Don't Tell The Rentals!

That this blog is rated NC-17 for saying words like "abortion", "sex", "fuck", and "shoot".

Mingle² - Online Dating

Here's Something to Ask Jeeves: Shut Up.

The new Ask Jeeves ad assures you that you can find half naked women licking swords, if you must. Thank goodness!

Breastfeeding Debate in the Philippines

This article made me laugh so hard.

The breast-feeding debate in the Western world seems to be more over where it's done. The Philippine Health Department went as far as to ban baby formula commercials that advertise products for babies under 1 year old, and they want to extend the law to include formulas for babies up to age 2.

"Labels already include messages that breast milk is best for babies, but health officials want additional statements saying there is no substitute for breast milk and that formula should only be used under advice from a health worker . . .

"The World Health Organization recommends mothers breast-feed exclusively for the first six months and continue providing breast milk along with complementary foods until age 2. Research has shown that babies given breast milk develop fewer respiratory and intestinal diseases, and those given formula have a greater chance of developing asthma or allergies, along with obesity. WHO estimates up to 1.45 million children die annually in poor countries because of low breast-feeding rates.

"Exclusive breast-feeding rates during the first four to five months have dipped from 20 percent in 1998 to 16 percent in 2003 in the Philippines, where more women are working full time and juggling busy lifestyles like many women in the West."

Two words, Philippines: Breast. Pump.

The thing I have a problem with is that this issue has gone to the legislature. Is breastfeeding healthier? Yes. Must there be laws that will keep women from making the choice? No. That's not going to help anything. If women are too busy to breastfeed, let them bottle feed. It's better than not feeding the kid at all, correct?

FOX and CBS love unwanted pregnancies and erections

CBS and FOX have recently decided not to show a certain condom commercial. The reason given by FOX is that "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I guess since unwanted pregnancy, and pregnancy in general, doesn't effect women's health at all (Right? Right?!), the message of preventing pregnancies through condom use isn't a health-related one. CBS simply said that the commercial was not appropriate for it's network.

This is a troubling proclamation from CBS, considering that during the Superbowl, which was carried by CBS, commercials for both Levitra and Cialis (both erectile dysfunction medications) were shown.

Not only that, but other sexual commercials were shown at this year's Superbowl. One was a GoDaddy.com ad that featured a woman having beer poured on her tight white tanktop while men looked on. CBS showed this ad, and FOX has also shown commercials for GoDaddy.com in the past.

However, when it comes to something that can be helpful to society but might make people a little uncomfortable (which is, in itself, stupid) suddenly it's inappropriate. Using women and sex to sell something is worse than selling something used to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies and keep sex safe.

Right. Thanks, FOX and CBS, for keeping all of us moral.

There's more over at Feministing, and go here to contact the networks to tell them that unwanted pregnancy IS a health issue and that safe sex doesn't gross you out.

"Responsibility does not end at conception"

There's something that has been absent in the abortion debate! While Barack Obama wasn't talking about reproductive freedom in this case, he knows that it's important for daddies to be a part of their kids' lives. Who knew!

"Let's admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child."

I don't know all of what was in Obama's speech, but it doesn't look like "partriarchy," "the feminization of poverty," or "pay inequity" made it in.

Minority Voters and the Simple-Minded Stigma

Warning: Long bitch fest.

The 2008 campaign for president is pretty exciting for us minorities, especially if you're a liberal. Watching the Republican presidential debates (which I believe happen every other week simply to give Romney and Giuliani a chance to get their positions on abortion straight) bores the shit out of me. All you need is a black and white television, and you can admire all the White old male candidates and their neatly pressed black suits (although it might be more difficult to find Tommy Thompson's neck this way). However, when you watch the Democratic debates, you see a more varied lot. You got Hillary Clinton to empower women, you got Barack Obama to empower African Americans, you got Bill Richardson to empower Latinos, and you got Dennis Kucinich to empower the Lollipop Guild (a surprisingly firey base, mind you). Obviously, not everyone belongs to only one of these minority groups. I can say that three of the four aforementioned candidates represent parts of my identity that I hold dear. The pundits, however, don't seem to think minority voters are all that complex.

Hardball's Chris Matthews talked about the polls stating that Hillary Clinton is more favored by women with needs (low-income and less formerly educated) and Barack Obama is a favorite of women with college educations.

Chris Matthews: ... Apparently, according to the national polling we just got today, her advantage in the polls over Barack Obama and the other Democratic wannabes is women. And this shouldn‘t surprise us. Women are so proud to have a first woman candidate who has a real shot at winning that they‘re overwhelming supporting Hillary over the other candidates, especially women who have needs. It‘s called “women with needs,” is the category, women who haven‘t gotten a college degree, are working hard there to provide for families or living alone, and they really like Hillary. Could this be the decisive factor in this campaign, women with needs voting for Hillary?

