November 2009 Archives

Regular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose Afriye and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you might want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). Over the last few weeks, I've been interviewing my fellow new contributors so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week, last but not least, I interviewed Rose Afriyie.

Rose is a first generation Ghanaian American who grew up in Harlem and in the Poconos. She got her B.A. at the University of Pittsburgh and is now at the University of Michigan pursuing her Masters in Science and Technology and Public Policy. Rose is particularly interested in how racial and gender inequities affect access to technology and, in turn, in participation in civic life. She has worked as an organizer with NOW and Before she joined the Feministing crew this September, her writing was published in The Chicago Tribune and in her college paper, where she was a sex columnist, which officially makes her the coolest older sister ever (she's one of five siblings).

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Rose Afriyie.

Sexual harassment is a big problem on the NYC subway.

Just a sad story about a young man released from prison after wrongfully serving 17 years for a murder he didn't commit.

Students at UC Berkeley are striking because US Regents has approved a 32% tuition increase.

A study from UNFP about why women are hit hardest via climate change.

Latoya on what is being taught in college rape protection programs.

A ten year old in Arkansas is refusing to stand up for the pledge of allegiance until gay marriage is legal. In solidarity my brother.

**Also, something I didn't mention-a shout out to my undergraduate adviser at the Women's Studies Department at SUNY Albany, Vivien Ng, who I saw after 10 years and facilitated me in finding my feminist courage to speak on intersectionality.

The focus of Transgender Day of Remembrance is on those killed by others because of anti-trans fear and hatred. However, it is worth noting that too many trans folks lose their lives to suicide as well. The number of trans folks who have attempted suicide ranges from about 30 percent to over 50 percent in studies. One study found that 83 percent of trans folks have considered suicide. According to another study:

the risk factors associated with attempted suicide among transgender people were younger age (under 25), depression or a history of substance abuse, forced sex, and gender-based victimization and discrimination (Clements-Nolle, Marx, & Katz, 2006).

I turned 25 this week, a day I thought I would never see for much of my life. For me birthdays have become a time to reflect on how grateful I am to myself and everyone who has supported me in staying alive. I understand this may sound like a pretty depressing way to spend a birthday for someone who has not struggled with suicidal ideation, but for me it is honestly the most positive and affirming way I know how to celebrate.

I've had a lot of conversations with other trans and gender non-conforming folks about our histories with suicide. It's proved a surprisingly easy conversation to enter into with trans folks I hardly know. We have our own unique experiences, but what we share makes having a history with suicide easily understandable.

Trans youth face high rates of exceptionally cruel harassment in school, even higher than lesbian, gay, and bi youth. That's in addition to all too common rejection by families and broader communities. And that's for the youth who are able to come out in some way. I could not have been counted in a study about trans youth in high school because I lacked any words or concepts to understand my gender identity. Now I look back on my childhood and teen years through a gender lens and gain a much greater understanding of my life experience. Back then I didn't know how to process my reality. I knew I didn't fit into the world around me as everyone around me seemed to understand it. I felt the psychic pain of knowing people didn't see me as myself at the same time I didn't know how to express who or even what I was. I didn't know I shared these feelings and experiences with anyone else, so I felt isolated, alone, and wrong. Verbal bullying was the more common experience, but getting beaten up were the only moments I felt recognized and seen. I hated my body (and again, didn't understand why) and bruises felt like the only accurate physical representation of who I actually was. I remember the hurt when friends said, for example, that they saw me as "asexual." Their intent was not malicious - they were trying to process their experience of my gender without needed concepts just like I was. And like me they processed the fact I didn't fit into an unquestionable gender system by effectively erasing my identity.

It's very hard to live when you and those around you are convinced you don't exist.

Lowering the suicide rate among trans folks requires the same sort of work that will best combat violent crimes committed by other people against trans folks. We need to do a lot of consciousness raising work to spread awareness of the very existence of trans folks. Sadly knowing we exist is not enough - we must also convince people that trans folks are human, that our lives have value. And this requires convincing people that their limited conceptions of gender are not all there is, a massive undertaking given the widespread unquestioning acceptance of the compulsory gender binary. In other words, we need to change our cultural understanding of and approach to gender in order to bring about social change. Because no trans person should die at their own hands or anyone else's because of their gender.

For more information, resources, and help staying alive:
Kate Bornstein's Hello, Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks & Other Outlaws
The Trevor Project

[Editor's Note] I haven't seen Precious yet, but I have read about it endlessly and already cried just reading reviews. One of the most powerful interpretations I have read so far on Precious comes from my good friend, colleague and mentor Malkia Cyril from the Center for Media Justice. With her permission I am posting it in full here (cross-posted from the CMJ blog). It was also posted at WIMNblog.

As I sit against the florescence of the television screen, watching the conservative Fox News pundit Glenn Beck drive political nails into progressive leaders using the fear of U.S. blacks and immigrants of color as his hammer, my memory harkens back to the year in which the book Push was set, 1987. During that time, eugenics theories about the inherent laziness and criminality of black teenagers was rampantly resurgent in the news. Conservative research was cementing stereotypes of the black welfare queen, the crack baby, the HIV infected black woman as the truth that justified the destruction of the safety net as we knew it. Since then, health care has become increasingly privatized. Welfare has turned horrifically to an indentured servitude of workfare. The numbers of black women with HIV have skyrocketed. And the movie Precious, based on the book Push by Sapphire, was released.

Caricatures or Complex Characters?
Clarice "Precious" Jones is an extreme character, meant to shock the senses and unveil the underbelly of the brutality of racism and capitalism in the patriarchal land of the free. In the film and in the book, Precious is a dark-skinned teenaged girl who experiences multiple forms of oppression and violence at the hands of multiple perpetrators. In the movie, her sexually brutal father is an invisible or blurry character at best, while her mother, whose victimization as a woman was only alluded to, is cast as the primary perpetrator. It is only through the extreme telling of an extreme story that this dichotomy of inequity is revealed. There is only one man in the story as told in the movie - a male nurse- and the welfare and education systems which oppress black womanhood and subvert black female resistance are cast as saviors. Questions have been necessarily raised by black audiences -is this story the best way to reveal these contradictions? Is the mother the real villain? Does the story reflect reality or is it more of a caricature? And if a caricature how does that shape the impact of the film on the representations of black women in media and in the public psyche?

What a sad state of affairs. Well, I disagree Kate! But then again, I don't make millions off of being thin, so I guess starving does feel good for her, since she is paid to do it. Seriously, sad! Food is good and we need it to survive.

This makes me feel sad for Kate Moss, I mean, even though I know she is rich and famous and got to make out with Johnny Depp, but she is the product of a system that values thinness over her other attributes. And a pretty high value at that, since she is one of the top paid super models. It would be nice to think that maybe privately her self worth is not also based on what she looks like, but if her motto is, "nothing tastes as good as skinny feels," one would think the opposite. I also can't believe she is so detached from reality that she doesn't realize that young women that are already plagued with eating disorders look up to her and has no sense of public responsibility. Young women don't need to hear that eating less will make them skinny and therefore a super model. Bad. Bad!

As community blogger minerva put it,

Moss may or may not be intelligent, I neither know nor care. But at some level, she must realize that young women aspire to be like her. It saddens me that she truly believes that her motto is something to be emulated.

Food is good. These types of comments do have implications for young women since we are already inundated with the self hating culture of starvation to attain absurd levels of thinness instead of being taught to love ourselves. And then, often women are rewarded for their self hating behavior. It is an endless cycle that must stop and we need role models to help us.

Courtney mentioned in yesterday's What We Missed that the Senate HCR bill does not have the same vicious right-wing vitriol of the Stupak-Coathanger Amendment. mcjoan at DailyKos has a full break down of some of the key provisions in the Capp Amendment which is replacing the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Tracy-Flora Clark at Broadsheet tells us,

The key details of the Senate bill are as follows: Both public and private plans are allowed to offer abortion coverage. It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures. The Health and Human Services Secretary is charged with evaluating plans to ensure that taxpayers do not pay for abortions. And, while the bill requires at least one plan in each state to cover abortion, it also includes a conscience clause stating that healthcare providers cannot "be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness ... to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

This move is a much better option, although as mcjoan mentions it feels hard to celebrate the continuation of the Hyde Amendment, but it is not as aggressive as the Stupak-Pitt Amendment. Our reproductive rights will be used as bargaining chips and some are saying it is unlikely that Stupak will be in the final version of the Bill.

But to prepare for any impending disaster, There will be a National Day of Action on December 2nd in D.C., along with a November 21st Rally in PA, November 23rd in DC and December 4th through NOW-NY to stand up against the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Leave any actions near you in comments.

Related:

Study: Stupak will end abortion coverage "for all women"
From Hyde to Stupak, over 30 years of limiting access to abortion
Beyond Stupak: The next phase of the abortion debate
Whose health care victory?

Today is the 11th annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. This day was created as a time to grieve trans and gender non-conforming people killed over the past year because of fear and hatred. It also serves as a time to raise awareness about violence against trans folks. The event was started by Gwendolyn Ann Smith following the murder of Rita Hester on November 28, 1998. Every year since the day's founding vigils and memorial events have been held in the US and increasingly all over the world.

This year the TGEU Trans Murder Monitoring project TDOR 2009 update has collected information about over 160 people killed because of other people's violent reaction to their trans presentation or identity. These numbers represent only those people we know about. We don't know how many trans folks were actually murdered this year - our identities are so rarely recognized and there is still so little awareness about trans issues and the violence trans folks face that it is safe to say many murders of trans folks went unreported.

Finding accurate information to identify murder victims as trans or killed because of their gender presentation is a consistent challenge. Just this week the brutal murder of Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado was reported as that of a "gay teen" with male pronouns used when referring to Lopez Mercado. There has been very little coverage of the fact that Lopez Mercado was a sex worker with a female presentation. Murder suspect Juan antonio Martinez Matos said he thought Lopez Mercado was female but then "realized that the teenager was actually male."

I don't know how Lopez Mercado identified, but Martinez Matos' statement tells us that they didn't conform to his strict understanding of gender: Martinez Matoz thought Lopez Mercado was female and then changed his opinion, the reason given for the murder. So Lopez Mercado's name has been added to the list of those we remember.

Many of those we have mourned over the years originally had their murders reported as the killing of a gay male. For most we still don't know how they identified. But Lopez Mercado's murder reflects those of too many others killed when presenting a gender other than that assigned to them at birth. Some may not have identified as trans but all were killed because of hatred directed towards those who break the strict rules of the compulsory gender binary. They were killed because they did not conform to what someone else thought their gender should be.

The media's consistent failure to accurately identify trans folks reflects the erasure of and refusal to recognize our identities, lived experiences, and even our very existence. Information that identifies a murder victim as the target of anti-trans violence is often presented in the same way Martinez Matos' story has been reported: the murderer thought the victim was a woman and killed them when they realized they were actually male and panicked. This narrative erases trans identities, legitimizes perceived physical sex over gender presentation, and paints trans folks as desceptive and the murderer as tricked, suggesting possible justification for murder. Media narratives end up contributing to the culture of violence and hatred targeted towards trans folks by legitimizing this "trans panic" narrative that gives the responsibility for explaining the murder victim's identity to the very person who killed them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care overhaul package, released last night, doesn't throw women under the bus.

Jessica Wakeman over at The Frisky: "Really, Vogue? I don't care that Clinton does her own makeup and (still) wears brightly colored pantsuits."

"A Zambian newspaper editor was acquitted Monday on charges of distributing obscene materials with the intent of corrupting public morals, a case filed against her after she sent photos of a woman in childbirth to government officials and other prominent figures."

"Police on Wednesday arrested a woman who was praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, due to the fact that she was wrapped in a prayer shawl (tallit)."

"The suspect in the brutal slaying of a gay teenager in Puerto Rico was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder and four other counts."

One hate crime is too many. Two is almost unfathomable: 15-year-old Jason Mattison Jr. was buried in Baltimore today.

An open letter to the ladies of The View about their dismissive reaction to rape.

Apparently Palin isn't the only Alaskan woman who is into victim-blaming.

I just went to a really cool event at the Brooklyn Museum of Art where Kiki Smith, artist, and, Catherine J. Morris, Curator of the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art, had a conversation about Smith's work, it's intersections with feminism, themes of the body, the personal as political etc.

If you aren't familiar with Kiki Smith's work, you should definitely check it out. She's dealt with a wide range of fascinating themes over the course of her career in all sorts of mediums (many of them previously positioned as the "manly" variety).

I was so struck by her stage presence. She was truly in her body, so authentic that I was a bit disarmed. It was clear that she didn't feel any compulsion to play the part of the highly articulate, beyond-it-all artist; she just was. And in her "just being," she said some really profound, simple things. Given my recent experience of being criticized for my voice, my idealism etc., it felt awesome to be reminded how refreshing and critical it is to be comfortable with your own authentic identity in public.

Here are a few of my favorite quotations from the afternoon.

On the personal is political vibe in the 70s:
"You realized what was happening outside your house was also going on inside your house."

On art making:
"Embrace the fragility. Embrace what is tentative."

On resisting hegemonic art norms of what's hip or trendy:
"I don't want to be owned by ideology."

I got so many amazing emails after publishing my column last week about masculinity and pro-feminist men and plenty of blogs picked up on the analysis and added their own, as well. I wanted to share some of the excerpts here:

From Joe Samalin and Joseph Vess of Men Can Stop Rape:
The thousands of men and boys that we engage every year show us daily what healthy masculinity looks like. It is a group of high school boys volunteering at a local domestic violence shelter, it is straight and cis-gendered college men partnering as allies with LGBTQ student organizations, and it is the enlisted men and officers in the Air Force who come to us for training on how to create safer workplaces. These boys and men are all moving deliberately toward who they want to be.

Putting the support and encouragement of healthy masculinity at the center of what we do has taught us two key things. First, there is no single definition or ideal of healthy masculinity--there are as many definitions as there are men. Second, developing healthy, authentic masculinity is a journey, not a destination.

Jonathan Grove:
I was presenting at that very conference, and perhaps the most interesting conversation was in the last session, which was a talk back type session to adopt a statement about what happened there and what our mission is. The conversation eventually became about whether to continue the practice of men naming the violence as "men's violence against women" and focusing on what men can do, or whether to name it as violence perpetrated by male people who identify with and try to emulate the hegemonic model of masculinity that is the tradition in our culture. While I realize in the context I've described it seems very unwieldy to talk about it in that way I described last, I think there's an important point there.

Jonathan also told me about this amazing post by Ronan, who was also at the conference.

