"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."

Dear John McCain,
That is not an argument against gay adoption. That is an argument about single parent adoption. You are still dead wrong, but please at least speak in sentences that make sense and pertain to the issue you are attempting to address.

PS: The American Psychological Association, as well as countless other groups that specialize in what is best for children, disagree with you.
PPS: Religious groups don't count.

From the large bra article, "If you don't charge a size 20 woman more for a pair of trousers, then why should you pay more for an E cup bra?"

So, they'd be happy if retailers started charging based on size for all clothes?

Good news regarding Mehbooba Andyar, the Afghan runner missing from the Olympic training camp. The Canadian Broadcasting Company reported that she's safe in Italy and is applying for political asylum in Europe.

I thought the piece about the dolls with disabilities was pretty interesting. I've been dabbling with doll making recently so it really made me think about my craft.

Regarding the large bra article...

That practice has been going on for YEARS with shirts. xs-XL one price, XXL + = another price.

Aside from ye ol' capitalism at work, I am hard pressed to see the issue. Its a wonder it hasn't happened already.

So, you linked to a dude to discuss Kyle Payne? And not just a dude, but a dude who obviously doesn't care about the WOMAN Kyle Payne raped, only about how hard it's going to be for male feminists to be taken seriously now because of Kyle Payne? Yeah, that seems like the best way to go.

david_orchid, you seriously need to reassess your perspective on what the actions of Kyle Payne mean in the grand scheme of things. Yes, you may now have to prove yourself even more because you're a dude in a women's movement, but that pales nearly to invisibility in comparison to what the woman Kyle Payne assaulted has to face because of that asshole. Please check your male privilege and STFU if you can't. Criminy.

About Twilight... I read the first book and had to give up on the series. I'm as big a sucker for vampires as anyone, but my problem is with the subtext I read in the novel.

We are told that the heroine is fascinating, but she doesn't do anything particularly interesting. She's pretty (the novel is adamant about that) but not very interesting. She faints at the sight of blood, and the first significant encounter she has with the vampire comes when he saves her life from a car accident. Her almost total passivity is her most noticeable characteristic. I mean, fainting?

And then there are long interludes where she is clear about not minding being in persistent danger from her vampire boyfriend, who is struggling to control his desire to kill her. And she's fine with the fact that he wants to kill her... she's sympathetic to his plight.

I would have to buy the novel back to reformulate the solid critique I made at the time that I was first reading, but the real lesson I got from the book was, "Hey, teen girls... It makes you a good and noble person if you stay with your potentially ultra-violent and dangerous boyfriend. Sure, he might kill you someday, but maybe not, and if so, wouldn't it really kind of be your own fault?"

The novel teaches young women to value weakness, passivity, and self-endangerment. Maybe at the end of the whole series Bella can reflect from whatever after-life she ends up in, "I thought maybe I should break up with him before he killed me, but he was SO CUTE!"

I don't think it's reasonable for everyone who provides any commentary on an event to discuss every relevant issue in descending order of importance. What would we have possibly gained from him writing about the consequences for the victim? That assault is bad? But his audience already knows that, so why bother?

When I go to a lecture on advanced mathematics, I don't expect them to start with telling me what numbers are, however important they may be to the subject at hand. Likewise, I don't expect every article on sexual assault to tell me that the victim will suffer for having been assaulted.

I'm a bit puzzled to see that no one's brought up some of the issues in Twilight my writing group covered... I mean, besides the part where they're absolutely wretchedly written. Things like the notes of Majickal Injun! with Jacob and the Quileutes, Bella's complete lack of agency (Meyer's thing for completely passive heroines just keeps going in "The Host"), the way Edward stalks Bella F'REALS stalks, and Edward's creepy possessiveness and bizarre swings into anger. He rivals Heathcliff for AUGH, even if he can't come close to his complexity.

http://avadriel.livejournal.com/81802.html The penultimate paragraph here really gets it across, I think.

Oh geez that is riddled with errors, that paragraph. I am so sorry.

I'm with Eileen on "Twilight". I, too, adore vampires and was all over the series when it first came out. But I really didn't get very far with it. Aside from Bella's total passivity and lack of interesting traits (or any sort of a personality at all), what irked me the most was Edward's completely controlling and abusive behaviour. He's jealous and possessive as heck. The way he behaves towards Mike, and later Jacob (vampire vs werewolf storyline aside) is just unforgivable. But Bella interprets it as a sign of his undying love and devotion and keeps finding it flattering, or at least understandable. It feeds this whole stereotype of how jealousy means deep, deep love and that the thing to do is to accept and even enjoy it.

And they have brought it up by the time I post! Merci buckets, Feministing chicks and chickadees.

