Doggie Racism

Did you know that black dogs are less likely to get adopted from shelters than dogs of other colors? I know, looking at that picture of my beautiful Black Lab, Diesel, who is black from nose to tail, you'd think everyone would want a big black dog. The weird thing is, I wasn't very surprised to learn that. I've noticed that people are kind of frightened of Diesel when I walk him. I don't know. I guess there's just something about a big black dog that scares people. Wait until my dog hears about this! He'll be outraged.

Was this post just an excuse to talk about my dog? Yes. Yes, it was.

Mike Huckabee Ends His Campaign

From The Boiling Point!



Boo! We're going to have to wait at least another 4 years for this to happen! Oh, Mike Huckabee. We hardly knew ye.

Actually, I think we knew too much of ye.

Celebrity Feminist of the Day: Reese Witherspoon

Reese Witherspoon promotes Avon's new empowerment bracelet on The Today Show. Up to $1 million of the proceeds from the bracelets will go to the United Nations Development Fund for Women. Why stop at a million? I don't know, but it's better than nothin'.

Afternoon Quickie: Revirginization

Is it "quicky" or "quickie?" My spell check just told me "quickie," so I guess that answers that question. A much more philosophical question that has been asked lately is "What does it mean to be a virgin?" What with hymen reattachment surgery and revirginization ceremonies (there's a word that'll keep the spell check busy) that allow people to undo their sexual past, it's becoming more difficult to define virginity and what it means to "lose" it.

Author Brian Alexander discusses the issue of virginity in an article for MSNBC. It's very informative and thought-provoking. There was this one part that nearly made me puke, though. Guess which part, and if you're right, you'll get a cookie. Hint: It's on page 2.

Compromise and Anti-Choice Legislation

This is a uterus, and she doesn't haggle.

Yesterday, Eric Alterman was talking to Sam Seder about his upcoming book Why We're Liberals. He said that the majority of the country takes the liberal position on almost every issue. One of the issues that the majority of the country doesn't take the liberal position on: Abortion. He said that because women's organizations take a you're with us or against us stance on reproductive rights and put pressure on liberal politicians to do the same, the liberal position on abortion has become "abortion under any circumstances." Alterman says this hurts liberals, because most Americans support some sort of restriction on abortion and vote on this issue, and liberals aren't relating to them. Alterman's solution?

Compromise! Liberal politicians should compromise on this issue to pander to people who only believe in women's reproductive rights sometimes. It doesn't really matter if women's human rights are compromised in the process. Just as long as our Democratic majority lets us have a choice sometimes, it's all good. Of course, there is no pro-life organization that supports abortion under certain circumstances, nor do they support contraception. So, they don't reflect the mainstream, but that's okay.

But what about the ban on so-called partial-birth abortion, you ask? How can anybody not support that, you wonder? And what about parental notification and consent laws for pregnant minors? What's wrong with that? I'll tell you.

First, a lot of people think partial-birth abortion is the name given to an abortion performed during the third trimester and that the ban prohibits abortions during this time because, at this time, the fetus is viable. This is untrue. It's the name given to the procedure of extracting the fetus (intact dilation and extraction), and this procedure can be done in the second trimester as well. And it's the procedure, not third trimester abortions, that are illegal for almost any reason. What does this mean? Viability of the fetus has nothing to do with the ban on partial-birth abortion. I repeat, Viability of the fetus has nothing to do with the ban on partial-birth abortion. Viability begins at around 7 months gestation, but the procedure can't be done at any time.

Second, nowhere in the ban on partial-birth abortion does it say the frequency at which this procedure was ever done. "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion . . . is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited." Actually, if there's a consensus among medical professionals that the procedure is never medically necessary, then there is no need make a special law to ban it. Performing an unnecessary operation on someone is grounds for a malpractice lawsuit, so there was never a reason to pass a separate ban. Also, the ban states that "there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum." That means that any doctor who has ever performed the procedure did so outside the scope of their expertise, which is malpractice. All of the evidence provided to support a ban is also evidence as to why a ban isn't necessary.

One might argue that, because this procedure is considered unnecessary, banning it is a preventative measure. As we know from the upholding of the ban, however, preventative legislation is not exactly the Supreme Court's thing. Last April, the original ban was upheld, even though it didn't contain a health exception. The reason was because none of the experts could testify that the procedure was ever necessary to preserve the woman's health. If preventing harm was the Supreme Court's number one priority, they would have passed the health exception, just in case.

I was almost not going to say anything about parental notification or consent laws, because the problems with such laws are quite obvious. But because I think a lot of people are in favor of such laws, it's a good idea to share with you why I think these laws are wrong. Since notification and consent are the same in my view, I believe both laws are abortion bans disguised as laws to protect parental rights. However, if preserving parental rights were the objective of these laws, a pregnant minor would need to gain parental notification or consent to remain pregnant and, consequently, give birth. No such law exists anywhere. My smell test for laws like this (e.g., parental consent/notification laws, laws requiring women to see an ultrasound if they're considering abortion) goes something like this: "Would anyone ever consider making a similar law for women who consider pregnancy?" If the answer is no, which it always is, then it's anti-choice legislation.

There are plenty of laws regarding abortion that are designed to protect women and their families. I can sit here all day researching them and telling you why they protect no one. I don't think people realize the implication of these laws. Would those in the "pro-choice middle," those people who believe in choice under certain circumstances, support laws restricting abortion if they realized, like I do, that these laws are leading to a ban on abortion entirely? If they truly want women to have the choice, I seriously don't think so. So I think this idea that most Americans are pro-choice-to-a-certain-extent is kind of misleading. I think it means that most Americans have yet to come around.

Kids? No Thanks

Because my post about how I can't make t-shirts sparked a discussion about choosing not to have children, I just had to link up to this Reason Magazine article by Ronald Bailey about why people are having fewer (or no) children. I think the subheading says it all.

via Feministing

Afternoon Quicky: Urge Your Senators to Co-Sponsor IVAWA

You can urge your Senators to co-sponsor the International Violence Against Women Act or thank your Senator(s) for co-sponsoring the bill. NOW makes it so easy!

Today I Learned . . . .

That I can't make t-shirts for my life. Poo.

Coming Out Feminist

Sometimes I think it would sit better with people if I came out as a lesbian than if I came out as a feminist. People at least know it's impolite to ask questions or judge when you come out as a lesbian. If you come out as a feminist, you need to do a lot of explaining.

Today in my Counseling and Community Agencies class, one of my classmates came out as gay, and another male classmate came out as bisexual. I, however, felt that the enviornment was too hostile for me to come out as a feminist. My professor mentioned feminist theory, quickly said that the word "feminism" scares her, had one person agree, and rushed to another topic before I could interject. We talked at great length about LGBT issues, and everyone who participated was very nice and honest about their thoughts and how their opinions have changed as they've grown up. So I was wondering why we were talking so much about LGBT issues, about which no one seemed to need a clarification*, but feminism in counseling wasn't talked about at all. Wouldn't it have made more sense to spend more time on the topic that people didn't seem to understand, especially since the topic was quickly dismissed as scary?


So I'm thinking about making a t-shirt this week and wearing it to class next Monday. I'm thinking it's going to say "feminist." on the front and "scared?" on the back. Or maybe "I'm a feminist, and I carry nunchucks." That may or may not be true, but would you risk saying something sexist to me just to find out? I don't think so.




