I wish that guardian article about Sex in the City hadn't kind of puttered out in the end. Her arguments were surprisingly nuanced for a newspaper article, though.

"Serving sushi on naked women is a high-end food trend in the U.S. now, too? (Ok, and serving some on naked men, too. Still.)"

It gets to a point where those perceiving acts of the anti-woman, ant-equality variety border on paranoia.

I mean come on, granted, the idea of "body sushi" being employed only on the bodies of females is clear objectification, but you should be praising the particular restauarant that the linked article speaks about.

That Minnesota restaurant uses both male and female models (Granted it does enforce a gender binary, so that's a point against it... it's probably a testament to transphobia that diners would be too freaked out to eat off of a gender variant model).

The idea sounds amazingly fun. If I'm ever in Minnesota and have a spare $75 (both very unlikely circumstances for this east cost college student), I would so indulge.

A clear case of the presentation trumping the food....

yay!! Poly Styrene!!!!

i have to agree with kevin on the sushi article. why is this an issue that appears on feministing when the women and *men* involved are being compensated, and are fully informed, consenting human beings? how is this (theoretically) any different from being served drinks by a scantily clad cocktail waitress or a shirtless male bartender?

"This article about Aboriginal girls being given contraception implants makes me really uneasy, given the history of forcible sterilization of women of color, low-income women, and immigrant women."

Part of the article also reminded me of right-wing anti-protection arguments:

"...Mrs Stuckey, a former nurse, said the implants increased the likelihood of girls having sex, tacitly approved of under-age and unsafe sex and were visible to potential sexual partners..."

"i have to agree with kevin on the sushi article. why is this an issue that appears on feministing when the women and *men* involved are being compensated, and are fully informed, consenting human beings? how is this (theoretically) any different from being served drinks by a scantily clad cocktail waitress or a shirtless male bartender? "

Well in Japan and the US, there are far more women being used for "body sushi" than men.

Just like male prostitutes exist, but far more women are prostitutes than men.

Now why do you think that is?

Could it /possibly/ have something to do with the way women and men are looked at/valued for different things in our culture? Oh jeez, now I'm sounding almost like I'm on an actual *feminist website* or something...

Wow...52 cents? I have a hard time believing that. I remember reading somewhere that unmarried women actually make more than married women. I completely believe pay discrimination exists, but I dont knwo that it would be that low. My mom sent me (I live in the Springs area)this article from her home town on pay inequity. I'm looking for info to write an editorial rebuking his article.

http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1208671200/8

(oh yeah) re sushi: Obviously the male/female thing involves a lot of sexism. ]

However, there's one amusing answer that stems from the physical realities of gender: On average, men are hairier. And I'm pretty sure that on average, men are also smellier. Hairy + smelly /= good sushi table. ;)

"I've seen old people in wheelchairs," said the 84-year-old Santa Paula man who spends his retirement collecting recyclable items in his Ford pickup and is alarmed by the idea of not being able to do anything but sit and watch life pass him. "I don't want to come to that point."

I'll be sure to pass along to my husband that he only sits and lets life pass him by. At the moment, of course, he's at his fencing class, so it'll have to wait till he gets back.

Gosh, but we treat disabled people so darned well, don't we?

Kate - it appears on feministing because it's an issue some feminists - such as I - take issue with.

The fact of the matter is that this is catered mainly to men, who are out there, eating off women. It reduces women's status from human to others. I've got a problem with that. That said, you're right - it's no different than having cocktails being served by scantily dressed servers. The fact of the matter is that it's important to call out issues of power and objectification when you see it. The people at feministing were simply doing their job.

But, rather than talking about the "rights" and "wrongs" of human sushi tables, I think a more appropriate discussion would be how we can economically empower people so they do not have to be objectified to make money. Often times, as an example, the arguments for and against prostitution from feminist camps often miss the point: we're too in love with our philosophies and ideals, and not spending enough time exploring ways in which we can empower women who are considering prostitution.

Marc

marc, thanks for the reply. i agree with you about making a more appropriate discussion out of how to empower people so that they don't have to be objectified to make money - but at the same time, i suppose i'm being a little oversensitive because i am one of those scantily clad waitresses. and when i see feminist websites pointing out issues like this, in the context of problems with power and objectification, i think it's often conflated with a sense of powerlessness on the side of the women that work these jobs. and i think that's what i was reacting to. the fact that it's on feministing with a question mark, and the "but still" comment. it made me kind of jump up and say, so *what* if women want to have sushi eaten off them for what i assume wouldn't be terrible pay..
and while i agree that it's a question of power and objectification, it's also a question of agency. and just so i'm not misunderstood - i am of course referring to women who make informed, noncoerced choices about entering into a job like this.

ninapendamaishi, i don't like to participate in arguments with sarcastic overtures and snarky tones. it's too confusing and too condescending.

What I do not see here is discussion the article's report that diners as well as "platters" were divided between male and female AND reportedly enjoying it, one woman going so far as to say "We'd better move in" so they don't miss out. Also that the female "platter" appears to consider this just another of life's thrills, saying ""You only live once."

Also, the "platters" were reportedly paid "$100 an hour, plus tips." Also, the first "platter" is a massage therapist. I know a number of massage therapists. They earn $65 per hour and up. If they are doing private clients, they go $75, $100, to who knows what. And no, LMTs are not doing "happy endings" or anything else of that nature. The male "platter" is part of his family business "building hot tubs." These are not people being exploited because they do not have better life choices.

Feministing comes out on the side of sex workers, largely female, despite reporting how many are abused or knowing many do NOT believe they have better choices in life. Why is CHOOSING to be a nude sushi platter, apparently for kicks, or even a one-off at that, so wrong?

More on the silliness of who is costing whom what in taxes. From the story about aging Americans on the 4/20 Weekly Feminist Reader:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/apr/06/age-isnt-only-factor-in-seniors-quality-of-life/

"The gaps are huge, and they're only getting bigger," said [Victoria Jump, director of the Ventura County Area Agency on Aging] worries aging boomers means more people with heart problems and other chronic conditions will be expecting the federal government to cover them.

[end quote]

See any report on how ALL tax dollars are spent. THIS is where the biggest chunk really goes, not to the divorced, single moms, or other people with kids. See page 77 of your 1040A Forms & Instructions 2007 - "Social security, Medicare and other retirement 36%. An additional 3% for "veteran's benefits and services" as part of national defense.

