Ann, thank you, thank you, thank you. On Bust's board, there are several female health threads, and when poster's would complain of vulvar pain, and everyone else was telling her she might have herpes or chronic yeast infections, I would suggest she ask her doctor about vulvodynia. And then I was told that I was just trying to hijack threads for my specific cause.

There are so many women who read Feministing, and just posting a link to the NIH's article might be a huge step for spreading awareness...which hopefully will lead to better treatments. I'm still praying that switching from hormonal birth control to an IUD will be the answer for me. I've been on tricyclics for a year, and while they help, I'm still not pain-free. It's made my relationship with Mr. KMP stronger, as we've had to find other ways to be intimate when my pain is too much to have sex, but it's terribly isolating. I was told that I had recurrent yeast infections (my original doctor never took a culture!!!), and eventually I was tested for diabetes before I switched doctors.

Seeing this posted here gives me so much hope that soon there will be enough attention focused on vulvodynia that women won't have to suffer anymore.

she has a history of sleepwalking??? if anything that should be an argument that it WAS rape because YOU CANT CONSENT WHEN YOU'RE SLEEPWALKING!!!!!! it doesnt fucking count!!!

That Bee Movie article brought to mind that Barnyard movie (Don't remember the name of the movie, but it was about a bunch of barn animals)that came out a year or two ago. My boyfriend and I were sitting in the theater, and when the previews came on the screen we noticed that the male cow had an udder, and no horns, like male cows, or bulls, normally do. I found it pretty offensive. Gender aside, I think it's somewhat important that kids know the difference between a cow and a bull.

And to the Canadian dude who's pissed off that women are in all-male spaces...is he seriously implying that sports teams should remain a men's only space? I don't like that sports teams are segregated by gender, personally. The way some women's sports teams are funded reminds me of the famous Plessy vs. Ferguson
supreme court case that declared that african americans would have "seperate but equal" facilities from caucasions. My ass! Although I think it is important for men to have their own spaces, and for women to have their own spaces, I think first and foremost we have to work on healing this broken relationship that men and women between them as a whole. I don't remember who it was that said that there will never be real intimacy between men and women until there is gender equality, but whoever it was, was right on.

Just a warning: don't read the comments on the sports journalism article. They're pretty horrible. "Hur hur hur, but I likes the womenz sportz casturs to have duh big boobies dur dur!" Arseholes.

Carrying Taser guns seems very risky, but I'm not sure how prevalent that practice actually is. I get the feeling that the Fox article is meant to show that women are going crazy.

This is a bit of an aside, but I've always wondered whether or not carrying pepper spray is a good idea. I think I'd like to, but I'm worried it, too, could simply be used on me. I'm curious about how many feministing readers carry it.

I carry pepper spray.

Pepper spray can be mostly concealed in your hand in a way that doesn't signal to your attacker that he needs to protect himself. For me, this makes it a tool that I'm more likely to use effectively.

It seems to me that an attacker would definitely know that you had a taser and, in my case at any rate, it would be easier to get it out of my hands before I was able to use it.

There's this great video called "Women of Color Feminism". A must see!

re: Vulvodynia

Thanks for this link. Honestly, I never knew this existed!

Males-only clubs, once under political siege, are now extinct in our culture. So, it seems, is male pride.

Damn, but that is a dumbass statement. Me and 'the boys" (who number two at this point) can go out and drink and ogle and bond any time we want. Most of the time, our wives are WITH US. Nothing about their presence, or the presence of women in general, inhibits us in any way.

Of course, that may be because there are certain things that it doesn't occur to us to do, so we don't miss them. Things like maudlinly lamenting the injustices inflicted upon us poor guys by the broads, bitches, etc .

I feel a bit sorry for men whose "pride," which is a slippery concept anyway, is so fragile.

Many women will be better off just taking self-defense courses than trying to carry weapons, depending on where they live and how likely it is that an attacker will be armed, etc. I think I'd consider anything that could be easily wrenched from my hand before I got close enough to use it would be problematic-- but I don't have to carry a weapon where I am now, so I don't know firsthand.

And the article on the Southwest Airlines woman is bothersome. She could have taken the high road and MADE the company either list requirements for clothing of passengers (they have a right, but they need to clarify it ahead of time, and I guarantee you they would do no such thing because they would immediately start losing customers who didn't want to be treated like high schoolers), or take action against the attendant/etc, and made a statement about personal freedoms and so on.

Instead, she posed for Playboy and now no one will take her seriously on this issue because it makes her seem like a total and complete attention whore. Plus, it reinforces the stereotype that revealing clothes = slut (I'm not saying she's a slut, just that that's what people will think when they read this).

Though she should pose for all the men's magazine she wants, it makes me question her judgment and her motivations for making the whole thing public in the first place.

Basiorana, I totally agree with you.

I mean, yeah, in a perfect world she could pose for Playboy (or any other magazine) and still be able to "take the high road" as you say. But unfortunately, that's not how things work.

It's not fair at all, but that's just the way it is. It's like that law student who I think posed on Playboy TV and was suddenly shocked that it might affect her future career plans. I think her name was Adriana Dominguez?

Ah, Playboy. Destroyer of young lives everywhere!

i read a very interesting article from the national post this week, questionning whether all those breast cancer awareness by companies is legitimate or just a marketing tool. i couldn't find the same article online, so i linked from my blog.

http://katrinaholloway.livejournal.com/246571.html

Basiorana, I totally agree with you.

I mean, yeah, in a perfect world she could pose for Playboy (or any other magazine) and still be able to "take the high road" as you say. But unfortunately, that's not how things work.

It's not fair at all, but that's just the way it is. It's like that law student who I think posed on Playboy TV and was suddenly shocked that it might affect her future career plans. I think her name was Adriana Dominguez?

Ah, Playboy. Destroyer of young lives everywhere!

Sorry for the double post! Somehow Feministing is allergic to my Mac today. Hmm...

Anyhoo... Apparently Ms. Ebbert also wants to be an attorney and (like Dominguez) doesn't seem to get that posing nude may destroy your credibility.

WTF? Is this what happens when you grow up watching surrounded by Girls Gone Wild?

and concerning kissmypineapple's comment, i have VVS, and i've seen articles & mentions of it popping in the past few months, and i'm just so happy to see that finally this issue is getting attention.

and, in a more general way, hi, i'm new :) discovered this blog last week or so, i've been trying to catch up on the latest posts, i never knew such an interesting blog existed!