Ron Reagan: ... I‘m not sure that it‘s going to hold or do her so much good in the general election, should she win the primaries. There are other polls out that show that Republican women, 40-some-odd percent of Republican women, would refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. So she still remains a terribly divisive candidate, when you talk about the general population, and still remains the candidate that most Republicans say they would like to run against.

This exchange tells us a lot. First, Chris Matthews seems to think that women will vote for Hillary Clinton for the same reason I preferred Midge over Barbie when I was little: She looks like me, sort of! But Ron Reagan comes to the rescue and assures us that there's still enough sexism in this world that makes Republicans comfortable about running against a woman, because the obviously not sexist Republican women are voting based on policy and not gender. Right? Right?!

Chris Matthews: ... But isn‘t [this] so eventful for women to have to vote for a woman, just so they can say to their daughters, Hey, look, you got a chance to be president, as well as your brother?

*explodes* In my perfect world, Dennis Kucinich would be the nominee, a man who represents my opinions and is (more importantly?) vertically challenged -- like me! I'll only vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee, because I don't trust any of those Republicans! Okay. I must regain my composure. The conversation continues with Todd Harris, former campaign guy for John McCain. This outta be good.

Todd Harris: Well, Chris, I first have to say you talked about changing the terminology with immigration—I love this “woman of needs” term. We used to call them, you know, lower-income, lower-educated, uneducated, but now it‘s “women of needs.” But let me tell you...

Todd, in the words of Kelly, "Oh, by the way, betch . . . FUCK YOU!!!!" Admittedly, every woman has social needs. Some of them are, unfortunately, uniquely women for the most part, like being a single working parent whose partner doesn't pay child support. Or getting payed less than men for more than 180 days.

Thankfully, Chris Matthews redeems himself, as every man with the face of a 12-year-old boy eventually does.

Chris Matthews: [A]re you talking down to women? Let me tell you... I wouldn‘t do that. First of all, it‘s not fair. Secondly, you‘re going to get in trouble by nightfall. ...

Todd Harris: This early in the cycle ... voters—voters tend to look for commonalities. Is the candidate Republican, Democrat, white, black? Very superficial indicators ... and superficial levers—levels. So, it is not surprising to me that she is doing well ... among women. ... But as the campaign develops, that could really change.

*explodes again* When was the last time any voter had to ask themselves "Are they Black/female/whatever?" in a presidential election. Oh, that's right. Never, because this is the first time that two frontrunners aren't White guys! Chris, zing 'im.

Chris Matthews: Todd, you won‘t know. You will never know, Todd, because women don‘t have to tell us who they are going to vote for. It‘s a secret ballot.

*sigh of relief*

Back to my original point that might be somewhere in this long post. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made this presidential race pretty exciting, because one of them will most likely become the Democratic nominee. But it also gets pundits in this useless discussion that pigeon-holes us and insults our intelligence. I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman and so am I? What the fuck? This is never considered with men voters or even conservative voters. Men have been voting for men for centuries, and women having been voting for men for 87 years. Do people think that women vote for men, not because they want to, but because that's all who's available? Have women been wandering to the polls for 8 and a half decades to find that there aren't any women on the ballot, just to say "Aw, shucks, I guess I'll vote Democrat. Better luck next time"? Ron Reagan implies that Republican women aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton because Republican women care about issues, not gender.

So my question is, why the fuck do political pundits have to ruin an imminent historic event of either a woman or an African American having a strong chance of becoming president by reducing minority voters to easily distracted simpletons? Not every voter may be formerly educated, but we do know what we want, even us ladies.

Not-So-Secret

This week's Sunday Secrets showcases a secret from a woman who subscribes to the "Abortion for me, but not for thee" ideal. It's not a secret that many women subscribe to this notion.

You know, I have no problem with women who regret their abortions. I have no problems with women who never want to abort. I have no problem with women who get abortions and don't regret them.

What I do have a problem with is the blatant hypocrisy that's displayed in a viewpoint like this one, and it's common with pro-life women. That's why there's so much slut-shaming that goes on in that camp. Pro-life women have to Other the women who do abort, so that even when they themselves need to access abortion, they can pretend that they're not like those Other Women. They don't take this lightly, they used protection, they're married, they already have 3 kids, they can't afford another baby. All the other women in the waiting room are just there because abortions tickle, I guess.

Seriously, women that have that kind of mentality (and this kind, complete with "Men Hurt Too!") piss me off almost as much as pro-life men.