Hugo Schwyzer:
The solution is both obvious and problematic: we need public role models who are willing to show through their actions as well as their words what it means to lead a feminist life while in a male body. We need men who are willing to walk the walk publicly, allowing themselves to be scrutinized and questioned.

AJ from Feminists for Choice:
Although I agree with a large majority of what Courtney is saying, part of me thinks we should cut the guys a little slack. I mean, we have to start somewhere, don't we? In fact, many great feminist thinkers have made the argument that it is necessary for us to reject old systems of thinking before laying out a blueprint of the future. Revolution isn't easy, and it most certainly doesn't happen over night, however; I do understand where Courtney is coming from. As feminist men, if all our time is spent on problematizing masculinity and defining what we are not, then when are we going to decide what we are?

File this under WTF. From the New York Times:

The 200 women who answered a Rome modeling agency's advertisement for tall, attractive party guests thought they would be attending an elegant soirée on Sunday. They were -- only the host turned out to be the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and instead of hors d'oeuvres he offered them copies of the Koran and urged them to convert to Islam.

Colonel Qaddafi, by the by, was in Rome for the World Summit on Food Security of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. While Qaddafi was trying to convince young Italian cuties of his political and religious philosophies over glasses of wine and fancy apps, international leaders were pledging to substantially increase aid to agriculture in developing nations, where the majority of the world's 1 billion hungry people live.

Be warned Italian supermodels, according to ANSA News Agency, Colonel Qaddafi is cooking up similar bizzaro schemes with other groups of women through out the week.

The Women's Media Center (WMC) and Girls Learn International are collaborating to launch Girls Investigate: Our Views on Media, a four-part multimedia series that explores girls' ideas about popular culture, social media and the intersections between the two.

Check out the first one:

A transcript wasn't provided, but you can read more about the 17-year-old producers' perspective here.

In Tuesday's What We Missed, we briefly mentioned the new USPST mammogram guidelines, which now recommend that women begin getting regular mammograms at age 50 rather than at 40, and that the frequency be reduced from annual to once every two years.

The guidelines have been criticized for being "patronizing" and "dangerous" for women's health, but there's one community that is put at particular risk by the guidelines but isn't receiving as much attention: black women.

My colleague and former classmate Ashton Lattimore writes on News One that "the potential impact of these guidelines on black women is a really important piece of the puzzle that so far hasn't gotten much discussion."

In her piece, she interviews Dr. Marissa Weiss, a leading breast cancer specialist and founder of BreastCancer.org, who confirms that African-American women are more likely to get breast cancer than white women when they're under age 40. (The U.S. Department of Health reports that Black women ages 35 to 44 have a breast cancer death rate more than twice that of white women in the same age group.)

The new guidelines, then, as Weiss points out, "would pass over the time of greatest risk for African-American women."

Lattimore also points out that triple negative breast cancer - an aggressive form of cancer- disproportionately impacts Black women, and that Black women are already diagnosed with later stage breast cancers more frequently than other groups.

Looks like perhaps the only good that will come out of these guidelines is increased awareness about the importance of ignoring them completely, as well as the importance of women- especially black women- undergoing regular and early mammogram screenings.

Alright folks, I just finished round IV in this wild Washington Post Next Great American Pundit Contest. This time we had to do a panel on video with Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart (who was awesome).

This is the second to last round, so please hang in there with me and spread the word. Vote here. You've got until 5pm EST TODAY. I promise that if I win I will do my damnedest to get undercovered stories pertaining to intersectional feminism and activism into the ol' WaPo.

What I'd rather be doing, than asking you to vote for me. Again.:

Dancing with Ann Friedman.

Pulitzer Prize-winner David Finkel has written a truly heart breaking book about the war that just won't end in Iraq. In The Good Soldiers, he follows the 2-16, a battalion of army infantry soldiers nicknamed the Rangers, as they head into "the surge" in January of 2007. He follows them as they say goodbye to their girlfriends and two-year-olds, as they arrive at the base and face the football field-sized trash pit that surrounds them (especially disconcerting in a war where IEDs are so rampant), as they grow anxious and bored, as they get injured and killed, as the lucky ones return home. The Good Soldiers is truly in a class with Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried, a vivid, nonpartisan portrayl of what real soldiers are facing in this war.

Much of the fifteen-month narrative is built around Ralph Kauzlarich, a U.S. Army Liutenant Colonel who is known for his catch phrase, "It's all good." Well, of course, it's not "all good" in Iraq circa 2007. Insurgents are planting IEDs in trash heaps on the side of the road so powerful that they rip through vehicles and tear off limbs. The moral force of the war feels lost on most of the soldiers. Attempts to do nation-building within Iraq--schools, a sewage system, build up the local police force--are all slow at best and impossible at worst.

I have never understood the war so well, despite reading quite a bit about it. The Good Soldiers paints a living, breathing picture of what the 19-year-old kids who put on the American army uniform actually face, and in turn, gives the reader a sense of her own responsibility like nothing else. It's not all good. And we're all to blame.

A great take-down of Palin's Oprah appearance from Richard Kim, co-editor of the newly released Going Rouge: Sarah Palin, An American Nightmare.

I keep hearing about "female Viagra," but never seem to see it anywhere...

Creepiest. Phone. Ever.

I've started writing a bit on my personal site; my latest is about whether feminists should participate in mainstream media. (My answer: yes)

A new study says that in utero exposure to certain plastics can make boys "less masculine." So many problems with this, so little time.

If you're sick of hearing about Sarah Palin's new biography, Going Rogue: An American Life, consider checking out the anthology, Going Rouge: Sarah Palin, An American Nightmare.

Edited by Richard Kim and Betsy Reed of The Nation, Going Rouge is like the liberal intervention to Palin's oh-so-tiresome narrative.

The book has contributions from Max Blumenthal, Juan Cole, Eve Ensler, Michelle Goldberg, Jane Hamsher, Christopher Hayes, Naomi Klein, Dahlia Lithwick, Amanda Marcotte, Rick Perlstein, Katha Pollitt, Frank Rich, Hanna Rosin, Rebecca Traister, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Patricia Williams, and even one from me!

If you're interested, check out this episode of GRITtv after the jump where Laura Flanders chats with Rebecca Traister, Richard Kim, Max Blumenthal and Shannyn Moore about Palin and the book.

You know, we've written about police brutality and taser violence before...but this just beats all.

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

From Brian at TPMDC:

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

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

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

LOVE.

Via Broadsheet.

A petition filed by an anti-same-sex marriage coalition led by Bishop Harry Jackson was rejected today by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. The petition called for DC to recognize "only marriage between a man and a woman [a]s valid."

[T]he Board held that such ballot measures do 'not present a proper subject of initiative because it would authorize discrimination prohibited under the Human Rights Act ("HRA").'

The Board's reasoning in today's decision also turns on the existing law established by the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, the one that allows the District to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Council member David Catania said of the decision, "The proposed initiative would have stripped legally married same-sex couples of their vows. Those who proposed the initiative were attempting to write discrimination into our law, and I am pleased that the Board rejected this effort as an impermissible trespass on the human rights of District residents."

Transcript available at Shakesville.

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

I was having a conversation about access to abortion the other day with two friends who are both engaged and informed about feminist and reproductive health topics. When discussing the Stupak Amendment I learned neither of them was aware that access to abortion has been restricted at the federal level before.

This conversation got me thinking about this moment as an opportunity for broader education and action around the Hyde Amendment which has banned the use of federal funds to cover abortion since it was passed in 1976. Under Hyde women on Medicaid, military personnel and family members, women who receive health care through Indian Health Services, and those on disability insurance cannot have their abortions paid for using federal funds (most states ban the use of their Medicaid funds as well). Abortion is the only set of medical procedures that are explicitly excluded from Medicaid. Abortion has been specifically targeted and separated out from all other health care.

The Hyde Amendment severely limits access to abortion. And it has done so for the majority of time Roe v. Wade has been US law. So the Stupak Amendment is not something completely new, but rather the continuation of a pattern. There is a deliberate, concerted effort to make abortion harder and harder to access until "choice" is no longer an option.

Many reproductive rights organizations have taken the position that we should maintain the status quo regarding the use of federal funds for abortion in health care reform. I understand the pragmatism of this approach - passing health care reform is a massively difficult undertaking that has been derailed before. Trying to keep abortion out of the debate as much as possible without losing ground was an understandable goal. But let's be clear: the status quo sucks.

Since Roe v. Wade there has been a steady chipping away at access to abortion, with those who are already the most vulnerable experiencing the brunt of these attacks. The fact that abortion is legal doesn't do much good for women who can't have the procedure because of financial and other barriers. Rather than focusing only on legality, we must emphasize access for everyone who seeks abortion. This is a big part of what the Reproductive Justice framework is all about: recognizing that existing social hierarchies impact a person's ability to receive legal, safe, and affordable reproductive health care and building a politics that centers the needs of those who are traditionally the most marginalized.

New patronizing guidelines for mammograms have been implemented by a government task force, recommending that women over 40 shouldn't get routine mammograms because of certain risks like women's "anxiety." Community poster jluther has much more.

The Washington Times Wes Pruden's racist-ass remarks about the president's lack of "blood impulse" only further proves we live in what is very far from a post-racial America.

A suspect was arrested for the brutal murder of Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado, a gay teenager in Puerto Rico.

Remember the swimming club in PA that kicked out a group of black and Latino campers for fear that they would "change the complexion" of the club? Looks like they've filed for bankruptcy.

A soldier and single mother, Army Spc. Alexis Hutchinson missed her deployment flight to Afghanistan because no one could care for her ten-month-old son while she was away. She was arrested and taken to Hunter Airfield in Savannah, GA, while the child was taken into custody for 24 hours. AP and the Oakland Tribune have more:

"Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care. [...]

The Army requires all single-parent soldiers to submit a care plan for dependent children before they can deploy to a combat zone."

Hutchinson submitted a plan for her mother to care for the infant, but her mother's responsibilities to care for three additional sick family members made this impossible after two weeks. The underlying lesson below this egregious oversight is that the military, like all bureaucratic institutions, operates by standard operating procedures that cannot accommodate for the unexpected. There's no question that the insistence that a soldier put their child in foster care is egregious. Still unsettling is the Army's initial treatment of this single mother like a deserter.

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

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

*Strong trigger warning*

I'm sorry, but how the fuck could a game titled, "Hit the Bitch" be anti-violent?

Apparently the game was created by a Danish anti-violence organization, and allows the user to use either their mouse or hand (through the webcam) to hit this woman virtually enough times to the point where she is so bloody and bruised that the screen tells the person they're a "100% Idiot" and gives some information about intimate partner violence. I don't really care what words you throw out after the game is over - the main message is the game and that message is straight up glorifying violence against women. Jill has more.

If you think this campaign is more damaging that it is advocating, email the organization that created the game and tell them so.

Last week in my hometown of Sydney, Australia, news broke that members of an all-male residential college at the University of Sydney had created a "pro-rape" group on Facebook. Creators of the group, which was called "Define Statutory," described it as "anti-consent," and "pro-rape." In addition to members displaying their group membership on their personal profiles, the group and its membership list was publicly available to anyone with access to Facebook, suggesting that the men in question were perfectly comfortable being identified as being in favour of sexual violence.

I wish I could say that the news from Sydney surprised me, but it didn't. When I graduated from high school in Sydney five years ago, many of my fellow graduates matriculated at the University of Sydney and some of them joined women's or co-educational residential colleges. Many of our male friends, including those from our brother schools, joined St. Paul's, the college in question in the Facebook scandal, or all-male colleges like it. The residential colleges are a small and tight-knit subculture on a campus where most students commute; with the exception of students from the country, Australians rarely move away from home to go to university. While some who live in the residential colleges are from out of town, there a good number of students who live within a commutable distance from campus, but choose to join exclusive colleges like St. Paul's, an old and stately cluster of buildings separated from the rest of campus by high walls and green lawns.

The young men I knew who ended up at St. Paul's and at colleges like it had graduated from Sydney's best and most expensive private boys' high schools. In my interactions with them - I confess I dated one or two - I was quite appalled by what I saw: a culture in which sexism, racism and homophobia were rampant, and where class privilege and an almost laughable sense of male superiority combined to make women like me feel deeply uncomfortable. On their own, most of these young men were lovely. When they got together, something truly awful was created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic via Screenrant.

Jos turns 25 today, and we wanted to give our amazing contributor some big birthday props.

Not only is Jos a kick-ass blogger and activist, but the word around town is that she is an incredible pizza chef as well. (I'm still eagerly waiting for my next trip to D.C. so I can show up on her doorstep for some yummy deliciousness.)

Happy birthday Jos!! Leave some birthday love in comments...

Yes, I'm aware that rotary phones are largely a thing of the past, but I still have affinity for them after growing up with one that looks just like this (but was a horribly awesome beige color).

Today and Thursday evening from 6 to 9 PM EST, NARAL Pro-Choice New York is holding phone banks to call in Senators in battle ground states and ensure the Stupak amendment won't be in the Senate bill or the final health care reform bill.

The great thing is that you do NOT have to be in New York to join the phone banks - all you need is internet and a phone and the folks over at NARAL Pro-Choice New York will guide you through it.

Email their awesome Community Organizer Lalena Howard to sign up.

Veronica Arreola asks "Aren't Latinas Women Too?" in response to the National Council de La Raza press release on health care reform that didn't mention the Stupak amendment.

It's the first ever Independent Bookstore Week in NYC. Look for events and ways to celebrate the week here.

Really sad news about the brutal murder of a gay teenager in Puerto Rico.

A new daily newspaper is launching in Detroit next week. Anna Clark has the details, including the fact that it's the first daily newspaper to be launched in a major US city since 2002.

An Arkansas ten year old refuses to recite the pledge allegiance because the US discriminates against gays and lesbians.

Today is the first day of Transgender Awareness Week.

In a letter to the editor of The Washington Post last week, Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts bit back at the critics of their anti-choice amendment:

We are not looking to restrict access to abortion, only to preserve the right of conscience for the more than 70 percent of Americans who believe that no federal funds should subsidize abortions or plans that include abortion.

The deal is, Pitts and Stupak (and those who voted for their amendment) are singly-handedly undermining the precedents and policies that abortion rights stands on. No one's human rights should be determined by a roll-call vote or be at the mercy of the latest public-opinion poll.