The drive for equality has undercut masculine values and pride

Oh, well boo hoo to you, Scott McKeen. As someone pointed out earlier, I'll echo that it's pretty pathetic if your "pride" is so bruised by women's equality. And not only that, but he goes on to say that "men can't just sit still, they need a car engine before they can talk." WTF? Dude, no one's telling you you and a bunch of your guy friends can't get together over a car engine. No one from the government is going to come in and force a women to sit next to you while you work. Have fun changing your oil.

As for the women who posed for Playboy, yes, it does undermine her argument, whether it should or not. It just makes it look like she was out for attention and money (not to mention that wasn't she a Hooter's waitress as well? I think I remember hearing that argument).

In contrast to how women's nudity is perceived, there was a NYC firefighter, Michael Biserta, who posed for the Calendar of Heroes and later it was found out that he'd done a Guys Gone Wild video. What happened to him? Was he fired? No. Was he asked to publicly apologize? Nope. The fire commissioner decided to end the calender. Wow. What punishment.

Yeah, I'm so sure that a sleepwalking woman consented to have sex with a homeless, schizophrenic man with HIV!!!! Arg!!!

I pray that she will escape further harm.

It is sad that we live in a society where the weak and incapacitated are preyed upon -- and in some cases even incapacitated so they can be preyed upon (e.g. date rape drugs.) I remember after the Tsunami reading about girls who were raped during the chaos of the storm. How crazy! How can a person even think about sex at a time like that? But rape isn't about sex, of course.

The Dyncorp thing --- ! I don't even know what to say. It's just so heinous.

I read an article about the SW woman posing for Playboy a few days ago, and all I thought was, good for her for making lemonade. Why not make a little cash? She isn't going to earn respect from the people already making fun of her no matter what she does, and she won't lose respect from those she loves, so why not?

I would hope no one on this blog condemns her, and I hope we don't just say, "If they don't take her seriously now, well, she should have known cause that is just the way it is!" That's no different, in my mind, from saying, "Why should we care if she got pregnant? She had sex, and sex leads to babies, that's just the way it is!" or "She shouldn't complain about not making as much money as a man, that's just the way it is!" The whole point of feminism is to make those changes for the better.

"I remember after the Tsunami reading about girls who were raped during the chaos of the storm. How crazy! How can a person even think about sex at a time like that?"

From what I heard it wasn't in the chaos of the storm itself but in the chaos of the refugee camps shortly afterwards.

Apparently some creeps feel entitled to sex even when they don't actually have consenting partners and think things like "she's not living with her father or husband anymore" are close enough to "she asked me to have sex with her"...

Too bad she was sleepwalking- the crazy homeless HIV positive rapist sounds like a great guy... and I'd love to meet his lawyer- a real sweetheart. WTF?? how is a medical condition responsible for her being raped? so because she sleepwalks, it's not his fault for jumping on top of her on the side of the highway? thank God I stay in bed when I sleep, but then it might be my fault if someone comes in and asks me to have sex and I say "yes" in my dreams.

As for the SW incident, I can't condemn her for posing for playboy.. a lot of women do, and should still be respected as women. But she's making herself famous for sex, and I don't think that's positive: for her or for women as a whole. I just want to know who was offended by her outfit and why the guy felt he had to disrespect her in that way. why aren't we focusing on that? her posing for playboy just brings more attention to her and less away from the situation.

The minnesota sex-ed documentary looks very interesting. I hope they can start shipping it soon- it would be a great resource for many schools, and not only those teaching sex-ed but many universities could benefit as well.

What's up with the DynCorp thing? The link you have says it's from 2002. Has there been a breakthrough in the case? Or am I missing something? (Just to clarify- I'm not saying it's not important because it's 5 years in the past, just wondering why it was in this week's Feminist Reader.)

What dissapoints me about the SW woman is that she doesn't strike me as much of a feminist. Good for her for making lemonade, I agree. But Playboy is the kind of magazine that teaches society to treat women like (sexual) objects. She (rightfully) stood up to SW airlines and pointed out that she's not an object to be controlled, but a person who shouldn't be treated otherwise because of her outfit... but in Playboy she's more than willing to be an object and judged for her body. Two different circumstances and I support her right to make them free of condemning judgement or harassment... but I don't feel I should have to be comfortable with it, and I'm not.

katrinaholloway - Save yourself while you can. This blog is so addictive that my friends and co-workers tease me about this site being my "feminist crack."

I carry pepper spray and have also taken two self-defense courses. I like that pepper spray works at a distance so if I have to I can blind a guy then kick him in the balls and etc. As far as it being used against me, I always figured that if a guy is close enough to wrestle it away from me then I am in pretty deep shit anyway, despite any self-defense techniques I may know.

"Two different circumstances and I support her right to make them free of condemning judgement or harassment... but I don't feel I should have to be comfortable with it, and I'm not."

Exactly. I think that posing for a magazine like Playboy, which in my opinion objectifies women, and standing up to a company that has been discriminatory are two very different things.

I guess you could call that "making lemonade." I call it "chasing dollar signs."

"I would hope no one on this blog condemns her, and I hope we don't just say, "If they don't take her seriously now, well, she should have known cause that is just the way it is!""

What's so wrong with saying that? That IS just the way it is. No one here (as far as I know) is trying to say that this woman is undeserving of respect.

And you are absolutely right--certainly REFUSING to pose for Playboy isn't going to guarantee her the respect of her nay-sayers.

But that's not what I'm trying to get at here. My point is just that it seems that many women today don't realize that buying into raunch culture by "going wild" on camera inevitably yields some future repercussions. For example, would any law firm in their right mind hire a first-year associate who had posed nude, female or male? I think not. And yet she seems to think that this will never be an issue.

Quite frankly, if you are using pepper spray on someone close enough to you to take it from you, you're all getting a good dose of it regardless of who discharges it.

Pepper spray, in close quarters, is bad. A tazer, with minimal training, is a very effective defensive tool, however. (Although, obviously, more training is always better)

Feliza Navidad, that may be the way things are, but isn't that sad? Why the hell shouldn't a law firm hire someone who posed nude? Will it make them a crappy lawyer? Does it make the person a bad person? Do you think this would even be an issue in Europe?

We don't know her, but my guess is this posing is going to help her pay for law school, which, when I last checked in, is really freaking expensive.

