Senator Clinton Thanks Women's Lib

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

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

Take Action Friday

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

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

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

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

Support the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraception Coverage Act.

Join the Planned Parenthood Pill Patrol!

Write your representatives about the Education For All Act.

Mifespristone as Safe as Surgical Abortion

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

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

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

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

Crazy Sexy Cancer

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

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

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

On Biblical Models of Equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another gem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take Action Friday

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

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

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

Encourage China to divest from Sudan.

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

iPLEDGE Program Not Successful

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

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

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

Giving Birth: The Responsible Thing to Do

Megan and I frequent the-n.com message boards. It's a site mainly for teenagers, but I've been there for so long that it's kind of hard to stop going, especially when these boards give so many opportunities to lay the smackdown on people. For the last few years, a lot of abortion topics have been made on the boards, and people give their positions and their opinions. It's a great way to find out what America's youth thinks about reproductive rights. Of course, those on both sides are just starting to get in on the abortion debate, so arguments for both sides, at times, aren't very thought out. This was made quite obvious when I posted a topic asking a (not so) simple question: Which is more irresponsible, having 10 abortions or having 10 children? In asking this question, I didn't set out to prove a point. In fact, I honestly didn't know what people were going to say. I just wanted opinions. I did, however, accurately predict the results of the poll. I had a strong feeling that many more people would believe that having 10 abortions was more irresponsible. Out of 112 casted votes, 73% (82 votes) said that having 10 abortions was more irresponsible, while 26% (30 votes) believed having 10 children was more irresponsible. One thing to know about the poll, one can vote more than once (I think some time has to go by before you can vote again), but I doubt anyone sat there and voted over and over. And now, the replies!

Several people said that it all depends.

"It depends on the woman's situation and how frequent these pregnancies were. A woman in her 60's who [has] had 10 abortions or children in her many years doesn't bother me. A woman in her 20's or 30's would cause me to become concerned for her health and lifestyle and first if I didn't know what her life was like. I would have to know the woman's situation before I can determine if she has been irresponsible."

"It depends on your definition of irresponsible. I happen to think that having 10 children is a little irresponsible and selfish. I mean, who wants to be one of ten? You'd have no identity. What motives would a parent have for having 10 children? Are they running a farm or something? Are they Angelina Jolie? I'm no one to tell someone how many children is right for them, but I can't even imagine a stable household with ten children. But, that's just me, I really don't want kids. Having 10 abortions obviously means something's wrong. I'm pro-choice, but I would hope to never see a woman who is seriously in the situation where 10 abortions become necessary. I wouldn't call it irresponsible, just sad."

"Well it also depends on what the woman's going to do once she has the 10 kids. Like give them up or keep them. Because not many regular people can properly take care of and provide for 10 kids."

"I think it all depends on the situation. Having 10 children and being extremely poor probably isn't responsible, but if you can handle having 10 children, why not? It's not irresponsible if you can provide for all of them. Having 10 abortions also could be seen as responsible if the parent knows that they wouldn't be able to care for their child if they went through with the pregnancy. And if they had 10 abortions because they were continually accidentally getting pregnant, then I wouldn't say that the abortions were irresponsible, but the person's sexual habits were."

"It depends" is a fine answer in my opinion. If anything, it shows that the gears are turning, even if they're somewhat painfully grinding . . . not unlike my teeth after reading the following, completely backwards, responses.

"Having 10 abortions. Having 10 children can mean a lot of things could happen. For example: An extremely wealthy person who can afford having 10 children and has time to give them attention isn't irresponsible. A woman who got pregnant twice, once with triplets and a second time with septuplets isn't irresponsible. A woman who spaces out their pregnancies so that when the older ones are able to take care of themselves, they have more children. A person who has children and adopts older kids, say at 16 years old, so that the children can have someone to help them finacially and emotionally get to college. Then at 18 they leave and they adopt someone new."

"I think so many abortions is the irresponsible thing here. That many abortions says to me, that the woman has never heard of other forms of birth control, and that she can't control herself on any means. 10 children isn't necesarily irresponsible. What if unplanned pregnancies happen, but the woman keeps them? Or what if surprise multiple babies happen. Say a woman really only has sex enough time for 3 or 4 babies, but then get multiple babies each individual time. That stuff happens. So yeah, I think 10 abortions is the real irresponsible thing."

