December 2008 Archives

Feministing will be back on Friday, January 2. Have a wonderful New Years Eve!

The number 4 search term that brings people to this site is 'ballbusting'. Just in case you were wondering.

Dennis Prager's thoughts on why women have no real right to deny men sex (excuse me, the "giving" of their bodies) couldn't be summarized in just one column. No, Prager needed a sequel to his ode to marital rape.

Jesse takes apart the whole piece, so I won't reinvent the wheel - but I will leave you with my favorite part:

Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? (Emphasis mine)

And that's all I have to say about that.

I visited Charis Books in Atlanta Georgia, at the suggestion of many of you readers. It's located in the Little Five Points Neighborhood, which is a cute area with big old houses and windy tree-lined streets. The little downtown area has a Berkeley feel to it, with thrift stores and coffee shops. Charis Books has it's own building, painted light purple in true 1970's feminist fashion. Charis self-identifies as an independent feminist bookstore and you definitely get that sense from spending some time there.

Not surprisingly, I loved the store. I was immediately drawn to the displays in the front, with new books, including a section dedicated to new lesbian fiction. I knew I would like the place when Alison Bechdel's The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For was one of the week's top sellers.

The store has a large collection of books with a strong emphasis and feminist and lesbian lit. One thing I appreciated was that the fiction section was integrated--both lesbian and non-lesbian fiction were shelved together. They also had a great LGBTQ young adult section (I have a secret obsession with YA LGBTQ lit).

They host an impressive list of feminist authors and have great writers workshops and events at the store.

Charis has been around for more that 30 years, an impressive accomplishment for an independent bookstore. It definitely does have the feel of a 1970s feminist business--particularly with the emphasis on lesbian lit alongside feminist lit. While I would say that feminists today don't equate feminist with lesbian anymore, there is something for everyone at Charis Books.

They've got an online store, so if you want to support a local feminist business, you can browse the store by section online and purchase something.

Keep an eye out for an upcoming review of Aphrodite's Toy Box, an Atlanta sex toy store!

Attacks on Gaza are in their fifth day, with nearly 400 dead and many more wounded. There's so much to say, but in situations like this words tend to fail. So please look to the women's voices below, and add yours in comments.

Writes Like She Talks has a round-up of links, as does Kim Pearson at Blogher. Cara weighed in, and La Macha at Bitch magazine's blog wrote a post that led to a comments conversation about why this absolutely is a feminist issue.

PeaceWoman has a comprehensive list of resources - UN and NGO reports and statements, statistics, and papers from women worldwide - on gender and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Barnard's Scholar and Feminist Online has an excerpt from an issue of Bridges: A Journal for Jewish Feminists and Our Friends dedicated to women's voices on peace: Sustaining Hope in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict.

Sister organizations Bat Shalom and the Jerusalem Center for Women have yet to issue statements, but they're good places to go to for a feminist perspective.

I'd also recommend following Global Voices Online and their coverage - the site has aggregated posts, pictures and videos from blogs in the region, and also explains how you can follow and talk about the events in Gaza through Twitter.

For a background on the importance of women's role in peacekeeping, check out this primer on UN Resolution 1325.

Feel free to leave links to more feminist coverage in comments. I'm going to go read some Cynthia Enloe...

Shiny Shiny brings us the latest in feminized gear: a pink heart-shaped guitar for Guitar Hero. Okay, I get that some folks like the color, but can I just say I'm so incredibly sick of products being marketed towards women simply by slapping some pink on them?

I mean, there's pink laptops, tools, websites, iPods, pocket knives - even cigarettes! The pink madness has to end. In fact, I think one of my new year's resolutions will be to avoid all things pink (with the exception of cotton candy Jelly Bellys - I love those things).

What's your least favorite pink (or otherwise gendered) product?

Pic from elegantxtrash.

I have never been a fan of New Year's Resolutions. When I was younger they always had to do with losing weight or to quit eating cookies or some such thing that I was told if I do would unlock the secret to the life I always wanted. As I have gotten older and more in touch with myself and my feminism, I realize that negative self talk or putting myself up to tasks that are based on insecurity and hold the 'secret to everything I am missing' is rarely successful and never makes me feel good. So I moved to focusing on being as healthy and positive as I can be. But this year, I am coming out of my anti-New Year's resolution attitude with a few resolutions that have to do with things I want to do, not things I think I should do.

1. I commit to doing more video-blogging.
2. I want to get my personal website/consulting business up and running.
3. I will continue to write for Feministing, building on the work we have already done as we move to building relationships in the real world.
4. I will continue to not give a shit about my weight, but live a full, happy and healthy life based on self reflection, deep breathing and love.
5. I will finish my book. Hopefully. (Ha!)

Once I let go of resolutions that were based in self hate and things I didn't want to do, I realized that this is actually pretty fun, like a to-do list for the year, filled with positivity, aspirations and ways to move forward.

What are your New Year's resolutions this year?

I have written previously about top ten lists that measure beauty and brains and concluded that generally they are gender biased. Women's lists are always about how they look and men's lists (or pageants) are about what they do first and then how they look. When I wished upon the world to create a list that was about women taking into consideration their brains, occupations and looks this is about as far from what I could have conceived of. Self proclaimed hiphop writer hater Touré has created what he believes is the thinking man's list of sex symbols.

He starts,

A man has two minds. The lower mind is a brainless whore excited by any woman with breasts, curves, and a thong. The upper mind, which works with actual grey matter, is more persnickety. The upper mind, when employed, is moved by intelligence, success, power, self-confidence, a smart sense of humor, and, of course, not having a castrating nature.

What counts as having a castrating nature? If you get too 'ballsy' do you actually want to be a man so bad that you will (figuratively) castrate him and claim your own masculinity? I am going to assume he means feminists are castrating. I think this above description is more disparaging to men than anything else. Thank you for feeding into every myth about male sexuality and their inability to make a connection between what happens between their legs and between their ears.

But the real gems are in the descriptions of the pictures of the women he chose and why he chose the "smart babes" that he did. None will really surprise you, but note that they are all women that don't really disrupt normative ideas of beauty or act outside of patriarchy and for Touré, their intelligence exists to feed his own male ego since he has to describe repeatedly why their smarts don't threaten his own. I think some of these women would resent being on this list.

Every line is like a work of art.

So I had the pleasure this past weekend to go to Re-Dress, the newly opened, first ever size 14+ vintage clothing store in the country. It was amazing and I spent money I don't have, but I felt like I was making up for a lifetime of clothes that never fit right. Conventional wisdom might suggest that I should focus my resources on losing weight, but I am way more into looking fabulous and I love vintage clothing. Which is the concept behind Re-Dress-women that don't fit the oppressive beauty standards pushed by mainstream media have good style-if not better style than mainstream 'chic.'

So if you are in NY or you are visiting, please check out Re-Dress. The staff is knowledgeable about fashion, they are friendly and queer friendly. Everyone I spoke with had amazing political analysis along with great fashion sense. You can't really beat that, now can you.

I felt beautiful when I came out. I can't remember that last time I felt that way after going clothes shopping. Seriously.

Woot!

Since we were on limited posting last week we missed the boat on posting about the monumental loss of Eartha Kitt. The infamous singer of Santa Baby passed away on Christmas Day this year. Eartha was a legend in her own right and a visible woman of color in a time where there weren't many. Furthermore, as I learned recently she was also an advocate for the rights of inner city youth and openly opposed the Vietnam War right on the steps of the White House.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson shares via New American Media,

The smile on Eartha Kitt's face was unforgettable. It belied the pain, ridicule and turmoil that she had endured after she was unceremoniously placed near the top of then President Lyndon Johnson's enemies list. But that seemed to be the furthest thing from her mind that late spring afternoon in 1978 when she greeted me at the old Aquarius Theater in Hollywood. Kitt was in Los Angeles starring in her tour production of the musical Timbuktu. I was assigned to do a brief interview and a review of the production.

Kitt's smile and infectious energy melted the awe and nervousness that I felt at being up close too and actually talking with an entertainment legend. Then there was the "incident." That was the furor that Kitt ignited when she denounced the Vietnam War and poverty to Johnson at that White House luncheon in January 1968. A decade after the controversy still got the tongues wagging.

Her performance in Los Angeles was in part Kitt's American comeback after being virtually banned in the United States after her White House outburst. Her performance was also in part a brash effort to reclaim the luster that had made her virtually a household name and an icon in the entertainment world in the 1950s an early 1960s.

Eartha might have sang about old fashioned girls, but she couldn't have been further from that. I keep thinking in light of current events how few celebrities stick their neck out and actually take a stance on unjust wars. She will be missed.

I know there are members of the GOP that believe due to the last election racism is somehow over, but I think it begs to be said that it actually is not and therefore sending a Christmas CD with the song, "Barack the Magic Negro" to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon" is in fact offensive and an embarrassing move for the GOP to support.

I would like to think that blatant and tacky uses of racial stereotyping won't rectify the devastated base of the GOP, but according to Politico.com, this might help perpetrator and RNC chair contender Chip Saltsman in his bid for the post. I don't think racism is going to work to win back the adoration of the Americans whose support they have lost. It is like the insecure bully on the schoolyard that makes stupid jokes behind your back, backtracks when caught by the principal and even issues a half-ass apology.

We're having some tech problems - we should be back to posting regularly shortly. Thanks in advance for your patience!

Yet another study shows that teenagers who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have pre-marital sex than non-pledgers. And, naturally, after years of being taught that birth control pills are evil and condoms cause cancer - teens who take virginity pledges are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex.

It wasn't so long ago that Duanna Johnson was murdered in Memphis. Now, in the same city, Leeneshia Edwards was shot - she is the third transwoman to be shot in Memphis in the last six months.

Renee notes that in the small number of articles that have covered the shooting, all mention Edwards' involvement with prostitution, "as though this somehow justifies the violence that has occurred."

We are given no relevant facts about her life other than that she is a trans woman of colour and that she has been associated with prostitution. Can anyone's life be so minimized in this way. It is as though these aspects alone made up her entire identity. We are meant to think of her as soiled, and beyond redemption. By reporting her attack in this way without explicitly victim blaming the media has reduced her to a two dimensional being; and therefore less likely to illicit any form of empathy or emotion.

Edwards - who was shot in the jaw, side, and back - is in critical condition.

For more information and ways to take action, check out the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition.

Emma Bee Bernstein, a 23-year-old feminist photographer, died a couple of weeks ago. Jess and I both had the privilege of meeting her through her innovative project GIRLDrive, which we've blogged about previously. Emma and partner-in-crime, Nona Willis Aronowitz, hit the road and interviewed and photographed young women talking about their relationship to feminism. It morphed into a book which will be released on Seal Press in the near future. Read more about both Emma and Nona here.

I met Emma only twice, but her presence left a real impression on me. She had a quality of wild aliveness--animated about philosophy and art, dramatic about the ins and outs of her young, exciting life, literally bursting. She was beautiful, charismatic, dressed like a person who understood the playful capacity inherent in fashion, who liked to subvert people's expectations about appropriateness or trendiness. The last time I saw her and Nona, Emma had just read my book, and showered me with the most generous and seemingly authentic praise. I remember leaving the meeting feeling ten feet tall. Emma, this bright young engaged artist, had called me a philosopher. I felt like my words were important.

I can only imagine that Emma made a lot of people feel this way--like their presence, their take on the world (feminism, art, music), their words, were deeply important. I love her and Nona's project because it defies so many people's expectations about the young and cynical. It asserts that, indeed, young women are still interested in the open road, in communing face-to-face with strangers and friends alike, in intellectual journeys, in this transformative and unfinished movement called feminism.

She wrote the following, when asked to respond to the idea of intergenerational feminism for a panel at the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art at the Brooklyn Museum of Art:

There is good news: young women artists are revolutionary. They are making works that deal fervently with gender and sexuality, that deconstruct beauty standards, that unveil the veiled. They revel in the grotesque, the cosmetic, celebrity culture. They poke fun at themselves. They show us their obsession with the "feminine", but it is pop essentialism, deadpan gender. They do not care if you think they are vapid sluts, clad in designer trends. They look with a female gaze, they have autonomy, they are not marionettes. They are, indeed, artists who are feminists. Young women thinkers will say they are gender revolutionary before they are feminist-identified, and just as they seek to explode the binaries of sex, they mix-media and ideology, creating a patchwork of consciousness that is as thoroughly contemporary as it is politically feminist.

I like to think of her reading those words. That they were about "young women"--abstractly speaking--but, most specifically, about herself. She was that revolutionary, that joker, that deconstructer, that unapologetic sexual being, that autonomous seer, that binary exploder, that conscious, political feminist theorist and activist. She was that friend. That daughter. That sister. That artist. That innovator.

Emma ended her own life. It's almost impossible for me conceive of someone that alive now being dead. But I have to believe that she needed release in some profound way that even her beautiful family and friends, that even her relationship to art and feminism, couldn't provide. It's not romantic. It's unacceptable. It's also a reminder that life is a fragile, fragile thing, a choice that we each make every single day. When Emma was alive, she made the choice fiercely and with her whole being. I thank her for the lesson.

For New Yorkers, there will be a service on Wednesday, December 31st at 10:30 am, at the Plaza Jewish Community Chapel at 630 Amsterdam Ave (at 91st Street).

More links:
Nona's take
her dad's take
photographs of Emma
Emma's photographs
her whole essay on intergenerational feminism

It takes a certain je ne sais quoi to unabashedly argue in favor of marital rape. Of course columnist Dennis Prager doesn't call it that. No no, he prefers to use some sort of bizarre high school logic about how ladies who really love their man will "give her body" on demand.

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

And here I thought the "if you really loved me" argument was only relegated to after-school specials! How wrong I was.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny).

Haha, because the ideas of men's bodies as commodities is ridiculous, of course! Outside of the insulting notion that men only recognize love through sex, Prager also seems to think that sex is simply about women "giving" their bodies to men. (In fact, he writes some variation of the phrase "give your body" or "deprive your body" multiple times in the article.) The idea that sex could be a mutually enjoyable and wanted expression of love is lost on the dude. Which is actually pretty sad.

Prager goes on to write that men are no more than animals, and that "every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control." (Seriously.) But don't worry, gals, Prager has a sensitive side:

Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition.

Talk about a keeper!

Yes Means Yes contributor (and long-time Feministing commenter) Thomas actually has a great essay that gets to the heart of what's wrong with Prager's ideas about sex:

We live in a culture where sex is not so much an act as a thing: a substance that can be given, bought, sold, or stolen, that has a value and a supply-and-demand curve. In this "commodity model," sex is like a ticket; women have it and men try to get it.

In this case, Prager seems to believe that men have an inherent right to the whole frigging box office.

Melissa, Jesse and Jeff have more.

As you all know I'm on a road trip through the South these few weeks. Thanks to everyone who gave me suggestions about places to visit--I'm psyched to check them out. To share things will all of you from my trip I'm going to do some reviews from the road. Mostly sex shops (to continue on with the previous series) but also other cool places I discover along the way.

Our first stop was Asheville, North Carolina. We wandered into Vavavooom, a woman-owned lingerie and sex toy shop. The large window display on a main downtown Asheville street lured me in and the shop did not disappoint. As Lisa Ziemer, co-owner of the store admits, "it's well-lit and well-done."

I had a chance to wander around the store as well as talk to the owner herself, who was working the cash register. The lingerie they carry is tasteful, sexy and erotic all at the same time. A large variety of items without the Fredericks of Hollywood trashy feel. The items were well-priced too. The store primarily stocks lingerie, but also has a small assortment of lotions and oils as well as a small selection of sex toys--mostly the vibrators that coordinate with your ipod. It's definitely not the place to go if you're looking for traditional sex shop staples but for lingerie it's fantastic. Sexy shoes, stockings, night gowns and corsets. They even have a vulva puppet on display! Also for the more masculine folk there are some silk boxer shorts and robes.

One of the huge plus sides of the store is the wide variety of sizes--from extra small to XXXL. Lisa prefers the term "luscious" to plus size, but either way it's a great resource for women of all sizes. The store just opened in December and seems to be successful so far. Lisa says it's the first of it's kind in Asheville and maybe even in the Southeast. The store has some great fitting rooms in the back and will soon be offering workshops from Asheville's only sexologist, Kelley Wolfe.