It is high time that Americans have a real conversation about abortion rights that goes beyond endangering a mother's life, incest and rape. I am confident that feminists would be able to move the barometer of the public's resolve on abortion legality to economic grounds, resulting in no woman being forced to give birth to a child she cannot afford -- and further protecting the right to privacy. This strategy would enable us to call attention to the infamous TRAP laws that lead to clinics being slapped with regulations that make it financially prohibitive to provide abortion services. It would also allow us to make progress in the overall conversation and even restore economic policies that make it difficult for women to parent the children they already have.

It is true that this strategy would not get at, in its entirety, the fundamental reason why abortion rights have been a cornerstone of the feminist movement: that women have a fundamental right to decide what is best for their bodies, regardless of their reasoning. But mark my words: Economic justice will be the path to protecting women's rights in the next phase of the debate.

New Voices Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive Justice is competing for funding from the "Women and Girls Foundation. The group is led by badass young women of color and they are being considered for a 10,000 dollar grant if they get enough votes through the web. New Voices is also a member of SisterSong, which folks may remember from the post on Loretta Ross last week. Here is a brief description of the project New Voices wants to take on:

The "FOCUS on Women" Campaign, a grassroots community organizing initiative, will redress the current conditions of non-violent female offenders housed in Allegheny County Jail (ACJ), including reproductive and general healthcare, nutrition and as well as trauma-informed care in human services delivery. Our campaign centralizes the experiences of women who are currently or have been previously incarcerated in ACJ, organizes women/communities of color through Human Rights and Reproductive Justice and develops new voices for leadership in Pittsburgh.

Here are some facts about incarcerated women, most of whom are single moms, from recent coverage:

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of women behind bars has increased 843 percent in the last three decades, growing from 12,279 in 1977 to 115,779 last year.

As University of Pittsburgh is my alma mater, I have worked with New Voices personally. Their organization was one of the many orgs that were conceived during the 2004 March for Women's Lives. I can tell you that they are some of the most organized, dedicated young women in the feminist movement right now. Voting ends at 5pm today. Support badass young women of color who are advocating for justice for women.

Via CNN:

The government of Argentina's capital will not appeal a court decision this week that legalizes same-sex marriage, Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri said Friday.

The court ruled that two articles in the city's civil code that say only people of different sexes can get married are illegal. The court decision applies only to Buenos Aires. Same-sex unions in most of the rest of Argentina remain illegal.

Courtney made it past the third round of the Washington Post Next Great Pundit Contest and now she needs your support again to make it to the next round.

You can vote for her here, as well as read her last challenge, a live chat Q&A with the other contestants.

If she wins this circus of a competition, she gets her very own column in the Washington Post. We all know that publication needs more feminist voices.

Voting closes tomorrow at 3pm, so get to it!

Via Queerty, news today that Window Media, the entity that published six LGBT newspapers and magazines, shut its doors this weekend leading to the death of six publications: Southern Voice, Washington Blade, South Florida Blade, 411 Magazine, Houston Voice and David Magazine.

This is just another casualty in the journalism meltdown we are experiencing, but it's particularly sad to see a company take down these LGBT publications. Often times those magazines and newspapers are really important for folks in the queer community, to connect, find events and read about the world from an LGBT perspective.

According to the AP, Window Media was the largest publisher of LGBT newspapers in the country. From Queerty:

So many LGBT Americans turned to Window's publications -- often before they were absorbed into the publisher's umbrella -- for the latest digest on local gay news, events, and attacks on the community. These papers were, unarguably, invaluable and this website and its readers have benefited directly from them. When it comes to hyper-local reporting, the various Blade titles were the biggest game in town.

It's so unfortunate to see these media conglomerates, which bought up numerous titles that were successfully running on their own, lead to the death of these publications. My only hope is that other entrepreneurial folks can step in to create new websites and publications to fill the void.

UPDATE: The Washington City Paper has more on the last day at the Washington Blade, including employees plans for a new publication:

The staff began forming plans to start a new publication within "about five minutes," Naff says. More information will be announced tomorrow. It won't be called the Blade.

This weekend at the National Women's Studies Association conference, I met Angie Young, a filmmaker who created The Coat Hanger Project.

This film feels frighteningly relevant after what happened last weekend with the House's health care reform bill and the Stupak amendment.

Rather than make abortion more accessible since Roe vs. Wade, abortions have become even less accessible. The number of providers has decreased, the number of laws restricting abortion throughout the states has increased, and access to funding for women receiving health care provided by the federal government (women on Medicaid, Medicare or military insurance) has been all but eliminated.

This fight for health care reform, which is absolutely necessary, has the potential to continue rolling back our access to abortion even farther.

The history Young documents in her film is more relevant than I ever assumed it would be in my lifetime. The movie also does a great job of explaining the Reproductive Justice movement through interviews with the leaders of the movement.

Details about how to purchase the film or arrange a screening are here.

And appropriately, you can take action against the Stupak amendment by sending a coat hanger to pro-choice Democrats who supported the Stupak amendment.

When the United States House of Representatives voted in favor of health care reform that includes an abortion ban...which was their way of trying to leave women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services on the curb while the reform bus pulled away...well, it took some folks by surprise.

Many pro-choice voters were shocked that so many self identified Democrats didn't seem to understand a key plank of the democratic platform...or the pledge made by President Obama at the beginning of this reform campaign that no one would lose the coverage they already have...or the fact that women vote, that the separation of church and state actually means churches and the state need to be separate, or that abortion services are health care services...and I could go on and on.

Sigh.

On the flip side, more than a few of the Democratic legislators who voted in favor of the abortion ban in the House health care reform bill appeared to be shocked by the fierce outcry of anger and disgust that came from reproductive justice circles.

Now that my blood pressure has returned to safe levels, I'm ready to pause and reflect.

This legislative fail may actually turn out to be a movement win.

Good news from a coalition of women of color reproductive justice groups this weekend that the HPV vaccine requirement for immigrant women has been reversed.

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), and California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ) commend the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for taking the critical final step in removing a mandatory vaccination requirement for immigrant women and girls to receive the HPV vaccine. Today, the CDC published a rule that finalizes a set of criteria for evaluating whether vaccinations recommended by the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices should become automatic requirements for immigrants. Starting December 14, 2009, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine will no longer be a required vaccination for immigrant women and girls.

NAPAWF, NLIRH and CLRJ opposed the mandatory vaccination requirement when it took effect in July 2008, and worked together with national, state and local partners in the reproductive justice, women's health, immigrant rights, medical and public health movements to remove the mandate. Organizations from around the country sent letters to the CDC opposing the rule and submitted comments in support of the proposed criteria. This was an important victory for the reproductive justice movement and showcased the power of cross-movement building strategies to secure reproductive justice and bodily autonomy for the most vulnerable women and girls.

This is great news for immigration advocates, removing what was a large financial barrier for immigrant women already facing the financial hurdles of immigration and naturalization.

Related:
Immigration authorities add Gardasil to the list of required vaccines
Young woman rejects HPV vaccine and loses path to citizenship
No Gardasil, No Papers: Immigrant Women and the HPV vaccine (Feministing Community)

Gabby Sidibe on Conan, being awesome.

What's the best way to equip Afghan women with info on contraception?

Support Scarleteen, an awesome sex-positive sex-ed site for teens!

On a new approach to education about women's rights from some awesome activists in Lebanon.

The FBI received an advance warning that Scott Roeder was a threat to Dr. George Tiller. And ignored it.

A 29-year-old trans woman was murdered in London. Two men have been arrested in connection. Reminder: The Transgender Day of Remembrance is Nov. 20.

Two critiques of Glee's approach to disability.

When it comes to being considered for a job, race is a more significant factor than criminal record. Wow.

A toolkit for ensuring that green-jobs initiatives benefit women and people of color.

Wendi Muse asks the big questions.

A big ol' middle finger to you, too, Klondike. And you, too, Reebok.

On Packaging Boyhood, the follow-up to Packaging Girlhood. Also read Rachel on social constructs of masculinity.

Kay has some great resources for understanding the implications of the Stupak Amendment.

After googling Michelle Obama, writes Aminah Hanan at Michelle Obama Watch, "you've come a long way, baby" is not the first thing that pops into her mind.

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Dear Professor Foxy,

Thank you!
Tired of Being Anxious

Hi TOBA -

As a sexuality educator, most of the questions I get fall into one large category: "what is normal? Am I normal?" The answer is that there is no normal and that applies here.

People's naturally occurring lubricant varies widely: some folks become very wet very easily and stay wet, others produce very little and don't stay wet, most are some place in between. The amount you produce will also change depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle and in your life (postmenopausal women tend to produce much less). What matters in almost the entire "am I normal" category of questions is how the person feels about whatever they are asking. With the amount of wondrous variation we all have, there is no normal, there is only acceptance.

You do not have an abnormal lack of wetness, you have wet is normal for you. The most important thing to do is to get to a place of acceptance about yourself and your body. I am not saying this is easy or an overnight process, but once you are there potential partners tend to follow. On the flip side, potential partners who are not accepting are rarely partners worth having.

Artificial lubricant has moved fully into mainstream sexual practice. Hell, even Wal-Mart carries it. I would suggest buying a bottle (not from Wal-Mart) and trying it out by yourself. See how it feels different to masturbate with lube and without. Which experience do you like better? Or do you like both and can now switch it up to keep things interesting. Babeland offers a sampler pack.

When you do have sexual experiences with others, I do not think there is a need to have a conversation with partners. Simply pull your bottle out and use the lube as necessary. Think of how sexy it will look when you apply it to yourself or your partner's fingers, toys, or penis.

This can become natural to you as you begin to incorporate the lube. Many, many people use lube and even more people find it incredibly hot when their sexual partners have a bottle(s) ready. There are a plethora of lubes out there, find one that you can claim as your own. Love your body for what it does and does not do, others will follow.

Best,
Professor Foxy

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

Regular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you might want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). Over the last few weeks, I've been interviewing my fellow new contributors so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week I interviewed Lori Adelman.

Lori grew up in New Jersey and went to Harvard, where she graduated in 2008 with a degree in Social Studies. In college, she was active in student government and in the Association of Black College Women's political branch. She got her start in feminist work in the Women's Rights Division at Human Rights Watch and at the Abortion Access Project. Now, she works at the International Women's Health Coalition in the communications department, where she blogs for IWHC's blog Akimbo. Lori lives in Brooklyn with her partner and their dog, Wordsworth, who she describes as a dog of the "presidential variety": an adorable, brilliant, accomplished mutt.

Miriam and I are reading from Yes Means Yes tomorrow night at Charis Books at 8pm. Come through if you are around!

New research suggests that "designer vaginas" come with more risks than surgeons are letting on.

Indian election authorities announced they'll now be having a third gender option in their voter forms for intersex and gender variant individuals.

Scarleteen has launched a new text service. Awesome.

A Toronto man was acquitted on rape charges due to yet another case of "sexsomnia," which experts say was triggered by him taking mushrooms and having 14 drinks before the assault. Community poster siuvan has more.

Believe it or not, women don't "forget to have kids."

This afternoon, I participated in a conference call with Loretta Ross, National Coordinator of SisterSong Reproductive Health Collective on the notorious Stupak Amendment. I have known her for years and she has mentored me from fledgling feminist thought to where I am today. I hopped on the call while my head was still reeling from the auctioning of women's rights on Saturday. But hearing the voice of Loretta, a woman who once regaled me with stories about her days tracking extremist hate groups in the South, made everything all right. She is that elder feminist that puts her hand on your shoulder and makes you feel like the impossible is in reach.

What I admire most about Loretta Ross is that preserving and restoring women's human rights is central to her analysis. "Health care," she said "is not an option, not a privilege -- but a human right." She described Stupak's amendment as "a loss and injury to the human rights of women" and referred all members on the call to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the U.S. government in 1948. Articles 12, 16 and 18 discuss privacy, the right to find a family and the right to "manifest faith" as one sees fit -- all tenets that Stupak ignored. This isn't just a document that has shaped America's Bill of Rights. In it lies the ethics that encompass what Obama has referred to as the character of our country. "This frame of human rights," Loretta argues, "has potential for feminists to situate women at the center of the debate allowing us to call attention to our rights to our body and control over our money."

In the end, she had no negative sentiment towards Obama, who in recent days has voiced dissatisfaction with the Stupak Amendment. But she maintains that this has got to be an approach from the bottom-up. "Sending an e-mail," she said, "may not establish a long-term relationship that will allow us to advance the agenda for women's rights." Of the hundreds of protesters affiliated with SisterSong who banded together on Saturday in DC to oppose the bill, "70 percent made advocacy visits," she said. The callers agreed that a reenactment of 2004's March for Women's Lives may very well be on the table.

I don't usually go to Psychology Today for feminist content (they're all but obsessed with sexist evolutionary psychology), but I was intrigued by this post on something called "imposter syndrome":

According to [Susan] Pinker, many highly accomplished women suffer from the feeling that they are imposters and they do not belong where they are and they don't deserve what they have accomplished through their own talent and hard work...The stories of professional women Pinker interviews vividly illustrate a widespread phenomenon first documented by Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes in their 1978 study of 150 highly successful professional women in various fields. "Despite accolades, rank, and salary, these women felt like phonies. They didn't believe in their own accomplishments; they felt they were scamming everyone about their skills."

It turns out this is a widely-known concept, though not an official part of the DSMIV. The blogger mistakenly notes that "imposter syndrome" is only something that afflicts women, when in fact it was also documented widely in working class kids first entering elite colleges in the 40s and 50s, and today among kids who are pipe lined into elite schools from low income neighborhoods (programs like Prep for Prep).

I was sitting across the table from a highly successful friend of mine in the restaurant business the other day and she expressed this exact sentiment--being asked to speak in a capacity she couldn't believe she was qualified for--and I quipped back, "Welcome to my world. I feel that way all the time."

The more I thought about my response, however, the more I realized I had some reflecting to do. It's one thing to be intimidated by new situations, to do the ol' fake it till you make it trick, but it's another to truly not feel like one belongs or deserves certain kinds of opportunities or accolades. Where's the line? How do you know? In what ways is this gendered? In what ways is it "raced" or "classed"?

Miss Indian TG Arizona 2007-2009, Ricki Quintero, White Mountain Apache

Who thought a pageant could actually serve the better good? The 2009 Miss Indian Transgender Arizona Pageant is being held in Phoenix on December 13th this year. The pageant is a collaboration of a LGBT individuals, groups and programs within the Native community working to raise awareness around trans people in their community and the issues they're challenged with.

Love. Check out an interview with Pageant Director Trudie Jackson, and more info about this year's pageant here.

Via RaceWire.