As feminists, we are not supposed to leave things "the way they are".

JenLovesPonies, it IS sad that a law firm won't hire someone who posed nude. It isn't fair, not by a long shot.

As feminists, I think our main task IS to question why things are "the way they are." But that doesn't exclude us from being pragmatic. Law is a male-dominated field where women are finally starting to make some headway as respected leaders. This means that often women still have a glass ceiling to break through that gets that much thicker if they have posed nude. Also, in our society, unfortunately posing nude creates some bias against a person.

Again, it's not fair and it's not right. I hope nobody thinks that I'm implying that.

Right now what I am asking is "isn't it sad?" that young women have grown up in such a raunch-saturated culture that making the choice to get nude seems to be so commonplace that they don't seem to think it might have repercussions.

Feliza Navidad: by phrasing your question as "any law firm in their right mind", you appear to be taking the side of the slut-shamers.

I would think that any law firm in their right mind would simply say, if someone pointed out that one of their lawyers had posed nude, "So what? It doesn't make him/her a bad lawyer."

RE: What have you been reading this week?:

Is the fight for gay marriage equality being prioritized over the fight against employment discrimination because of class-related issues? Are upper-class queers putting pressure on advocacy groups to prioritize marriage equality because they don't experience employment discrimination as much as poorer queers? Someone please prove me wrong.

http://www.dontboxus.blogspot.com/2007/11/lets-not-put-cart-before-horse-people.html

On Tasers and Pepper Spray "I'm worried it, too, could simply be used on me. I'm curious about how many feministing readers carry it."

I the mid 1970s I was raped and came very close to being murdered.

I started to carry a knife. I also studied martial arts.

Then the Hillside Stranglers started picking women up in my neighborhood and leaving their bodies down the hill from a friend.

About that time two men tried to drag me into a car. I had a large Ka-bar knife on my hip that I pulled. I swung my portfolio of photos at the man getting out of the car and pulled my knife.

It probably saved my life. I then helped my friend buy a gun.

I was part of self defense classes for women at the LA Women's Building and I saw women being taugh ineffectual bare handed self defense techniques that would get them killed.

It is a myth that a weapon you know how to use will be taken away from you, if you have committed yourself to use that weapon in self defense. Be that weapon a knife, a taser, pepper spray or a gun. Practice and commitment to defend yourself and mean it are necessary as is practice.

Any weapon at your disposal is better than no weapon at all.

I live in Texas, I am a left wing feminist and I am a gun owner. I shoot at a range on a regular basis. I carry pepper spray.

I said never again after I was raped and nearly murdered. Being able to protect myself is a feminist value.

It is a myth that a weapon you know how to use will be taken away from you, if you have committed yourself to use that weapon in self defense.

Yes. That's what's always bothered me about the idea that if you carry a weapon, it'll just be used against you. That idea seems to suppose that an unarmed man can overpower an armed woman, and I don't understand how that would work--isn't the point of being armed that one cannot be overpowered by someone who is unarmed? Obviously if I have only pepper spray and he has a gun, he can take the spray from me, but my major concern there would not be that he could use that spray on me. My major concern would be that, well, he would have a gun.

I stopped carrying pepper spray a couple years ago when someone on this board pointed out to me that using it would almost definitely trigger my asthma. I didn't see the point in carrying around a weapon that would incapacitate me if I tried to use it.

Regarding pepper spray - they sell wipes and solution that supposedly helps you clean it off you and out of your eyes better than just water or wiping. I think that carrying a few of those in your purse or glove compartment should help overcome some of the worry about getting it on yourself. I've never used them myself thought, but I did carry them when I carried pepper spray.

Thank you for posting the vulvodynia link! I've had chronic pain for the last five years, but was only recently diagnosed. I'm so happy that something is finally being done to raise awareness about this problem--I went to fourteen gynecologists before I found out that vulvar pain specialists exist. It's even harder to find someone to talk to about the problems it causes. Hopefully, this campaign will get the word out about this common problem. (And hi, I'm new... I made an account because I was so excited to see the NIH link :D)

The NY Times recently did a story about Elizabeth Wurtzel, the author of Prozac Nation, who is about to graduate from Yale Law. She had trouble finding a job because of her candid memoirs detailing her depression, cutting, sexual history, and substance abuse. But she found a job, here's the link, it's interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/fashion/28wurtzel.html

I think it's gross that the SW woman is turning an act of discrimination into a chance to objectify herself. Playboy features fake, unattainable bodies and a fascination with prepubescent, shaved vaginas. She should walk nude to Southwest in protest...not really. I just think she had an opportunity to make a statement about sexism and stereotypes but instead she bought into the stereotype.

I think Arrested Development had the best satire with their Girls Gone Wild-esque series "Girls with Low Self-Esteem.:

"I think it's gross that the SW woman is turning an act of discrimination into a chance to objectify herself....I think Arrested Development had the best satire with their Girls Gone Wild-esque series "Girls with Low Self-Esteem."

sigh. listen, I'm a rad fem, and I am quite far from the position that porn= empowerfulment.

BUT, I am so sick and tired of people (men, women, feminists, etc) labeling sex workers as damaged, manipulative, money grubbing sell outs with low self esteem. (I mean, if that's not blaming the victim...) It isn't a far leap to then say that girls who fuck are desperate for male validation & have daddy issues.

The tone becomes quite mocking..."oh, the poor dear, isn't SAD and PATHETIC how much attention she needs?" "Well I heard that she used to be a HOOTERS waitress, so that explains it."

(Translation: I'm annoyed but not very surprised that such a slut/airhead would so sadly and predictably get naked just after all us noble feminists defended her)

Come on. We can do better than this.

As a sex-positive feminist, I support Kyla's decision to pose for Playboy. And I also agree that Kyla should be taking the lead in calling for Southwest to change its dress code. A man was nearly kicked off a Southwest Arilines flight for wearing a shirt that had "Master Baiter" on it during the summer. He had to change his shirt in front of 133 people.

The lawyer for a rapist should be ashamed of himself for trying to use the sleepwalking excuse to get his client off for aggravated rape. No one, male or female, can consent to sex while sleepwalking. If I was a judge and I heard someone say that sex was consensual because of sleepwalking, I would have immediately held that lawyer in contempt and convicted the accused of rape.