*Someone did need clarification, but didn't ask for it. I just overheard the person in front of me saying this to the person next to her, and it amused me greatly to know that she would rather remain confused than to simply turn around and ask me to elaborate. I asked the professor if it was unethical to not diagnose someone with Gender Identity Disorder, even though they meet all the criteria, just because they have an impairment in social or occupational functioning, but they aren't experiencing clinically significant distress. I gave an example of someone who comes in for depression, is diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, and then comes out as trangendered. Must I diagnose them with Gender Identity Disorder, even though it wasn't the presenting problem? Does it make a difference if the person is depressed because of the way they are treated for being transgendered? Personally, I wouldn't diagnose someone with Gender Identity Disorder if the only reason they meet the full criteria is because other people ridicule them to the point that it impairs important areas of functioning. People shouldn't be diagnosed simply because someone else thinks they're weird. During the break in class, the person in front of me said, "It would be like not diagnosing someone with Schizophrenia just because that wasn't the presenting problem." I would accuse her of comparing Gender Identity Disorder with a psychotic disorder, but I think my point went way too far over her head for her to make any sort of rational counterargument. So I'll let that one slide.

Glenn Beck on Ugly People

I just thought this was too funny not to post. I found this on Media Matters when I looked there to see what action they want me to take in order to get Neil Cavuto fired or suspended for his recent public trans hate speech (none, apparently!) But I did find this about Glenn Beck and ugly people. You'd think Beck would be an expert in ugliness, as he's a horrible person. But he just gets it all wrong. This was his response to these surprising reasons you're not having sex:

BECK: Okay. Surprising reason number one why you're not having sex. "You are Glenn Beck." Wait a sec. That's not surprising at all! Who made up this list? *angry fist*

Okay, I just made that up. But you'll forgive me for that once I tell you what he really said.

BECK: I mean, here are some other reasons. "You're ugly." Hello! I'm not a sex expert but I'm -- you know, I'm thinking, you know, you're ugly and, you know, that's a tough one to overcome especially if you're a woman. If you're a guy, that's not hard to overcome. I'm sorry. That's just the way the world is. Have you -- how many ugly guys have hot wives? Take me, for example. I don't know why she married -- I think it was low self-esteem. I do. No, really I think it was low self-esteem. I got in -- you know, you buy when the market is low. You know what I mean? While everybody else is selling, you buy. And I think I got in there right at the right time. Low self-esteem, low, wait a minute, could go a little lower, she might come down to my price. Hang on, OK, sold! Now her self-esteem is going up. And if my income wasn't going up, she would have ditched me long ago.

At any other time, I would be offended at someone assuming a woman marries for the money. I mean, I don't know why anybody marries anybody. However, experiencing Glenn Beck's nonsense makes me believe he's married for reasons other than love. But I think telling everyone in radio land that his wife must have low self-esteem is more demeaning to her than it is to him. It sort of perpetuates this "marry the loser while you can" bull that's been going around lately, and it's just plain woman-hate. But that's not the worst part. No. Beck gets personal.

BECK: Ugly people, if you're a guy, you can get past it. I don't think you can as an ugly woman. I don't -- no, I don't. If you're an ugly woman, I apologize. Oh, you've got a double cross [I think he meant "whammy" here], because if you're an ugly woman, you're probably a progressive as well. Oh, jeez. I'm sorry. Today's just not your day. But you know what? If you believed in God, you'd know that there's going to be another chance for you. You don't have to be ugly in heaven. You're going to be your perfect self, and there will be another perfect somebody waiting for you on the other side.

Oh, I'm sure I won't get any prettier by doing this -- *VOMITS ALL OVER KEYBOARD* Give me a break. You know your religious beliefs are a sham when you try to recruit women who feel badly about their looks to your side by promising them eternal (patriarchy's oppressive view of) beauty. It might be an effective angle, since 80% of women are dissatisfied with their appearance, but is it morally righteous? How the shit would I know? I'm one of those progressive Godless bitches. Besides, I hear the guys in purgatory are, like, sooo much hotter.

You know what I think this calls for? A Leonard Nimoy vs. Glenn Beck cage match.

Seriously?

This video is immensely disturbing. If you're not a fan of women being forcibly strip searched while screaming for help, do not watch it.



So we've already got police using tasers on people willy-nilly, and now we've got them strip-searching the victims of crimes and leaving them naked in jail cells for 6 hours. That's just great.

For those that did not watch the video, basically what happens is that about 7 police officers forcibly strip a screaming woman, and then leave her in the cell with nothing to cover herself for six hours. She is suing the police department. I just hope she wins.

A Post About Media Matters

No, I'm not very good at coming up with titles, am I? Anyway, I got an e-mail from Media Matters for America asking me to sign a petition to MSNBC's president, Steve Capus, telling him to basically do something about the sexist statements that have been made lately. As much as I hate sexist statements (especially when the apology for said sexist statements is used in an advertisement), I'm not going to sign this petition. This is some of what Media Matters said to persuade people to sign their petition:

During the past year, three MSNBC commentators have been suspended, reprimanded, fired, or forced to apologize for their sexist and/or racist comments . . . The pattern of sexism at MSNBC doesn't stop there. Last year MSNBC canceled its simulcast of host Don Imus' show for his racist and sexist comments targeting the Rutgers women's basketball players. It was only after a widespread outcry by individuals, employees of the network, and many organizations, including Media Matters, that the network took action.

MSNBC did the right thing by holding Don Imus, Chris Matthews, and David Shuster accountable for their statements. Media Matters even claims some responsibility for these small victories.

But am I the only one who thinks that MSNBC is being held to a higher standard than other news outlets, like FOX News and CNN? When were Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck suspended or forced to apologize on air for any of their disgusting comments? What about Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin? I know that Media Matters spends plenty of time exposing these commentators, but these commentators are never held accountable by their networks' presidents, they are still contaminating our airwaves, and I'm not flooded with e-mails from Media Matters asking to sign petitions about firing them. I think that's the difference between media outlets who take responsibility for what their analysts and reporters say and media outlets who don't. MSNBC is at the very least succumbing to the pressure from viewers, Media Matters, and advertisers by disciplining those who do the wrong thing.

Media Matters, however, wants us to tell MSNBC's president to make sure derrogatory language is never used on the network, which is a promise no one can make. Nobody, not even the Media Matters staff, can promise to completely censor their language. Making this language rare and making sure some action is taken when it happens is the only promise anyone can make. Media Matters isn't asking for too much. They are asking for the impossible.

I can only speculate on why Media Matters is asking more of MSNBC than of other networks. It could be to be fair, that they are not only trying to censor hate speech by conservatives. Of course, hate speech doesn't show party lines, so everyone should be held accountable. However, how one responds to hate speech does cross party lines: Moderates and liberals take responsibility, and conservatives cash checks. Or, because MSNBC has listened to Media Matters in the past, MSNBC might again listen to Media Matters, even their demands are impossible to achieve. Either way, I don't think Media Matters is being fair.

The Justice System Condones Sexual Assault Once Again

Apparently, it doesn't matter if there were witnesses, if it was videotaped, or even if the person who assaulted you admitted it. You just can't get a jury to convict a man of rape. This goes double if the man is a prominent member of the community. Of course we all know that the closer he is to the patriarchal norm, the better chance of getting out of the charges he has.

But this case is just disgusting.

The verdict had his accuser in tears. "I am shocked, and he even admitted it," the 24-year-old said, referring to Brown's testimony that he tried to push her face into his lap.

So he admitted that he tried to push her face into his crotch, but:

Jurors said they did not believe Brown exerted the force necessary to qualify his actions as sex crimes. Michigan law says a person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct if "force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual conduct."

Pushing someone is not force? Umm, since when?

One of the jurors is a great guy, too. Check out what he had to say about the whole situation:

Nowles said he and other jurors concluded the accuser and Brown "both made big mistakes."

"They are both stupid," Nowles said. "There is no law against that."

Women are stupid for getting sexually assaulted, apparently.

I'm so tired of having to read these stories of how the justice system is such a let down for women who are victims of sexual assault.

Take Action

Did you know that if you take action, you will get action from your one true love in 24 hours? Well, that's not true (necessarily), but it will make you feel good.