Catholic Church leadership seems to be stepping up its role in actively oppressing women and queer people. First came the Vatican's appeal to Anglicans who do not want women or openly gay people as priests. Then the United States Council of Catholic Bishops used their influence to build support for the Stupak amendment. Now the Catholic Archdiosese of Washington is threatening to abandon its social services work over a proposed same sex marriage law.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

The Archdiosese is making a clear statement: it considers keeping rights from same sex couples more important than the needs of this city's most vulnerable. Their willingness to use the lives and health of 68,000 people in need as pawns in their fight for the right to discriminate is unconscionable. D.C. needs more social services, not less. I hope the Archdiosese can put aside the politics of hate for a moment to recognize what I would think they would consider a moral obligation to do vital life saving work.

Thanks to all who voted for Courtney this week in the Washington Post America's Next Great Pundit Contest, as she came in as the second highest voted contestant and moved onto round two!

Now the next round of voting has begun again, and the polls will close on Sunday, 3 pm EST. This week, the contestants took on blogging, so naturally Courtney kicked ass.

Get voting y'all!

As Miriam noted the other day that it's Sesame Street's 40th anniversary, Global Voices Online brings attention to one character in particular that is making a significant impact in efforts to destigmatize HIV and AIDS in South Africa - the world's first HIV-positive muppet, Kami. Says Global Voices:

While Sesame Street is seen in over 140 countries, each version addresses local issues and has different Muppets. Golden-yellow Kami made her debut on the South African Sesame Street co-production, called Takalani Sesame, in 2002 in response to the country's HIV/AIDS problem. The world's first HIV-positive Muppet, she helps educate kids about the disease and confronts issues related to being HIV-positive. The name Kami is derived from the Setswana word "Kamogelo," meaning "acceptance."

She's also a child, a 5-year old orphan nervously came onto Sesame Street, scared the other characters wouldn't accept her - but they did with open arms. She informs viewers about the virus in easy-to-understand ways like showing folks that hugging someone with HIV is okay, as well as talks about coping and loss (as she lost her mother to HIV). She was also interviewed by Katie Couric, gave a message with Bill Clinton about HIV/AIDS and was named a UNICEF ambassador for children.

So we should have been surprised when folks in the U.S. were apparently up in arms about the character, saying she wasn't appropriate for children, despite the fact that South Africa is - as Global Voices reminds us - believed to have the highest number of people with HIV in the world. This is not to mention that 280,000 are children and there are 1.4 million orphans in South Africa because of AIDS.

So the question of an HIV-positive muppet on the American version of Sesame Street? Pshhhh, it's not even a question to be considered. But what folks don't seem to recognize is - how 'bout that, people in the U.S. are living with HIV/AIDS too! This does come from a personal place of hope; my friend Ebony from high school was born with HIV. She was an orphan too. She had a wonderful life full of people who loved her, but if she maybe had Kami to grow up with, I don't doubt that could have helped her childhood in a significant way.

For now, props to Sesame Street on their anniversary for addressing the reality of the world, and the reality of people's lives.

For those of you who haven't already heard, let me repeat that: the Republican National Committee (RNC) has a health insurance plan for their employees that covers abortion. Now, this shouldn't even be surprising, despite my out-loud laugh half in amazement, half fury when I found out arriving home last night. Because as Amie and Cecile Richards say - of course their plan covers abortion! It's a standard health benefit plan any employer would want to offer their employees, yes?

But as Politico points out, for a committee whose platform that says abortion is "a fundamental assault on innocent human life," and its members just voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment attacking the very existence of abortion coverage in health insurance plans (along with enough anti-choice and cowardly Dems) in the recently House passed health care bill, this is pretty incredible to hear.

Of course, the RNC is scrambling to cover for this apparent mistake, saying the policy had been in effect since 1991 (so were you pro-choice then?) and is assuring folks that their insurance plan is going to immediately be changed. Says a late release from the RNC late last night:

News reports have revealed that the RNC's health plan dating back as far as 1991 may have included some coverage for elective abortion. Upon learning of this, Chairman Michael Steele instructed the RNC Director of Administration to opt the RNC out of any coverage for elective abortion services in its health insurance policy.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled." - RNC Chairman Michael Steele

It's not so much that the RNC are hypocrites that gets me - we've known that too well and for too long - but that their female employees are now having the right to reproductive health care stripped from their plan. It's like they're the first to be sacrificed in the midst of this assault.

She Writes launches a day of action in response to Publisher's Weekly's sexism.

Apparently, women should breastfeed cause it will make you skinny again. Thanks NYT.

Esmerelda, a transgender asylum seeker from Mexico, speaks out against immigration detention.

Yesterday, women's orgs health care bill with Rahm Emanuel.

More ammo for debunking the "hecession" emerges.

Apparently, Apple's App Store has a category called "Apps for Girls." Among the iPhone's "essential" Apps for Girls are MASH, Fashion Fix, and lastly, Math Flash Cards, because girls are bad at math. To quote Barbie: "Math class is tough. I love shopping!"

The link and the list:

Thanks to Mike Healy for the iPhone screenshots. iTunes screenshots are here.

I've shared info about this beautiful film previously...as a refresher: it's a documentary film featuring five diverse artists who are also mothers. It explores the question, how do you do what you love, in this case art, and care for who you love? It goes into the economics of art, cultural and historical memory, feminism, family and labor, and so many other key issues of our time.

On Sunday I facilitated a post-screening panel at the Symphony Space in New York, which was streamed online and hosted at seven theaters across the country. You can watch it here.

One of the questions that has often come up in these screenings is the question: is it art if you don't share it? So many women shy away from putting their work out into the public, much less the marketplace, because they fear it's not good enough yet, or they don't want to seem too egocentric, or they just don't want to have to deal with assigning an economic value to what feels like such an organic process. But if art just sits in a drawer, can it really be considered art? Academy Award-winning producer Pamela Tanner-Boll, who put her blood, sweat, and tears into making this film, thinks not. At a recent talk back she talked about being sick of women making their art small or hiding it from the world. "You have a duty to share your art with the world," she advocated.

Both the educational release and the house party kit (which is so beautiful, filled with the art of the women featured in the film) are now available. Get your school library to order one. Give it to your artist mom for a holiday gift.(And please let em' know that you heard about it on Feministing if you decide to order--they'll make a small donation to us.)

As of yesterday, Lou Dobbs no longer has a spot on the CNN airwaves.

This is a big win for the activists who have been rallying to get him off the air for a while now:

Over the years, Lou Dobbs has consistently used his CNN platform to spread hatred and fear. He played a critical role in skewing the immigration reform debate in 2006, leading to the derailment of that effort, and his obsession with the issue of immigration and with defeating immigration reform continues unabated. Adding to his repertoire of hate and fearmongering, he has recently aligned himself with the "birther" conspiracists and their racially tinged attack on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency. From his CNN platform, he has bolstered the claims of those on the fringe by asserting repeatedly that President Obama has failed to produce adequate proof that he was born in the United States. His recent focus on the birth certificate conspiracy issue has reinforced what immigration reform proponents have long known -- that Dobbs has a long history of the worst kind of pandering by promoting hate and ethnic and racial division.

Later Lou!

I have been thinking a lot about what it takes to sensitize non-feminist folk to issues that have broad implications for women. I attend school in Michigan, where Dave Camp, Vernon Ehlers, Fred Upton, Bart Stupak, Candice Miller, Thaddeus MCotter, Dale Kilder and Peter Hoekstra all voted to write women out of affordable health care this week.

How do you talk to gender skeptics about feminism? Is abortion the place to start? Is there a feminist warm-up issue that is domestic in nature that the general public would agree is a clear manifestation of sexism? Is conversion the ultimate goal? How do you talk about these issues while also acknowledging that even though you are a feminist, you may not have the full truth on feminism, and that your feminism grows, evolves and even adapts?

I wrote the following column on the health care debate as a starting point to appeal to students, faculty and residents in the broader Michigan area:

*** *** ***

If you have been even halfway plugged to the healthcare debate this week, chances are you have caught wind that many women and their allies are not happy about the recent bill. H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed with a vote of 220-215 this past Saturday night. It is an achievement insofar as policymaking occurs at the speed of molasses and we finally have a health reform bill -- that includes a public option, ends pre-existing condition discrimination and extends healthcare to 36 million Americans -- that has been punted to the Senate. But one small step for healthcare reform has meant one giant leap back for womankind.

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

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

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

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

Approximate transcript after the jump.

Miriam, Samhita, Jess, and I are headed to Hotlanta tomorrow for the National Women's Studies Association's annual conference. We look forward to meeting readers there for the first time and reuniting with old friends. (And pretty please, if any community posters are there and get to see Angela Davis' keynote tonight, please write about it. We were all dying to see it but couldn't get out in time.)

Anyways, we're doing a panel on bringing off line and on line feminisms more, well, in line. I thought I'd throw an excerpt of the abstract up here and see if anyone had any thoughts/questions for us as we head into our lil' talk:

There is no question that the internet is one of the most vital sites of feminism activism today, but too often the women's studies classroom feels separate from, at best, and alienated from, at worst, this valuable resource. Some academics may not be familiar with the terrain of feminist blogs and intimidated by learning the language and customs associated with them. Some may have had a taste and decided that contemporary feminism needs more, not less, grounding in theory and history.

Many bloggers, for their part, have turned to the internet as a medium in direct opposition to what feels like an academic discipline that increasingly falls into the same traps of inaccessible language and unnecessary bureaucracy as its patriarchal counterparts in the university system.

So how do we bridge the divide? It is our conviction that the feminism's very survival depends on the interplay between the academics that train young women and men to be critical thinkers about gender and power, and the bloggers that continue to engage them in grassroots movements and continued analysis of this half-changed world. And of course, many of us are both in the same body--professors and bloggers, academics and activists, theorists and artists. How do we bridge the sometimes largest gap of all--that within ourselves?

The Guerrilla Girls are at it again. Two of the original members performed at the Acadia University Art Gallery in Wolfville, Nova Scotia last weekend. I loved this excerpt from the local coverage on what the Girls got riled up about:

They talked about tokenism, how the art world showcases the same artists of colour over and over instead of showcasing the diversity of artists of colour. They asked: "Is tokenism a solution to the problem of exclusion or is it an extension to the problem of exclusion?" Or, as their poster says, If February is Black History Month and March is Women's Month, what happens the rest of the year?

It's amazing that after 20+ years of existence, the Guerrilla Girls' message is still as resonant and needed as ever. Art museums average 15% women in curated exhibits, women of color .003%, and 4% of museum acquisitions are of work by women artists. Ridiculous.

There's no question that the Guerrilla Girls' methods are funfunfun, but are they effective? I'm not blaming the lack of change on these creative, bad ass women, but I do wonder if their antics entertain the choir more than challenging the power brokers. Thoughts?

Thanks to Rob for the heads up.

One of the buzz words that kept coming up at the pro-feminist men's conference at St. John's last week was accountability. How can men be accountable to women? How can pro-feminist men be accountable to the feminist movement?

There were no easy answers. Michael Kaufman, founder of the White Ribbon Campaign, wisely debunked the idea that there is some all-powerful feminist committee who serve as the accountability police. Obviously it is a diverse movement filled with folks who would consider some things okay and others offensive--as evidenced by the comment section of this very blog on a daily basis.

On the other hand, it does seem critical for men interested in doing feminist work and identifying with the feminism to be accountable to certain basic ideas--like the notion that men have, for too long, possessed a disproportionate amount of power in our society. This means that in feminist spaces, men should be cognizant of how much they talk, what sort of influence they exert, what kind of leadership they inhabit. But then again, shouldn't men and women always strive to be cognizant of these things.

And, of course, real accountability would come in creating a world where everyone gets to express their gender identity in whatever way feels most authentic, a world where no one would be forced to exist within a gender binary that didn't feel right for them. Men and women aside, this is the ultimate dream that we can be accountable for.

Anyone else have ideas about accountability within feminism? I sort of tie myself in knots trying to think through this one.

Today is Veteran's Day. A quote from Obama's speech today summed up my sentiments on this holiday: "That is why we fight" today, the president said. "In hopes of a day when we no longer need to." (Via LA Times)

The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is likely to be part of next year's defense bill.

In These Times has a piece about how unmarried women are suffering in the recession.

For the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street, The Daily Beast has a compilation of 25 classic moments. Below is one of my personal favorites:

Just something to brighten up your Wednesday.

Word of two new projects focusing on the stories of transgender individuals hit the Hollywood trades last week. Both have me concerned we will once again see most of the focus on the process of transition, and that once again trans lives might be reduced to transition status.

First comes word of a new HBO series called "T":

HBO is in development on a half-hour drama series that explores the gender transformation of a woman into a man.

Following that story came news that the lead roles have been cast in "The Danish Girl." The film is based on the novel of the same name by David Ebershoff, a fictionalized account of the life of Lili Elbe. Elbe is sometimes called the first transsexual and there are many who believe she was intersex. Her story is certainly one of the earliest accounts of someone going through surgical procedures as part of a gender transition.

I have not read Ebershoff's book, which apparently focuses on the relationship between Elbe and her wife Gerda. but the fact that people are interested in Elbe's story because of the historical nature of her transition process has me worried about a film that will focus on transitioning.

The process of transitioning can certainly be an important part of a transgender person's life experience. But physical and social transitions, those moments in our lives where our bodies and presentations go through the biggest changes, are not our whole experiences. You might not know this from mainstream representations of transgender folks, though, which too often focus on the act of transition and often the status of our genitals to the exclusion of the rest of our life stories. This obsession turns trans folks into objects of fascination whose crotches are more interesting than any other aspect of our lives. It makes the process of transitioning more relevant than the gender we actually identify with. And by always bringing up the gender we were assigned at birth these narratives often delegitimize our gender identities and presentations by showing our "real" or "natural" gender in opposition to a chosen, artificial, and created gender.

Of course I'm curious about both these projects, and I want to give them some benefit of the doubt. But the fact that both "T" and "The Danish Girl" are already being framed as focusing on transitioning instead of other, under-represented aspects of trans life experiences has me worried.

I'm really tired of these stories.

The fact that these young people are brave enough to come out in a climate as difficult as high school and then are faced with this kind of bigotry, is just really really sad.

Via Towleroad and the ACLU:

Cynthia Stewart, a 17-year-old junior at Tharptown High School in northern Alabama, is a member of her school's prom planning committee, had personally raised over $200 for the prom, and created the theme her classmates had chosen for the dance. She is also an out lesbian.

When Cynthia approached her principal to ask if she could bring her girlfriend with her to the prom, he said no. He also made Cynthia remove a sticker she was wearing that said, "I am a lesbian," telling her, "You don't have that much freedom of speech at school." Cynthia's aunt and guardian, Kathy Baker, then appealed the principal's decision to the school board. But the board let the decision to bar Cynthia from bringing her girlfriend to the prom stand.

