"I love feministing.com and always learn from it." Katha Pollitt, The Nation
"Many people need a morning "fix." For some, it's coffee. For others, it's "SportsCenter." For me, it's Feministing.com." Katie Stone, The Denver Post
"Feminism is fun again! Every bit as edifying as your women's studies books from college, but with a biting sense of humor that keeps things punchy, not preachy." Marie Claire, December 2006
New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney has introduced legislation that would regulate the advertisement of "crisis pregnancy centers" that aim to convince pregnant women against having abortions.
The centers are all owned by anti-choicers, and use names and signs intended to look like Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. When the women arrive, the coercion begins. "Women I've talked to are just unbelievably shaken by it," says Maloney. "One said they closed the door and wouldn't let her get out."
The bill would essentially require the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit any group from advertising "with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such person is a provider of abortion services if such person does not provide abortion services." Maloney says the legislation was carefully drafted so it wouldn't infringe on free speech, but some (libertarians and such) claim that proposing the bill is a bad move and is, in fact, unconstitutional.
Yet the American Civil Liberties Union has endorsed the bill, saying that the FTC should have addressed this issue before and that "It's already clear that deceptive advertising and false advertising is illegal."
Broadsheet links to this article by ex-Wonkette Ana Marie Cox, who takes on the recent warnings against girlsgoingwild. She mentions James Garbarino's new book, See Jane Hit, which examines "the less savory outcome of freeing girls to excel beyond gender stereotypes." (Garbarino must have thought Mean Girls was poignent social commentary.) Cox takes his idea-- that girls haven't yet learned to deal with their freedom from gender norms-- and argues that it's fine for girls to go wild... just not too wild. I'm not sure if I buy this part of her argument, but I'll run with it:
Freeing girls from stereotypes hasn't made them more masculine, it's made them more more. Unbound from cultural constraints, they don’t flip to the male side of the spectrum. They just flip out.
Hear that, Concerned Women for America? It's not that alcohol is corrupting our pure, innocent young coeds. It's that some women actually like drinking, dancing and having sex. What a revelation!
Maybe it would be progress if we had a definition of femininity expansive enough to include shaking one's thing without raising one's top — so that girls could go a little wild without having to rely on what we used to refer to as the "sorority girl's mating call": "I am soooo drunk."
Cox basically gets it right where the AMA, Concerned Women for America, and Female Chauvinist Pigs get it wrong. There's certainly a way to embrace your sexuality and have fun dancing and drinking without being exploited or jeopardizing your safety. I think a lot of women walk that line quite successfully.
But it makes for better television to show us girls in bikinis doing body shots on South Padre Island, and it suits CWA's agenda to point to women like Natalee Holloway and Imette St. Guillen as examples of what will happen if girls party and enjoy it. It's simply not newsworthy that there are there are lots of women who get drunk and just spend the night dancing with their girlfriends, who are willing to flash their friends for a laugh but never a camera crew, who make out with strangers at a bar and then arrive home safely.
If there's any justice in this world, next week we'll be seeing a slew of studies and hand-wringing over the growing problem of urban sausages.
Side note: I love the fact that "Young Feminist Summit" has been written in graffiti as well as taken out the "g" in every verb. 'Cause us young'uns are down with slangin'.
A recent study has shown that 9 out of 10 women say that they believe one-night stands are immoral. While they didn't condemn the sluts, er, I mean women who decide to engage in casual sex, they felt that they do so due to "something lacking in their lives" or because "they had got drunk or high on drugs."
Because no emotionally stable or sober women would ever have sex purely for pleasure or anything.
The most infuriating thing about this study is that the research involved interviews from a whopping 46 women.
On Wednesday, the sex worker rights magazine Spread opened its first art exhibit titled, "Sex Worker Visions." Artists include former SuicideGirl and illustrator Molly Crabapple, sex activist Heather Corinna, exotic dancer and photographer Charise Isis, and former prostitute and filmmaker Anne Hanavan.
So if you're in or by NYC, get thee to the LGBT Community Center, where the exhibition is being held.
Don't forget that the Women, Action & the Media (WAM!) conference is this weekend! You can register at the door, so if you're around get your ass to Cambridge, MA.
I'm super excited for it--I'm moderating a panel on feminism and blogging with some amazing ladies: Echidne, Lakshmi Chaudhry, Amie Newman, and our very own Samhita. Word.
The new signs would notify customers that pharmacies must provide an alternative drug if they are out of stock or allow the prescription to be filled at a different pharmacy. The signs also will list a toll-free [800-280-4149] pharmacy hot line [and website] for complaints.
Dreamy! Next step? Let's require hospitals to post similar signs informing rape victims they have a right to EC.