People "[expect] the federal government to cover them" when they get older, whether they die at 66, or 120. No one criticizes them for this feeling of entitlement. No one is complaining that the elderly "live too long," or did not take better care of their health while young to reduce these "chronic conditions" that cost money. No one here at least, is complaining that the elderly are retiring too early, or not working long enough, or claiming benefits for too long (till the ends of their lengthening life expectancies). I am not criticizing them either. But neither do I believe that Social Security or Medicaid will be around in its present form, to provide me and my family a living 30-40 years from now, but try to save or invest what we can, so I am not permitted this sense of entitlement.

So what makes the divorced, single moms, or other people with kids the wrongdoers on this site?

Ughhh....I hate trailing behind some elder going 20mph down the fast lane when I'm late for school. I shudder at the thought that possibly this might be the daily rut in some years to come. Uggggh!

"Unmarried women earn only 56 cents for every dollar a married man earns."

I saw the report, based on Census figures. Of course I read about how women are discriminated against in the workplace. What I do not see in this particular figure, or in this report, is that the people in question have comparable jobs or skills, have comparable duties, or work comparable hours for this figure to be a valid comparison. Please note:

"Not only do unmarried women make less than men, they also make less than married women."

Could this be because *on average*, unmarried women are younger, with comparably less experience or skills, than married women who continue to work? (I wonder if the figure includes such as SAHMs who may not be earning an income at all, skewing the average downward.) Even unmarried men earn 64 cents for every dollar a married man earns (two cents on the dollar more than married women). I do not claim discrimination against these unmarried men, but also suggest *on average*, that they are younger, with comparably less experience or skills than married men EVEN IF they do have comparable education, jobs, duties and work hours. Thirty-six cents on the dollar's worth less than married men, apparently.

Something I've been wanting to know for years on this "equal pay for equal work" argument. Do people actually expect new workers to be paid the same as more experienced workers if their job titles and duties are the same? Should people not get raises?

For example, in my county on their current contract police officers are guaranteed a 6% annual raise, even WITHOUT promotion. If one is still a "lowly" beat patrol officer (not a detective, not a corporal or sergeant) after 40 years of undistinguished service (about 60 years old), they will be paid approximately ELEVEN TIMES MORE than a new police officer (an additional 6% (1.06) compounded for 40 years). Should someone with such a long period of service not be paid so much? (Note: rookie "police services officers" on one year probation in my county START at "$43,020.00 - $43,020.00 annually.") What will they be making by the age of 55, permitted retirement age, or after 30 or 40 years of service?

When YOU get older, would you not like to be making more money, to save for your old age, or to support a family, even IF your job is one of those many types without significant opportunity for advancement?

Oh, a six percent raise over *base* salary you say? Forty years service would be 2.4 times more than $43,020, or $103,248, more than our newly appointed chief of police. A beat patrol officer with 30 years of service (theoretically, as young as 48) would also be making a salary comparable to the chief of police ($77,436), who happens to be of similar age, and has a similar length of service. Apparently, it did not pay for him to rise through the ranks and gain leadership or other skills.

Regarding public perverts and the story of the Italian man being prosecuted for staring, just last week I read but am unable to relocate, a new US article where staring at minors (I do not recall the precise language of the law or bill, but it was similar to, but not "predatory staring" or "aggressive staring" for example) was to be made a crime.

This is not the state, or story I read, but I did find this about New York:

http://www2.nysun.com/article/61090

"Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, is proposing to outlaw voyeurism by extending a state law that forbids nonconsensual peeping with cameras. He'd apply the law to also include, in the city, peeping with the naked eye."

Note the local ACLU, some of my favorite people, considers the bill a violation of people's rights. Perhaps they would like to permit such as looking up women's skirts at the station or peering into windows, which were examples in the story.

The law or bill I read about went even further, making it a crime to stare at minors in public places, e.g., girls at a pool or at the park were examples from the story I read. While welcome, how the law would be enforced or the offense proven, I do not know.

I DO believe (duh) that pay descrimination on gender do have an effect. I also know that the .77 to every mans dollar was controlled for regarding hours worked (no SAHM, or SAHD). However, the .52 seems new to me.

However, I AM finding shit loads of info on this Warren Farrell jackass. Apparently hes defended incest in a 1977 Penthouse interview, and claimed that what is currently known as date rape used to simply be known as 'exciting.' Hes an ass. I cant wait to toss this info at the author of the news piece who claimed (after reading his book) that pay descrimination doesnt exist and is even justified. How could you refute the data (Labour Bureau stats)that even those that are in the same job with the same experience get paid less?

From the LA Times:
This could not happen as dramatically were it not for embedded racial attitudes. "Elitist" is another word for "arrogant," which is another word for "uppity," that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves.
Perhaps I need a change of perspective or perhaps I'm flat out wrong, but I don't think calling Barack an elitist is a loaded, racist term.

Uppity? Yes, definitely racist. Arrogant and elitist? No.

"I DO believe (duh) that pay descrimination on gender do have an effect."

Same here. Which is why I specified "this" Census report. The report that women are less likely than male coworkers to push for raises, is another reason women are paid less, in addition to outright discrimination.

Any argument on why unmarried men and women are paid significantly less than their married counterparts, than claiming simple discrimination?

" I AM finding shit loads of info on this Warren Farrell jackass."

So why did second wave feminists love him so much, raising him up as they did?

I read somewhere that black women make $.60 or so to every white man's dollar... this might be more of a math question, but would a single, black woman make even less, or more? Would there be a double disadvantage?

(As a single black woman, I'm a little curious.)

Also, as a semi-wimpy black woman who generally avoids conflict, I'm also a little astonished by the black = mean or black = sassy thing.

I found an article about an especially stupid event in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today (although being worthy of paper and ink, it was apparently not worthy of their website, hence no link):

The "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" event was held at Burnsville Mall to raise awareness of rape, sexual assault and gender violence. How did they raise awareness? By having men put on high heel shoes and walk around the mall.

Seems they took that "walk a mile in her shoes" a little too literally. What in the hell this had to do with violence against women I cannot explain.

I read something about an Oklahoma sheriff being charged with turning the women in his jail into sex slaves. I'm don't really know anything about how bail is set, but he committed enough rapes and bribes to be eligible for 467 year sentence if convicted, but his bail was only $50,000. Does bail only have to do with the severity of the crime, or does possible sentence if convicted of all charges usually play a role too?

Here's the article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24199220/

"What in the hell this had to do with violence against women I cannot explain."

Perhaps they should have men pretend to be new arrivals at a prison instead. One may see how they would be treated, as seen in frequent documentaries on Discovery or the History Channel.