I hope she can find support and love from her community to stand up to this and keep going on what is a difficult road.

Two older but happier stories from our archives on LGBTQ teens:

Friday Feel-good Story: Teen Lesbians Voted Best Couple in Yearbook
California high school elects gay male prom queen

UPDATE: The school is reconsidering her request.

On Monday, the World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the UN, released its first-ever study of women's health worldwide, Women and Health: Today's Evidence, Tomorrow's Agenda. The findings of the study, although perhaps not surprising to those of us who work in the field of international women's health, are still pretty outrageous: H.I.V. is the leading cause of death and disease among women between the ages of 15 and 44.

This is a sad and somewhat overwhelming statistic for me personally, since I view so many HIV infections among women as preventable with the right policy steps by the U.S. government and other governments of the world, and the right knowledge and information

Yes, I said it. Preventable. Although the WHO reports that unprotected sex is the leading risk factor in developing countries, don't let that statistic fool you. "Unprotected sex" may technically be the leading risk factor, but that doesn't tell the whole story. As the president of my NGO points out, women's vulnerability is increased by preventable conditions such as unmet need for contraceptives, insufficient legal and social protection for women against widespread sexual coercion and violence, social encouragement of the marriage of young girls to much older men, and lack of access to information about HIV, sexuality, and the availability of reproductive services.

Lastly, although this particularly disturbing statistic is deservedly getting a lot of coverage, check out some of the report's other findings, as summarized on Akimbo:

• Women provide the bulk of health care, but rarely receive the care they need
• Women live longer than men but these extra years are not always healthy
• Despite some biological advantages, women's health suffers from their lower socio-economic status
• Perhaps least surprisingly, policy change and action is needed within the health sector and beyond to ensure full protection of women's health and rights

Via The Hotline, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, after initially stating that despite being pro-choice, she was okay with the Stupak amendment has changed her tune, at least according to her Twitter feed.

Text: Oppose Stupak.Don't think we should change current law which is no public $ for abortions,but amndmt goes too far limitng private funds too

What's sad is that her new position is still not what many of us want--which is true access to all reproductive health services, regardless of income, ability to pay or health care plan.

But nice work to all those who put pressure on Senator McCaskill and her support of what is a truly terrible piece of legislation.

Want to stand with the pro-choice congresswomen opposing inclusion of Stupak in health care reform? Sign your name here.

Related:
Whose health care victory?
Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Confident Stupak will not be in the final version of the bill

This video is from a Colorlines special report, Torn Apart by Deportation.

Harsh immigration policy, compounded by systemic inequities built into the criminal justice system, might not be thwarting terrorists or making our country a whole lot safer. But the laws are doing a great job of breaking up another entity: families of color.

In an era of increased enforcement over immigration reform, this is a huge problem for so many immigrant families. You can read more from the report in three articles dedicated to the issue here.

Yesterday, the World Economic Forum released the Global Gender Gap Report 2009 at the India Economic Summit. The United States is 31st. A quick glance at the rankings:

Breaking news: more than three dozen House Dems have signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi firmly pledging to vote against the bill if it contains an anti-abortion amendment.

Fifty women who called themselves the Lioness group became the first female graduates of Iraq's police officer training academy.

MIT economists find yet another way to argue that environment, not innate ability, determines how well girls do in math class.

The much-celebrated microfinance site Kiva's one-on-one matching practices are called into question.

"You couldn't stop Stupak. But you can stop Pitts."

Fiorina's campaign stoops to new lows in fight against Boxer. Ugh.

During the third season of Mad Men Feministing writers will offer some of our thoughts on feminist moments, scenes, and themes in the new episodes in order to start a discussion about these topics in our community. *WARNING: Lots of spoilers follow.

And now the season finale of our most mistitled Tuesday column.

Don's flashbacks.

Outside of his general denial that Betty is leaving him, I think these scenes partly explain why Don chooses to prioritize saving his company over his marriage. It wasn't just growing up poverty-stricken, but potentially blaming his father's death on the fact that they went broke (after all, he wouldn't have been so drunk had things been better) drives Don to save his own business, and hence his life. -Vanessa

Don's arc has been strikingly Oedipal this season. This continued with seeing the death of his father in the same episode where major challenges to his power lead Don to reevaluate his priorities and begin to create a life on his own terms. -Jos

As one of my Mad Men-watching buddies pointed out, yes, these childhood flashbacks point Don toward re-evaluating his life. But it's always his work life, not his home life, where he decides to make changes -Ann

The end of Sterling Cooper, the beginning of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Cooper: "I lost my business last year!" Don: "Well do something about it."

This illuminates the difference between the Connies and Coopers of this world, and the Roger Sterlings. Don obviously took to heart what Connie said about building something himself -- and was not only inspired himself, but was able to awaken that motivation in Cooper, too. This scene, along with so many in this episode, really shows what a brilliant salesman Don is, despite his comment to Roger that he "learned his lesson" about his shortcomings in managing clients. -Ann

Betty: "I made an appointment with a divorce attorney and I suggest you do the same." Don: "Maybe you should see a doctor. A good one this time." Betty: "I've had a tough year. I felt I should tell you rather than let you get a phone call at work." Don: "Well forget it. i'm not going to let you break up this family." Betty: "I didn't break up this family."

So many power dynamics shifted in this episode, and in a number of cases we were shown a linked gaining of power by a woman and loss of power by a man. Betty, in pants again, is taking control of the situation. Much of the power regarding her marriage is now in her hands. Don's attempts to stop this process felt like the angry, potentially (and later actually) violent lashing out of someone who knows how little power they have. Trying to medicalize a woman actually taking a stand, trying to put all the blame on Betty are pretty standard responses, but they're also not very intelligent reactions. It was really satisfying to watch Betty work to liberate herself from this marriage. -Jos

Agreed. This episode could have been called "Don Eats Crow." -Ann

Gawd, I loved watching Betty say all of this to him. Especially when Don suggested that she needed to see a doctor. Amazing. -Jessica

I thought it was so interesting that he brought up the idea of Betty going to see a doctor, because the last time Betty went to see a doctor, Don blatantly betrayed her trust by receiving updates from her doctor on what were supposed to be private sessions. Now, he's bringing up the idea of seeing another doctor to invalidate her feelings, but in reality he's just providing another piece of evidence for why she should leave. -Lori

I had that thought, too, Lori. It's like, wow Don, perhaps referencing one of the many points when you broke Betty's trust is not the best way to convince her not to divorce you. -Ann

Girls Write Now, an organization near and dear to my heart, has received the 2009 Coming Up Taller Award from the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. On November 4, at the White House, First Lady Michelle Obama presented the award to founder and executive director Maya Nussbaum and third-year mentee Tina Gao.

Girls Write Now, for those who don't know, matches high school girls in New York City with professional writing mentors. Their success is astounding. In addition to the ineffable benefits of creating lasting mentoring relationships, they also boast a 100% college attrition rate for their mentees for the last five seasons!

Way to go to all the incredible staff, young women, and mentors involved in making Girls Write Now such an incredible organization, fostering the next generation of women's voices. Consider supporting them if you've got the means or the time.

"Everything from preparing one's taxes to having a child to getting health insurance for you and yours is more expensive if you're gay."

Dear Gail,

What were you thinking when you penned this letter to young American women? After listing the various obstacles facing women today -- discrimination, sexual harassment, violence, oppression -- you say:

What with all that, it looks like there's plenty on your plate. And if you don't feel like dwelling on the non-problems, if you automatically assume that a woman has as much right to have a terrific career and exciting adventures as any guy, that's great. For the entire history of recorded civilization, people had ideas about women's limitations, and their proper (domestic) place in the world. That all changed in my lifetime -- came crumbling down. The fact that I got to see it, in the tiny sliver of history I inhabit, just knocks me out. You taking it for granted knocks me out.

On one hand, I kinda get it. This column (along with your new book) is a victory dance for feminist progress. The ability of young women to take inequality for granted ... touchdown??? Thanks for the pat on the head, Gail. I am frankly a little appalled at your framing that young women need feminism like chimpanzees need water buffalo when in fact there are swaths of women in every demographic who have been skeptical about the movement.

Maybe I'm jaded, Gail. But this prototypical young woman you are writing to -- the one who couldn't care less about gender discrimination, who stumbles upon it at her first job in complete shock -- is the biggest myth you have perpetuated since you tried to call the Black man in the presidential race "disturbingly Ivy League." I am not going to front. I don't have the regression analysis on young women and attitudes around gender. But when campus activity fairs roll around and there are tables for a dozen gender-based orgs, one can't deny that the movement for gender equality is alive -- and that many young women are active participants. Yeah, many may not even call it (gasp!) feminism. But I hear young women speak their truths about gender marginalization every day, whether it is anorexia, race, violence against women, economic justice, health care discrimination, sex education, breast cancer or many other issues of interest. Wish you could hear them, too.

I am getting tired of having the work of young women rendered invisible in one fell swoop by a few older feminists who clearly don't take the time to talk to listen to them. I would love to have more inter-generational dialogues about feminism with women like you, Gail. But it's difficult to know where to begin, when your book bears the title When Everything Changed. Everything has far from changed, Gail. You needn't look any farther than the publication you write for, the New York Times, to know that the more things change, the more things stay the same:

The 20 top occupations of women last year [2007] were the same as half a century ago: secretary, nurse, grade school teacher, sales clerk, maid, hairdresser, cook and so on.

Further, the same article notes:

The proportion of female state legislators has been stuck in the low 20 percent range for 15 years; women's share of state elective executive offices has fallen consistently since 2000, and is now under 25 percent. The American political pipeline is 86 percent male.

I haven't even begun to break down how women of color have had varied experiences when measuring progress from the '60s. I'll just say that my own mother and grandmother could have cared less about girdles and flight attendant jobs. Race discrimination and the right to care for one's own children while serving in a domestic capacity for your white employer are some forms of sexism that saddled their lives decades ago and today. A narrative that takes into consideration some of these complexities don't seem to be apparent in your letter to young women like me.

Mainly, Gail, I want you to know one thing: You can't call it even yet. No matter how much "progress" you observe, now is the time to shed light on disparate treatment of women and girls. As a young feminist of color in the movement, the only thing that knocks me out is the tendency some feminists have to say the fight is over, when battle lines have been clearly drawn and the true victory has yet to be won.

In Sisterhood,
Rose S. Afriyie

I met super brave and hilariously funny filmmaker Nancy Schwartzman last weekend and wanted to make sure folks were aware of her complex film on sexual assault. It's called The Line and, in it, she reflects on her own rape, interviews sex workers as experts in consent, and even confronts her rapist on camera. It's really powerful and coming to college campuses around the country soon.

As part of the film promotions, she's also asking people to reflect on the question "Where is your line?"--promoting consent and self-reflection. Here's a lil' video she did on that:

Where is your line? from Nancy Schwartzman on Vimeo.

So I ask you, where is your line? Go on over to Nancy's dynamic site and tell her too.

And we're trying to get them taken down, FYI.

And in fact, let me tell you a lil' something that I often tell audiences when I speak on my book, Perfect Girls. The diet industry is a $30 billion enterprise in this country and it fails 95% of the time. Would you shell out for an iPod if it turned out to be a lemon 95% of the time? No, because you're not stupid. So don't diet. Ever. Okay, done.

Oh, wait, not done. Here's a picture of a little girl that I think is awesome. So not on a diet.

We've blogged a few times about this awesome, on-the-road project from Nona Willis Aronowitz and the late Emma Bee Bernstein, but I wanted to give the official thumbs up after having finally had the chance to read this fascinating tour-de-force cover to cover.

I was most struck by two elements of this unique book (and major brava to Seal for taking a chance on publishing something so unorthodox). First, the breadth of voices was astounding. Whether I was in Sioux Falls listening to a bartender bitch about the irrelevance of her degree or Portland hearing Banji scoff at the label of feminism, I was learning something. As Elizabeth Kolbert writes about in one of the latest issues of the New Yorker, one of the disappointments of the internet is that it allows us to retreat into our ideological bubbles even further--only visiting blogs and websites that support the view we already hold. I'm a big believer that this kind of balkanization of thought is not good for us. Period. But what Nona and Emma's book does is breaks out of that balkanization and get us face-to-face with folks all over the country who we may or may not have much in common with. I'm so grateful for that gift.

The other thing that's undeniably striking about this book is the authenticity of Nona and Emma's voices through out. They are infinitely likable and obviously flawed. They smoke a lot of weed. They even drop acid. They write--sometimes with more romance, sometimes less--about the journey of thought and geography that they undertake together at this critical moment in both of their lives. Their voices struck me as distinctly young and alive and unapologetic, another huge gift to a lady looking ahead at her 30s and feeling a bit less wide-eyed than I used to. Nona and Emma recaputure that spirit for me. The sound of their voices are a testament to how the feminist movement reinvigorates itself. Neverending.

Thanks girls.

The International Museum of Women is always doing innovative, international work, so it came as no surprise when I discovered their most recent efforts: Economica. According to the site: "I.M.O.W.'s latest online exhibition explores the many facets of women's experiences of and contributions to the global economy."

You'll find interesting podcasts, including Naila Kabeer talking about "the relationship between social justice, economic growth, and gender equity" and Julie Nelson challenging economic jargon. You'll also find a great Q&A with Delores Huerta. I loved this excerpt:

In every one of our country's movements and struggles, women have always been at the forefront-whether it was the worker's movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement or of course the women's movement. Because women set the traditions for the family, they're in a very unique position to be able to come forward. Unfortunately, so many women are burdened with the work involved in family life that they feel they really can't find the time, even though we need their voices. Women need to understand that speaking out is as much a responsibility as it is to be a mother and a wife. As women we've got to find out what's happening in this world. Sometimes we have to then neglect other parts of our life. I would like to say in my own life, for every unmade bed, hopefully some farm worker family got a dollar an hour more in their wages, or got some relief out there from their work.

For starters, it's critical that all of us learn more about economics and make sure we're making informed decisions, not only about our own finances, but advocating for the economic health of our country, and increasingly, our interdependent world.

Ariel Levy reviews Gail Collins' "When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present" and Leslie Sanchez's "You've Come a Long Way, Maybe: Sarah, Michelle, Hillary and the Shaping of the New American Woman" in The New Yorker.

The evolution (and popularity) of an anti-feminist columnist.

My new fave blog.

There's a battle over abstinence at Harvard. Huh.

Perhaps the most disturbing, NSFW, triggering, movie trailer ever. Shame.