The Vavavooom website is currently under construction, but check back in the coming months for online shopping and it's definitely worth a visit if you're in Asheville!

For more about Vavavooom, check out this article in the Mountain Xpress.

For more on my love for feminist sex shops check out my review of Smitten Kitten and Sugar.

If you have the post-holiday blues, check this out: Women's Media Center Media Manager Rebekah Spicuglia wrote a Huffington Post piece about Chili's in Georgia firing her sister over a sexual harassment case. An excerpt:

When my sister, Rachel Spicuglia, a five-year employee of Chili's Restaurant (owned by Brinker International), reported to her manager the escalating sexual harassment she was receiving from the cooks, which had culminated in an assault that morning in the walk-in refrigerator, the manager asked Rachel if the offending employee had gotten a "full cup" when he had grabbed her breasts. Shocked that the manager would joke in such way, Rachel protested that it wasn't funny, but he insisted that it was actually information that he needed to know.

Rachel ended up taking a leave of absence, filing EEOC Charge of Discrimination on August 12, but she continued to work with Chili's to arrange transfer to another store. The transfer was approved, but Rachel's calls to the store manager were never returned, and on December 9, Rachel received a letter from her health insurance, saying that her medical benefits were denied, due to the fact that she was terminated from her job. Two weeks before Christmas, without any warning, and still waiting for the EEOC to review her complaint. Apparently, Chili's was unable to fire Rachel during her leave of absence, but under Georgia law, unlike other states, you can suffer sexual harassment and be fired.

Shortly after Rebebkah's piece hit the front page of HuffPo, Brinker International, who owns Chili's, re-hired her sister, offering her the chance to resume her five year tenure with the company at a new location of her choice. Rebekah has recently posted a follow-up, which gives an even bigger picture of women in the workplace, particularly in service jobs:

There are too many people like Breslin who see sexual harassment as a general mass of "gray area" incidents. Regulating behavior in the workplace IS possible and happens every single day, as employers set a code of conduct for their employees to maintain. In addition, the impact of state legislation and regulation supporting Title VII cannot be underestimated, and Georgia residents would be better served by implementing their own laws, taking sexual harassment and employment law seriously.

Sometimes, justice is actually won through the twin tools of a empathic heart and a democratic media. Way to go Rebekah and Rachel! I'm excited to think about more ways in which HuffPo, and blogs in general, can put pressure on employers to treat their workers--women and men--with respect and dignity.

God, I love Julia Serano.

Via Womanist Musings. Transcript after the jump.

Trigger warning

This is pretty devastating. Last Saturday in San Francisco, a lesbian was beaten and repeatedly raped by four men, while the perpetrators "made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation." They then left the 28-year old naked outside of an abandoned apartment building, who was helped by someone living nearby.

This year has brought an increase in violence against LGBT individuals and a dramatic spike in murders resulting from LGBT hate crimes. And not surprisingly, some folks believe that anti-LGBT legislation such as California's Prop 8 is what is fueling the fire. Avy Skolnik of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) responded:

"Anytime there is an anti-LGBT initiative, we tend to see spikes both in the numbers and the severity of attacks. . . People feel this extra entitlement to act out their prejudice." (Emphasis mine)

The NCVAP is beginning to conduct research in the states that had gay marriage bans on the ballot this year to document the correlation with hate crimes.

Police in Richmond are offering a $10,000 reward to those who could lead them to the attackers. In the meantime, the local rape crisis center has set up a trust fund for her. Just donate in honor of "Jane Doe Richmond."

It's been a year, hasn't it?

The end of a year is when I like to give myself the gift of reflection. I'm a big fan of inner work and this is as good a time as any to take stock of what was before stepping toward what will be. When I sat down to write my thoughts on this past year my mind kept circling back to examine tolerance.

I'm not a fan of the School of Tolerance that has held court in the social justice world. People tolerate a stench or an annoying as hell person sitting next to them on a sold out flight to Phoenix...and as soon as the opportunity presents, those same tolerant people get as far away from that which they suffered as they can.

Tolerance is a temporary thing and many a happening in 2008 highlighted that. The marriage equality fight in California, where neighbors that shared gardening tips suddenly found out that some of them weren't down with sharing equal rights. The presidential election, where the complex diversity of the electorate ran into brick walls of assumptions and stereotypes and dishes heaped high with my oppression beats your oppression casserole served with a side of feminism is what I say it is rice.

Oh, I get why folks still send their children to the School of Tolerance despite the low graduation rate...don't get me wrong. Respect is hard. Tolerance is much easier. Respect can't be forced or guaranteed. Tolerance lives on the pages of Employee Handbooks and in the by-laws of Corporate Diversity Committees where people agree to practice the religion even if they aren't believers.

I acknowledge that those handbooks and policies offer some measure of protection in the workplace and schools. On one level society desperately needs guides for what will or will not be tolerated, what should or should not be expressed, so that our tendency to destroy what is different and therefore threatening may be checked. But on another level those policies create a false sense of shared beliefs and values...and all it takes is a ballot initiative and a marriage is between one man and one woman yard sign to blow the myth of tolerance being just as good as respect straight to hell.

That's the real, the challenge and the opportunity before us in the New Year.

As my grandmother often said, they call it the struggle because it is one...

This is an oldie but a badie.

If someone got this for me for Christmas, I may have possibly beat them with it. This "sexy furniture" created by Mario Philippona isn't new to us, but reader Mary alerted us to the piece and I just had to share.

Couldn't be more offensive, right? But perhaps not as bad as his Winespread, which is bluntly described, "You can stick your bottle in a wide spread sculpted pussy."

Warms the heart, doesn't it?

In this recent Early Show interview with Jennifer Aniston to promote her new flick Marley and Me, co-anchor Harry Smith asked her actually nothing about the film, but managed to - what some are saying "fawn over" - I'd say act pretty damn inappropriately. The best lines:

"You take a pretty good picture. And how old are you now?"
(When she answers) "Well, you wear it well. . .How do you stay in shape?"
"Do people follow you wherever you go?"
"Alright, baby. You look great. It bears mentioning."

Talk about professional.

Hey all, we're taking a couple of days off for the holiday season - we'll be back up and posting regularly on Friday. Good wishes and joy - if you're celebrating a holiday or not! - to you and your loved ones.

This is a gem.

Thanks to Lauren for the link.

Hey all!

In a few hours I'll be beginning an almost two week road trip through the South. I've been to most of these places before (since I grew up in North Carolina) but I'm excited to spend some more time and rediscover these Southern cities. Posting will be lite from me, but I hope to have a couple of posts from the road.

So, for all you Southern Feministing readers out there, I would love suggestions for places to visit in these cities: Asheville, Atlanta, New Orleans, Savannah and Charleston. I'm up for pretty much anything (particularly things off the beaten path), but as many of you know I have a particular interest in local feminist sex shops and queer bars. Suggestions welcome!

Happy Holidays everyone.

Woohoo!

Transgender activist Diego Sanchez has been appointed to the position of legislative assistant to Congressman Barney Frank in Washington, D.C. The top priority among his responsibilities will be to serve as the congressman's point person on LGBT rights, but he will also advise Frank on a range of issues relating to healthcare, veterans, labor and the U.S. Census. Sanchez will be the first openly transgender person to work in a congressional office in Washington.

It is about time. Curious to see how much of his advice they take, but this makes me feel slightly better after all the losses for queer rights in this last election.

via Bay Windows.

Pic via cathredfern.

Yeah, you heard it right. Apparently to be a cocktail waitress, you can't also be Muslim and wear what you want.

A Muslim cocktail waitress who claims she was sacked for refusing to wearing an 'indecent' red dress is suing a bar for £20,000.

Fata Lemes, 33, said the figure-hugging scarlet dress made her look like a nightclub hostess and was 'physically revealing and openly sexual'.

Miss Lemes said bosses at the Rocket bar allowed customers to think that 'waitresses could be treated as prostitutes'.

She is suing for sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

Sounds like a classy place.

Via.

This picture doesn't really do justice to how much Monty is digging the snow in Woodstock. But he doesn't hold still long enough for me to take a good shot - he's too busy hopping through the snow like a frigging deer.

Hope everyone is having a happy Monday...

Jen Nedeau at Change.org's Women's Rights blog breaks it down.

For the gal who can't afford a pricey hymenoplasty, there's the Artificial Virginity Hymen!

No more worry about losing your virginity. With this product, you can have your first night back anytime. Insert this artificial hymen into your vagina carefully. It will expand a little and make you feel tight. When your lover penetrate, it will ooze out a liquid that look like blood not too much but just the right amount. Add in a few moans and groans, you will pass through undetectable.

Okay, never mind the ick factor. But why oh why are so obsessed with virginity as something that has to be about tightness and blood? Let's not forget that hymens have pretty much nothing to do with virginity - a concept that's pretty tenuous in and of itself. And really, why the obsession at all? (Ahem.)

Via The Frisky.

Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage, was kind enough to let Feministing excerpt her book. Her guest post here last year generated a lot of discussion, so I'm sure this section of her book will do the same!

My venture into open marriage is ongoing. But at this point in my journey, what strikes me as most intriguing is the fact that I knew, from very early on, that traditional marriage wasn't compatible with me. I was always interested in "and," rather than "either/or," and I was never sure that love offered any guarantees. And yet I dove headfirst into marriage. Why? I thought that being committed and doing the thing I was supposed to do would help me come to my senses, but even early on in my marriage, I realized that love is a state, and a constantly fluctuating one at that. It is affected by changes in ourselves, our partners, and the world at large. So when the black-and white options we're presented with look like a huge splotch of gray, what are we to do? We must understand and accept that we don't have to live within the confines and rules that society presents for us as "the only way." We have a right to find our own happiness and our own truth.

Love and sex, much to the discontentment of so many who believe in happily ever after, are not constant companions. And those who believe they are will likely run into disappointment somewhere along the way. It's an ideal that sets us up for all kinds of falls. Most of us have had a number of partners by the time we get to that point, and any of those people may have offered qualities that we sought or wanted in a significant other. Yet suddenly there we are, bound to one person for the rest of our lives. Part of being sexually free prior to marriage, assuming that we aren't saving ourselves for The One, involves going through a period of sexual exploration and, if you're lucky, sexual enlightenment. All of which, again, is considered valid, even good, by modern standards.

Young women today are generally encouraged to explore, to find themselves, to be sexually open, but then are expected to somehow simply shut down as individuals when they get married and "settle down." But they don't actually, naturally shut down. They simply have an enforced response because of social conditioning, which demands that we stop being people and start being wives. And so one-night stands and casual sex are socially acceptable at certain points in our lives--college, certainly, and afterwards, as long as we're not married--and then, all of a sudden, sex isn't "just sex" anymore once two people commit to each other. As a result, we are left with an entire society of people trying to conform to an extremely recent social dictate. Truth be told, it's amazing that we aren't failing even more than we already are.

Trigger Warning

Apparently there's a comic called Rapeman that features a superhero who sexually assaults women who have "wronged" men. Anyone know anything about this craziness?

Thanks to Maddy for the link.

Feministing reader Raine sent this in, and I just wanted to share.

I was recently at Chuck E. Cheese for my little brother's birthday party. They have a new feature that, for one coin, produces an "ID Card". You put in your coin and then push a button that either says "BOY" or "GIRL". I tested this with six cards- three boys, three girls. The three boys that I got were Pro Snowboarder, Policeman, and Fireman. The three girl cards I got were Diva, Popstar, and Cheerleader.

Ah, I love Mondays.

I've always been a fan of Kate Winslet's acting, and was thrilled when I saw the headline, "Kate Winslet: I'm a Feminist," although her declaration was not as quite cut-and-dry.

In a recent interview, Winslet talks about how she read Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique while preparing for her role in the upcoming film Revolutionary Road, where she plays a 1950s housewife. So when asked the big question,

'I think I probably am, aren't I?' Her assistant hurriedly adds, 'In a loose, unofficial kind of way,' but Winslet continues to ponder. 'I think I probably am. I mean, not in a bra-burning way. But I think I am a feminist, yeah.'

Nice job, assistant. Because loosely and unofficially caring about women's rights makes it acceptable. But as little as Winslet may know about the bra-burning myth, I still give her some props. Not nearly as much as I would give feminist activists like the fabulous Ashley Judd, but still props nonetheless.

Check out this video from EngenderHealth asking viewers to sign their petition and tell Obama to overturn the Global Gag Rule.

Sign the petition here.

Here are some of the pics that my fella and friend Kimmi took at our awesome feministing holiday party in NYC last Friday. Thanks to everyone that came out. It was so much fun to meet so many readers and reunite with old buddies.

Apparently I really like listening to Vanessa

Yes, balloon animals were involved. And it's a sword you dirty birds.

Don't worry. He knows them.

More after the jump.

(Potential trigger warning)

Mind you she was resisting a false arrest.

Two officers in Galveston, TX were alerted to three white prostitutes soliciting a man and drug dealer, after which they mistakenly went to 12-year old Dymond Millburn's home, saw her outside in "tight shorts," assumed she was one of the perpetrators (even though she's not the same race as the suspects) and attacked her:

[A] blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, 'You're a prostitute. You're coming with me.'

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, 'Daddy, Daddy, Daddy.' One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

The house where they were supposed to be going was two blocks away. And despite the fact that this girl was not only hospitalized with black eyes, throat and ear drum injuries, the police came to her school three weeks later and arrested her for assaulting a public servant.

The case is scheduled for a new trial next month (it was declared a mistrial originally), but her lawyer is confident, saying "I think we'll be okay. I don't think a jury will find a 12-year-old girl guilty who's just sitting outside her house. Any 12-year-old attacked by three men and told that she's a prostitute is going to scream and yell for Daddy and hit back and do whatever she can. She's scared to death."

Two years later, Dymond still suffers nightmares from the attack.

The thought that these officers haven't seemed to even be considered for reprimand after sending this girl to the hospital is unbelievable. Is it okay because they thought she was a prostitute and, you know, police brutality is okay against prostitutes? Or is it okay because she's black? This makes me fucking sick to my stomach.

Go check out Queer Eye Candy, a new website from Sinclair Sexsmith of Sugarbutch Chronicles. In Sinclair's words:

This country is afraid of us, but they don't know who we are.

We're hot, we're fierce, we're vulnerable, we're beautiful, we're in love, we're horribly ugly, we're scared, we're tender-hearted, we're dog mommies and daddies, we're parents, we're children, we're neices and nephews, we're married, we're bachelors, we're rednecks, we're blue-collar, we're construction workers, we're political pundits, we're musicians, we're drag performers, we're community organizers, we're angry, we're activists, we're just us.

Let's show off who we are. Let's show those who don't know what we look like, let's show off who we love and who we spend our time with, let's show off our joyous communities and our heartaches and our hardships and our work and our play and our joy.

Let's celebrate ourselves, just as we are.

Add it to your google reader, and consider submitting a pic of you or someone you know.

Meet Matthew Chancey, the epitome of "manliness," says an Old Spice-sponsored contest.

Religious Dispatches has a piece on how an this contest created by web zine The Art of Manliness included a finalist who is a part of a movement that doesn't believe women should vote. And that finalist ended up being the winner of the Man of the Year Award.

Chancey was chosen with nine other finalists that the contest claims "epitomize the manliness that used to exist before the arrival of metrosexual pretty boys." But apparently this "manliness that used to exist" regresses all the way back to when women didn't have the vote. A member of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, a homophobic, anti-choice, anti-contraception group. In short, Chancey, his wife and nominator Doug Phillips is, according to author Kathryn Joyce,

"the staunchest promoters of the Quiverfull conviction and the patriarchy lifestyle, both of which hold that Christian couples should have as many children as God gives them, forgoing any form of family planning, as both a demonstration of their obedience and trust in God and as a militant method of demographic battle with nonbelievers."

Yes, Quiverfull, the movement that believes women's bodies aren't their own, but in fact sacrificial wombs used to build God's army.

