Recently in Anti-Feminism Category

Harbinger of the end of days.

A reader sent in what has to be one of my favorite anti-feminist articles to date. Elroy Riggs of the Central Kentucky News Journal believes he has found the reason for the increased divorce rate, the nasty little secret behind the battle of the sexes: canned biscuits.

Give a man homemade biscuits in the morning and he'll come home to you at night. The Pillsbury Doughboy with his dratted canned biscuits is a lousy homewrecker. There was a time, especially in the south, when the woman arose early enough in the morning to prepare homemade biscuits for her husband and family.

It was a simpler time, before most women joined the workforce. Women in those days served plates of piping hot biscuits, big fluffy biscuits. Cut one open and ladle some sawmill gravy over it or slap a portion of real butter between the halves and then cover that with your choice of preserves or jelly. "A breakfast without biscuits," went a famous saying, "is like a day without sunshine."

I actually find this ode to homemade biscuits more hilarious than offensive. It perfectly epitomizes the whiny sexism of entitlement: Breakfasts are ruined! What are men to eat?! What's next? Butter that hasn't been hand-churned?!

Riggs also says that "any woman who serves her family canned biscuits for breakfast in anything but an extreme emergency is guilty of apathy." (Unlike Riggs, whose impressive social engagement compels him to write op-eds about breakfast food.) But I guess he's right in a way - I am apathetic when it comes to biscuit-making. I'd even venture to say I'm apathetic to making any kind of breakfast food, save for cereal. And yet...the boyfriend stays. It's miraculous, really.

Riggs ends with a call to action that I'm betting will have women laughing their asses off rather than running to the kitchen...

It is time, women of America, to come to your senses. Halt the alarming increase in the divorce rate. Bring the homemade biscuit back to your breakfast table. We can all work together. You make 'em, we'll eat 'em. What could be more fair?

Riggs' next article: How the invention of the washing machine (bring back the scrub board!) is responsible for women's promiscuity.

Today the Washington Post covers a new book with the earth-shattering thesis that, if women want to "keep a man" they should start scrubbing floors in lingerie, learning to cook steaks to order, and giving blowjobs in between.

Is that cover condescending or what? And that's not even getting into the content of the book...

Moore's slim treatise purports to explain how women should go about sex, relationships and marriage -- according to men. Here is his mission as a self-described reeducator: "I want to express my anger and frustration as a man with the women I feel are miseducated, misinformed, and ill-prepared about their responsibilities in getting and maintaining a relationship with a man of quality," he writes in the introduction.

Moore, of course, considers himself just such a man. Read his book, ladies, and you can snag a catch just like him. Your responsibilities include cooking, staying skinny, wearing sexy things around the house and doing whatever your man tells you to do (because, Moore writes, "Here's a little secret, ladies: men never really ask for anything. They command. . . . And believe me, what you won't do, ten broads around the corner will.")

Ugh. The sad part is, he's found this method successful:

Moore's girlfriend, Khanequa Tuitt, who's at the book-signing, recalls that when she first read his manuscript, she only got past the first couple of pages before calling him to curse him out. But now she's come to terms with his views. She's started "trying to stay away from wearing frumpy, flannel stuff," even when she's cleaning, for example.

Moore also keeps it classy with a "no fatties" message:

In his book, size matters -- a lot: "The fatter you get, the more you decrease your potential single-man pool. Let me give you an example. When you go to the grocery store to shop, do you pick out the nastiest-looking, most rotten, smelliest fruit or meat you can find? Oh, you don't? Why not? . . . It's the same with men when they see baby elephant-sized, out-of-shape women."

The interesting thing is that (as you may have noticed from the cover above), the book is "presented by" Zane, a best-selling writer of black erotica. (As M.Dot at Model Minority writes today, "Zane sells because her fiction allows Black women to be sexual in a culture that refuses to acknowledge that we are sexual, a culture that calls us ho's if are so inclined to be sexual, talk about sex, or even look like we are human and have a sexual appetite.") But Zane says her name on the book is not an endorsement -- it's a warning: "There are some men who feel exactly like he does. I feel like women should be forewarned and realize what's out there."

If I didn't know better I would think it was my birthday - because it's not often that an anti-feminist organization gives you a gift like this one.

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute* has put out Sense & Sexuality, a handy little anti-feminist guide to sex by none other than Miriam Grossman, author of the slut-shaming book Unprotected (not to be confused with the similarly titled slut-shaming book Unhooked).

Seriously, every page is priceless - so it's hard to know what to highlight. But here are some of my favorite tidbits.