In the 8th grade, as part of a school program (this was the age of "Scared Straight") our entire class of boys and girls visited the local prison, where they got shouted at and harassed by selected inmates. We were treated to two inmates not part of the formal presentation threatening each other with beating and rape in the shower. One inmate called me out for not paying attention (I simply did not want to make eye contact) and brought me to the front row. At the end of his lecture, he announced that he would be released the following year, and invited us to join him for a cheeseburger when he got out.

Bail or denial of bail is also dependent upon how much of a threat they represent to the community, or their risk of flight if not detained. Example:

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/817788FB-621C-4363-B914AE4433E81878/alpha/B/

http://ezinearticles.com/?Bail-Bonds---How-Are-They-Determined&id=309798

GotTrouble dot com also claims:

"In addition, a judge must be convinced that the bail funds were not gained as part of a criminal act. This prevents drug money from being used as bail."

This is not the article I saw either, but here it is. The bill reportedly passed in the Maine state House. Awesome.

Bill toughens law on visual sexual aggression against children in Maine

"Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12."

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01&sfad=1

Why this "visual aggression" only applies to children, I do not know.

Please note the work of one blogger, "Dr. Helen," in attempting to clarify this issue (see her link), which journalists apparently completely missed, and to which the public was not privy, though the blog debate is still on as to what the actual bill (allegedly an amendment) is about, exactly what it criminalizes, or even what the actual text of this bill or the original bill is, or even which bill the original is.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/04/should-visual-sexual-aggression-be.html

Re: Aboriginal children/contraceptives

I submitted the story here about the (Australian) Aboriginal girls being given contraceptives. There are a few things I'd like to point out that make it different from "sterilizing minorities." First of all, there's a big difference between an implant that lasts three years, and destroying the functionality of or removing the reproductive organs. The comparison to other instances of sterilizing minorities does not hold up under scrutiny due to this difference. There are plenty of horrible things that have happened to the Aborigines at the hand of the whites. You can't just look up the Black War on wikipedia and assume current Australians are OK with that part of history and don't care about Aborigines. Non-native Australians care very much about the plight of native Australians--when it makes the news. I believe the discomfort is more a problem of class or poverty, than of widespread racism. Fact is, just as Native (U.S.) Americans are isolated geographically and have problems with alcohol abuse and poverty, Australian Aborigines suffer the same problems. I believe the twofold problem of geographical isolation and poverty are SOLVABLE, and strides made in those areas will have more far-reaching benefits.
The plight of isolated Aboriginal communities has been in the Australian press a great deal lately. Essentially the poverty has contaminated many people with despair, resulting in such rampant problems as petrol huffing, child molestations, illiteracy, rape and prostitution, welfare reliance, juvenile delinquency, child custody problems, and crumbling housing and infrastructure.
A child getting normal adult contact such as with an unabused and sober family member, teacher, police officer or nurse is therefore rare. I don't think it's that horrible to suggest that young girls in a terrible situation be offered a contraceptive method of their choice.
Of course many, many feminists believe the right to reproductive autonomy is fundamental to a modern society.
So should Aboriginal girls be on long-term contraception ("temporary sterilization")? That's up to them!
Should the communities in question be provided adequate infrastructure, police, public transport, health care facilities, literacy programs, substance abuse programs etc etc? OBVIOUSLY.
I think many Australians want solutions to be implemented immediately. I think the commissions dealing with these problems will in the next year or two suggest a number of plans and programs.
Some people say real change can only come from the grassroots. Other people with different experiences insist that support from "above" should not be discounted. I don't think there are any Aborigines that WANT to be "forgotten" by society at large. Everyone wants good schools, healthy families, good jobs and few problems.
Do I have a solution to the situation? No.
But I think communities that allow twelve year old girls to be sexually active should be called into question. Whether the sex is with boys of equal age, johns, rapists, or older men but done willingly-- it doesn't matter. It shouldn't be happening.
I think long term contraceptives are a slapdash solution. All community members need health care, access to police, and adequate education including sex education. Communities without these things are at risk of being in crisis and the Aboriginal communities that are in the press, are indeed in crisis. One twelve year old having sexual intercourse is red flag enough.
As a final note, I don't want anyone thinking I have the answer to black problems, or that the answer includes integrating natives to the point where all culture is diluted away. When I was growing up in Australia I was taught a few things about Dreamtime (Aboriginal mythology). I think every ancient population (no matter how "primitive") has something to offer. Dreamtime is a great example of how a very different and very old hunter-gatherer society can explain creation and the world around them in a very profound way. Aborigines are historically just as family and community centered as can be. The devastation of poverty and despair is a solvable problem.
We can't give back the stolen generation, but we can at least put in place the roads, police and rule of law, nurses, schools and jobs. Given adequate tools I hope that soon all Aboriginal families are happy, together, and growing, and children on birth control is a thing of the past.

I have to agree with NekkidNancy - I find the connection between "elitist" and "uppity" a bit hard to accept.

Maybe someone here has insight into this? This might sound dumb, but if you did find his remarks condescending, how do you describe this without it being racist...?

Ugh...the comments on that article about the Colorado College student are disgusting. I REALLY should not have read them - now I feel sick.

About authorities using GPS to track domestic abusers, the article also reports

"Massachusetts has been using GPS monitoring for sex offenders since 2005"

as if in response to my immediate reaction.

As one victim says of her efforts to avoid her abusive ex: "Why should I, the victim, have to alter myself?"

No reason at all. The onus should be on the offender to obey the terms of a restraining order.

"So should Aboriginal girls be on long-term contraception ("temporary sterilization")? That's up to them!"

The problem is in the US, underprivileged mothers of color declared "unfit" have also been given the "choice" of accepting contraceptive implants or being jailed. In addition, during our period of "welfare reform" under Clinton, "Some states want[ed] to make Norplant, the long-lasting contraceptive implant, a condition of aid." (see link below) Never mind that they already had children living in poverty (or hunger), they were expected not to have any more, just to receive public assistance.

http://www.barnard.edu/sfonline/sfxxx/documents/abramovitz2.pdf

"Scholar & Feminist, Barnard College" Mimi Abramovitz also wrote for _The Scholar & Feminist XXX: Past Controversies, Present Challenges, Future Feminisms_, in her article "Welfare Reform and Women – Tough Love or Tough Luck!":

"Clinton's welfare reformers broach the issue of non-marital births more gingerly by saying that parents should not bring children into the world until they are prepared to support and nurture them. This seemingly logical, thinking is potentially sinister. The problem is not about nurturance. We all know that poor women have a long record of nurturing their own and other people's children. The problem is economics – that is the failure of minimum wage jobs, irregular child support and low AFDC payments to lift a three person family above poverty. Does Clinton's team really mean that women should refrain from reproducing simply because they are poor?"