This is a story I read after the Kyla story, I found it on a related link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21595196

How about this story:
Children at higher risk in nontraditional homes
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838575/

It's very scary that the incidence of physical and sexual abuse of children is much higher in homes where they're not living with both biological (or adoptive, I assume) parents. As usual, some "authorities" immediately say that the solution is to force people to remain in unhappy marriages. I don't think that's a great way to reduce child abuse. What they don't mention, of course, is the feminist view: why not make it so that divorced women and single mothers are able to support their children on their own? I bet a lot of single mothers are forced to live with boyfriends because they can't afford to live on their own. They can't keep their jobs without the extra childcare provided by their boyfriends. How can we help them? The usual answers: better pay for women, better and more affordable childcare, better services for single mothers, better oversight by social workers over suspicious situations. Making it easier for single parents to collect child support would be an enormous help. It can be so difficult to get money from deadbeat parents, and often ends up requiring lawyers that many single parents can't afford. Also, as an added insult, a friend of mine who lives in Maryland told me that the state charges a fee once annual child support goes over $600. They can't get that money anywhere else, they have to take it from struggling single parents??

This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But forcing people to stay in bad marriages isn't the solution.

It is a myth that a weapon you know how to use will be taken away from you, if you have committed yourself to use that weapon in self defense.

The point is that you shouldn't have a weapon that you don't know how to use--most people get weapons and don't bother with any training, except maybe for one trip to the shooting range with a gun. That's why I don't think having a weapon is a good idea, unless you know how to use it. The second point is that you must be PREPARED to use it, and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. My father is retired NYPD, and he taught me that that you should only pick up and use a gun if you are prepared to kill. That a gun is not a defensive weapon, that it's an object with one purpose: to kill people. That you have to respect the weapon. If you think that brandishing a gun is enough, that you'll never have to fire it if you threaten someone with it, that you could never kill anyone, then don't get one, because it will escalate the situation and end up being used against you. In a situation where your safety is on the line, most people are confused and upset and don't want to take that step. That is why most people should not have a gun. I'm not saying everyone, just most people. Also, something else to think about: there's the issue of storage. To have a gun ready in case you're threatened frequently means having a gun and ammunition to hand, not safely locked away separately. Having a gun and ammunition nearby, possibly a loaded gun, means that a child could get their hands on it, or that a drunken, angry person could get their hands on it during an argument. Having a gun leads to gun violence. Is that something you want to risk?

"That's why I don't think having a weapon is a good idea, unless you know how to use it."

Right on.

"Having a gun and ammunition nearby, possibly a loaded gun, means that a child could get their hands on it, or that a drunken, angry person could get their hands on it during an argument."

Wouldn't this risk vary depending on who (if anyone) shares a home with the gun owner and the gun(s)? For example, telling a childless or childfree woman who lives alone "don't keep a gun, for the sake of the children" is kinda like telling an unhappily married couple who don't have any kids "don't get a divorce, for the sake of the children"...

Some guy invented a sort of "spider-man" pepper spray bracelet that you wear on your wrist and that you activate by pressing a button in your palm. It looks bulky as hell, but might be useful because it is hands free and you don't have to dig through your purse to get it out, etc.
http://www.local6.com/technology/14478228/detail.html

On the topic of "having a weapon and be ready to use it," does anyone else wonder about the effect of movies and tv shows so often showing female characters unwilling to use weapons for self-defense? I think we've all seen the "woman pulls a gun, leering asshole confidently walks up and takes it away from her"-scene too many times. It always makes me think of an anecdote I read on a forum, where a (I think it was a) woman with a gun confronts a man who had broken in who was at the bottom of the stairs while she was at the top. And he starts walking up the stairs. In that case, a well-placed shot dissuaded him, but I wonder what significance this "women won't shoot"-notion has.

There are a lot of tv-series with female police officers and such today, so I guess it's less common. But I think show writers are often quite willing to pull out that kind of situation when it fits their story. See, for instance, the end of season six of Buffy (though I hope that example doesn't make this post seem less serious).

"

Feliza Navidad: by phrasing your question as "any law firm in their right mind", you appear to be taking the side of the slut-shamers.

I would think that any law firm in their right mind would simply say, if someone pointed out that one of their lawyers had posed nude, "So what? It doesn't make him/her a bad lawyer."
"

Sure, in a perfect world that would be true. However, most law firms are, regardless of their area of specialty, in the business of winning cases. Part of this means that they have trust their lawyers not only to be very competent but also professionals with good judgment.

Unfortunately, for many people, posing nude means that you are neither of those things. I'm going to say AGAIN that I don't think that's fair because for some reason it seems like I'm endorsing this and I am SO not.

And, at the risk of being a "slut-shamer" and not "sex positive" enough, I really don't get why pointing out that there is a glass ceiling makes me look like I'm taking the "slut-shamer" side here.

Maybe it's just my perspective as a female law student. But I'm only basing my comments on what I've observed so far. Kyla might think that there won't be any professional repercussions from all this because she thinks "the human body is beautiful." Good for her. However, I can tell you for sure that right now women in law are judged under a really harsh lens sometimes.

If it makes me a "slut-shamer" and not "sex positive" for pointing that out, then I'm not sure what to tell you. I'm just observing an unfair trend here.

ShifterCat: A law firm in their right mind would know that someone who had posed in Playboy would not be able to get the proper respect from clients or opponents in the courtroom. A law firm can be fair and impartial but still say no to an applicant for that reason because they do not think they will be able to get clients as easily as an otherwise equal candidate. Which is still problematic, but the problem does not necessarily lie with the law firm itself.

She should be able to pose for Playboy all she wants, but I hope she went into it knowing the consequences, including understanding that this will severely hurt her chances for many public jobs. Even if she got hired, many people would ask for different representation if they knew her history.

BluePencils: I think that's why women are leaning more towards tasers-- they aren't usually deadly so while they can incapacitate someone there isn't the same threat of accidental death as with guns. Still, I doubt that in a single gathering they're getting the training they need to use the tasers most effectively and safely.

"Having a gun and ammunition nearby, possibly a loaded gun, means that a child could get their hands on it, or that a drunken, angry person could get their hands on it during an argument."

Wouldn't this risk vary depending on who (if anyone) shares a home with the gun owner and the gun(s)? For example, telling a childless or childfree woman who lives alone "don't keep a gun, for the sake of the children" is kinda like telling an unhappily married couple who don't have any kids "don't get a divorce, for the sake of the children"...