Chancey's wife Jennifer is actually the founder of the website Ladies Against Feminism, as well as, according the the article, "a popular speaker on matters of wifely submission and 'faithful' daughterhood (namely, eschewing college to stay under a father's protection until marriage)." She's also spoken publicly about her opposition to women voting, which is a general belief of Christian Reconstructionists - that women shouldn't vote or hold public office.

Back to the subject at hand - Matthew Chancey won $2,000 and some Old Spice products. Is that a big deal? Not really. But the fact that this person was approved as a finalist by Old Spice and voted winner by nearly 10,000 people as an icon of manliness to follow, is what is disturbing here. If this isn't a sign we need to seriously reevaluate notions of masculinity in this country, I don't know what is.

5. The Spice Girls-will someone please explain how this could have possibly been misinterpreted as empowerment?

4. Tyra Banks-look, I know she does some awesome stuff, but she also humiliates young women pretty consistently on her show and refrains from any real interventions on ANTM when it comes to mental health issues...oh and there was that dead girl photo shoot

3. Diamond companies who advertise the "me ring"-Wow. So not only do the majority of you have heinous labor practices that affect women and children in mostly third world countries, but now you're trying to sell me the products of that labor through a bullshit idea that a diamond ring on my right hand somehow symbolized empowerment? Wow.

2. Sex and the City-I know I'm going to get some shit for this, but I have to ask how we can consider something truly feminist that has NO CLASS or RACE ANALYSIS. I enjoy it. I'm down to watch it. But do we have to call it feminist?

1. Sarah Palin-I don't think I need to explain. But if I do, just read here.

I know you've got some of your own that you'd like to add in comments...

There is a great post on the Yes Means Yes blog (inspired by Jessica and Jaclyn Friedman's new book, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape and maintained by the book's contributors) asking what your "real" first time was.

Thomas Macaulay Miller references to Hanne Blank's essay in Yes Means Yes the book, where she discusses the notion of rejecting the general or more "objective" form of what losing your virginity means and looking at it from a more subjective perspective. And then Thomas asks:

What was your first time? Not what other people say, not what "counts" by anyone else's definition; but your own.

Looking at it from this perspective, mine was - hands down - the first time I had an orgasm with a partner. Not because an orgasm legitimized it - but because it was the first time I really let go of all the bullshit and my insecurities. (Sorry mom if you're reading this.)

So let's have it, folks - when was your first time?

Good news! Univision responded to our protests from last week and has decided to run the ads! Thanks to any feministing readers who took action.

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and Catholics for Choice are happy to share the wonderful news that Univision has decided to run our Condoms4Life radio ads. We emailed all of you last week, urging you to take action and ask the President and COO of Univision Radio to run these important advertisements. The Spanish-language ads, which you can listen to here and here, talk about the importance of condom use within communities of faith. We are thrilled that Univision has agreed to play the ads which will air over the holidays on Univision stations in New York City.

When Univision Radio refused to run our ads on three of their NYC stations, we asked you all to get involved. You took action in impressive numbers, sending emails to Gary Stone with the message that this kind of censorship was unacceptable and that these messages are key to keeping our community safe. We want to thank all of you for taking action, especially those who passed the message along to their friends and family. A number of blogs also posted about this issue, further spreading the action.

Gary listened to you! We have the activism of the Latino community and our allies to thank for this win and Univision to thank for doing the right thing. We want to recognize Univision for listening to the resounding message you all sent last week-that the message Good Catholics Use Condoms deserved to be heard. NLIRH and Catholics for Choice will share a message of appreciation to Univision on behalf of all of us for listening to our concerns.

Thanks again for all your hard work and support. To keep up to date on this campaign, you can visit www.condoms4life.org or www.latinainstitute.org.

In solidarity,

The staff of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and Catholics for Choice

Remember those awful HHS regulations to expand protection for professionals who deny women health care based on their morals or religion? Well, HHS has published a final version of the new rules. Emily Douglas reports at RH Reality Check:

The administration made almost no substantive changes to the regulation following the period of public comment, says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. "The 200,000 comments in opposition to the rule they dismiss," says Sonfield. "They pretend to respond directly to them, but they actually don't." The only major substantive change the administration made to the rule is to expand the definition of the workforce the rule applies to -- for instance, it now includes contractors.

The rule allows health-care providers to define contraception as abortion, and to deny contraception to women. Also,

One of the rule's more disturbing provisions is the announcement that Title X family planning funding will now be open to grantees who refuse to counsel women on the availability of abortion. Title X has always required that when a woman tests positive for pregnancy, she must be counseled on all of her options, including abortion, and given referrals based on what her expressed interest. The regulations state that Title X funding will be granted "non-discriminatorily" to applicants, including those who refuse to provide counseling and referral for abortion.

In other words, it's a bad scene. Now, Douglas explains, Congress gets to weigh in on the rule, and it's allowed to file a "motion to disprove." (A tactic that seems unlikely to succeed.) If the motion fails, Congress could pass the Murray/Clinton legislation to block the HHS rule.

But all of that might not be necessary. The incoming Obama administration is already reviewing the rule to figure out how to undo it. Nice to have a pro-choice president, isn't it?

The Girls Education and Mentoring Service (GEMS) deserves some major props for the work they do day in and day out. GEMS is "the only organization in New York State specifically designed to serve girls and young women who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation and domestic trafficking," according to their website. It was founded in 1999 by Rachel Lloyd, a young woman who had been sexually exploited as a teenager. So amazing.

GEMS helps girls (ages 12-21) get out of the sex industry, heal from exploitation, and find their own voices and define their own dreams. It takes tireless mentoring and mothering, often resulting in girls who were former prostitutes becoming counselors for the next generation.

Check out this trailer of their new film on prostitution (trigger warning):

I'll be reviewing it later this month or next, so look out for that. And if you don't know what nonprofit to support this holiday, GEMS is a really meaningful option!

I was so moved when I heard my friend Jessica Alpert's NPR story on a tragic crime committed against the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament in Waterville, Maine. Basically, the small order or nuns was terrorized by a man who had been part of their community but had a mental breakdown. Two of them were killed and two were severely injured. The nuns saw to it that the perpetrator got put in a mental health facility, but they also did a ceremony in which they washed the feet of his relatives as a symbol of their forgiveness. Listen to the story for all the beautiful details and the moving tenor of the women's voices.

The story is, in part, so powerful because at a time when religion so often gets twisted for alienating and even violent purposes, these ancient nuns in this tiny town are committed to interpreting their Christianity in the spirit of love. They don't forget the wrong that has been done to them, but they forgive on a deep, demonstrative level.

I guess I feel like it's such a prescient story for our times because so much wrong has been done, so many lives shattered by government policy and corporate greed, and it's time to change things and, perhaps, even forgive. Holding hate for George Bush is a colossal waste of time and energy. I say, bring him to justice, as these nuns did, but don't let the hate fester in your own heart.

Reuters reports:

Instead of infiltrating breaks in the skin, HIV appears to attack normal, healthy genital tissue in women, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday in a study that offers new insight into how the AIDS virus spreads.

They said researchers had assumed the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, sought out breaks in the skin, such as a herpes sore, in order to gain access to immune system cells deeper in the tissue.

Just in case you haven't seen the facts, women of color are disproportionately infected with HIV and AIDS:

• Black women and Latinas account for 79 percent of all reported HIV infections among 13- to 19-year-old women and 75 percent of HIV infections among 20- to 24-year-old women in the United States although, together, they represent only about 26 percent of U.S. women these ages.


• HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death for black women (including African American women) aged 25-34 years.


• High-risk heterosexual contact is the source of 80% of newly diagnosed women with HIV infections.

Appalling, right? I got my big wake up call working with Marvelyn Brown on her memoir, The Naked Truth (now in its second printing!). Marvelyn was infected with HIV at 19-years-old through unprotected sex with who she thought was her "prince charming." Her entire life was turned upside down by forgoing the condom that one night.

Wrap it up ladies! Now that we know that HIV can infiltrate healthy tissue, it has become even more critical to negotiate condom use and always carry your own protection.

There are a bunch of books that have been sitting on my shelf for too many months and they look amazing. I don't want you all to miss the opportunity to give awesome books to your nearest and dearest this holiday season, so...

I haven't read these in full, but I've spent some time with each of them, and here are my thoughts.

Homefront by Kristen J. Tsetsi

This beautiful and stark novel by Kristen J. Tsetsi makes real the agonizing waiting that so many Americans must do while their loved ones are at modern war. The protagonist's voice--that of a young, heady woman--is so familiar, so real, so intimate that I can almost imagine it were my own, though I've never had anywhere close to the same experience.

It seems like there have been a real lack of narratives out there about the experiences of those who love those in the military, especially this time around. We get a sense of their struggles at times with the coverage of vets' injuries and rehab processes, but even then, the partners and spouses of military folks are usually treated as accessories, not given their own authentic voice.

Reading Homefront will give you such insight into the daily battles at home caused by this messy war abroad, but even more universal, a deep sense of appreciation for your own loved ones. As I was reading it, I felt blessed to hear the snore beside me in the bed at night.

Third Wave Feminism and Television by Merri Lisa Johnson

If you know a sucker for any of the following--Six Feet Under, the Sopranos, vampires--then you may want to pick up this awesome anthology for them, published over the pond by I.B. Tauris Press. Johnson, the Director for the Center for Women's Studies at the University of South Carolina-Upstate, brings together a range of totally intriguing and theoretically rigorous essays on the intersection between popular television and new feminisms.

She introduces:

As riddled with stereotypes as media culture admittedly is, television can also provide rare insight into alternative ways of living in the world. The small screen paradoxically provides a broader horizon. For rural adolescents, television can be the sole window into big-city subjects like homosexuality, singlehood-by-choice, multiculturalism, and, I'm not kidding, existentialism--my philosophy minor may well have stemmed from a certain episode of Family Ties in which Alex's little sister, Jennifer, reads Kierkegaard at the kitchen table.

Campus Calm University by Maria Pascucci

If you know a college student knee-deep in finals and Xanax, get him or her this book. Maria Pascucci, founder of Campus Calm, has written a guide to reducing stress and creating a happy life that's actually useful (as opposed to googling term papers in a hurry). Pascucci looks at everything from perfectionism (a section I'm quoted in) to creativity to work/life balance to relationships to spirituality in this one little book. She's got exercises if you're into that sort of thing, and lots of input from experts across the nation.

What I love so much about Pascucci's work is that she's obsessively pragmatic. Whereas with my book, Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, I sometimes feel like the reader gets a whole lotta analysis and only a little bit o' advice, Pascucci is dedicated to suggesting real solutions for real perfectionists and stressballs. She recognizes that being overwhelmed, overworked, and self-hating is not just a crazy college kid problem, but a matter of a life well lived or a life wasted on stress and misplaced priorities. In that way, her text even has a spiritual undertone--making that link between how we spend our precious energy and the quality of our very quickly passing life. I love that she gets deep on the subject while still managing to be very nuts and bolts about it. The girl's got range.

Daughters of India by Stephen P. Huyler

One in every six women living in the world lives in India. Amazing, right?

So is this book. It's a gorgeous collage of richly colorful and unique photographs of the women of India, and inspired writing about art, identity, and gender that is complex enough for this complex country. Author and photographer, Stephen P. Huyler, has spent much of his life documenting India--past and present--and writes in the author's note:

Women's issues and concerns have always been deeply instilled in me. I was raised and have always been guided by strong, self-reliant, and self-aware women. My great-grandmother and great-aunt were both pioneers of women's rights in 19th and 20th century Korea...Beatrice Wood, an American artist and potter who defied social taboos of the last century, befriended me just before I began college. As my mentor, Beatrice had a profound effect on my life, introducing me to India and arranging for me to be sponsored there by two powerful Indian women--both members of India's first parliament...

I went to a School of Seven Bells show Monday night at the Mercury Lounge and then had the absolute pleasure of reading this profile of them in Sadie's latest edition. (Sadie, if you're not hip to it yet, is "where feminism meets art meets grrrls.")

Their sound, if you haven't heard it, is sort of like Enya indie rock. That might sound terrible, but it's actually wonderful. It's all deep, affecting beats and angelic harmonizing by twin sisters Alley and Claudia Deheza. And while I don't know these ladies, I get the sense that they are very much in control of their own creative choices and totally committed to their art (not objectifying themselves like so many newbies who get manipulated in the music biz).

Check em out their sounds and Prefuse 73's graphics:

Obama has chosen Rick Warren, the right-wing Christian author and pastor of Saddleback Church, to given the invocation at his inauguration in January.

Dr. Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," will deliver the invocation. He will be followed by Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul, who sang "Someday We'll All Be Free" and "Respect" at a concert for Bill Clinton in 1993, but not at the inaugural ceremony.

What?! Surely Obama could have found a non-bigoted religious leader to give the invocation. Warren, despite being considered a nicer-and-friendlier "new evangelical," equates same-sex marriage with incest, says Christians who work for social justice are basically Marxists, and is staunchly anti-choice. (He recently told Steven Waldman of Beliefnet that he believes he is obligated to lobby the president to end abortion rights, but not to stop the use of torture.)

So many pro-choicers, gay activists, and progressive Christians worked their asses off to elect Obama, which makes Obama's decision to give Warren a platform at the inauguration a real fuck-you. I can't even handle the irony that Warren's appearance will be immediately followed by Aretha singing "Respect" and "Someday We'll All Be Free."

Reader Meredith sent along a link to this post by Steven Levitt on the Freakonomics blog:

What Do Prostitutes and Rice Have in Common?

If you believe what you read, then the answer to that question is that they are both examples of one of economics' most elusive objects: Giffen goods. But don't always believe what you read.

A Giffen good is a product or service for which demand rises with price. In other words, if you hold everything else constant, but the good gets more expensive, the quantity consumed will increase.

I don't think it's inherently demeaning to analyze the economics of sex work. I do, however, think an entire post that equates human beings with a GRAIN is pretty fucking unacceptable. Also, note that the post does not compare the commodities purchased -- i.e. sex and rice -- but instead treats sex workers as if they themselves, rather than their services, are bought and sold.

Then, just in case any readers missed the fact that he doesn't think sex workers are human beings, Levitt turns it all into a big joke:

I offer a Freakonomics contest: the commenter who provides the best answer to the question of what prostitutes and rice have in common within the first 24 hours of this post will win their choice of Freakonomics schwag.

You'll be totally shocked to learn that the comments are a cesspool.

So I have a similar contest for you, dear commenters: What do asshole economists and rice have in common? Best answer wins a set of Feministing magnetic poetry.

Wow, this is sort of the depressing opposite of that orgasmic birth story we posted on recently:

According to a civil suit filed Monday, Skol arrived at the hospital at about 4 a.m. Her usual doctor was out of town, so Dr. Scott Pierce filled in. The lawsuit alleged that Pierce showed up at Rush four hours later, and when he did, he allegedly reprimanded Skol for not calling before coming in. The lawsuit claims he said there was not enough time to administer pain medication.

The suit also accuses Pierce of telling a nurse that Skol got the pain she deserved because she had not called ahead.

"Sometimes pain is the best teacher," he allegedly said.

Skol says the doctor gave her an excruciating vaginal exam in the middle of a contraction. Then, although she was not fully dilated, she claims Pierce instructed her to start pushing.

When Skol or the staff questioned his methods, Pierce told Skol, "Shut up, close your mouth, and push," according to the suit.

If what the suit alleges is true, that's seriously disturbing.

I am beyond thrilled to announce that Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, an anthology I co-edited with the Jaclyn Friedman, is out.

I'm incredibly proud of the book, which I think is really made by its amazing contributors: writers, bloggers and activists like Julia Serano, Latoya Peterson, Jill Filipovic, Tiloma Jayasinghe, Coco Fusco, Kate Harding, and Feministing's own Miriam Zoila Perez and Samhita Mukhopadhyay. (Among many awesome others.)

In addition to the great essays, I'm also really excited about the way we formatted the anthology. Because so many of the topics covered are related and intersect in various ways, we didn't want to group certain essays together in a traditional linear fashion. So we took a cue from blogging and tagging and gave each piece multiple themes.