Bush wants to cut public broadcasting funding? Tell your Congresspeople that you're not having that.

Remind the Afghan government and the State Department that downloading feminist information is not a crime.

Go to RoeAt35.org and tell Dianne Feinstein not to take any of Honaker's bullshit.

Say no to drilling in ANWR, and yes to cute little polar bears. Aw, polar bears.

No Sweat, a clothing company that makes sweatshop free clothing, might be going under. So buy one of their super cool organic tees, and maybe you can help save the company (or at least look as cool as I do).

My Voting Experience

Feministing has a list of feminists who have endorsed either Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Add Megan and me to that list (Megan for Clinton, and me for Obama)!

Anyway, I want to tell you about my voting experience. Looking back on my voting experience today, it wasn't much different from one of my other voting experiences (November 2006), but I just noticed that it was different this time around. Well, first I'll tell you about what happened in November 2006, which was the first time I voted in person. I'm half Puerto Rican. I have a Hispanic last name, and if I don't look Hispanic, I at least look ethnically ambiguous and can pass from "an Italian on the dark side" to "half Indian." So when I voted in 2006, one of the guys at the voting place was sitting at the end of the table, and he asked me for my driver's license and he spoke to me in Spanish. I don't speak Spanish, but I can understand it when I have to, so I did everything he told me I had to do. I figured he saw my last name on my license and thought I spoke Spanish. End of story. When I went to vote today, one of the women looked at my license and told me that I just have to wait until one of the other ladies was done getting the woman in front of my all sorted out. Fine. The other lady looked at my driver's license and said, "Here, Maria. You can do this one." That's reasonable. I understand that sitting in an elementary school gymnasium for several hours with a few people going to vote here and there can get boring, and maybe Maria hadn't done anything in a while and needed something to do. So she gave Maria, who was sitting at the end of the table, my license. Maria looked at my license, found my name in the book of registered voters in the area, and said "Democratico o Republicano?" And that's when it dawned on me. The person sitting at the end of the table is Spanish-speaking, there to assist the Hispanic voters, even Hispanic voters like me who don't speak Spanish. I understand now. Because I'm Hispanic, I can only speak enough English to pass a citizenship test, but I don't speak enough English to vote without an interpreter. I swear, "Here, Maria. You can do this one" is going to be ringing in my ears for the rest of my life. I should have left the booth without voting and said, "Donde esta, Bill Richardson??? Donde esta mi hermano Mexicano??? Que lastima!!!"

Crisis Pregnancy Believers

I learned about Crisis Pregnancy Centers by accident at a wellness fair over two years ago at my college. I was president of the campus' Gender Equality Club, and I went to the fair to get some information about reproductive health. I visited all the different booths and picked up informational brochures from each one. One of the booths belonged to Care Net. I got information about their organization and read about it when I got back to my dorm. Needless to say, the information they gave me was false. Even more needless to say, they were unsuccessful in washing my brain. From then on, I knew I had to disect the false information they give to women and further reinforce what I already know about them: They suck.

I kind of like to dissect the language used by the pro-zygote movement. Whether they choose their words wisely or out of a hat, their language is quite telling. In the couple years since I learned about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, I noticed that feminists don't use the word "crisis" to describe an unintended pregnancy. Why is that? I think I found the answer when I was reading the chapter about crisis counseling in my Community Counseling textbook. The chapter provides several definitions of "crisis." Here's one of them.

Crises are personal difficulties or situations that immobilize people and prevent them from consciously controlling their lives.*

Now, is "crisis pregnancy" just a clever term for these centers? One of the fundamental tenets of pro-lifers is that women are thrusted into some sort of altered state of consciousness that makes them unable to make the "right" decision for themselves (in so many words). So maybe the word "crisis" is intentional. Here's something else I read about crises:

Crisis is a danger because it threatens to overwhelm the individual and may result in suicide or a psychotic break. It is also an opportunity because during times of crises, individuals are more receptive to therapeutic influence.*

During times of crisis, individuals are more receptive to any kind of influence. That includes the influence of people who have a certain self-fulfilling goal in mind for you.

Feminists use the term "unintended" for pregnancies that are, well, unintended. Pregnancies aren't a crisis in our view, because we know that, at least for now, we have options. Furthermore, feminists trust women that they know what is best for them and can make their own decisions. Anti-choicers, on the other hand, don't believe in, well, choice. So every unintended pregnancy is a crisis to them (or for them, in the event that they are faced with an unintended pregnancy).

Now if only every woman believed that an unintended pregnancy was a crisis -- before they become pregnant. And, obviously, the best way to turn an unintended pregnancy into a crisis is by rolling back abortion rights. That way, there are fewer options for women, and the fewer the options, the harder it becomes to have control over your own life. And, obviously, the best way to create millions of unintended pregnancies is by demonizing contraception. Anti-choicers in this country have already done both with legislation at the state and federal level and by creating abstinence-only education. If every woman believed they were in a crisis when they become pregnant and don't want to be, they'll be more susceptible to the propaganda of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Clever, indeed.

P.S. I just saw an ad for Mike Huckabee. He said he wants to abolish the IRS. Tell New Jersey what else you'd like to abolish, Huck.

*Gladding, S. & Newsome, D. (2004). Community and Agencey Counseling, 2nd. ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

More Perpetuation of the "Grey Rape" Myth. . .

This article absolutely disgusts me.

Check out these rape apologist gems:

Maybe if she was sober she would never have chosen to sleep with that guy. Maybe he coaxed her into it. But on those terms, is it okay for the girl to then cry rape?

(Emphasis mine)

The article comes complete with rape apologist terminology, apparently. Here's a newsflash for this author: If you're drunk, you can't legally consent. So yes, legally, she can "cry rape". I don't understand why people are so eager to dismiss the terrible behavior of men.

Although this passage here is certainly the kicker as far as every rape apologist tactic known to humankind is concerned. I think the author of this article manages to fit every single one of them in here. Check it out:

Let me paint you another picture. At a frat party, there is a girl scantily clad in a mini skirt (so short, by the way, you can almost see the bottom of her ass), and a tank top with a plunging neckline. She is downing, and subsequently refilling her solow cup of jungle juice. She then picks out a brother who she wants to be her so-called “project” of the night. The two engage in flirtatious conversation and touching. Both are drunk, and it is obvious that she wants him. After an hour of being all over each other he asks her if she wants to “see his room” and she follows him upstairs. They begin to get down to business and in about a minute they are both naked on the frat boy’s bed. He asks if she wants to “you know” and she says “yes.” After he has successfully found and put on a condom he climbs on top of her and the right when he is at the cusp, she changes her mind and says drunkenly “actually…” But being so caught up in the moment, he disregards this as momentary insanity on her part and enters her anyway. Who is really to blame in this situation? Yes, the guy should have stopped when she said no, but didn’t she vehemently send the message that sex was what she wanted? I mean, she even showed up to the party looking like pure sex, so who is really at fault?

Let's see.

1) Only slutty girls get raped
2) If you consumed alcohol it was your fault
3) Men just can't control themselves
4) If you flirt with someone, you have a responsibility to fuck them.

I don't think she missed any of them. There is one vile rape apologist tactic after the next there. I also love the "Yeah, he should have stopped, BUT SHE WAS SUCH A SLUT!".

There are some probably some who are reading this article, thinking that I am siding with the male rapists. Let me preempt those thoughts by saying it is never okay for a guy to make any girl do ANYTHING she does not want to do. A guy should never force a girl to even kiss him. But by the same token, we as girls should not lead a guy to believe that he is going to get more then we are willing to give. We should also not get so drunk off our asses that we cannot make the decision to stop. There is a very fine line in these incidents, and they often become blurry when you mix in alcohol and drugs.

