From the article on religion and sex:

When evangelical parents say they talk to their kids about sex, they mean the morals, not the mechanics.

Which is why evangelical kids are having more sex than Jewish kids. Our parents talk about the mechanics: nothing is more enticing to a teen than something his parents say is "bad" but nothing turns a teen away from having sex than having your parents go into certain details ;)

Love the boob article.

"A recent study showed men photos of women in a workplace with large breasts showing cleavage, medium breasts and small breasts. When asked about who looked most professional and personable, the men chose the women with medium-sized breasts," she said.

Because the world fucking revolves around men. God, what do they think of me? Please, tell me, I beg you! How can I further construct my existence around their whims?

"You don't have to be flat-chested to be taken seriously," she added. "You just have to be proportionate. For women who are small busted, that may mean a little padding. For well-endowed women, that may mean a minimizer."

Or they could take me seriously because I'm smart and competent, or go fuck themselves.

is it wrong that i want to streak through my neighborhood topless right now, since my d cups are so offensive and innapropriate according to that abc article. for fuck sake the things just grew in, and id love to be able to squeeze them into a button down shirt without button gaping, i didnt have any say in how my breasts formed, yet i should hide them apologetically for fear some dumbass man thinks i look less professional.

im no longer even capable of trying to hide my seething anger at practically everything.

I'm going to reiterate the anger of the two posters above me. I'm a small, short person, but I have these large breasts. What does ABC want me to do about them, exactly?

It's nice to know that my fucking BODY is up for debate. Apparently it doesn't matter if I'm sharp as a whip and good at my job. I, as a person, am work inappropriate.

And to all my small-breasted counterparts: you have my sympathies. It would suck just as much for people to suggest you need a little padding all the time.

Why do they never suggest short men wear heels because height suggests power?

I really liked the article about the word "ghetto." I thought it was especially relevent regarding the Hungover Feminist thread this week.
Where I grew up, the word "ghetto" meant something that was broken, cheap, or tacky, and we used it in a context like Paris Hilton in the article. I never really thought about the origins of the word or what I was saying. I'm definitely going to work to eliminate it from my vocabulary.

Why do they never suggest short men wear heels because height suggests power?
LoL Weren't high shoes for men popular back in the day? I'm thinking the 17th or 18th century.
What if we went back to high heels and codpieces for men?

I hate the term "Chick lit" and I thought Erica Jong was completely correct. The thing is, within woman-fiction, there is tons of good stuff (and plenty of bad, just like with men). I recommend tons to my boyfriend, who reads it and usually loves it- but he isn't going to pick it up unless its in the all-purpose fiction section.

Gay inmates- wonderful! I understand that criminals that are nearby and visited by family are more likely to reenter the real world in and succeed post-jail.
Sex kits- too bad the packaging in so awful, because those sound great to sell at hotels. Why not a sex-and-female positive message?

happy birthday, pill!

i did not take the article on wapo about masculitnity as a knee-jerk response a la mansfield (blech). rather, it's (admittedly clumsily) making an important point: we, as a society, need to articulate a newer, healthier vision of what it is to be a man (in as much as it is a meaningful term). i am a proud member of a number of radical and strongly egalitarian political organizations. we have yearly retreats to reflect on our year and look to the future. at one point, we split up by gender (with respect to cis/trans/nongendered folks) and discussed issues based specifically around our identities and existences identifying as a certain gender (or not).

i am an observant jew. within the last 30 years, there have been sincere and important efforts to make (certain comminities) more conscious of gender inequity. as a way of dealing with this, many all-girl groups and efforts have been started to empower young women. this is important work, and i have no tolerance for reactionaries who wish to revoke egalitarian policies for the sake of not feminizing the community and "losing all the men."
however, another side to the work which is also very important is articulating a new way for boys/men to be boys/men. this would be a way that respects consent and empowered women. wouldn't you say that's a noble goal?

Bloody hell! That's the first time I've ever heard my hometown (Milwaukee) called fabulous! I couldn't get out of that hole fast enough! [/city snob]

I'm discouraged that the one item I was interested in, Michelle Obama's views, is in fact an uncaptioned video clip. After some searching, I found this wapo article which seems to quote parts of this here

For better access by deaf readers, you guys really should try to provide transcripts along with video links, find the captioned versions, or at least have the decency to mark things as being audio content.

Sigh.

A few thoughts re: Stern College.

AFAIK, there's nothing in the Talmud or Jewish law that prohibits birth control or even abortion. That's not to say that orthodox Judaism isn't steeped in social conservatism - it is. But the Jewish version of social conservatism doesn't revel in the sanctity of life.

The opposition to birth control, I think, comes from a duty to breed - to sustain the religion. But I don't know anyone of Jewish Orthodox faith that doesn't respect a woman's right to choose, in the policy sense. That is, Orthodox jews don't wish to impose their orthodoxy on others. Not for nothing, I might add.

Not excusing the material failures of Stern College's health services - just putting them into perspective.

