Recently in Sexism Category

A new study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services reports that "the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

From Brian at TPMDC:

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

...Furthermore the study finds that the supposed fallback option for impacted women--a "rider" policy that provides supplemental coverage for abortions only--may not even be allowed under the terms of the law. "In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling."

Read the whole report here. And spread the word - please tweet or email this post to your friends.

Transcript available at Shakesville.

They would probably say, "Fuck You Reebok." Outside of the idea that ladies like to buy sneakers not to run and be active but to make their ass smaller - the talking titties really have to go. Presenting women as no more than disembodied body parts (most often sexualized body parts) is Feminism 101 - it's dehumanizing and sexist. Also, it's not clever or original. Remember this one?

The NY Times has an article about the sad fact that late night television has a severe lack of female writers behind the big host shows. For example, the Jay Leno Show, David Letterman or Conan O'Brien has not-a-one woman writer.

Courtney's friend and Daily Show writer Hallie Haglund says in the piece, "When you're writing for late night, you're writing through one person's prism, and that person at the shows you're looking at is always a dude." Indeed.

Maybe if my hot computer-generated indigenous alien chick is 3D too, I won't have to "deal" with real women either!

Via Gawker, we find James Cameron offering his infinite wisdom to Playboy about being "forced to deal with real women" when discussing the intricacies of creating the perfect computer-generated tits for his upcoming movie, Avatar. It starts out making sense but quickly go downhill:

PLAYBOY: We seem to need fantasy icons like Lara Croft and Wonder Woman, despite knowing they mess with our heads.
CAMERON: Most of men's problems with women probably have to do with realizing women are real and most of them don't look or act like Vampirella. A big recalibration happens when we're forced to deal with real women, and there's a certain geek population that would much rather deal with fantasy women than real women. Let's face it: Real women are complicated. You can try your whole life and not understand them.

PLAYBOY: How much did you get into calibrating your movie heroine's hotness?
CAMERON: Right from the beginning I said, "She's got to have tits," even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals. I designed her costumes based on a taparrabo, a loincloth thing worn by Mayan Indians. We go to another planet in this movie, so it would be stupid if she ran around in a Brazilian thong or a fur bikini like Raquel Welch in One Million Years B.C.

He also excitedly talks about having her nipples being lit by orange firelight in one scene, but unfortunately they had to take it out since the movie is PG-13. Nothing like some good old racist exoticism!

I have to say, talking about "real women" while degrading and dehumanizing them in the process is pretty impressive.

Pic via Screenrant.

Defender Elizabeth Lambert of the New Mexico Lobos has been all over the news because of her seriously rough play in a recent game against BYU. Here's the ESPN footage:

Plenty of publications have been framing this, predictably, as some sort of girls gone wild phenomenon, as if women can't be violent without also being eroticized. Others, of course, are just calling Lambert a bitch.

As a former athlete myself, and one who wasn't afraid to throw a body on someone for a rebound, I'm horrified on two levels. First, Lambert is totally out of line. I didn't play soccer, but even I can see that this kind of play is straight up wrong and shouldn't be tolerated by refs, coaches, or teammates. It's one thing to get tough on the field. It's another to punch someone in the back or drag them to the ground by their hair. That's not sport, it's violence.

But second, of course, I'm pissed that the media coverage is trying to take what amounts to an athlete crossing the line and turn it into some big gendered controversy. A girl who is violent?! Holy mackerel, load up the YouTube and set it to a sexy soundtrack! Who knew that those women folk could express anger? This one must be a bitch. So. Annoying.

Approximate transcript after the jump.

To know it's gonna make you angry. Sigh.

h/t The Frisky

It's about time.

Whether you're at the parade in New York today yet again celebrating the Yankees World Series win or cursing their existence, there's one thing I think we can all be happy about - Yankees broadcaster Susyn Waldman made history last Wednesday by becoming the first woman in history to broadcast a World Series Game.

h/t to reader Cathy.

Last night at our panel, Roxie bravely talked about a moment when she got into a big argument with her uncle about whether a woman had the capacity to be president. He was arguing that women were too emotional. She was arguing, of course, that emotion could be a fundamental tool in leadership positions. In the midst of this whole thing, of course, Roxie felt like she was going to burst into tears (she held it in until later).

Her brave admission reminded me of my own struggle within intellectual arguments, especially in my early 20s at Barnard and Columbia Colleges, to manage my own emotions. I remember one class, in particular, in which a classmate and I got into a fiery argument about the politics of language, ebonics, poverty, and education. I teared up in spite of myself and felt frustrated for the rest of the day that I'd let my emotions show.

Today I have more empathy for that 19-year-old version of me. I think that emotions, as Roxie argued, are a critical part of how I process the world, understand ideas and issues, and formulate my own arguments. In this still male-dominated realm of intellectual debate (just look at the op-ed pages of any major newspaper), the standard is still clear: emotions, and most certainly crying, don't have a place.

But the older I get, the more comfortable I am in my own skin and with my own ideas, the more I think that's a bullshit sexist paradigm. Of course it's important to be self-aware and manage one's emotions during an argument, but I think pretending as if the issue you're arguing about has no personal significance or emotional resonance is actually a disempowering and, of course, inauthentic place to come from. My power these days comes from combining both intellectual rigor with emotional authenticity.

Via Feministe, via Sociological Images. As this commenter notes, where are Mulan, Pocahantas, Giselle and Lauren notes the absence of Tiana, first African American princess who were all also constructed as racist and sexist stereotypes. Disney doesn't discriminate who they create sexist caricatures out of, that is for sure.

The Daily Mail says women might imagine being drugged and put at risk of rape, but in reality they just drank too much.

Dr Adam Burgess, from the University of Kent school of social policy, said rumours about the prevalence of date-rape drugs were little more than an urban myth.

This led young women to underestimate real risks of alcohol misuse, which can include impaired judgment putting them at risk of sexual assault.

'The reason why fear of drink-spiking has become widespread seems to be a mix of it being more convenient to guard against than the effects of alcohol itself and the fact that such stories are exotic - like a more adult version of "stranger danger".'

The study, published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that three quarters of students identified drink-spiking as leading to an important risk of sexual assault - more than drinking too much alcohol.

If a journal of criminology is making these conclusions, you can start to understand the thinking that informs the legal system when dealing with rape cases. The person who analyzed this data set either hates women or is not a woman because (a) "oooh, I was drugged," is a far cry from an exotic story and (b) being drunk isn't what puts a woman at risk of sexual assault--being near a rapist does.

Perhaps looking at the increase in use of alcohol by women and its harrowing effects on self esteem on the body or the mind, or who is providing the alcohol to the victim, creating said circumstances for violence, might be helpful. But no, it is so much easier to blame young women and suggest they have rape fantasies about "stranger danger" and lie about their irresponsible boozing. Anything else you got that will shame women about their habits and suggest they were "asking for it?"

via Daily Mail.

Thanks to Hannah for the link.

One of our awesome readers, Jason, was doing some research and came across this seemingly innocuous business article by The Iona Group, a company that purports to have worked with the Gap, Williams Sonoma, and Sharper Image among other major companies.

Well guess what advice The Iona Group has for women?:

FOR WOMEN ONLY
1. I watch my hemlines, necklines, and see-through blouses. I leave the sex appeal and liberation manifesto... in the parking lot.
6. I watch my condescending "more liberated than thou" attitude.
7. I don't like, but can accept the hard reality, that a woman may need to prove herself beyond that of a man in a similar position.

Shit. My "sex appeal" is so large that it doesn't fit in my car. What do I do with that, um, "hard reality"? And while we're on the subject, my "liberation manifesto" is rather assuming and valuable. Won't it get stolen if I just leave it lying around?

Feel free to email Earl T. Benson, the Independent Director of Iona, with your questions and/or thoughts: iona@tiac.net.

Peggy Robertson was denied insurance coverage because she previously had a c-section. But her super kind and thoughtful insurance company told her that if she got sterilized, they would give her coverage. Seriously.

Another video about Robertson's story after the jump.

Since getting married, a lot of people have asked me if I feel "different." I always say no. While my relationship feels a bit different, I am the same person I was before getting hitched. Yes, down to my name.

As I've written before, changing my name - even to a hyphenated last name - was never really an option for me. Didn't want to do it. (So you can imagine my annoyance when I received this in the mail) I feel the same way about the 'Ms.' title. I've always used it, always will.

I'm thinking about this after reading Judy Berman at Broadsheet, who writes about how Time's Nancy Gibbs thinks that the "Miss, Ms. Mrs." debate isn't really necessary anymore.

Whether my children's friends call me Ms. Gibbs or Mrs. May or any combination of the two, I view it as a sign of respect and don't worry about the particulars. My husband never remotely suggested that he was bothered by my not taking his name; in fact, he's accustomed to occasionally answering to Mr. Gibbs. My late father, a fine writer, thrilled to see that name in the pages of this magazine. All these identities are me: Ms. when I'm out slaying dragons, Mrs. when I'm in the company of those I love most, Miss when I want to stay home under the covers and daydream. Feminists a generation ago fought for the title and dreamed of Freedom and Choice and Opportunity; maybe the surest sign that they've won is not which title we pick, but that we can have them all at once.

But isn't this the problem? That each title announces something specific about who we are, when the truth is every woman is more than the sum of her married or unmarried parts? Men are always 'Mr.', and in that way they're always themselves. I understand the inclination to embrace all parts of yourself - but language matters, and titles that exist to categorize women by marriage don't do women - or men! - any favors.

Via Jill at Feministe, I see that John Mayer is being more of an asshole than usual - he recently threatened to sodomize a New York Magazine editor. Seriously.

UPDATE: Ann's take after the jump.

In an effort to offer an alternative to "leering drivers," a new fleet of taxis driven by women, that cater exclusively to women, have been launched in the Mexican city of Puebla.

Oh, and they're pink and come with a beauty kit. Sigh.

Providing spaces for women on trains and other forms of transportation has become a bit of an international trend in terms of preventing sexual harassment. And while offering women a respite from what can be a hostile environment (anyone who has ever ridden the NYC trains to school as a female high school student can tell you all about that!) is a nice idea, does it really get to the root of the problem? As I've written before: Shouldn't we be targeting the gropers and harassers? The onus should be on men to stop harassing women, not on women to escape them.

Vianeth Rojas, of the Network for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Puebla, seems to agree: "We are in the 21st century, and they are saying women have continued worrying about beauty and nothing more...They are absolutely not helping eradicate violence against women."

The good news about the taxis in Puebla, however, is that they're opening new job opportunities for women in what has traditionally been a male profession. Now if we could just get them to ditch the pink...

Related Posts: Japanese men angry over women-only train cars
Tehran introducing all-women transportation
Women-only train cars in Brazil

Pic via AP.

Remember Robert McDonnell's Master Thesis which contended that working women and feminists are "detrimental" to the family? In efforts to avoid this Republican candidate from governing his anti-women wackness over the state of Virginia, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia did an awesome video asking folks if this is the kind of governor they'd want.

Working Women for Virginia also have an ad and Facebook campaign against McDonnell. Good stuff.

There's a new iPhone App for the Tucker Max types who think that hooking up with women is a matter of having the right height of popped collar and tired pick-up line. It's called "Amp Up Before You Score," and it's made by PepsiCo. In short, it gives men pickup lines and strategies to use with a variety of specific types of women (women's studies major, by the way, is a category), and a bulletin board to brag about their "scores." More on this brodude blasphemy:

Hortense, over at Jezebel, had this gem on the topic:

It's going to be so easy to score with AMP energy drink on your breath and a list of incredibly generic "types" in your pocket. All you need is a fresh Ed Hardy shirt and a spritz of Axe body spray and you are good to go! There's a reason why I go after bro culture as often as I do: things like this, which are completely unacceptable and ridiculously offensive. This is a program sponsored by a major corporation that encourages men to look at women as objects to be won, used, and tossed away after a "victory" is obtained, and the more normalized things like this become, the worse off we're all going to be.

Pepsi, perhaps recognizing that they are pissing off a lot of ladies and some enlightened fellas, tweeted this on Tuesday: "We apologize if it's in bad taste & appreciate [your] feedback." Mmm...doesn't feel like much of an effort, does it? Feel free to give the national HQ a call and tell 'em what you think: (914) 253-2000.

In other iSexism, check out this app that assumes tween girls want nothing more than to memorize outfits while watching inane flirting. Ugh.

Thanks to Jesse and Jezebel, and many others, for the heads up.

There are a lot of pretty ridiculous kids toys out there, and we've taken on the sexism they invoke before.

The My Cleaning Trolley is an amazing eleven piece cart to push around with all the cleaning supplies you could ever need! I'm all for teaching kids about cleaning--even making it fun.

But the big purple "Girls Only" stamp is just too much.

So conservatives think they're calling out feminists on the lack of response to David Letterman's recent reveal that he has slept with several members of his staff. Where are the protests, the outrage? To that, I have a similar reaction to Tracy at Broadsheet: We simply don't know enough to do anything.

As far as we know, Letterman's affairs with staffers were consensual. Workplace canoodling happens all the time, and so are young women frequently drawn to male superiors. Many find power imbalances to be very sexy -- and more power (or less, as it were) to 'em. There is nothing inherently wrong about a sexual relationship between two adults who are at different points in their careers. It would be awfully patronizing to suggest that women aren't capable of meaningfully consenting to sex with a workplace superior. That isn't to say I don't pass personal judgment on Letterman for sleeping with young women who were from the sounds of it at the starts of their careers -- oh, judgment abounds, believe me! But is it illegal, is it sexual harassment?

She acknowledges a few potential situations around this story, and if we find this is the case - yes, Letterman will have a sexual harassment suit to deal with. And yes, the power dynamics of sexual relationships at work between superiors and their staff can be fucked up. But it would also be fucked up for us to label these women as powerless victims who didn't know what they were doing when as far as we know, it was consensual sex. Do I personally think it's gross? Did Letterman do a really stupid thing? Totally. But that doesn't mean what Letterman did was illegal. People have sex. And he's not a politician preaching sexual morality; he's a late night TV show host. When we see something to get up in arms about - even offenses committed by liberals - we do it. But for now, is this really worthy covering?

What is worthy to post about is the fact that conservatives can act all enraged that feminists aren't enraged all the while making comments about Letterman's wife being ugly and equating Letterman's doings with the rape of a 13-year old - all for the sake of trying to call us bad liberals out. And they're just replaying the classic conservative view of women - that we're too stupid or not mature enough to make our own decisions (hello, "informed consent" laws). Now that's some hypocrisy for you.

UDPATE: Reader fsu points out that Shakes has been covering the story.

John Derbyshire, a British-American conservative author with a new book out argues that women's right to vote should be repealed. Seriously. Yesterday on his radio show, Alan Colmes asked Derbyshire to articulate his argument. Think Progress with the transcript:

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I'll say this - if it were to be, I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.

COLMES: We'd be a better country if women didn't vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don't you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

It came as no surprise that his website pics look like mug shots. Check it out. If you'd like to email old Johnny boy about his laughably antiquated perspective, feel free: olimu@johnderbyshire.com.

More appalling shit from Derbyshire:
He thinks 36-yr-old women are over the hill,
also laments the fact that women go to the pool in bathing suits,
and says this about Sotomayor: "Judge Sotomayor may indeed be dumb and obnoxious; but she's also female and Hispanic and those are the things that count nowadays."

Thanks to multiple readers for the heads up.

A recent article in the UK's Times Higher Education magazine has caused a bit of an uproar, and understandably. In the feature about the "seven deadly sins of universities," the vice chancellor of Buckingham University claims that female students are a "perk" of the job and should be enjoyed.

Funnily enough, Terence Kealey insists the piece was "highly moral," probably because he encourages his fellow professors to look but not touch. Instead, just use her "curves" to fantasize about during sex with your wife. No joke.

Normal girls - more interested in abs than in labs, more interested in pecs than specs, more interested in triceps than tripos - will abjure their lecturers for the company of their peers, but nonetheless, most male lecturers know that, most years, there will be a girl in class who flashes her admiration and who asks for advice on her essays. What to do?

Enjoy her! She's a perk. She doesn't yet know that you are only Casaubon to her Dorothea, Howard Kirk to her Felicity Phee, and she will flaunt you her curves. Which you should admire daily to spice up your sex, nightly, with the wife.

He also says that in terms of sexual relationships among faculty and students, "the fault lies with the females" and seems to complain about the "intrusive" agencies that outlawed students bartering sex for good grades: "[T]he days are gone when a scholar could trade sex for upgrades."

Now this guy is a keeper.

The F Word has more.

This week's Time magazine shed more light on the fact that women make up only 13 percent of Wikipedia contributors. Sue Gardener, Wikimedia Foundation's E.D. noted:

The average Wikipedian is a young man in a wealthy country who is probably a graduate student -- somebody who's smart, literate, engaged in the world of ideas, thinking, learning and writing all the time.

It should go without saying that if women make up 51 percent of the population, 13 percent representation at Wikipedia is a DISGRACE!