In short, a woman with 10 children could have been in a variety of different situations. A woman who had 10 abortions can only be one thing: Irresponsible.

"Well, I want to say having 10 abortions. I mean, if you know that you don't want anymore children, you should do everything you can to prevent creating innocent lives and then taking them. But I also have to say that if you aren't rich and can't give all ten kids a good childhood, then I think that you really should reconsider having 10 kids. But between the two, I'd say that taking lives is worse than giving life."

"I picked 10 abortions because if she had 10 kids then at least they would have a chance to live."

Basically, giving 10 children shitty lives is better than not having any children at all.

"I would go with the abortions though, because the repeated procedure is of no good to her body while having the children does not mean she kept them."

"10 abortions. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice. Do you realize how bad for your body 10 abortions would be?"

So, even though abortion at any stage of pregnancy is safer than giving birth, 10 abortions does more damage to the woman's body than giving birth 10 times. Furthermore, raising 10 children to at least age 18 doesn't take a toll on a person's body at all. Interesting.

"I think the abortion is more irresponsible than having the kids because having babies and stuff is like a part of life."

"With having 10 abortions I think that is irresponsible, because the woman puts herself at a high risk to not be able to have children [in] the future due to that many abortions."

"If someone has the means to support ten children, it's her choice whether or not she feels she's up to it, and if she can raise ten children well, there's no problem, and i might personally consider her irresponsible for getting ten abortions."

Translation: You're not living responsibly unless you pop out a few.

Then there were a few that just completely defied all logic. I wasn't too surprised by the following responses, since pro-lifers don't seem to know much about reproduction, whether they're posting on a message board or holding up a sign with a photo of a stillbirth and the caption "ABORTION!"

"Having 10 abortions is more irresponsible, generally. Because that most likely means the woman was being irresponsible and not using any form of protection."

"I think it's more irresponsible to get 10 abortions because if you're really screwing around that much and getting pregnant everytime, I seriously doubt you're even trying to protect yourself in the first place."

"I think 10 abortions because she's probably having unprotected sex"

And a woman who gives birth to 10 kids had her tubes tied???? Apparently, having unprotected sex is only irresponsible if you don't want to give birth. Otherwise, fuck all ya want! Giving birth is the responsible thing to do! Thank goodness for responses like these:

"I think they are both the same. In both situations the woman had unprotected sex. But, if the woman wanted to have ten children, she needed to have unprotected sex."

"Well either way she's probably having unprotected sex. I mean you can't accidently get pregnant 10 times on a form of birth control. (well you can but only if you're dumb about it)."

I just don't get it. Since when is giving birth the unequivocal responsible thing to do? How can Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee get away with saying that he believes in personal responsibility in the same breath as saying he's pro-life? Part of being responsible is making your own decisions. The other part of responsibility is making important decisions for those who are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Since the basic tenet of conservatism of personal resposniblity and the pro-life philosophy don't go hand-in-hand, then conservatives like Mike Huckabee must believe that women are inherently irresponsible and can't make personal decisions for themselves. That's the only way the word responsibility can factor in to any pro-life position, and that's what I want to start hearing from the pro-life movement. I want pro-lifers to cut the "personal responsibility" bullshit and just say how they really feel.

Quick Update

I added a few links recently on the side over there. I added actress Emma Watson's new official website. She plays Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, and I think she deserves to be named a Righteous Babe. I also added the blogs of a couple of friends, The Sweetest Bolshevist by Anna and La Oscuridad Necesaria by Diana.

First Indian Woman President Sworn In

Pratibha Patil was sworn in as India's first woman president today. Women's empowerment and ending female feticide are among her platforms. Patil says, "Empowerment of women is particularly important to me as I believe this leads to the empowerment of the nation."