Well, my dad is an attorney and he had to defend one of his clients after he (client) left out his gun and a 3year-old he did not know was in his apartment (girlfriend's friend's daughter) shot herself with it (in my state, if a child gets your gun, you're responsible for whatever they do with it). So, even if you're childfree, you do have to make sure your guns are secure in case other people's children come over.

"(Translation: I'm annoyed but not very surprised that such a slut/airhead would so sadly and predictably get naked just after all us noble feminists defended her)

Come on. We can do better than this."

Alicepaul, I see what you're saying here. I agree that sex workers deserve more than to be dismissed simply as mentally damaged people with low self-esteem. I'm just not certain that that anyone thinks that Kyla is a "slut" or an "airhead."

Clearly we all have a right to our opinions. But right now it just seems to me that it is being implied that one isn't being a proper feminist if they feel a little disappointed by this turn of events.

For example, I am for the most part against magazines like Playboy and Maxim. I feel like they objectify women. Does that make me a bad feminist? I don't think so. Nor would supporting porn as a medium for empowerment, provided there are valid reasons for this perspective.

Bluepencils: I read that article about nontraditional families and found it very disturbing because it was so full of woman-blaming. If a woman's boyfriend abuses her child apparently it's her fault for allowing it to happen, not the boyfriend's fault for doing it? It really disgusted me.

As far as the guy lamenting the loss of "men's clubs" it sounds like he used to get together with some guys and smoke and then the shop owner banned smoking. I'm really not seeing where feminism killed his fun.

Thanks for all of the responses to my pepper spray question. I think I will start carrying it.

I adore feministing.

this is totally bizarre but i think it relevant. there's a miss landmine pageant (i think) to raise awareness of land mines and empower those survivors. it's worth checking out.

i can't really decide how i feel about it quite yet.

Sure, it's unfair that someone would judge a female candidate for a position in a law firm for having posed nude.

An applicant would also be judged harshly for saying "fuck" or "ain't" during an interview. Or showing up for an interview in flipflops. And would probably be judged harshly for having a strong regional accent of some kind (particularly one that makes someone seem "low class" by prevailing cultural standards).

All these things scream "unprofessional". And if you're hiring someone for a position that demands interaction with clients and the public, you'd want to hire someone who knows how to play the game and act professional - which usually means adhering to a bland, homogeneous corporate culture.

Really, if I was hiring for a law firm (unlikely, since I'm not in that profession in any capacity, and don't plan to be), I'd be hesitant to hire someone who posed nude for public photos. I'd think, wow, she's a twit, with really bad judgment. If she really thinks that posing nude won't make people question her competency and intelligence, what other stupid-ass decisions is she going to make? She doesn't get that the playing field for men and women isn't level, that women are judged on their behavior more harshly, that playing so openly on her sexuality will make her seem a bad risk in office politics, and that many men and women will perceive her as dopey for being a pin-up girl? Now why would I hire her over another candidate who actually has some concept of how to put on the bullshit professional front that's deemed necessary in corporate and legal workplaces?

I wouldn't be rejecting her for being a "slut" or because I'm not "sex positive". I'd be rejecting her for not having a fucking clue about how the real world actually works.

Re: Bush vetoing an increase in Family Planning funds--

Of course he vetoed it. Any spending that might actually help Americans instead of funding his pointless war are, according to him, "pork" and "frivolous spending," a plot by the evil evil Democratic Congress. Gawd I hate that man.

That idea seems to suppose that an unarmed man can overpower an armed woman, and I don't understand how that would work--isn't the point of being armed that one cannot be overpowered by someone who is unarmed?

Sure, that's the point, but the question is in how the situation comes up in the first place. If you're walking along, and you're jumped from behind, how much time do you have to get that weapon out in the first place? A weapon is only effective if you have time to get it into your hand before your attacker gets to you. I'm not suggesting that nobody should carry a self-defense weapon, but I think that it's important for people who are concerned with self-defense to take something like an Impact style self-defense course before investing in a weapon. Once you can defend yourself without having to rely on a weapon that can be used against you, getting properly trained in that weapon becomes an extra layer of protection, instead the only layer. If someone jumps you and you've got training, you have the ability to respond instantly. If you're relying on a weapon that isn't in your hands at that moment, you're in a bad place.

Sure, it's unfair that someone would judge a female candidate for a position in a law firm for having posed nude.

An applicant would also be judged harshly for saying "fuck" or "ain't" during an interview. Or showing up for an interview in flipflops. And would probably be judged harshly for having a strong regional accent of some kind (particularly one that makes someone seem "low class" by prevailing cultural standards).

Not hiring someone solely because she posed naked is stupid. It doesn't have any bearing on her ability to do the job, and if anyone rejects her and hires someone less qualified then their firm deserves to collapse in a heap of incompetence.

I wish her the best in her future career.

Another vote for knowing how to use any weapon you plan to carry! And by that I mean solid training, and a good amount of it. The warning against carrying weapons like knives and guns is absolutely intended to scare off people (and I know many who fit in this category) who think it's enough to buy something scary-looking and potentially deadly and just carry it around with them. It's this kind of person who is very much at risk of having that weapon taken away.

At the same time, especially in the context of women's self defense, I mean that warning also as a recommendation to GET training of some kind. A good self defense class will give you, first and foremost, a sense of how to take care of yourself to PREVENT physical encounters when at all possible, as well as some skills to rely on if luck is not with you and it does come to that.

If you do make a reasoned and thought-out decision to make some kind of weapon a part of your self-defense strategy, more power to you. As with so many other things, we all make different choices based on what's appropriate for our own lies. We just don't want anyone skipping those 'thinking through' and 'training' parts in the mistaken belief that simply buying a knife or gun will keep them safe.

"Not hiring someone solely because she posed naked is stupid. It doesn't have any bearing on her ability to do the job, and if anyone rejects her and hires someone less qualified then their firm deserves to collapse in a heap of incompetence.

I wish her the best in her future career."

Hey, so do I. She will need plenty of well-wishers if she's going to try to be an attorney post-Playboy.

The truth is that most law firms are VERY risk-aversive. Hiring a first-year associate who has posed in the nude (especially in a high-profile magazine like Playboy) presents certain undeniable risks in what is still a very conservative profession. First, he or she might not be able to command the same respect in the court room and within professional circles as someone who has not posed nude. Second, clients may be turned off from him or her because of personal or religious reasons. Third, clients might also regard this lawyer as less trustworthy or competent and so be more inclined to take their business to another firm.