So after reading Latoya Peterson's essay, "The Not-Rape Epidemic," if you want to read something else about youth sexuality, you'll be directed to essays from Heather Corrina ("An Immodest Proposal") and Hanne Blank ("The Process-Oriented Virgin"). But if you want to follow up on another theme Peterson writes about - the role of government in policing female sexuality, for example - you can skip to a different essay instead.

This way, the reader can create the narrative they want to - Jaclyn and I started calling it a "choose your own adventure" anthology! (Check out the preview on Google Books if you'd like to see what I mean.)

So please consider buying (or borrowing from the library or a friend!) Yes Means Yes - a book I hope will add to the discourse surrounding rape culture, a book I hope will spark positive action.

Related: If you want to follow some of our contributors and the ongoing conversation started in book, you can check out the Yes Means Yes blog, or come to one of the upcoming book events!

We've gotten lots of mail from readers asking us to comment on the open U.S. Senate seat from New York, which is vacant because Hillary Clinton is headed to the State Department. Caroline Kennedy has made it known that she's interested in the job.

Like Dana Goldstein (and lots of other bloggers), I was initially averse to the idea because of the legacy. Just as there was something off-putting about the idea of replacing a second Bush president with a second Clinton president, "just being a Kennedy" didn't seem like enough of a reason to hand Caroline a Senate seat. Plus, there are lots of other people who have had experience in government -- Nita Lowey and Carolyn Maloney, to name just two.

But Dana eventually came around to the idea of Kennedy, listing many of her accomplishments that are public, but not necessarily in government. And while I wouldn't call Caroline Kennedy my first choice for the job, I do think that she'd be capable.

matttbastard rounds up some commentary on the Caroline question, including this quote from Jane Hamsher:

It seems Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas[...] Really? She's "making calls this morning to alert political figures to her interest?" I guess it was either that or get her nails done.

Gendered much? Also, as Bint Alshamsa points out, it's not as if anyone else in the running for Clinton's Senate seat -- or Hamsher herself, for that matter -- is without a fair degree of privilege. And Echidne makes an important point:

At the same time, it has always been harder for women to get to the top and being born or married into a political family has historically been almost the only avenue which women have had to power. Just check what would have happened to the early women Representatives and Congresswomen in this country if we had applied a no-nepotism rule for the last eight decades.

Of course, it's important to keep in mind that this is all still firmly in speculation territory. Gov. Paterson has yet to appoint a replacement for Clinton, and has not said that Kennedy is even the front-runner.

A new study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reports that women make up less than 20 percent of all cardiologists and that two-thirds of women continue to report discrimination.

I was sick in bed yesterday (actually, still am) so I thought it would be a good opportunity to catch up on some movies I've been meaning to watch: Itty Bitty Titty Committee was one of them.

It was awesome, super fun and interesting. And I have to say, I was really pleased to see it not too far down iTunes "top rented" lists. Nice. C(I)A rules.

Nerve.com has a book out documenting their first 10 years which is a series of their best erotica. I have liked Nerve for years and although I haven't agreed with every single story they have put out and I am definitely not turned on by all their stories, I applaud their effort.

As Tracy says at Salon,

Beyond just bringing legitimacy to sex writing and online photography, Nerve has turned the sex-segregated worlds of erotica and pornography into one coed Brooklyn-hip orgy -- and the nauseating clichés and mechanical in-and-out of either genre are not welcome. (Neither are the trite Carrie Bradshaws or Julia Allisons of the world.) The site has given birth to Nerve Personals, a matchmaking service for urban singles that helped make online dating cool, and the über-hip parenting site Babble. The magazine has also launched several media careers, like those of former sex and relationship columnists Em & Lo and writer Grant Stoddard (whose memoir "Working Stiff" is based on his popular sexual guinea-pig column "I Did It for Science").

In the rest of her piece she has an interview with co-founder Rufus Griscom that speaks to this art of balancing writing about sex that is also meaningful and smart, not just to turn men on. I don't always agree with Nerve's content and am a little over the "shock" factor of hipster culture, but I do think they are creative and some of the best sex writing out there that doesn't just hinge on degrading women.

via Salon.

In Japan where women have really low rates of heart problems they have found that women that live with their spouses and their in-laws have a really high rate of heart problems.

The researchers followed 91,000 Japanese men and women living in different household arrangements for more than 10 years. The participants ranged in age from 40 to 69 and had not been diagnosed at the start of the study with any serious illnesses, including heart disease, stroke or cancer.

By the end of the study, 671 participants had been diagnosed with coronary artery disease, 339 had died of heart disease, and 6,255 had died of other causes.

Women who lived with their spouses and parents, usually in-laws, were less likely to smoke or drink heavily, but were three times more likely to have had a heart attack, the researchers found.

The article feigns surprise in finding out that men don't have these same health problems, but fails to make the obvious conclusion that women get inordinate amounts of pressure from their in-laws to live up to certain expectations that increases stress in their lives. Many women are choosing not to get married or have as many children in Japan, but the culture of expectation around how women should act in the home seems resilient. I wonder if a similar correlation can be made with women that are living with their in-laws in the states?

via NYTimes.

Wow, just wow. I am not sure what can be said about this really.

JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell and Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Good names for a trio of toddlers? Heath and Deborah Campbell think so. The Holland Township couple has picked those names and the oldest child, Adolf Hitler Campbell, turns 3 today.

This has given rise to a problem, because the ShopRite supermarket in Greenwich Township has refused to make a cake for young Adolf's birthday.

"We believe the request ... to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate," said Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman.

The Campbells turned down the market's offer to make a cake with enough room for them to write their own inscription and can't understand what all of the fuss is about.

Good for Shoprite. But what can you really say to this family? "Yo, uhhh, that is really racist!" Offensive is an understatement. That is your WTF for the day.

Thanks to Legba for the link.

This past Sunday I finally got to see Milk at BAM in Brooklyn. It was a late showing so the theater wasn't too packed which made me feel relieved since I am a big cry baby at the movies and I knew with this one I would let it all loose. And it lived up to all the tear jerking I thought it would. I cried so much I think I actually was embarrassing my brother sitting next to me. I couldn't help it, some things are so close to my heart, that crying is the only way I can process them. Plus, I just lived in San Francisco for 7 years and I miss that special place.

Milk is about the later life of Harvey Milk a New Yorker that flees to San Francisco to live life as an openly gay man and ends up as an organizer that builds power in the Castro and beyond. After multiple tries is finally elected to be part of the San Francisco city of Supervisors. It was one of the most brilliant portrayals I have ever seen of a civil rights leader.

I was not taught about Harvey Milk in school. As a school teacher in San Francisco, I had to learn about his life in order to teach my students, but never to the extent that was portrayed in this film. I never understood the depth of his character, just that he had been unjustly murdered and about the bullshit "Twinkie Defense."

Everyone of the actors in this film was on point. Penn killed it, one of the best roles of his life, as did his long time lover in the film, super hunk, James Franco and even the crazy right winger that ends up taking his life, Dan White, played by Josh Brolin. The story was real and it was timely. One of the key things that he fights for after in office is opposition to Prop 6 which at the time was calling to have all out gay teachers and their supporters fired in an effort to get the "perverts" out of the schools. What disturbed was the realization that this struggle was fought the year I was born, 1978, and well, that is just not that long ago. There are multiple scenes protesting different anti-gay legislation throughout the country all shot in the Castro and looked no different from those that only happened a few weeks ago after the passage of Prop 8, where protesters were also asking for the basic civil rights of gay people. As I watched the movie and as I have thought since the election, what will it take for our civil rights leaders to understand that gay rights is an issue of civil rights?

The story told in this movie is timely and relevant and a brilliant portrayal of what it took to build power in a community that had previously been powerless. It also shows how the majority of the organizers for gay rights were white men which is what has led to a predominantly white led movement for gay rights that has often ran in tension with lesbian rights and queer people of color movements for building gay power. The movie is cut with pieces of him recording a tape that is to be listened to if he is to be assassinated and at the end of the movie he declares that it is not just about gays, but also about Asians, blacks, immigrants, workers and the rights of all of what he calls, "us," a brilliant message that shows that the "other" is actually the majority. But Milk's dream of "us" has not been true in queer organizing since then and building an attempts at building international solidarity in building gay power.

So while the story of Milk is amazing, it is important to look at the impact his legacy. The Castro is currently one of the richest, whitest neighborhoods in San Francisco, where its base of gay men, has turned into wealthy gay white men, marginalizing most other types of people. It is known to be a hostile environment for youth of color that are frequently picked up by the cops and has had several of its bars protested for inhospitable treatment of black clientèle. Simply put, I have very few gay friends that hang out in the Castro anymore.

Milk adds to the mainstream dialogue around organizing that popped up after the Obama campaign. People are seeing what it looks like to build power in communities that have been previously unheard or rendered invisible, generally at the mercy of an unjust government and legal system. So then I had to think, what would an inclusive gay rights movement look like today? One that included single moms that are demonized as "welfare queens" and clearly disrupt heteronormativity to "sexual deviants" and radical queers. How do we align around the issue of our rights being protected or guaranteed? There are more of us that disrupt heteronormativity than there are that don't. And frankly, I think the most disturbing for many about the passage of Prop 8 and all the other anti-gay legislation around the country was the display of homophobia, even more so than the actual loss of the rights. What will it take for the majority of Americans to see queer people as deserving of civil liberties?

Go see the movie, it was really inspiring.

This headline certainly made me pause when it popped into my inbox so I had to share, even if it is for a laugh. According to this study of over 2000 adults, 46 percent of women said they would forgo sex for internet access as opposed to 30 percent of men.

The U.S. survey, which queried 2,119 adults last month, found that the gap grew even wider for both men and woman who were 18 to 34 years old. For woman, the percentage of those willing to skip the sheets in favor of the Web rose to 49 percent, while it climbed to 39 percent for men.

And for women 35 to 44 years old, the figure jumped to 52 percent. (Results as of Monday from CNET's related online poll showed that 30.5 percent of respondents would give up sex for one year, while 26.1 percent would do without Internet access for a year. Almost 40 percent of voters didn't want to sacrifice either.)

For many of us the internet is how we work, so it is not really an option for us to "give up" the internet. Also, many women get sex from the internet as do many men, along with the increase in long distance relationships that also lead to sex via internet. So basically, if the options ain't looking good in your "real life" the internet functions as an excellent way to not only meet people but have sex with them.

And what was the sexual activity of the people questioned? Were they in relationships? Were they single? I think all these have to do with how long people are willing to give up sex. Hey, some women would rather have internet than have sex with the people they can possibly have sex with at any given time.

Thoughts?

I hesitated to write about Bettie Page's death because, frankly, I don't know much about her. I saw The Notorious Bettie Page, and I know she is recognized as an icon by everyone from Reason magazine (which called her "one of America's most enduring brands") to Bust (which refers to her as its matron saint). Like anyone who has achieved icon status, her image is bigger than her biography, and how people (feminists in particular) interpret Bettie Page often is more about their personal view of the world than about Page herself.

So I was deeply curious to read other feminist bloggers' reactions to the news of her death. And unsurprisingly, the reactions reflected the spectrum of feminist views on sex and sexwork.

Feminist sex blogger Carlin Ross, on the blog she shares with Betty Dodson, wrote:

She was just a pin up model but she broke barriers. Not many women had the nerve to be a fetish model in her era. Dita Von Teese never had to testify before Congress.

I remember finding one of my grandfather's Playboy magazines and finding the image of Bettie wearing nothing but a santa hat pinning an ornament on a xmas tree. I sat there for hours looking at her. It was her joy and sexual confidence. She looked so different than the other women in the magazine. She was happy. She was sexually expressive. And she was powerful.

Kate Harding at Broadsheet wrote:

Page said she got into pinup posing because "I could make more money in a few hours modeling than I could earn in a week as a secretary." In light of her status as a darling of third-wave feminists -- between the sexual liberation and the cute bangs, what's not to love? -- it's worth remembering that her fame came, at least in part, from a lack of options.

And Suzie at Echidne of the Snakes wrote:

In interviews, she said she wasn't personally into bondage, but she enjoyed the photo shoots. She said she never thought of her poses as sexual. ... When commenting about her, a lot of men confuse women's sexuality with what women do to please men, to make a living or to get ahead. People talk about how she celebrated her sexuality, blah-de-blah, without noting that photographers paid her to pose in various ways. I wonder how people look at her photos and see only what they want to see.

Is it possible to be both an icon of sexual liberation and an icon of sexwork-as-a-last-resort? The answer, of course, depends on which feminist you ask. Of everything I read about Bettie Page, I think Amanda's post comes closest to my own feelings on Page as an icon. Your thoughts?

At first glance, the True Woman conference doesn't seem anti-feminist. It's main promotional video has a sisterly kind of vibe - it's all about loving God and living a good life. The trailer above about the conference hints at anti-feminism, but it gives a nod to "career women" and is magnanimous enough to show a woman wearing a stethoscope. (Never mind the implicit notion that only some women are "true" women, that's about to be the least of our concern.)

But their post-conference press outreach reveals a more insidious message: If you love God, you have to hate feminism.

A group of conservative Christian women is seeking 100,000 signatures on a "True Woman Manifesto" aimed at sparking a counter-revolution to the feminist movement of the 1960s.

Introduced at a gathering of more than 6,000 women in early October, the document calls not for equal rights, but instead proclaims that men and women are created to reflect God's image in "complementary and distinct ways."

That includes the idea that women are called "to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church."

The press release intrigued me, so I checked out their website and some of the panels. Perhaps the most telling was one talk, "You've Come a Long Way, Baby!", given by Mary Kassian.

The short version: Patriarchy is fabulous, feminism is unnatural.

Kassian is particularly fond of romanticizing the imaginary perfect world of Leave it to Beaver, suggesting that life back in the 1950s (before darned feminism came around) actually was like the show.

Once married, a woman could normally count on her husband to financially support her and the children...

Pornography and rape and homosexuality, sexual perversion, sexual addiction, sexually transmitted diseases were uncommon and rarely encountered.

I don't know about your families, but back in the day my married Nana was working her tail off to support her kids because my grandfather's salary wasn't enough. And rape most certainly existed, though maybe it wasn't called that.

What do you think?

I kind of love the parallel: because the wage gap is like a big fuck you to women.

From The New York Times:

As the wife of a former N.F.L. player with degenerative dementia, Eleanor Perfetto finds herself performing the most basic tasks for her husband, Ralph Wenzel: she feeds him, bathes him and tries to explain all that is happening to him.

She could not, however, attend a meeting Thursday night in suburban Washington between N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell and former players, the third in a series of discussions regarding the later-life care of retirees. As Perfetto tried to enter the room, Goodell told her the meeting was for players only.

But the problem wasn't just that the meeting was for players - it's that it was for men. Goodell told the NYT reporter that women being present could impede the discussion.

Perfetto and the wives of other players with dementia criticized their exclusion, adding their voices to a debate over the care of retired players that has been the subject of two Congressional hearings.

"We wives are the voice of players with dementia, because they can't speak for themselves," Perfetto said. "They are only allowing players healthy enough to attend. That means they're getting a very slanted view of what it's like out there."

So sexism is stopping what could be a comprehensive discussion. Nice. Though I'm betting this isn't just about keeping women out - it's about keeping caretakers out. These women are the ones who know best what is happening to their loved ones - shutting them out isn't just sexist, it's irresponsible.

It's nice to see PETA changing up their marketing strategy. Oh, wait...

Thanks to miss.meshuganer for the link!

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Ann already posted about the dire situation of In Other Words, a feminist bookstore in Portland. But I wanted to follow up: Some of the staff there created this video/call for donations. Please forward it widely, and give if you can.

Just the headlines today...

bastard.logic: Gaza Blockade Forces Citizens to Eat Grass for Survival

Feministe: NPR Backs Out of Interview with Abortion Provider

Jack and Jill Politics: The Malia and Sasha Effect

Bilerico Project: Agnes Scott College: Lesbians until graduation?

Washington Post: 'This Is the Destiny of Girls' Across Much of South Asia, a Daughter's Life Is Circumscribed By Tradition and Poverty. But for Some, the Dreams Die Slower.

