What We Missed

New reports are saying President Obama told a group of reporters that he tried to save Troy Davis’ life. Scratch that.

A great NYT oped from the weekend on just how severe the state attacks on abortion restrictions have been.

In case you didn’t see it on the community blog yesterday, a Republican group at UC Berkley is having a ridiculously offensive “diversity bake sale” in response to a Senate bill that would allow affirmative action policies in college admissions in the state. They wouldn’t be the first.

The New York Post on how women’s sluttiness is bringing the “price” of sex to a “record low.” Worst. Article. Ever.

We’re thrilled to support PBS’s new series starting October 11th, “Women, War and Peace.” More to come.

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

4 Comments

  1. Posted September 28, 2011 at 4:28 am | Permalink

    The New York Post article actually had me stop mid sentence and re-read it in just how stunningly dumb it was. The sheer objectification of women and fundamentally making sex a commodity seems completely at odds to most relationships and certainly those that are more casually sexual where no-one is bargaining with sex but simply enjoying themselves. I think the crux of the idiocy of the article was when it dismissed love. Now I’m not expecting love at first sight but you shouldn’t reduce flourishing relationships to lust or cold calculations about money spent:sex recieved. A final point worth noting is that it seems to be based on the medieval notion that women don’t enjoy sex (though this isn’t explicitly said) and that they should expect a high ‘cost’ despite any sexual attraction they may have themselves. This line of thought, of extracting dates by holding back sex, seems to be contradicted in the article itself when they mention the increasing social, economic and legal independence of women.

    I also feel how this article treats men should be commented upon. It assumes all men want sex as a foundation of a relationship, as the only goal of a relationship, even if that means marrying someone! If men were truly this base where they would make one of the largest commitments of their lives simply for the performance of a sex act then there would be a brothel on every street corner where men could access sex for what the article would be presumptive enough to call a ‘reasonable’ price.

    And my third main complaint against this article comes from being a scientist; who the hell granted funding for someone to pursue this supposed social issue? To whom does it matter if people are being sexually active in relationships earlier?

  2. Posted September 28, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    I live in Utah and that map disgusts me. I think this is a state that could use some real activism to maybe get some of those laws off the books. As for the states in white, I hope they can stay that way. It’s absolutely heart-breaking to look at this country and realize that there is an on-going war on women’s rights. One supreme court decision has not protected us.
    As for the NY Post article, WOW. I wanted to barf. I was glad to see a lot of men and women commenting and voicing their own opposition.

  3. Posted September 28, 2011 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    That Post article is the type of thing that I feel tells me more about the person writing it that the subject of the article itself, honestly.

  4. Posted September 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    I couldn’t write satire as good as that NY Post article. It is so amazingly offensive! Even the turns of phrase are revealing.. “women are giving it up” because sex is something that happens when women surrender to men’s wants?

    “Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated.”
    No foolin’. It’s 2 out of 3 of those things.

Feministing In Your Inbox

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

170 queries. 0.664 seconds