"The attack on childbearing by single mothers is both racist and xenophobic."

It is interesting and ironic to note on this site, of all places, that numerous feminist posters believe exactly that: that the poor should not reproduce.

Why calling Barack Obama an "elitist" is a loaded, racist term.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but "elitist" and "out of touch" are pretty standard shots for politicians to sling at each other, whatever their race.

Unmarried women earn only 56 cents for every dollar a married man earns.

Yes, older people generally do earn more.

Look, the gender pay gap is REAL. Racism is REAL. Why do we need to twist words and figures like this?

"There are a few things I'd like to point out that make it different from 'sterilizing minorities.' First of all, there's a big difference between an implant that lasts three years, and destroying the functionality of or removing the reproductive organs."

...unless one insists that the minority must depend on *girls* to make its next generation because letting them postpone pregnancy and childbirth until they're *women* is against their culture or whatever, I guess. o_O

"So should Aboriginal girls be on long-term contraception ('temporary sterilization')? That's up to them!"

That should be up to each one for herself, whether or not she's in a very vulnerable position!

Meanwhile, do we hear the same people complaining about middle-class white teens getting contraception from their doctors, schools, etc.? Why do some people consider access to contraception good for wealthier whites and oppression against everyone else?

"Should the communities in question be provided adequate infrastructure, police, public transport, health care facilities, literacy programs, substance abuse programs etc etc? OBVIOUSLY."

Right on!

"The problem is in the US, underprivileged mothers of color declared 'unfit' have also been given the 'choice' of accepting contraceptive implants or being jailed."

Is that any reason to deny contraception to someone else who *does* want it?

I'm reminded of when I heard someone several years ago say homosexuality is bad because some men rape boys. Fortunately, she's changed her mind since.

"Look, the gender pay gap is REAL. Racism is REAL."

As are many other issues, which I shall not name, brought up by feminists and other activists.

"Why do we need to twist words and figures like this?"

Because the most shocking figures or anecdotes one can find may attract attention or support for one's cause. However, they can also attract criticism and lose the cause support, if they can be discredited.

I do not expect I will see cries of support for unmarried men, who according to these same national Census figures, earn only 64 cents for every dollar married men earn; on this site or any other, including those of MRAs. I was never even aware of this disparity, or that it was an issue. Nor do I believe I will see anyone clamoring against the "marriage discrimination" between married and unmarried women, a disparity amounting to $4,133 per year. How far is one willing to take the "equal pay for equal work" argument? Should unmarried women be given more, or should married women be given less?

An aside: this claimed average annual income of married men, $66,646, is nearly equal to the entire household income in my county, which also has a nation leading cost of living (also competes with counties in California for the most expensive gasoline in the US), and Hawaii has nation leading per capita tax burdens.). My wife and I are married. I can only wish we received the average income of a married couple ($108,043 a year in 2006).

No, the average in Hawaii, according to Census figures reported by UCLA in April 2008, is $78,070 for married couples. Married men in Hawaii earn an average of $44,872; married women, $27,715 (a 38% average income (NOT WAGE) gap). That said, among married parents, 30% "have only one wage earner." Gee, which parent would that be, on average? I wonder which parent is not working, and which gender's average income (NOT WAGE) would then become skewed downward by say, 30%? If many married men must be the sole wage earner (second or third jobs are quite common in Hawaii, where the average house goes for about $650,000, and we have THE highest average rent in the nation "workers must earn $29.02 per hour to afford the average apartment"), I wonder which gender's average income (NOT WAGE) would then be skewed upward a considerable amount?

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/HawaiiCensusSnapshot.pdf

MY GOD. Hawaii married couples earn 72 cents for every dollar earned by the average US hetero couple, according to Census figures. Should Hawaii's people claim discrimination?

Note according to 2005 Census estimates that approximately 56% of Hawaii's people are Asian, 41% white, 22% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 2% American Indian or Alaskan Native. Wait, that's 121% of the population. Also, about 5% Hispanic and 2% black is supposed to go in there somewhere.

"'Why do we need to twist words and figures like this?'

"Because the most shocking figures or anecdotes one can find may attract attention or support for one's cause. However, they can also attract criticism and lose the cause support, if they can be discredited."

Exactly! Great point.

"How far is one willing to take the 'equal pay for equal work' argument? Should unmarried women be given more, or should married women be given less?"

They who currently get paid less (including wage, salary, benefits, etc.) for equal work should get paid more, to even it out. :) Likewise, they who do *unequal* work shouldn't be paid equally since that's the same as unequal pay for equal work.

"Note according to 2005 Census estimates that approximately 56% of Hawaii's people are Asian, 41% white, 22% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 2% American Indian or Alaskan Native. Wait, that's 121% of the population."

That could still be >100% of the population. For example, what about when one of the Asians and one of the whites are the same person? Lately hasn't U.S. Census recognized that some people have more than one race and let people indicate all their races instead of choosing just one of them?

I was really disturbed by the bit in the sushi article about how it's against the "rules" for diners to talk to the models. Yes, those individual models are there voluntarily and are well compensated, but do we really need another way to turn people into objects, even for a little while? It reminds me of teaching children not to talk to "the help."

“how is this (theoretically) any different from being served drinks by a scantily clad cocktail waitress or a shirtless male bartender?�
The difference is that in the sushi case, the objectification is more obvious, extreme and literal: Woman = tray. And yes in the article it is mentioned that they had male models as well, however it also mentions that that’s a break with tradition. Traditionally it is only women who are turned into sushi trays. Like Nina said up thread, yes, male prostitutes exist too, but far fewer than female prostitutes. Moreover, the objectification of men is a lot less harmful that that of women, because men are not the class of people who are assumed to exist for the sole purpose of sexually gratifying the other sex. Men are not hindered in their lives and carriers by such assumptions. And finally, it gets very annoying for those of us who’ve been reading this blog for a while when people show up here to complain about how such and such subject is not a feminist issue and how the bloggers should just chill out and stop being paranoid.

"The fact of the matter is that this is catered mainly to men, who are out there, eating off women."

According to the article, not only were half the models men, but also the diners were evenly split between women and men. I totally agree with you that body sushi is patriarchal in general (i.e., elsewhere in America and Japan), but I think this particular restaurant is to be commended for taking something deeply sexist and transforming it into something broadly gender-equal.

"I think a more appropriate discussion would be how we can economically empower people so they do not have to be objectified to make money."