And as an aside, I don't know how any female committed to being Orthodox can self-identify as a feminist; it's so anti-thetical to woman's rights and female autonomy. The author of the article describes her struggles on campus. Girlfriend, that's nothing compared to when you're sentenced to jail...er...married off. Not trying to make light of the subject. I feel for the author of that piece. Get out now, while you can, is my advice.

Oh my god. I couldn't even finish that ABC article about breasts. WHAT THE FUCK? I'm going to write them a VERY ANGRY LETTER later on today.

I must buy Forbidden Fruit and see if I can get an interview with the author. I would love to do a piece on him for the school paper, especially since he's just up the road!

Frances Kissling, you go girl. That article is amazing. It is the first article I have read on the issue that actually debates canon law, and totally fucks up the Church's argument.

Although, she did leave out a small thought that I figure everyone would be drawing about the technicality issues of the code. As she lays out, there are just three sins a lay Catholic can commit to become automatically excommunicated:

One of them is to attempt to assassinate the pope, another is profaning the Host (the Communion wafer), and the last is to successfully perform or have an abortion.

The Church is trying to combine sort-of-kind-of situations to equal one of these violations, but that is not possible, since the law is laid out explicitly. Because it is a sin to profane the Host, someone who consumes the Host while having unconfessed and (therefore) unforgiven sin is profaning the Host. So, by associating someone with the sin of abortion (which law-makers do not actually fall into, since they are not condoning or performing the abortion themselves), the Church can also associate a person with profaning the Host if they receive communion while not "in a state of grace". But just because the Church associates someone with a sin, implying that they are somehow an accessory or enabler in the situation, does not mean the person is actually guilty of the sin. This demonstrates one thing I like to point out to many of my Christian friends (mostly Protestant, but that's another matter) -- there is no court in the afterlife. St. Peter is not a judge, and there is no jury. If judgment does exist after death, your sins will be known as they are, and the judgment of a mortal, just another human being, will be no more than lip service.

What if we went back to high heels and codpieces for men? - Moxie Hart

Our President, the reactionary that he is, has led the way in such manners of turning back the clock. He's already brought back the codpiece -- how long before he wears high heals? At the very least, if such a manly man as Cmdr. Codpiece wears high heals, St. Rudy will become more acceptible to the machismo infused fundie-whack-jobs.

AFAIK, there's nothing in the Talmud or Jewish law that prohibits birth control or even abortion. - jane

What would the equivalent disclaimer to IANAL be here? IANATC (I am not a Talmid Chachem)?

Anyway, IANATC so YMMV and CYLHA (Consult Your Local Halachic Authority -- I can't take credit for that one, btw, it's common in the Jewish intertubes), but IIRC, abortion is prohibited in many circumstances according to Jewish law.

Indeed, many frum Jews consider themselves to be "anti-abortion" because (1) they don't understand how secular law works, (2) they don't really understand the context of the Jewish law in question (e.g. they don't understand the reasoning by which Judaism often prohibits abortion) and (3) they don't understand what Christian pro-lifers are after: I know many a frum Jew who thinks that the only arguments being made to prohibit abortion when a woman's health is imperiled are strawmen made up by "pro-abortion" activists -- just as I know religious Christians who cannot believe that Judaism says abortion is a Mitzvah when a woman's life is at stake.

The simple statement, IMHO, about Judaism and abortion is (which is hardly a feminist position, albeit it is a pro-choice one, politically speaking): certain decisions are complicated, among those being whether or not to abort. Thus the moral law which navigates us through such complicated decisions is necessarily complicated. As such, just as you'd call in an expert to help you with a complicated legal matter, you'd call in an expert to help you, ad hoc, to deal with a complicated moral matter. Thus the decision of whether or not to have an abortion is between a woman, her physician and her spiritual advisor, who can help her with the moral complications that may indicate whether an abortion is forbidden, allowed or perhaps even the most moral or only moral course of action.

However, given the ad hoc nature of these decisions, this is not something for which the government could really even provide any guidelines (short of un-constitutionally legislating Jewish law -- which would also be un-Jewish as we don't believe non-Jews have to follow our laws). Therefore, the decision of whether to have an abortion should always be left soley to the woman, her physician and, if she wants (since our constitution forbids requiring such a thing) her spiritual advisor.

As to birth control, it's more complicated still: again IANATC so CYLHA, but IIRC, men (though not women) are obligated to be fruitful and multiply, which obligation is fulfilled by having a boy and a girl, and which obligation can sometimes be considered not so binding. However, there are halachic problems with a woman using the pill (and thus preventing a man from fulfilling his obligation). And there are other issues with a condom as well (although some authorities say that pre-marital sex is allowed with a condom, but post marriage, the condom becomes not allowed, except under special circumstances).

I could go on, but you get the picture ...

Regarding the boobs article: For the past year or so I've taken to wearing a sports bra when I go to work to minimize my breast size. They're not overly large (just a C cup) but I have noticed that I started getting taken more seriously after I started this. I work in a technical field and am currently the only female engineer at my office. Most of my co-workers are middle-aged men. What my brest size has to do with technical skill, I will never know. Oddly enough, it's not only my co-workers, but also many customers who have this perception.