I don't think it's reasonable for everyone who provides any commentary on an event to discuss every relevant issue in descending order of importance. What would we have possibly gained from him writing about the consequences for the victim? That assault is bad? But his audience already knows that, so why bother?

When I go to a lecture on advanced mathematics, I don't expect them to start with telling me what numbers are, however important they may be to the subject at hand. Likewise, I don't expect every article on sexual assault to tell me that the victim will suffer for having been assaulted.

I'm not demanding that everyone go into detail about every little issue. I'm asking that a male feminist look a little further into the issue of a male anti-rape activist pleading guilty of assaulting a woman than "omg this will make MY life so hard". Even just a "my condolences to the victim" would help mitigate the me-me-me nature of david's post; or is that too much of the same old shit for you, Alice?

Things like the notes of Majickal Injun!

One sees that sort of implicit racism all over the place. In the ICE raid article linked above even, there's a reference to an immigrants "Native American spirit." If you believe that spirits differ by race in the real world, then it's not much of a jump to imagine that some races might have magic race powers in a world with things like vampires.

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who had trouble with Twilight! Woo!

Before I responded, I figured I had better actually read the post in question, but I can't find it. The first link is to a post by someone named "Cara," and the link for david_orcid doesn't seem to say anything about the effect this will have on male feminists, so I have to ask what post you're reading.

I think it must have been Jeff Fecke's post on Shakesville, Alice, but I tend to ignore him when he starts on about his plight. He's a great writer otherwise.

Oh, wait, hold on. I missed the relevant line. Sorry. Ok, now I see what you're talking about.

It's cool. Glad you found it.

Thank you for linking to my post on the jailing of pregnant Juana Villegas DeLaPaz. Local advocate Tim Chavez has been staying on top of this and in contact with DeLaPaz's attorney, and thanks to Tim I've been able to share some additional details today - including that the guard refused a nurse's request to unshackle her for personal care after the birth or allow her a breast pump, and the phone line was deliberately disconnected in her room. This has barely been covered by our local media - please spread as you can.

Regarding John McCain's comment that "both parents are important in the success of a family" (and his illogical jump from that statement to being against adoption if the parents are gay--I agree with the previous poster that his statement is actually an argument against single parents!) I can't resist adding a few personal comments.

What matters in any family is whether the people taking care of the children are any good at it. (define "good" however you want) That's all.

I was raised in what is generally called a "traditional" household. My father worked full time and my mother stayed at home. I would much rather have had *any* sort of non-traditional household - gay parents, single parent, grandparents, adoptive parents - than go through some of the stuff that I did. And I know that there are many others out there, in similar "traditional" families, who suffered much worse treatment than I had. Two straight, biological parents does not guarantee a successful and happy family.

However, according to John McCain, since my family had a Mommy and a Daddy then everything was fine and dandy. How can people deny that what matters is how the children are treated, not the parents' sex or sexuality?

I really can't stand Twilight. It glorifies an abusive boyfriend (Edward only controls her every move because he loves her!) but it's full of sexism. All the women do the cooking and cleaning, or else they're shallow bitches. The men do all the saving, and seem to all ways know better then the women.

Alas, I could go on for hours about this horrid book.

*It not only glorifies an abusive boyfriend, but...

Aha, weird typo there.

Count me among the people wondering "WTF" about the Twilight series. Do. Not. Get. And the obsessive/jealous boyfriend thing freaked me out. I only read the first one (and I found myself skipping around in that at a certain point) and I also don't think it's very well written, especially when you hold it against something like Harry Potter (or, even against Harry Potter). I guess there is no accounting for taste (because it's not just young tweens who are obsessed with it) but it could be also that young women are desperately looking for female characters, unfortunately they're looking to Bella.

I think I am with Marks & Spencer on this. When it comes to bras, larger sizes (especially the combo of large cup size with a smaller band size) require not only more material, but different design specifications than a more "average" bra would, so M&S may be in the right here.

Also, it's not totally relevant, but I learned from my fitter that British bra companies are the best for the small band-size, larger cup-size bras, specifically because they design to the size rather than simply downsizing the larger-overall bras, like American companies tend to do. Perhaps this is part of the reason their pricing changes?

I've seen Victoria's Secret and J.Crew charge more for larger-cup-size bathing suit tops, so it's not an unheard-of policy. (And as a lady of "unusual" bra size, I have to say that I would love to be able to walk into a department store and buy a bra for only $4 more than "average"-cup-sized ladies! At the moment I pay at least twice as much, even at the discounted online sources.)

It's not discriminatory for tall people to have to pay a couple bucks more for "long" pants, which is common - and folks have mentioned above that XXL clothing can be pricier - so I don't see why the slightly premium price for a larger bra size is an issue.

apb3000, I don't know if you sew or not, but the amount of fabric that a larger bra takes as opposed to a smaller one probably doesn't make a difference of £2.00.