Well, we can only go by the quotes in the article, but the models didn't exactly sound oppressed, or like they had to do it for the money. "You only live once," one said (a woman). Said another (a man): "I grew up going to nudist resorts. It's not a big deal." Once again, I agree with you if we're talking about body sushi in general, but I think that this particular restaurant avoids those problems.

"On average, men are hairier. And I'm pretty sure that on average, men are also smellier. Hairy + smelly /= good sushi table."

Indeed. The article says all models, male and female, have to go completely hairless.

"For example, what about when one of the Asians and one of the whites are the same person? Lately hasn't U.S. Census recognized that some people have more than one race and let people indicate all their races instead of choosing just one of them?"

Yes, I know. That was a joke. But if mainstream Americans become as ethnically "mixed" as many Hawaii people are ("mixed" was according to one local Census report, the largest ethnic group), these labels will become meaningless. I do not mean it in a beneficial, "it will eliminate racism" way. As you can see, it is already a nightmare for record keeping. How can one determine need or progress made in aid programs, if one identifies with a number of groups? For example, people and government programs are divided on who is "really" Hawaiian, and eligible for aid (or education, or to receive land), determined by blood fractions. Does one need to be "full," "pure" Hawaiian? Half Hawaiian? A quarter Hawaiian? One sixteenth Hawaiian? It's not as simple as merit or mere financial need in Hawaii. It is also a matter of personal or cultural pride. "I'm Hawaiian." "No, you're not. Your grandmother married a haole. I'm pure Hawaiian."

T20 things:

1 - It is time for the IOC to live up to its charter and refuse to allow Saudi Arabia to field an olympic team until they permit women to compete. Same for the other countries that allow only minimal participation by women and only in "approved" sports.

2 - The IOC also needs to pull its collective head out of its posterior and deal with women's ski jumping. If they don't think there are enough women to hold a seperate event, let them compete against the men. Or would it shatter their little fragile egos to if they got beaten by a "girl" (like the one who holds the record on the 2010 Olympic hill).

FYI... on the radio shock jobs in alaska...

Some of the protesters on Saturday said it wasn't enough that the "Woody and Wilcox" morning show hosts, Greg Wood and Chris Wilcox, were suspended indefinitely without pay and required to attend sensitivity training.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/381329.html

"Is that any reason to deny contraception to someone else who *does* want it?"

Define "want" when we know such as "sterilization abuse" exists. Will anyone here claim that the Aboriginal people of Australia (as a group) are not underprivileged? I have known a number of Australians in Japan, who were only too happy to offer their opinions about them. (Some fools believe Aboriginals are privileged, with claims too inflammatory to repeat here.) Treated as many Aboriginals were (like the stolen generation), why is it hard to believe that many would be happy to help decrease their numbers, like many in the US would like fewer people of color? Remember the Planned Parenthood donations for abortion of black babies issue? It was not an isolated incident, it was claimed to be true of clinics in seven states. Though Planned Parenthood International claimed handling of the staged telephone calls was a violation of policy, it reminded people of the now politically incorrect views of its founder, Margaret Sanger.

Despite being a pioneer, Sanger was a product of her time. I see one of her opinions, "Children should not be born to parents whose economic circumstances do not guarantee enough to provide the children with the necessities of life" is still popular today. See link for her article "The Case for Birth Control."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_margaret_sanger.htm

"We see that those parents who are least fit to reproduce the race are having the largest number of children; while people of wealth, leisure, and education are having small families."

How sweet. I can recall other historical figures who believed so, as well as racists today. Quick - who wrote, among many other things:

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Did I get this (and about ten pages of quotes I shall omit here) from some anti-choice or anti-feminist website trying to discredit Sanger? NOOOOO, I personally got them from copies of the original articles and speeches at for example, the Margaret Sanger Papers Project of NYU

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/

where one may see that claims against her, or inflammatory quotes, while taken out of context, may not be as false, exaggerated, or distorted as Planned Parenthood or other Sanger supporters make them out to be. Please conduct your own search for the term "unfit" in Sanger's many archived works.

Sanger was an elitist, who made no apologies for considering the societal and financial "burden" of the "unfit," the "defective," the mentally or physically handicapped, the poor, the insane, the criminal; or the "overbreeding of the working class" to be the most pressing problems of her day, with contraception and forced sterilization her only proposed solutions (she recommended people follow the German program of forced sterilization in 1938), to eliminate the "burden" in a single generation through what I assume and hope to be (considering her admiration for the German model) extinction through natural attrition: the "unfit" dying off from no more children.

From "Stop Perpetuating The Unfit by a National Policy on Limitation of Families" (Wow):

"We need one generation of birth control to weed out the misfits, to breed self-reliant, intelligent, responsible individuals."

"Weeding out" misfits. "Breeding" fit humans. Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

"Our immigration laws forbid the entrance into this country of paupers, insane, feeble-minded and diseased people from other lands. Why not extend the idea and discourage the bringing to birth these same types within our borders. Let us stop reproducing and perpetuation disease, insanity and ignorance."

"Stop these and other evils at their source by a national policy and education of birth control."

Stop the "evils" at their source. Hmmm.

From "The Morality of Birth Control":

"Many of this group are diseased ,feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent entirely upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped. (Applause.) For if they are not able to support and care for themselves, they should certainly not be allowed to bring offspring into this world for others to look after. (Applause.)"

Applause. Applause. No breeding of the unfit allowed. Again, sounding a lot like some Feministing regulars.

From "Is Race Suicide Probable?":

"It has been conservatively estimated that no less than one quarter of the gross incomes of our states is expended upon the upkeep of asylums for the feeble-minded and insane, the mentally defective, the criminal, the congenitally defective, the delinquent and the dependent. We are spending billions, literally billions, keeping alive thousands who never, in all human compassion, should have been brought into this world. We are spending more in maintaining morons than in developing the inherent talents of gifted children. We are coddling the incurably defective and neglecting potential geniuses."

"Could any business maintain itself with the burden of such an 'overhead'? Could any breeder of live stock conduct his enterprise on such a basis? I do not think so."

I was not aware that keeping the institutionalized or underprivileged alive was a "business" or that they were comparable to "live stock." And they should never have been born? Thank you, Margaret Sanger.

What can be done about those who should never have been born? Hmmm. Let's see what the Germans did.

From "Human Conservation And Birth Control":

"Again, however, we must stress the fact that in a national program for human conservation institutional and voluntary sterilization are not enough; they do not reach those elements at large in the population whose children are a menace to the national health and well-being."

"For those mothers--and there will always be such--who are too dull-witted, to careless or too inert to use even simple methods, under direction, sterilization is indicated."