Of course, you are absolutely right--having posed nude has absolutely no bearing upon one's ability to practice the law. But, as a lawyer, one is not hired SOLELY to practice the law. Some of the job entails being able to garner trust from your clients and maintain an air of professional decorum.

For now, I think that the legal world is much too conservative to fully accept a former nude model. To accuse anyone of being "stupid" for being risk-aversive is an oversimplification.

The NY Times recently did a story about Elizabeth Wurtzel, the author of Prozac Nation, who is about to graduate from Yale Law. She had trouble finding a job because of her candid memoirs detailing her depression, cutting, sexual history, and substance abuse.

I suppose that's one interpretation. I've read Wurtzel's writing, and I wouldn't hire her because she's a self-centered twit who thinks she's a lot more interesting than she actually is. More to the point, if you want people to take you seriously professionally, you have to present yourself in a serious, professional manner.

But Roy, if you get jumped from behind by a guy who's going to beat the shit out of you, you're not actually worse off than you would be if you didn't have a weapon at all--is the jumper really going to stop and go through your shoulder bag to find your taser and use it on you, or is he just going to continue to beat you up?

Nobody's claiming that having a weapon will keep you safe in all circumstances. What I'm saying is that I don't see how having a weapon puts a woman in more danger than a man. Why is the assumption that if a woman has a weapon, she isn't trained in using it? And I do think that's the assumption behind fears that if a woman has a weapon, a man will just take it from her and use it against her. I never see that argument being made about men who invest in weapons--am I really supposed to believe that men are just so much more responsible when it comes to perosnal safety?

[quoting Marle]
"Not hiring someone solely because she posed naked is stupid. It doesn't have any bearing on her ability to do the job, and if anyone rejects her and hires someone less qualified then their firm deserves to collapse in a heap of incompetence."

Posing naked doesn't effect her ability to do her job. Posing naked for public consumption photos, without the foresight to know that many people will judge you for it, and that you'll be branded by colleagues and clients as "that girl", does make one an unqualified candidate. She either would have a very naive view of how people, particularly men, perceive women in the sex industry, or would have to believe that her past work would never come to light. Neither attitude bodes well for someone in a position where intelligence, cunning, and the ability to play politics may be very important.

I'm not sure why rejecting a woman who poses nude would preclude a law firm from hiring another, more circumspect candidate. Law schools graduate a lot of people, don't they? Is it really very likely that there wouldn't be some other candidate for the position who was just as qualified but knew how to play the game a little better? She probably wouldn't be the only applicant, and not even the only female applicant, with the educational qualifications to do the job. So, your scenario that a law firm would just collapse because they didn't take the risk of hiring one newbie lawyer is incredibly unrealistic. We're not talking about a profession that requires a rare talent.

Why is it that the excuse of the weapon being taken away from you is only used if it's a female who's carrying? I agree, you've got to be well trained, and you've got to make some huge lifestyle changes if you decide to arm yourself. Seems true of humans of any gender.

But why is that only us little itty-bitty emotional females are somehow incapable of handling the responsibility of being armed? We're too nurturing, I guess: we'd never have the balls to actually shoot someone. Our reflexes are just sucky - we'd never be able to get to the gun in time, 'cause we're not athletic enough. Our estrogen-y fear response would make us freeze and we'd just forget that we had a weapon. Our spatial skills suck, so if we aimed, we'd miss. Or we'd never get the weapon out of our voluminous Coach bag in time. Only men can handle owning a gun! Because girls would just have it taken away from us, I guess, while we stood there helpless like a deer in the headlights.

I seriously considered getting a gun at one point in my twenties, when I worked late and had a scary walk home each night from the train stop. The logistics of gun ownership was what stopped me - did I really want to commit to the training? Where would I stash it while at work? How would my roommates feel about a gun in their home? But I really had no doubt that if I'd committed myself to real training with a firearm, I'd be as competent in its use as a male. Maybe I was deluding myself.

fatsweatybetty: too late to run, i'm already hooked ;)

traveltothesky: i too made my account because of the vulvodynia-link, i'm so happy to finally see awareness being raised about this problem!

Does anyone here have a stun gun? I have been considering buying one since they are small and easy to conceal and they do not seem as dangerous as a taser or knife. I have become more serious about having some form of protection since recent sexual assaults on women walking to their car off campus.

Since when is posing for playboy sex positive?

In any case, I just went to the website and they just have a bunch of lingerie shots, I think she gets nude in the actual magazine, I'm not a member of the "cyber club" so I cant' tell you for sure.

In the article they talk about the situation and they say she was asked if she was wearing panties under her skirt and they ask her if she's "a member of the mile high club". The headline is "Legs In The Air".

"Given her troubles in the skies, we felt obliged to ask one final probing question. "Yes, I am a member of the mile high club," Kyla says. "And no, it was not on Southwest. It was on a private plane."

EG: I'm with you re: Elizabeth Wurtzel. I'm not sure that's important, I'm just glad to know I'm not the only one who found her (and her work) to be quite overrated.

Do you think it helps women to have a gun with them during an attack? I was just wondering if anyone knew what sort of stats there are on women with weapons and attempted rapes/beatings. I was looking at a fun facebook group, This is What a Feminist Looks Like, and there were a lot of pro-gun pictures on there that just kind of skeeved me out a bit. Most of them look like an NRA ad aimed at feminists. One has a woman with like, a giant shotgun, which, I imagine, would be pretty useless to carry around for self protection. I will try and dregde up the pics/ads.

feliza - i agree that kyla sounds a bit naive to think that posing for playboy will never have any repercussions on her professional life. however, i also don't think that we should patronize her by assuming that she's somehow unable to rationally weigh the risk. she's not just out of high school--she's 23 years old.

playboy is, like it or not, the gold standard of taking one's clothes off for money and frankly, it's pretty tame. clearly there are firms (i suspect, the larg e law firms) who will find out about this and refuse to hire her because of it, but there are many, MANY other legal employers who aren't so high-profile and who will be much more impressed by a great resume and interview skills.

the risk that a future employer would find out i had posed nude was not one i was willing to take, but i don't think it's professional suicide for her, either. i respect her choice and i can't wait until more people like me are in a position to hire young associates, so we can move toward a society where no one gives a shit about this stuff.

EG: I'm with you re: Elizabeth Wurtzel. I'm not sure that's important, I'm just glad to know I'm not the only one who found her (and her work) to be quite overrated.