On the biology of why dudes will fuck you and dump you:

When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green. It plays a major role in what's called "the biochemistry of attachment." Because of it, you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name.

On the dangers of "hooking up":

As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women.

On why women with HPV are unlovable drop-outs:

Even though these infections are common, and usually disappear with time, learning you have one can be devastating. Natural reactions are shock, anger, and confusion. Who did I get this from, and when? Was he unfaithful? Who should I tell? And hardest of all: Who will want me now? These concerns can affect your mood, concentration, and sleep. They can deal a serious blow to your self esteem. And to your GPA.

On why you should get to the baby-making ASAP:

Remember that motherhood doesn't always happen when the time is right for you; there's a window of opportunity, then the window closes.

On wishing herpes on fictional characters:

It's easy to forget, but the characters on Grey's Anatomy and Sex in the City are not real. In real life, Meredith and Carrie would have warts or herpes. They'd likely be on Prozac or Zoloft.

But really and truly it's page 16, in its entirety, that's my favorite. Check it after the jump. Then laugh yourself to sleep tonight. I know I will.

*The organization that also brought you one of the top 10 anti-feminist videos and the "bring back the hope chest" campaign.

...and, for good measure, criticizes feminists for decrying violence against women.

On his radio show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said,

Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim.

Ah yes, those ridiculous feminists trying to convince the American people that domestic violence is a bad thing -- even if she was asking for it. And that ridiculous media, daring to publish anything favorable about a black man.

I can't say I'm surprised, though. It's Limbaugh.

Seems like an appropriate moment to republish Samhita's "fuck you" to Limbaugh:

This is rich. A self described anti-feminist lawyer has decided to sue Columbia University for offering women's studies courses because they are discriminatory towards men.

The NYT's City Room blog reports that Roy Den Hollander (pictured) -- "a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist" who in the past year has sued nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies' night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence -- is now setting his sights on Columbia University. Today, Den Hollander filed a suit against Columbia in the SDNY for offering women's studies courses, which he sees as discriminatory toward men. His suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism." A Columbia spokesman declined to comment to the NYT.

In Den Hollander's suit he calls women's studies "a bastion of bigotry against men" and said its women's studies program "demonizes men and exalts women in order to justify discrimination against men based on collective guilt." He reportedly writes in the complaint: "Federal financial aid, state funds and other assistance help proselytize feminism at Columbia," in violation of equal protection safeguards of the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

If his hatred for women isn't apparent enough by his suing the federal government around VAWA, it is clear because he has sued clubs for ladies night (as Ann has covered before). As Jay Smooth just pointed out, "ladies night is for the benefit of men, you idiot! Stop getting in the way of the patriarchy!" (/sarcasm). Obviously, he has never been to a club.

For a little background on what motivates this guy, the Gothamist has some gems from the piece that Ann links about his assault on "ladies night" in the New Yorker.

Den Hollander guy sure knows how to charm the ladies; you'll recall that last summer the New Yorker spent a night out with the divorcee, who explained his life mission: "What I'm trying to do now in my later years is fight everybody who violates my rights... the Feminazis have infiltrated institutions, and there's been a transfer of rights from guys to girls." Hence the Columbia lawsuit, in which Den Hollander maintains that the university should not be using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism."

This guy might have to get a Feminist Fuck You.

Kind of hilarious.

Pic from Sweet One.

Sometimes the emails we get are too good not to share.

fuck you femenists. when the network crashes you will be raped and made subject to men. you fear this and that is why you hate us. your greatest fears will be realized. you did nothing to help society but you divided it with your hatred, legalized murder of fetuses, and your selfish squandering while you did not help your people.

When the network crashes? Methinks someone has watched The Matrix one too many times.

Making faces at NeW on 12seconds.tv

I have a lot more to say about this article on this anti-feminist organization, but I thought I'd share my initial reaction.

UPDATE: It was pointed out in comments that NeW's blog reveals them to be truly awful human beings. Did they really mock an old woman with a wheelchair?! Charming.

This email had all of the Feministing editors cracking up:

Why can't I comment on those sucky, factually vacuous blog entries which might appear on feministing from time to time, beneath the article itself? Is it by any chance because you suck so badly and so consistantly, that you don't want the criticism? [...] I am pro-feminist, but your whole vibe makes it increasingly hard to say that, and the anti-feminists on youtube are wiping the floor with you. Distant aloof rhetoric among the feminist elite is wearing thin, and particularly from what should be the radical youth - with some THING to say. Where are you taking on the anti-feminist MRAs head to head, sister? Nowhere. You're running scared and it stinks. Why aren't you wagging your finger in their anti-feminist faces (in debate) like your logo suggests, instead of using it to masturbate amongst yourselves?