The graduate student reference also surprised me. It seems odd that women are drastically underrepresented at Wikipedia when women in graduate school outnumber men. This means that there is more to the story, possibly more issues -- cough, sexism -- which Wikipedia must investigate to figure out what gives when it comes to their lack of women contributors.

Our own commentators have testified to sketchy posts on violence against women and the overall frustration with the "Wikipedia Gods." Wikipedia is increasingly becoming the go-to source for everyday information, and women of all status -- and men for that matter -- should have a space there. Wikipedia should step up to ensure that.

In the Time article, it seemed that affirmative action was the unspoken answer to the gender gap. I, for one, don't think affirmative action is perfect. But where woman are concerned, it has had significantly positive outcomes in various sectors. And the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented. The Wikipedia rep in this article came off as unapologetic and without a concrete plan for diversifying, even in the face of stunted growth.

Because the only way to get people to care about women dying of breast cancer is to remind them that tits are stake.

Related: The Breast Cancer-Industrial Complex, More on breast cancer's most tragic victims..., Fun with Feminist Flickr (beating cancer/beating women edition), and more from Hoyden About Town.

Via.

We covered this a couple of years ago, but a reader sent it in and it's just too good not to bring to light, especially when we have the original.

This gem is from the July 1943 issue of Transportation Magazine, written for male supervisors of women during World War II. These were "helpful tips" on supervising women at work (emphasis mine):

1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they're less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn't be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.

2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.

3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.

Is it just me or does this sound like an episode of the Crocodile Hunter? Except in this case they're, you know, not animals. Sigh.

The rest of this madness is after the jump, my fave being, "A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day." Just give me a tube of lipstick and I'll be ready to take on the world!

Just a random shot I took yesterday of the "Women's Health" section at my local Eckerd drug store that I wanted to share.

Yes, it's no big news that women's products are very, very often pink for marketing purposes, but seeing an entire section of women's health supplements was just too pinkified to not point out.

I am totally floored to read about the attack against Tasha Hill, an African-American woman in Morrow, Georgia, which occurred last week in a Cracker Barrel -- all in front of her 7-year old daughter. My heart goes out to her as she pursues justice. But it seems she might have two fights on her hands: trial by law and trial by media.

CNN's coverage of this event by Rick Sanchez on Thursday was on the shady side. To be totally honest, I really don't watch him that much to know whether he is an ally or an enemy. My suspicion first rose, though, when he framed this piece of news as something that he had been twittered, blogged and e-mailed about.

I wasn't sure if this was simply standard protocol, an innocent appeal to plug CNN's new media. But given that the event happened a week ago and he was just reporting it now, it felt like the media had to be lobbied by readership that demonstrated that there was a growing demand for this news story. And only after this demand was quantified was this black woman's story important enough to cover.

Then, I almost dropped my Miso soup when he started the interview asking the survivor if she "provoked this incident."   This man called her the N-word and the B-word, punched and kicked her several times and she can be asked if the crime was provoked??!!!??   I made a second attempt to assume best intent. Perhaps, this was also a protocol Sanchez was upholding to frame the event from both sides. But because of this framing, Tasha Hill's lawyer, Kip Jones, remained on the defensive throughout the interview clarifying more than once that she did not provoke this attack. Not once did anyone state that attacks of this nature cannot be provoked. That there is no justification for racism and sexism and certainly none for the violence that historically and increasingly accompany these isms.

So I ask, are these simply protocols? Or is there some underlying truth about these protocols that coincide with the reality that a Black woman has survived this crime?

Dorte Kiilerich, CEO of tourist marketing campaign Visit Denmark, has been pressured to issue an apology over a hoax in which an actress posing as a hot, single mother talks about how a one night stand--or the Danish custom of "cosiness"--with a tourist has left her wondering where the father of her baby is. The video appeared on YouTube. Apparently Visit Denmark thought that it would be a great way to attract male tourists who were looking for some boozy, no-strings-attached loving with Danish women.

This is all kinds of offensive and confusing. Insinuating that all Danish women are eager for a one night stand is insulting, of course. The idea that men are shallow enough to want to visit a country just to get laid is also pretty debasing. And finally, if you want to play on archaic stereotypes about hot women and no-strings-attached sex for a one night stand, why the hell do you depict a woman who has a baby? Did Visit Denmark think being an absent father was going to be a turn on to all those philandering men across the globe? So. Weird.

If you feel like letting Visit Denmark know how you feel about their campaign, here's the email address: info@goscandinavia.com

Thanks to a reader for the heads up.

According to the AP:

Women like Aysun Akbay, a 24-year-old Turk, are slowly making inroads into the upper levels of seafaring, a profession more resistant than most to female command. Women have long worked on passenger ships, but they are increasingly enduring the risks and hardships of life on merchant vessels, a key engine of global commerce.

Akbay was recently captured by pirates (seriously people) who are holding about 100 mariners captive for ransom. So far, it appears that Akbay is actually being treated better than the rest of the male captives, allowed to call her family. She uses the special permission to call other sailors' families as well.

The AP also reports:

Founded in 1974, the Women's International Shipping & Trading Association, or WISTA, reported a membership increase of 40 percent in the past two years, with 20 country branches and more than 1,000 individual members.

Fascinating, right?

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, right?

But while this baby shirt (that's right, for 0 - 4 year olds) has created a huge uproar among parenting blogs, Sociological Images updates that the designer of the shirt claims it was actually a critique in response to clothes that sexualize young girls. (Check out her Equal Opportunity Baby Grows line.)

So what do you think, still offensive (after all, I wouldn't be surprised if the designer failed to mention another reason behind the shirt was to get this publicity) or a humorous way of poking fun at the ridiculousness of sexualized children's clothes?

h/t to Daniela!

This ad for Coopers Premium Light beer, created by a Singapore agency, is one of three. Get it? Because of the low alcohol content dudes won't have beer goggles and end up hooking with an "ugly" woman! Charming, no?

Charming. Dirty Tats is a promotional flash app for the racing game Dirt 2, that lets you tattoo words and designs on women's breasts. Enter at your own risk.

File this under creepy, sexist and misogynist. via Boingboing.

The Women's Media Center points out the names being thrown around for regulars on CNN's new Crossfire-like show are pretty...male:

So far, the names mentioned in consideration for the show include Roland Martin, Errol Louis, Cenk Uygur and Steve A. Smith on the left and Roe Conn, Joe Watkins, Steve Malzberg and Joe Pagliarulo on the right. Hopefully the names of the women candidates being considered for these slots will be released soon. As we often note at the WMC, despite being 51% of the population, women hold only 3% of clout positions in media. And as the the recent success of Rachel Maddow has shown, news consumers are hungry for a break from all-male news shows.

No joke. Who would you want to see on this new show? (My top picks would be Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Rinku Sen.)

Check out the Khede Kasra campaign, a fascinating lesson on gender and language:


Thanks to Pierce for the heads up.

We're all too familiar with the ridiculously sexist campaigns by PETA and others substituting women's bodies for meat in efforts for public attention, which Ann took on a while back. Well, it looks some folks in the green movement have jumped aboard the "sexualizing women for the sake of activism" bandwagon.

Selling sex to recruit environmentally-friendly dudes isn't actually a new phenomena, but via Sociological Images, a new campaign and website called Angry Green Girl is (not shockingly) getting quite a bit of attention.

Her motto is, "Shamelessly exploiting everything I got to save the world!" and implies on her site that if you go green, you'll get to meet her or one of the girls in her posse. (Or another hot green girl you can find on the social networking section.) Her videos generally consist of her in a bikini, in which the camera constantly does boob and crotch close-up shots as she gives her lesson of the day - like using a bikini-clad staff member as a metaphor for a green world as opposed to her with a coat on due to global warming.

It's pretty offensive to guys too; its premise that men are too stupid or sex-crazed to understand the environment unless references to naked women are made is pretty wack. But sadly, folks like mega blog Treehugger are buying it (and might as well throw a feminist stereotype in there too!):

Angry feminists usually get the eye roll. But what about angry green girls? Seems like they're getting plenty of attention - or at least this particular spokesperson for green issues. Basically, Angry Green Girl knows how to use her hotness for getting attention, but for a good green cause. From hybrid-only bikini car washes to nearly naked shower tips, check out how Angry Green Girl broadens the eco-issue umbrella through her sarcasm-laden eco-tips. Water issues have never looked quite like this.

As Treehugger notes, there's a layer of sarcasm by Angry Green Girl which would probably have defenders saying it's "all in good fun," but the thing is that the layer is thin enough to expose what the real purpose is here: an attempt to convince straight guys that going green will get them laid. And that's just gross.

It was announced yesterday that current Good Morning America anchor Diane Sawyer will serve as the next ABC World News anchor, beginning in January 2010. (Charles Gibson, who has served as anchor of World News since May of 2006, is retiring.)

Carol Jenkins, the President of the Women's Media Center, called it a "watershed moment in the presence of women in media" in her reaction on the Majority Post. Sawyer, of course, is the second to shatter the nightly news glass ceiling, Katie Couric of CBS News being the first.

The question on my mind, and I imagine most feminists', is: Will Sawyer receive the same kind of scrutiny that Couric has? Of course there have been moments when Couric earned her own criticism. Remember this?

Ugh ugh ugh.

But other times it has seemed as if Couric has been judged more harshly than her male counterparts. Hell, even her own network photo-shopped her thinner!

On the occasion of her second anniversary in the high-pressure position, Couric attested:

It's not always easy when you feel like you're being attacked, when you can't win for losing at times. But I do think quality really prevails, if we just stay focused and continue to do really good work. It was really wonderful when we got the Edward R. Murrow Award for best newscast. It was sort of like, you know, just look at our show and don't look at my hair.

Another issue, which Ann reported on back in the day, is that "Broadcasting & Cable reports that in the six weeks since Katie Couric has taken over the anchor's chair, female reporters and correspondents on the CBS Evening News have recevied 40% fewer assignments." Will the same happen over at ABC?

Sawyer seems like a perfectly decent interviewer and a hardworking journalist, but I'm also struck that she fits into the "Newsmommy model" that Ann reported on back when Couric was chosen--essentially that the networks are choosing women who are non-threatening, aka maternal, for the top positions so as not to freak out viewers still not used to the idea that women can be assertive, independent, and--gasp--childless.

Another part of me is thrilled because I think that having two women in these coveted spots will lessen some of the pressure felt by the initial trailblazer. If Sawyer's newscast doesn't do well, as Couric hasn't, then people won't be able to blame it solely on her sex. Perhaps critics will get more used to seeing women in this traditionally male media position and start to look at the work, not the haircut.

Your thoughts? Are you excited about Sawyer taking over or do you predict more backlash?

I am a few weeks late to this, but that doesn't take away the gag factor one bit. It is amazing to me as I have done research for my book, which is a feminist intervention on dating, how many of the terrible books that support antiquated ideas of how women should behave in pursuit of their romantic lives, are supported BY women. The newest in line by another woman that clearly hates women, Jordan Christy, is a book about how women can find love. How to Be a Hepburn in a Hilton World, is a nice dive into history when women were slut shamed for being sexual and chastised for their wanton lust for men. There is an excerpt from her book on MSNBC and I have picked two paragraphs here that give a little context to the "type" of woman she is talking about.

It's no secret that we girls start fantasizing about a fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever-after love story around the same time we start teething (I still have a wedding book that I compiled at age six!). Relationships are a big deal to us. We want to hear all about our roommate's new boyfriend, have to get every detail of our coworker's upcoming nuptials, and lament right along with Jennifer Aniston over Brad Pitt as if he cheated on us. We love to watch TLC's A Wedding Story, feverishly scan Us Weekly for the latest blossoming celebrity romance, and sob every time we see Sleepless in Seattle. We spend hours prepping ourselves for a date and even more time obsessing about what our potential children will look like and whether or not our initials mesh nicely. Conclusion: girls love love.

So why would you subconsciously sabotage all those efforts through your modern-day attempts at ?nding true love? This question baffles me daily. I'd like to think that it's out of sheer naiveté -- most girls don't appear to be in a lucid mental state when they're throwing themselves at some circus clown off the street and clearly aren't aware that they are actually driving that poor boy further away. But luckily, you will no longer have to be the victim of such careless ways in love, because we're going to start doing things the right way -- the old-fashioned way! And it starts by not messing with nature.

That is right ladies, not only is dreaming about perfect weddings natural, so is patriarchy and male dominance over your feelings, love life and dating choices. And if you act on how you feel, you are ruining your own chances at finding love (idiot!!!). It makes you wonder who is really being naive.

As I have talked to people about my project, I have come across the shame that women feel for wanting to ask men out, but feel like they can't because of myths such as those portrayed in the book above that make them feel stifled. And men, time and time again say, they like it when women ask them out. Now, I suppose any empirical evidence Christy or myself have collected is subjective since clearly she hangs around girls (not women incidentally as she continually refers to women as "girls,") that dream about weddings when they are "teething" (huh?) and I hang around people that have highly politicized and/or queer weddings, even if they may still be somewhat traditional. So naturally our evidence will be skewed by this subjectivity. That is the thing with love and dating, everyone has a different idea of what works for them, whether it is along or against the grain or somewhere in-between.

I guess what baffles me is not so much that many women feel pressured to follow these restrictive rules that ultimately make them unhappy. It is that we live in a culture that rewards this type of behavior. On some level they are right, there are some men that may prefer to ask women out because they want all the control--but is that the type of men we want to be with? Cultural norms around dating change with us and if we want egalitarian partnerships, our only hope is to do as we please with little regard to what we "should" do.

Similar to sentiments voiced in He's Just Not that Into You, and Why Men Love Bitches, many of these dating books only make sense if you believe that women are inferior to men. I am sure the authors of all of these books would say I am kidding myself, after all, I am 31 and unmarried, but I would much rather hold out for someone that recognizes me as a fully realized human being, rather than a possession that must play inferior and passive to get someone to like me and be with me. Just saying.

Check out Courtney's thoughtful column in the American Prospect about Ted Kennedy's severe missteps and great achievements, and questions how (or if) we can measure the two. A snippet:

Kennedy never, in fact, expected perfection from others. Instead, he made cross-party alliances based on a belief that political life is not Camelot but Red Rover. He became, in many ways, the antithesis of the Kennedy hype. He became a man with a truly problematic past and a deep commitment to contributing to the nation nonetheless. As Kay Steiger writes at Jezebel, "Sometimes it's difficult to examine the whole life of a public figure. After all, public figures are human, and humans can't be perfect. Sometimes, they don't even come close."

Also read Dana's post on Kennedy's legacy on abortion and disability rights, which discusses his capacity to maintain his pro-choice beliefs alongside with his passion for disability rights. She says it well, "Only Ted Kennedy could bring NARAL to the table with Sam Brownback." Make sure to check it out.

You thought My First Stripper Pole was bad (which was thankfully taken off the shelves), but it looks like there's a new toy in town selling the sexualization of young girls.

This one isn't a pole dancer kit per se, but a pole dancer doll who goes up and down and all around! There might be divided opinions on the popularization of pole dancing as a form of fitness or even the consideration of it as an Olympic Sport, but teaching young girls and giving them toys highlighting a dance that seems to continue its historical purpose - for the male gaze - is just not okay.

h/t to T-Square.

This is too good. Robert McDonnell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, wrote a Master's thesis calling working women and feminists "detrimental" to the family. Wait, it gets better.

He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

Via TPM.

Possibly triggering

Has anyone seen this movie? A friend of mine passed it on as something to maybe show in the Gender & Pop Culture class I'm teaching at Rutgers this semester, but I thought I'd see if any lovely Feministing readers could tell me more about it first. It seems like a combination of Killing Us Softly and Tough Guise - and those two filmmakers are featured in this clip. The short bit on hip hop gave me pause - I think Byron Hurt's Beyond Beats and Rhymes is probably better for that subject. Any thoughts?

So true....ladies.

You know an article is going to be blogging gold when it starts off like this:

As our society abandons the conservative values that make women into ladies, women with grace and dignity have become an endangered species--especially on today's college campuses. The kind of woman who inspired Tom Jones' song "She's a Lady" has become an antiquated figure from America's past.

Oh yes, Eva Lorraine Molina at Townhall wants us to know that she's no liberal whorebag - and she wishes conservative women would stop acting like us sex-crazed feminists, too!

The feminist movement's war on conservatism in America has killed chivalry and trained too many women to think and act like men. As a result, many young conservative women do not know what it means to be a lady.

But don't worry, Molina is here to tell us exactly what being a "lady" entails.

A lady does not tell dirty jokes along with men and she does not tolerate men telling dirty jokes in her presence. She does not swear, and she is not considered "one of the guys." In spite of new fashion trends, a lady always dresses appropriately, leaving a lot to the imagination. When at a social gathering, a lady does not do things she will regret the next day. Above all, a lady is well-mannered, dignified, gracious, and kind.

Sounds fun. But what's particularly telling about Molina's idealized notion of being a "lady" is that it's directly related to whether or not men will find you marriageable - since getting hitched is the ultimate goal of all ladies, of course.