"Reports in medical journals state that the indications laid down in the German law are being carefully observed. These are gongenital feeble-mindedness; schizophrenia, circular insanity; heredity epilepsy; hereditary chorea (Huntington's)' hereditary blindness or deafness; grave hereditary bodily deformity and chronic alcoholism."

"Surely everyone will agree that the children of parents so afflicted are no contribution to the nation for even if they do not inherit these defects they are children of parents so handicapped that life will give them little, owing to their necessarily bad environment."

"There are 1,700 special courts and 27 higher courts in Germany to review the cases certified for sterilization there. The rights of the individual could be equally well safeguarded here, but in no case should the rights of society, or which he or she is a member, be disregarded."

Rights of society trumps rights of individual (except of course, when a woman CHOOSES contraception). Whoo.

"If we have not intelligence to adopt the program outlined above because it is a step toward human conservation, let us adopt it in consideration for the mothers who have borne the crushing load of our neglect through the centuries. If we have no sympathy for the mothers, whose normal duty has been considered childbearing, regardless of physical or economic conditions, let us adopt it in pity for the children--those innocent sufferers born into a world they never made -- thrown out handicapped to struggle for subsistence in a society so organized that only the strong can get ahead--but eventually revenging themselves on this society by forming the social problem group which costs us billions annually."

Complaining about the "social problem group" again. Whoo. Promoting the German program of forced sterilization of these non-contributors for the good of society. I wonder what she thought of the German solution for handling the already born unfit, those costing society billions according to her reckoning, a societal burden, and should never have been born?

Sanger goes on and on and on, ranting about those she considers "unfit" for breeding, or indeed, life itself. How about reproductive freedoms also meaning that the "unfit" can have children if the women want to, not an active program to eliminate them?

And you wonder why people question the motives of those who "offer" the "choice" of contraception to underprivileged women? Sanger would approve (if not direct the program herself). So would modern racists. So would post WWI depression and WWII era Germans. Eliminate those "unfit" hordes in a single generation, as well as "breed" those more deserving of life. I wonder what color and class she had in mind when thinking of who deserved be born or should be bred in larger numbers. Wealthy self-made blacks? Middle class Asian small business owners? Yuppie Mexicans? Arabs with inherited wealth? Hmm.

I posted yesterday, and apparently had too many links, although I thought the limit was three. Anyway, Cara has a great post up at TheCurvature.

I really do not understand the appeal of body sushi. Putting raw fish on anyone's warm body for any period of time, then eating it? Gross. I appreciate the Minneapolis restaurant for putting men out there as well. It's a lot better than a recent business function I was at featuring female only body sushi. Good luck trying to network in that kind of environment. (I left.)

"And finally, it gets very annoying for those of us who’ve been reading this blog for a while when people show up here to complain about how such and such subject is not a feminist issue and how the bloggers should just chill out and stop being paranoid."

So I'm sorry if this conversation annoys you. but I wasn't coming in and complaining (and I realize that the paranoia comment wasn't me, it was kevin, but you used *my* quote in your response)

I mean, I think just about anyone can "come in here," seeing as this is a public website. But for argument's sake, I will say that I am a feminist, a women's studies graduate student, as well as one of the scantily clad waitresses that I mentioned earlier. And I don't appreciate being told that it's not ok to comment and attempt to incite a discussion. I've already pointed out that I shouldn't have said "why is this on feministing," but I stand by my original comments that the sushi "platters" are similar to objectified waitresses and bartenders of all genders. And yes, maybe women=tray is deplorable to you, but i think women=sex object holding said tray is very similar. And while I see the feminist argument that this is perpetuating patriarchy, objectifying women, etc, all I'm trying to say is that these women (and men) make a *lot* of money and enter into a job like that most often because they have sought it out. And I am saying what's wrong with that?
And I would also like to suggest that we cease with the comparisons and conflations with prostitution and waitressing/serving, since I think we all know prostitution and sex work is far more complicated and complex and beyond a simple comparison for the sake of argument.

A Male,
"The report that women are less likely than male coworkers to push for raises"

I read a study which showed that when women negotiate like men for their salary, that the employer usually judges harshly against the woman by seeing her as a bitch or overwhelming, while they see men who negotiate as assertive and all the other traits you associate with a good employee. It also showed that women were more likely to be turned down. The study was linked on feministing.

(in response to my statement)
" I AM finding shit loads of info on this Warren Farrell jackass."

"So why did second wave feminists love him so much, raising him up as they did?"

Because initially he claimed to be a supporter of feminism. When it became apparent he was a fuck they ditched him. Why? You dont like him do you?

"Finally, it gets very annoying for those of us who’ve been reading this blog for a while when people show up here to complain about how such and such subject is not a feminist issue and how the bloggers should just chill out and stop being paranoid. "

Well said sojourner!Everythings a feminist issue, and topics like the sushi case should be offered as intellectual stimulus to enable us feminists to take new angles and apply them to the topic. Thats what enables progress in society, especially for women.It also allows us to swop our own experiences and apply them torwards our personal views. Its healthy and should be more widely done.

Subject: Chelsea Clinton

I remember watching one television show that caught a segment showing Chelsea being asked questions from journalists. One of them asked, when she plans on getting married. I was appalled. When do men ever get asked that question? Is it just assumed that this is destiny for women, or essential for our lives?

"Because initially he claimed to be a supporter of feminism. When it became apparent he was a fuck they ditched him."

I can see what he wrote in later decades. What made him a fuck back then?

"Why? You dont like him do you?"

No, I disagree with the vast majority of MRA views.

Regarding the pay gap:

This study is useless. It did not control for age or the presence of children.

An unmarried woman with children is going to make less than a married woman with children because of factors like setup costs (the cost to get your kid into daycare, so that you can start looking for work, is a startup cost that a person who does not have a partner who works and can cover it might not be able to pay) and the opportunity cost (you cannot get a job that is both a stable long-term job *and* requires working long hours on occasion if you don't have someone else who can cover for you.) However, an unmarried woman without children would be much more flexible about what jobs she can accept and how many hours she can work than a married woman *with* children.

My understanding previously was that the entire wage gap is largely explained by motherhood -- mothers suffer a huge penalty simply for being mothers. When you control for age, length of time in job, type of job, and other such factors, what's left is a small wage gap that seems to be related to traditional sexism -- a difference of about 6% between men and women who are both childless -- and then a gigantic difference between women who are mothers and men who are fathers. Simply put, being a father seems to increase a man's income, being a mother vastly decreases a woman's. We don't know whether fathers make more money because they fight harder for it, if men are less likely to become fathers if they are underpaid, or if companies are more likely to pay fathers well to try to keep them, but it does appear that fatherhood is correlated with a benefit. Motherhood, however, is a gigantic negative.