Samhita's take: "God I wish I was masturbating instead of reading this fucking email. LOL."

My plan is to totally co-opt that phrase. I'll post on a complex issue, and then ask all of our lovely readers/commenters (in the Mike Myers "Coffee Talk" voice) to "Mastabate amongst yaselves."

This story in the NYTimes definitely brings up some interesting debates in the gender and sports arena. Basically the Olympics has a shady history of trying to verify female athletes gender identity. This ranges from forcing the athletes to strip naked and inspected by judges to other varied tests including chromosomal typing and hormone testing.

At first, women were asked to parade nude before a panel of doctors to verify their sex. At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, officials switched to a chromosomal test.

For a period of time these tests were mandatory for female athletes (not male ones). The NYTimes article suggests it was due to fears that male athletes would pose as female athletes and have an unfair advantage over their competitors. It seems this has only actually happened once, however, and it was not discovered with any of these tests. For this years Olympic games, a lab is being set up in Beijing that is prepared to investigate any gender-based claims if they arise, as they no longer require these exams of all female athletes.

Sometimes one sentence speaks a thousand idiocies:

You come across as a man hating group - the only reason nobody does or says anything is because you hide behind your vaginas.

The depth of thought is astounding.

*Scurries back behind labia*

Unfortunately I missed being able to post the video on this one (apparently its been taken off you tube, media conspiracy anyone?), but we still have the quote.

For those of you more in tune with the plethora of "celebreality" shows on VH1, you might know Brooke Hogan. The daughter of Hulk Hogan, former pro-wrestling superstar whose family was featured on the show Hogan Knows Best. Well Brooke now has her own show (and a fledging music career) called Brooke Knows Best. Well apparently she doesn't know best, because this was her response on the show recently to a prospective roomate's questioning about who she was going to vote for:

You know what? I am actually not that much into voting. I think it's kinda crazy that a woman is running, because I think that women deal with a lot of emotions and menopause and PMS and stuff. Like, I'm so moody all the time, I know I couldn't be able to run a country, 'cause I'd be crying one day and yelling at people the next day, ya know?

Sigh. Hopefully most of the viewers found this as absurd as I did.

Thanks to Maria for the link

Pic from Time.

I nearly lost my mind when I read this gushing piece from Time Magazine about purity balls.

What was amazing to me about the reporting of this article was despite hearing all of these creepy anecdotes - and admitting that girls as young as four are participating in a ceremony about their virginity - writer Nancy Gibbs still managed to be smitten over the whole shebang. (One of the subheads actually reads 'A Delicate Dance')

But first...a creepy anecdote.

Kylie Miraldi has come from California to celebrate her 18th birthday tonight. She'll be going to San Jose State on a volleyball scholarship next year. Her father, who looks a little like Superman, is on the dance floor with one of her sisters; he turns out to be Dean Miraldi, a former offensive lineman with the Philadelphia Eagles. When Kylie was 13, her parents took her on a hike in Lake Tahoe, Calif. "We discussed what it means to be a teenager in today's world," she says. They gave her a charm for her bracelet--a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. "On my wedding day, he'll give it to my husband," she explains. "It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I'm supposed to be loved."

Paging Dr. Freud! But Gibbs is loving it.

Leave aside for a moment the critics who recoil at the symbols, the patriarchy, the very use of the term purity, with its shadow of stains and stigma. Whatever guests came looking for, they are likely to come away with something unexpected. The goal seems less about making judgments than about making memories.

And making sure young women think their worth is dependent on whether or not they're sexual. So, no Ms. Gibbs, I think I won't "leave aside" that very real and very dangerous message. Thanks anyway!

Gibbs continues to totally miss the point:

Purity is certainly a loaded word--but is there anyone who thinks it's a good idea for 12-year-olds to have sex? Or a bad idea for fathers to be engaged in the lives of their daughters and promise to practice what they preach? Parents won't necessarily say this out loud, but isn't it better to set the bar high and miss than not even try?

Are families who don't expect their daughters to promise their virginity to their dads promoting sex for 12 year-olds? Can't dads be engaged in the lives of their daughters without worrying about the state of their hymen? And is telling women that their moral compass lays in between their legs really setting the bar high?

Flowery language and valorizing these days doesn't change what purity balls are about: the ownership and fetishizing of young girls' sexuality. Perhaps someone should remind Time of that fact.