"I thought if South Dakota can do it, Alabama ought to do it because we are a family-friendly state," said state Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, who has introduced a bill in the Senate that would even ban abortions in cases where a woman became pregnant because of rape or incest.
Yeah, cause nothing says "family-friendly" like bullying rape and incest victims.
Update: CNN decides to blame pornographers, not women
What you're about to read may shock you: The CNN segment Jess wrote about yesterday wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Here's the transcript from the show, which was about porn websites that coerce young women into stripping and doing various other things for the camera.
CHERNOFF [reporter]: Jill says she was drunk and that pressure from the crowd and the cameraman pushed her to do things she normally would never have done.
JILL: I couldn't stand up for myself and say, you know what, no, I'm not going to do this. There is no way that I could stop because I was so scared of what they would do if I stopped.
Sounds pretty slutty to me!
[Internet "photographer" Micah] COY: No one is forcing anyone in any situations. It is entirely up to the person -- at their discretion.
CHERNOFF: And, Coy argues, there is no undue pressure from men at the parties.
COY: Serious problems arise when you have two people naked and a bunch of people drunk around them and you have everyone's emotions are going, you have a lot of hormones flying around. It can easily turn into a mob mentality and that was something I never wanted to have happen.
Coy doesn't mention that it's two women who are naked, surrounded by drunk men. I'd say that changes the dynamic somewhat.
CHERNOFF: But your site is full of that. It is full of people egging them on. All of that.
COY: There is a finesse about it, I guess.
I'll say. But CNN isn't really one to talk about "finessing" a story... seeing as how they chose to market their segment girls-gone-wild style, rather than as a warning about an increasingly common type of sexual predation. Even though the actual show wasn't nearly as offensive as the promos, it's still not excusable.
Tonight on Paula Zahn, CNN will cover the story of girls who are sexually assaulted while passed out and end up with their picture on the internet.
How much do you want to bet this will be yet another "girls gone wild and paying the price" piece?
Why isn't the segment being promoted as guys who prey on unconscious women?
"A way to have all the goodies and not pay the price"
What is this, the third time already this week that all sexually active, nonmarried women have been called cheap whores? Check out this letter, from Missouri state Representative Cynthia Davis, who recently introduced legislation to remove a state requirement that sex ed classes teach contraception:
From: Cynthia Davis
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 8:02 PM
To: (redacted)
Subject: RE: Contraceptive Article...
Dear (redacted),
I appreciate your dedication to your legislative duties while on Spring Break. Your letter seemed to indicate that if we create chemical and pharmaceutical ways to tamper with mother nature, then we will solve the problem. Even if you solve a physical problem you still have not solved the moral, emotional and spiritual problems that come with a promiscuous lifestyle.
When I was listening to the debate last week I wondered what kind of man would want to enjoy free sex and then expect her to provide for her own contraceptives? These are the kind of men who want free whores. Any man who would be so low life as that does not deserve to have any woman love him. Smart women will stay away from men who use them and abuse them.
Yesterday in the Dominican Republic, the term “sexual freedom” was deleted from a clause in a proposed Civil Code reform for fear that it "would open the doors to future homosexual unions." Of course, it came as no surprise to me that a primarily Catholic country would cite “conservative and strong family” values as a reason for the deletion (abortion is also illegal in this country, as it everywhere in the Latin American/Caribbean region except for Puerto Rico and Cuba.)
Actually, on that topic, I would like to point out that across Latin America, an estimated 5,000 women die every year as a result of illegal abortions, and 1 in 30 Dominican women has an illegal abortion every year – one of the highest rates in the region. (The abortion rates are highest in Chile and Peru, where the rates are 1 in 20. In the United States, the rate is 21.3 per 1,000 women.)
…But back to the homophobia. What’s really puzzling to me is that the Attorney General (Rodolfo Espiñeira) also said: "I believe we still aren't sufficiently civilized for legislation of that nature.”
In case you’re saying to yourself “surely this gringa has misinterpreted”… he actually said: "Creo que todavía no estamos tan civilizados para una legislación de esta naturaleza". See for yourself (if you read español).
Sorry, I’ve only been living here a month. Can’t explain.
"Young people talk to me about what to do if they're being pressed for sex? I tell them (what I believe): oral sex is a hundred times safer than vaginal or anal sex. If you're in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job."
Montana insurance companies must cover contraceptives
Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath said yesterday that insurance companies must cover contraceptives in prescription drug plans--doing otherwise is sex discrimination.
Attempts by women's advocacy groups, like NARAL Pro-Choice Montana, have failed in recent years to get lawmakers to force insurance companies to automatically offer the coverage.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana said company lawyers are still reviewing the decision and have not yet determined when the mandate will become effective in current prescription drug policies.
Why is it so hard to cover something as easy as birth control pills? Because seriously, paying $50 a month not to get pregnant sucks.