Right on. Patil, however, does have her critics. Many Indian women believe she is more of a symbol than someone who can promote radical change in Indian society, and she has also been criticised for calling Indian women to stop wearing head scarves. Particularly, Madhu Kishwar, editor of the feminist magazine Manushi, says, "I have always believed that it's not everything to just have sari-wearing creatures in politics. It's more important that politics stands for and enables honest, upright people to survive.

My First* Feminist Memory

*Note: The following story is, chronologically, my second feminist memory. However, the first one isn't as, say, third-wave appropriate as my second feminist memory.

When I heard Barack Obama's comments about age-appropriate sex education for children in Kindergarten, I was reminded of my Kindergarten days. Obama believes that 5-year-olds should be taught what is a good touch and what is a bad touch in order to protect them from pedophiles. At first I thought, How could this still be an issue? I learned about good touch/bad touch in 1989. Are we going backwards? Then I thought back to that day when I learned the difference between good touches and bad touches. I learned that a touch between the legs or the bottom is a bad touch for both boys and girls, and a touch on the chest is a bad touch for girls. My 5-year-old brain started working. I thought, That's unfair. Why are there more bad places to touch on a girl than on a boy? Why do I have to worry more about being badly touched than my boy classmates?

Of course, now I know it's because even 5-year-old girls are sexy to someone, even though they're flat-chested. Pedophiles see a little girl's chest as breasts, even before girls know that breasts are found to be sexy. I don't think it's the same with reproductive organs of both sexes. With the number of times I see toddlers walking around the mall with their hands down their pants, kids find out that their, shall I say, nether regions, are very fun way before they realize that those same body parts are sexy. At 5 years old, I had a hard time believing that any part of my body would turn someone else on, but I couldn't help but think, What's so great about my upper body?

Then I thought of something extremely disturbing. I started thinking more about pornography, particularly the women in pornographic movies. If today's pornography is any indication of what's in the fantasy of the typical heterosexual male, guys like hairless females with gigantic boobs who sound more like they're confused or being hurt during sex than actually enjoying it. Basically, the only thing pubescent about these women are their (surgically?) enlarged breasts. Everything else is reminiscent of a much earlier stage of physical and emotional development. *shudder*

If you were wondering, I have to think back to when I was 4 to recall my first feminist memory. I was graduating from pre-school, and we were all preparing for our graduation ceremony. We all stood in a line and said our names and what we wanted to be when we grew up. I thought this was completely stupid, because I had no idea what I wanted to be. I ended up copying off the girl next to me, who wanted to be a teacher. This plan could have gone much worse if I standed next to this one girl, who incidentally, was a few persons before me. When asked what she wanted to be when she grew up, she proudly declared, "I want to be a mommy!" My eyes were about to roll right out of my head. I thought, "No, stupid. What do you want to do for your job? 'Mommy' isn't a job. Any lady can do that." At the graduation ceremony, I was dubbed "Quietest." I guess it was best that I didn't say most of my thoughts when I was 4.

Hillary. Clinton. Has. BREASTS!

You don't say! Unfortunately, someone did say. Robin Givhan from the Washington Post's Arts & Leisure section thought it was appropriate to make a news story out of Senator Clinton's cleavage.

She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

Well, yes. Cleavage is an undeniable fact of life for many women. Not the woman currently typing this entry, but it is for many women. Later, Givhan goes from being overly dramatic about a little bosom to downright disgusted.

The cleavage, however, is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's being revealed. It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!

Bad, boobies, bad! Don't you go peaking out of Mommy's brasserie! You get back in there right now or I just might have to bind you girls down! And if Givhan can't write a piece about Clinton's breasts and also feel discomfort and have the urge to "just look away." Well, obviously she can, but not without looking stupid.

This Is Why I Hate Catchy Little Lists

Stereotypes and sexist "advice" abound in this article by Yahoo! Personals author Evan Marc Katz.

Here's 11 responses to 11 Things Women Don't Know About Men (Plus one thing they probably do know, but won't admit):

1. Getting angry at us for not reading your mind is like getting angry at yourself for not being able to fly. It's not just futile, it's physically impossible.

Apparently, this is only a female problem. I'm sure no domestic abuse victims have ever been the victim of their partner's rage just because they didn't know they were "supposed" to do something said partner never told them about.

