What We Missed

Lisa Wade of Sociological Images on “the promise and perils of hook-up cultures.”

Starting next week, Planned Parenthood Indiana will have to drop its Medicaid patients, thanks to Governor Mitch Daniels’ efforts to de-fund them.

At ColorLines, Rinku Sen weighs in on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in the Wal-Mart case.

Tim Pawlenty and Michelle Bachmann have signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s “Pro-life Presidential Leadership” pledge, promising to appoint anti-abortion judges and cabinet members, to defund Planned Parenthood and to sign a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks.

At BloggingHeads, Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family, and Amy Sullivan of TIME discuss anti-Muslim politics.

Do you have “a passionate interest in the ways new media has changed the landscape of sexuality, relationships and feminism”? If so, you should apply to present at MOMENTUM.

New blog alert: No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

New York, NY

Chloe Angyal is a journalist and scholar of popular culture from Sydney, Australia. She joined the Feministing team in 2009. Her writing about politics and popular culture has been published in The Atlantic, The Guardian, New York magazine, Reuters, The LA Times and many other outlets in the US, Australia, UK, and France. She makes regular appearances on radio and television in the US and Australia. She has an AB in Sociology from Princeton University and a PhD in Arts and Media from the University of New South Wales. Her academic work focuses on Hollywood romantic comedies; her doctoral thesis was about how the genre depicts gender, sex, and power, and grew out of a series she wrote for Feministing, the Feministing Rom Com Review. Chloe is a Senior Facilitator at The OpEd Project and a Senior Advisor to The Harry Potter Alliance. You can read more of her writing at chloesangyal.com

Chloe Angyal is a journalist and scholar of popular culture from Sydney, Australia.

Read more about Chloe

Join the Conversation

  • davenj

    There are several problems with the ColorLines article on Dukes V. Wal-Mart. First, it gets the decision itself wrong. The decision against this class-action lawsuit, and the kind that the article later seems to advocate for, was unanimous. It was 9-0. The 5-4 split was on whether class-action suits can target instances like gender imbalance in a company’s corporate structure.

    However, the danger of legislating implicit bias is very tricky. There are many implicit biases that operate in tandem, and acting on one without others is as difficult as unpacking any instance of intersectionality. While we may argue that structures should change, we need to advocate for this socially, through social pressures and education, because legislating against one type of implicit bias (say, gender), but not another (say, height) is, in and of itself, an act of implicit bias for which, under this notion, we would all be culpable.