I couldn't quite get through the boob power article, but this is what I got from what I read:

So, we should correct our shameful breasts (too small? too large?) unless they are socially acceptable to men, and make sure we hide our shameful breasts when we're around our children, but are allowed to flaunt our shameful breasts when we are pregnant? Pregnancy is the only acceptable time to have breasts?

The female body is acceptable only while pregnant? Good to know.

Jesus Christ, what a load of shit.

When did Ann Althouse start writing for ABC News?

From the manliness article:

"In trying to empower the girls," Sandborn says, "we implicitly sent a message that the guys were not as good.

Interesting, that. I love how NOW they recognize that priming one gender, but not the other, for success can lead the other gender down the inferiority complex road. BTW, I don't think we've completely abandoned men, it's simply an issue of relative attention. But still. How fucking annoying that they finally notice this after a couple decades when it starts to take MEN down a peg, even though it's been negatively affecting women for, oh, MILLENIA.

When did Ann Althouse start writing for ABC News?
Vervian, what's funny is that on Ann's blog, she posted a few pics of herself dressed up at some resturaunt. They were VERY cleavage heavy, atcually.
I found that to be tres ironic.

Good link to celluloid ceiling story. There are way too few women directing (or producing) movies...it remains one of the most closed-off professions in the US. Many good stories being left untold...

from the religion and teen sex article, what is a side hug?

also, regarding religious teens and sex, i have known girls who vowed to remain virgins until marriage because of their religious beliefs and did jsut about everything but vaginal intercourse (including oral and anal sex)

ugh @ the abc boobs article!

This is just a personal pet peeve, but I have to say it.

Stop calling breasts "your girls"!!! Thank you.

I couldn't finish the article. How appalling.

I mean the article was appalling. Not that calling breasts "girls" is appalling.

I've seen a lot of weekend and honeymoon sex kits, but the only one that came close to promoting a guilty attitude was the Dirty Weekend Soap, which is 1. a joke and 2. gender neutral. Shame on those marketers.

As far as controlling your boobs, I can see how adjusting your bras and clothing so that colleagues notice your face first would be a good thing, but the rest of it is just asinine. "Oh noes, the parents at micro-league softball might not have the discipline to keep their eyes on their children!" And, speaking personally, I know that padding my champagne-glass-sizers would just distract me, because I'd be constantly wondering if anyone noticed my deception.

Re. calling your breasts "your girls", a larger-endowed friend told me the following anecdote:

A woman was at a business meeting, and every time the boss went around the table asking for opinions, he'd do it like this:

"Mark?" (Looking at face)
"John?" (Looking at face)
"Sandra?" (Looking at boobs)
"Phil?" (Looking at face)

After about the third time, she stopped responding.

The boss repeated, "Sandra?", still trying to make eye contact with her nipples.

She looked down at her chest and said, "Well, come on, girls, speak up!"

some of the comments in response to the track athlete's unwanted attention suggested that she brought this on to herself because of her 'skimpy' outfit.

first of all, the article made clear that these were standardly issued uniforms

i was a track athlete in high school. athletes wear track briefs because not wearing them (wearing regular shorts) hinders performance. in pole vaulting, looser clothing can even be dangerous.

but of course people think that women dress to get sexual attention - not that there are any practical or aesthetic reasons for wearing clothing more 'revealing' than a potato sack!

same goes for the article on breasts in the work place. there is this blaming of the woman and her body instead of accepting responsibility for one's own failings (like being an oversexed pervert, pedophile, and/or misogynist)

and thanks for your other comments on that article, ladies. i share your frustrations with the difficulty of dressing in professional settings... at least i know now i'm not the only one (though i of course wish none of us were made to feel awkward about our bodies as such)

The breast article ... oh dear lord, I can just imagine her telling some of my better-endowed friends that they should wear a "minimizer" for work.

The Stepps article was a mess too. Once again we learn that it's a zero sum game and if women achieve greater control of their lives, men must be suffering.

As for her argument that years ago, men had nice, clear guidelines for dating and seducing women, wasn't that back when women were irrational, illogical creatures so you could never know what you'd done that would set them off? And as someone who was alive back then, I can state that yes it was.

Now that is just funny, ShifterCat.

I tend to agree with Erica Jong that it's easier for women writers to gain acclaim by writing about typical "male" topics rather than the "female," while male writers can be successful with one or the other, or both. For example, the last two Pulitzers for Fiction have been won by women (Geraldine Brooks & Marilynne Robinson), but both novels focused on male characters intertwined with stories of war. On the other hand, the most female-centered novel to win in recent years -- "The Hours" -- was written by a man (Michael Cunningham). I wonder if it would have been so celebrated had a woman wrote it? Maybe, but it still seems like Jong is right and women writers are often forced to leave the domestic sphere to get noticed, or, if they do write about love or the domestic, they are quickly slapped with the "chick lit" label, even though their writing itself might be damn good.

She looked down at her chest and said, "Well, come on, girls, speak up!"

Oh my god shifter. That's like the best story ever.

Oh the boob article! So much unnecesary body shaming.

BEG: For better access by deaf readers, you guys really should try to provide transcripts along with video links, find the captioned versions, or at least have the decency to mark things as being audio content.

Reposted for greatness!