Bitch Blog: Calling all Female Hacks: Please Direct More Movies

Sociological Images: Alcohol as a tool in the dating game

Lusaka Times: It can happen to you This story is dedicated to baby M who died on 11th November 2008 in D block UTH, Lusaka Zambia as a consequence of the power failure that occurred shortly after midnight.

New York Times: The Green Power Broker (Majora Carter)

TransGriot: Why I Can't Stand The 'Gay Is The New Black' Slogan

Michelle Obama Watch: Let Michelle Obama's real self shine

Unfogged: Obama and the glass cliff

The Independent: Police investigate MP's anti-gay remarks

The American Prospect: Feminist Media in a Time of Economic Trouble

Feminocracy: England to Begin Non-Prescription Birth Control Pilot Program

Muslimah Media Watch: Princess Hijab

Womanist Musings: Michelle Obama: Hair and the Politics of Submission

Women's eNews: Kenya's Rape Probe Falters After Lawyers Drop Out

Bitch Blog: Urban Outfitters Pulls Support Tee

Hoyden About Town: The impossible beauty of Jessica Alba

Feministe: No words (on an anti-Latino hate crime in Brooklyn)

Yes Means Yes Blog: Dear Ann Arbor Police, Sgt. Richard Kinsey, University of Michigan and Yaron Eliav: Are you kidding me?

Take Action: Help save Portland feminist bookstore In Other Words.

What have you all been reading/writing this week?

One of my fabulous students at Rutgers put this video together for his final project. I think it's great so I wanted to share...

And on another note: teaching is awesome. More on this later.

There is no doubt that I was super upset when hearing the news of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's arrest on federal corruption charges. After all, he has been a huge advocate for emergency contraception in Illinois. But amid the disappointment, the New York Times added even more distaste to the debacle when covering his wife Patricia Blagojevich's role in the scandal.

While many are in shock and awe over the "brash" phone conversations she took part in that resulted in the charges against the governor, the Times' tabloidy take on Blagojevich by painting her as this "first lady gone bad" is just tacky. Firstly, the author takes it upon herself to identify what the proper role of a first lady is:

The Web site for the governor's office says that in addition to raising the couple's two daughters, Ms. Blagojevich occupies herself with typical first lady issues: raising awareness on children's health, food allergies and literacy, and starting the State Beautification Initiative, which planted native wildflowers along state roads. (Emphasis mine)

I didn't realize horticulture was a "first lady issue" (whatever that means). Of course breeding is expected, but planting flowers too! Yet behind the blooming buds of a first lady's life, Ms. Blagojevich didn't only know about her husband's dealings but is, in fact, a potty mouth.

And, in a blast of vulgar language, Ms. Blagojevich eggs on her husband when he reportedly threatens to prevent the Tribune Company from selling the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field unless The Chicago Tribune fired editorial writers who had called for the governor's impeachment. Ms. Blagojevich is quoted in the complaint as saying that the state should 'hold up that [expletive] Cubs [expletive] ... [expletive] them.'

Taking any opportunity to paint women involved in politics as divisive and manipulating is sadly an old tactic by mainstream media. But when it specifically comes to women who are married to men involved in political scandals, the media seems to usually victimize them for not knowing about their husband's "double life." This case, however, is different; her knowledge of it immediately makes her not only his partner in crime, but the trophy wife turned trickster.

h/t to Boondoggle.

Related: A few days ago, community poster Nicolechat questioned what the "role" of a first lady actually is.

While community poster toomey posted on this a few days ago, we've been getting too many emails from readers to not cover it. And it's also really fucking disturbing.

I don't know what's more unsettling: the fact that she expresses pain and distress when you assault her, or the way inventor Le Trung dresses them. (See pic after jump.)

Aw shit...I knew this one had to be coming!

A while ago I had written for the American Prospect about the blog Stuff White People Like and discussed some of the trends in race in America it so accurately highlights both intentionally and unintentionally. At the time there were several blogs that were spin-offs, but I guess I missed this most important one, Stuff Desi People Like. It is as though my analysis can come full circle.

My immediate feeling, stumbling upon such a blog was relief and humor. Even the first entry, #36 Fair Skinned Kids, is one of those dirty secrets that I keep close to my chest about my mother's preference for lighter skin, that I find to be frustrating and often fight with her about the racism embedded in such beliefs.

Check out the blog, I think it is pretty funny actually. But I always feel when mocking ethnic minorities it is different than mocking the dominant culture. At the end of the day, we are still not the dominant culture and there is still a sense of voyeurism and curiosity that turns into judgments and racist assumptions about ones culture. As a person of color, the culture I come from is but one part of who I am and does not limit me from understanding the diversity of this country. The onslaught of cultural productions about South Asians/Desis has excited me while leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Since I spent most of my life with people not knowing anything about India or Indian culture (outside of food and yoga), it is frustrating when people are in the "we think we understand your experience now" space. But it is also exciting.

So I guess in looking at SDPL, I suggest we laugh, but don't laugh too hard, because there are so many things that are just not able to be translated effectively given the racist assumptions we all hold about different cultures.

We're stoked for our Feministing Holiday Happy Hour tonight at Lolita, and hope all you New Yorkers can make it out to celebrate (or subvert) the holidays with the Feministing crew. Party starts at 7 pm.

Check out our facebook event page too for more details; we're expecting a great turnout!

I know fast-food ads are not typically paragons of feminism or anti-racism, but this so incredibly offensive:

(Transcript is here.)

I'm just gonna quote Antigone at PunkAssBlog:

This is easy exploitation of other people; the "poor savages" practically comes screaming off the add. (Don't even have a word for "Burger"? WTF? I bet they have a word for "sandwich" and I also bet that they have plenty of words we don't have in English). Additionally, Whoppers and Big Mac would probably make them sick; most countries on the planet are not used to the high fat, high sugar, high beef, high salt diets of Americans. So, they're giving them food, but they're going to probably be immediately sick afterwards.

Burger King, you fail at making commercials.

The commercials have an accompanying website that takes pains to note they're actually exploitative, not just pretending to be: "Whopper virgins are real people doing real taste tests. No actors were used in this film."

Corporate contact info for Burger King is here.

This week marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a real opportunity for all of us to reflect on Eleanor Roosevelt's legacy and the future of human rights in an international context (Roosevelt took the lead on getting the declaration written and ratified). See Ann's post yesterday for starters.

With Zimbabwe dissolving, Sudan still embroiled in violent chaos, Guantanamo, the trafficking of women and children all over the world, rape still rampantly used as a war crime, and so many other human rights abuses worldwide, we must explore the issues within the declaration more than ever.

Mary Robinson, remarkable leader and humanitarian (formerly Ireland's president), has a piece over at the Women's Media Center on the anniversary. Here's an excerpt where she advocates women-led grassroots initiatives to challenge human rights abuses:

In many conflict areas, gender based violence and the abuse of women's rights are endemic. And the suffering of victims of gender based violence in particular goes well beyond their immediate trauma. Survivors' rights are further abused in the aftermath of rape and other violence due to inadequate medical and psychosocial care; entrenched impunity for perpetrators of gender based violence, incapacitated judicial systems, and often abandonment by husbands, families or communities.

Investing in women and their grassroots initiatives is perhaps the most cost-effective form of conflict prevention.

Anyone have a favorite initiatives they'd like to shout out in comments? Might be instructive for anyone looking to do humanitarian work and/or trying to decide where to give money this year (tithe time and income if you can folks). Let's make Eleanor proud.

And finally, my favorite Eleanor quotation:

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

Ever since I heard the anti-abortion protesters screaming in my ear and had their fake signs of dead babies thrown in my face as I sheepishly went into a Planned Parenthood on Colorado Avenue back in 1996, I've been pretty clear that these folks are up for using all sorts of manipulative tactics to limit choice. This new angle, however, surprised me. The argument goes:

We should stop federally funding Planned Parenthood because the economy is so bad and they already have private donations.

FYI, Planned Parenthood receives about $335 million a year from the government, specifically targeted for contraception, sex education and health care for poor women and teenagers. Yup. I'm sure this has everything to do with the failing economy and nothing to do with some strategic (not to mention righteous) thinking on the part of a few anti-abortion organizations that are trying to squeeze lemonade out of some really shitty lemons. Note: the federal funds don't go to abortions. That money comes from the other 2/3 of the budget raised through private sources. But I'm sure that the anti-choice folks see any way that they can hurt Planned Parenthood as a score for the team.

The Wall Street Journal gave this specious argument major column inches covering it in yesterday's paper, reporting that "The Family Research Council is developing a kit to help grass-roots activists dig through financial reports so they can make detailed presentations to elected officials about the assets and revenue of local Planned Parenthood chapters. The council has sent letters to 1,200 state legislators describing Planned Parenthood's strong financial position and urging 'a second look' at public funding."

Already, Planned Parenthood's in Florida and Georgia have been hit.

Jack and Jill Politics reports that NPR has axed News & Notes. Yeah, times are tough -- programming cuts are understandable. But this is a serious blow. Baratunde writes,

Yet I can't help but think that now, of all times, is not the time to cut any sort of programing that brings intelligent discourse to black issues. Couldn't they have cut that weird news quiz show, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, instead? I mean, really?

Jasmyne Cannick has contact info to write NPR and ask them to make budget cuts elsewhere.

Courtney and I have both discussed before our love/hate relationship with Oprah. The woman is complex and frequently, I disagree with her but I do respect her greatly and the work that she has done. And as a feminist, the way the media treats Oprah in talking about her weight, well, I think it is sexist.

Yesterday, I watched an entire segment on CNN devoted to Oprah's weight. Two female news anchors concluded that it was a hyperthyroid that has led to her fluctuation in weight. yet other news outlets weren't so forgiving or "scientific" in there assumptions. One google news search brings up how much she gained, her denial in it and calling her chubby and "heffer."

I am so disgusted by this, I almost don't know where to begin. First of all, why is weight gain newsworthy? Oprah is one of the most accomplished business women of our generation who has shown to not only be smart, but interesting, complex, well-read. Why does her weight make major headlines? Secondly, between having a health problem and being really busy, yeah she might gain weight and the fact that this is looked down upon shows us loud and clear the unfair standards put on women to not only be uber-successful but to also be svelte.

I know what you are thinking. But Oprah put this out as news herself! Probably to sell her brand even more! Yes, I think there is some validity to this argument, Oprah herself has pushed the, "I gained weight and this is why" story. But I guess it is important to ask, is Oprah creating this narrative herself or is she merely buying into a narrative that centralizes the way a woman looks before what she does? She is after all a savvy business woman. I don't agree with her using her weight as a selling point but really the joke is on the US consumer for buying into it.

As I have written about before, I struggle with this myself. I am really busy and don't have time to watch after my weight non-stop. Frankly, I don't care enough to since I think I look great anyway, but the constant barrage of comments I get about my weight is infuriating. I am successful in my personal endeavors, not to mention managing multiple relationships, projects, familial obligations and so much more, yet there are some people that only notice that I gained weight.

Bottom line, it is sexist to focus on Oprah's weight in the media. Men don't have this same pressure. You would never see a special on Lou Dobb's weight gain, nor would it be lucrative for him to have a special on his weight gain (although this sentiment is changing). As long as popular culture and mainstream media outlets stay fixed on women's physical characteristics we are bound by these constraints, holding our bodies as representations of who we are. It is not fair and we shouldn't stand for it.

Related:
Kate Harding: Dear Oprah
Rachel Setzer:Oprah done with fat shaming

Samhita beat me to posting Jon Stewart's direct confrontation of Mike Huckabee's anti-gay views. And while I share in the swoon-fest, I think it actually calls for a bit more conversation.

Huckabee has been making the rounds to various media outlets, promoting his new book. A few weeks ago, after the Huckster appeared on Rachel Maddow's show, Pam Spaulding noticed that Maddow chose not to bring up gay rights during the interview -- despite Huckabee's bigoted views. ThinkProgress asked her why, and Maddow responded,

I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don't care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn't bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her -- it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.

(Emphasis Pam's.) Maddow is saying her decision was a journalistic one, and Pam's not buying it. But I disagree with Pam that this is "closeted journalism." In the past, Maddow hasn't shied away from discussing gay rights on her show. For example, she covered the Prop 8 fallout.

Tami had a really great take on some of the questions this raises:

But that thinking puts a tremendous burden on successful members of marginalized communities, who already have to work extra hard and overcome myriad obstacles. Does Oprah have a right to be a talk show host, not a black talk show host with an extra burden of addressing "black" topics in a way that is acceptable to the black community? Can Rachel Maddow be just a super-smart, kick-ass pundit and political show host without the specter of her sexuality looming behind every decision? Where does our responsibility to our people end and our responsibility to ourselves begin? What does a community have the right to ask from its most successful members?

(Did you read Tami's entire post? 'Cause you should.)

These questions hit really close to home for me. Like Maddow, I work in political/opinion journalism. And I find myself considering these things in so many situations. Do I assign this piece to a lesser-known journalist who is not a white man (who may have less experience, but who would bring a different perspective and much-needed diversity to the magazine), or do I try to assign it to the well-known author (who is usually a white man, who is often a more experienced writer, but whose name is known and more impressive to our readers)? Do I make my feminist perspective very clear in my writing, or do I make a concerted effort not to have every piece with my byline focus on gender? Am I going to be seen as a nag when I bring up, over and over, the lack of diversity in our pages?

To be fair, I know plenty of white, male editors and writers for whom these questions are also important. But the difference is the weight of the obligation. And it's clear that it weighs heavier on journalists who are women, who are queer, who are people of color. It's not a perfect analogy, but in some ways, it's like child care. When a mother takes the kids to the park, she's just doing her job. When dad does it, he's a hero. That's why it's hard for me to fault Rachel Maddow, and why I force myself to temper (just a little bit) my joy at watching that Jon Stewart segment.

Check out Stewart calling out the idiocy, homophobia and blatant discrimination behind gay marriage bans. The hypocrisy makes Huckabee wiggle, a little bit. Oh and apparently, people that viciously vote to deny rights to our gay citizens do it not because they are homophobic, but because they just really like straight marriage. A lot.

Can someone please find me a Jon Stewart type to make out with? kthxbye.

I ran across a really interesting article in Pink Magazine the other day about the ongoing struggle for pay equity. In it, journalist Christina Boufis makes a case for salary transparency.

She leads the article with a fascinating anecdote. Apparently Gloria Steinem once told a room full of corporate execs that they should pick one woman in the room and make a pact to always be honest with one another about their salaries. Paula Henderson, one of the young women in the room, made just such a pact, and through twenty years of career changes and economic ups and downs, she estimates that having that transparency made she and her pact partner about three million dollars!

Now certainly many of us aren't working in the same kind of lucrative field that Henderson and her partner are, but it really made me think about my own relationship to money when it comes to friends and colleagues. I've always been pretty transparent, partly because of my feminist values, but also because I think I've always hungered for the camaraderie of others who struggle with the freelance lifestyle (it's all feast and famine). But now I think I'm going to be even more transparent.

I urge you to send this post to someone you'd like to create a transparency pact with and ask her if she's down for the long haul. Or, if you're feeling really brave, just make a pact with yourself that you'll tell any and all other women how much you make if it looks like it might help them leverage their own salary negotiations or just make them better informed.

Check out me, feministing friend Gwen Beetham, and plenty of other young women speaking out on the new pres and pres' partner over at the National Council for Research on Women's new blog The Real Deal. What terminology would you replace "the first lady" with if you had the chance? (I said partner to the president.)

Rinku Sen's new book The Accidental American: Immigration and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization is an amazing feat of intersectional analysis. She takes one man's story (her co-author, Fekkak Mamdough) and uses it as the narrative vehicle for an analysis of the ways in which immigration, nationalism, racism, globalization, September 11th, worker's rights, community organizing, gender dynamics are threaded together in an inseparable knot. Overwhelmed already? Don't be. The impressive thing about Sen's writing is that, despite the fact that she is juggling so many story lines, themes, and transnational issues, she manages to keep the language very clear and the structure very simple.

