What We Missed.

A review of Still Here, a book of photography of Katrina 4 years later.
Obama’s abstinence FAIL from Amplify.
Women activists in Iran are not buying Ahmadinejad’s nomination of the first female Cabinet ministers since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Tami’s must-read take on the NYT article about black women and hair.
What if black women were white women?
Mali’s President Declines to Sign Legislation Expanding Women’s Rights
Have a great weekend folks!

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Comrade Kevin
    Posted August 28, 2009 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Regarding the column that postulates what the world would be like if black women were white women, challenging assumptions is difficult—the people with power, the movers and shakers, the ones who really shape popular opinion and set policy are often times the same people who routinely do the right thing for the wrong reason. Think of any number of politicians who do what is politically expedient, and while it happens to be the right thing, coming from a particular messenger it seems cheap and self-serving rather than righteous and moral. Think about those celebrities that annoy us all when they jump on a bandwagon cause that while it might be the ethical thing to do, is also trendy at the same time.
    So seldom do I see people who do the right thing for the right reason and I think it might need to be advanced by those of us with absolutely everything to gain and nothing to lose.

  2. llevinso
    Posted August 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    WHAT?!?! I didn’t know that horrid commercial came from the Obama administration. I’ve seen it several times and it makes me want to puke! “You don’t have to tell me about the parts…” Why the fuck not? That’s important. We need comprehensive sex education. It’s not okay to just dodge around it because you’re “uncomfortable” talking about sex with your kids. You need to be clear and honest with them. You can’t just “tell them to wait.” That’s a horrible message and not at all imformative. Oh, I’m really really pissed now. Big time FAIL on the Obama administration. Big time.

  3. PS
    Posted August 28, 2009 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Human health and services dept. needs to fire someone, how ABSURD
    S

  4. TroubleBaby
    Posted August 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    And one of the arguments against comprehensive sex ed is that schools shouldn’t be teaching kids about sex, it’s the parents’ job to teach their children about sex. And now the parents are supposed to tell them to “just wait”! When exactly IS it okay for kids to learn about sex? It’s like in period-piece novels when someone calls the heroine aside on her wedding night and tells her to brace herself because her husband has a penis and she’s going to bleed.

  5. Claudia
    Posted August 29, 2009 at 3:00 am | Permalink

    From this, to upholding the DOMA, to the reversal on the Needle Exchange program, the Obama administration is much, much too close to Bush ideals than I care for.
    This makes me absolutely sick. Change you can believe in, MY ASS.

  6. PamelaVee
    Posted August 29, 2009 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Definitely.
    Sorry, but talking with kids about life is not always comfortable! That’s part of being a parent!
    What a stupid waste of money for that commercial that gives the same “education” policy we’ve had for the last 8 years.
    Personal experience- wish I would have been told about sex. I will tell my kids if I have them. I feel they will make better decisions if they are informed. And oh yeah…WITHOUT the shame!
    Side note- mimes and miming is creepy and outdated and that added another layer of Fail to that commercial.

  7. FrumiousB
    Posted August 29, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Abstinence only is so dreadfully confusing to me. If I tell my kids to wait for marriage to have sex, but I don’t tell them what sex is, how are they supposed to know what not to do? I can picture the talk before the wedding night:
    “What? I was supposed to wait to have him put his dick in my ass, but I could have been eating calamari all this time? Why did nobody tell me this! I love calamari!”

  8. DAS
    Posted August 30, 2009 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    If only politicians did the right thing for the so-called wrong reason.
    According to Federalist Paper #10 (I think it’s #10), the way our system is supposed to work is that politicians do the right thing because doing the right thing is politically expedient. In particular (the concern discussed in Federalist Paper #10), politicians will actively prevent power grabs by other politicians because it is supposed to be politically expedient for them to do so (the original quote is something to the effect of “ambition must be made to challenge ambition”).
    The problem is that, all too often, it is not politically expedient to do the right thing. For example, ambition was not made to challenge ambition in the days of Bush & CO, because the media made sure any ambitious politician knew that his/her bread was buttered on the side of just playing along with Bush & CO.
    Fundamentally, Pogo was right about more than just the environment: “we have met the enemy and he is us”. The reason why politicians don’t do the right thing is because the priorities of the electorate make it politically expedient not to do so. If we want politicians to do the right thing, we shouldn’t wait for them to catch a case of politically bravery but we as a society need to make it politically expedient for a politician to do the right thing.
    Of course, if we dismiss whenever politicians do the right thing as “oh, they did it because it was politically expedient to do so”, then doing the right thing is no longer politically expedient. This is why the forces of reaction are so keen to engender within us a distrust of politicians (and why they put no pressure on their own politicians to be trustworthy or moral) as well as why they actively try to undermine the teaching of evolution — because the fundamental way things are supposed to work in a democratic republic (hated by reactionaries pace their supposed patriotism) is that we “evolve” better politicians by placing selective pressure on them: when it is politically expedient for politicians to do the right thing, politics will evolve to do better and righter things.
    But if we dismiss all political expedience, we aren’t placing pressure on politicians anymore, are we? For all their supposed love of “competition”, the forces of reaction really don’t want any selective pressure on anyone as, by definition of conservative, they want to maintain an unevolved status quo (indeed, all their economic theories are based on an economy at equilibrium).
    Sorry about the OT rant, but I get a little perturbed by the fashionable dismissal of political expedience … these dismissals are just what the right wants us to do!

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

174 queries. 0.409 seconds