Anti-feminism on the internet is widespread, vicious, and fucking hilarious. So we figured why not make a list of the top ten worst anti-feminist videos (or anti-feminism caught on video) out there?

So after the jump, enjoy the list of crazy, funny, and just plain odd anti-feminist videos we've compiled.

(If you have a video you think we're missing - send it to us!)

Yesterday was a pretty exciting day in SF. But this is not as exciting. I am all for fair and balanced coverage, but I have to question the motives of publishing the thoughts of Fred Phelps. "God hates fags" isn't exactly well meaning political discourse. It is hate speech.

Thanks to Greg for the link.

Michelle Bernard, President and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (the anti-feminist organization we love to hate), is out promoting her book, Women's Progress: How Women Are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before. And boy oh boy is she fun to watch!

In the clip above, Bernard explains that she's a "real" feminist - you know not like those nasty hairy man-hating kinds that want women to excel at the expense of men.

She also notes that women who call IWF anti-feminist just "think it's cute to throw bombs." I'd hardly say that calling IWF anti-feminist - an organization that exists to bash feminism and convince women that sexism is actually fantastic for them - is throwing bombs. It's more like...lobbing marshmallows.

Just take this description of Bernard's book:

Though many influential groups feed on the prevailing myth that women are oppressed, most women are healthier, wealthier, and better educated than ever before. Michelle Bernard, the president of the Independent Women s Forum, lays out the facts in a new book that will make life harder for radical feminism's ideological hucksters.

Oh you caught us! We're such hucksters...trying to peddle the myth of equality! For shame.

Some more undeniable proof that IWF could in no way, never ever, be an anti-feminist organization:

• IWF's campus program is dedicated to shutting down productions of The Vagina Monologues across the country because it "glorifies promiscuity and treats women as sex objects."

• The organization was home to now-notorious Charlotte Allen, who wrote a WaPo piece about how stupid women are.

• The org spoke out against the HPV vaccine, claiming it would make girls slutty.

• In a press release for a report IWF did on young women and sex, it states that by "pouring through women's studies texts, [IWF VP Carrie] Lukas found feminist authorscriticizing the institution of marriage as repressive for women and uncovered essays glorifying promiscuity." (Oh noes!)

• They believe that women making less money than men is actually a good thing.

So yeah, nothing anti-feminist or actively anti-woman about them. Nothing to see here!

Thanks to Bella for the heads up.

Students, that is, not Washington University, which still plans to award an honorary degree to anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly. The students who oppose honoring Schlafly have made a website:

They're raising awareness about some of the reprehensible positions Schlafly has taken with regard to women's place in society. They picketed the chancellor's home. And they're instructing students:

If you are opposed to Washington University’s decision to award Schlafly an honorary doctorate please join us by SILENTLY STANDING and TURNING YOUR BACK when Schlafly is granted her degree.

That was among the actions suggested in comments here! Commencement is in two days, and I hope there's footage of the protest...

AngryBlackBitch has more.

Reader Katherine Chun Eriksen, who is graduating from Washington University in St. Louis this week, wrote us to ask about what action we'd suggest to respond to her school's decision to "honor" Phyllis "Martial Rape Doesn't Exist" Schlafly. Katherine writes,

The "honorary" degree being presented to Phyllis Schlafly has caused quite a stir on campus and we are in the process of trying to decide how to protest the presentation during Commencement. I was wondering if you would be able to help us out by asking your readers to submit ideas for our protest. We would like to maintain the dignity and solemnity of the event while still making our point clear to those in attendance. We are looking for something that cannot be labeled at "juvenile" or "immature".

So we thought we'd take a cue from Feministe Feedback, and pose the question to you, dear readers. Do you have activism suggestions for the feminists at Wash U?

Washington University announced last week that they are giving Phyllis Schlafly, professional anti-feminist, an honorary doctorate degree. The release calls Schlafly "a national leader of the conservative movement." What they fail to mention however, is that she is also an anti-feminist leader who believes married women can't be raped ("By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape."), that there should be bans on women working in nontraditional fields (like construction work or firefighting), and - oh yeah - that the ERA is dangerous.

I guess it should come as no surprise then that professional misogynist Chris Matthews is actually set to give the university's commencement address before Schlafly is honored.

Thankfully, the Washington University community is fighting back.

Students have set up a Facebook group, “No honorary doctorate for anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,� with over 1100 members at last count.