I have heard many of my male peers place women into three categories: "the ones to mess around with, the ones to date, and the ones to marry." Though this is a rather crude way of categorizing women, it shows that men do recognize and value the qualities that make a woman a lady.

No, it shows that your guy friends are assholes. Big ones.

Ladies are the kind of women that men can take home to Mom and Dad and that most men want to marry. Being considered "marriage material" is an indicator that a woman is to be respected; most men who deem a woman as such treat her with the utmost respect. For men, ladies are at the top of the female totem pole, and conservative women need to take pride in the fact that they are worthy of time, love, and commitment.

Article-skewering aside, this just made me sad. Too many women think that their worth is completely based on what guys feel about them - whether or not they're considered fuckable, dateable, marriageable, etc, makes a lot of women feel valuable. It's all bullshit. And while I feel compassion for Molina - because it can't be fun to think of yourself that way - it irritates me to no end when women perpetuate this crap. Though I suppose I shouldn't be shocked, considering Molina is an intern with the anti-feminist, pro-hope chest, anti-rectum-misuse (seriously) Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.

So I think I'll continue to curse, tell dirty jokes, try things that I may regret and keep company with women who do the same. Because at the end of the day, me and my ladies know that all people are deserving of respect - not just the ones who fall in line with antiquated sexist stereotypes.

You know, it's been a really long time since I thought about pageants.* Yes, every once in a while we see a beauty queen get shamed for some pseudo-controversial picture and everyone shakes their head in mock disapproval - but pageants themselves? I don't tend to give them much mind; they seem too silly to expend feminist energy on.

Boy was I stupid.

When I was clicking around my television Sunday night I landed on the Miss Universe pageant and I was transfixed. I guess I forgot how utterly ridiculous and gross these things are. But it occurred to me that a pageant where women are parading around - and literally being judged on how they look in a bikini - could be feminism's best friend. I mean, what proves the existence of nationwide sexism better than the Miss Universe pageant (or Miss USA, Miss Teen USA, etc)? Just a thought.

Oh, and for fun - here's the winning contestants final question and answer. (Hint: It's not feminist.)

Sigh.

*I wrote about them a bit in The Purity Myth, but only in terms of how the beauty queen fall-from-grace fits into the virgin/whore dynamic.

How's that for a headline.

Reader Philip alerted us to this new study by Swedish researchers who found that a number of men felt that getting an sexually transmitted infection (STI) like chlamydia or HPV was perceived more as a medal of honor or right of passage than a health issue.

The University of Skövde researcher Kina Hammarlund, who is also a midwife, says she was (unsurprisingly) disappointed with the findings:

"Despite all the talk about gender equality, it seems like today's young people are wrestling with the same prejudices and stereotypical gender roles that existed when I was young in the 1970s."

While it's irritating that none of the factual evidence was disclosed (in terms of how many folks were studied, etc.), I still wanted to highlight it because it brings up interesting questions about men, sexual activity and contraception use compared to the stigma on women living with STIs as "damaged goods," etc.

Thoughts?

We've covered the weirdness that is gendered vitamin marketing before, but I couldn't stop myself from posting this commercial.

Related: Shae's Community Post

Rena Kanokogi with her gold medal - one she should have won in 1959

The New York Daily News has an interesting profile of a Brooklyn woman who was stripped of her first place medal in judo after judges realized she was a woman competing against men. (And beating them - which I suspect was the real issue.)

[Kanokogi] vividly recalls the moment she took on her opponent in the New York State YMCA judo championships.

She was an alternate, and had to step in when a male team member was injured.

Although women were not explicity barred from the YMCA contests, no female had ever tried to take part. Because her hair was as short as a boy's and she had an athletic build and tape around her breasts, Kanokogi's gender wasn't questioned until she won her fight - and her team won the contest.

She was pulled aside and forced to admit she was a woman or else her teammates would have been stripped of the title.

"It was very demeaning, painful," she said.

Now, fifty years later, the medal that was taken from her in 1959 has been restored. The New York State YMCA gave her the medal last week to make amends, and to honor a lifetime of work on behalf of women and sports: After losing the medal Kanokogi went on to fund the first female judo world championships and worked to get women's judo into the 1988 Olympics.

Don't miss the latest issue of the Scholar & the Feminist Online, guest edited by Janet R. Jakobsen (an amazing professor I had while at Barnard) and Kate Bedford.

An excerpt from Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn's forthcoming book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, is up at the New York Times. It begins:

In the 19th Century, the paramount moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was totalitarianism. In this century, it is the brutality inflicted on so many women and girls around the globe: sex trafficking, acid attacks, bride burnings and mass rape.

You likely recognize Kristof's name from his dogged reporting on women and trafficking around the world, rape in the Congo, and so many other issues facing poor women throughout the globe. I have to admit that I sometimes find his style repetitive, and therefore not as effective as I believe it could be, but I'm thrilled that he's calling attention to these issues (and has been with such precious column inches). It's cool that he and his partner collaborated to put this book together, as well.

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but wanted everyone to be aware that's it has launched, along with a couple of interesting contests that feministing readers may want to enter.

I really like Fast Company's coverage--they manage to produce a lot of fresh, interesting material that isn't just about fuddy duddy notions of business, but the intersections of sustainability, design, creativity, leadership, innovation etc. (Full disclosure: I'm one of those nerds who likes futurist talk about where the world is headed culturally, technologically, sociologically etc.).

That's why I was purdy disappointed to find that only 24 of the top 100 of their "Most Creative People in Business" list were women. Really Fast Company? Women are launching businesses at twice the rate of men. Super innovative microlending businesses are taking the world by storm, largely led by the efforts of women. Between 1997 and 2006, the number of majority women-owned businesses increased 42%.

I'm not going to trot out gender stereotypes about women being more creative than men, but God knows we're as creative as men. We may be historically less likely to get involved in business, but all that's changing in a huge way, and I would guess, the women who are blazing trails in business are largely doing it in creative ways (out of both necessity and ingenuity). I don't claim to be a business expert, but this just seems short-sighted on the part of the Fast Company editorial team, who touts themselves as quintessentially big-picture and future-thinking.

The seven women in the top 25, FYI, are: Melinda Gates, Michelle Ganeless, Stella McCartney, Susan Athey, Trish Adams, Dawn Danby, Jil Sander.

Feel free to put your nominations in comments.

Sarah Haskins did a special Target Women for her recent 30th birthday, and it's awesome as usual.

Not only are women apparently the only ones with poo problems, but our lady bladders are worse too!

I know I shouldn't be surprised by PETA's latest billboard campaign in Florida - after all, their brand of activism has proven to be sexist and racist time and time again - why not fat-shaming to boot? (Part of me hates posting this at all because it does just give PETA the attention that they want. But I just had to.)

From PETA's press release on the billboard:

A new PETA billboard campaign that was just launched in Jacksonville reminds people who are struggling to lose weight -- and who want to have enough energy to chase a beach ball -- that going vegetarian can be an effective way to shed those extra pounds that keep them from looking good in a bikini. The ad shows a woman whose "blubber" is spilling over the sides of her swimsuit bottom...

Anyone wishing to achieve a hot "beach bod" is reminded that studies show that vegetarians are, on average, about 10 to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters...

"Trying to hide your thunder thighs and balloon belly is no day at the beach," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. (Emphasis mine)

Seriously? This shit is just shameful. Consider this woman's reaction after seeing the billboard:

I was planning on taking [my family] to the beach to enjoy the beautiful day when I saw a billboard that made me want to cry.

...We all sat there and stared at it for a minute and everyone in the car was silent. No one wanted to mention my weight. I laughed it off as usual, but it really had made me so embarrassed, so self conscious and so ashamed about my weight that I dropped off my family at the oceanfront and left to go home, making the excuse that I wasn't feeling well.

I'm with Holly at Deceiver: PETA owes the residents of Jacksonville a serious apology.

Related posts: Sometimes there are no words
Quick Hit: PETA's Ad Banned from the Super Bowl
PETA: Cause objectifying women never gets old
When you thought PETA couldn't get worse.
PETA does it again
Same old shit from PETA

Check this out from PassiveAgressiveNotes.com:

k, so court in michigan met this guy out at a bar. he seemed harmless enough, but court knew right he wasn't her type. still, she didn't have the heart to give him a flat-out "no" when he asked for her number. (she couldn't give him a fake one, either, 'cause he the did the "dial his number into the phone and call" thing.)

says court: "the first time he called, i talked to him and decided right then i definitely wasn't interested." by the end of the conversation, she figured he'd gotten the message...but then he kept calling. and then, texting. when she didn't respond, court says, "i assumed he'd take the hint...but i'm not too sure he did." um, yeah, you could say that.

Um, scary. Entitled much?

A new study presented at the American Sociological Association's annual meeting in San Francisco today shows that about 70% of Americans believe that women should take their husband's last names when they get married and 50% think it should be a legal requirement.* Say what?

I knew that the majority of American women who marry men take their husbands last names - but shit is just shocking. Not to mention depressing.

Now as many of you know, I'm getting hitched (in like 7 weeks, craziness). The thought of taking Andrew's last name never even occurred to me - not once. Why not? Because it's not my name. Why would I change it? It's not like it's easier - it's actively going out of my way to adopt someone else's identity. (To be clear, I'm not hating on women who do decide to go this route - it's just not for me, and I don't get it.)

What's really distressing about this news - Laura Hamilton, the study's lead author says that when respondents were asked why they thought women should change their last names, "they told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family."

"This was a reason given by many," Hamilton said. Really? Things like this - deeply ingrained sexism - rarely shock me. But I am actually astounded that such an antiquated notion could be held onto by so many. (Though I'm still holding out hope that this study is proven to be bunk. Sigh.)

*And for those of you think the legal requirement thing is too out there to worry about, consider that it was not so long ago that a couple in Washington, DC was denied a birth certificate for their child because they wanted to give the baby the mother's last name. Also, in 2004 a Pennsylvania court denied a petition from a woman who wanted her daughter to have a hyphenated last name; they said it was "in the best interests of the child" to have only her father's last name.

Related: Two years and a lawsuit later, CA man gets his wife's last name
What's in a name?

Via Broadsheet.

Check out this interesting round up of responses to the controversial New York Times article on Japan's hostess culture. In the original article, the following phenomenon was explored:

with that line of work, called hostessing, among the most lucrative jobs available to women and with the country neck-deep in a recession, hostess positions are increasingly coveted, and hostesses themselves are gaining respectability and even acclaim. Japan's worst recession since World War II is changing mores.

It would be easy to say that the downturn economy has done these young women a favor by destigmatizing their work, and therefore, allowing them to earn a living without the previously requisite shame. But the economic reality reveals a far less simplistic picture:

But behind this trend is a less-than-glamorous reality. Employment opportunities for young women, especially those with no college education, are often limited to low-paying, dead-end jobs or temp positions...Even before the economic downturn, almost 70 percent of women ages 20 to 24 worked jobs with few benefits and little job security, according to a government labor survey. The situation has worsened in the recession.

Aya Ezawa, a sociology lecturer in the Japanese Studies Program at Leiden University in the Netherlands, seems to have hit one of the major missing points smack on the head:

At a time of economic downturn, it is worrisome that the media in Japan and abroad portray hostessing as a glamorous job and a woman's road to success. Instead of focusing on the hostesses, it would make more sense to examine the attitudes of the men who are willing to pay a high price for being entertained, served, and pleased by women with short skirts and heavy makeup.

And, of course, I would add, expanding economic opportunities, especially for young and low-income women so that they can make a true choice about being involved in hostess work or doing other kinds of work that more genuinely match their interests and gifts.

Is this kind of stuff really still happening?

Well, today it is in Canada. While the news has been flying around about Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien's recent acquittal on the charges of influence peddling, not many are mentioning that the key witnesses' recollection of a conversation was deemed "of little weight" by the judge in part because she commutes to work every day while her kid stays at home with her husband.

That's right, politician Lisa MacLeod's testimony was declared unacceptable for corroboration by Justice Douglas Cunningham of Ontario Superior Court, implying that being a working mom has made her life too complicated for her to appropriately account her statement. Said the judge:

"The defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. ... "

"She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa,"

Because the overwhelming combination of working while a mom (gasp!), leaving your kid with the stay-at-home dad (double gasp!) on top of a long commute to work (wowowow!) is just too much for our little lady brains. MacLeod, the Conservative MPP for Nepean-Carleton, said the judge's comments were "pathetic" and "surreal."

"I didn't know truth had a gender or a family."

Pic via the Globe and Mail.

I wasn't all that surprised to find that people are having a hissy over the world's first breastfeeding doll. Why, do you ask? Because apparently the doll not only will turn little boys on, but promote early pregnancy - to, um, 5 year olds.

Spain is the maker behind Bebé Glotón, which means "gluttonous baby." The box the doll comes in includes a halter top with flower nipples (heh) to direct the child where to put the baby to feed it. Innocent enough, right? But between the headlines ("Baby Glutton the breastfeeding doll. A 'sucky' idea?") to shocking Fox News' abhorrence over the idea that breasts are meant for anything but sexual pleasure, I'm ready to throw down:

I'm appalled by the haters who are the ones stigmatizing and sexualizing a perfectly natural act that children often imitate. Will folks ever be able to realize that our body parts are not purely for public consumption?

Related:

Is there a breastfeeding backlash?
Bill Maher: Boobies Mine!
The Case Against Breastfeeding

Would you like some creepy with your morning coffee?

A reader alerted us to this. Dismembered body parts just never get old! (Not really as offensive as the others, but still bizarre as hell.)

More after the jump. It's like the gender stereotype monster threw up.

Oh dear.

From Talking Points Memo:

Remember how last week, in an episode of the much-derided web series Mouthpiece Theater, Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza joked that "Mad Bitch" beer would be an appropriate beverage for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Well, after TPMDC's initial report on the episode, the Post has killed the feature entirely.

"I don't think the series worked as they intended," said Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli. "It was meant to be funny and insightful and translate the superb journalism Chris and Dana do in print and online into a new format."

But...it wasn't. The Clinton joke, he said, was "a serious lapse. . . . It's really beneath us and not something we should engage in."

Cillizza says at the end of the day the show "wasn't funny." I couldn't agree more.

In a recent MSN article - How to De-Fang a Toxic Boss - one can't help but notice that the accompanying art (above) seems to be sending a pretty gendered message. Boss ladies sure are bitchy!

Just saying.

This article from last week's NY Times has been inspiring some lively discussion. The article features an interview with Carol Smith, senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, in which she claims, among other things, that in her experience, "female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers. Men love to hear themselves talk." In the same article, she goes on to make this gem of a generalization:

"We women take things very personally. We're constantly playing things over in our head -- "What did that mean when they said that?" -- when they mean nothing. And I'm certainly not immune to this. So there's a downside to women."

Of course, Ms. Smith covers a variety of topics in the interview, but these are the quotes that stood out to me. I came away with two main impressions after reading this article.

Not questioning the purple wig (which I actually think sort of rocks), but in the midst of her bizarro interview, she (see 1:55 in) calls an interviewer out on the double standard that women artists get expressing sexuality as opposed to male rock artists, but then quickly shies away from the f-word:

You see, if I was a guy, and I was sitting her with a cigarette in my hand, grabbing my crotch and talking about how I make music 'cause I love fast cars and fucking girls, you'd call me a rock star. But when I do it in my music and in my videos, because I'm a female, because I make pop music, you're judgmental, and you say that it is distracting. I'm just a rock star.

Are you also a feminist?

I'm not a feminist - I, I hail men, I love men. I celebrate American male culture, and beer, and bars and muscle cars... (Emphasis mine)

Sigh, and the stigma continues. Good on Gaga for making a feminist statement, but bad on her for not owning it as one.

Community poster fwordspeaks also offers thoughts on the video.

Okay, here's the thing. This New York Times Magazine article about men in Japan who have romantic relationships with imaginary characters inspires nothing if not pity.

These 2-D lovers, as they are called, are a subset of otaku culture-- the obsessive fandom that has surrounded anime, manga and video games in Japan in the last decade. It's impossible to say exactly what portion of otaku are 2-D lovers, because the distinction between the two can be blurry. Like most otaku, the majority of 2-D lovers go to work, pay rent, hang out with friends (some are even married). Unlike most otaku, though, they have real romantic feelings for their toys. The less extreme might have a hidden collection of figurines based on anime characters that they go on "dates" with during off hours. A more serious 2-D lover, like Nisan, actually believes that a lumpy pillow with a drawing of a prepubescent anime character on it is his girlfriend.

That's sad, undoubtedly - and the men profiled in this piece are clearly very lonely, so it's difficult to begrudge them a fantasy life with an imaginary character. But here's the thing - not only are the men who indulge in these "relationships" lusting after characters that are supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 12 years old, one of the reasons they like them is because they're devoid of annoying things like opinions and personality. So is the perfect woman a blank-slate little girl?

