What we missed

Posting was a little slow today as we get back in the swing of things! I just got back from traveling in India for a month–it was awesome–not to rub it in or anything. Happy new year everyone and please don’t get discouraged by the already enormous amount of evidence that we are still in need of feminism.

I don’t care what you think, Ron Paul is not some awesome dude, OK.

The Iowa Caucus is about abortion, even though no one is saying it is.

Four bombings in Queens at “Muslim landmarks,” as in one community center, one corner store and two private homes. NYPD is calling them “bias crimes.” Why not call it domestic terrorism?

48 ads that would never be allowed today. Incredible stuff, but also important to think about the kind of badvertising that IS allowed today.

10 hottest butches of 2011. Meow.

20 years of black lesbian film. And I really have to go see Pariah.

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

5 Comments

  1. Posted January 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    I think a lot of the sexist ads would be used today. It made me think of the ‘look good no matter what you’re doing’ domestic violence ad that’s been talked about here, as well as the Dr.Pepper ‘it’s not for women’ ad. Of course, those ads were met with controversy, but it says a lot that they’d ever go up in the first place.

  2. Posted January 2, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    I read an interesting article about Ron Paul by Glenn Greenwald that I thought was worth reading, essentially asserting that him being in the race is a positive thing because he is the only candidate from either side opposing things like endless war on terror, the pointless and wasteful drug war, and extrajudicial indefinite detentions and killings, and that this can be true even if he holds odious and awful positions in other areas.

  3. Posted January 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Hmm… some of those 48 ads sound exactly like ads of today. For example “How do YOU clean stubborn spots off floors?” and even the “innocence is sexier than you think”. I think the author might have been a bit too optimistic about the advertising of today.

  4. Posted January 2, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    1. Ron Paul has pretty much gave me the heebie-jeebies for quite some time.
    2. Thanks for the link to 10 Hottest Butches Samitha!
    3. That link about the ads should always remind us that we came this far and we’ll come even farther!

  5. Posted January 2, 2012 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Hi, everyone. This is my first time commenting on this awesome site. I offer the following honest question for discussion: Is it objectifying, patronizing or sexist in any way to post pix or links to pix of people based on physical attractiveness (I’m referring to the butches item–hey it does say meow!). I have mixed feelings about this a) being bi it’s awesome to have links to queer folk on any blog. b) I like looking at attractive men and women! so it’s fun! Also I realize these women have accomplished a whole lot more than just being goodlooking. c) yet I know in the past I have resented and/or objected to links on both men’s and women’s sites that go to a gallery based mostly or partly on outward qualities. Any feedback/ideas/thoughts on this? Thanks.

Feministing In Your Inbox

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

177 queries. 0.285 seconds