I don't understand why women are held accountable for what men perceive to be our meaning. Why do men get to define what certain "signals" mean? And then get to hold women accountable for those definitions through the use of sexual assault? It's absolute bullshit.

So let me reiterate one more time. There is no such thing as "grey rape". If a woman does not give enthusiastic consent, no matter how she was dressed, how much she had to drink, how much she flirted, where she went with a man, where she was, who she was with, etc., IT'S RAPE. The end.

Take Action Fever!

Forget Bridial Fever. Catch the Take Action Fever and spend your weekend doing something much better than watching movies with sexist plots on The Hallmark Channel.

Be one of a million strong in Planned Parenthood's grassroots campaign.

Tell the Justice Department to prosecute the private military members who drugged and raped Jamie Leigh Jones.

Urge your Senators to cosponser the Biden-Lugar resolution to send helicopters to peacekeepers in Darfur.

And while you're at it, tell them to pass the Fair Pair Restoration Act.

Shop at Barnes and Noble this weekend, mention code "Bookfair #223842," and part of your purchase will be donated to the Genocide Intervention Network.

Happy 35th Birthday, Roe v Wade!

I'm just going to be honest. This blog for choice day, there's really not much that I can think of to say that would be profound. I've given the long diatribes as to why I'm pro-choice, last year's post was all about how the argument should be re-framed as being about reproductive justice rather than simply abortion rights, etc., and this year I really don't know what to hit as far as issues concerning choice go.

I guess I could give an optimistic view of everything feminists and pro-choice activists have accomplished for women's choice, such as getting Plan B over-the-counter, some states refusing to teach abstinence-only sex education, the success in overturning South Dakota's abortion ban, and other such pro-choice victories. There have even been pro-choice successes in my community. USF's Feminist Student Alliance held a Rock for Choice event last semester which raised over a thousand dollars for the organization W.O.M.E.N., a group that funds abortions for low-income women in need. There have been many pro-choice victories that the pro-choice and feminist community should be very proud of.

However, there have also been some setbacks and some goals that still have not been met. For example, although we got close, we didn't get to completely overturn the Global Gag Rule. States are still trying to push abortion bans through their legislative bodies, and of course the Supreme Court decided that women shouldn't have the right to protect their health by all means necessary through the decision made in Gonzalez vs. Carhart, complete with an entirely patronizing opinion from Justice Kennedy. These are things that we need to work on, but I think every pro-choice activist knows this.

Another thing that I think pro-choice activists need to work on, and this is somewhat akin to the re-framing of the entire argument, is terminology. I hear the word "abortion" misused so much. Even today in my Natural Sciences class, we were talking about genetic therapy, stem-cell research, and the ethics of IVF. Someone in the class kept referring to the embryos that die due to IVF as "abortions", yet they're not abortions. Abortions are the termination of a pregnancy. The embryos used in IVF practices that die are usually never implanted. The only way they could be part of an abortion is if they implanted and were then subsequently miscarried.

Another friend of mine referred to Plan B and all oral contraceptives as causing "abortions" because the ovum may not be able to implant. However, pregnancy begins at implantation, so it wouldn't be an abortion, it would be a failure to implant. People using the word "abortion" just to mean the death of an embryo is very harmful to women's reproductive freedom, I think, because if anything that a woman does causes such a death, it's suddenly controversial, which also gets into other reproductive justice issues, including the newly released issue of caffeine use causing miscarriages. All of this controversy about women's actions causing the deaths of embryos is very damaging to reproductive freedoms, in my opinion. Should women have this information? Certainly. Should they be expected to lose all agency once they become pregnant? Absolutely not. That is the line that needs to be drawn. Information is a good thing. So is choice.

I guess that's what I'll leave you with. Just remember that information is always good, and so is the ability to make choices after that. That is what needs to be protected, what was set on a path 35 years ago, and what will continue to be fought for and won by feminists and pro-choice activists all across the country, and hopefully, the globe. We need to keep a good balance of realizing our accomplishments, such as what we're celebrating today, but we also need to keep our eye on the prize. I know we'll get it some day.

P.S. While you're wishing Roe vs. Wade a happy birthday, wish Feminists to the Rescue a happy birthday as well!

Blog For Choice Day!

Here's my Blog for Choice. This year's topic was "Why do you vote pro-choice?" Well, here's why.

Because the Global Gag Rule still exists to hurt women in developing nations, even where abortion is legal.

Because poor women's access to abortion is about as dead as Henry Hyde.

Because a stroke of a pen can make the price of your birth control pills skyrocket.

Because anti-choice presidents appoint people who staunchly oppose birth control to be in charge of family planning funding.

Because 24 states don't require insurance companies to cover birth control.

Because our appointed Supreme Court justices think women need to be protected from themselves.

Because more federal funding goes towards killing civilians in Iraq in one month than preventing pregnancy-related deaths in poor countries for an entire year.

Because pro-choice also means no forced abortions in American territories.

Because crisis pregnancy centers get paid by the government to judge and lie to women.

Because access Emergency Contraception is still limited.

Because birth control costs fewer tax dollars than pregnancy.

Because men's idea of abortion rights is my idea of forced pregnancy.

Because Mike Huckabee would be an even worse president than George W. Bush.

Because pro-choice politicians care about women.

Because I am a woman.

High Girls Are Slutty

This is one of those Above the Influence commercials. Was I naive to expect the same people who brought you SLOMMING would make an ad that makes sense? Perchance. But this ad isn't just stupid. It's dangerous, because teenagers (who they admit based on the very name of their campaign are influenced easily) might actually be getting the wrong message here.

This ad seeks to tell kids to be above the influence of drugs. What the ad does say, quite intentionally in my view, is that if you're a victim of a crime (in this case, having a naked picture of you sent around to random people without your permission), that's your fault, cuz you were high. Be above the influence of drugs, but don't be above the influence of sending a naked picture of someone to all your friends and telling them to pass it on. In fact, this ad encourages that behavior. I mean, hey, somebody's got to teach those high, slutty girls a lesson.

But this angle isn't old for anti-drug commercials. Jessica Valenti mentions one in the "Blame (and Shame) Game" chapter of her book Full Frontal Feminism. I remember this one well and became extremely pissed off whenever I saw it. This commercial featured a teenage girl on the couch smoking a joint. She progressively gets higher. She's sort of zoned out a bit when a boy around her age sits next to her on the couch and gropes her. The girl says no, but the boy doesn't listen. "Marijuana lowers your inhibitions." The end. Did they mean that your use of marijuana lowers others' inhibitions to the point that they'll assault you? No. They meant that if you're high, someone who knows what they're doing will take advantage of you. And even if you're inhibitions aren't lowered enough to not even know when you don't want to be groped or slept with, tough shit, girly.

And the real kicker: These campaigns are funded by the federal government.

If You Lie, Prepare to Die

If there's anything young women can learn from the Maria Lauterbach case, it's that if you've lied before, then you're lying if you say you've been raped. And if you might have lied about being raped, then a firey pit is in your future.

Lauerbach's mother, Mary, said that she had a problem with telling the truth, which made her "vulnerable."

"You realize you've lost all your evidence [of the rape] now?" she recalled telling her daughter. "Maria, you have to know you cannot make any false statements because that is one of the worst things you could possibly do. You could ruin somebody's career, and you won't be doing yourself any favors either."

I wonder if she's skeptical about the rape now. I mean, when a pregnant woman ends up murdered, and the man she accused of raping her goes missing . . . what more do you need to know?

Start the Weekend Off Right

Give Dr. Tiller, a doctor who provides late-term abortion services, some props.

Huckabee promised to meet with the mother of Ryan White, who contracted HIV as a teenager after a blood transfusion. He spent the rest of his short life teaching people that HIV cannot be transmitted by casual contact. (Mike Huckabee didn't get the memo). Make sure Huckabee keeps his promise.