Several postings suggested that students boycott fund raising drives by the university to protest the honor for Schlafly. The group’s information states: “Do her views fit with the future the men and women of Wash U’s graduating class see for themselves and their peers? Probably not. Then why honor her with them? Wouldn’t having someone like her in the midst of Wash U’s female graduates be incongruous at best, offensive at worst?�

Mary Ann Dzuback, director of women’s and gender studies at Washington University, and an associate professor of education and history, said that professors were stunned and angered to learn of the planned honor last week. “The university has completely disregarded the concerns about anybody who cares about full and equal rights for women, who cares about the intellectual quality of feminist debate, and who cares about women’s desire to enter the work force,� Dzuback said.

Dzuback went onto say that she wouldn't be against Schlafly being invited to lecture at the school, but that honoring her is something quite different: “This tells the world that this administration thinks so highly of the honoree that they give her the highest degrees the university can give, the highest degree of respect. And that is deeply troubling...This is a woman who has spent her whole career arguing against full rights for women." Nice message to send the female student body, right?

Some students who emailed me (thanks all!) about this, are encouraging folks to email Chancellor Wrighton and Jane Stone, coordinator of the Board of Trustees. If any Washington University students out there want to keep us updated, we'd be grateful!

I have to say, I'm impressed. When I posted an anti-feminist hate email from the (now former) public relations officer of the Southern Illinois University College Republicans, I didn't expect any action to be taken.

On the contrary, not only did officers of the CR - Wess Haubrich and Jermaine Raymer - come into the thread to offer apologies (as did the emailer himself, Alex Kochno, though his apology was not as well-taken by commenters), but SIU also took out an ad in their college paper (4/23, p 14) renouncing the act. Kochno also resigned from his position at CR, I'm assuming under pressure from his peers.

And to top things off, I received an email from the SIU administration informing me how seriously they took the email and that Kochno's email privileges were suspended pending a student conduct code review.

I think major kudos go to the SIU administration and the officers of the CR for their prompt and thorough response.

SIU's response has really heartened me. I think we all know how rampant online misogyny is, and how difficult it is to deal with because of anonymity issues. But I think incidents like these show how we can hold harassers accountable, and how seriously the "real" world will take hate speech - online or off.

So big thanks to SIU administration, the CR, and the many SIU students who emailed us. I have a little more hope today because of your action.

To add to Jessica's earlier post on wingnuts who blame feminists for carbon emissions (you can't make this stuff up), check out this quote from today's Family Research Council email:

Today isn't just another reminder to use recycled paper or drive energy-efficient cars. It's a calculated attack on the sanctity of human life. Population control is inextricably linked to the environmental and abortion movements. [...] The crisis du jour is global warming, but even that is just another excuse to fund "Planet" Parenthood and similar groups.

OMG, they've figured out our sinister feminist-environmentalist agenda! We wreck the earth by driving to our jobs (where we're bitches who demand equal pay), then we have a few abortions to offset all the carbon we've put into the atmosphere. It's genius! Join me, my fellow feminist-environmentalists, in a round of cackling (yes, cackling)! Muhahahaha!

Yes, seriously. Jack Cashill at WorldNetDaily says feminism is bad for the environment. Wait for it...because "equal pay for equal work also means equal commutes." Anti-feminist logic is sometimes too good to be true.

Indeed, stay-at-homes moms save the state's highway infrastructure from meltdown, especially since a "nanny" often drives to the working mom's house, putting three cars on the road where otherwise one would do.

Homeschooling moms further ease the strain on the ecosystem by keeping their kids off the road. The California judged who ruled that "parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children" obviously did not prepare an environmental impact statement before doing so.

Cashill not only thinks that women should stay home (for gas conservation, he swears!) but he also thinks they shouldn't be allowed to get divorced.

As part of its sexual and feminist flowering, California all but invented no-fault divorce in 1969, the same year the Santa Barbara oil spill jumpstarted the environmental movement.

...When not ignoring divorce completely, the media have done their best to trivialize it. PBS' "Sesame Street," for instance, offered a typically perky vignette on the subject, in which a cute little bird describes her home life.

She frolics part of the time in her mother's nest, she tells Kermit the Frog, and the rest of her time in a separate tree where she frolics with her dad. "They both love me," she chirps.

If, however, mom has a nest, and dad has a nest, California needs a whole lot more nests than it otherwise would, not to mention more resources to heat, cool, light and water those nests and more gas to ferry the baby birds between them.

Uh...he knows birds don't drive, right? In any case, I've thought of a solution. Cashill drives America's working women around all day, that way they don't have to. (Also, he stops watching Sesame Street. Just because.)

Thanks to Elizabeth for the link.