@jgoreham - I actually do sew, and I recognize that the fabric amount wouldn't make the difference. My point above ("larger sizes require not only more material, but different design specifications than a more 'average' bra would") was that the additional material costs may NOT be M&S's reason for the price difference, rather that the larger-sized bras are likely designed differently, as they ought to be for a larger-busted woman.

Because they are likely to be a smaller run item, as the "average" sizes are going to be much more popular, the expenses of designing, manufacturing, and setting up in the stores' system the larger-cup-sized product will be higher per unit, and hence the higher price; this is how things work in the industry in which I work, and I wouldn't expect any different in the world of lingerie.

It's not discriminatory for tall people to have to pay a couple bucks more for "long" pants,

Maybe you should ask some tall people what they think about that. I find it discriminatory to have to pay $5-20 dollars more for 2-3 extra inches of fabric.

If that was a fair pricing practice used solely to cover the cost of making larger or longer clothing, why aren’t petit women’s clothes cheaper? Why do “AA” -cup women have to pay the same for a bra that a “C”-cup wearer pays? Why don’t size 10 shoe wearers pay more than those with size 5 shoes? It’s not about fair, it’s about gouging the taller and larger for more money because they can.

At 6’1”, size 22, with large breasts, means I’m paying $20-100 dollars more for my outfits than shorter, thinner, smaller-breasted women and I don’t get the luxury of shopping around for better prices. So, yes, I do find it incredibly discriminatory.

as the "average" sizes are going to be much more popular, the expenses of designing, manufacturing, and setting up in the stores' system the larger-cup-sized product

Setting up the stores’ system? That has to be the most bogus reason I’ve ever heard for charging more for larger sizes. I’ve worked in retail, it is no more difficult to put a new size 2 product in the “system” than a new size 22 product - the “stores’ system” is a computer (or an old school cash register) that doesn’t know the difference between sizes.

And, with rare exceptions on the higher end products, there is little difference in the manufacturing cost of the sizes that are larger than “average,” certainly not enough to justify a $5-20 jump in price for an XXL, or “DD”-cup, or a 34” inseam.

The problem is with this whole “average” B.S., especially for women. The fashion industry’s offerings of “average” sizes is so narrow that it doesn’t even come close to covering the majority. Limiting the range of “average” sizes for women is just another way for companies to charge more for those sizes that fall outside that very limited range.

I agree with numerous others. If retailers aren't giving price breaks to people who are smaller than average, they shouldn't be charging extra for people who are larger than average.

I didn't mean to imply that busty people, tall people, or bigger people deserve to pay more for their clothing. I am a tall and busty person who pays for longer pants as well as larger bras (and in fact can't buy my size on any department store/lingerie store rack, so I have to go to specialty shops and get fitted).

My example with pants was simply trying to make the point that perhaps M&S is not specifically targeting women or large-breasted women with their higher prices, but simply using logic that is applied elsewhere in the clothing world, both women's and men's.

I have quite a bit of experience in manufacturing and marketing wholesale products, so my idea of M&S's possible reasoning for the higher price is not uneducated. It simply costs more to make a more limited run of an item, especially when that item requires more designer hours, more mockups, more fit model hours, etc., which the larger sizes undoubtedly do.

Fitting a 32E bra is more than just taking a 32B band and slapping some E cups on it. Just as making a petite dress takes more than simply making a smaller version of an "average"-sized dress - it's made to different specifications. As I mentioned before, it's not only the costs of material that make the difference in price.

It would be more sporting, more fair, and better in terms of customer service of M&S to even out the pricing - make all the bras a little more expensive to cover the additional costs of the larger sizes. But M&S are unfortunately probably counting on the lower price point to appeal to secure the customer loyalty of the (more numerous) "average"-busted customers, risking losing the (less numerous) larger-busted customers.

Here's another article I just saw:

"Estate agent Julie-Ann Reed wins £30,000 over big breast remarks" by Richard Savill, 18/07/2008, The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2307398/Estate-agent-Julie-Ann-Reed-wins-and16330,000-over-big-breast-remarks.html :

"...Julie-Ann Reed, 27, said she was so stressed by the behaviour of Gerald Probert she became ill with depression.

"She alleged Mr Probert told her: 'You should either reduce the size of your breasts or get some new blouses'.

"On one occasion, he pointed out that her blouse was 'slightly gaping open' between two fastened buttons, she said...

"...At an employment tribunal in Exeter, Devon, Miss Reed claimed the remarks made her feel 'self conscious' and had a 'harassing' effect on her.

"She also said Mr Probert failed to pay her on time. When she complained he told her that her boyfriend should look after her and pay the household bills.

When she objected to his remarks he sacked her and told her: 'You little ****, get out'..."