Sign up to Blog for Choice.

Demand equal pay for women from your Senators.

Make sure MSNBC asks the Republican questions what they think about all aspects of reproductive rights, including emergency contraception and sex education, at RoeAt35.org.

Huckabee Tops Himself

No, I don't mean he killed himself (unfortunately). I mean he went over-the-top, even for him. Here's what he said in an interview with BeliefNet to get himself named Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World:

BELIEFNET: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

Again, Huckabee compares homosexuality to pedophilia and other paraphilias, including beastiality. I have a dog. His name is Diesel. Did you know that if I married Diesel, that would be a heterosexual union? Fascinating, isn't it? If my dog were more well-behaved, he and I would go to a Huckabee rally, and I would ask Huckabee if he, as an ordained minister and a man who respects heterosexual marriage so fucking much, would marry me and my boy dog right then and there. What Mike Huckabee fails to realize is that the difference between a marriage between me and my dog and a marriage between a woman and a man is that the latter union is between two consenting adults. And are all the of-age gay couples who are in committed relationships made up of two consenting adults? Of course. So this issue isn't about "slippery slopes" and whatnot. It's about hate. Mike Huckabee hates homosexuals. Plain and simple.

And I find it interesting that he doesn't consider turning the United States a Christian theocracy a radical idea, but he tells everyone that "[r]adical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life." Mike Huckabee may want to protect us from extreme Islam, but he has declared war on our Constitution, which is, in essence, our country and our way of life.

Deborah Tannen on The Colbert Report

Linguistics expert and professor at Georgetown University was on The Colbert Report last night and talked about how Hillary Clinton is being treated more harshly because she is a woman. It doesn't look like I can embed the video, but you can find it here on Colbert's website.

New Abstinence-Only Rally Song?

Best American Gladiator Thus Far

American Gladitors contestant Monica Carlson just beat The Eliminator, the final event on the show, in 2 minutes flat. That's the best time of all 8 contestants, male and female. Kudos!

Very Classy.

Amanda at Pandagon points out a very sexist comic that was run in the Washington Post. I would say it amazes me that such obvious sexism could run in reputable newspapers in 2008, but I'd have to actually be amazed for that to be true.

Keep Sexism Out of Election Coverage

Feministing had their 24-Hour Sexism Watch and blogged about sexist statements made in the media about Hillary Clinton. You can make a difference by signing Credo's petition to make this sexist coverage nonexistent. It will be sent to major media outlets including FOX, NBC, The New York Times, and NPR.

Mitt Romney Answers a Question

via Feministing

Here's a video of Willard answering a question from some asshole in the crowd about the Violence Against Women Act.




Pretty horrifying, yes? But I won't get into the question or Romney's answer. You can read the Feministing post for analysis. Romney just reminded me of someone. But who? Hmmmm . . . .



Who sees those two campaigning together in South Carolina? I do!

Hello Kitty for Boys

Did you know that Hello Kitty was not for boys? Yeah, I didn't know that either. But it still becomes news when Sanrio makes Hello Kitty clothing geared towards young men. The logo on the new tees and other merchandise is a little strange, but there is something that bothers me more than bad fashion. The cited article starts with the statement, "Hello Kitty is no sexist." First of all, the blue bow in Hello Kitty's hair is still gendered, and the logo is tweaked to look like the opposite of the original "girly" Hello Kitty logo, further perpetuating the view that males and females are opposites rather than compliments or equals. Secondly, there's no privilege that goes with wearing Hello Kitty clothing. Boys and young men were never at a disadvantage because gender roles (patriarchal gender roles) didn't allow them to wear Hello Kitty apparel, and they won't get any extra benefit now that this new line has been launched. If boys felt uncomfortable wearing something "girly" like Hello Kitty, it's because they didn't want to be called a girl or a homosexual by the patriarchy, not the imagined matriarchy.

Crazy Women for America

Wendy Wright, head honchess* of Concerned Women for America and recent winner of Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World award, went on the TV yesterday and said that advocates of comprehensive sex education benefit when kids have sex. I can hear the collective "Um . . . why?" Wright says it's because there's a financial incentive. According to Wright, advocates of comprehenisve sex-ed want teens to have sex because they "benefit when they [kids, teens, people in general, I suppose] have sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies, and then it leads to them having abortions." Just smile and nod, people. Smile. And nod. I guess Wright doesn't think that treating a STD after having unprotected sex, you know, the kind of sex that people who pledge abstinence and don't know how to use a condom have, doesn't cost any money at all. She also implies that prenatal care is free and that there are no hospital bills after giving birth. It's common sense (and it should be common knowledge) that birth control is less expensive than all those pregnancy expenses. So doesn't the healthcare industry make more money off of people who have unprotected sex and subsequently have babies? Yes, yes they do.

*"Honchess" isn't the official feminine form of "honcho," but it should be.

Happy New Year, New Hampshire!

New Hampshire has started off the new year right by signing a new ordinance allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.

Good for you, New Hampshire.

Nifty Posters

I've recently taken to abusing the Stumble Upon feature on my FireFox browser. As such, I've found some pretty interesting things. First, it was the boob mousepads. Now, it's actually some pretty cool feminist/anti-violence activism.

Here's a link to some awesome posters. I think they're really awesome.

:(

June 21, 1953 - December 27, 2007


Former Pakistani Prime Minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today at a rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. She was shot in the neck and chest while leaving the rally in her car before the gunman blew himself up, killing another 20 people. Bhutto, 54, was seeking a third term as PM. No word on what group, if any, is responsible for the murder.

Other Icky Products

On the other hand, at least they make for good "asshole alerts" so that women won't waste their time on misogynistic douchebags.

All I want for Christmas is a non-gendered toy

This is a good article from NOW's Kim Gandy. In it she talks about how gendered toys for young children are. I know that this is something we've probably blogged about before, but it bears repeating, especially this close to Christmas time.

Georgie Boy At His Finest

Here at Feministing is an interesting post about George Bush's latest sexist remark, this time in regards to his daughter Jenna.

When talking to People magazine about Jenna's recent engagement, he had this little gem to give out (of course, not to be confused with a diamond hymen, although I'm sure Bush assumes he's giving one of those away as well):

Q: Tell us about your future son-in-law, Henry Hager. Did he do right and ask for Jenna’s hand?

The President: “He kind of sidled up to me and said, ‘Can I come and see you?’ We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, ‘Got a deal.’ [Laughter] And I’m of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible.”

I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, what the hell is up with People magazine pimping sexist marital practices? Let's just get this straight: Asking for your girlfriend's hand in marriage is NOT romantic. It is sexist, it disempowers and dehumanizes her, and s a throwback to the days of marriage as a property exchange. All of those things are gross. Ergo, asking for Jenna's hand was not the "right" thing to do by any means.

But Bush's response, while not surprising, was just dripping with the women-as-chattel attitude that he has in most of his dealing with the second sex. Haha, sale of women! Bwahahaha, women as property! Oh man, that's a knee-slapper, Mr. President, and so very original.

It's shit like this that makes me not want to get married - EVER. I'm currently in a committed relationship, and I know that if my boyfriend ever pulled anything like asking for my hand in marriage, the answer from my mom and dad would be "no" (and simply because he asked them, they certainly know me enough to know that I don't go for that shit), and if not, I'd certainly make it clear to him. And even engagement rings are sexist to me. It perpetuates the high-priced whore stereotype. Give women shiny things in exchange for sexual relationships. Not only that, but I don't think I'd ever want a diamond-encrusted leash, either. It's absolutely patriarchy approved, and I can't endorse anything that the patriarchy endorses.

