I love playing video games, but Ill tell you this for free. These "girl gamers" that are getting more sex dont seem to be anywhere near me! Im still stuck in the basement of virginity, the poor ignored geek that I am. While the women who play games shake off the stereotypes about their ability, and how they act. Seriously though, I think its just some bollocks marketing stunt. What other things can that apply to? "Women who pick their noses get more sex, a recent servey shows".

That prison rehabilitation thing is unbelievable though. How do these people get away with it? And how are they not mobbed by the insulted masses? I just dont know.

That thing about women fleeing their nation becuase of domestic violent, it just really doesnt sit well with me. That really is no soloution, because its not like they are fleeing to a nation free of domestic violence, is it? The question shouldnt be about seeking asylum for these reasons, it should about another piece of evidence of the piss poor treatment of women around the globe, something that I reckon some people refuse to believe.

How appropriate that these monkeys like Laura Sessions Stepp always end up comparing women to a house, or a car, or some other object. I'd like her to continue her analogy further - what part of a woman is like the "window" that gets broken? Is it physical? Does she expect women to have their hymens intact until marriage so the husband can have the great "pleasure" of breaking his own property himself? (And if so, is a hymen useful like a window?) Or is it some emotional "window", and if so, why is it not obvious to her that if sex is inherently emotionally damaging, it's only because of knuckle-dragging half-wits such as herself. Sorry about to bring up such ridiculousness, but it seems to be the only logical implication of her argument.

In retrospect my comment seems incredibly bizarre so I'm sorry if it weirds anyone out. But maybe it just further goes to illustrate the absurdity of these nitwits.

I am so sick of people pulling what I like to call "a Summers". Enough with men are this, women are that talk. It's the worst kind of generalization and frequently, just plain hideously incorrect.

We've had all of thirty years in which to make it to the top. I'm surprised we've done as well as we have, but I'm also pissed that unless we completely take over the world, we're written off as simply not capable. Argh.

The dieting and feminism article struck a chord with me.

I have lost about forty pounds over the last several months. Initially, I had a lot of support from people as I moved from obese to just overweight. However, now, the support is drying up, because my goal to lose another 15 pounds is "wrong."

"Wrong" -- from what I can tell -- isn't that I would be pushing skeletal territory. Far from it. Fifteen pounds would make me a US size 10, which is still pretty padded. "Wrong" comes into play because I have expressed the desire to be a size 10, to be able to buy stylish clothes, and like my appearance.

I suppose to the people around me who haven't had to struggle with their weight, it's easy to write it off as vanity, but good lord. I would like to devote my time to not thinking about how I'm awful because I weigh X today, or how if I am forced to talk with the marathoner in the next office, she'll casually mention how my being overweight is a strain on public health. It would be nice if I stopped being invisible to people, because I do not fit the current patriarchal mode of beauty. If I'm not invisible, people will listen to me, and maybe I can do some good, y'know?

ticky, isn't that a little self-defeating? How can we really trust people to change their attitudes about weight if they'll only listen to people who are thin? I understand that there are benefits to losing weight, but they're not all necessarily based on sound moral principles. I actually wrote a whole post about the article - which I thought was bunk - if you want to click on my name.

Well, I'm also out-running the diabetes, but who cares? I'm vain for changing!

Because that's what this argument comes down to, isn't it? A woman who is fat is derided for being lazy and selfish and ignorant for not following a healthy lifestyle. A person who throws her life into upheaval to lose weigh (because losing a lot of weight is a giant lifestyle change, lemme tell you) is derided for being selfish and vain for not working for fat acceptance.

And heaven forbid a thinner woman's self-esteem picks up from her weight loss, because she is damned for buying into the patriarchy.

I am all for loving yourself as you are, but if someone wants to lose weight for her health, and to stop being passed over, I support her. And if someone is fat and healthy and happy, I support her. Isn't that what we should be working for? Unilateral support?