2. Yes, we do think Jessica Alba is hot. Sometimes we're even dumb enough to admit it.

Do I really even need to touch this one? My boyfriend doesn't think Jessica Alba's hot. Guess he's not a man.

3. Don't ask us to understand your shoe fetish. Asking us to respect it is even sort of pushing it.

But definitely respect my right to ogle hawt gurls in magazines!!!

4. You do look good without makeup, just not as good as you look with it.

This one is one of my favorites on the list. You're pretty without make-up, but you'd look more like Jessica Alba with it on, so put it on or you won't be quite as fuckable.

5. Ever notice how we don't fight with our male friends? That's why we get so frustrated when we fight with you.

This one I just don't get. So would he rather date one of his male friends that he doesn't fight with? Or does he not think that relationships involve fighting? And why does he think that men don't ever fight amongst each other?

6. You care what you're wearing infinitely more than we do. In fact, if you're naked when you open the front door, you won't hear an argument from us.

Aside from the "Heheh, boobs" portrayal of men here, we also have the lovely "Women put beauty standards on themselves with absolutely no help from men whatsoever" argument. Great.

7. You don't like to get hit on in public, you don't want to date online and you don't want to be set up on blind dates. Tell us if sending messenger pigeons is an appropriate way of courting. Because if it is, we're all over it.

This is by far my favorite. Don't like being hit on? Well how in the hell am I supposed to get a date? It's like harassing women is the only way this guy knows how to talk to women. Awesome.

8. There should a statute of limitations on stupid things that we said that can come back to haunt us. I propose 24 hours.

So if I said you have Dumbo flaps yesterday, forget about it and fuck me today.

9. Cooking dinner for a man is like buying flowers for a woman, except it takes a lot more time, effort and thought for you to do it. Thanks. We appreciate it.

This is a close second for my favorite sexist remark on this list. "We'll do nice things for you sometimes, you know, buying you a pretty flower or something, but when you do nice things for us, it should be unpaid domestic work that we admit is harder than what we did for you. Thanks in advance". Why not just say "I'm an entitled bastard now fix me a turkey pot pie"?

10. We actually like your girly pet-names for us, but please, not in front of the guys!

Anything but GIRLYNESS!

11. Just because we like looking at the women in Maxim doesn't mean we want to actually converse with the women in Maxim. Not for long, anyway.

Conversing with them might give them a little personhood, and that's a no-no for consumable objects.

12. Your nice guy friends are the most reliable source for telling you if your new boyfriend's a jerk. And he probably is. (By the way, you might want to consider marrying that nice guy who's giving you advice about the jerk.)

Give the Nice Guy(tm) that you're friends with the pussy he deserves because your boyfriend is an out-of-the-closet asshole. Women just can't win on this list.

So there you have it ladies. That's what you get for dating advice. Lesbianism keeps lookin' better and better.

Talk About Missing the Point

On last night's Colbert Report, there was a story about Johnna Mink, a pole dancing instructor. Now, I don't believe that pole dancing is anti-feminist. I think pole dancing can be a great form of exercise and a way to be more in tune to how our beautiful bodies work and move. It's a way to be sensual for our own good and not for the pleasure of someone else (anyone who pole dances for fun want to contribute to Then I Guess I'm Selfish?). What's anti-feminist about pole dancing is the response it gets from our patriarchal society, that women who pole dance are poor, dirty, slutty, and troubled. Labelling pole dancing as the ulitmate feminist expression before our adolescent society matures makes people say this kind of crap:

"When I think of feminism, I think of hairy, butch, nasty lesbians . . . . I think it's great that people think that pole dancing is feminist, because it doesn't make us look like pigs for watching."

In other words, he's glad that pole dancing can be seen as feminist, because then he can still watch naked ladies while labelling the women who fight for gender equity as hairy, butch, nasty lesbians. Point: Missed.

But this is what made me die a little inside:

"I think some of the things that classic feminists fought for would be like women's right to vote, equal pay rights . . . . Pole dancing is better than classical feminism in every way possible."

So, if this woman had to choose between having the right to vote and having the right to pole dance, she'd choose pole dancing. Great.