In fact, I think most marriage practices are ridiculous. I'm not even going to touch marriage consumerism and how that feeds into economic oppression, especially of the sexist variety. But the whole "giving away" thing is, once again, a throwback to marriage as property exchange laws. Might as well just add the "and obey" back into the vows. Also, the veil is not something that should be in practice. Why do women have to be faceless and identity-less until their man reveals their face? Is it that their identity is only derived from interaction with a superior male? I believe so! Well, that's the intent within the social context, anyway.

Also, if I were going to get married, I wouldn't want to be "surprised" with a proposal. I think it would be much better if the decision to get married were made by both of us, together and talking about what would be best for our futures, and if we want to be legally bonded or not. The whole thing of the "surprise" looks to be inequal to me. The man is once again the dynamic figure, making the decisions, and the woman basically just goes along with it or does the unthinkable and refuses. I don't understand why a couple just can't come to the decision together.

Yeah. That's my rant on marriage politics. I haven't had a good rant on here in a while, and I've been thinking about sexism in personal relationships, and how it shows up in small doses, for a while. All it takes is one more sexist-haha from Bush and I'm off on a tangent.

P.S. This is nice and ironic:

Q: Would you like to have a White House wedding?

Mrs. Bush: “Of course, a White House wedding would be a lot of fun. But I also know it wouldn’t be very private. And of course we want to do what Jenna wants to do.”

Emphasis mine.

Conservative Christians Are Just As Conflicted

I just posted about how parents are having trouble breaking the news to the daughters that 16-year-old girls like Jamie Lynn Spears can indeed become pregnant. Shocker, I know. While I was pissed that nobody was too concerned about the fact that Jamie Lynn was living with her 19-year-old boyfriend or about how to talk to teenage boys about safe sex, I think this story has it's high points too . . . from a feminist perspective!
This AP article talks about Jamie Lynn Spears, the real-life pregnant 16-year-old, and Juno, the pregnant 16-year-old played by 21-year-old Ellen Page on the silver screen in the movie Juno. It seems like conservative Christians have to do a little double-talking due to this "onslaught" of pregnant teenagers in . . . places, as if they never existed! Bill Maier from Focus on [a confining view of] the Family had this to say:

It's a double-edged sword in the Christian community. We should commend girls like Jamie Lynn Spears for making a courageous decision to have the baby. On the other hand, there's nothing glamorous or fun about being an unwed teen mother.

I would like to know what's so courageous about deciding to have a baby, or what's particularly glamorous or fun about being a married teen mother. And did Maier think too hard when answering and said "have the baby" instead of "keep the baby" like a good pro-lifer would? I think he might have! What do you say Leslee Unruh?:

When I heard the story, I felt sad at first. Already her life is not the norm of other 16-year-old girls. You have a lot of teens who look at those people as role models. There's a danger of them thinking, 'She got pregnant? I guess I can have a baby too.'

What?! Leslee Unruh said this? Leslee "More babies! We lovebabies!" Unruh? Leslee "Fertility is a gift" Unruh? Leslee "It's a gift to be able to have children" Unruh was sad when she heard that someone was pregnant and nervous at the prospect of other teens wanting babies too? Never thought I'd see the day.

Basically, conservative Christians are in a real spot here. They have to choose between supporting abstinence-until-marriage or birth control, as well as applauding teenagers for having babies instead of abortions (or being on the pill to prevent both, oddly enough) without making it sound like having a baby in your teen years is a good idea. I don't think Maier, Unruh, or any of the other pro-lifers quoted in the article nailed it. Their message goes a little like this: Ladies, don't have sex. Stay virgins until you're married, okay? I mean, you're ladies, not sluts. But if you do have sex, make sure you're not on birth control, because birth control is bad because protected sex doesn't cause babies, and that just ruins our "Sex causes babies" campaign. Chances are, you won't be on birth control, since you've been exposed to abstinence-only education. And since you won't be on birth control, you could get pregnant. If you do get pregnant, go through the pregnancy and birth and either raise the baby or give the baby to someone else. As the old saying goes, there's nothing more responsible than having unprotected sex and becoming a mommy when you're an unmarried teenager without a high school education.

Just Lie to the Children!

If you haven't heard, Jamie Lynn Spears, kid sister of Britney and star of Nickelodeon's Zoey 101, is pregnant. Lots of 16-year-old girls have been pregnant, as 16-year-old girls tend to have that capability. Now, parents just don't know what to say to their adolescent daughters. I find this worry ironic, since it's Christmastime, and Mary was probably like 12 when she gave birth to Jesus. But we'll celebrate that!


Anyway, like I said, parents are wondering what they should tell their daughters about this particular 16-year-old getting pregnant. I find this stupid for two reasons. First, I was a fan of all those rock bands back in the 90's when I was a kid -- Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Blind Melon, Sublime, etc. Nobody's parents asked "What do you tell your children when Kurt Cobain/Hillel Slovak/Shannon Hoon/Bradley Nowell dies of drug overdoses/bullet wounds while they're high?" Nobody asked that! That's because drug use is, unfortunately, a fact of rock 'n' roll life. So why are parents having a fit about what to tell their daughters regarding Jamie Lynn Spears' teen pregnancy, when pregnancy is a fact of life? The second thing that bugs me, as a feminist, is that people are only talking about what parents should tell their daughters, not their sons. Lost in this story is the fact that Spears became pregnant by her 19-year-old live-in boyfriend. The actions of the adults in this situation (the boyfriend and Jamie Lynn Spears' mother) are not being criticized at all! The youngest person in the situation is expected to take most, if not all, of the responsibility.

But back to what parents are afraid of. The above article cites some comments made by regular folks on blogs and message boards about how they're going to deal with this whole Jamie Lynn Spears thing. Here's a good one:

I'm telling the kids 'Zoey 101' has been canceled. I hope Nickelodeon does the right thing and cancels the show. She is a role model for young girls. Looks like she's following in the footsteps of her sister.

So this parent is going to lie to their children. Because lying to kids works so well, especially when it comes to sex. That's why abstinence-only education is so much more successful than comprehensive sex ed. Oh, wait.

Mike Huckabee's Wettest Dream

Mike Huckabee's spokesperson clarified statements Huckabee made in his 1998 book Kids Who Kill. First, what Huckabee said:

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

So, falling in love and having sex with someone who is the same sex as you is on the same plane as raping children, consensual sex of the kinkier variety (which is bad why?), and banging dead people. Oh, but Huckabee's spokesperson clarifies!

He's not equating homosexuality with necrophilia. He's saying there's a range of aberrant behavior. He considers homosexuality aberrant, but that's at one end of the spectrum. Necrophilia is at the other end.

No way is he saying that homosexuality is like having sex with dead people. That's not it at all.

He was talking about aberrant sexual behavior. Sado masochism and necrophilia are on the further end of the spectrum.

That's like saying any sex is the same. Yes, he considers both aberrant, but no, he does not equate the two in any way.

He was describing behavior. He's not casting judgment on the people themselves. His point is, the culture is becoming more accepting of aberrant behaviors.

He considers homosexual behavior aberrant. But there are degrees of aberrant behavior. He's not saying they're equally as bad. There's a very big distinction there.

So, falling in love and having sex with someone who is the same sex as you is on the same plane as raping children, consensual sex of the kinkier variety, and banging dead people. Thanks for the clarification, dickhead.

The Crying Game

Yes, I'm still alive.

Anyway, this is a very interesting article on Yahoo!

Basically, the article talks about how acceptable it is to the American public for different politicians to cry. It mentions that Hillary Clinton is not allowed to show tears because that would make her seem weak, but in men, it looks like sensitivity.

We all know it's true, I just think it's neat when more mainstream news outlets like Yahoo! make it known to people who otherwise might not think about how gender can influence how we think of showing emotion, especially in politicians.

Global Gag Rule Intact

Unlike Jamie Lynn Spears' hymen. I'm sorry, I just had to say that.