Ditto! I read Prozac Nation when I found it in our high school's library (I think it wasn't banned because no one else had bothered to actually read it, and yes, we had books banned in our high school) and I remember slugging through it and thinking she's a horrible person and I didn't feel sorry for her one bit.

As for the ongoing Playboy discussion, if there's one thing about Playboy it's that the month after you've posed no one really remembers you were in it in the first place. While it still sells like crazy, Playboy isn't the institution it once was and if you're just doing it for the money, good for you, but if you're doing it because you think it will lead to "legitimate" modeling/acting you are in for a rude awakening. Maybe she's doing it so she can pay off her tuition or student loans but for something apparently titled "Legs in the Air" that doesn't scream "respect me" when you're doing a job interview or, like others have pointed out, trying to land clients for your firm. Hell, there was the hoopla a while back when Jill at Feministe went head to head with some guys who'd started a top 10 hot law grads blog or something and a few girls came out and said that all the shitty, terrible things that had been said about them had affected their job interviews and that was just from a blog by some assholes.

But Roy, if you get jumped from behind by a guy who's going to beat the shit out of you, you're not actually worse off than you would be if you didn't have a weapon at all--is the jumper really going to stop and go through your shoulder bag to find your taser and use it on you, or is he just going to continue to beat you up?

Honestly, I think you are.

1. If you're relying on a weapon and don't have any other training, you're likely to attempt to reach the weapon, even if jumped from behind. An attacker who sees you going for a weapon is more likely to escalate the violence, and/or use the weapon against you.

2. People who are attacked and robbed have their weapons stolen from them. Theft is one of the major ways that weapons enter the illegal market.

3. If your attacker robs you, and finds a weapon on you when searching you, that person may very well decide to use it on you. A person who is attacking another person and using physical violence isn't the sort of person who respects other people's bodily integrity, already. Finding a weapon on the person they've just beaten up can increase the violence used against that victim.

Nobody's claiming that having a weapon will keep you safe in all circumstances. What I'm saying is that I don't see how having a weapon puts a woman in more danger than a man.

I'm not certainly suggesting that it does- I don't think it's a good idea for men to carry weapons, either, for exactly the same reasons.

Honestly (and this is anecdotal), I've never seen someone present the argument as "carrying a weapon puts women in more danger than it does men" it's "carrying a weapon puts a person in more danger than not carrying a weapon."

And I think that it's most properly framed in regards to choosing a weapon or choosing a self-defense course, since few people do both. If you're going to choose one, the argument runs, you ought to pick self-defense.

Why is the assumption that if a woman has a weapon, she isn't trained in using it?

I'm sure that, in many cases, it's exactly as you suggest- that the assumption is that women don't know how to use things like that. In my case, and, I assume, the cases of many of the commenters here, it's that I think that most people don't have proper training with things like pepper spray or tasers, because, to put it bluntly, in my experience, most people don't.

Hell, the police- people who are issued these things in the course of their jobs don't have proper training in their use, why should I assume that average Joe or Jane off the street does?

Why is it that the excuse of the weapon being taken away from you is only used if it's a female who's carrying?... ...Seems true of humans of any gender.

But why is that only us little itty-bitty emotional females are somehow incapable of handling the responsibility of being armed? We're too nurturing, I guess: we'd never have the balls to actually shoot someone. Our reflexes are just sucky - we'd never be able to get to the gun in time, 'cause we're not athletic enough. Our estrogen-y fear response would make us freeze and we'd just forget that we had a weapon. Our spatial skills suck, so if we aimed, we'd miss. Or we'd never get the weapon out of our voluminous Coach bag in time. Only men can handle owning a gun! Because girls would just have it taken away from us, I guess, while we stood there helpless like a deer in the headlights.

One reason why I think that it comes up less is that men aren't advised to carry weapons nearly as much as women are. I don't know a single man who has ever been advised to carry pepper spray or mace. I don't know a single man who's ever carried a taser. How many women are told that they should consider these things, though? These are things that are almost always marketed towards women as safety measures- as self-defense systems.

Outside of that, I don't think I agree with your assessment- Generally, I see the same response to gun-ownership, regardless of the sex of the owner. It's not just women who are told that a gun is no substitute for proper self defense training. It's men and women who are warned "Look, keeping a gun for home defense isn't what you think it is. You have to be willing to kill someone with it, and that's a big deal. Aiming during a firefight is difficult even when you're highly trained, and if you're not, nearly impossible. It's also dangerous because keeping a loaded firearm in your home increases the likelyhood of getting shot by your own gun."

Any time I see any thread about using weapons for self defense, I see those kinds of arguments come up, regardless of sex. It's not an unease about women having weapons, it's an unease with the general public (most of whom don't have extensive training) using weapons, and particularly leathal weapons.

Like I said, I think that the bigger difference is that women are told so much more often that they need to find ways (re: weapons) to defend themselves from the threat of rape/robbery/assault. If more men were told that they should consider carrying a weapon for self-defense, I think you'd see more comments about the dangers of our carrying weapons, too.

That's my perception, at least, fwiw.

I finally got around to reading the rest of Maureen Dowd's column on how men don't make passes at girls who wear glasses - oops - I mean, on how men are afraid of dating smart women, let alone smart women with purchasing power. (Remember that one, the "hide your shopping bags" column?)

I found one of the more head-scratching evo psych paragraphs I've ever come across in the middle of the column, which the Houston Chronicle printed in full yesterday (?!):

"Perhaps smart women can take hope — as long as they’re built like Marilyn Monroe. Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Pittsburgh have released a zany study on the zaftig, positing that men are drawn to hourglass figures not only because they look alluring, but because hips plumped up by omega-3 fatty acids could mean smarter women bearing smarter kids."

WHAT THE FUCK??? Do men have special omega-3 lenses that help them distinguish omega-3 fat from Twinky fat?

The Minnesota Sex Ed Documentary is really great. It comes from a public health point of view and I found it to be interesting AND entertaining! There was a screening recently at Planned Parenthood in Minneapolis, and I'm hoping to have a highlights video of our post-film discussion with the filmmaker up on our blog by next week. Watch for it. (plannedparenthoodadvocate.org/blog)

And in a bit of self promotion, Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD has a new activist website where we've been blogging quite regularly. We've even got a great new "blast from the past" video which discusses the affordable birth control crisis. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w0sLT5lsRWo)

Anyway, so yeah, that's what I'VE been reading....