Much like the Real Doll enthusiasts who tout sex with their "girlfriends" as "just like sex with an organic woman...who doesn't say anything and is brimful of Quaaludes," much of the attraction here seems to be the ability to imbue any kind of personality (or lack thereof) onto an inanimate object. And then believing that object is better than real human interaction.

"I was steps away from getting married," he explained earnestly when prodded about his experience. "You have to make sure you don't hurt a real person; you have to watch what you say, and you have to keep your room clean. In Japan, it's not O.K. to like another person if you're already with somebody else. With an anime character, you can like one character one day and a different character the next."

But this is all stuff we've discussed before (in fact, I discuss it in my book!). In this particular piece, it was the age of the characters that really got to me.

When Momo talks about Karada-chan, his mousy face lights up like a kid opening Christmas presents. "Her existence to me is like daughter, younger sister and bride all put into one."

Not. Okay. Assuming these men develop relationships with real women - will it be women that they're actually looking for, or little girls?

Related: She's Twelve, She's Scantily Clad, And a Thirty Year Old's Dating Her. She's a Pillow.

Stand up comics say rape "is the new black."

I'm a big fan of stand up comedy. (Wanda Sykes and Margaret Cho, swoon!) I like dirty jokes, controversial comics and dark humor. What I don't think is funny, however, is this:

[Comedy festival] Fringe 2009 also welcomes back Aussie standup Jim Jeffries, whose jokes include: "Women to me are like public toilets. They're all dirty except for the disabled ones." Jeffries tells me: "You can't do a joke these days about black or Asian people - and rightly so - [but] you can do rape jokes on stage and that's not a problem." Why does he think rape is now less of a taboo than racism? "I don't write the rules," he says. Nor, it seems, does he seek to challenge them. [San Francisco comedian Scott] Capurro told me, with some distaste: "For a lot of comics, it's OK to talk about raping women now. That's the new black on the comedy circuit."

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. From Family Guy to Seth Rogen, folks joking about rape and violence against women seems to be the oh-so-hilarious thing to do. (Though of course, it's hardly a new trend.)

What I truly don't understand is how anyone could possibly think that joking about rape is being edgy or somehow fighting against the mainstream - which seems to be what the comics in this Guardian article are arguing. They say they're taking taboos head-on. But the thing is, rape jokes and mocking violence against women are mainstream. They're not a taboo at all - they're the norm, sadly. So all of these comedians giving themselves a pat on the back for being sooo controversial - when all they're doing is upholding the status quo - really fucking irk me.

Because if their rape jokes were actually challenging the mainstream, they'd be subversive, not holding up what American culture already perpetuates - that rape is a-okay. I think what is particularly telling is that so many of the people arguing that jokes about sexual assault are fine are dudes - the demographic that tends to be ones who, well...rape. (And who get assaulted at much lower rates than women.)

Similarly, some of the comedians arguing that racist jokes are okay are white - and appear to believe that we're in some sort of Utopian world where racism and sexism don't exist anymore.

A younger generation see things differently: challenging taboos is less a betrayal of their recent forebears, more a concession to a changing world. "In the 1970s, black and Asian people were getting shit put through their letterboxes," says [comic Richard] Herring. "But the world has moved on. Now we accept the [anti-racist, anti-sexist] tenets of alternative comedy as true, and don't need to patronise audiences any more."

Perhaps the world "has moved on" for Herring - but it sure hasn't for a lot of other folks. So long as racism, sexism, rape, and violence are accepted norms, telling these kind of faux-controversial jokes will do nothing but prop up a culture that thinks rape is not just not a big deal, but hilarious.

Related: Sense and Humor
Melissa's "Rape is Hilarious" post series
I'm Going to Rape You Later

The Irish town of Irvinestown held a contest on Wednesday to decide who would win the championship of best "wolf whistler":

On Wednesday Irvinestown played host to Ireland's first ever wolf-whistling championships, complete with scaffolding, hard hats, and plenty of women.

The men of the town were more than eager to show their appreciation of the fairer sex, eagerly donning hard hats and lining up along the pavement to demonstrate their whistling skills.

"We're all here for the good-looking women," joked Jimmy McKenna. "It just comes naturally."

"I'm 73," said Conal O'Hanlon, "and I'm still whistling away, still on the lookout."

Julian South came all the way from Staffordshire to whistle. "I heard the women were worth whistling at," he explained.

Interestingly, the contest was taken place at the town's annual Lady of the Lake Festival, where the community and their children come to enjoy each other. The Lady of the Lake is a mythical character who is supposed to be a good omen for the town. I wonder how she'd feel about being whistled at.

Transcript (and links) after the jump.

Did you know that Amy Poehler played Rachel McAdams' mother, even though she's only eight years older? Or that, sigh, she and Sarah Silverman were both tapped to play Jonah Hill's mother? Listen as these great ladies discuss what it means to be over a certain age. (Like magazines that don't feature women over 35 years old. Seriously.)

Via Broadsheet.

This is sort of insane. As Texas develops new curriculum standards for social studies textbooks, a couple of specially picked "experts" to advise them during the process are trying to omit civil rights leaders who they believe are "given too much attention":

"To have César Chávez listed next to Ben Franklin" - as in the current standards - "is ludicrous," wrote evangelical minister Peter Marshall, one of six experts advising the state as it develops new curriculum standards for social studies classes and textbooks. David Barton, president of Aledo-based WallBuilders, said in his review that Chávez, a Hispanic labor leader, "lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others."

Marshall also questioned whether Thurgood Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in school desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, should be presented to Texas students as an important historical figure. He wrote that the late justice is "not a strong enough example" of such a figure. (Emphasis mine)

And of course they couldn't leave out feminist figure Anne Hutchinson. Marshall contended in his report, "She was certainly not a significant colonial leader, and didn't accomplish anything except getting herself exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for making trouble." When he says "making trouble," he means, you know, advocating for equality, religious freedom and other kinds of meddling those broads tend to do.

How does one become qualified to be an "expert" in making decisions about Texas education curricula anyway? Be a Christian minister or the former chairman of the Texas Republican party. Those are some expert historians you've got there!

What a complete and utter ass.

Transcript after the jump. Via The Daily Beast.

If you haven't been watching Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, wow are you missing out on some gems. Versha Sharma at TPM covers some of my favorite moments from oh-so-classy Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

In the most aggressive questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing thus far, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) read out a laundry list of complaints about the nominee this afternoon. Graham went through insult after insult from anonymous reviews about Sotomayor's temperament, including ones that called her "nasty," "a terror," "a bit of a bull," and one that said she lacks any "judicial temperament." Graham then asked her directly: "Do you think you have a temperament problem?"

As both Samhita and Ann have written, there's a specific sexist and racist narrative that accompanies the accusations of Sotomayor as somehow angry or meaner than her male counterparts. (Because when white dudes are strong, they're just powerful. When women of color are strong, they're scary.) And it's simply infuriating to watch it play out in these hearings.

Sharma also points out that Sen. Graham - who has already made his fear of Sotomayor's "fiery temper" quite clear - became a bit of a bully himself (I'd also add 'condescending asshole' to that) in his "bullying" accusations, telling Sotomayor that "maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection" for her and asking her about her "wise Latina" quote. Because that hasn't been talked about enough, obviously.

When the judge answered in the affirmative, he asked her to recite it - twice. Sotomayor hedged a response, and Graham plowed ahead, said, "I've got it here," and read the quote out himself.

The infantilizing questioning from Graham continued throughout his entire thread; he interrupted her answers multiple times, and made a theme out of asking her to explain her understanding of certain legal concepts and current events...

I think it's clear who has the real "temperament" problem here.

Related Posts: Quick Hit: Jane Roe arrested outside of Sotomayor hearing
Only White Men Can be "Objective."
Sotomayor hearings begin today
Media Justice for Sotomayor
Sotomayor is not meaner, just femaler

The fashion world went hoo-ha for Delta Airlines when they decided to hire designer Richard Tyler to create new uniforms for the airline, who assured he'd made the dresses look "look sexy and great." (Ick.) The flight attendants at Delta, however, were less than thrilled to find that the uniform is too small:

The Northwest chapter of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (essentially made up of members from Northwest Airlines before it was bought by Delta) filed an official complaint with Delta Air Lines and requested that it make the signature red dress available in sizes going up to 28 (right now the red dress only goes up to a size 18). As Patricia Reller (who manages the union's grievances) told The Associated Press, the fact that the dress isn't available in larger sizes says: "We don't want you wearing that if you are over size 18."

Sadly, I can't say the nonsense that comes out of any airline surprises me anymore. You can contact Delta here.

Photo: Katy Winn, Getty Images.

Check out Wired's take on new games for girls released in 2009, in which all but one ("The Daring Game for Girls") is about fashion, boys, princesses, modeling, and more fashion. Well, there is a detective game, but you solve mysteries using your "feminine sixth sense," so I wouldn't necessarily put that in the feminist-friendly category. In the post, Tracey John compares games targeted towards girls with typical "boys' games":

Some parents worry that videogames might cause their children to become violent and antisocial, but what if the opposite were true? What if games could make kids exceedingly likable and fashionable?

...

The weird thing is that you can view these "wholesome" games as being just as bad for girls as Grand Theft Auto's random bloodshed and rampant criminality is for young, impressionable boys. And while GTA's influence on boys has been dissected to death, what about the Nintendo DS' upcoming avalanche of games for tween girls? What kinds of values do preteens learn from these titles? Valuable life lessons, or bad habits?

While it's an interesting comparison, I don't know if I would say the problem is that the games are making girls more likable; it's that they're pushing narrow and damaging standards of what they need to be or look like or who they need to like to be liked.

When I was a kid, Super Mario Bros. and Tetris were the games I played. Not to say Mario Bros. didn't have issues, but still - what the hell happened? Folks finally realized female gamers were marketable and had to feminize the shit out of it? Does anyone know of new games targeted towards younger girls that aren't completely warped?

The Women's Media Center just released this assemblage of clips showing the ridiculous treatment that Sotomayor has already experienced at the hands of right-wing pundits and the mainstream media.

Take action here so that she can get the most fair nomination hearing possible.

I think that Askmen.com wouldn't be so offensive if it didn't come from such a place of venom and woman hate. Every time a reader sends in another awful thing they have wrote, I appalled at not only the male anxiety displayed in the advice but also the straight up hatred of women. If these guys hate women so much why do they work to figure out ways to be with them, I seriously don't get it. Today's spectacle of sexist male anxiety is about how to make your woman "hotter," or rather "how to upgrade your woman." Cuz you know, women are like cars, phones and computers or something.

For many guys, it can seem as though the quest to find the perfect girl is never ending. When you finally do get your ideal lady it can be a bit disheartening to think that while she is a pretty young thing now, she might not be so appealing in a few years. As time passes your love for her might grow, but so will her love handles. She might be perfect for you in most ways but some things are just a little off, and even though you might not appreciate those imperfections, you would still struggle to think you would end up with anyone else.

It is perfectly acceptable for men to age, get "love handles" and be imperfect. It is women that must always look like caricatures of femininity, forever young, forever thin, forever wrinkle free. The list is ten ways you can make her stay hot including taking cooking classes, or explore culture (racist!) or "take her to a spa," which all seem like the normal fare for sexist, classist and racist examples of things middle class, straight, white couples can do to enjoy themselves. It goes into super crazy-ville when you get to number one and the advice is to "put her under the knife."

If things are really desperate, it might be time for your other half to go under the knife. With the advances in medical science and the current obsession with celebrity culture, cosmetic surgery is becoming more and more common. While it isn't something to be rushed into, nor something to persuade someone to do, surgery can do wonders for the confidence of someone who is less than a sight for sore eyes. And you'll have the bonus of a parading around town with a stunner on your arm.

I wouldn't be so disgusted by this if the rest of society didn't put similar pressure on women to stay thin and attractive as they age, but to also push the idea on men is not OK. I realize Askmen.com is a place for men to feel good about hating women, but ultimately it is just sexist crap that is peddled as advice for the modern day anxious man. I am deeply saddened for the kind of people that buy into this type of thing.

If you're a television junkie or history buff, don't miss a new documentary on a too often forgotten pioneer in the industry. According to the film's site, Gertrude Berg, was the creator, principal writer, and star of The Goldbergs, a popular radio show for 17 years, which became television's very first character-driven domestic sitcom in 1949. Berg received the first Best Actress Emmy in history, and paved the way for women in the entertainment industry.

I thought this excerpt from the director's statement was really interesting:

In Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg I'm delighted to document the amazing accomplishments of the talented Gertrude Berg. I am in awe of how this woman would wake up at six in the morning, write her shows, and then go off to the studio to produce. Without missing a beat she seamlessly performed Molly to perfection. Here is a woman who wrote the most positive portrayal of a Jewish mother and her family during the decades that severely threatened American and European Jewry. It is more amazing still that she crafted such a warm maternal figure in spite of her own mother's mental illness. Berg created the "perfect mother" she never experienced in her own life.

We often celebrate the brilliance of Sarah Haskins on this blog. Her Target Women series on Current TV is just one more example of how women are, indeed, funny. I feel stupid even writing that sentence, but apparently the mainstream media has some doubts--evidenced most obviously by Christopher Hitchens' January 2007 Vanity Fair piece Why Women Aren't Funny.

I have a few friends who work in the comedy business and I've had disturbing conversations as of late about the gender dynamic therein. For example, did you know that there is not one single female writer at The Daily Show? Not one. (Samantha Bee is a correspondent, and does some writing, but is not an official writer. Kristin Schall is only an occasional contributor.) When I think about how many women adore Jon Stewart, myself included, it makes me really sad to know that we're not also pushing him and Comedy Central, more broadly, to hire more women.

Another friend told me that she auditioned for a stand-up series on Comedy Central recently and they told her that they will only sign five women maximum. Not minimum. Maximum. And this was a show that needed something like 30 comedians total.

She also reports that some of the late night hosts, like Jimmy Kimmel, don't even audition women. If he's avoiding ladies because they remind him of his ex, Sarah Silverman, then that's just silly. What other reason could he possibly have?

This is beyond annoying. This is straight up, unfunny sexism. So what the hell are we going to do about it?

Related Posts:
I laugh at fart jokes.
Sacred Apacow
I heart funny feminists

Samhita linked to this campaign briefly last week, but we've got more to say about this.

That's right, folks. A reader alerted us to this craigslist ad casting call from Carl's Jr. and Hardee's burgers telling women that they could win $1,000 and a trip to Vegas if they submit a video of themselves eating one of their burgers and is "hot" enough for their marketing campaign.

Between Burger King's recent sick tactics and Carl's Jr. history of substituting women as meat in their ads, I don't think I'll be eating a burger for quite some time.

Carl's Jr.'s tagline is literally "More than just a piece of meat." So let's send them an email letting them know what that actually means to us. Or perhaps we can think of a good counter-campaign by sending them videos of what we really think of Carl's Jr. Any bright ideas?

Via Eat Me Daily.

UPDATE: It looks like the craigslist ad has been taken down. Woot! The contest, however, still exists.

Ew! And why Jenny Lewis, why?

Found on FAILblog:

Twenty-three year old Giorgia Boscolo just became the first female gondolier after nine centuries of exclusively male rowing in the canal in Venice. Boscolo had to pass a grueling six-month, 400 hour course, but told reporters that she had no fear that she couldn't handle the physicality of the job: "Childbirth is much more difficult." Boscolo is the mother of two.

Her father, also a gondolier, has doubts about her participation in this historically male tradition: "I still think being a gondolier is a man's job, but I am sure that with experience Giorgia will be able to do it easily," he said.

Damn skippy Papa Boscolo. Better get used to waving across the canal at your diesel daughter.

Thanks to Tiffany for the heads up.

Conservative Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Canada Doug Elniski has been catching a ton of shit for posting the text of a speech that he gave a couple of weeks ago to junior high school students on his blog, where he supposedly told the girls that "men are attracted to smiles":

Part of the posting included advice to girls saying, "Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."

It continues, "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."

Elniski's blog was taken down on Monday afternoon.

Blog gone or not, the real damage was done to the female students he reached that day. While Elniski clarified that the comparison between equality and a sweetener wasn't actually said at the speech and publicly apologized for the "stupid, inappropriate" comment on his blog, his creepy reference to smiles was said. He actually defends that one, claiming he was merely trying to say that "men and women should be friendly and approachable in dealing with others."

Nice try, dude.

The National Council for Research on Women has a new report out called, Women in Fund Management: A Road Map for Achieving Critical Mass - and Why it Matters, that argues that diversifying the leadership at the highest levels of the financial sector will ensure a more secure financial future for everyone. They call it the "critical mass principle." The report's lead sponsor was long time financial superwoman Jacki Zehner, who wrote a really interesting commentary on her experiences in the sector and her hopes for the future on Huffington Post when the economy sunk.

It's hard to argue with the notion that diversity raises the quality of leadership in any organization, financial included. As women on the panel this morning articulated, it's not about being nice to women; it's about better business, more responsible investing, and a more transparent financial sector overall. The world would simply be more fair were there a more diverse group of people making powerful decisions about how capital is invested. (And of course there is a HUGE conversation to be had about the potential for equity in a system that, in its very structure, encourages class inequality, but that's for another day...)