Since Asshole in Chief threatened to veto the foreign aid budget if it left out the draconian Global Gag Rule, Congress decided to leave it in. This article doesn't begin to describe how horrible the Global Gag Rule really is.

Unable to override a promised veto, Democrats have backed down on their insistence that the 2008 foreign aid budget reverse President Bush's ban on providing aid to family planning groups abroad that offer abortions . . . .



Since taking office in 2001, Bush has prohibited any assistance to organizations overseas that perform or promote abortion.


Actually, if these organizations mention abortion they don't get funding. That's why pro-life organizations in Zambia oppose it. Here's Megan's post about the Global Gag Rule from a couple months back that gives a more accurate representation of this disgusting policy. The video above is from Access Denied.

Saudi Rape Victim Pardoned

The 19-year-old Saudi Arabian woman who was sentenced to 6 months in jail and 200 lashes was pardoned today by King Abdullah. This article places much of the credit for the pardon on outrage from the White House (which I'm sure is true), but we can't forget the feminists in Saudi Arabia who risked what little freedom they have and their lives to protest the sentence.

Just Because You're Married to a Woman Doesn't Mean You're Not Sexist

Mike Huckabee didn't say exactly that, but he used that same line of reasoning to defend his record on women's rights.

If you look at my cabinet, I had more women in my cabinet and on my staff in key positions, including chief of staff, than any other governor probably in Arkansas history.

I'm not even going to look up if that's true. I just need to know Huckabee's vast knowledge of history to conclude that he's probably bullshitting. That record on women's rights is more of a record of women's oppression. Here are some of the things Huckabee believes about women:

A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.

But never the other way around. Of course not the other way around, because once a man gets married, he becomes as great as Jesus (who supposedly was never married. Mind-blowing). Once a woman gets married, she becomes a slave.

[W]omen should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat.

Replace "combat" with "politics," and you've just been transported to the 19th century.

. . . . I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby [during abortion] . . . .

Translation: "I forced doctors to lie to women." Like the old saying goes, a man doesn't really care about you unless he lies you into having kids. Actually, that saying never caught on, because it's utter bullshit.

Now There Are Palestinian Policewomen!

As Iraqi policewomen are forced to surrender their weapons, Palestinian policewomen in the West Bank began working today. Women were usually left to administrative jobs for the most part, but today they directed traffic, searched homes, and frisked women. It's part of a European Union program. Now, I'm not sure how long this will last. The program that placed Iraqi women in nontraditional positions in the police force was funded by the US government, but once funding stopped, so did the opportunities for Iraqi policewomen. So, we'll have to see how this goes.

Interestingly enough, Google didn't seem to believe me when I told it that I wanted to search for the article about this current event entitled First Palestinian Policewomen Begin Work. "Did you mean: First Palestinian Policeman Begin Work?" Google asked. No, Google, that's not what I meant. First of all, there have always been policemen in Palestine. Secondly, that sentence doesn't even have proper subject-verb agreement. God, Google! Why don't you trust me?!

No More Female Iraqi Police Officers

The LA Times reports that late last month, Iraqi policewomen were told to relinquish their weapons or face not getting paid. Women cannot become commanding officers in the police force by Iraqi law, and they are now forced to give their guns to male police officers in exchange for desk jobs. Iraqi freedom indeed. Here are some of the implications of getting rid of women police officers in Iraq:

• Policewomen patted down female civilians crossing checkpoints and female suspects. Who will do so now? Not policemen because of Islamic law. With the rise of suicide bombings done by women (5 of the 6 since the Iraq War occurred this year), fewer female terrorists will be caught before an attack.
• Rape victims won't have anywhere to turn, since they wouldn't feel comfortable talking to a male police officer.
• Even administrators working for the police, women and men, have been killed while off-duty. Male off-duty cops and administrators will still be allowed to keep their guns. The women, however, will have no protection from insurgents.

The article has a lot of great quotes from Iraqi policewomen and how they feel about the new policy.

I Didn't Know This About Australia

Did you know that in Australia, you don't have to be the age of consent to give consent to having sex with 9 people, and being the age of consent and having sex with someone who's below the age of consent isn't your fault at all? I didn't think you knew that. I don't think Australians know that. I mean, this principle doesn't go across the board. It does depend on what gender the underage person and what gender the adults are in the situation, obviously. I learned this after reading an article about a 10-year-old Aboriginee girl who suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome in Australia who was moved out of her rural home after being sexually assauted, only to return and get gang raped by 9 guys. But none of these rapists have seen any jail time, even though they pleaded guilty. Not even the 3 rapists who are over the age of consent (one as old as 26) was imprisoned. Why? Because of a prosecuter named Steve Carter and Judge Sarah Bradley. Here's their crazy interpretation of the law:

Carter: It was a form of childish experimentation, rather than one child being prevailed upon by another. I can't say it was consensual in the legal sense but ... in the general sense, the non-legal sense, yes, it was.

I don't think he meant pedophilia when he said "childish experimentation." No, it was the 10-year-old mildly mentally retarded girl who was experimenting. The 26-, 18-, and 17-year-olds who admitted to raping her were just following orders.

In sentencing, Bradley told the offenders that the victim "was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you" but warned them that having sex with anyone younger than 16 was illegal and they could end up in prison.

Did Judge Bradley forget that she wasn't mentoring a couple of at-risk youths, but actually sentencing 9 guys who admitted to raping a 10-year-old disabled girl? Wow.

I Know This Is About Burgers, But Still

Burger King did this thing where one of their restaurants (for lack of a better word) played a joke on its customers by telling them that they no longer serve the Whopper. Hidden cameras captured the "Whopper Freakouts" from within the Burger King, and a person-on-the street got the reactions from people outside. Here's the video, and here's an excerpt from the video (around 4:14 in):

Scrubby Dude: If the Burger King doesn't have the Whopper, they might as well change their name to Burger Queen.

Friend of Scrubby Dude who is equally scrubby and apparently very slow on the uptake: Yeah!

Get it? Because a Burger King without the Whopper is inferior and, thus, more feminine. I mean, I don't think there's such a thing as Dairy King, but I'm sure whatever ice cream they'd sell is way superior to the shit Dairy Queen has!

More on Mike Huckabee

Yesterday I posted about Mike Huckabee telling the Associated Press in 1992 that people with AIDS should be isolated. I also said that he probably still does want people with AIDS to be isolated. And what do you know? I was right! From this morning's FOX News Sunday:

Chris Wallace: As you rise in the polls, I don't have to tell you that your past is becoming more of an issue. It now turns out that when you ran for the Senate back in 1992, you called for quarantining AIDS patients, you opposed increased federal funding to find a cure, and you also said that homosexuality was a, quote, "sinful lifestyle that could pose a dangerous health risk." Do you stand by any of that now, Governor?

Mike Huckabee: Chris, I didn't say that we should quarantine. I said it was the first time in public health protocols that when we had an infectious disease and we didn't really know just how extensive and how dramatic it could be and the impact of it, that we didn't isolate the carrier. Now, the headlines yesterday started saying that I called for quarantines, which if you'll go back and read my comments, I did not. I had simply made the point, and I still believe this today, that in the late '80s and early '90s, when we didn't know as much as we do now about AIDS, we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols that we would have acted — as we have recently, for example, with avian flu, which — I spent hours and hours, and months, in fact, as a governor dealing with a pandemic plan that we were looking at which called for isolating carriers if they contracted that disease.

WALLACE: But, Governor, forgive me. I don't think that's right. All the way back in 1985, this wasn't political correctness. The Centers for Disease Control back in '85, seven years before you made your statement, said that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact.