Well, I've never posted here before but I'd love to contribute something regarding the self-defense issue (hopefully without restating too much of what others have touched on).

These are a few of the things I've learned over the years, hopefully some of it will be helpful/useful to others.

The worst assaults I've seen/read about tend to be "blitz attacks"; the person being assaulted is quickly overwhelmed. Hit from behind, pushed off-balance or down to the ground, tackled, et cetera. The idea behind it is obviously to render the person being assaulted incapable or less capable of escape, defense or calling for help. Firearms, pepper spray and even knives or impact weapons like the kubaton keychains can be difficult to deploy or retain in such a situation. This is why, in my mind, flexibility of self-defense options is highly important; don't rely on just one way to protect yourself at the expense of all others. Learning a defensive art that covers fighting from the ground against a standing opponent or a close-combat oriented style like Wing Chun could be very valuable. Likewise, any style that utilizes staff or stick weapons like Escrima; since a staff or stick can be anything from a length of pipe to a stout branch to a walking stick or cane. I prefer the latter since I do need one on occasion so it's readily available should I need it.

Also, self-defense doesn't have to be flashy, high-tech or showy, it has to work. Many martial art styles look very impressive in competitions or displays but sometimes aren't very effective in real-world situations outside the controlled environment of the dojo. Outside of the safe environment your opponent is not bound by rules of conduct and the accepted combat style of the art itself. Learning a martial art that cannot cope with an unpredictable and flexible opponent can do more harm than good in a self-defense situation.

The same thing goes for any weapons that you may choose to defend yourself with. Simple is better than complicated. Functional is better than flashy. The more moving parts something has, the more can go wrong with it or the more difficult it may be to use. If you're going to stake your life or physical well-being on a weapon, you owe it to yourself to not only be able to proficiently and easily use it but to also make sure it won't fail on you when you need it. Also, be prepared to spend money on it. Unfortunately, quality really doesn't come cheaply. The knife I carry on a regular basis cost me about $185 and would have been more had it not been for my employee discount. It's a simple liner-lock folding knife with a very robust design made from excellent materials. It's designed to easily open with one hand but it is not an automatic ("switchblade") type. Even though those are legal in my state, I just find them too prone to failure and high-end reliable automatics are just ridiculously expensive. The last pistol I owned was similar; very simple but functional. 9mm automatic, plain fixed sights, no add-ons at all, manufactured by a company with a long track record of making reliable, high-quality firearms. I'm leaving company names out because I don't want to sound like a shill and I also don't want anyone getting the idea that there's one single source for reliable self-defense weapons.

Now I know I haven't touched on pepper-spray or stun guns; that's because I don't use them myself. I find that they tend to run towards unreliability; pepper spray can be deflected by wind and some people just aren't affected by it except to anger them further, stun guns likewise sometimes just don't work. The "less than lethal" technology they've sprung from seems more reliable for torturing protesters and punishing suspects in police custody than for protecting the user against a real threat.

Above all else, bear in mind that to defend yourself, you will likely have to injure someone. You might even have to end their life to save your own or someone else's. Hesitation may cost you your own life or someone else's. Do not purchase an edged weapon or firearm unless you have seriously considered the ramifications and you are both prepared to become proficient with one and you understand that you may have to injure or kill someone with it. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just flashing a gun or knife will be enough to deter an attacker. You must be prepared, physically and psychologically, to use it if you're going to carry it otherwise you may be putting yourself and others at greater risk.

Again, I hope this information is useful/helpful and I thank our gracious hosts at Feministing for providing this opportunity for discourse on the subject.

"First, he or she might not be able to command the same respect in the court room and within professional circles as someone who has not posed nude."

What about all the lawyer jobs that aren't in courtrooms?

On the "nontraditional family violence" thing, I very much agree that it's BS woman blaming. The message is "women, keep your legs crossed if you're not marrying your baby daddy, otherwise, you're responsible for your boyfriend's actions." Men, even though they commit all the cited violence, are really not held accountable, and are only addressed as victims of the system. They actually say that if men had better job opportunities, they wouldn't do this, as if women's incomes weren't a more practical way (more income means better opportunity to leave abusers) and as if the natural solution to poverty is to throw your girlfriend's toddler against the wall so hard his skull shatters. Grr.

The title of the article pissed me off too, the "nontraditional families" thing seemed designed to suggest "it's teh gheyz fault!" to those who didn't actually read the article. Ugh.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21882354/

I'm shocked and disgusted and yet not completely surprised. Three 8 and 9 year-olds sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl.

"The truth is that most law firms are VERY risk-aversive. Hiring a first-year associate who has posed in the nude (especially in a high-profile magazine like Playboy) presents certain undeniable risks in what is still a very conservative profession. First, he or she might not be able to command the same respect in the court room and within professional circles as someone who has not posed nude. Second, clients may be turned off from him or her because of personal or religious reasons. Third, clients might also regard this lawyer as less trustworthy or competent and so be more inclined to take their business to another firm."

Okay, good points.

"They actually say that if men had better job opportunities, they wouldn't do this, as if women's incomes weren't a more practical way (more income means better opportunity to leave abusers) and as if the natural solution to poverty is to throw your girlfriend's toddler against the wall so hard his skull shatters. Grr."

Or as if throwing your wife's toddler, of whom you have custody, against the wall is somehow less violent and more a "private family matter"?

I'm reminded of the argument that more single men = more violence and less social stability, as if "they'll beat up *people* if they don't have *wives* to beat up instead"...

There's another interesting article here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7096092.stm

It's pretty much about the "our population needs more workers so you should drop out of the workforce!" pressure married young women face in Japan.

DynCorp article: I really wish that instead of calling the actions of the employees "extracurricular sexcapades" they would have called them what they really are, "unconscionable human rights abuses." I get so sick of sex trafficking, rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment and other gender-based violent crimes being referred to in cheeky terms that make them sound like minor sexual deviancies that can be approrpiately reprimanded with a "tsk-tsk."

I absolutely adored Janet Kourany's great article about academia and couples. when I was a philosophy undergrad, it broke my heart hearing about what some of my favorite professors were going through. Hopefully this article will get around. I heart feministing!

Here's another article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7104832.stm

"A US polygamist sect leader has been sentenced to five years to life in jail as an accomplice to rape for forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her cousin..."