Ticky, I'm mostly with you and sympathize, except for one thing: It's bull that obesity is a strain on public health, or that it makes insurance rates rise, or that being a little 'overweight' is unhealthy.

Which is not to say that exercising and eating healthy isn't great for you, but the rest is just myth. A little fat never killed anyone.

By the way, I recently ran the National AIDS Marathon, and at least half the runners were somewhat overweight by modern standards.

"Rwanda considers legislation to limit families to three children."

Good. Now let's see America do something similar.

"Rwanda considers legislation to limit families to three children."

"Good. Now let's see America do something similar."

How can any feminist be pleased that a government is telling a woman how many children she can have? I think this is absolutely terrible!

RedDragoness I'm curious, why do you think America should enforce something similar? Most people I know only have the amount of children that they can reasonably afford to raise properly, and those who have more children then they can afford won't really be stopped by a law. Personally, I would like to have 3 or 4 children one day like my mom did. I don't really see that as being anti-feminist, I just love children and I've always wanted to have a larger sized family.

ticky, I support you. If what you're doing will make you happier and healthier, that is what's most important.

No, no, no, Apostate. I don't buy into the strain-on-health-care propaganda. That's the woman in the next office over, who used to casually work it into conversation if I indulged in a chocolate bar.

But that's her issue.

Some random thoughts:

1. I enjoy that there are more female wrestlers, but I wonder how much of a sport it will become, if for no other reason than (at least in my experience) there is no wrestling in gym class, and (I assume) the boys that want to wrestle do so because they wrestled informally as children. We either need to encourage our daughters to wrestle as children, or we should make it a sport in gym class.

2. The political asylum for Domestic Violence sufferers is dicey to me. The main option- offer asylum- doesn't actually educate or help the people in the woman's original country. On the other hand, changing a culture, especially not ours, is difficult, which leads me to...

3. RedDragoness' comment. I have to agree, I think there is an overpopulation problem in America- maybe not overpopulation, exactly, but a overusage of resources. The only thing to do is to either limit reproduction or comepletely change the American lifestyle (so to speak). I am not in favor of China-type oppression of reproduction, but I do wish people would realize that even deciding to have one or two children only doesn's help the planet because "you are only replacing yourself"

4. I like that Rwanda, for all their trying to stop overpopulation, does want to increase bc use

I certainly don't think the United States has any need right now to limit the number of children people can have, but it's a fair point that basically EVERY problem imaginable has some root in overpopulation. While I appreciate the point, "How can any feminist be pleased that a government is telling a woman how many children she can have?", it begs the question, where's the line? What if there were some hypothetical situation where one more child born would cause people to start falling off into the ocean? Can we stop people then? It matters for everyone how many children people have. - it's only a question of how much, which of course, is very debateable, and depends on the situation at hand... That said, I think that progressive social policy leads to people making less babies anyways, so that seems like a better route.

It's bull that obesity is a strain on public health

I'm pretty sure like, every doctor ever disagrees with that one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/02/18/mccain-roe-vs-wade-sho_n_41553.html

Check this out. McCain saying Roe v. Wade "should be overturned" in South Carolina...

As a male, that article on the Haredi buses was really insulting. If I see a woman not completely covered, I'm going to lose control? Bollocks.

Oh, and by the way, obesity is a serious health risk (and does put some strain on health care systems). Being overweight is a slight risk, depending on age (as you get older, you should gain weight) and body fat percentage. "Normal" weight, especially if it's maintained by exercise rather than dieting, is the most healthy. Being underweight, especially for women and people older than 40, is very dangerous, often more so than being obese.

Bearcat, they say that all the time. Most of the non-Haredi population writes off the Haredi rabbis as clowns. The joke goes that the one form of entertainment everyone in Israel can enjoy is a sermon from a Haredi rabbi such as Ovadia Yosef, which will be spiritually meaningful to Haredis and comical for everyone else.