Where the NCRW treads on controversial ground is in their aggregation of research indicating essential gender differences in investment style and decision-making:

A 2005 study from the Center for Financial Research at the University of Cologne documented differences between male and female fund managers: Women managers tended to take less extreme risk and to adopt more measured investment styles (which perform well over time). And according to research published in 2002 in the International Journal of Bank Marketing, women tend to make investment-related decisions with a detailed, comprehensive approach, while men are more likely to simplify data and make decisions based on an overall schema.

I always get nervous when scientists or sociologists start making wide-sweeping gender claims, but I'm also not scientifically sophisticated enough to evaluate whether these studies are valid.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Not sure what to think about this one. Zack's story, revealed to be a new ad campaign from Tampax (parent company Proctor and Gamble) is accompanied by a website, blog and Twitterfeed in the voice of 16 year old Zack, who supposedly wakes up with a vagina one day.

Besides doing things like making fun of V-Day (the name of the video above) which is traditionally known as a day to combat violence against women and girls, something about this series does not sit right.

The question of using stealth ad campaigns aside, I can't echo Double XX's sentiment that it's just a fun humorous video series. Maybe it's the employment of every gender related stereotype imaginable.

As Ann pointed out, it is also not a good portrayal of men. It makes them seem like they have no idea what women go through--totally the "men are from mars women are from venus" trope. Not all men are grossed out by female anatomy or as clueless about women as Zack seems to be.

The series also over-emphasizes the differences between men and women--all of sudden because of a vagina he sees the world totally differently. Starts eating yogurt, yells at his friend, changes his sense of humor, can't find anything to wear. All of this ignores the years of gendered socialization that a boy like him would have experienced. It essentially makes an argument that anatomy or biology are what affect these behaviors, not society.

One interesting twist though, is that despite Zack's genital switch, he still seems to identify strongly as male. Is there is a trans friendly message to be found buried here? Possibly the idea that genitalia doesn't determine your gender identity--although all his observations about the changes he experiences are incredibly gendered. Now I can't really argue that this message comes across through all the other super-gendered concepts and messaging, but one could hope.

What do you all think?

You can watch all four of the episodes out so far here.

I would LOVE to have been a fly on the wall in the ad meeting that choose this beauty of a campaign. Disgusting.

Unfortunately this isn't the first offensive ad campaign for BK--check out Ann's post about a previous incident in 2008, over the "Whopper Virgin" campaign.

You can contact Burger King's corporate offices here.

It is your official midday fluff post. But isn't it funny?!

Oh wait this isn't vintage, this company exists today. Sociological Images (which is increasingly my go-to place for great break-downs of visual sexism) has a great breakdown of their not-so-funny marketing claims.

...but is he really the only one? Public moral outcries of elected officials sexual behavior is complex, often tedious and not really in the name of justice. The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, likes to hire woman to attend parties and do who knows what else. Barbara Montereale, one of the women in the much reprinted picture of two women photographing each other in Berlusconi's bathroom sent the pictures to the press to be published for the truth to come out. She was paid and flown down to spend time with him. The Italian authorities are starting an investigation according to the Telegraph UK.

The three women, whose accounts of their evening with Mr Berlusconi apparently largely corroborate each other, have been questioned by police in Bari who are investigating Mr Tarantini for allegedly inciting prostitution.

Mr Berlusconi faces increasing pressure to explain whether he knew if the women were being paid to attend his parties and whether he slept with a prostitute.

He is under attack not only from the press and the opposition but also the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't actually care what the Catholic church deems moral and immoral, or what makes them upset. This is not a matter of morality, but a question of exploitation and the use of women by men in power. And this is not the only story, it is a trend with men in power to hire women to do whatever they want with and their bloated sense of self and ego that comes with having so much power creates a vacuum where anything is for sale and purchase. Isn't that what happened with Eliot Spitzer?

I find moral panic and outrage over the often grotesque, exploitative sexual behavior of politicians hilarious. My instinct is to suggest that it is a private matter, just as I don't want you to talk about my private sex life, I don't think anyone's should be fodder for news material. On the other hand, that fact that stories like this come up over and over again merely shows us what men in power think is legitimate behavior. This is not a matter of "i gotcha," but more about the ways entitlement plays out with our beloved "statesmen."

Shoulder-baring brides with jaunty hats are clearly strumpets.

Calling young women who are getting married "MySpace generation brides," Newsweek complains that brides today are "like a virgin no more." (I'd be outraged, but this is just too fun for me to post about to be all that angry.)

Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they'd most likely conclude--with some prompting from Cinderella--that on their big day they'd be a princess. They'd be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.

So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs. They're selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives.

Are we seriously supposed to be scandalized by back-bearing dresses and cheesy bachelorette parties with penis straws? Come on now. But apparently this article is less about how immodest brides are, and more about moral panic over women in general.

This is, after all, is a generation that is comfortable with "sexting" and posting provocative pictures of themselves on Facebook and MySpace.

Wow, MySpace and sexting in one sentence - impressive! The article goes on to point out (smugly) that women are getting married later, having raunchier bachelorette parties, having their ceremonies in locations other than churches, and living with their significant others before getting married. And we're supposed to think, I guess, that these are all bad things.

What's really interesting to me is how the media is able to frame anything as women being slutty. Fun.

(Naturally, you can find out more what I think about sex and sexism in The Purity Myth.)

TaraK on the Community blog has more.

You know, it's bad enough that PETA puts out the sexist crap that it does - but does HuffPo really need to support it?

Related posts: Sometimes there are no words
Quick Hit: PETA's Ad Banned from the Super Bowl
PETA: Cause objectifying women never gets old
When you thought PETA couldn't get worse.
PETA does it again
Same old shit from PETA

Looks like we might have a new brand of MRA on our hands! Remember the "Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love" game that Amazon was selling which allowed users to "convince" a young woman to fall in love with them by sexually assaulting, gassing and psychologically abusing them? Well, it seems that its creator is a wee ticked about being banned from Amazon and others is conducting a college outreach program designed to enlighten college students with "types of love and relationships hidden and ignored by a culture increasingly dominated by female values."

Stanton Audemars says during his college tours, he'll disseminate the game to make sure "that every single college student of appropriate age has access to this simulation," seeming to push an anti-women and anti-feminist message cloaked in BDSM rights language:

"And young men and women have the right to recognize that true love does not necessarily involve the kind of mental castration and excessive domestication that it has become associated with . . . The point of 'Stockholm' is not that kidnapping is the path to true love. The point is that the sugar coated nonsense that TV and movies are forcing down our throat is not the only true path. It is a message that college men and women need to hear. Most don't realize that they have a choice in how they approach love and relationships, that choice in relationships does not just mean 'gay or straight'. It also can be polygamistic, dominant, submissive, relaxed, nice, cruel, possessive, etc. The types of love that women have tried to criminalize are no less valid than the types of love that seem to require that men become weak, doting, servile eunuchs."

The thing is, this game is not about choice; it's about kidnapping, sexual assault and nonconsent. What a hoot it would be if we ran into this guy while doing our college tour come fall.

Check out this ad that appeared in American Rifleman, the official magazine of the NRA. Because things that sparkle and shine easily distract silly women from their deeper concerns about having a relationship that is respectful and fulfilling. Ugh.

Thanks to Phillip for the heads up.

The Women's Media Center had its first annual media awards last night at the Arthur M. Sackler Foundation (yes, the same Dr. Elizabeth Sackler who created the feminist art center at the Brooklyn Museum). The place was packed with supporters--folks who obviously recognize that the media is still sullied with sexism and must be held accountable. Think Bill O'Reilly. Think C. Gordon Liddy. Enough said. The honorees were...

Print and Broadcast Journalists:
Christiane Amanpour (CNN)
Helene Cooper (New York Times)
Candy Crowley (CNN)

Online Journalists:
Pam Spaulding (Pam's House Blend)
Rebecca Traister (Salon.com)

Broadcast Hosts:
Bonnie Erbe (To The Contrary)
Rachel Maddow (The Rachel Maddow Show)

Documentary Film:
Abigail Disney & Gini Reticker (Pray The Devil Back To Hell)

Theatre:
Lynn Nottage (Ruined)
Dolly Parton (9-5, the musical)

Entertainment:
Tina Fey (30 Rock)

Congrats to all the winners and the Women's Media Center for all the incredible work that they do.

When I was a little girl, my mom, along with her friend Donna Guthrie, started the Rocky Mountain Women's Film Festival in my culturally-deprived hometown of Colorado Springs, Colorado. They had no idea what they were doing. Neither had ever studied film. Neither was a producer by-training. They just knew that my town needed more art and images of women by women, and so they went about making that happen. It's still one of my most inspired models of feminist activism at work. And there's no question that it is a huge part of why I am a feminist and a writer today; after all, I grew up watching diverse stories about women play out on the television in my living room from the time I was a tiny girl.

I thought of my mom and her amazing instincts when I came across an impassioned letter by filmmaker Ela Thier. After detailing the ways in which she's received ample praise for her amazing screenplays over her 20 year career, she then writes:

But the million dollar question remains, as one of my writing students asked after reading two of my scripts: "Why are these scripts not made? What better scripts could people possibly be reading?"

After years of learning, practicing, and teaching, after hundreds of hour devoted to each script, after years of query letters, phone calls, meetings, film markets, panels, classes, LA trips, networking, more networking, even more networking, my scripts - those ones that this reader liked better than the 150 scripts she read that summer - those scripts sit on a shelf. After years of trying and falling and getting up and trying, something finally dawned on me: maybe I'm not the most unlucky bastard that ever lived. Maybe I'm female.

She then goes on to detail some of the little ways in which sexism lives outside herself:
search:

Little hints of this invisible blockade pop up on occasion: a male student of mine with a fraction of my experience gets hired to direct a feature film; the manager who couldn't get my script out of his head tells me that he can't sell the script because the lead is a girl; an executive won't read my road movie because it's an ensemble with three female leads and, according to this executive, "women on the road has already been done." One producer urged me to pass my script to another director since I haven't made a feature before; this conversation took place while her husband was line-producing a $7M movie starring Bruce Willis, directed by a first-time male director.

But then she really blew my mind by writing about the ways in which sexism lives inside of herself:

I teach screenwriting and consistently notice the different regard that I feel for my male and female students. No matter how "enlightened" I think I am, I find myself having higher expectations of the guys. I just assume that they have more experience, more confidence, more intelligence...? I've recently noticed that when I receive quality work from a woman, I feel a sense of surprise. When I see amateur work from a man, I think "hmm... for some reason I had him pegged as an experienced writer." For some reason.

So if I, a woman filmmaker, the liberated one who's not afraid to use the word "feminism" in a sentence, if I myself carry misinformation about women that has me question our competence and intelligence, what thoughts do other people carry? What "feelings", stemming from centuries of fear and prejudice, and mistaken for intuition, dictate their decisions?

It's an incredibly brave and beautiful letter that resonates so much with what I've heard other filmmaker friends say--that being a woman in filmmaking is a constant fight, an unending battle to have your voice heard, your vision respected, your films funded and seen. I'm so grateful to Ela for having the courage to write this letter and make it public, because I think it's going to make a lot of other filmmakers feel seen and maybe even help tip the scales in a more feminist direction in the film world. What's even more amazing is how Ela has looked inward to try to examine her own internal sexism, a practice that is hugely transformative and rarely enacted.

Full, very long, letter after the jump.

Thanks to reader Laura and friend Jennifer Gandin Le for the heads up.

I found this via Sociological Images along with the title of the post a quote from where they found the picture (the URL seems to be down or I would put original link.) And yes, this ad is saying what we think it is. It is not an attempt to raise awareness around the importance of getting checked for breast cancer, but instead in an effort to be "quirky and edgy" relies on sexism. I almost appreciate that it acknowledges that women are objectified.

Dave Letterman made a bad joke. Here is him talking about it.

Whoops, bad joke and a PR fail as he will lose to the angry antis that are ready to cry sexism on their ideal future of feminism, her majesty Ms. Palin. Yes, I think it is funny that people who clearly do not support full human rights for women, decry sexist jokes. That said, his jokes were in bad taste at best. Megan at Jezebel writes,

David Letterman's "jokes" about Palin's daughters -- which, as Rachel Sklar pointed out today, Barack Obama suggested people stop doing last September -- struck me last week as pathetic and gross. Just because he said it was supposedly about Bristol -- you know, 'cause she's obviously "slutty" or something -- doesn't make it ok. Just because you don't like Sarah Palin or think she's using it to score political points with her base doesn't excuse the jokes in retrospect. On this point, Anna and I vociferously disagree -- I think it's pretty easy to defend Sarah Palin because I don't want those jokes told about the Obama girls; because I've commented repeatedly on how shitty it was when Rush Limbaugh and John McCain made them about Chelsea Clinton; and because I come from a family and a background where you just don't stand for people insulting your family or your friends. Maybe she's playing it up -- she is, after all, a politician and every politician is going to try for a homer on an easy pitch like Letterman handed her -- and maybe she's pissed (the fact that Todd Palin said anything after months of basically being told to keep his trap shut is, to me, telling) that Letterman went there, sexually with her daughters. Either way, I still think it's gross and indefensible.

I have no problem saying that Sarah Palin is a jerk because of her politics, yet I don't think it is OK to make sexist jokes about her or her daughters. Amanda Hess does a good job deconstructing the following debate between Huffington Post's Katharine Zaleski and the Washington Times' Amanda Carpenter discussing Letterman's joke.

Letterman apologized last night and while I think Letterman's jokes were in poor taste, let's not forget that Palin's actual stance that has been legislated and made into policy is far worse. Does this make joking about her or her daughters OK? Definitely not. But watching those two women duke it out, I think it is so interesting listening to conservative women use feminist talking points. It is smart and calculated and plays so well into the often rudimentary understanding Americans have about the fight for women's rights.

Serious props to NPR's Nina Totenberg today. Rather than simply reporting about "concerns over Sotomayor's temperament" or allegations that she's a "bully," Totenberg actually compared audio clips of questions asked by Sotomayor and those asked by her male colleagues -- or those who would be her colleagues if she is confirmed for the Supreme Court. And -- SURPRISE! -- Sotomayor is no "meaner" than your average justice. She is just femaler.

Judge Guido Calabresi, former Yale Law School dean and Sotomayor's mentor, now says that when Sotomayor first joined the Court of Appeals, he began hearing rumors that she was overly aggressive, and he started keeping track, comparing the substance and tone of her questions with those of his male colleagues and his own questions.

"And I must say I found no difference at all. So I concluded that all that was going on was that there were some male lawyers who couldn't stand being questioned toughly by a woman," Calabresi says. "It was sexism in its most obvious form."

And what if such criticism came from a woman lawyer? Well, says Calabresi, women can be just as sexist as men in their expectations of how a woman judge should act.

This echoes so many familiar themes. Women in positions of power in the workplace are often considered meaner than their male colleagues who act the same way. And how many times have we seen a woman of color who exhibits strength and power described as threatening, "fiery," or too angry? (This is why so much effort has gone into reclaiming the term "bitch" -- if society is going to use it to describe a woman who is bold and direct, shouldn't we consider that a compliment?)

Listening to the clips, Sotomayor sounds an awful lot like John Roberts -- who did not face any concerns about his "fiery temperament" during his confirmation hearings. Totenberg exposes this talking-point for what it is: straight-up sexism, with some racism mixed in for good measure.

(For a great take on reclaiming "bitch," see Shark-Fu's post on taking back words. She also talked about this subject on NPR!)

We've received a ton of reader mail (and public requests) over the course of the past week asking us to blog about an article that appeared on Playboy's website about conservative women they'd "like to hate-f*ck." Several people have asked us write about it to "prove" we are against sexism and hatespeech directed at all women, regardless of their ideological orientation. Others are saying that, because we haven't blogged about this one article, which has since been taken down, we are ok with sexism directed at conservative women.

And I'm getting annoyed. Because this sounds really familiar. During the presidential campaign (and long after) conservatives liked to invent a narrative in which feminists did not decry sexism directed at Sarah Palin. These poor souls are all apparently unable to use The Google. Because if they were, they would have turned up:

Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: O'Reilly Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Proud Uncle McCain Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: C-Word Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Sex Doll Edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Halloween Costume Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Sexist Stereotypes Edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Schoolgirl action-figure edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Skirt-wearing, SexyMom edition
Palin Sexism Watch: VPILF Edition

And there's more -- including a recent post calling out the misogyny against Miss California Carrie Prejean.

What I find almost laughable is that most of the conservatives who have said, "HA! See? Feministing doesn't care about that Playboy article, and therefore all feminists are hypocrites!" are not folks who normally give two shits about sexism. They only care about this article because they think it's a "gotcha" moment.