Yesterday our fellow blogger Courtney Martin wrote a thoughtful piece for TAP, calling for a more complex conversation of some of the generational feminist tension that's surrounded the election. (This was in response to Linda Hirshman's Slate article, Yo Mamma, that posited young feminists who don't want to vote for Clinton have Mommy issues.)

The media loves a catfight, and over the last six months or so, feminists have provided no shortage of finger-pointing, name-calling, and stereotyping. I don't intend to rehash the firestorms here, but suffice it to say that more than a few bridges have been burned.

When we engage in "either/or" thinking, when we dismiss and reduce one another, it weakens the movement.

The media may not have the future of the feminist movement in mind, but I do. It's time that we declared a ceasefire on the caricatures and explored the shadows -- not just the silhouettes -- of our differences.

But instead of complexity and nuance, the next piece we see on young feminists and the election is little more than a gleeful screed against all young women. Debra Dickerson writes:

I oversimplify, but so do young women who inherited what we mothers fought for and now want us to disappear so our girls can go wild and pole dance without feeling all guilty. Caricatures work both ways, missy.

She goes on to call young feminists "honey," "chicks," "childish," and greedy. All in one post!

We receive a lot of hate email here at Feministing, and this one was too good not to share.

Men are better than women look at the comparison in IQ men are scientifically proven to have a higher IQ by roughly 5 points, or 5% you cannot dispute science sorry and if you want a much better website than your shitty one you might want to go to [redacted]. I think you would gain a lot more knowledge from that website and you might learn about the truth that way you would not be so stupid and ignorant you stupid cunts.

Apparently that extra five percent doesn't help prevent run-on sentences. You would also think that those extra brain power percentage points would stop a dude from sending harassing emails from his school email address. Because then we wouldn't know that our charming admirer is the public relations officer (yes, public relations) of the Southern Illinois University College Republicans, Alex Kochno. I think I'll stick with my stupid cunt lady brain, thanks very much.

Marriage: Do it for the economy!

Well, that's what some groups would like us to think...

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages. Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments - notably job creation - would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.

But who needs jobs when you have a husband, right? The study was sponsored by four organizations that identify as part of a "marriage movement" - Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest, and the Georgia Family Council (an ally of Focus on the Family). So yeah, not biased at all.

Studies like these are not just about promoting marriage, of course, they're about promoting traditional marriages. And the idea that women don't need a job (just a man) has hurting women welfare recipients for far too long. So if we're worried about the economy, let's focus on jobs, education, and affordable child care for parents - not weddings.

Thanks to Monica for the link.

The College Republicans at Bowling Green State University - the same group that held a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day" last year - held an "Anti-Feminist Bake Sale" yesterday, and ended up getting smacked down my campus feminists.

As part of Conservative Week, the College Republicans held their bake sale on the front steps of the Education Building, selling cookies, brownies and other treats for 50 cents each.

Members of the club also handed out a sheet of quotes, which they labeled "The Radical Feminist Agenda."

Some of the quotes included:

"All men are rapists, and that's all they are," said by author Marilyn French.

It's always amazing to me how anti-feminists find the most obscure, old-school quotes to use in their "activism." But you've got to love this: feminists on campus came out to protest the event, eventually outnumbering the College Republicans.

The protestors came out with signs that said, "Anti-feminist is half-baked sale," and "Feminism is about choice." They handed out free candy to people passing by, saying, "Feminism: it tastes better."

Indeed it does.

Thanks to Emily for the links.

Our lovely editors Jessica and Miriam are on this panel, along with the fantastic Carmen from Racialicious, who is also (in case y'all didn't know) the co-founder and President of New Demographic, and Patti Binder, an amazing leader and advocate of girls' programming in NYC and board chair of Girls Write Now.

Patti discusses her experience within girls' programming, and how people generally make the assumption that there shouldn't be a need for girls' leadership organizations because there's a woman running for president. And all of the girls' organizations that exist aren't recognized nearly enough, not to mention the difficulty in trying to get the same funding (since so little are funded) when they're all on the same side. She also touches on how the "boys' crisis" has effected their ability to get funding on top of that. And amidst all of these forces working against them, the organizations focus on pushing their message through to convince people that girls' and women's issues, well, exist.

Miriam talks about Radical Doula and as someone who is a part of the birthing movement, how she feels that it's important to identify herself not only as a birth activist, but as someone who supports abortion, and tries to bring the conversation into the movement. Hence, "Radical Doula." So for herself and the way she identifies, the push back she deals with is the doulas and midwives who stigmatize or judge her for being a supporter of abortion. Another form of back lash she's experienced, referencing to her work with the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, is a general misconception that Latina women are all blatantly anti-choice. Yet the Latina Institute works with and helps Latina women who support abortion and those who don't necessarily support it but are accepting of the organization regardless and are pro-birth control and support a number of other aspects of reproductive health.