Jeff, I don't think "fair" is a good characterization of the statement that "basically EVERY problem imaginable has some root in overpopulation." I'd go with "as simplistic as the average George W. Bush speech, and just as enlightening."

Pachakuti, McCain already called for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, or something like that. We're talking about a guy who made a promise to appoint pro-life judges in 2000 that Bush wouldn't make.

Agreed re: McCain. He has always been proudly anti-choice, and has a 0% rating from NARAL to show for it.

Cheers,

TH

Aw great. I got tormented as a child because people kept asking "How's your little lamb?" and "How does your garden grow?" and now I have to put up with "How's your STD doing?"

Awesome.

"How can any feminist be pleased that a government is telling a woman how many children she can have? I think this is absolutely terrible!"

Is Rwanda trying to tell a woman how many children she can have, or trying to tell a man how many children he can tell his wife to have?

"What if there were some hypothetical situation where one more child born would cause people to start falling off into the ocean?"

I got the impression that the idea's more like "What if there were some hypothetical situation where one more child born would make chopping up the neighbors and taking over their farmland look like a good idea to the child's parents?"

Re: 'Girl gamers' having more sex. I myself am happen to be one of the 'girl gamers', though I don't think I'm having more sex than anyone else. The picture above the article was bizarre. Just like every 'boy gamer' (sounds silly when used like that, huh?) isn't a very pale 15 year old holed up in his parents basement, 'girl gamers' are not typically porn star lookalikes playing halo in their lingerie.

Ticky - like you, I've struggled with my weight and have heard both arguments that you presesnted. When you are overweight, people make comments about how unhealthy you are and whether or not they actually come right out and say it (although some do), there is always the implication that fat = ugly. When you do something about it and start to diet/exercise people worry that you are starving yourself. I actually had a friend ask me if I was starving myself because I did not want to get icecream. The other side is that when you slim down, you are giving in to societal views on what is attractive. So Ticky, yeah, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. For more extreme examples of this phenomenon look at any celebrity watch magazine. The public and the tabloids make a big deal out of star's weight gain. And then when those stars slim down to skeletal thinness, we are horrified at how thin they have become.

Jeff, I don't think "fair" is a good characterization of the statement that "basically EVERY problem imaginable has some root in overpopulation."

Not quite literally I suppose but let's go down the list. Pollution, scarce water resources, scarce food resources, many wars, deforestation, coporate farming practices. I mean, certainly there are other solutions to all of these problems individually, and they need to be delt with, but everything becomes easier with fewer people.

Is Rwanda trying to tell a woman how many children she can have, or trying to tell a man how many children he can tell his wife to have?

That's a super good question. One is very clearly misogynist, the other less so.

Overpopulation is not a problem in America -- or any nation with access to birth control and equal or near-equal access to resources and education for women.

Overuse of resources may be a problem but that's not addressable by controlling reproduction.

You want world population control? Trust in women and work for world feminism. Every pool of educated working women of near-equal status to men has zero pop. growth.

I think the way that I see obesity is this: I would never treat someone poorly because they were obese, never ignore them, or not hire them, or not befriend them, or anything like that. The only thing is I'm less likely to be attracted to them (and trust me when I say I don't have unreasonable expectations). However, it's important to realize it is a health risk, to varying degrees, depending on the person and the degree, and that's the person's own business. I don't bitch about the public health issue because I have my own risky behaviors, although I would hope that doctors encourage people to maintain a healthy weight.

Overpopulation is not a problem in America -- or any nation with access to birth control and equal or near-equal access to resources and education for women.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I specifically stated it was not and suggested "progressive social policy" as the optimal solution if it were a problem. However, I can imagine scenarios where a more aggressive strategy might be necessary. Then again, even in the United States, things would be better if we had 30 million people instead of 300 million.