The real reason I, personally, have chosen not to blog about the Playboy article (or the follow-up on a right-wing blog titled "liberals we'd like to hate-f*ck") is the same reason I choose not to write about every offensive thing published in Maxim or on many other sites that are repeatedly, link-baitingly sexist: because I (or any number of feminists) am not going to change the very editorial mission of these publications. My writing about how fundamentally screwed up an article is will not lead to more feminist or less sexist content in Playboy in the future. It will just give them many more hits. I'd rather spend my time calling out widespread media narratives that are sexist (i.e. Palin is a "VPILF") and trying to change them.

Back in the good old days when no one - we swear! - had pre-marital sex.

I'm used to seeing moral panic "hook up" stories on Good Morning America (Is Oral Sex the New Goodnight Kiss?!) and Newsweek, but NPR?!

Sex Without Intimacy: No Dating, No Relationships

The hookup -- that meeting and mating ritual that started among high school and college students -- is becoming a trend among young people who have entered the workaday world. For the many who are delaying the responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, hooking up has virtually replaced dating.

Here we go. Shit, there's even the obligatory Sex and the City reference! The radio segment takes a more complex perspective, of course, than your run-of-the-mill sex scare stories. But I was still disappointed to see the myth that young folks only just started having pre-marital funtime perpetuated by NPR.

As I've written before, 95% of Americans have premarital sex, and this has been true for decades. Even for women who were born in the 1940s, nine out of ten had sex before marriage. This is not something new, it doesn't come from the internet or texting (sorry, sexting!). What was also irritating is this thinly-veiled fear that young people are waiting too long to get married (the article is accompanied by marriage rate graphs) - yet another anti-feminist talking point.

But what struck me the most about the article that accompanied the radio segment was the poll they had at the end:

Talk about removing nuance from sexuality! As if "hooking up" was some sort of monolith. I imagine people's sexual experiences run the gamut from "fun" to "degrading" to - gasp! - feelings not easily explained by an online poll.

Related posts: Moral panic visualized
Girls aren't "going wild" after all
Spitting Game: A film about "hook up" culture
What's wrong with casual sex?

Melissa Harris-Lacewell is a genius and this article is a perfect example of why. In response to Tavis Smiley's TV special Stand (a film about a bus trip with Smiley and his "boys" exploring the black male experience--trailer above) she dissects the myopic view of identity politics, black history and social change that they explore through the film and the lens through which they determine that Obama doesn't talk about race enough.

She writes,

Its low production value, wandering narrative, flat history and self-important egoism did little to reveal the shortcomings of the Obama phenomenon. Instead, the piece exposed and embodied the contemporary crisis of the black public intellectual in the age of Obama.

The film and its participants (two of them my senior colleagues at Princeton University) appropriated the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. to implicitly claim that they, not Obama, are the authentic representatives of the political interests of African-Americans. They used King's images and speeches, gathered on the balcony where King was assassinated, and explicitly asserted their desire to play King to Obama's LBJ, and Frederick Douglass to Obama's Lincoln.

This question of authenticity in identity is a very frequent theme in argument between different types of feminists and specifically different generations of feminism. The older "watchdogs" are disappointed with what they see is a diluted brand and less than tough stance on issues by younger generations. The reality that material conditions have changed for women, people of color and other disenfranchised communities is not explored in depth, which has allowed for different types of political identifications, different types of movements.

She continues,

African-Americans are now citizens capable of running for office, holding officials accountable through democratic elections, publicly expressing divergent political preferences and, most importantly, engaging the full spectrum of American political issues, not only narrowly racial ones. The era of racial brokerage politics, when the voices of a few men stood in for the entire race, is now over. And thank goodness it is over. Black politics is growing up.

The men of "Stand" yearned for an imagined racial past. By their accounting, this racial past had better music, more charismatic leaders and a more-involved black church.

Their romanticism ignores the cultural contributions of contemporary black youth, forgets the dangerous limitations of charismatic leadership and revises the fraught, complicated relationship of black churches to struggles for racial equality. And these men ignored the democratizing effect of new media forms, which revolutionized the 2008 election.

Black people were not duped by some slick, media-generated candidate. African-Americans were co-authors of the Obama campaign. Through social networks, YouTube videos, political blogs and new-media echo chambers, black people were equal partners in shaping the candidate and his campaign. There was no need for the entrenched pundit class to tell black voters what to think or how to behave; they figured it out for themselves.

Still, there is plenty to criticize in the young Obama administration: the refusal to prosecute those implicated in the torture memos, civilian casualties caused by drone attacks, bank bailouts and inadequate defense of gay rights to name a few. But black communities are already engaged in these critiques and many others. Black local organizers, elected officials, bloggers, pundits and columnists have taken substantive, specific positions on a broad range of issues.

Read the whole article as she lays out perfectly the tension and oversight by public intellectuals, thinkers and journalists that are resistant to new modalities of social change. It is interesting this tension between recognizing that political discourse around race has changed as have lived conditions for people of color, yet we are not in a post racial space.

As I have written about before, this tension between recognizing progress and claiming wins in the service of people of color verse the post-racial stance (most liked by moderates, where radical positions on race are ignored or made fun of) is at the heart of the tension in current racial dialogue. We are at a crossroads where we have to recognize the nuanced ways that racism (including tokenism) plays out, even in liberal politics and then the strategic and nuanced ways we are winning, at least in the conversation, if not via material conditions.

Obviously, my ideal hope is when we start to have a conversation so nuance that we see the way homophobia and sexism are tied into racism, but like I said last week in talking about Sonia Sotomayor, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation (aka, I love you, I can't touch you anymore.)

This is pretty unbelievable. Choi Jin-sil, a South Korean actress and model who died by apparent suicide in 2008, is being sued posthumously for failing to maintain a decent image while working as a spokesmodel for the Shinhan Engineering and Construction Co, LTD.

What's worse is that the South Korean Court ruled in their favor. The heirs of Jin-sil are being forced by the courts to repay the damages requested, totaling the equivalent of almost $400,000.

So what is it that Jin-sil did to fail in maintaining a decent image? She was a survivor of her husband's abuse. Pictures were released after Jin-sil ended up in the hospital as a result of this abuse.

From The Chosun Ilbo:

The company paid Choi W250 million in March 2004 for modeling for apartment buildings. The contract included a clause that if Choi disgraced the image of the company by damaging her social and moral image through her own fault, she would repay the firm twice the modeling fee. Five months later, pictures of her beaten and of the inside of her house in a chaotic state were released.

As the clause states above, the fact that the Courts ruled in the company's favor means they actually believe that this abuse was "through her own fault." It's disgusting victim-blaming at it's worst, and shows that some people still blame women for domestic violence.

Consider, for a moment, the latest issue of the National Review:

I know I should have a more sophisticated initial reaction to this, but, um, WTF?!!

Some white men got very upset when Sonia Sotomayor expressed pride in the fact that she is a Puerto Rican Latina, and noted that her identity shapes her worldview. This was controversial to conservatives because "white man" is not an identity, and therefore white men are not influenced by identity. Only people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, and women have "identities" -- which they must ignore, lest they be considered biased.

Conservatives apparently took Sotomayor's comment as license to consider her and every other woman of color as THE SAME. Politico compares her to an African American woman. The racist Oklahoman cartoon implies she's Mexican. Now the National Review portrays her as South Asian.(Can you blame them? I mean, how could they possibly portray a Latina as "wise"? Those things are antithetical! Gotta turn to a different stereotype. /sarcasm )

Apparently if you're not white or male, it really doesn't matter what your racial or ethnic identity is. They're all interchangeable. You're just Other.

Related reads:

Samhita on Sotomayor's "fiery temperament"
Jamelle Bouie on empathy and on how conservatives don't seem to understand "whiteness"
Jill Tubman on conservatives calling Sotomayor a racist
Jill Filipovic on Sotomayor, identity and experience
Ta-Nehisi Coates on the "wise Latina" statement

Mary Alice Carr has a really poignant piece up at the Washington Post about why she has chosen to never go on to O'Reilly's show again after having faced his hypocrisy in the past.

[O]n Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.

O'Reilly had the opportunity to apologize for his words, and he didn't. He had the opportunity to say that this tragic outcome was something about which he felt sorry. He didn't. When restraint and perspective were called for, he fanned the flames higher. In fact, on his June 1 "Talking Points," he played the martyr, saying his critics were seeking to stifle any criticism of "people like Tiller -- that and hating Fox News is the real agenda here." On his show the next day -- the show I declined to appear on -- he again called a murdered man "Dr. Killer."

I admit that after the call from the producer, I hesitated. What an opportunity, I thought, to sit across from O'Reilly and call him out for what he has done and where his responsibility lies. To speak for everyone in America who is hurt and scared and angry. I have never been a Fox News hater; clearly, I've used the show for the benefit of my movement and my organization, and I've answered his questions on some of the toughest issues around. Didn't I have the right to also call him out for his speech?

But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?

Naturally, I don't have the kind of profile or connections that land me in a seat in front of the jerk myself, but I can say from my small world of fighting with people on the internet at a certain point you have to decide what you can and can't do. It is really powerful that Carr said no, because it is such an incredible opportunity for exposure. But bet the producer didn't understand why she would chose not to. The problem with going against conservative pundits is that for them it is funny hour, their news spots are just more time for them to act like jerks and say off the wall things (that they unfortunately believe) that gets them higher ratings. For people like Carr who have dedicated their lives to actual policy change, it is not worth doing a show like that just for publicity if it doesn't result in fair exposure, confidence in the movement or is attached to a campaign goal. Perhaps it is time we stop giving him the opportunity to talk to us since he is so unapologetic about his relationship to the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

We talk about this a lot at Feministing, how we choose to devote our energy and to who. It was an early moment in my career at Feministing I remember sitting in a panel with Lynne D. Johnson and Professor Angie Colette Beatty at WAM and Dr. Beatty was talking about how she had given up talking to brick walls. I always think about that when I am engaging in especially painful conversations that don't seem to be moving, my words not being absorbed but merely bouncing off the density. At a certain point you have to think about if you want to talk to a brick wall, is it even worth it? The sad thing is that Bill-O has such a huge viewership and it is an incredible opportunity. But perhaps facing him head on is not the way to do it, perhaps the way to do it is to campaign against media consolidation and ownership and fight to give more voice to the pundits that do say the things we need them to and train new, up and coming voices.

From the Bangor Daily News:

A woman from the African nation of Cameroon could give birth in a federal prison because she is HIV-positive.

U.S. District Judge John Woodcock last month sentenced Quinta Layin Tuleh, 28, to 238 days in federal prison for having fake documents. Woodcock said the sentence would ensure that Tuleh's baby, due Aug. 29, has a good chance of being born free of the AIDS virus.

"Judges cannot lock a woman up simply because she is sick and pregnant," said Zachary Heiden, legal director for the Maine Civil Liberties Union.

"Judges have enormous discretion in imposing sentences, and that is appropriate. But jailing someone is punishment -- it is depriving them of liberty. That deprivation has to be justified, and illness or pregnancy is not justification for imprisonment."

Yet that's exactly what Woodcock did - using the paternalistic justification that he is looking out for the best interest of Tuleh's unborn child, who he apparently thinks will benefit from the stellar prenatal care given in prison.

"My obligation is to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant," he said at Tuleh's sentencing, "and that public, it seems to me at this point, should likely include that child she's carrying. I don't think that the transfer of HIV to an unborn child is a crime technically under the law, but it is as direct and as likely as an ongoing assault.

"If I had -- if I were to know conclusively that upon release from imprisonment a defendant was going to assault another person," Woodcock said, "I would act in a fashion to prevent that, and similar to an assault, causing grievous injury to a wholly innocent person. And so I think I have the obligation to do what I can to protect that person, when that person is born, from permanent and ongoing harm."

I agree with Jess: I fail to see how Tuleh's inability (if that really is the case) to procure affordable, decent healthcare is an "assault" against her fetus, rather than the system's assault of Tuleh. And of course, one wonders if Woodcock's decision would have been the same had Tuleh been from Denmark or Italy, not Cameroon...though you don't have to wonder long. (70% of cases involving prosecuting pregnant women are brought against women of color.)

For more information on the U.S.' long history of persecuting pregnant women (and what you can do about it) check out the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the Women and Prison project, and the Rebecca Project for Human Rights.

Related posts: New report: Mothering in Prison
Woman gives birth in jail cell, alone
Bureau of Prisons bans shackling pregnant inmates
Critical Resistance: Prisons as a Tool of Reproductive Oppression

A South Carolina school has put a star student on notice - unless she wears a dress, she won't be welcome at her graduation ceremony.

She's the image of a model graduate, this year's recipient of the Heart of Chapin Spirit Award, proud of her school from tassel to class ring, but Chelsea Sarvis' high school won't allow her to participate at graduation without the dress.

"I just don't see why girls have to wear dresses," said Sarvis.

Chapin High School's graduation dress code requires females to wear a dress or skirt. Males must wear dress pants. Chelsea says wearing a dress makes her feel very uncomfortable.

"If girls are uncomfortable with their bodies like I am, I just don't like wearing them," said Sarvis. "Why is it a stereotype that a girl has to wear a dress?"

Indeed. You know, what bothers me is not that the dress code exists - after all, there are a lot of antiquated rules still on the books at schools. What really gets me is that the principal of this school is actually enforcing the dress code, and in turn enforcing traditional gender roles.

Chelsea says she's not trying to be disrespectful. She'll be dressed as formal as other males. "If it looks nice, why can't they wear it?" she said.

Chelsea wore a tuxedo to prom with no problems and she wore blue face paint at more Chapin sporting events than anyone else this year. She feels to be forced out of pants and into a dress, would be a complete contradiction to the proud student she's been these last four years.

"If I had to walk across the stage in a dress, I'd be completely miserable and that's not how I want to leave high school," said Sarvis.

But what's a miserable student compared to ensuring that school administrators feel comfortable with young people's gender presentation?

A similar case in Delaware last month resulted in the school backing off the dress code. The ACLU chapter there got involved, noting that the policy was "based on illegal gender stereotypes."

Related Community posts: "Dress Code" Should Not Equal "Self-Respect", Dress Codes, Authority, and Pre-Teens

As reader Lorin said when he sent this in, "I feel unsurprised." It's not news to any of us that the people behind Axe's marketing campaigns have no respect for women, not to mention men's intelligence, but I had to post this one because it really takes the cake:

Supposedly this ad, created by a South Korean agency, is up on the side of a college dorm. I'm just hoping those who live there had control over whether it went up and when it was taken down. My hunch is that they didn't, which makes the whole thing even more gross. If anyone finds out what college/university it was that allowed this, please let us know.

Thanks to Lorin for the heads up.

NY Times: A Judge's Own Story Highlights Her Mother's

What Tami Said: Sonia Sotomayor: How did she get in here? Or...The more things change; the more they stay the same

Think Progress: G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: 'Let's Hope That The Key Conferences Aren't When She's Menstruating'

Feministe: Racism, Sexism and Sotomayor, in a few easy-to-read bullet points.

Post Bourgie: A word on empathy

F.R.I.D.A.: "On the Bench, With Fairness and Empathy"

Broadsheet: Sotomayor and abortion

RH Reality Check: Fair and Balanced: Weighing Sotomayor's Opinionse

Slate: Republicans won't beat Sonia Sotomayor by attacking her as too darn human.

Gender & Sexuality Law Blog: "Justice Sotomayor" - A View from Columbia Law School

What's the best thing you've read so far on Sotomayor's nomination?

Also, I know there's been a lot of non-Supreme Court news this week, too. What have you all been reading and writing?

This is a good one, folks!

An extra Haskins treat after the jump on "Cougars."

I remember this guy at Columbia College (I went to Barnard) who was sort of known as "too smart for school." He walked around with his floppy hair and his bemused scowl and started up what began as innocent little conversations about this or that, but quickly turned into all out assaults on the feeble minded person (usually a woman) that he had set his sights on. For a time, I was deeply intimidated by him. Once, I almost cried when we got into a conversation about ethics of one kind or another. Now, when I look back, I realize that he was Bill O'Reilly in a skinny hipster body with post-modern aesthetics. He was a blowhard who got off on making other people feel not as smart, especially if those other people were women.

I thought about him today when I read this Chicago Tribune article about a new group on the University of Chicago campus called Men in Power. Apparently the group evolved when Steve Saltarelli, a third-year in the College majoring in Law, Letters, and Society, wrote a satirical article about starting such a group in the campus newspaper. An excerpt:

next quarter will feature a number of events aimed to raise the profile of Men in Power on campus. Firstly, we will be hosting weekly study breaks/screenings of movement-oriented films, including: A Few Good Men, 12 Angry Men, Men of Honor (and many other Cuba Gooding Jr. masterpieces), All the President's Men, and--of course--X-Men.

Additional upcoming events will include an open-mic night on issues concerning body image, a tutorial on barbecuing, and our much-anticipated workshop "Protecting What's Yours: Drafting a Prenuptial Agreement." Given the lack of similar groups on campus, MiP will have to establish a broad base, merging social issues and activities with a pre-professional slant. Through our fishing, hunting, and flag-football retreats, we hope to cultivate close relationships with many individuals and organizations in different sectors of power--including business, politics, and academia.