"Rags to Riches" Wins Belmont Stakes

"Rags to Riches" won the Belmont Stakes, becoming the first filly to do so since 1905. Part of me wants to say, "Why are people saying this is a battle of the sexes? They're horses, for crying out loud." But the feminist in me knows that so many people point to the less evolved of the animal kingdom to make some sort of, usually misogynistic or heterosexist, point about human nature ("What if Rag to Rich's mother had an abortion?" "What if Rag to Rich's father was gay?"), so I'm quite happy about this.

No More Periods? Ever?

Every 26-30 days or so, I wish never to have my period again. I mean, I don't like cramps, I don't like irratibility, I don't like sadness, and I don't like babies. And I wonder, why do I even need a period? I don't use it, and my dog sniffs my crotch more often than usual when I'm on it. TMI, I know. But now the FDA is to approve a new birth control pill that stops a woman's period indefinitely, called Lybrel. That sounds like a good idea, but I'm not convinced. I'm not going to say that not having a period is unnatural, because I think that argument is just plain silly. Women are always told what is natural for us, like periods and childbearing and rearing, as if thinking for ourselves and for our own sake is the most unnatural thing of all. But I don't think it's the most healthy thing. I watched something about eating disorders when I was a sophmore in college, and a 30-something year-old woman who hadn't menstruated in 15 years had the brittle bones of an 80-year-old. Of course, I'm not going to knock any woman who tries it, but I hope that the FDA isn't rushing this.

Yeah, yeah. . .

I've been gone for a while, I know. I've had "Hey, you're graduating from high school!" type stuff, so cut me a break. I should have a pretty long post up soon. A good friend of mine recently snagged me some anti-choice literature, so it should be a fun bloodbath.

In any case, until then, everyone needs to read this post by guest-blogger Flea on Feministe. Amazing stuff.

11-Year-Old Girl Kicks Ass

Not sure if most people would say this is feminist news, but I think it is.

Xochil Garcia, an 11-year-old girl who purposely grows out her nails to defend herself against attackers, fought off a potential kidnapper in her Brooklyn apartment building yesterday. "He grabbed my mouth and told me to not scream,'' Xochil said. "I thought he was going to take me up to the roof and rape me or something.'' She wrestled with the would-be kidnapper and screamed to catch the attention of other tenants. During the television news report, which unfortunately didn't make it to the article in the above link, Xochil said that her mother taught her to defend herself by "kicking them in the balls" (and they bleeped out "balls"). The girl's attacker was arrested and charged with unlawful imprisonment, endangering the welfare of a child, and burglary. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

Okay. So Maybe Rabbi Schmuley Deserves a Couple of Points for This

Megan and I aren't huge fans of Rabbi Schmuley (and I let Megan write about it). But he was pretty cool on Tucker this afternoon.

"Dr." Laura Disses Military Wives

The radio show host with a PhD in Asshatery had a lot to say about women and the military but not so much to say about women in the military. On wives who are concerned about their husbands serving in Iraq,

"'He could come back without arms, legs or eyeballs, and you're bitching?'" Schlessinger asked before taking the stage at the base theater to host her daily program on ethics, morals and values. "'You're not dodging bullets, so I don't want to hear any whining - that's my message to them.'"

"Schlessinger boasted that she once talked a young woman out of marrying a soldier, noting that 'warriors need warrior wives' and that she felt the girl was unprepared."

"'When you're in the military, that comes first,'" Schlessinger said. "'You don't want to not have gone and find out your wife has to wear a burka.'"

Is that why we're there? I had no idea that I was in danger of being forced to wear a burka. But there's more! When asked about women who leave their families to serve in the military, she replied, "I'm going to leave that alone." And suddenly, the woman who can't keep her mouth shut shuts her mouth!

Laura Schlessinger, D.A. (that's Doctor of Asshatery) claims that these comments were taken out of context. Instead of putting them in context, she goes on about her son who's in the military and how much money she has raised to support military families, in the same way people against gay marriage say they don't have a problem with gay people -- just ask all their gay friends.

Urge Your Senators to Ratify CEDAW

CEDAW is the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Countries that have ratified CEDAW commit themselves to ending discrimination against women in several ways including

Incorporating the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;

Establishing tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and

Ensuring elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.

And the United States hasn't ratified it. Isn't that just crazy? Well, looking at the list of countries who have, you are bound to wonder if heads of States simply ratify it and then do nothing to uphold it. And you're probably thinking that our president would do the same thing. But he's leaving soon, so urge your Senators to ratify CEDAW. It'd be nice.

Jerry Falwell Died Today

Can't say I'm celebrating. Can't say I'm sad.

There IS a Time When Politics Should Come First

In a presidential campaign!

NOW sent me a petition to sign to stop sexist campaign coverage.

So . . . just sign it.

As If We Needed More Evidence of Heterosexism = Misogyny

House Passes Expanded Hate Crime Bill, but White House Opposes Hate Crime Bill. And I just loved the White House reaction.