You know, a common misconception people have about my work - especially when they see the book title The Purity Myth - is that because I argue that women shouldn't be held up to some bizarre virginal ideal, I must be promoting promiscuity. Of course, this line of thinking is incredibly telling - too many people are only able to see women's sexuality within the virgin/whore binary, so a sexuality or identity that's nuanced or complex is beyond them. Because of this misconception, I spend a lot of time during clarifying that of course I don't think virginity is bad thing, and naturally if people want to wait for marriage to have sex (assuming it's legal for them to do so), they should.

But the thing is, that's not entirely true. While I do believe that virginity is all well and good - my concern is really how women's worth is tied to the concept, not whether or not people have sex - I also think there something to be said for arguing strongly for pre-marital sex.

Because, let's face it - if you're going to commit yourself to someone for (presumably) the rest of your life, it's probably best if you know that you're sexually compatible. I don't think this is particularly radical thing to say; in fact, it seems quite logical to me. But somehow, if you suggest that pre-marital sex is a good and maybe even necessary thing (especially if you say those things while being a feminist) you are an evil, evil whoremaker.

Do I think that people can have perfectly wonderful satisfying relationships without having had sex before making a commitment? Sure, I'm positive that happens often. But considering what a huge role sexuality plays in our lives and relationships...well, I'd rather be super duper positive.

Picture via the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

Check out Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on MSNBC today.

Transcript of Rep. Wasserman Schultz's comments after the jump.

Seeing women's and feminist issues relegated to the "Styles" section of The New York Times is nothing new. And while I was glad to see students' rights and gender taken up in the NYT, presenting the continued harassment of trans students (by peers and educators) as a mere dress code problem is incredibly problematic.

Last week, a cross-dressing Houston senior was sent home because his wig violated the school's dress code rule that a boy's hair may not be "longer than the bottom of a regular shirt collar." In October, officials at a high school in Cobb County, Ga., sent home a boy who favored wigs, makeup and skinny jeans. In August, a Mississippi student's senior portrait was barred from her yearbook because she had posed in a tuxedo.

Other schools are more accepting of unconventional gender expression. In September, a freshman girl at Rincon High School in Tucson who identifies as male was nominated for homecoming prince. Last May, a gay male student at a Los Angeles high school was crowned prom queen.

Dress code conflicts often reflect a generational divide, with students coming of age in a culture that is more accepting of ambiguity and difference than that of the adults who make the rules.

As if you needed another reason to vote for Courtney to be the newest WaPo columnist, check out her latest at The American Prospect about imagining a new model for masculinity.

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

h/t The Frisky

Look at her, all pensive! Definitely very columnist-like.

Hey y'all, voting for The Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit Contest" ends today at 3pm - so consider this your reminder to to vote for our gal Courtney, one of the ten finalists in the contest.

And please get the word out - blog, tweet and Facebook this after you vote yourself - and help make Courtney WaPo's newest columnist!

This is the kind of story that makes you wonder about the basic goodness of people.

A group of past and present University of Sydney students set up a ''pro-rape'' page in the sports and recreation section on Facebook, describing themselves as ''anti-consent''.

The male students, mostly from the elite, all-male St Paul's College, initially ensured the ''Define Statutory'' group had an open, public profile, and proudly displayed their membership on their personal Facebook pages.

Both the commander of the NSW Police sex crimes unit and the head of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre condemned the site, describing it as ''grooming perpetrators of sexual violence''.

And people have the nerve to argue rape culture doesn't exist...

Outside of the general horribleness of this story, Hortense at Jezebel asks a really great question: Why would Facebook allow this group to exist for so long?

This is a social networking site that refuses to let women post pictures of themselves breastfeeding, mind you, but it's okay to make a "hilarious" pro-rape group in the "Sports and Recreation" category? The group was public, by the way, accessible to anyone and visible to all. Interesting, isn't it, that in the eyes of Facebook, a woman shouldn't be allowed to show her breasts while feeding her child, but it's perfectly acceptable for men to make a highly public "sport" out of rape.

A new report from the Parents Television Council, Women in Peril, found a 120% increase in depictions of violence against women on television since 2004. (In the same time period, violence that occurred irrespective of gender only increased by 2%.)

Cumulatively, across all study periods and all networks, the most frequent type of violence was beating (29%), followed by credible threats of violence (18%), shooting (11%), rape (8%), stabbing (6%), and torture (2%). Violence against women resulted in death 19% of the time. Violence towards women or the graphic consequences of violence tends overwhelmingly to be depicted (92%) rather than implied (5%) or described (3%).

Even more disturbingly, there has been a 400% increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims of violence.

The report notes that the portrayals of violence against women, especially young women, "with increasing frequency, or as a trivial, even humorous matter, the networks may be contributing to an atmosphere in which young people view aggression and violence against women as normative, even acceptable." (Emphasis mine)

h/t Sociological Images

Mark Schmitt has a moving piece at the American Prospect on being the father of a daughter and baseball player under Title IX, and the broader implications of what the amendment has meant and means today in our efforts towards social justice and equality.

I've already ranted against the Stupak amendment, but now I'm going to take a deep breath and look at some of the positive things included in the House health reform bill. The bill:

• Expands Medicaid "to reach a wider range of poor households up to 150% of the federal poverty level. 36M additional Americans will now be eligible for Medicaid."
• Bars discrimination in health care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.
• Acknowledges LGBTQ Americans are a population likely to "experience significant gaps in disease, health outcomes, or access to health care." This will hopefully ensure that LGBTQ people are included in future data collection, and that grant programs will focus on their specific health needs.
• Ends the "unfair practice of taxing employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, allowing thousands upon thousands of LGBT people to obtain domestic partner health benefits for their partners and families without having to pay a tax penalty through the nose."
• Allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs. (Currently, states are only allowed to use Medicaid money for patients with full-blown AIDS.)
• Funds comprehensive sex-ed programs.

Alice Rossi, a noted sociologist and one of the founders of NOW, who died this week.

The House passed a health-care bill, and a major anti-choice amendment along with it.

The Queer Women of Color Media Arts Project (QWOCMAP) is conducting free video and filmmaking workshops for Two Spirits, or queer Native Americans.

Nick Kristof on bisphenol A, the synthetic estrogen that's been linked to breast cancer and all sorts of other health problems.

What if we did as much to prevent rape as we do to prevent H1N1?

Beyond slogans: Neda's mother speaks.

Men's rights groups just won't go away.

An astounding fact: "Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood."

A great post from Sharanya Manivannan on women, language and experience, inspired by Penelope Trunk tweeting her miscarriage.

Iraqi women take refuge in underground shelters.

A woman in Texas was fined $204 for not speaking English.

Richmond is dealing with the fall-out over the gang-rape committed at a high school homecoming dance two weeks ago.

The New York Times did not agree to refer to women as "Ms." on its own...

How the Internet is democratizing comics -- and women are benefiting.

What have you all been reading/writing this week?

I'm sure you've heard by now that, last night, the House passed a health-care reform bill. I got this lovely email from Barack Obama telling me what a victory this is:

This evening, at 11:15 p.m., the House of Representatives voted to pass their health insurance reform bill. Despite countless attempts over nearly a century, no chamber of Congress has ever before passed comprehensive health reform. This is history.

But you and millions of your fellow Organizing for America supporters didn't just witness history tonight -- you helped make it. ... You stood up. You spoke up. And you were heard.

Actually, I wasn't heard. Because I think I made pretty damn clear (as did Obama, in several speeches during the campaign) that reproductive health care is essential health care.

So what the FUCK is this Stupak amendment doing attached to the health-reform bill? You know, that amendment that takes away women's access to health care? It reads:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

THIS IS FUCKED. [Update: A few more details at LGM.] NARAL for has more, as does Amanda.

As Sarah Jaffe put it, "Bart Stupak thinks he knows what I can do with my body. And Congress is voting to let him make that choice." A full 64 Democrats voted to take away your right to medical care. Shocker of shockers, they're all the vast majority are dudes. A couple of them are even men who have claimed to be pro-choice.

Writes Pilgrim Soul,

Charmingly I expect that in the next few days all your liberal dude friends will be trying to explain to you that this is really no big deal, look, they had to get the Republicans/"Democrats" onboard SOMEHOW, this is just a battle but we won the war, etc etc.

Actually, they'll be explaining that it's not a big deal because the Stupak amendment can be stripped out by the conference committee (which I very much hope it will, but am not holding my breath) and because there are potential loopholes (though I have yet to hear a convincing one).

On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.

It's pretty fucking cramped underneath this bus, what with 50% of Americans down here.

And now, lest we get too depressed, a few next steps:

• Obama is probably asking you for money, too. Send a check to a pro-choice group instead. (Perhaps a check to Planned Parenthood, in Bart Stupak's name?


• Work on overturning the Hyde Amendment


• Ask a pro-choice woman to run for office

Other suggestions?

UPDATE: Go read Shark-Fu.

UPDATE II: The Washington Post reports,

But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

Hey folks, just a reminder to vote right now for our gal Courtney, who is currently one of ten finalists in the Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit Contest."

Courtney's latest column is here, and voting for the contest is currently in progress, but ends Monday at 3PM (ET). So please get the word out - blog, tweet and Facebook this after you vote yourself - and help make Courtney WaPo's newest columnist!

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Dear Professor Foxy,

Thank you.

Hello -

Good for you for taking a major first step. It took guts to put the slideshow together. He responded favorably, so I think you two are ready to go to the next place.

Communication is key. Talking about desires heightens them and helps both partners feel comfortable. I would talk to him about the slideshow and ask what turned him on about the experience. Was it that you took the initiative? Being voyeuristic? The trust you showed?

Move on to asking him what his fantasies are and be ready to talk about your own. What specifically turned you on? What would you do again? Change?

I would also suggest exploring an on-line sex store like my new favorite one, Passionale in Philadelphia, PA. See what appeals to you and/or to him. Be ready to try new things. What are you willing to try for him and vice versa? Going through sites or catalogues together and talking about the goods is likely to spark more fantasies and things to try. So talk and try and have fun!!

Best,
Professor Foxy

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

The House of Reps is debating abortion in health care reform right now in Congress.

From Planned Parenthood Action Center:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops met with leaders in the House of Representatives in their bid to eliminate women's access to abortion care under health care reform. Their efforts are working. Representative Bart Stupak has introduced an amendment to the health care reform bill that will result in women losing health care coverage for abortion. Now, Congress is considering the Stupak amendment to the health care reform bill that will eliminate choice for millions of women.

We need you, and your friends and family to call your representative now at 202-730-9001 and ask him or her to oppose the Stupak amendment.

You can urge friends on Facebook and Twitter to call Congress.

For Facebook, post this to your status:
EMERGENCY -- Representative Bart Stupak has just introduced an amendment to the health care reform bill that will eliminate coverage for abortion care. I just called my Rep. and you should, too. Call 202-730-9001 and ask him or her to reject the amendment.

Tweet this on Twitter:
URGENT- Call your Rep NOW to reject the Stupak amendment to health care reform. It would eliminate all abortion care. 202-730-9001. RT

Take action today, voices in support of access to abortion are crucial right now.

Regular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you might want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). Over the next few weeks, I'll be interviewing my fellow new contributors so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week I interviewed Jos Truitt.

Jos joined Feministing as a contributor this July, and in the past few months has been blogging up a storm (those of you who love Mad Men Mondays, you can thank Jos for that!). Jos grew up in Boston and graduated from Hampshire College, where she studied philosophy of race, feminist organizing and sequential art, which, she informed me, is the academic term for comics.

Jos now lives in DC, where she is pursuing her passion for reproductive justice. She recently started working part-time at the National Abortion Federation hotline and she serves as a clinic escort with the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force. She has also worked and blogged for Choice USA. In her spare time, she likes to bake and spend time in the printmaking studio, and when I asked her which feminist she'd take with her to a desert island, she gave by far the sweetest answer I've heard yet.

And now, without further ado, The Feministing Five, with Jos Truitt.

Actress Gabrielle Union blogs in a smart and honest way about the horrific responses to the Richmond rape case, and about her own rape. Via Shakes.

More research shows that comprehensive sex education results in increased condom use among teens and lowers their chances of contracting HIV.

Gawker argues that the woman who shot Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to stop his shooting spree is solid proof that we need to allow women in combat.

A new UK report finds that institutional racism in England schools prohibits ethnic minorities from being promoted and reaching top posts. 44% of folks reported being discriminated against.

Feminist artist Nancy Spero has died at the age of 83. She has written: "I have come to the conclusion that the art world has to join us, women artists, not we join it. When women are in leadership roles and gain rewards and recognition, then perhaps 'we' (women and men) can all work together in art world actions."

"Status is Everything": These are the words repeated in the new HIV testing campaign to be launched by the Newark, NJ African American Office of Gay Concerns (AAOGC).

The website is not functional yet, as the campaign will be revealed on December 1, 2009, and officially launched in January 2010, but their preview photo shoot for the advertising campaign was released on flickr this week.

Photos feature young gay African American men with the caption "Status is Everything," and the ad campaign will refer viewers to a hotline and website where they can schedule free HIV testing at local clinics.

Not found in this campaign, however, is the need for a cogent campaign that's inclusive of young women of color. In 2007, blacks accounted for 44% of the 455,636 people living with AIDS in the 50 states and District of Columbia. And as Advocates for Youth reports,

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.

One idea that has circulated this year accuses black men on the "down low," that is, closeted black men who have sexual exposure to other men while dating women, of contributing to the HIV epidemic and women's infection rates in the US. Yet, the director of the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, Kevin Fenton, concluded that the cause of increased infection rates among black women was instead the incidence of black men with multiple heterosexual partners. He cites data that shows a lack of bisexual self-identification among the community of HIV-positive black men. (Is it possible that the accusation that "down low" men spread HIV is an extension of the race-fueled trend of the feminization of black men?)

This advertising campaign, while potentially powerful in the gay male community, won't help the black women who comprise 61 percent of all new HIV cases among women.

One thing is certain: Newark's new campaign, while not targeted toward the women affected most by HIV, is a nice change from other disturbing HIV advertising we've seen.

We'll have more to say on this once the full interview is up, but for now, check out this moving excerpt of Rihanna's interview with Diane Sawyer.

Stringer Bell is confused. "Whaddaya mean The Wire's not feminist?"

The Wire, the HBO series that ran for five seasons, will apparently live on, despite its shelf life, in a class at Harvard. And Professor William Wilson, the self-admitted "huge fan" who will be teaching the class, is high off of The Wire's Kool-Aid:

"I do not hesitate to say that it has done more to enhance our understanding of the challenges of urban life and the problems of urban inequality, more than any other media event or scholarly publication," Wilson told the audience before poking fun at himself, "including studies by social scientists."