Chatty Cathy, We Hardly Knew Yee

A new study published in Science shows that men and women say about the same amount of words a day. Now how about that?

And So Ends the Stupidest News Story Ever

Miss New Jersey Amy Polumbo keeps her crown despite photos that are supposed to be too sexy. Well, they weren't too sexy for the Today Show. In response to being blackmailed, she released the photos to show that they were not so bad. Here's the video of her explaining the, I guess, more embarrassing photos to Matt Lauer. (The video is on that page.)

Now, on to what pisses me off about this whole thing. Some of those photos are completely innocuous. They show her kissing a boy and dressed in little costumes, like a ballerina and Cinderella with a pouty expression. Goodness! I mean, did she ever just for one second think about the children? Someone tell me how skipping around on Halloween in a pretty costume is more demeaning or less lady-like than, oh, I don't know, prancing on stage in a bikini and high heels on television in front of a live audience? If there's anything that can be learned from the adorable film Little Miss Sunshine, it's that the pageant crowd believes there's a proper way to turn women and girls into little sex objects (and it's not by shaking your groove thing to Rick James, believe it or not).

Oh, and another thing. If her friend didn't make fun of the size of her breasts, maybe she wouldn't have had to emphasize them with those little pumpkins. Just sayin'.

Which Stock To Invest in: Microsoft or Planned Parenthood?

Well, new TRAP laws have surfaced in Missouri and were just signed into law by Governor Matt Blunt.

Apparently, Matt Blunt thinks that providing abortions and sex-education is a million-dollar business, which would explain why so many people choose to provide abortions, and that Planned Parenthood is a multi-million dollar corporation just waiting to prey on newly broken hymens.

Missouri Right to Life, which backed the measure, argued that groups like Planned Parenthood have a conflict of interest in supplying sex education materials because they could make money if female students go to their clinics. Blunt echoed that concern, saying sales of material to public schools were a "significant source of revenue" for the group.

Here that? Planned Parenthood is so happy to rake in the dough by putting themselves out of business.

The Republican governor said he has no qualms if the stricter state oversight causes hardships for abortion clinics.

Well that's a surprise. Why doesn't he just come out and say "The plan here is to make sure abortion clinics can't maintain themselves, that way women won't be able to escape their due punishment when they think they can fuck freely". I mean, he's not even really trying to put a "It's for the good of the aborting sluts, er, ladies" spin on it. Check this out:

Blunt proclaimed the law "one of the strongest pieces of pro-life legislation in Missouri history" as he spoke from a cross-shaped lectern during a signing ceremony in the sanctuary of Concord Baptist Church.

Holy shit. Why doesn't he just go out there and throw ketchup-covered dolls at women just like the rest of them?

So great. Separation of church and state remains unseen and poor women now have more roadblocks to not being government mandated incubators. Hooray.

In other news, here's a pretty retro article title: Schools grapple with how to integrate. What year is it, again?

Uhhhhhh . . . .

No, that's not the sound of my irritable bowels. It's the sound of me contemplating this ad for Metamucil that can only be described as . . . sexy, I guess? Now, I'm not saying this commercial is sexist, although there's no doubt in my mind that men wouldn't be caught dead parading around in cute outfits telling their macho bretheren to "gussy up their insides", neither in private nor on television. But the whole thing strikes me as very odd. I mean, the group home where I work keeps a fresh stock of this kind of stuff to counteract the loose stool side effect common in many psychotropic drugs. I'd like to see a few of them in a Metamucil ad!

There's Not Even Anyone To Say "Told Ya So" To.

Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, of course. Is anyone shocked?

You know, because 30 months in jail was "just too harsh" for outing a CIA agent. She WAS female, you know.

But never fear!

Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Yes, pocket change and a good wag of the finger with one hand and a pat on the ass with another is definitely harsh, Mr Bush.

Quick Question

How come sexually active teen girls who appear on Maury are punished with bootcamp and solitary confinement for three days, while husbands and boyfriends who admit to beating and raping their wives and girlfriends go to a funeral home to see their wives pretending to be dead in a coffin?