them? These people are not living in reality, and they're handing that fantasy land to their daughters and then throwing them out in to the deep end of real life. It's terrible.

Mostly, that post on The-N just got me to thinking about how distorted some Christian views on equality and sexism really are. It seems like they'll go to any lengths to justify some of the things that are in the Bible and how they interpret those things. They'll even denounce the divinity of the text while I the same breath saying that it's God's word for women to submit! It's all just a cycle of women being oppressed. Welcome to Patriarchy, people. I KNEW there was a reason why I called the Bible the Patriarchy Manual.

Take Action Friday

I had a little idea just now. I subscribe to a few e-newsletters from different organizations like NOW, Save Darfur, and the Human Rights Campaign. Several times a week, I get notified about ways to take action by contacting your Congresspeople and demanding their support and vote for or against certain measures. The organizations send pre-written e-letters, and all you have to do is put in your name and address, and the letter goes straight to your Congresspeople. Pretty nifty. I thought it would be a good idea to post the links of the pre-written e-letters here every Friday so that you can take action on a number of issues in a snap. What a way to start the weekend! So, even though it's now Saturday, here's the first Take Action Friday.

Support The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S. 1800/H.R. 2064), which would require the government to provide Emergency Contraception at all U.S. military health facilities around the world.

Help pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal in all 50 states to fire an employee for being homosexual or transgender.

Encourage China to divest from Sudan.

Thank your Representative for helping to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. Or show your disappointment if they were one of the 199 Reps who voted against this fair pay legislation.

iPLEDGE Program Not Successful

iPLEDGE is a government program that women of child-bearing age have to sign up for before taking the drug isotretinoin, an acne medication more commonly known as Accutane, because the drug can cause horrible birth defects, even in small doses. I just started on isotretinoin 10 days ago, and I hope that, 6 months from now, I'm part of the 80% that doesn't have to deal with the most stubborn of acne ever again. Of course, I had to join iPLEDGE. I had to read a lot of literature about birth control and take a quiz on their website. While registering, I had to tell them the two forms of birth control I'd be using while taking the drug and for one month afterwards. I have to take monthly pregnancy tests at the dermatologist's office. I have to show the pharmacist my special iPLEDGE card as proof that I'm part of the program before getting my prescription, which my doctor has to write up every month (no refills). Not that any of this is too bothersome; even the bathrooms at the doctor's office are surprisingly quiet and, therefore, a good place to pee in a cup.

What bothers me about this is that I have to go through all of this bullshit simply because I menstruate. And, because I don't have sex, I had to choose "abstinence" as my primary form of birth control. (I wanted to choose "my acne-ridden face, assholes," but that wasn't an option). Abstinence is most certainly not my primary form of birth control. I'm not having sex because I don't have a boyfriend, not because I'm trying to prevent pregnancy. iPLEDGE was starting to look a lot like pledges of abstinence made at purity balls and abstinence-only sex-ed classes. Furthermore, it perpetuates this notion that women's sexuality has to be regulated by the government for the good of an embryo that doesn't even exist. Can you say "forever pregnant?"

Part of me once thought that iPLEDGE is simply a way to reduce abortions, miscarriages, stillbirths, and infant mortality. It's a preventative measure, not oppressive. After all, if it works, that's a good thing for all. But it doesn't. According to the FDA, 122 women became pregnant while on isotretinoin this year, which is about the same number of pregnancies that occurred in the years previous to iPLEDGE's inception in 2006. This number is most likely accurate, as part of sticking to the iPLEDGE program means your doctor reporting your pregnancy to the federal government. Apparently, the government monitoring a woman's sexual behavior is about as good as her doctor saying, "Don't get pregnant. This medication causes birth defects." So why not just trust us?