As a racial justice advocate who loves politics and sexually diverse representations of people of color, one can't help but be a sucka for The Wire. (Also, I am not going to lie. I might have dedicated a Facebook status, or ten, to good-God-what-have-you-done-to-me Idris Elba.) But when you fasten your feminist goggles and take another gander, you are bound to get bamboozled, psyched out and sucka-punched by yet another attempt to be progressive -- hold the feminism.

Elizabeth Ault, a bad-ass feminist at the University of Minnesota, begins to sum up The Wire's gender problem in the title of her paper: "You Can Help Yourself, But Don't Take Too Much": African-American Motherhood on The Wire. At one point she states,

The Wire is quite capable of creating sympathy for the struggles of men... shows us characters like alcoholic police officer Jimmy McNulty, strategizing drug kingpin/real estate developer Stringer Bell, and corrupt (okay, maybe just stupid) cop Thomas Hauk, and doesn't dictate how we interpret their storylines; rather, much of the show is full of precisely the sort of representational ambiguity that obviates calls for "more positive representations" and earns the "authentic" plaudit--except, again, when it comes to black mothers, women without the social or cultural capital of those men.

Then she goes for the jugular:

The institutions that The Wire is so devoted to condemning have failed these women too. In order to make its damning assessment of urban politics within its own institutional context of Time/Warner-owned HBO, The Wire must make some compromises. In this case, black mothers' sexualities, their subjectivities, their desires, and therefore their fitness as parents is the price the show, like so many before it, is willing to pay.

Her paper has not been published yet. But it's chock full of good stuff about the director's decision to opt-out of "woman of color feminism" and her analysis of the director's reinvestment in "heteropatriarchal family." I don't know what Wilson has planned on the syllabus, but he needs to give our girl Liz a call. Because the urban inequality problem he rails on about is gendered.

I just had to put this up, not only because Sarah Haskins is the awesome, because I've been meaning to post about that neckline slimmer for quite a while now. Intense.

By this point, you've probably all heard plenty about Tuesday's election. About the governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia that went to Republicans, about the loss in Maine that overturned the legislative decision to allow same-sex couples to marry.

There was one piece of news that literally hit home with me on Tuesday--and that was the news that my North Carolina hometown, Chapel Hill, now has an openly gay mayor.

I often talk about what growing up in North Carolina was like for me--how in many ways my public high school experience there was pretty limiting. Being gay was just simply not an option in my teenage world in Chapel Hill. I didn't know any gay people, at least not any that I could relate with. My peers and I were very focused on dating, and dating boys specifically. I was in the closet for more than three years after leaving home--it took a while to undo some of the socialization of my childhood and meet those queer folks who I did relate to and whose friendship allowed me to explore my own sexuality.

Chapel Hill is an interesting place within North Carolina because in many ways it's much more liberal than the surrounding cities and regions. Jesse Helms, the well-known and always controversial former Senator representing North Carolina was often quoted for saying:

Why build a zoo when we can just put up a fence around Chapel Hill?

He was referring to the liberalism of my town--but what I've come to realize since leaving North Carolina almost eight years ago is that it is, in the end, all relative. Chapel Hill was liberal in comparison to the rest of North Carolina, but particularly for me as a young person there, that didn't mean too much.

So now, looking back, I wonder if having a gay mayor would have changed things for me growing up. Would it have made me see that being gay was an option, even for a political figure? Would it have opened up my world a little bit?

Maybe not. But after meeting a young person from my high school at a recent presentation and hearing him say that things there haven't changed so much since I left, I want to hold on to some hope that this could be the catalyst for a new reality for the young lgbtq people growing up in my town.

It's about time.

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

h/t to reader Cathy.

On Saturdays, I am Professor Foxy, but the rest of the week I do federal level advocacy focused on improving the health of LGBT people. This Saturday, the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity to do just that by passing its reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), TOMORROW, November 7. We have never come this far before - this is our chance to help make history!

It is crucial for the LGBT community that this bill passes with a strong majority. The House bill includes numerous provisions that are key to the health and well-being of our community, including:

• a strong public option that greatly expands coverage


• data collection that includes sexual orientation and gender identity


• strict prohibitions on discrimination in health care and insurance coverage

Our community is the under- and uninsured. We are seniors and youth, women, people of color, immigrants, people living with HIV and AIDS, and transgender people. We are too often discriminated against by insurance companies and health care providers and denied the care that we need. The status quo harms our community and our families, and we deserve better.

Tell your Representatives to pass LGBT-inclusive health care reform NOW. CALL Your Representatives using the toll-free number 1-877-264-HCAN (1-877-264-4226) and ask them to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act. You can also email them through the House's web site. Speak up today for LGBT-inclusive health care reform. Let's fulfill the promise of real reform by making our voices heard about the future of health care in America.

And because of a blogger, no less! As a big Emma Thompson fan, I'm relieved to find that after blog reader and blogger Caitlin to put together a petition urging Thompson to take her name off of Bernard-Henri Lévy's petition supporting Roman Polanski, it looks like the actress has had a change of heart. Reports Caitlin, who met Thompson after speaking at Exeter University:

Emma did not have much time between meetings, but she gave me all of the time that she had. I asked her why she had signed the petition, and she explained about how well she knows Polanski, how terrible his life has been, and how forgiving the survivor of the rape all those years ago now is. She said she thought the intentions of the judge were unclear, as were the intentions of those who arrested him recently. She told me that a lot of her friends had rung her up asking her to sign the petition, so there had been a certain amount of pressure. She said that she had already been thinking a lot about the petition, as others had expressed their dismay at her signing it.

I handed her our petition and the comments. She read them both through thoroughly, and came back to me. She said, while she supported Polanski as a friend, a crime is a crime. I don't know whether she had realised the extent of Polanski's crime, but she is now fully aware. She will remove her name from the petition - in fact, she said she would call today and sort it out. Even though, she stressed, Polanski has had some truly terrible experiences in his lifetime, experiences that we couldn't even imagine and which should not be taken out of the equation, she agreed that she could not put her name to a petition asking for his release.

She also asked Caitlin to pass along a message to petition signers, saying, "Know that I will remove my name because of you, and all of the good work that you have been doing. I have read your petition. I have heard you. And I will listen." Just awesome. So a big thank you to Emma, but more importantly - thank you Caitlin!

Via Shakesville, who had a hand in this too.

On sex panic and technology.

GLAAD has put out a media reference guide. Please check it out now.

New Moon Magazine is in need of support. Read about them and donate.

Justice who denies interracial couples right to marry has quit.

via Racewire on beauty pageants being racialized.

Johanna Kruppa thinks feminists are too uptight in their denouncement of "nudey pics" in Playboy.

"I think they suffer from lack of knowledge and tunnel vision. How many of those self-important, so-called 'feminists' have been on the set when a celebrity shot a Playboy spread? There you go. What is feminist about discriminating a photo shoot just because it involves female (partial) nudity that happens to give men pleasure? Pathetic," Krupa told Tarts in an exclusive interview.

Well, let me unbunch my panties so I can effectively debunk this idea that feminists are too uptight to see how empowering posing for magazines like, Playboy and Maxim are for women.

Feminists have opposing view points on pornography and other forms of erotic art, that is not a new story, but suggesting that feminists don't get how "empowering" it is to fit into society's standards of able-bodied, white, cis-gendered, thinness, well let's just say we totally get that. I am not saying the act isn't empowering for her, like she said, I wasn't there, but the process that empowers her is embedded in a really specific idea of what a woman should look like and the kind of woman that "turns men on." It is not the function of turning men on that is the sexist part to me, but the unrealistic expectation put on women through the production and proliferation of images like Kruppa's and the corresponding value put on women's bodies through this very same process. And the corresponding sexist vitriol spread in magazines like Maxim. Put a big girl on the cover of Playboy. Just once. Prove me wrong.

What is interesting is that Kruppa combines her criticism of feminists with America's inability to embrace sexuality over violence. She has a point there, it is true that in many ways violence is more acceptable in popular culture than sexuality, but that is not a problem of feminism, that is a function of sexism. Feminism can only make that better.

Related:
Sex and the Simpsons: Marge's Playboy cover

Last week I linked to a study from OK Cupid about race and dating. OK Cupid released some more data, including who likes to use strap-ons and what slang daters are familiar with, and who thinks they are a genius (guess who thinks they are geniuses more often than not?) The data I found most striking however, was the data on who has considered suicide.

OK Cupid blog notes that the straight identified people are less likely than "other" to consider suicide. But the number that struck out to me was that the most likely group to consider suicide are bisexual identified women.

Thoughts?

Thanks to Dave for the link.

A little old, a lot of awesome.

You know, we love the Queen here at Feministing, despite her complexities.

All of us at Feministing couldn't be prouder of gal Courtney, who is currently one of ten finalists in the Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit Contest."

[These] ten finalists will get to compete for the title of America's Next Great Pundit, facing off in challenges that test the skills of a modern pundit. They'll have to write on deadline, hold their own on video and field questions from Post readers. After each round, a panel of Post personalities will offer kudos and catcalls, and reader votes will help to determine who gets another chance at a byline and who has to shut down his or her laptop.

Here's your chance to help put a feminist (and a particularly awesome one, at that!) at The Washington Post. I don't have to tell you the powerful platform that WaPo is, and how needed feminism is in mainstream media outlets. You know this. And now we have an opportunity to do something about it.

Courtney's latest column is here, and voting for the contest starts Saturday. So please get the word out - blog, tweet and Facebook the shit out of this - and help make Courtney WaPo's newest columnist!

Really interesting choice, huh? I covered that she would be in Glamour on Tuesday, but didn't discuss that they had made her Woman of the Year.

Glamour Magazine chose her as one of their "Women of the year." Although the article does not go into depth about her experience of domestic violence or any treatment she may have received, she does openly discuss the shame and isolation she endured...

...Many women who have suffered from domestic violence also feel that same sense of loss and loneliness. The shame women feel from choosing an abusive partner and feeling that they "allowed" it to happen can also contribute to not seeking help. Sometimes when women do reach out for support from their families or friends, they feel judged and retreat more.

Women who find themselves with abusive partners typically do not have media hounding them day and night after their abuse is reported to authorities. They also do not have the public scrutinizing their involvement and reactions.

I can understand that Glamour chose to do this because it brings to light the issue of violence against women, but it seems a little soon and potentially exploitative of her story. As the article asks, I have to wonder if this was her choice and part of her healing process or created by her PR team to support her upcoming single? And hours before her 20/20 interview tomorrow, MTV is airing an interview with Chris Brown. The media spectacle of it does give me pause.

In other news, his new tour is doing lousy. Wonder if it is connected to his "anger issues?"

In response to the constant objectification of women, the recent gang rape of a 15 year old girl in Richmond, CA, the unjust incarceration of Sara Kruzan and even the highly publicized violence faced by Rihanna, conscientious rapper and activist Jasiri X has put out a track that discusses the injustice and inhumanity of these crimes.

Love it. Lyrics after the jump.

A program in North Carolina is paying girls not to get pregnant. Yeah.

A must-read from Lynn Harris at Broadsheet.

"Feminists remain the enemy in the United States." Don't let the headline fool you...

A trend is growing in Dallas where police officers are giving drivers $200 tickets for not speaking English - all but one of them thus far have been Latino.

A little bit of good voting news from yesterday: Kalamazoo, MI has added sexual orientation and gender identity to its laws banning discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

While a growing number of anti-discrimination laws include gender identity this still amounts to far less than those that include sexual orientation (there are too few jurisdictions [pdf] covered by these laws, too). 12 states and DC prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while 21 others prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Unsurprisingly, the campaign against Ordinance 1856 focused on the inclusion of gender identity and those scary scary bathrooms while simultaneously erasing transgender identity. Given these transphobic tactics I see it as an especially positive sign that the ordinance passed with 62% of the vote.

Seems that some people are upset that one of the models on Teen Vogue's November cover is pregnant.

19 year-old Jourdan Dunn isn't visibly pregnant, but talks about her pregnancy in the magazine.

The cover has raised eyebrows among some parents, teens and advocates against teen pregnancy.

"There's no message to send to them that that's not OK. Maybe if she's on the cover to tell them 'Be careful,' that's one thing," said Catherine Essig, a 19-year-old sophomore at Dallas' Southern Methodist University, who was concerned about 15- and 16-year-old readers.

Many advocates said parents should use the cover as a way to talk to their kids about sex and the importance of planning pregnancies for the right moment in their lives.

"Teen parenting isn't glamorous, even if you are a teen model," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

First of all, I'm not sure why this magazine cover is scandalous and this one isn't. Teen pregnancy is talked about and featured everywhere - from glamorized pics of Bristol Palin to MTV''s 16 and Pregnant. And the fact is, the teen pregnancy is a reality - the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. went up for the second year in a row for the first time in a decade (thanks, abstinence-only education!). Is it really better to hide the issue?

I understand concerns about making teen pregnancy seem "cool," but I don't think that shaming young women who are pregnant or ignoring their existence is an answer. As Teen Vogue Editor-in-Chief Amy Astley said, "Teen pregnancy is a difficult, real-life issue that Teen Vogue readers (with an average age of 18) are mature enough to be exposed to...[we] felt it was important to support, not punish, Jourdan." Agreed.

If you're in NYC, please consider coming to a great panel discussion tonight (with a happy hour preceding the event!) to support PPNYC.

I'll be with writer Lynn Harris and Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood. Tickets are only $15, and it goes to a good cause!

The Tank
354 W 45th Street
New York, NY 10036
6:00 pm - 9:00 pm

Congratulations Professor Foxy!

As of this morning, Professor Foxy holds an elite, exclusive, and hard-earned membership to the club "Lifesite news targets." I, too, am a member, so I can tell you- she's in for a real treat!

This special membership offers guaranteed access to: having your name misspelled and/or your title incorrectly described; having your words taken out of context; being blatantly misrepresented; having your views on an issue warped and manipulated for the anti-choice agenda; experiencing infuriating condescension from a number of sources; and, my personal favorite, having anti-choice news sites show up at the top of the page when your name is googled. Fun!

:-/

I joke, but for real, I am proud of our very own Professor. My mantra is and continues to be, that you know you're doing something right when you're pissing anti-choicers off.

Yesterday voters in Maine repealed the state's law allowing same sex couples to get married, making it the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum. Unbelievable.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, said the loss in Maine underscores "the fact that we need to continue those conversations and make ourselves visible as families in communities."