She argues that the current framing of the immigration debate--keep "them" out or let "them" in so they can provide much-needed labor--is limited and, in essence, immoral. Her key thesis is this:

Captive to the rhetorical status quo, both sides have decided, for various tactical reasons, to ignore three important realities. First, globalization is incomplete, creating a situation in which corporations are free to move jobs, operations, and capital anywhere they wish, while workers' mobility is limited by borders and immigration laws. Second, a permanent, unchanging American identity is neither possible nor desirable; the culture of the United States has changed many times over the course of its history, and further transformations are always already in motion. Finally, the current debate posits immigrants and U.S. residents as foes, when in fact our destinies are closely tied together. Without focusing attention on these three blind spots, we cannot gather enough information to make rational, innovative choices.

In large part, this book serves to expand these three realities--looking at each through the real life experiences of Mamdouh, an immigrant from Morocco who once worked in the World Trade Center's restaurant Windows. But even more profoundly, it argues for and serves as a model of humanizing the immigrant in a very deep way. She writes, "The dominant frames of crime and work, which in turn influenced the actual policies being debated, didn't allow immigrants to claim a fuller humanity that would entitle them not just to come to the U.S. and work, but also to come and be."

Sen's contributions with The Accidental American are many. She's given us a primer on the nitty gritty, day-in-day-out of community organizing. She's brought a fresh big picture perspective on the national conversation about immigration, pre and post September 11th. But her biggest gift with this book is the way in which she's brought fragile, real, tender humanity to this hot button political issue. She writes, "Without a frame that emphasized their full humanity, immigrants couldn't effectively counter the argument that their interests were fundamentally opposed to those of Americans." Sen has offered the frame, and in so doing, opened a window into a kinder, more just future for all Americans.

So I'm just flipping through the stations on my television, using the cable guide, and I come across a segment of 20/20 on We. The "info" that describes what the episode is about?

Young, beautiful, dead.

I think I need a glass of wine tonight.

Today is the anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Sixty years on, we pay tribute to the extraordinary vision of the Declaration's original drafters and to the many human rights defenders around the world who have struggled to make their vision a reality.

The Declaration belongs to each and every one of us - read it, learn it, promote it and claim it as your own.

During its "16 Days" series, MADRE, an amazing international women's rights organization, has been posting some great examples on their blog of women around the world who are taking this to heart.

• In Kenya, women established a village called Umoja ("unity") where violence against women is prohibited.
• In Colombia, in communities threatened by violence from military and paramilitary groups, a group called LIMPAL works to support displaced women and their families.
• In Sudan, women have created a farmer's union to allow them to demand government support for their agricultural projects.

It's important to remember that Human Rights Day isn't about calling on other countries to honor basic human rights. It's about working for those rights in our own communities.

It's that time of year, folks when the editors of Feministing (along with suggestions from readers) put out a list of the year's best feminist-minded gifts. And of course, given U.S.' economic crisis, we've also suggested a list of charities that could use your help this year as well.

Feel free to leave your own ideas in comments!

Activist-y gifts

Sticker Sisters has a ton of great, well, stickers. But it also has kick-ass t-shirts, magnets and buttons for the activist in your life. This one - meant to be stuck on offensive ads, products, whatever - is my favorite.

Buy your friend the gift of liberal discounts with the Liberal Card.

Or shop at MADRE's online store to support women worldwide.

Feminist Fashions, Housewares and Knick Knacks

Gotta love Miss Wit's stylings...

Not to mention our very own Feministing gear!

And nothing says "thank you for being a friend," than an homage to The Golden Girls.

I am woman, hear me roar. And write.

Or consider giving patriarchy the finger with some subversive cross stitching.

Ladypart-inspired gifts

Show your uterus you love her with a plushy toy.

When you go red, buy green.

And if you're buying sex toys this year, make sure that they're made of safe - for your body and the environment - materials.

Support feminist organizations!

Make it a very happy holiday for one of these amazing organizations (don't forget - leave others in comments!):

The Mautner Project, a national lesbian health organization.

The Abortion Access Project.

SisterSong, a reproductive health collective for women of color.

The Women's Prison Association, a service and advocacy organization that helps women with criminal justice histories.

The National Advocates for Pregnant Women, which works to protect the human and civil rights of pregnant women.

Give the gift of feminist media

Gift a gift subscription to BUST, Bitch, Shameless, make/shift, or New Moon.

And most importantly, spread the feminist love around this holiday season! Support blogs that aren't widely-read, local organizations and grassroots campaigns that don't get the same media attention big orgs do - whether that means volunteering, donating, or even dropping them a note of support.

Via Veronica at Nuestra Vida, Nuestra Voz:

After a five-day sit-in at a Chicago window and door factory, workers declared victory as the Bank of America decided to extend credit to Republic Windows and Doors.

The factory was slated to close when the Bank of America refused to continue credit to Republic Windows and Doors, a manufacturer of energy-efficient doors and windows, which would have not only put 300 people out of work and the benefits (including health care) that went along with it, but denied the workers the compensation and earned vacation and severance to which they were entitled. This is despite Bank of America having received millions of dollars in the financial bailout for the exact purpose of being able to give loans and credits to businesses. Since the bailout was highly unregulated, however, what many banks are choosing to do with their money is to simply sit on it, and are refusing to give small businesses credit at the cost, in this case, of hundreds of working-class jobs. The workers, however, who were part of the United Electrical Workers Union, occupied the factory and refused to leave until their demands were met.

I'm kind of obsessed with the site Passive Aggressive Notes; I think it's hilarious. This one I found particularly irritating/interesting:

Apparently this woman's supervisor sent this charming note because someone had been complaining (!) about her showing a bit of cleavage. According to the sender, "as I'm currently 7 months pregnant, i could be wearing a turtleneck and still be showing 'too much' cleavage."

Ugh.

Our lovely readers in LA are having a Feministing Holiday Happy Hour next week to benefit SAFER, an amazing organization that fights against sexual assault on college campuses. Here's a bit of info:

Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER) provides organizing training and support to college and university students so that they can win improvements to their schools' sexual assault prevention and response activities. By offering students the necessary support and resources, confidence-building and leadership training, SAFER empowers student activists to rally the community and push school administrations to take action.

We're bummed we can't make it, but we'll be there in (holiday) spirit! Check out their community post for details, and check out the facebook event.

There are emails that the editors of Feministing get on a pretty regular basis (asking us about the logo, our comments policy, etc) and assumptions we know get made about the way the site is run.

So we figured we'd shed some light on the inner-workings of Feministing in a brand-spanking new FAQs section. Here you can find answers to some of the questions you may have about the site and our process; we'll probably add to this page in the future, but we thought this was a good start. Enjoy!

The latest from Sarah Haskins!

Thanks for the reminder JCP! For a minute there I thought these gender norms were being broken down. I guess not! There is definitely no WAY a little boy might want a doll to play with, or anything pink. EVER. And damn those confusing gender-neutral names!

Thanks to Stuperb for the link

Hank Stuever has a good article in the Washington Post today about reporters' love of questioning male actors on their same-sex on screen kisses and the homophobic responses to these queries.

In the relentless publicity interviews [James Franco has] been doing for his new movie, "Milk," there's plenty to ask about his performance as the neglected lover of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, the gay rights martyr. So what does every interviewer -- from David Letterman to the Philippine Daily Inquirer to public radio's Terry Gross -- want to discuss most, over and over and over?

The kissing.

Wasn't it really difficult to kiss another man? Implied: Without throwing up, seeing as you're so obviously straight? What were you thinking as you kissed? Did you rehearse it? What was it liiiiiike?

Underlying the questions (and the answers) is this notion that a gay kissing scene must be the worst Hollywood job hazard that a male actor could face, including stunt work, extreme weather or sitting through five hours of special-effects makeup every day. We live comfortably, if strangely, in a pseudo-Sapphic era in which seemingly every college woman with a MySpace page has kissed another girl for the camera; but for men who kiss men, it's still the final frontier.

Judging from their interviews over the years, actors who have filmed scenes in which they have pointed a revolver at someone's head and pulled the trigger still think gay kissing is the grossest thing they've ever had to do for a movie.

Unfortunately this is not surprising. Just another example of how homophobia (particularly targeted at male queerness) is still running rampant. Even professional actors, who do a damn good job of presenting queer characters on screen feel the need to be extremely unprofessional in response to these questions. Take a look at Steuver's piece for some of the more heinous examples. Obviously the media fascination with asking this question only promotes this type of homophobia and posturing as well.

Also interesting is Stuever's explanation of how female actresses responses to these questions differ.

Women actors who've kissed other women in love scenes, meanwhile, sound like an enlightened other species in interviews about kissing. For them, it's no big whoop. The men, on the other hand, talk as if they've outdone themselves and are now ready to accept their golden statue.

Yesterday Jessica took to task this diminishing and poorly thought out article in NY Mag about gender equality and drinking. Jesscia did a great job parsing the bullshit in the article as blaming feminism for women's rate of drinking and I wanted to add to her analysis from a different angle, as that of someone who has had many close friends enter recovery.

In the last few years, I have had several close friends come to a cross-roads with their drinking where they have either decided that they can't drink as much as they used to or they have entered recovery. Many of the transformations have been painful, they have been introspective for all of us and they have harnessed on the collective strength of women supporting each other in making the best decisions for themselves. Feminism has played a key role in this. Many of my female friends drink in excess, not because they wanted to be "one of the guys" but because they had lives that were difficult as women, either for internalized sense of failure, experiencing abuse, depression around money, depression around social stature or failed relationships. I am not just talking about drinking for fun, of course women engage in that as well, but I am talking about drinking as a way to numb the pain, difficulty and reality of this often cold cold world.

It has been through the support of feminism and the fundamental belief that women have the right to enjoy life and not hate themselves for the failures that society has in many ways set up for us have we found the strength to take care of ourselves. So while the type of thought expressed in the above article blames feminism for allowing women to act more like men, I am arguing that it is the pressure of patriarchy, racism and poverty that have frequently led women to drinking in excess and feminism that has given us the framework to understand it is not our fault, but a system built on our failures.

From the Sex Worker Outreach Project USA:

December 17th is International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. This event was created to call attention to hate crimes committed against sex workers all over the globe. Originally thought of by Dr. Annie Sprinkle and started by the Sex Workers Outreach Project USA as a memorial and vigil for the victims of the Green River Killer in Seattle Washington.

International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers has empowered workers from over cities around the world to come together and organize against discrimination and remember victims of violence. During the week of December 17th, sex worker rights organizations will be staging actions and vigils to raise awareness about violence that is commonly committed against sex workers. The assault, battery, rape and murder of sex workers must end. Existing laws prevent sex workers from reporting violence. The stigma and discrimination that is perpetuated by the prohibitionist laws has made violence against us acceptable. Please join with sex workers around the world and stand against criminalization and violence committed against prostitutes.

Ten things you can do to participate after the jump.

This is just awesome. And although there are multiple cultures throughout the world that have always had a third category for gender, it always makes me happy to see some mainstream coverage of the ongoing negotiation of gender in non-Western communities. This NYTimes article focuses on the "muxe" or a accepted third gender in Oaxaca, Mexico. I went to Oaxaca a few years ago and I loved loved loved it, but now I love it even more.

But nowhere are attitudes toward sex and gender quite as elastic as in the far reaches of the southern state of Oaxaca. There, in the indigenous communities around the town of Juchitán, the world is not divided simply into gay and straight. The local Zapotec people have made room for a third category, which they call "muxes" (pronounced MOO-shays) -- men who consider themselves women and live in a socially sanctioned netherworld between the two genders.

"Muxe" is a Zapotec word derived from the Spanish "mujer," or woman; it is reserved for males who, from boyhood, have felt themselves drawn to living as a woman, anticipating roles set out for them by the community.

Similarly, my mother used to always tell me of the hijra in India, similarly considered a third gender, yet often they don't stay with their families but roam together. I am sure they still face discrimination, fear and hatred but it is good to remind mainstream trans/queer rights movements in the United States that binary gender systems have been shown to not be inherent or natural in many other contexts.

Via NYTimes.

Thanks to Karlos for the link.

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (full disclosure: that's my day job) and Catholics for Choice recently ran two Spanish language radio ads in NYC, scheduled in conjunction with World AIDS Day.

You can listen to the two ads here and here, but here is a summary:

The radio ads appeal to people of faith with one of the 60-second spots noting that: "I'm Catholic and there is nothing more important to me than protecting family and love. That's why I talked to my grandson about condoms."

The first ad features a grandmother speaking about her grandson, a gay man, who hears that Catholics are not supposed to use condoms. She tells her grandson, "I took care of you because I love you and if you love that man, you'll take care of him, too."

The second ad features a couple and models language that couples can use when discussing the importance of love, faith and condom use in their relationship. The ad concludes, "We are Catholics and people of faith and we know sex is sacred and that we need to take care of each other. And this means using a condom every time we have sex."

Pretty tame right? Well not according to Univision. They refused to run the ads on three of their radio stations in NYC, despite the fact that these organizations were willing to pay for them. To add insult to injury, Univision recently received an Cable Positive award for their work on HIV prevention with the Kaiser Family Foundation. Apparently HIV prevention is cool, but talking about condoms is a no go? Or maybe it was the queer theme of the first ad that caused the rejection.

Anyways, if you want to send an email to the President and COO of Univision Radio telling him he should run the ads, go here.

Latoya has a new series up at Racialicious, "The Things We Do to Each Other/The Things We Do to Ourselves" about the ways that race intersects with other movement building efforts and despite our attempts at moving to more nuanced understandings of race in America, outside of community based organizing that is explicitly anti-racist, it is rare that you see an actual centralization of race in the mainstream gay rights movement. In discussing how we as identity-based workers and folks working for policy based changes to increase rights in our communities, we overlook the ways that we marginalize other voices. In the case of the organizing and coverage of Prop 8 it was the voices and contributions of queer people of color.

I think it is safe to say that an apt parallel is the women's rights movement and its returning insistence of centralizing the voices of white women. Whether it is intentional or not, feminism frequently recenters itself around the needs and lives of privileged women, and I think this is a point to make. Feminism has dirty baggage in its tokenization of women of color and there have been many many conversations, anthologies and organizing efforts around displacing the white center for mainstream feminism. But those of us that work from the margins can only change the history and image of feminism, along with the way that it plays out in organizing efforts, so much. If the mainstream image of feminism continues to insist that feminism is for white women, how can we reclaim it for our own communities and break it down as something that is potentially useful across sectors?

What am I trying to say? That despite our attempts at including voices of color, mainstream feminism always comes back to revolve around the voices of white women and women of color are generally put in the position of token or an addition and after thought after the omission has already been made. This stems from internal turmoil sure, but it also is damaged by mainstream messaging, marketing and distribution of resources along the lines of privileged women being centralized. The theory being, well feminism has always been for white women, so isn't it just going to be like that?

Check out JC Penny's new viral marketing campaign for their jewelry line. Not only does it paint men as clueless assholes, but it also promotes the tired idea that all women want is quiche-eating, jewelry buyers. I just find this one insulting all-around.

I have to say, I'm incredibly grateful that we no longer see commercials that depict women's bodies as dirty. Oh...wait.

From Sunday's New York Times:

[Starla D.] Darling, who was pregnant when her insurance ran out, worked at Archway for eight years, and her father, Franklin J. Phillips, worked there for 24 years.

"When I heard that I was losing my insurance," she said, "I was scared. I remember that the bill for my son's delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself."

So Ms. Darling asked her midwife to induce labor two days before her health insurance expired.

"I was determined that we were getting this baby out, and it was going to be paid for," said Ms. Darling, who was interviewed at her home here as she cradled the infant in her arms.

As it turned out, the insurance company denied her claim, leaving Ms. Darling with more than $17,000 in medical bills.

I just had to highlight this anecdote because it shows so starkly how all of these issues are connected.

Also check out the coverage of the sit-in at a Chicago factory on Sunday, where workers demanded the wages they're owed. Shark-Fu has more...

Related:
Women Charged More for Identical Health Insurance
Saving on health care costs by crossing borders
New report: Unionized women workers earn more
Health care is a feminist issue

I never thought about drinking until equal rights came along!

Feminists are all too aware that we get blamed for a lot of ridiculous shit; everything from destroying the family and killing chivalry to YouTube "catfights."