So I'm not buying this study without looking at te breakdowns. Without any further analysis, for instance, this could be explained by age, because unmarried people tend to be younger than married people -- and there are indirect sexism effects such as "female ghetto" pay scales that apply to an entire profession dominated by women whether or not the worker is a man, such as social work or nursing, which brings down women on average.

ANyone know where these guys got their data, that further analysis can be done?

Alara, you are at least somewhat correct, IIRC. You're also missing two of the other significant wage gap issues, which are profession and specialty (as a subset of profession.) E.g., primary care docs, who have a shorter residency and fewer on call hours, tend to make less than many surgeons.

In many cases, specialty is at least somewhat linked to availability, the M.D. example being on point. In law, for example, many of the top earners are litigators, who need to be able to accommodate an unpredictable schedule which can include insanely long hours and who have near-zero tolerance for out-of-work "distractions," a.k.a "life" (which is one reason why I'm not a litigator.)

And from what I've read, the wage gap can be significantly reduced by the use of proper controls.

However....

The fact that those issues above are relevant does not make them fair, or a nonissue; nor does it take them out of feminist analysis. It merely changes the question.

So instead of asking "why is there a wage gap" you might end up asking "given that pregnancy and recovery produce (in most women) no more than three months of partial or complete inability to work, and given that three months is pretty goddamn minimal, why on earth can't we figure out a way to help people be litigators and heart surgeons?" It's not as if birth turns people into idiots any more than does a 3 month vacation in Bali.

Or we might ask "if this is all based on limited availability, why do women always get stuck being the 'available person?"

So it's still a feminist issue, even if it's a different issue.

Re body sushi:

Prior to this, the only times I had heard of nyotaimori was in the context of private business lunches in Japan, reinforcing the "boys' club" mentality as Stanna mentioned.

However, having read the article, I have to agree with Jeff: "this particular restaurant is to be commended for taking something deeply sexist and transforming it into something broadly gender-equal." An even ratio of male to female "human trays" and guests, rules enforcing strict professional boundaries between servers and guests, and elaborate compensation for the servers, who are clearly not being coerced... this all seems to me to be presenting the "human sushi trays" as art objects rather than sexual objects.

"'Is that any reason to deny contraception to someone else who *does* want it?'

"Define 'want' when we know such as "sterilization abuse" exists."

You know, wanting contraception as in wanting to have more protected from unwanted contraception.

As for the 12-year-old who accepted the implant offer, I wouldn't be surprised if she also chose abstinence and wants a back-up method too.

"And you wonder why people question the motives of those who 'offer' the 'choice' of contraception to underprivileged women?"

The article mentioned the offer of something more-privileged girls already have being extended to underprivileged girls as well so that they too can choose to postpone childbearing until they are women.

If *that* is your idea of genocidal eugenics, then I wouldn't be surprised if you also arrange (in the name of saving your race) for your daughter to give birth ASAP instead of letting her have a choice...

"Sanger would approve (if not direct the program herself). So would modern racists."

If no imperialists jumped off a cliff, would you jump?

Oops, typos. That should have been "You know, wanting contraception as in wanting to have more *protection* from unwanted *conception*." Sorry about that!

"Define 'want' when we know such as "sterilization abuse" exists."

So certain groups should be denied contraception because they don't realize they're being abused? That's not paternalistic or anything...

ninapendamaishi, i don't like to participate in arguments with sarcastic overtures and snarky tones. it's too confusing and too condescending.

HAH! You haven't been on the internet very long have you?

I think the thing that pissed me off about the sushi is how the author of the article made such a big deal about the men doing it:

Half the models were men. "It's only fair for the ladies," Pham said.
One of these brave studs was Colin Jaworski, 23, of Brooklyn Park.

First off, this comment assumes that either the women attending are heterosexual and would be interested in eating off of nude men, or it assumes that it's degrading to women and it will even it out if both women and men are degraded.

Secondly, serving as a platter is portrayed as not a big deal for either the man or the woman that they interviewed:

And she enjoyed every minute of this. "You only live once," she said

"It's not a big deal," he said. "Although, I've never had anybody eat off me before."

However, the article presents women and men serving as platters in a distincly different way. Colin was a "brave stud" to perform such a task. Ali had nerves "forged in steel." I tried to make a more black and white analogy for Ali having to steel herself in order to do this, whereas Colin was a stud for doing it, but I don't think it's as simple as that. The portrayal isn't completely dichotomous regarding these two workers, but it is definitely gendered.

In our culture, it is much less socially acceptable for a man to display his nude body than it is for a woman.

"If *that* is your idea of genocidal eugenics,"

You really see no problem with Sanger's philosophy? Calling a broad segment of society "unfit," a burden on the rest of the nation, they or their uncontrolled breeding the greatest problem facing society, and better off never being born (including the already living)? Open admiration for pre-WWII Germany's program of forced sterilization? Contraception and forced sterilization her only solutions for society's ills? You can read the alleged original sources yourself, at her collected works online. That she wished to serve her country or improve the situation of women *expected* to produce offspring is not in question.

"then I wouldn't be surprised if you also arrange (in the name of saving your race) for your daughter to give birth ASAP instead of letting her have a choice..."

In the name of "saving my race" I would promote its language or culture, to anyone willing to share in it, not deliberately spread DNA.

I fail to see how my questioning Sanger's classist, ablist, elitist agenda which includes eliminating the "unfit" at the source (by forced sterilization according to the German model, if necessary, if promotion of contraception and voluntary sterilization were not enough (she explicitly already realized they were not enough), to eliminate society's "burden" in a single generation), and breeding more of the "fit" (why did she not promote contraception for "fit" people as well, in the name of reproductive freedoms or reducing the overpopulation she saw?); makes me anti-choice, which is what you seem to believe.

I wonder if Sanger would have considered Middle Eastern immigrants to be members of the "fit" or "unfit" 70 years ago. What do you think? I can imagine what she would have thought of hundreds of thousands of Asians dressed in "pajamas" and living in wooden and corrugated roof shacks, picking pineapples and cutting sugar cane for 25 cents per day, and steadily reproducing or coming off a boat, in a time leading up to war with Japan.

"So certain groups should be denied contraception because they don't realize they're being abused? That's not paternalistic or anything..."

Given their history, why is questioning the privileged promoting contraception to the underprivileged, or people of color, in apparent continuation of Sanger's philosophy, equivalent to denying anyone contraception? Who says the underprivileged or people of color are unaware of their position or alleged abuse? It is they who point out the situation.