But then ol' Steve started to get emails from people actually interested in joining and he decided--gosh darn it--there was a need for such a group on his campus. Many of our readers have sent us the article, wondering what we think here at feministing. I can't speak for my co-editors, but I can tell you what I think.

I think Steve would be totally radical if he would spend less time providing networking opportunities for men on his campus (one of the goals of Men in Power) and more time deconstructing what "power" actually means. You see, that was the analysis always missing from that old Columbia blowhard bully's repertoire.

The reality is that a certain kind of power still rests squarely in the hands of a very small number of white people, usually white men, usually Western white men. I'm talking about power that comes in the form of college degrees from fancy schools, inherited wealth, access to other wealthy people who can fund/employ/encourage you, the capacity to walk into a job interview and not have any of the following questions going through a potential employer's mind (Will she have babies and leave the company? Will her looks be distracting? Will s/he fit into this environment given that we don't have many people "like" him/her?), a childhood home far from toxic chemical plants and/or gang violence etc. etc. etc.

Chances are that Steve has a lot of the kind of power I just described. Maybe not, but I'd put money on it. My guess is that Steve doesn't have a whole lot of another kind of power: one born of authenticity, wisdom, humility, empathy.

This whole group seems like a pretty hair-brained scheme to get himself some attention and test out how the world will react to a reactive group. And he's getting attention, indeed. But he's not gaining wisdom if he thinks that putting his energy into organizing networking opportunities for already privileged dudes is where his happiness is going to take root. As those of us who have been around the block a few times, met our share of blowhard Ivy Leaguers, faced them down with tears in our eyes, know: happiness comes from getting to be who you truly are while owning the privilege you come from, and working to dismantle it because you want to be part of a more just world, not a cog in the wheel of the current broken system.

Steve didn't ask for my advice, but if he did, I would tell him to take a step back and use some of that energy, humor, conviction, and creativity to start an organization that gets men and women to think together about ways to make the world more equal, more just, and a more hospitable place for all of us. I'll give my guru Audre Lorde the last word on this one:

The true focus of revolutionary change is never the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within us.

Thanks to all the readers who wrote in asking for our take on this issue.

It's been interesting to catch up to the Sotomayor coverage this morning. I really like this clip from CNN, which features Erica Gonzalez, the opinion page editor for El Diario/la Prensa, the third largest Spanish-language daily newspaper in the country. She actually manages to position Sotomayor's accomplishments in the history of Hispanic people contributing to this country in diverse ways. (It's incredibly difficult to say such complex, historicized statements on our soundbite news shows.) It also has "man on the street" interviews with folks talking about how her roots are inspiring, and of course the requisite America Dream talk from the pundits.

My personal feeling is that the American Dream stuff always gets oversimplified and overplayed when exceptional political leaders like Obama or Sotomayor get their due. It's important that we not lose sight of the fact that though our government, at the highest levels I might add, is becoming less white, male, and less historically privileged, that doesn't mean that the majority of barriers have been smashed or the majority of Americans of color given truly equal opportunities to become the next Obama or Sotomayor. Will it be easier? Probably. It's hard to aspire to be what you can't even see. But will it be easy? Absolutely not--especially with our failing public education system, health care inequities, rampant environmental racism etc. etc. None of these things are eradicated just became Sotomayor steps into her rightful place of power. Neither does her election eradicate the sexism--both institutional and social--that still prevents so many women from living the lives they want to live.

On that note, I find it interesting that a lot of the coverage I saw while surfing around this morning seems largely focused on her ethnic background with just a mention of her gender identity. Perhaps it is still easier for the mainstream media to figure out how to talk about ethnic "uplift" because it fits so nicely into the American Dream narrative than to explore the ongoing gender issues still so implicit and insidious in our daily experiences.

A bunch o' peace organizations have created a coalition to push a nationwide day of reflection on and renunciation of military escalation in Afghanistan. I'm totally sympathetic to their cause, and always a fan of stepping back and considering non-military solutions, but also feel confused on this issue. As I've written previously in this space, I'm most concerned with what the nonviolent citizens of Afghanistan, especially women, want the U.S. to do.

Contrary to the tired old rhetoric about the U.S. soldiers swooping in and and "saving" poor, repressed Afghan women, there is a vital movement of Afghan women working to change their own communities and cultures. It is these women that I want to hear from, these women whose opinions I trust the most. And yet, it's hard to figure out--all the way over here in my little Brooklyn hovel--who these women are and if there is any sort of consensus on what it is that they want from the U.S. When I was at the Code Pink Mother's Day Vigil, an Afghani woman spoke about the horrific conditions that so many Afghan women are facing. After she left the stage, an interesting discussion took place between her and some of the Code Pink members in which she asserted that, contrary to the peace movement's assumptions, Afghan women want the U.S. military to stay in Afghanistan. "They don't feel safe," she said. "The international presence makes them feel safer."

Of course, she was just one woman. It would be reductive to expect all U.S. women to think unilaterally on such a complex issue (think presidential election 2008 and all the ridiculous "THE women vote" talk), so why would Afghani women be any different? This video, produced by Code Pink, features a dynamic woman who opposes military escalation:

So here I am, paralyzed by all the complexity. Anyone have bright ideas or trusted sources to contribute? If you're convinced that military escalation is wrong, here are some things you can do about it.

I had the total honor of attending a Congressional meeting yesterday called "The Growing Needs of Women Veterans: Is the VA Ready?" It was hosted by the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and widely attended by a variety of women veterans' groups who each had a chance to testify about what they see as the growing and unique needs for women veterans (who are currently about 15% of our military).

I plan on writing extensively about some of the issues that were brought up (including childcare, VA climate, cultural shifts, and of course, sexual assault), but what I really wanted to emphasize here at feministing was how inspired I was by the presence of young, fearless women activists yesterday. The stand outs were Anuradha K. Bhagwati, Executive Director of the Service Women's Action Network (which I've written about before), Kayla Williams, author of Love My Rifle More Than You, and Dawn Halfaker (pictured here), of Wounded Warriors.

They each spoke with such passion, clarity, and authenticity at the hearing. As the various leaders and ED's of organizations made their remarks, I was thrilled to hear these young women's voices, which truly stood out as professional, but also unequivocally real. They didn't let the official nature of the meeting or the onslaught of statistics overshadow the fact that women are suffering unimaginable pain because of sexual harassment and assault experiences, inadequate access to reproductive and mental health care at the VA centers through out the nation, and a sense of invisibility in a country that still assumes women don't see combat or get PTSD. Though the day was overwhelming, and the sense of glacial movement in our legislative branch palpable, I left with this rock solid confidence that this generation of women vet activists are going to make things right. They're too strong and bold and eloquent and convicted not to.

P.S. SWAN's site went live today, so be sure to go over and check it out.

I sent this parody of the notoriously horrific and degrading porno video "Two Girls, One Cup" to a beloved guy friend earlier this week and he wrote back that he thought it was meant to be a joke. Which, yes, it is. But that doesn't mean it's a good one.

My response to him: I'm sort of sick of people thinking they're making a joke while using all of the same antiquated conventions of the thing they're making fun of, i.e. objectifying women, promoting perfectionist body standards, fetishistizing blondes and Asians, making a mockery of actual female sexuality etc. etc. etc.

It's not funny. It's like white people making fun of racism by peddling in racist stereotypes.

His response: I hear you.

Little feminist education of the day, done. (brushing hands together)

Thanks to Frisky for the heads up.

That's right, if you need any more proof that conservative policy agendas hurt women, then look at this study of fathers of daughters as opposed to sons, who tend to vote more liberal on issues of reproductive rights, among other issues.

via FiveThirtyEight.

Andrew J. Oswald and Nattavudh Powdthavee write:

In remarkable research, the sociologist Rebecca Warner and the economist Ebonya Washington have shown that the gender of a person's children seems to influence the attitudes and actions of the parent.

Warner (1991) and Warner and Steel (1999) study American and Canadian mothers and fathers. The authors' key finding is that support for policies designed to address gender equity is greater among parents with daughters. This result emerges particularly strongly for fathers. Because parents invest a significant amount of themselves in their children, the authors argue, the anticipated and actual struggles that offspring face, and the public policies that tackle those, matter to those parents. . . The authors demonstrate that people who parent only daughters are more likely to hold feminist views (for example, to favor affirmative action).

By collecting data on the voting records of US congressmen, Washington (2004) is able to go beyond this. She provides persuasive evidence that congressmen with female children tend to vote liberally on reproductive rights issues such as teen access to contraceptives. In a revision, Washington (2008) argues for a wider result, namely, that the congressmen vote more liberally on a range of issues such as working families flexibility and tax-free education.

Interesting stuff. What if your child is gay, lesbian, queer, trans, etc? Are they then also more liberal? I feel like we have some examples to the contrary, but would be interesting to see what patterns are in general. Thoughts?

There just has to be.

A couple of people have already made astute feminist analyses of the gross new chocolate bar, Fling, but I just had to comment on this:

Wrapped in a shiny pink and sliver package, this delicate "chocolate finger" is intended for women. The word "finger" is an industry term for a long, slim confection, Mars spokesman Ryan Bowling says, but with ads that invite you to "Pleasure yourself" in pink lettering, consumers might come to other conclusions.

Ewww.

PS. The candy bar sparkles. For serious.

Charming. You'd think that conservatives would have come up with a new line of attack for women politicians by now - the whole "she's ugly!"thing has to get old after while, right? Right? Sigh.

Via Ta-nehisi Coates.

More vintage sexist ads here.

And voilà! A women's laptop is born.

This isn't the first time we've seen Dell market their products to women in a ridiculously cliché and sexist way, but their newest product was worth noting. Meet Della, the new Dell mini netbook that is being pitched to women as cute, compact and in colors with lady adjectives like Promise Pink (which actually donates $5 of your purchase to the Susan G. Komen Foundation - a good thing) and Cherry Red.

As Kristen Shoemaker at Liliputing says, it's not so much the references to everything cute to draw women that's so insulting, but when the "Tech Tips" section suggests you use the Della to manage your diet and exercise program, we have a wee problem. What's interesting is the note at the top of this section saying that editors have changed the article in response to some "feedback," which I believe (and hope) may be because of some of the complaints that women tech bloggers like Kristen and Nicole Price Fasig have made.

But regardless of what they've omitted, marketing a product to a woman by dumbing down the language and making it cutesy and fashionable isn't good marketing - it's insulting. The very pitch on Dell's homepage website featuring Della says, "Find out how technology fits your lifestyle." I guess in this case, "lifestyle" seems to be your gender.

This is not to say that there's anything wrong with accessorizing your laptop or finding a netbook adorable - it's when you assume that only women will have interest in it is when a line is crossed.

Check out Ann's piece over at TAP. An excerpt:

The proliferation of woman-centric sites raises the sorts of questions that keep a feminist editor up at night. If Slate saw a demand for more content about women, why didn't it start publishing more articles for and by women on its main site? The decision to devote micro-sites to groups that aren't white men -- The Root for black readers, Double X for women readers -- implies that Slate recognizes the need for more coverage that caters to women and people of color. But it doesn't want that coverage mucking up its main product....When publishers create separate sites dedicated to women or to black people, they are signaling that they don't see a need to have their main site serve these people as core readers. They are, in essence, saying, "We want the ad revenue associated with your readership, but we don't create our homepage with you in mind."

Nicholas Kristof writes an op-ed for the NYTimes about the appalling amount of time it takes for rape kits to actually be tested and how sometimes they are not even tested. It is something that as feminists we have talked about extensively and sexual assault survivor advocates have organized around. The lackadaisical nature of rape kit testing and the general nonchalance or downright ignorance with which police do not investigate rape cases, it becomes damn near impossible to prove someone has been raped. Unless of course, it is to disprove it to save someone's reputation, but I digress.

In discussing the evasive procedure of "testing" for rape he writes,

It's a grueling and invasive process that can last four to six hours and produces a "rape kit" -- which, it turns out, often sits around for months or years, unopened and untested.

Stunningly often, the rape kit isn't tested at all because it's not deemed a priority. If it is tested, this happens at such a lackadaisical pace that it may be a year or more before there are results (if expedited, results are technically possible in a week).

So while we have breakthrough DNA technologies to find culprits and exculpate innocent suspects, we aren't using them properly -- and those who work in this field believe the reason is an underlying doubt about the seriousness of some rape cases. In short, this isn't justice; it's indifference.

True. Disgusting. Telling. Unjust.

UPDATE: Courtney wrote a column on this very subject this week.

It is not just that Miss California spoke her mind about gay marriage that makes this uniquely a feminist issue, but it does make her an asshole. For all the arguments defending her right to speak on this topic, to me, it is so sad that people so quickly fight to defend the rights of bigots to speak. So, I obviously fall too left of that argument to even participate in it. Or rather, I just agree with Jill,

It's not "religious persecution" to say that someone is a bigot for having bigoted views. It's not "religious persecution" to argue that those who want to deny basic civil rights based on sexual orientation are bigots. It would be persecution to, for example, pass a law stating that a consenting Christian adult wasn't allowed to marry another consenting Christian adult because of his or her faith, or to criminalize consensual sex between adult Christians. That's persecution. Not, "I didn't win a beauty pageant and then Perez Hilton called me a bitch."

As Jay Smooth pointed out in his video, the issue of pageantry and their role in our society raises bigger concerns. The reliance on heteronormativity and beauty standards in pageants is indeed a point of inquiry.

As a feminist, I hate when women's breasts make the news, since it is rarely to uncover the sexism embedded within a system. The fact that Carrie Prejean got breast implants is not newsworthy to me. The fact that the California Pageant Association paid for them, well that is. Not because it is scandalous, but because it shows that pageants aren't about highlighting women as they are or for their talents, but for their physical appearance and to make spectacle of a specific type of femininity.

Pageants only make sense because of binary gender roles that cater to mainstream understandings of femininity. They are a fetishized spectacle of femininity to the point where it is even OK if they are artificially constructed as long as they are pushing a normative ideal of what a "real woman" is. As feminists we know already that ideal is socially constructed. Her blatant homophobia just adds to the already established straight, cis-woman and white standard of beauty necessary for pageants to exist and to perpetuate the illusion of binary genders.

I mean, I could have told you that. But not because I think that women are what ruined the country, specifically women's right to vote. Peter Thiel a very rich silicon valley libertarian who used to be the CEO of Paypal and is currently one of the main investors at Facebook. He has put forth an essay that suggests that women are in fact who ruined our country. Or at least women's right to speak for themselves and not vote like their husbands tell them to.

In his essay at the Cato Institute blog he writes (excerpted by Valleywag),

The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron.

I guess he didn't get the memo. Women and gays are supposed to be friends!

(I am not writing a transcript for this, but basically every man that interacts with this woman in the work place calls her a different derogatory term)

And why is it on a Tuesday? Because it is by Tuesday that women catch up to the wages earned by a man from the previous week.

via National Committee on Pay Equity.

Equal Pay Day was originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) in 1996 as a public awareness event to illustrate the gap between men's and women's wages. The day, observed on a Tuesday in April, symbolizes how far into the year a woman must work, on average, to earn as much as a man earned the previous year. (Tuesday is the day on which women's wages catch up to men's wages from the previous week.) Because women earn less, on average, than men, they must work longer for the same amount of pay. The wage gap is even greater for most women of color.

Jon Henner at Open Salon is putting together stories, blog posts, artwork, etc. on the impacts of equal pay. You can go contribute your story.

As someone who is often called an aggressive driver, I take personal offense to this stupid piece via Yahoo News Canada in the "car research" section listing 10 inarticulate and sexist reasons women supposedly can't drive. The piece is from Askmen.com, which means it is actually not humor, even if to us that website is hilarious since it is drenched in the cowardly spirit of men that are afraid of vagina.

One of the reasons women can't drive,

No.4 - They have no interest in cars

Another reason women can't drive is a matter of interest -- or rather, a lack thereof. You can't do well at something when your give-a-damn meter reads zero point zero. Women have no interest in cars beyond them serving as appliances of transport. As long as it starts, all is well. So when dash lights flash, components make ugly sounds or smoke appears, it may or may not resonate with the female driver that these are less than ideal operating characteristics.

Right, just like women don't like trains, airplanes, computers and any other modern technological marvel that helps us get somewhere.

Joking aside, I do think there is something to be said about women feeling secure in their driving abilities, since they are told that they are bad drivers and that driving is a manly thing to do. One of the first things you internalize when coming of age as a teenager is that women (along with some ethnic groups) are not good drivers.

Before we start the convo with, "but women really don't have depth perception" I know some really really good female drivers that are aggressive, confident and rarely if ever get lost or in accidents. So, based on my own empirical evidence and recognition of the sexist expectation that women aren't as good of drivers, I call bullshit on the premise of this article. Shame on Yahoo Canada for running such a sexist piece of crap.

This video isn't in English, but there's something about sexism that defies language barriers.