And the idea that feminism (and women's equality more generally) is the reason behind ladies boozing it up has certainly been making the rounds lately. This article from New York Magazine, however, which argues that "drinking has become entwined with progressive feminism," takes the feminist-blaming cake. Cue scare tactic subhead:

More women are drinking, and the women who drink are drinking more, in some cases matching their male peers. This is the kind of equality nobody was fighting for.

While I don't doubt the statistics about women drinking more than in years past, the connection that reporter Alex Morris makes to feminism is based largely on nonsense: personal anecdotes, a couple of quotes, and hackneyed ideas about what feminism is. Morris even cites the Jezebel Thinking and Drinking controversy and falls back on the stereotyped notion that Third Wave feminism is "something akin to the type of reasoning that paints Girls Gone Wild participants as sexually liberated." The bullshit, it burns!

The thing that pisses me off most about this article - besides the fact that it perpetuates a well-loved lie about what young feminist are (Girls Gone Wild! I choose my choice!) - is that drinking is a serious problem for young women and men. But instead of serious, nuanced media coverage on what to do about the drinking culture among American youth, we get article after article hawing about the consequences of equality.

And frankly, Morris' argument is the exact same one used when conservatives and anti-feminists talk about "hooking up" or casual sex - that young women now "act like men" sexually. (Equality: the slutmaker!) Seriously - it's tired. Not to mention incredibly sexist : the underlying message is that gender equality is bad for women.

So if folks are actually concerned about young women and drinking, how about we talk about the consumer culture that markets liquor (something Morris touches on before quickly returning back to feminism) or how drinking is being used to blame women who are raped? Because despite the picture that Morris paints of young feminists boozing it up (cause it's empowering and stuff!), we're actually out there working our asses off. Maybe its time others followed suit.

It's about time. After a four-year anti-choice crusade against women's health clinics in Kansas, former Attorney General Phill Kline was slammed by the Kansas Supreme Court on Friday for his baseless attempts to criminalize Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. The Court said:

Kline exhibits little, if any, respect for the authority of this court or for his responsibility to it and to the rule of law it husbands. His attitude and behavior are inexcusable, particularly for someone who purports to be a professional prosecutor. It is plain that he is interested in the pursuit of justice only as he chooses to define it. (Emphasis mine)

Hallelujah. Peter Brownlie, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, responded, "The Court confirms what Planned Parenthood has said all along: Phill Kline is a zealot pursuing a lawless prosecution and misusing the people's trust to advance a radical anti-choice political agenda. We are saddened and angered by the travesties recounted in the Court's opinion, and we are grateful the Court rebuked him for his disgraceful acts."

Related posts:
Kline files 107 counts against a Kansas City Planned Parenthood (Weekly Feminist Reader)
Abortion records seized by Kline now missing (WFR)
Special Prosecutor fired, Kline criticized by governor Kathleen Sebelius (WFR)
Kline's special prosecutor linked to anti-choice terrorists (WFR)
Phill Kline's "investigation" continues
Are you going to second base? The Kansas AG wants to know.
Hearings on Kansas abortion records to be closed

Nikon's S60 camera detects different people's faces in a soon-to-be-taken photo. And what better way to demonstrate said feature than by depicting dark-skinned jungle dwellers and teenage girls in their underwear?

The ad copy reads: "The Nikon S60. Detects up to 12 faces."

Um, yeah.

You can find Nikon's corporate contact info here.

Via Fubiz.

This bitch has been pondering the themes represented in the comment made by Ed Rendell about Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano's nomination as Homeland Security chief. Rendell said Napolitano was a perfect pick because she doesn't have a family and can dedicate herself totally to the job.

Blink.

There's a lot to be bothered by in that but I must confess that what bothers me most is the idea that working in politics requires a lack of a life...and the unspoken belief that women with demanding lives can't work in politics.

Despite the excitement generated by Senator Clinton's presidential run, little attention is paid to the need for women to run for political office in all areas of government. I've spoken to a lot of women who have considered running for local or state office and almost all of them point to the daunting time commitments and their concerns over being able to balance that shit with the demands of their personal lives.

And many of them are single (gasp!) and have family demands that may or may not contain children (gasp again!!).

Even as I encourage them to explore the possibilities I have to acknowledge the fact that life in politics is often a major time commitment that puts serious strain on a person's work/life balance.

But we can't get stuck there.

We just can't.

We need more women in public office and that means we need to explore the challenges and work those problems out to come up with solutions that support working women everywhere rather than exclude us from representing our communities just when we need it most.

We've got lives and they desperately need to be represented in government.

So let's put our thinking caps on and get about the bitness of making that possible!

You would think that it was Monty who was moving furniture and unpacking boxes all weekend! Just looking at this picture makes me wish I was still asleep...

So how was your weekend?

New York judges can no longer bar people from changing their name to one that matches "the other gender."

Obama will reportedly push for ratification of the women's equal-rights treaty known as CEDAW, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Check out Sociological Images' series of posts on people of color in advertising.

On the high rate of cervical cancer in Nicaragua.

New media: Gawker lays off its lone female employee. Old media: Meet the Press will again be hosted by... a white dude. Totally shocking.

In Maine, the Senate president, House speaker, and attorney general are all women.

The Vatican still considers gay people criminals.

Shark-Fu on the conservative definition of "life" and "family."

Jessica Yee on native youth and the power and importance of native land.

Who was overlooked in the '100 Greatest Movie Characters' list? Women.

Obama's speechwriter and the "boys will be boys" defense of sexism.

Krista at Muslimah Media Watch on a truly bizarre fundraiser for Afghan women: the wine-bottle burqa. Just... wow.

How the child marriage rate in Nigeria relates to the prevalence of obstetric fistula.

From left to right: Carol Jenkins, President of The Women's Media Center and Founding Member of its Board of Directors and Glennda Testone, Vice President.

Carol Jenkins and Glennda Testone took time out of their busy schedules to reflect on their work at The Women's Media Center, politics and progressive activism and their upcoming Progressive Women's Voices (PWV) classes. Applications are due in December 15.

Here's Carol and Glennda...

This was the healthiest way for me to deal with the frustration I feel sometimes from being a self-proclaimed feminist blogger. It is quick and to the point and happy hour style late.

Enjoy your weekend folks.

Thanks to Rachel Superstar Simmons for the heads up on this episode of Amy P.'s awesome new show, "Smart Girls at the Party."

The lovely Campbell Brown gives us the low-down on a Massachusetts woman and her husband who were pulled over for speeding, given a ticket, and then asked by the state trooper to prove her pregnancy by showing her belly.

Read transcript here.

Nothing gets me more heated than law enforcement officials and the like who feel the need to expose and humiliate women, probably because I've had a couple of encounters myself. One was when I was in the airport last year going through security check-in - the security person told me to take my scarf off, which I did. Then he told me to take my thin cardigan off (I only had a small tank underneath), which I refused - you know, considering the woman who was already in the clear in front of me wasn't asked to take her scarf or jacket off. So he "allowed" me to proceed. Fucking jerk.

I'm sure some of you have had your own experiences...

Oh Cosmo, did you really have to go there? Their latest online is about how to find and appeal to a rich man:

Landing a loaded guy has long been a fantasy for some females. In fact, your own mother may have even quipped that it's just as easy to fall for a wealthy man as it is a poor one. And high-income dudes (those earning $104,000 and up, as defined by the Tax Foundation Group in Washington, DC) are on our radar even more thanks to such shows as The Hills, Gossip Girl, and The Millionaire Matchmaker.

This includes tips like "They Have Gold-Digger Radar," "They Feel Entitled to Arm Candy," "But They Don't Want to Marry a Dummy Either." They even refer to rich guys' preference in hair color.

Between pop culture's obsession with the rich elite and the media's love of portraying women as gold diggers, it's really disappointing to see a woman's magazine only perpetuating the stereotype. But should we be surprised?

Love. This.

This initiative is urging folks to call in "gay" to work on December 10th (which is International Human Rights Day) and volunteer at other organizations and initiatives to spread the love in reaction to a whole-lotta hating the past few months. Check it:

We've reacted to anti-gay ballot initiatives in California, Arizona Florida, and Arkansas with anger, with resolve, and with courage. NOW, it's time to show America and the world how we love.

Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success. A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love.

On December 10, 2008 the gay community will take a historic stance against hatred by donating love to a variety of different causes.

So get your lovin'-on and call in on December 10th.

h/t to Gwendolyn.

It's that time again - Anti-feminist Mailbag! - when the readers of Feministing get a glimpse of the lovely emails sent our way. This one is really special.

hey feminazi cunt, you deserve to be raped many more times. no1 cares waht you cunts think while you bitch and moan in the kitchen. so in a nut shell you are a worthless cunt with legs and a loud mouth that should only be used for sex or slapping. Praise satan, rape and kill sluts, take drugs, and burn the world

Back off gals, he's mine!

I generally love RedEnvelope for their nice gifts (though a bit overpriced), yet this made me laugh out loud. Of course the picture of their monogrammed branders (of your monogrammed choosing) has to be of "son" and "dad." Because there's nothing manlier than doing some grillin' some steak and branding your manliness into the meat.

Yet another reason to be proud New Yorker - dare I say we have a feminist governor? Via Zuzu, we find that Governor David Paterson was "outraged" this week that no women were nominated to lead the state's Court of Appeals.

Forced to choose between seven men from a recommended panel, Paterson expressed his discontent saying, "What we really wanted to do is just publicly acknowledge ... the disappointing fact that they spanned the globe and couldn't find a woman in New York state that was qualified to serve as the chief judge," adding that the panel's rejection could be discouraging to women. Ya think?

Additionally, not one of the three women on the Court of Appeals made the cut. The current chief judge of Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye, plans to resign at the end of the year.

Also on the New York tip, feminist organizations just publicly endorsed Rep. Carolyn Maloney to take Hillary Clinton's seat in the Senate. Considering her impeccable history as a pro-choice advocate in the state, it sounds like a good pick to me - we certainly need a good fit to take Clinton's place.

Need I say more?
RIP.

Researchers out of Johns Hopkins University shows that there has been no reputable study done that can show having an abortion causes mental health or emotional distress or the existence of a "post-abortion syndrome."

The researchers also noted that efforts to show that the syndrome does exist are politically motivated. (You don't say!)

Thanks to Janet for the link!

Related: The answer is no, "post-abortion syndrome" doesn't exist.

So, I suppose we can start to put together the list of things that the Bush Administration is going to try to pull before they leave office, one of the most nefarious being the "right of conscience" rule.

via LA Times.

Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

So, essentially, even if you have the right to obtain an abortion, you may not have access to the information necessary to actually know all your options. I would never deny how smart a doctor is, but I don't really think it is up to a doctor to decide what is morally right for me or for my body. If the law has already decided that I can have access to reproductive technology, then why is a doctor allowed to tell me something different? I would like the advice I get from my doctor to be based on my health needs, not their religious and moral beliefs. I am sorry that is crazy.

According to Raw Story this change could hurt rural and poor women the hardest. Melissa Harris-Lacewell in conversation with Maddow over the subject discusses.

Harris-Lacewell explained that regulations like this "right of conscience" rule have "been the new strategy of those who have been opposed to women's reproductive rights. ... Rather than fight this out in the courts ... what you do is limit access. You limit the education that doctors are getting in medical school. You limit the ability of these doctors to practice in various states and localities. You just keep reducing, reducing, reducing."

"That has a disproportionate effect on poor women, on rural women," Harris-Lacewell stated. "Women who have private health insurance, women who have private physicians, tend to have plenty of access to a variety of reproductive rights options. Poor women and women with less access are the ones hit hardest."

Related:
Bush not done fucking with you yet.
Bush to Issue Midnight HHS Regulation.
Clinton moves to Block HHS Regulation.

A survey commissioned by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) shows that most Americans favor partner rights for same sex couples, allowing gay Americans to openly serve in the military, and oppose laws that ban adoption by gay and lesbian couples. Word.

Some more stats from the survey:

* Three-quarters of U.S. adults (75%) favor either marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Only about two in 10 (22%) say gay and lesbian couples should have no legal recognition. (Gay and lesbian couples are able to marry in two states, and comprehensive civil union or domestic partnership laws exist in only five others and the District of Columbia.)

* U.S. adults are now about evenly divided on whether they support allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry (47% favor to 49% oppose).

* Almost two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults favor allowing openly gay military personnel to serve in the armed forces. (The current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law bans military service by openly gay personnel.)

* About six in 10 (63%) U.S. adults favor expanding hate crime laws to cover gay and transgender people. (Hate crimes laws cover gay and transgender people in 11 states and the District of Columbia, and an additional - 20 states' laws cover sexual orientation but not gender identity.)

* A slight majority of U.S. adults (51%) favor protecting gay and transgender people under existing laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. (Existing non-discrimination laws cover gay and transgender people in only 12 states and the District of Columbia, and eight other states' laws cover sexual orientation but not gender identity.)

* Nearly seven out of 10 U.S. adults (69%) oppose laws that would ban qualified gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. (In several states, gay and lesbian couples are banned from adopting.)

Via Pam's House Blend.

I went to dinner last night at a pretty nice place and the waiter kept referring to be in the third person:

"Does the lady want any dessert?" "Does she like her wine?" "Is the soup to her liking?"

He did not refer to my male companion in the third person and it was sort of hard to tell whether he was directing these questions at me or my dinner date.

Can someone please explain this to me? Am I somehow made invisible or mute by having a vagina? Was I zapped back into 1952 without realizing it? Did the waiter expect my friend to order for me? Was he shocked when a lady opened her own mouth and real live words came out describing real independent choices?

Note to waiters: Not cool.

Randy Albelda has an interesting piece over at The Boston Globe questioning if Obama's proposed stimulus package is sexist. Her argument:

Jobs in construction and many of those that come with green investment often pay decent wages with benefits. But they are overwhelmingly held by men. Outside of trickle-around effects, this stimulus package will not create jobs for women in any close proportion to the numbers that will be unemployed....Caring for those who cannot care for themselves, healthcare, and primary education are the very foundation of a civil society. Investing in these outcomes are as vital to our long-term economic health as airports, highways, wind turbines, and energy-retrofitted buildings. On the employment side, women are disproportionately employed in these sectors, so any stimulus package directed toward them would boost the employment prospects of women at all levels of the wage scale.

But we must not lose sight of the fact that caretaking, teaching, and wellness roles have been traditionally both imposed and embraced by women. Sometimes women have authentically been drawn to these fields; I certainly have female friends who love teaching, social work, and other caretaking professions. But some have been pressured into these professions along with traditional gender roles. When my grandmother was growing up, she could be either a teacher or a nurse. When my mom was growing up, she thought she might be a secretary because she heard if you got your work done really fast, you could read all day. Although young women today rarely have the same kind of social conscription when it comes to their career choices, many are still socialized to believe that a caretaking role in the most virtuous and congruent with their gender.

So, yes Albelda, let's pressure Obama to create lots of jobs in the educational and healthcare fields, but let's ask that his team do it, not because traditionally gendered jobs will continue perpetually to fall into "dude jobs" and "lady jobs," but because caretaking is valued as much as construction. And further, let's continue to support efforts like Men Teach and Non Traditional Employment for Women, that encourage both men and women to break out of traditional gender roles and follow their true calling.

Over a few long airline flights this week I finally had a chance to read the latest from Curtis Sittenfeld (of Prep fame): American Wife. It's a fictionalized account of Laura Bush's life based on many of the real biographical details. As it weaves its way from her young discovery of an abiding love for books, a car accident in her adolescence that would influence the trajectory of the rest of her life, and her inevitable connection to rich kid politico "Charlie Blackwell," the reader develops a deep empathy for the woman that would be first lady.

The power of the narrative had me constantly looking at Laura Bush' wikipedia page to get a sense of which pieces came from Sittenfeld's imagination and which were drawn from real life events. It turns out that many of the most interesting parts were straight from real life. As usual, the truth is much stranger than fiction.

The book is long, and I felt it dragged a bit about a third of the way through, but I was otherwise riveted. It turned out to be a perfect time to read it. As the Bush era begins to dim, there is much talk about what his legacy and hers will really be. Having this novelistic insight into their emotional lives, her motives and passions, the complexity of fame and marriage and, well, just trying to live a life right give me a totally different read on the public conversation about the Bush family.