Carmen divulges her experience with Racialicious, where in the beginning there was no moderation for comments but came to a point when moderation was definitely necessary. She talks about the general "rules" that they ask their readers to abide by, which includes to not make generalizations about race or any other group of people or person, which is something that they deal with on a consistent basis. She also discusses how to figure out what's "ban-able," and some strategies that the editors have talked about to handle particular comments that have been problematic for the productivity of the site.

Jessica makes a point that - after listening to the speakers - how different blogs' backlash can be, and how disruptive comments are usually (and obviously) not appropriate in public spaces which is why commenters use anonymity to speak their ignorance. (Because they wouldn't do it in person.)

Somehow the suggestion that chicken and beef's hybrid would be spam also came into the conversation, but that's a whole other conversation. (And no, I'm totally not joking.)

Behold star of The Hills, Heidi Montag, aka Feminist Hero.

Ginia Bellafante writes,

Defying our expectations, Heidi has emerged as a kind of feminist hero this season, climbing her way to a bigger position at the event-planning company where she orchestrates Nascar parties, and refusing to acquiesce to the demands of her fiancé, Spencer, that she get herself home on time. Her career-mindedness sets their relationship off course. Heidi identifies the problem with no name: a boyfriend who sits around an apartment decorated to look like an ’80s video arcade while trying to deny Heidi a real wedding with the glory of registering. Her groundswell of self-assertion begins when he insists on eloping, prompting Heidi to declare, “This isn’t, like, Spencer’s relationship and you decide what we do.�

Yes, a modern day Gloria Steinem. I don't joke to denigrate Montag - frankly I don't watch The Hills so I can't speak to her feminist cred. However, I do find it somewhat hilarious that Montag is being deigned a "feminist hero" by the very reporter who famously declared feminism dead on the cover of Time Magazine.

Ann's brilliant (and sadly probably right-on) reaction: "She's probably compiling material for a 'Is Feminism STILL SUPER DEAD?' cover story."

Bellafante's 1998 article bemoaned today's feminism, saying it has "devolved into the silly...And it has powerful support for this: a popular culture insistent on offering images of grown single women as frazzled, self-absorbed girls." And yet Bellafante looks to The Hills for feminist icons. Baffling, really.

That's right, my all-time-fave misogynist magazine has just stooped to a new low and published an actual guide to stalking your girlfriend (or, I suppose, any woman who you feel entitled to). Check it out:

Click image to enlarge.

Sure, it contains a helpful disclaimer that this is illegal in many states. And it claims to be a guide to "eavesdropping" on "friends and foes." But the feature at the bottom of the page makes clear that these are really tips for keeping your little lady (aka your "target") in check, and making sure she's yours and yours alone. It even suggests (under the sub-head "Step Up the Stalk") using GPS tracking. (For a better-intentioned but still creepy guide for stalkers, see this Guardian piece. I was torn when I read it: Is this information more helpful to women -- because now they're aware that this is possible -- or more helpful to stalkers?)

This was a wake-up call to me about how, in the internet era, the term "stalking" has really been trivialized. I know I've definitely joked about "Google-stalking" people, and there's Katha Pollitt's already-classic "Webstalker" essay. Of course, using this terminology is not the same thing as promoting controlling, abusive behavior. But I do think we need to be careful about how we joke about this sort of online voyeurism, because it can be a fine line between kidding around about combing Facebook for info on your ex and laughing at Wal-Mart's classic "Some call it stalking, I call it love" T-shirt or the hoax site "selling" GPS panties or the above Maxim article. Because real-life stalking is, uh, decidedly not hilarious, to put it mildly, and we need to draw a bright line between a common joke of the personal-is-public-online era and the very real threat posed by stalking.

The Stalking Resource Center at the National Center for Victims of Crime has more info on stalking.

If you feel compelled to write a letter to Maxim, here's the email address.

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it a million times: sex sells. It's often used as an excuse for why advertisers use pictures of half-naked women to sell just about every product imaginable. It shouldn't be surprising, then that anti-sex also sells. (via Jezebel) Conservative Christian don't-have-sex publishing has taken off! Publishers Weekly puts the bestsellers into a few broad categories: Chasing Chastity, AIDS Awareness, and Sexual Integrity for Men. Let's take these one by one, shall we?