HUCKABEE: There was also the case of Kimberly Bergalis, who testified before Congress in 1991. She had contracted AIDS from her dentist [I will interject here. Whether she contracted HIV (not AIDS, nobody contracts AIDS) from her dentist is still up in the air]. We didn't think that there was a casual transmission. There were studies that showed that. But there were other concerns being voiced by public health officials. Now, would I say things a little differently in 2007? Probably so. But I'm not going to recant or retract from the statement that I did make because, again, the point was not saying we ought to lock people up who have HIV/AIDS. I knew people who had AIDS. I had a close friend who died of it in the 1980s. He was a hemophiliac. He contracted it through a blood transfusion. I had other friends of mine, one of whom passed away — he was, in fact, homosexual. But my point is that I was trying to talk about the different public health protocols that we were dealing with. I think what it really does show, though, is that when people are digging back into everything I've ever said and done — and I understand that, it's part of the political process. But what I'm not going to do is to go back and now try to change every story I've ever had. I'm going to simply say that that was exactly what I said. I don't run from it, don't recant from it. Would I say it a little differently today? Sure, in light of 15 years of additional knowledge and understanding, I would. [emphasis mine]

Mike Huckabee probably would change his mind about quarantining people with AIDS. And that's what a quarantine is, dummy, isolating people with diseases. As "would" is in the conditional tense, I'd like to know under which circumstances Huckabee would tell the people that people with AIDS should be treated instead of isolated, or that homosexuality isn't a "abberant and sinful lifestyle" but a normal variation of expressing love. Someone needs to ask that question at the next Republican Presidential debate.

Mike Huckabee: Pro-Life Indeed

It seems like as Mike Huckabee climbs the polls, more skeletons are unleashed from his closet.

Earlier this week, The Huffington Post broke the story about Huckabee letting a convicted rapist go free. The rapist, Wayne Dumond, raped and sexual assaulted numerous women and was rightly convicted. But since one of those women was a 17-year-old who happened to be a distant cousin of Bill Clinton's, Huckabee succumbed to pressure from the lunatic fringe of the right wing and pardoned Dumond, despite receiving letters from the victim's and their families begging him not to. I suppose being cool with rape is part all part of being a Republican, and being a Republican is much more important than making sure a serial rapist is behind bars for the rest of his life (which would have been the case, since Dumond is now dead, but wouldn't have fully paid his debt to society until 2024). Upon release, Dumond raped and killed two women.

Dumond allegedly raped and murdered [23-year-old Sara Andrasek] just one day before his arrest for raping and murdering [39-year-old Carol Sue] Shields. Prior to the attack, Andrasek and her husband had learned that she was pregnant with their first child.

So Huckabee let a man go, and he ended up killing a precious embryo and a couple women that Huckabee certainly doesn't give a shit about. You would think that Huckabee would have compared Dumond to Hitler and the "murder" of this embryo to the Holocaust, like he so flippantly did to women who choose to terminate their pregnancies. But he didn't. That's a pro-lifer for ya. Rapists and murderers? Ha! Women who don't want to be pregnant? Oh, there's a special place in Hell for them, right between Hitler and the Jews he systematically had killed.

That's bad enough, but there's even more. Today it came out that Huckabee wanted (probably still wants) to isolate people with AIDS.

If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.

It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization* in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.

In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote. "An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research.

I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.

Keep in mind, he said these things in 1992. That was around the time Magic Johnson disclosed that he had HIV. But how in the world did he contract HIV? By magic? No. I think it was that other kind of sex, you know, the kind between a man and a woman, a woman who is not the man's wife, the wife who is pregnant. What's that kind of sex called? Extramarital heterosexual! That's it! It's amazing that then obese Governor Mike Huckabee didn't have a heart attack after hearing that a heterosexual man in a traditional marriage contracted HIV from engaging in heterosexual sex.

So, the moral of the story is that Mike Huckabee is a horrible person and should be shamed into isolation, just like he wants for homosexuals and people with HIV/AIDS.


*P.S., I wouldn't take anything Mike Huckabee says about "the history of civilization" seriously, since he believes that every civilization that has changed marriage has crumbled. *Looks out the window* No . . . not yet.

Kick-Ass Celebrity of the Day

Jennifer Love Hewitt took on the bloggers that have been calling her fat lately. I mean, she's a size 2! What a fatty! While out and about, she told this to some creep with a camera:

People should be proud of who they are and what they look like, and not let all this silliness and judgment sort of get in the way.

Right on! From her official website:

"I've sat by in silence for a long time now about the way women's bodies are constantly scrutinized. To set the record straight, I'm not upset for me, but for all of the girls out there that are struggling with their body image. A size two is not fat! Nor will it ever be. And being a size zero doesn't make you beautiful. What I should be doing is celebrating some of the best days of my life and my engagement to the man of my dreams, instead of having to deal with photographers taking invasive pictures from bad angles. I know what I look like, and so do my friends and family. And like all women out there should, I love my body. To all girls with butts, boobs, hips and a waist, put on a bikini -- put it on and stay strong."

Jennifer Love, I love you!

Mass Rape in Angola

Women from the Congo migrate to Angola to find work. While they're getting deported, they get raped by the Angolan military. If this story gets to the mainstream television media (as unlikely as that is), I'd love to know what O'Reilly and Dobbs have to say about it.

Kick-Ass Little Girl of the Day

A 7-year-old girl saved her mother from the gunfire of an ex-boyfriend by acting as a human shield. Alexis Goggins was shot six times and, amazingly, survived. Her mother, Selietha Parker, was shot twice. Alexis is a special needs child who suffered a stroke as an infant. The story is truly disturbing:

The drama began to unfold just before midnight Saturday, when Parker called Ford and asked if she and Alexis could spend the night at Ford's home.

"She said she had no heat and they were very cold, and I said , sure I'll come and get you," Ford said.

Ford said she drove her burgundy 1998 Ford Expedition to Parker's home on Dwyer. She said as Parker and Alexis walked up to her vehicle she saw a man on the porch, who she assumed was a furnace repairman. She said Alexis, who walks with a limp, slipped momentarily on the icy sidewalk and as she helped the girl up, she saw the man and recognized him as Tillie. He was holding a gun.

Tillie ordered them into the vehicle, cursed at the women and angrily told Ford to drive him to Six Mile Road, she said.

"He looked like he was enraged and didn't care what he did. I knew if we went to Six Mile, he would kill us," Ford said. Instead, she told him she needed gas and drove to the Fast Stop Gas station in the 5000 block of East Seven Mile Road, a station that requires customers to pay the attendant inside.

Ford said she dialed 911 on her cell phone as she walked into the station.

"The first operator clicked off and I dialed again and told that operator a guy with a gun was holding me hostage with a mother and baby and threatening to kill us. I told her the name of the gas station and then she said they didn't have a unit to send."

The gas station attendant called after he heard gunshots coming from the car. The police arrived less than a minute later. So it's a good thing that little girl is indestructible, because the cops certainly weren't there to help her.

Dan Abrams on Abstinence-Only Education

Dan Abrams talked with Rachel Maddow of Air America Radio and some nutty abstinence-only advocate last night. As much as I love Maddow, my favorite part is about 4 minutes in. Watch the video, and you'll see why!

Something Cool that Tampax and Always are Doing

I just saw a commercial for Tampax, and they're doing a cool campaign to get feminine hygiene products to girls in Africa.

For some girls in Southern Africa, getting their period means missing school for several days each month. That's because they don't have access to something many of us take for granted: feminine protection.Helping girls stay in school is critical. An education gives them a future. It helps build better lives - not just for them, but for their families and their communities.

I never knew that this was a problem, but now that I know it is, it makes a lot sense. This program provides pads and education about puberty. You can even buy t-shirts with the message "Use your period for good" (I love that slogan!). A dollar from each t-shirt sold goes to the program. That's not much, but I'm sure it ads up.

And I just added a badge on the side of the blog. Add a badge to your blog!