Obviously the whole video is gross and sexist, but it's the ending that really killed my morning. I'm not a video game player, so maybe some women gamers/tech folks can chime in - is this what gaming culture thinks of women? Or do you think it's just your run-of-the-mill stupid sexist bullshit?

Thanks to Moriah for the link.

Jennifer Block, author of Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care, has a great piece up on Babble about the backlash against breastfeeding. (Specifically, she takes on Hanna Rosin's recent Atlantic article.)

We tell women that breast is best, we tell them to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months, we even tell them it will raise their kid's IQ (and we should give that a rest), and then we send them home with formula samples, or with a baby whose throat is too sore to suckle, or a mom whose milk is delayed because of surgery, and we don't teach technique, and we are offended when a woman breastfeeds in public, so we make her feel housebound, and we don't give a mother and her partner paid leave, and we send her to go back to a workplace without on-site childcare, and so her only alternative to formula is to plug her nipples into a machine, and if she's lucky she gets periodic breaks and a "non-bathroom lactation room" in which to pump, and if she's not she gets a toilet, and so on and so forth.

It's no wonder women are ready to burn their nursing bras.

Nice.

For more takes on Rosin's piece and breastfeeding, check out Pandagon, Kay Steiger, Broadsheet, Rachel's Tavern, and Lawyers, Guns and Money.

17 Again

A reader alerted us to this message at the bottom of the New York Times review of 17 Again, the new, sure-to-be Oscar-winning movie starring Zac Efron:

"17 Again" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Girls are particularly cautioned.

After a quick plot synopsis (a dude's life was ruined because he turned down a basketball scholarship after his girlfriend got pregnant), reviewer Manohla Dargis notes "the story's obnoxious implications" are that "sex, meaning girls, can ruin your life." She makes clear that the movie's female characters are (surprise!) little more than simple stereotypes. So presumably this is what the "special girl warning" is referring to.

But if that is the case, doesn't sexist content merit a warning for boys AND girls? The assumption that a negative portrayal of women will only affect girls is simply crazy. Young people of all genders are deeply affected by repeated sexist portrayals of women in movies, music, and culture more generally. Yes, it can have very different effects on boys and girls. But how is it worse for a girl to think of herself as having to choose between harpy or sex object than it is for a boy to view all women as harpies or sex objects?

And what if the warning isn't a reference to sexist stereotypes of women? Honestly, I can't think of a single plot element that should prompt a warning for young women but not for young men, for the reasons stated above. Has anyone seen the movie? Any other speculation on what the warning refers to?

I am sorry, when I get rained on the last thing I feel is sexy. Classy stuff.

Thanks to cmasson for the heads up.

Update: Sorry here is the link and it looks like this was created by students in advertising school.

Shari Graydon at the Ottawa Citizen has a great piece on what it can be like for a woman writer. (Hate mail galore!)

Sarah Haskins taking on the "mow the lawn" commercial = heaven. Hilarious.

The New York Times and others covered a new study regarding China's longstanding one-child policy that many of us know has resulted in a preference for male children over females; women have not only had to give up their female children to orphanages, but are enduring forced abortions and sterilizations.

According to the new findings, there is now a gap of 32 million more males than females under the age of 20 in China.

The researchers suggested that enforcing a ban on sex-selective abortions would solve this problem, attributing the gap to just that. As some have misinterpreted sex-selective abortions as "family planning got awry" in the past (for example, the Bush administration used it as a reason to defund the United Nations Populations Fund), let's reiterate that this is not family planning by any means. After all, coerced abortion and forced sterilizations doesn't involve much of a "choice," does it?

But would enforcing a ban on sex-selective abortions allow lines to be muddied regarding the right to choose? (Not to mention many girls would still be orphaned.) So is repealing the one-child policy the answer?

We will have more to say on this tomorrow, but for now read Jezebel here and here; the LA Times; Meta Writer; Alterdestiny; Trish Wilson; Daily Kos; Smart Bitches, Trashy Books; Heather Corrina; and TONS of folks on Twitter.

Check out Cocorosie's deconstruction of Akon's "I Wanna Love You," which essentially amounts to him, Snoop, Tego Calderon, and Sean Paul talking about how the way "you shake your ass," "winding, grinding" etc. makes them want to love you. Amazing how winning their heart's affection apparently has absolutely nothing to do with the mind, heart, or humor of a woman.

Akon's video:

Cocorosie's response:

Lyrics to Cocorosie's version after the jump.

Thanks to philadelphiastory for the heads up.

Um, wow.

via Men.Style.com

From the same folks who want your to "mow your lawn" comes a commercial telling women that if they don't shave their legs, chaos will ensue.

Literally.

I know Ann already linked to this story in the WFR, but I thought it deserved a full post.

Two ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers have altered a photo of Israel's new cabinet, removing two female ministers.

Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver were grouped with the rest of the 30-member cabinet for their inaugural photo.

But Yated Neeman newspaper digitally changed the picture by replacing them with two men. The Shaa Tova newspaper blacked the women out.

See the pics above: The one on top is the original, the second is the one that was altered. Women in politics are often made invisible, but this shit is ridiculous.

Sarahec at the Community blog already posted this mess of an ad, but I just had to write about it as well. The video is obviously gross and hackneyed (how many cat/pussy references does one really need?), but the not-so-subtle racism of who has a "big" bush and who has a "small" bush just put me over the edge.

Sugar Daddy's here, no need to worry about silly ole frequent flyer miles...

Reader Rebecca is a member of American Airlines' frequent flyer program, but wasn't too thrilled when she opened her inbox to find an email with this image and the tagline:

"She's thinking about dessert. You're thinking about the 1,000 American Airlines AAdvantage® bonus miles you just earned."

I guess they didn't think about the fact that some of their customers in the program might be (I know it's hard to grasp but), um, female. Yeah.

Please?

Via Women's Glib.

This is why I wrote this. *Shudder*

Via Foolish Gadgets

Thanks to curvyglo for the link!

This was an unfortunate move prior to the election in an effort to bow to fundamentalists.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."

Women's rights advocates are suggesting that this law essentially legalizes rape. Via Independent UK and more at Huffington Post and Think Progress.

Hortense from Jezebel has a hilarious post about one of my pet peeves-magazines that try and help you "dress for your shape." I am so sick of being inundated with magazines that are supposed to help me look thinner or dress better, because you know, fat girls can't wear sexy clothes, we must hide our bodies. A quick google search and I found plenty of links about how to figure out what shape your body is, so you can figure out what clothes to wear.

As Hortense points out it is difficult to have an exhaustive list of body sizes because we are all shaped differently and therefore, not only are most of the categories limiting and exclusive, they are often downright offensive.

Take, for example, this Glamour feature from last year, which breaks women's body types into these categories: Tall, Busty, Petite, Boyish, Plus-Size, and Pear-Shaped. Which is all well and good, I suppose, unless you happen to be a Pear-Shaped Busty Tall Woman looking for ideas on Plus-Size gowns, because the advice for each category is markedly different, which would lead many women to believe that there are only certain aspects of their bodies that are truly worth addressing, as opposed to concentrating on what fits and feels good.

Also, as someone who generally falls into the "oh, dear, puberty forgot to deliver your boobs" category, I think it would be nice if fashion magazines could stop referring to thin women without many curves as "boyish." Femininity comes in many shapes and sizes, thanks, and Glamour's advice only reinforces the fact that they feel that flat-chested women need to blow up their bust lines to achieve sexiness: "Don't have voluptuous curves? Fake 'em!" Ah yes, because nothing makes me feel more confident than putting in my fake temporary boobs in order to wear a dress.

Read the whole post because at the end she gives some humorous advice on dressing for you shape. In any case, imagine headlines in women's magazines that said, "feel beautiful no matter what!" or "you can rock it, yes you can!" I guess the whole industry that perpetuates women's insecurity about their bodies and therefore marketing us products, tips, techniques and torture devices that will make us "feel better" would fall apart as we know it. All I know is I really don't want my body to be compared to a piece of fruit.

From The New York Times:

Here's a pop quiz: Which of the following would violate federal employment law?

1. Laying off a pregnant woman.

2. Laying off a woman on maternity leave.

Pencils down. The answer is "neither."

So long as employers can make the case that the firing has nothing to do with pregnancy or maternity leave - it's all good. And it makes sense in theory: after all, folks who do a bad job should be fired no matter what their pregnancy/motherhood status. But the problem is, it seems like employers are using the economy to discriminate against mothers.

"Some employers are using the economy as a pretense for laying off just one person," Ms. [Elizabeth] Grossman, [a lawyer for the New York district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] said. "And very often that person is pregnant or the oldest employee on staff. The economy may be the legitimate cause -- or there may be discrimination."

Last year the number of pregnancy-based discrimination charges filed with the E.E.O.C. was up nearly 50 percent from a decade earlier, to a total of 6,285. That number seems likely to rise even higher this year.

The whole article is really interesting; make sure to check it out. For more information on motherhood and discrimination, go to Moms Rising.

I can't believe I missed this episode (and that I have to wait weeks till the full episode is available online)! Outside of the mouse-on-teen violence, I really liked this clip - especially how it points out that by focusing on purity these companies/singers are actually focusing on sexuality, just in a "safe" way.

Thanks to Lucas for the heads up.

In a great post over at the Chronicle of Higher Ed, Gina Barreca asks how women deal with sexual harassment or sexism dressed up as a joke. I love this conundrum, because it is SO fucking common. Who hasn't heard some appallingly sexist (or racist, or homophobic) comment explained away with a "just kidding" or a laugh?

For example, after Liz Carpenter worked for the Johnson administration she wrote a book about her experiences working at the White House. The book was out for a while, did pretty well. One evening she met Arthur Schlesinger at a cocktail party. He came over to her and smiled and said "Like your book Liz. Who wrote it for you?"

Now, clearly dear Arthur meant this as his little joke. If she had stammered and blushed, he would win the point. He could then say, "see, you just can't joke around with these women." If she'd pounded her fist on the table and threatened to call a lawyer, he could say the same thing.

Instead what Carpenter did was to say in response, "Glad you liked it, Arthur. Who read it to you?"

All she did was take his format and adapt it for her own purposes.

Love it! What are your tactics for defusing sexist/racist/homophobic "humor"?

Walmart is trying to convince an appeals court that the 1.6 million women who joined a lawsuit against them for discrimination on the basis of sex should be considered individually, not as part of a class action lawsuit. The Wall Street Journal reports:

A ruling in the case by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco could have broad implications for future discrimination lawsuits, according to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last week filed a brief supporting the class certification that Wal-Mart opposes...The EEOC says that if Wal-Mart's argument is successful, it would effectively preclude claims for punitive damages and back pay in cases in which plaintiffs -- or the commission itself -- prove that there has been a pattern or practice of discrimination.

Class action is important for many reasons, especially in cases of sex discrimination in the workplace. For starters, it cuts down on legal fees (one giant case vs. 1.6 million smaller ones) and speeds up due process so that people see justice and move on with their lives.

But on a more psychological level, class action status allows an aggrieved population, in this case women workers, to stand together and seek parity through their collective strength. Enduring the bureaucratic battles, media attention, and scrutiny of this kind of legal procedure with a giant corporation is basically soul-killing if done alone.

The solidarity inherent in a class action suit is not only crucial for these plaintiffs, but imperative legal precedent moving forward. What good will the brand spankin' new Lilly Ledbetter Act do if no one has the resources or the stamina to stand up against their employers all alone?

We're all too aware of how (hetero)sexist and obnoxious Askmen.com could be, but this was too good (or should I say, bad) to not highlight. One of their many features is a "Top 10" list of advice, ranging from money problems to relationship tips - including their most recent Top 10: Subtle Ways to Tell Her She's Getting Fat.

That's right, how to deceive your partner into losing weight. This includes a slew of shame tactics, including:

• Buy her clothes that are too small (manipulation!)
• Serve her small portions of food (starvation!)
• Rig her chair to break under her (WHAT!)

Telling straight dudes that they should a. be turned off by their SO's weight gain to begin with and b. encouraging them to emotionally manipulate them and go as far to potentially injure them by rigging their fucking chair is reprehensible.

Send an email to the site and give them your "Top 10" of why they should take that feature down. And don't be subtle about it.

Someone tallied the numbers on how many women artists are here at South By Southwest music. I was kind of surprised at the low numbers, because I feel like we've seen a lot of female acts (both live, and on the schedule). But in relatively speaking, there are few. Only 388 of the more than 2,000 bands feature even one woman.

(via Jessica Hopper)

So women finally get a national pro women's football league, and in order to participate, they have to wear their skiivies. It's called the Lingerie Football League and tryouts, unfortunately, are coming to a town near you.

As far as I can tell, this is a new project of the assholes who have been bringing us the Lingerie Bowl, a half-time spectacle during the Super Bowl, for the last few years. I wouldn't know because I'm always obsessively watching the Puppy Bowl.

A Denver Post reporter who tries out (and comes off as completely lacking in a feminist consciousness) writes:

Heading into Friday's Denver Dream tryouts, my main question was, "What exactly are the producers looking for: models or athletes?"

It seemed like a logical question for the fledgling enterprise that boldly calls itself the Lingerie Football League and promises to present scantily clad girls in 10 cities battling it out on the gridiron. Would the emphasis be on the football or on the lingerie?

I'd attempted to get an answer from the LFL prior to tryouts but was given a response that would make any PR agency proud: "We've been fortunate to find girls who are athletic yet very beautiful."

Gross all around. This is objectification at it's most pernicious--give women an opportunity to participate in a sport that they haven't had the chance to do for pay and publicly previously, but only let them do it if they're stereotypically pretty and willing to do it in their underwear.

Thanks to Cinnamon for the heads up.

Thanks to Sophie for the link

It's been interesting to note how many panels here at South By Southwest Interactive have a gender/sexism angle. On Saturday, Samhita and I caught a panel on the web and feminism with Heather Gold, Julia Angwin, Betty Flowers (director of the LBJ presidential library), and Danah Boyd. Boyd had some great thoughts on privilege and gender online, and we recorded some audio, which I'll post tomorrow.

Also, on Sunday, the awesome Liz Henry was kind enough to take super-detailed notes at Samhita, Amanda, Cecily and my panel about combating online misogyny. Her almost-transcript is here. A sample:

Ann: 6 of us who write on Feministing and we can all each other up and go "i know people say mean shit all the time but this one really got to me!" and we all know how it feels. sometimes you have to decide what is a good public fight to have, vs. "you just want to call me ugly and tell me to make you a sandwich" i know it sounds ridiculous but it is hard to tell the difference sometimes! we need help in figuring that out, when to engage and when not to. you can engage with people who just don't get it. But Feministing is on our terms. we don't like it, we can delete your comment. we can respond to just part of what you're saying and ignore the rest. or we can have a full blown back and forth, having a community to help decide and talk about how to engage has been crucial

Amanda: the purpose is to shut you up and if they don't get what they want, they stop trying to shut you up, the more I don't go away, and don't shut up, the less harassment i get. just go out there and write every day and eventually they will give up. it's not working, it's straight up behavioral science.

Cecily: these tools that help us to get our voices out there, also hurt us. social networking tools.

Samhita: Twitter is a very useful tool. Communities, we have different community that comments on our youtube videos, twitter is another micro group environment and you get to know people a different way. That's very powerful. I've had friends on my twitter feed who in the blogging worlds we have knock down "your mama" fights but on twitter I'm like "Oh you do yoga? i do yoga toooo!" lol. It's less serious, less formal, commenting on Feministing can feel very formal.

Still hoping we'll have audio/video from the panel shortly.

Right now there's a panel going on about Obama and the afrosphere. You can watch the livestream here.

Oh, and remember, our happy hour with Pandagon is TONIGHT. If you're in Austin, stop by! Who doesn't love feminists taking over a bar and rocking the karaoke machine?

Previous SXSW posts:
SXSW 2009: Can Social Media End Racism?
Beating Down Online Misogyny: Links

More to come...

This is not the kind of news I like to hear on a Monday morning. (Or I guess any morning for that matter.)

Nearly half of the 200 Boston teenagers interviewed for an informal poll said pop star Rihanna was responsible for the beating she allegedly took at the hands of her boyfriend, fellow music star Chris Brown, in February.

...Of the teens questioned, more than half said both Brown, 19, and Rihanna, 21, were equally responsible for the assault. More than half said the media were treating Brown unfairly, and 46 percent said Rihanna was responsible for the incident.

Ah, victim-blaming. It's always with us. What particularly depresses me about this statistic is that the victim-blaming is coming from young people. There's this optimistic part of me that likes to believe sexist attitudes and hating women will lessen with new generations. Articles like these snap me back into reality.

Thanks to Alise for the link.

This FAIL Blog has become quite a popular go-to for your daily funny, until a reader alerted us to this gem.

Really, dudes?

Also posted on the community blog.

This advertisement is not just promoting a skin-whitening tablet - it's promoting a skin-whitening tablet with disgusting, sexist copy. Well done, Imedeen.

Via Copyranter.