Chasing Chastity

The article mentions Lies Women Believe, a book by two women who have both written "purity" guides. It's a perfect example of the near-porniness of some "abstinence" writing. The book begins with a description of what was going on in Eve's head when she ate the forbidden fruit (I'm not kidding):

First, I just listened and looked. In my heart, I pondered, I questioned, I debated. Adam had reminded me many times that God had said we must not eat the fruit from that tree. The creature kept looking into my eyes and talking in a soothing voice. I found myself believing him. It felt so right. Finally, I surrendered. I reached out -- cautiously at first, then more boldly. I took, I ate. I handed it to Adam. He ate. We ate together -- first me, then him.

Those next moment are a blur. Sensations deep down inside that I've never had before. New awareness -- like I know a secret I'm not supposed to know. Elation and depression -- at the same time. Liberation. Prison. Rising. Falling. Confident. Afraid. Ashamed. Dirty. Hiding -- I can't let Him see me like this.

Alone. So very alone. Lost. Deceived.

Ah yes, I go through those same feelings every time I eat an apple. We could have a Freudian field day with that passage. I can see this prose causing guilt-ridden titillation -- a surefire recipe for bestseller success.

AIDS Awareness

The abstinence-only crowd promoting "AIDS awareness"? How hypocritical. Just look at what they want to do to PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief). They basically want to strip everything effective from our international AIDS strategy. It's not so much an anti-sex movement as an anti-health movement.

Sexual Integrity for Men

The no-sex-until-hetero-marriage movement has set up "men's integrity" as the flip side to "women's purity." Hence, you have the hilariously titled "Integrity Balls" for boys, which emphasize not "ruining" your girlfriend for her future husband. See, maintaining women's "purity" should be the goal of both men and women. So again, this isn't so much an argument against sex as an argument against women violating their Eve-like innocence and purity by having sex. Also: This "integrity" line of reasoning has always caused me to wonder: Does this mean dudes can maintain their integrity by just sleeping with other dudes? Makes sense to me.

There is nothing funnier than someone who is so offended by feminists and feminism that they resort to middle school style hyperbole to air their criticism of feminist ideology. Or I should say their perception of feminist ideology and activism. I think this guy fears castration. The mere presence of women, makes him feel like less of a man.

For shame on Townhall, really. I would like to think this opinion doesn't count, but unfortunately, it probably votes.

We're a little late on this one, but I think it's still worth noting (if only because Dr. Laura's woman-hate is so glaringly obvious it's almost hilarious).

Dr. Laura Schlessinger has never been one to shrink from controversy, and she leaped headlong into one on Monday when she said that if a husband cheats, his wife may share some of the blame.

“When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he’s very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs,� the popular psychologist and radio personality said.

The infamous anti-feminist, Dr. Laura made the comments on the Today show in a discussion about Eliot Spitzer's connection with sex workers. (Video available here)

Naturally the show received a shit-ton of appalled emails and letters, which gives me hope. Outside of the obvious grossness of suggesting that women (or men, for that matter) could be responsible for the partner's cheating - you have to love how Dr. Laura says that men who don't get the hero-worship they so deserve are "susceptible to the charm of some other woman" who makes them feel special.

It's scary when I kind of agree with Carrie Lukas -- a woman who has called the wage gap a "bargain" and said careers are "baby-deniers":

Yet I agree with the critiques that she took it too far (and lost me on the humor), particularly with the ending: "Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim."

Women aren't dim, even when we indulge in girly things like fashion, romance novels, and friendly gossip. Equating our propensity to engage in this trivia with a lack of intelligence is a mistake, and, although I'm sure it was inadvertent, undermines attempts to shake the taboo from discussions of innate sex differences.

Yeah, except it wasn't inadvertent, because Allen repeated it throughout the follow-up online chat. And yeah, I obviously disagree with Lukas that boys are preprogrammed to like trucks and girls are preprogrammed to like dolls. But on finding Allen's piece insulting and not funny? I'm with her.

Still, it's shocking that Lukas and I even kind of agree here. I mean, that hasn't happened since I saw her at some awful event on Capitol Hill last year and we both reached for the cheese plate at the same time. Damn.

Katha Pollitt has a must-read piece in The Washington Post today, smacking down Charlotte Allen's notorious women-are-dumb column.

Pollitt points out that Allen isn't so miffed by women's supposed "dimness" as much as she is pissed that women today "reject, with every fiber of their latte-loving beings, the abstinence-only, father-knows-best, slut-shaming crabbed misogyny of the Republican right." Snap!