He added, "It shows we have just not done it long enough and deep enough, even in a place like Maine."

But Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, the conservative Christian group that is leading the charge against same-sex marriage around the country, read the outcome differently.

"It interrupts the story line that is being manufactured, that suggests the culture has shifted on gay marriage and the fight is over," she said. "Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation, it's socially liberal, they had a three-year head start to build their organization and they outspent us two to one. If they can't win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing."

I think Gallagher's quote - "this gay marriage thing" - really says it all. The contempt practically drips from the words.

Bloggers at Pam's House Blend have several posts up about the decision, and Adam at Tapped says there's a silver lining in all of this. What do you think?

UPDATE: AndyLC on the Community blog has more.

Uhhh...

Lynn Hecht Schafran and Jillian Weinberger of Legal Momentum (a women's legal defense and education fund) say that recent reports from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) underestimate the number of rapes among persons with disabilities and women.

Schafran and Weinberger point specifically to two reports, Crime Against Persons with Disabilities (2007) and Female Victims of Violence (2008), arguing that the methodology for both were flawed.

Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, for example, excluded institutionalized people with disabilities - a huge omissions considering that sexual assault and abuse happen at extremely high rates in institutional settings. Schafran and Weinberger also note that the statistic in the report related to reporting abuse to the police is only "based on 10 or fewer sample cases."

Female Victims of Violence - which showed that rape rates have decreased significantly recently, has similar methodological problems.

Tracy Clark-Flory with more details on the right-wing "coming out" of Abby Johnson from Planned Parenthood.

And to add to that a post from the community site from Shelly Blair, co-host, Fair and Feminist on KEOS 89.1 who has interviewed Johnson before.

The New Yorker on what really happened during the Israeli attacks in Gaza.

Amanda debunks the "what if you were aborted," argument anti-choicers love to throw around.

One of the new owners of the Chicago Cubs is also the first openly gay owner of any sports team.

During the third season of Mad Men Feministing writers will offer some of our thoughts on feminist moments, scenes, and themes in the new episodes in order to start a discussion about these topics in our community. *WARNING: Lots of spoilers follow.

(Apologies for the column being delayed again. I (Jos) had technology issues that made it impossible to put together yesterday.)

Peggy and Duck. Kinsey: "I know a nooner when I hear one."

Ew. Just ew on the Duck/Peggy thing. More ew with Kinsey. -Samhita

Gotta say, I kind of love the term "nooner." And that our girl Peggy is lured to the hotel with promises of a Monte Cristo sandwich. But I will never forgive Duck for unplugging that television. I have to wonder what story Peggy will invent to explain where she was when she found out Kennedy was shot. Gross. -Ann

"Wow, the president's been shot. Better unplug the TV so depressing news doesn't get in the way of teh sex." -Duck -Jos

Margaret's wedding.

So painful to watch, why did they go through with it? -Samhita

You have to love that when she found out about the assassination, Margaret is more concerned about it ruining her wedding than anything else... -Jessica

Margaret: "She said in India if the wedding doesn't take place at the appointed time they burn the bride." Mona: "Just because she went to India doesn't mean she's not an idiot."

I believe they are referring to the cultural practice of sati that had long been outlawed at that point and happened when women were widowed they were thrown into the funeral pyre with their deceased husband, not on their wedding day. Other than being sexist, it was often even more tragic because wives were often much younger than their husbands. But that is irrelevant. They flattened the cultural history and reality of sati in India to demonize and scare Margaret into marriage, basically saying, we are just as sexist as those backwards Indians, so please don't think twice (at least I would like to think that is what the writers were doing with that). -Samhita

Roger and Jane fight.

This entire episode seemed to be about men infantalizing the adult women in their lives. Roger yells for Jane like she's his maid, and then scolds her like a child. (In fact, it's a repeat of the tone he just took with his own child on the phone.) Although I gotta say, it feels very satisfying to see how Roger's fantasy life with a much-younger wife has not played out at all like he'd hoped. I really loved seeing Mona in a position of strength and power throughout this episode. Lioness, indeed! -Ann

A study put out by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy has found evidence that the majority of teens at risk of unwanted pregnancy are not from low income and/or single parent families.

via Susan Reimer for the Baltimore Sun.

According to research conducted for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, only 28 percent of those who report having given birth or fathered a child as a teen lived in families with incomes below the federal poverty line.

And just 30 percent of those who report having given birth to or fathered a child as a teen say they were living with a single parent.

We are not only wrong - and probably bigoted - about whose teens get pregnant. Those of us in middle-class, intact families have our heads seriously in the sand if we think it can't happen to us.

This doesn't change that low-income families are disproportionately at risk of unwanted or teen pregnancy, but it certainly changes the demonized media image of the poor, black, single, teenage mom, so readily available to the national imagination. Looks like all those family values indoctrinated via abstinence-only education programs are not working out so well for all the "intact" families of America.

Ann linked this piece from Davey D's blog of an interview with KRS-1 where he discusses the lack of women in hip-hop:

CP: What do you think is missing in hip-hop today?

KRS ONE: "I am not just saying this because you [a woman] are asking the question, this is my real answer: More women. More women. Not just emcees or b-girls, but women taking control of hip-hop. Let me be culturally-specific- hip-hop's women should teach hip-hop's men how to speak to them. Because when we learn how to speak to you, we can learn how to speak to the whole business world. It's not just about respecting you...it is...but it's deeper than just respecting another human being. Everytime you degrade a person, you degrade yourself, because you are standing next to that person. You can't diss a person, and not diss yourself...I should say 'she's a queen.' And what does that make me? A king. So now at the end of the day, what's missing in hip-hop? Knowledge of self, that should only come from women. I know that sounds feminist, but that's real talk.

Earlier this year, Rihanna became the center for a media spectacle after being attacked by then boyfriend Chris Brown and having pictures of her released. Brown has made several public appearances, "apologizing," and defending himself. But Rihanna hadn't made a peep, it was just continual speculation about whether it was her fault (!) or if they had gotten back together.

Well, Rihanna is speaking out now. She will be on the Today Show this Thursday, along with 20/20 this Friday and is featured in the December issue of Glamour. Some bits of her interviews have been released and she is putting forth the words of a confident, young woman that got the support she needed to deal with this painful and humiliating situation.

Speaking to "Good Morning America," the singer will send the message, "This happened to me. ... It can happen to anyone," according to excerpts of the interview released on Tuesday (November 3).

Rihanna, 21, also reportedly tells Diane Sawyer that the attack by Brown was especially difficult because of how she felt about him before the incident occurred. "He was definitely my first big love," she said in an interview that will continue on Friday night's "20/20."

The singer also opened up for the December issue of Glamour magazine, describing how she coped with the aftermath of the assault. "I went to sleep as Rihanna and woke up as Britney Spears," she said in the Women of the Year issue, out on November 10. "That was the level of media chaos that happened the next day. It was like, 'What, there are helicopters circling my house? There are 100 people in my cul-de-sac? What do you mean, I can't go back home?' "

We've been having some problems with our community blog post editor. The image and video embed buttons don't seem to be working properly.

To ensure that your images and video show up, please leave a link to the image/video (at the third party site where you found them) in the body of the post, and we'll make sure it shows up correctly.

Thanks for your patience, we're working on fixing this as part of some upcoming redesign fixes.

The New York Times Magazine that made Precious actress Gabourey Sidibe a cover girl was almost a too-good-to-be-true moment. All at once, the world was a more inclusive place for people of dark complexions, ample body sizes and for people living in the shadows of the less visible differences her Precious character embodies. It's crazy how powerful representation can be. I am a dark-complected, Harlem girl who has survived violence. And while it's on the self indulgent side, I must admit: seeing that chocolate girl on that measly little cover with her pride held high made all the difference to me.

A few days remain until Precious debuts across the country on Nov. 6th. The story, originally told by Sapphire through the novel Push, is an ode to negotiating inclusion and exclusion in the media. It's about much more than the New York Times' account: a "Harlem girl raped and impregnated by her abusive father." (That's practically all the ink dedicated to Precious the character despite an accompanying a column that extends for 5 pages.) It's about inclusion and what it says about who is valuable in our society. That's best captured in Push, when Precious explores this:

I am comp'tant. I was comp'tant enough for her [Precious' mother] husband to fuck. She ain' come in here and say, Carl Kenwood Jones--thas wrong! Git off Precious like that! Can't you see Precious is a beautiful chile like white chile in magazines or on toilet paper wrappers. Precious is a blue-eye skinny chile whose hair is long braids, long long braids. Git off Precious fool! It time for Precious to go to the gym like Janet Jackson. It time for Precious hair to braided.(64)

But what I love about the book is that Precious is not a defenseless subject. She is a survivor who resists against her exclusion by striving for her own inclusion. She does this by learning how to read. She then uses her literacy to read about the lives of Black women through writers such as Alice Walker, Ann Petry, Ann McGovern and others. The story ends with her literally penning her own story fully epitomizing the agency she had all along despite sexual trauma and despair.

Mama Cash reports that a coalition of African Lesbians is fighting back against new anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda and Rwanda.

The controversial Illinois parental notification law goes into effect tomorrow. The law requires that parents notify, but don't necessarily get consent from, parents of girls 17 and under.

A group of female professors at DePaul University are filing discrimination lawsuits after being denied tenure in what they say is gender discrimination (5 of the 7 professors denied tenure in this year's cycle at DePaul were women).

Hip Hop artist KRS-One talks about how we need more women in hip hop.

Woot.

A number of you have rejected this weekend's profile of the Obamas' marriage (and accompanying slideshow) as yawn-inducing celebitician/politicity pop-love drivel. Alas, I have the will power of a goldfish, and so I was possessed not only to read the big long Presidential love exposé but to write about it. Here. Now!

Fortunately for you, I was much less interested in the intimate details of the Obamas' marriage than I was in the idea of the presidency as it was overwhelmingly, if inadvertently, presented throughout the article- as a partnership.

While I enjoy a juicy detail as much as the next, and yes, Presidential date night = cute, I couldn't help but notice this surprising theme woven throughout the article.

Lil' Wayne recently pleaded guilty to gun possession and next year he will likely join the cadre of rappers that have gone to jail post-fame and post-economic security. He will lose many rights as a prisoner in New York. However, it is likely that he will also lose the right to wear his hair in the natural style of locs:

"Male prisoners are only allowed to wear their hair in cornrows, going straight back. And they can't exceed the 'natural hairline' in length." Now of course our question is: what does 'natural hairline' mean?

"It means it can't extend the neck." But there is one loop-hole in the issue - though I'm not sure it's going to help Wayne. "Prisoners who claim Rastafarri as their religion are allowed in most cases to keep their locks. But even then there's a process to determine if it's genuine."

I know there is a tendency to not prioritize an injustice until it happens to an entertainer. I also know that it's more likely to see the freezing over of hell than to hear a feminist coming to the defense of a man that has contributed to the worldwide mass distribution of words, sounds and images that present women as sexual beings and nothing else. But I cannot allow my contempt of his misogyny to allow me to be silent on this. To be silent on this is to collude with racism that masquerades as "rules on personal grooming."

I will admit that this hits even closer to home for me. I have had my locs for 2 years and 2 months. Already, they are such a big part of me. They represent my ability to strive for patience, as they have gone through different lengths and stages. (Last spring was the first time I could put my hair in a pony tail.) But most of all, my hair texture and it's ability to coil tightly like tendrils, simply with shea butter and some drying time, represents my heritage. My Blackness. Me. And while this is one variation of blackness, it's a legitimate one that shouldn't be sanctioned by the prison system.

Last month, the announcement that Marge Simpson, everyone's favorite overworked and underappreciated cartoon mom, would grace the cover of the November issue of Playboy, caught some observers by surprise. I was not one of them. After all, Playboy has always depicted women as cartoonish and two-dimensional: the only thing that really sets this particular cover girl apart is that she has blue hair and eight fingers.

Women with cartoonish proportions and features are and have long been Playboy's bread and butter. When you open up a copy of Playboy, or of any other mainstream soft core porn magazine, the images of women you're likely to find there are a far cry from reality. Surgically augmented breasts, topiaried pubic hair, uncomfortable-looking poses and often-overzealous airbrushing are porn industry standards and the result is that flipping through a copy of Playboy can leave you with a sneaking suspicion that the women staring seductively back at you aren't quite real. Given its long-standing tradition of printing photos of women whose bodies look like cartoonish exaggerations of the female form, it was only a matter of time before Playboy gave up on human women altogether, and started putting actual cartoons in the centerfold.

Yesterday was our awesome editor and co-founder Jessica Valenti's birthday.

It's been a big year for Jess, including the publishing of her new book, The Purity Myth, and a little ceremony you might have read about.

Congrats Jess and I hope this year is even better than the last!

Happy Birthday k.d. Lang!

Today k.d. Lang turns 47. I'd say that's a moment in feminist history. k.d. Lang is best known for being an openly lesbian, gender-bending Canadian singer, songwriter and musician. She is also, according to Wikipedia, known for her commitment to animal rights and vegetarianism. See after the jump for her gender-bending and oh-so controversial Vanity Fair cover from 1993, that features Cindy Crawford shaving k.d.'s face with a straight razor. Her activism has also included work on behalf of HIV/AIDS research.

One note: One thing I can't say I love about her activism, although I support her vegetarianism, is her affiliation with PETA, the organization we criticize for their blatantly sexist, racist and overall offensive ads. She did an advertisement with them in 2006. My only hope for k.d. is that their most recent stunts (and advertising) would make her think twice about working with them again.

Image via Sociological Images

Page at the Bitch blog argues that Halloween queers us all. And a commenter at Sociological Images observes that grown women dress as sexualized young girls, and young girls dress as sexualized grown women.

Esperanza is the country's first nonprofit dedicated to eradicating sexual assault and harassment of female farm workers.

On women combat veterans and PTSD: "Indeed, at home, after completing important jobs in war, women with the disorder often smack up against old-fashioned ignorance: male veterans and friends who do not recognize them as "real soldiers"; husbands who have little patience with their avoidance of intimacy; and a society that expects them to be feminine nurturers, not the nurtured."

CNN bumped a story about ten missing black women to cover the disappearance of on non-black woman.

Bad-ass woman alert: Lan Yin Tsai, 84, bikes 150 miles (in a straight shot) for multiple sclerosis research every year

Recommendations for achieving global reproductive justice.

A high-school teacher in Illinois was suspended for having his students read a book about homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

A compilation of critiques of hate-crimes legislation.

KRS-ONE says hip-hop needs more women.