The added bonus? Sittenfeld is a feminist, so there are a lot of fascinating feminist twists. I won't go into them because it will spoil some surprises, but here are some of my fave excerpts:

I would not marry a man unless I could show myself to him truly--I had no interest in tricking anyone--but I couldn't imagine showing myself to most men, revealing myself as someone more complicated than I seemed. If thinking of the exertion and explanations that would require discouraged me, it almost made me calm. I didn't work myself up, as other women I knew did, panicking over finding Mr. Right. I accepted that the years to come would unfold in their way, that I could control only a few aspects of them. To remain alone did not seem to me a terrible fate, no worse than being falsely joined to another person.

If I were to tell the story of my life...and if I were being honest...I would probably feel tempted to say that standing that night just inside my apartment, me in my nightgown and Charlie in jeans and a red shirt, I made a choice: I chose our relationship over my political convictions, love over ideology.

His fixation with his legacy (I even grew to hate the word) I found intolerable. It seemed so indulgent, so silly, so male; I had never heard a woman panic about it. I once, in the most delicate manner possible, expressed this observation about gender to Charlie and he said, 'It's because you're the ones who give birth.' I did not find this answer satisfying.

UK tabloid The Sun had stays classy by featuring a slide show of "ugly" sex workers' mug shots.

They even quote a cop mocking the women:

One police officer laughed: "It's amazing that some of these women could make a living. There must be a lot of desperate guys out there."

This just makes me sad. Not for the women they're ridiculing, but for humanity. Sigh.

Via the f word.

UPDATE: Seems they may have taken it down. Is it too much to hope it was in a crisis of conscience?

I am very happy to report that as documented in this blog, racism is over now. I love funny, new, smart blogs that just hit the nail on the head.

The YWCA has launched the Own It campaign, in conjunction with their 150th Anniversary, aimed at motivating women between the ages of 18 and 30 to take "purposeful action." The campaign will include a series of reports over the next year, one of them just released on Monday. Check out the video:

I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm always excited when national institutions with long, rich histories of helping women set their sights on the younger generation and commit some resources to reaching out. The YWCA should be applauded for looking forward, not backward, on their 150th anniversary.

On the other hand, I feel like efforts to reach out to younger women often end up feeling pretty patronizing (i.e. the lead in to the video) and/or vague ("own it"? "take action"? What do these things really mean?).

A few questions come up for me:
What younger women did the YWCA engage younger women in creating this campaign? I know they're surveying them over the course of the year, which is fantastic, but what about involving them in the strategic planning of the movement itself? If they did, it would be nice to see that indicated in the website either through some kind of young women board of advisers or just a strong commitment in the literature.

Which women between the ages of 18 and 30 is this campaign aimed at? There are certainly women in that age range who aren't activists, and indeed, I commend an effort to engage those folks. But, and this is a big but, there are also so many young women--in fact far more, according to most studies on youth activism and volunteerism, already engaged in social action (Samhita just posted a video that includes many of them.). Is the campaign a repository for their stories? What will be done with all these stories?

Who are the girls in this video and what is their action? I imagine that this video was modeled after the infamously viral Wyclef video for Obama (as it seems so many others have been lately), but those were known celebrities touting a known entity. These girls are intriguing, but rather than hearing them repeat the same phrases continually, I would have loved to see them tell a story or two. This would have helped substantiate that the campaign recognizes that there are young women doing a lot of important work in the world beyond talktalktalking about how much they hate racism.

Again, very excited to see such venerable institutions devoting dollars and energy to the next generation. Just hungering for some clarity, some stories, and some clear indication that young women are the ones shaping this campaign.

Consumerist brings us a story out of Oxford, MS, where a woman buying Plan B - which is sold over-the-counter to women over 18 years old - was harassed by the pharmacy staff when she tried to purchase the contraceptive.

She said the pharmacy worker started asking for proof of insurance in order to get the pill. My girlfriend refused and asked to speak to someone in charge. The pharmacist then came, and my girlfriend told him she simply wanted Plan B and that her ID should be good enough. The pharmacist then went about getting the pill, but they also seem to have a policy, a lá abortion clinics, of forcing a waiting period of an hour and giving adoption literature to the person requesting the contraceptive. Now, Plan B is just an additional spermicide, not an abortion pill, but that's another can of worms. In the end, my girlfriend demanded the Plan B immediately, and she got it, but not without a fair amount of interference on Walgreens' part. They also insisted on writing down her driver's license number. (Editor's Note: Plan B is not a spermicide, but that's besides the point.)

Proof of insurance? Adoption literature?! And writing down her driver's license number...it's all just too much. Something tells me this woman isn't the only one to be given a hard time about buying this legal contraceptive - and I'm betting not all women who went there knew that they didn't have to put up with this bullshit.

You can contact the Oxford Walgreens at (662) 513-0894 if you want to tell them what's what.

I'd also encourage folks to call the corporate offices and tell them that store number 7757 is harassing women trying to buy Plan B. You can also call them at (877) 250-5823 and ask about their company policy regarding birth control and how they make sure that their pharmacists aren't denying women medication.

Don't let them get away with this.

Hey all, I'll be speaking at Brown University tonight - the amazing folks at Students for Choice are bringing me out!

The event is free and open to the public: MacMillan 117 (Starr Auditorium), 8PM

All the relevant info is also on Facebook. Hope to see you there!

A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research says that the raise in wages and benefits women receive from joining a union raises is on par with having a college education.

"For women, joining a union makes as much sense as going to college," said John Schmitt, a Senior Economist at CEPR and the author of the study. "All else equal, joining a union raises a woman's wage as much as a full-year of college, and a union raises the chances a woman has health insurance by more than earning a four-year college degree."

The report, Unions and Upward Mobility for Women Workers, also found that unionized women workers earned 11.2 percent more than their non-union peers and that women in unions were more likely to have health insurance and a pension plan.

Via SEIU.

Honey, I only hit you because I love fetuses!

Garth George, columnist for The New Zealand Herald, says that the main cause of violence against women is abortion. That and equality - but I'll get to that in a second.

I have said it before and I say it again: The number one cause of abuse against women and children is abortion.

George's argument is basically that by having abortions, women have opened the door to violence, that we "reap what we have sown." Charming. But it's not long before George's real gripe come to light - it's not just women's reproductive rights that irks him, it's the fact that women have rights at all.

The second major cause of violence against women and children is the belief held by too many women that they should not just be equal to men but, in all but physical appurtenances, are the same.

...The assumption by so many women of the roles traditionally exclusive to men has left many men in confusion, frustration and anxiety, and more are lashing out because they feel their maleness is under threat.

What's funny is that I actually don't doubt that there's some truth to that - it's called backlash, motherfucker. But you have to love that George writes this as if violence is a reasonable response to women's social and political gains.

If you're feeling feisty, you can email George here.

NPR has the story. I think the headline says it all.

Thought this was interesting...I had never thought about the money/business angle concerning FGM.

Women in playing dead for photography and fashion purposes might be considered high art or cutting edge marketing, but it is usually just a tacky excuse for sexist art and the reason it is considered avant garde is because it is offensive. That type of art annoys me.

**This images are not safe for work and are potentially triggering.**

Exotified images of women of color being tortured and images put together to play to the fantasy of "savage" with sexual overtones is actually just deeply disturbing. I am well aware that you can't curtail someone's fantasies, but I argue you sure as hell can analyze them. Women's bodies placed in native and indigenous seeming contexts where they are being dragged and eluding to torture or essentially comparing their bodies to animals to be hunted is a shocking display of colonial misogyny and woman hate. This calendar should be protested.

The New York Times reports that eighteen female insurgents turned themselves in to American-led forces in Iraq in accordance with a new amnesty plan. The women, said to have been signed over to Al Qaeda by father and mullahs, are asked to sign their allegiance to the formal political process, disavow violence, and in exchange, they will receive protection. (They will still face criminal charges.)

Wouldn't it have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall as these women discussed and planned their communal surrender?

Don't miss Ann's awesome piece over at TAP where she opines that LGBT rights, including marriage, must be framed, not as cultural issues, but as civil rights. I thought it was spot on, and it's an argument I'm just not hearing anywhere else. An excerpt:

We'll continue to lose until we can successfully relabel LGBT rights a civil-rights issue situated firmly within the context of other civil-rights struggles, not an issue mired in the culture-war swamp of moral controversy. (To a lesser degree, the same goes for abortion rights.) "Culture" implies we are comfortable with different parts of our country and different groups of people seeing this issue differently. It implies that there is no absolute right or wrong -- just two sparring factions -- and that we'll simply have to wait for the rest of the country to come around. Culture changes slowly. This is something I've heard a lot in the wake of the passage of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. "History is on our side! Don't worry, the demographic trends are with us!"

I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough.

Pretty amazing, huh?

Note: I get so pumped when I read the headline that I imagine Ann dressed in a huge hoodie shouting "Don't call it a culture war!" like LL:

Last week I wrote about an article run by Salon about "upskirting" and "downblousing" using a quote from John Morris at the Center for Democracy and Technology that certainly set off some alarm bells.

From my post,

Unfortunately, the debate that ensues is a question of whether or not your privacy is being violated since you are on the street and as a public place is free to be photographed with all participants or as John Morris, from the Center for Democracy & Technology, says in the article, "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

I have a friend that works at CDT and felt this was a bad characterization of the goals and values of their organization and brought it to the attention of the Director and CEO Leslie Harris, who has released this statement.

The recent Salon article, "Porn in a Flash," contains a quote from our General Council John Morris that was taken out of context. John's quote: "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street," spoke to the broader, general question of whether someone has an expectation of privacy in a public place. Placement of the quote, however, made John sound unsympathetic toward "upskirting" and "downblousing." Of course these practices are wrong, and of course there is a difference between a snapshot on the street and this sort of invasive voyeurism.

CDT is a strong advocate of personal privacy and commends the steps states have taken to criminalize these nefarious practices. Federal privacy laws were passed before the majority of today's portable technologies existed outside of Dick Tracy comic books. That's why CDT is pressing Congress to rewrite the privacy laws and bring them up-to-date with today's technology and provide the sorely needed protections missing from the law as it stands today. We fully believe that state invasion of privacy laws can, if carefully drafted, adequately address these upskirting and downblousing practices.

Leslie Harris
President & CEO
Center for Democracy & Technology

Please check the a new series, "You voted, now what?" by Wiretap Magazine and the Nation highlighting the huge bump in youth energy, engagement and organizing through the Obama campaign and election and inspired by the hope that young people will embark upon a life-long careers in public service.

Here is a promo explaining the series, "You voted, now what?"

Check it out and spread the word. One way we can hold Obama accountable is demand the resources we need to keep organizing, along with stay involved ourselves.

So this is pretty much unrelated to feminism, but I just want to start Tuesday off on the right foot with this gem from a band I got to see on Friday in their first ever US show. They are called Little Dragon and they are from Sweden and have a nice electronic neo-soul sound with lovely strong female vocals. I love new music that has yet to be tarnished by the mainstream and I was so pumped about this band, I had to share. Check em out and tell me what you think.

Happy Tuesday! What did you do over the weekend? Anything interesting?

Because there aren't enough scare tactics out there about crazy college kids hooking up and having The Sex. Sigh.

The trailer of this film kind of looks like a movie version of the chastity-pushing books that are so popular these days. (Naturally, I could be wrong and the film could be perfectly objective, but the fact that the IWF is endorsing it automatically gives me pause.)

What immediately struck me about this clip, however, is that the film shouldn't be about hooking up - but about booze. Perhaps the real problem on college campuses isn't that kids are having sex, but that they're having it drunk. Just a thought.

Thanksgiving break was a blast, but Monty was home in NYC with my parents while I was in California...so no new pics. But I figured everyone appreciates a blast-from-the-past puppy picture!

We're certainly not breaking news here, but I did think it was important to acknowledge how exciting it is that Obama's choices include three women: Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary, Susan Rice as ambassador to the United Nations, and yes, Senator Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. As I watched the news conference this morning and counted up the ladies on the line, I beamed from ear to ear.

Not only does it indicate that President Elect Obama will use his "first" to create lots of others, but it is really exciting that it's happening specifically with regards to security--an issue so often masculinized in popular and political culture. As we feminists know, national and international security is about more than military might, but also includes poverty alleviation, diplomacy and negotiation, and increasing women's power through out the world.

What do you think?

For all of you NYC folk, we hope you'll join us December 12th for some feminist holiday fun at our annual Holiday Happy Hour.

We have much to look forward to this coming year, and would love nothing more than to share in the Feministing yuletide with our dear friends and readers. We hope you can make it! (Facebooker? RSVP on our event page!)

NYC Feministing Holiday Happy Hour
@ Lolita
266 Broome Street
New York, NY 10002
(between Allen and Orchard Street)

Friday, December 12th - 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Happy Hour until 8 p.m. - $3 well drinks and draft beer, $5 mojitos

Via the f word, we find out that Amanda Palmer of Dresden Dolls fame has left her record label after they refused to promote her new single and video (above) because of her "fat" stomach. Seriously.

[Palmer] refused to let them remove shots of her "fat" belly from the video for Leeds United (see above), and is therefore "uncommercial". This comes from a metal label where, I have it on good authority, "you can count the number of women on the fingers of one hand and most of the people on the label are decidedly chunky hairy dudes".

Amanda's fans are quite rightly outraged by this shoddy, sexist behaviour and have begun a Rebellyon, posting pictures of their own bellies on fan forum Shadowbox and sending them to Roadrunner in protest.

Too ridiculous for words - but you've gotta love awesome fans taking action.

P.S. Community poster lefthandedpenguin beat us to this punch on this last week!

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Palmer has not left her label - they won't let her. She gives the full story here.

From the Sunday New York Times, Alex Kuczynski tells her own version of Baby Mama. She opted for surrogacy after years of infertility and failed pregnancies and IVF attempts.

At 31 weeks, my baby was kicking and stretching. On the sonogram screen, I could see that he was doing his customary sit-ups. The monitor broadcast the slushy sound of his heartbeat.Then she tore off the sonogram images and handed them to me with one hand; with the other, she reached down to wipe the gel off the stomach of the woman who was bearing my child.

I did not give birth to my son. He is the product of my egg and my husband's sperm. After half a decade of trying to become pregnant, sometimes succeeding but always failing to carry a baby successfully to term, I came to the conclusion that if we wanted to have a child who was genetically related to us, we would have to find a woman with a more reliable uterus to gestate and deliver our baby. That was in April 2007. I was 39 years old. Exhausted by years of infertility, wrung emotionally dry by miscarriage, my husband and I decided we would give gestational surrogacy -- hiring a woman to bear our child -- one try. It was a desperate measure, to be sure, and one complicated by questions from all the big sectors: financial, religious, social, moral, legal, political.

What I appreciate about the piece is its directness and honesty. Alex covers many of the issues that come up for a couple choosing surrogacy, with humor and sincerity. She even touches on the issues of class that are implicit in these kinds of arrangements. Probably because Alex was already a writer for the NYTimes, she was able to tell her own story, which makes it seem less sensationalized than a piece written by a third person. But, for the same reason, there are more critical perspectives toward surrogacy that are still missing from these debates. I would love to see a similar article to Alex's, written by a surrogate mom, for example. Even so, these stories are an important realistic counter to movies like Baby Mama.

More from feministing on surrogacy, here and here.

Today, December 1st is World AIDS Day. It's a day meant to highlight the worldwide epidemic of HIV/AIDS. The video above was created at the 2008 International AIDS Conference in Mexico City as part of their campaign to encourage action.

You've probably seen the Starbucks campaign for World AIDS day, where 5 cents of every cup of coffee will be donated to The Global Fund.

I've written before about these types of consumer driven philanthropies and I think they are more about the company's image than a real desire to make a large impact. Along that vein, there is a counter campaign, Buy Less Crap. From their website:

Shopping is not a solution. Buy (less). Give More. Join us in rejecting the ti(red) notion that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering. We invite you to donate directly to the (RED) campaign's beneficiary The Global Fund and to these other charitable causes...without consuming.

So on World AIDS day, think about donating the money you would have spent on a cup of Starbucks coffee directly to the Global Fund.