No. I am questioning Sanger's focus on eliminating those she deemed unfit, by preventing them from having children. Not promoting reproductive freedoms (i.e. children if the "unfit" wanted them, or calling for contraception for the "fit") or other social programs which could have improved society (or the lot of a certain segment). Preventing people from having children, by forced sterilization, if necessary, and being an unapologetic eugenicist who promoted pre-WWII Germany's methods.

It was Sanger who was being "paternalistic" by determining who was worthy to reproduce or even to exist. I am not talking about individual reproductive freedoms (which she was also not promoting, unless it meant no children of the "unfit" and greater numbers of the "fit"). Sanger was talking about an entire class of people (the underprivileged), and other entire groups of people (such as those with physically deformity or mental disability), whom she deemed "unfit" with a broad brush, and their elimination. Not by bringing them up. By not allowing them to reproduce any further.

"'If *that* is your idea of genocidal eugenics,'

"You really see no problem with Sanger's philosophy?"

I *do* see a problem with part of Sanger's philosophy. I *don't* see that problem with letting kids (and not just rich white ones!) try to postpone parenthood until adulthood, and at the same time you sure seem to see that problem with it.

"'then I wouldn't be surprised if you also arrange (in the name of saving your race) for your daughter to give birth ASAP instead of letting her have a choice...'

"In the name of 'saving my race' I would promote its language or culture, to anyone willing to share in it, not deliberately spread DNA."

That's cool, and I'm glad for your daughter. :)

Meanwhile, why call it eugenics when an Aboriginal girl speaks her languages, practices her cultures' customs, and deliberately doesn't spread her DNA as soon as possible?

"I fail to see how my questioning Sanger's classist, ablist, elitist agenda...makes me anti-choice, which is what you seem to believe."

Questioning actual eugenic agendas doesn't seem to be anti-choice. Meanwhile, accusing reproductive freedom of being eugenic when the freedom's not limited to rich whites really does seem to be anti-choice.

"I wonder if Sanger would have considered Middle Eastern immigrants to be members of the 'fit' or 'unfit' 70 years ago. What do you think?"

Whether or not she did, I still sure won't call the present-day doctor, pharmacists, and insurers who prescribe, dispense, and help fund my birth control pills (which I take to control PCOS symptoms but do still reduce the odds of my demographic groups' populations increasing if I ever get to choose sex and/or ever get raped) genocidal eugenicists. ;D

"'So certain groups should be denied contraception because they don't realize they're being abused? That's not paternalistic or anything...'

"Who says the underprivileged or people of color are unaware of their position or alleged abuse?"

Those who don't believe the ones who say they *do* want contraception, that's who.

BTW, all those fertile guys who slowed down my population's growth by not asking me for sex or raping me between menarche and going on the pill? I won't call them genocidal eugenicists for it either. ;D

"I *don't* see that problem with letting kids (and not just rich white ones!) try to postpone parenthood until adulthood, and at the same time you sure seem to see that problem with it."

Sanger was not talking about the young (read her articles and speeches yourself - perform a search on the term "unfit"),

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/

she was ranting about the poor, and numerous other groups with alleged health conditions SHE labeled "unfit," their children or [increasing] numbers a menace, THE greatest problem to society by her reckoning, a societal and financial burden (billions a year), and people UNWORTHY to breed. SHE did not want them to have a choice. Why are you not getting this?

You are conveniently avoiding the question of whether or not Sanger would have considered immigrants of your culture in the US in her time, to be "fit" or "unfit." If Sanger had her way, there likely would not have been Asians, as they were primarily agricultural workers not well assimilated into US culture, and relatively poor at the time. White racists certainly believed there were too many - they tried to prevent more from entering the country in Sanger's time (1924).

"Meanwhile, accusing reproductive freedom of being eugenic when the freedom's not limited to rich whites really does seem to be anti-choice."

Sanger's aim to eliminate the "unfit" by forced sterilization (either sex) if necessary, citing its legality in numerous states in the US, or per the German model, is not promoting reproductive freedoms. Sanger explicitly aligned HERSELF with eugenics and improving the race. It is not a simple claim of her detractors or anti-choicers. Please read what Sanger wrote or said of the "unfit," whichever group she applied it to at the time.

"What made him a fuck back then?"

It wasnt just his his views in the coming decades, but before and during his joint with NOW. He used the prestige NOW gave him, to bring forth his real views about women. He used his former engagement with NOW as a way of trying to add legitimacy to his perspectives. He even advocated incest in a 1977 Penthouse interview. He felt it was feminists distortion that gave incest a bad name, but that it wasnt inherently wrong.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm

For the record, I don't knowe the girls who chose the implants, but I know each one is an individual with her own hopes and fears. It makes no sense to assume that all of them dream of bravely facing the challenges of traditional or single young motherhood but fear burdening white taxpayers with a baby. For all I know, one dreams of becoming Prime Minister of Australia and fears burdening herself with a baby while trying to complete school, another dreams of settling down in her 20s to raise a child with a partner she loves and fears being forced to bear some rapist's child before she finds that partner, and so on. That's why *both* support for teen raising children *and* support for teens trying to avoid motherhood (and support for teens doing both, such as a 16-year-old trying to raise her first child and not get pregnant again before graduation) are important!

"'I *don't* see that problem with letting kids (and not just rich white ones!) try to postpone parenthood until adulthood, and at the same time you sure seem to see that problem with it.'

"Sanger was not talking about the young (read her articles and speeches yourself - perform a search on the term 'unfit'),"

The program in the article *is* talking about the young, and some people complain about it in the name of disliking someone else's program.

"You are conveniently avoiding the question of whether or not Sanger would have considered immigrants of your culture in the US in her time, to be 'fit' or 'unfit.'"

I already answered that question. Maybe Sanger would have considered my ethnicity "unfit," and if she would then that's still no reason to accuse the people who help me avoid childbirth of her eugenics agenda. :) Likewise, some other bigots out there seem to think my ethnicity is "fit" enough to outbreed the Jews and that's still no reason to accuse the people who helped my mother give birth of *that* eugenics agenda.

Remember, we don't need to ignore forced childbirth in order to condemn forced childlessness. Countless underprivileged women and girls have been oppressed by white slaveholders, nonwhite extended-family patriarchs, more rapists of all colors, tyrants outlawing abortions, unaffordable prices of contraception, lack of non-sex work chances to earn a living, etc. forcing them to have even more children than they wanted. Liberation from that oppression is great! :) My heart doesn't bleed for those oppressors just because some other oppressors hated them. ;)