It's not "even in the US" but "especially in the US." But that's mostly a function of the USA's glorious foreign policy than of any environmental footprint...

i agree with the dieting article on being feminist doesnt mean not trying to improve yourself..i mean, you try to improve yourself in lots of ways anyway, if its being better at drawing or learning a new job well, whats wrong with wanting to not be obese? but i dont see being overweight (not obese, big diffrence) as something to improve upon as theres nothing wrong with it. seriously, your a size 10-14? theres nothing wrong with you! in fact, for a lot of people they might be in there healthy weight range at that size. its just about knowing whats right for you and not listening to anyone else (lot easier said than done..im 5 feet and weigh 120 pounds and have had lots of people tell me id look so gooood if i just lost 10!) me personally, id want to be able to move well and run farther than 2 blocks, but that has nothing to do with weight i dont think (im not too good at those things...but am trying!)

I would hope that doctors encourage people to maintain a healthy weight.

Oh, man, that's funny. "Encourage" in my experience is less "hey, I'm concerned about your weight, here's a referral to a dietitian covered by the health plan, and have you looked into a pedometer?" and more "Lose weight. You're too fat. Here's a script for that fat-blocker drug."

Even after dropping part of my bulk (without help from the medical community), my doctor doesn't "encourage" me, but tells me that if I looked into pilates, I could really tone my flabby tummy. Yeah, that's encouragement there.

(And I can't switch because of my stupid HMO, but that is another rant for another day.)

Talking with my friends in similar situations, they've encountered the same sort of "encouragement" I have. Doctors aren't sensitive to treating and preventing obesity, heath plans don't offer healthy living solutions or cover visits with nutritionists. Treating heavy patients with a rude put-down about weight is standard protocol.

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with doctors (I've had my fair share as well, and I maintain it's one of those professions that tends to attract the wrong people) but certainly I wasn't condoning that sort of "encouragement".

I have to say the idea that America is overpopulated strikes me as really ludicrous. We're barely reproducing enough to replace ourselves.

America's population growth is the result of immigration.

Not that I think that's a problem either. There are as many Pakistanis in Pakistan as Americans in America, in a country a fraction the size, with pathetic resources. And none of the people in Pakistan are even immigrants. WE have a problem - America doesn't.

"You want world population control? Trust in women and work for world feminism. Every pool of educated working women of near-equal status to men has zero pop. growth."

Exactly! Thank you!
I HATE that any government would tell a person what the "limit" is. And, frankly, is there much of a difference between some pro-choicer who wants to limit women's choices for a good cause and a pro-lifer who wants to limit choices for a good cause?

The world's population is almost, maybe even past, 7 billion now. That's not too much?

I read an article recently that claimed that, if the entire world's population lived an American lifestyle, we would need the resources of five planets. That's four more than we have now. So, let's say that Western countries cut their consumption by 50 percent and the rest of the world raises their standard of living to that level. We would still need 1.5 more planets than we have.

Of course, this is just with the population we have now. Our population is slated to be well over ten billion by the end of the century.

The only thing that has enabled the population to get this large is petroleum. What happens when the oil runs out? (Keep in mind that this will probably happen around the same time that global warming really starts to kick in.) Massive die off.

Forced population control certainly sucks, but so does starvation. Personally, I'd much rather see broad access to birth control along with economic disincentives for having large families. In this country, we could perhaps only offer a tax break for a family's first two children. With the next two, the family gets no additional tax break. Any additional child thereafter, the family's tax burden starts going up.

I also really disagree with the claim that American families, as a rule, only have the number of children they can afford. In this country, as in all others, poor people have many more children than the rich. It seems that rich people are onto something.

keshmeshi,

I think that's dead on. While I'd love to see this problem solved by things like tax incentives and feminist ideals, there may soon come a time when that goes right out the window. I'll do my part, I have no intention of reproducing...

"I read an article recently that claimed that, if the entire world's population lived an American lifestyle, we would need the resources of five planets."

we're 5% of the population and use something like 25% of the resources. it's embarrassing to be american. :-O

"While I'd love to see this problem solved by things like tax incentives and feminist ideals, there may soon come a time when that goes right out the window."

you say some wacky things, jeff.