"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government." (emphasis mine)

The job's just too big to be done! Sorry, ladies! Sorry, homosexuals! Because people hate you so much, we can't protect you. Oh, and extremist Christians wouldn't be allowed to practice their faith, because the foundation of Christianity is apparently gay-bashing.

SCOTUS, You Know Me Better Than I Know Myself

Here's to the 5 old guys who voted yay!

Jen from Feministing read an interesting section of the Opinion of the Court regarding the recent ruling upholding the partial birth abortion ban.

"While we have no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptional that to conclude some women come to regret to abort the infant life they once created and sustained . . . . The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed her doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-growing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."

Let's, for now, ignore the errors; the use of the words "infant" and "unborn child" in the place of the medically accurate term of "fetus;" the assumption that doctors who perform abortions are so untrustworthy that they do not tell their patients the procedures, risks, and outcomes of the operations they're about to perform; the implication that women get pregnant by themselves; and the contradiction that while a fetus is a "child," it is only "assuming the human form."

I want to speak about the pervasive notion that women cannot handle their own decisions. That women are too "emotional" (you know, every emotion except anger, because anger is manly, and men don't show emotion, remember?) to deal with regret. That women have to be protected from, and made ignorant by, anything that will make us (rightfully) resentful..

The Opinion of the Court reminded me of something that former Democratic Senator of Missouri George G. Vest once said about women in politics:

"I pity the man who can consider any question affecting the influence of woman with the cold, dry logic of business. What man can, without aversion, turn from the blessed memory of that dear old grandmother, or the gentle words and caressing hand of that dear blessed mother gone to the unknown world, to face in its stead the idea of a female justice of the peace or township constable? For my part I want when I go to my home -- when I turn from the arena where man contends with man for what we call the prizes of this paltry world -- I want to go back, not to be received in the masculine embrace of some female ward politician, but to the earnest, loving look and touch of a true woman. I want to go back to the jurisdiction of the wife, the mother; and instead of a lecture upon finance or the tariff, or upon the construction of the Constitution, I want those blessed, loving details of domestic life and domestic love.

. . . I speak now respecting women as a sex. I believe that they are better than men, but I do not believe they are adapted to the political work of this world. I do not believe that the Great Intelligence ever intended them to invade the sphere of work given to men, tearing down and destroying all the best influences for which God has intended them.

. . . Women are essentially emotional. It is no disparagement to them they are so. It is no more insulting to say that women are emotional than to say that they are delicately constructed physically and unfitted to become soldiers or workmen under the sterner, harder pursuits of life.

What we want in this country is to avoid emotional suffrage, and what we need is to put more logic into public affairs and less feeling. There are spheres in which feeling should be paramount. There are kingdoms in which the heart should reign supreme. That kingdom belongs to woman. The realm of sentiment, the realm of love, the realm of the gentler and the holier and kindlier attributes that make the name of wife, mother, and sister next to that of God himself.

I would not, and I say it deliberately, degrade woman by giving her the right of suffrage. I mean the word in its full signification, because I believe that woman as she is to-day, the queen of the home and of hearts, is above the political collisions of this world, and should always be kept above them . . . . It would take her down from that pedestal where she is to-day, influencing as a mother the minds of her offspring, influencing her gentle and kindly caress the action of her husband toward the good and pure."

Oh, Senator Vest. It seems like only January 25, 1887 that you said that.

Both the Opinion of the Court and the Vest speech are full of false sensitivity. While Vest claimed that emotion and passion have no place in politics, he delivered a rather lengthy speech to Congress to protect women from being thrown off of their moral pedestal. How sweet, right? Now, SCOTUS, in an attempt to protect emotional women from the emotional consequences of their emotional decisions, are chipping away at our reproductive rights. While our federal government chooses to preserve our right to get pregnant by mistake by making accurate sex education and contraception harder and harder to come by, now they are taking away our right to a procedure that is a matter of life or death to thousands of women a year. Thanks for looking out for us, 5 old guys who voted yay.

Women's Health Flung To The Side

Well, ladies, it seems we have an announcement to make.

Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are now your gynecologists.

They are also gynecologists that don't give two craps about the health of women.

Good luck to you all.

Also, here's a really fuckin' scary quote from Kennedy's opinion:

The Act’s failure to allow the banned procedure’s use where ” ‘necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the [mother’s] health,’ ” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 327-328, does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right.

Congratulations, ladies. You don't have a right to protect your health, so sayeth your new gynecologists!

TRAPping the trappers

This is awesome.

And really, if CPC-lovers and conservatives who support tax money going to these places really believe what they say about it being about women and women's safety, they'll love this plan. Nothing like a little regulation to keep things safe, right? At least, that's what I hear whenever I mention abortion-providing clinics.