Re: "A judge in Texas sentenced a woman to not having children as a condition of her probation. Yeah, that's not constitutional," here's a quote from the linked story:

On Sept. 5, state District Judge Charlie Baird sentenced Salazar, who had no criminal history, to 10 years of probation after SHE REACHED A PLEA BARGAIN with prosecutors. In Texas, judges set conditions of probation.

The woman didn't have to plea bargain... She could have sought a jury trial, as is her constitutional right. I also believe that her probation condition -- barred from having children -- seems a bit unusual. But she chose it. It was not imposed upon her.

@ John Dias:

Unfortunately, things are not so cut and dry in the legal system. The intimidation and fear tactics often used by the justice system to have individuals accept plea bargains make it far from being anyone's free choice. Perhaps the woman was happy with the conditions of her plea bargain. More likely, however, she was scared into accepting them, for fear she would get much worse with a jury trial.

Many people tend to forget or do not realize that in the Latino community many are color struck. Racism(colorism? is that a word?) is not only an American Institution.They can deny it all they want, but go to Luisa in Puerto Rico or speak to any Afro- Cuban or ask my mother who was considered ugly because of her dark skin. Look at the actresses on the Latino channel and you would be hard- pressed to find an Afro- Latino in the bunch! or in the Mexican stories the only dark skinned people are the "help".

Obama and Hillary agreed on over 95% of the issues but some women are voting for McCain because he has a woman vp? forget that this woman policies and believe are the most anti-woman I have ever seen! They experience sexism so I guess under McCain/ Palin they will not? Get the F**k out of here! An intelligent person will not simply vote AGAINST their best interest just because they want woman in the White house.I refuse to believe that anyone can be that stupid!

Re: the Hollaback story.

I saw an ad on the subway today that said something along the lines of sexual harassment not being OK on the subway, that a crowded train doesn't give you license to grope someone and that you shouldn't be afraid to speak up and tell an MTA agent if this happens to you. Not in those words.

I don't know if that's a new thing, I'd never seen it before, but it was a J shuttle, which I don't normally use.

Re: the Angie Zapata story -

As a bunch of comments on Melissa's blog said, if a SMILE is enough to warrant murder, than I should be offing about ten guys a day! And hell, if I can murder somebody for smiling at me, what about the guys who follow me down the street, who say "Hey baby, you're looking good" or "Gimme some of that", who grab their crotches when I walk by, who crowd me against the wall to try to force me to brush against them when I pass...I can't even imagine the horrors I should be able to inflict upon them, according to that lawyer.

GRRRRRR, I can't even put into words how angry that crap makes me.

Some of the comments on the Hollaback story will make your head explode. It seems as though, to some people, women should just take sexual harassment, that's what we get for wearing skirts and having vaginas, and hey, we're probably lying anyway. The first comment was a "what about the poor harasser" comment. Why is that always somebody's first thought?

Yeah, as ever, the comments at Salon are enough to make you lose faith in humanity. Why the fuck does Pastor Jim always seem to pop up where he's least capable of helping? And I like how many of those commenters refuse to even acknowledge that going around taking pictures of strangers' genitals is, in fact, a crime, not an inconvenience.

Just to clear up some confusion about the plea bargain thing. The article states that the woman and the prosecutors reached a plea bargain for 10 years probation. That seems reasonable if she was not sure she would win her case. The article continues to say that, in Texas, judges determine the conditions of probation. So, she agreed to 10 years probation, probably thinking that meant she would go to jail if she got into trouble within the next 10 years and that she would have to check in with a probation officer every so often. The judge only set the condition of her not having any more children after she had agreed to the plea bargain, is my understanding.

I thought that story about how Katy Perry and Sarah Palin both represent a sort of dystopic, empty feminism was SO interesting. I never would have made that connection, but it's true. Perry and Palin are both women who appear to be powerful (through sexual liberation/a high-power political office) but really are merely puppets for the patriarchy (yeah, Perry kissed a girl, but the thought of her boyfriend is always hoovering in the background, reminding us that when the mainstream media is run by men, sexual liberation is only okay if you primarily identify as heterosexual/Palin may be a woman, but when it comes to the issues, she definitely NOT a feminist).

Anyway, the piece is TOTALLY worth checking out!

Re: Mercedes Airbag Ad

Can anyone find independent confirmation that this ad is really from Mercedes and not a hoax? I can't find this ad at any Mercedes-official sites, or even another reference to it. Can anyone else?

I keep getting an error message when I click the Alaskan women and Palin link...does anyone know the url?

Re: Texas Judge story.

anyone read this crucial bit: "The order was for Felicia Salazar, 20, who admitted to failing to provide protection and medical care to her then-19-month-old daughter last year. The girl suffered broken bones and other injuries when she was beaten by her father, "

so the woman is being punished for being in, what is most likely, an abusive relationship?

cause that's my impression. the guy is now in jail. at least the courts care when (brown) men beat children even if they don't care if they beat women or not.

argh!

Re: Katy Perry

I am SO glad Feministing pointed this out. Not because I hadn't realized--I have been loudly criticizing Katy Perry's exploitation of lesbianism from the very moment I first heard it--but because some have been a little slow on the uptake, even claiming that wow, Katy Perry wrote a song about dykes? That's progressive! At which point I remind them that no, it's not actually about dykes, it's about girl-on-girl. A la the porn industry. On the radio. Great!

@ The Texas trial, that decision has an eerie resemblence to Buck v. Bell. *shudders*

@ The Katy Perry/Palin article; I think the main thing they have in common is they exist because a higher authority thinks feminist/lesbians/women are stupid and will blindly follow any person who appears to be like them. They think we are like baby ducks who have an image imprinted in our heads and will follow that image off a cliff if it leads us there!

Ugh, as usual the comments on Salon make me worry for humanity.
...
Loved the Katy Perry story. Not only is her music some of the crappiest pop I've ever heard but she's also a Lily Allen clone with faux vintage sensibilities playing the titillating fake lezzie who just needs her boyfriend.
The whole thing is very The Handmaid's Tale--we can have the Jezebels and the Aunts. Yay, dystopia!

Homelessness will continue to rise unless this nation truly talks about all social ills affecting this country. We are stuck in the 12th century. I wonder what will happen, I have a feeling things will get way worse before they so called "get better."

I could be one of those homeless people if I did not have friends or family that took me in during these rough economic times.

On the judge/probation thing, a good point the article made was that he was not limiting her rights more than they would be limited in prison.

I think the American prison is a terrible, misguided system, but it's still a good point. He might have wanted to keep her in prison to keep her from having more children (though I think it's debatable whether or not it's appropriate in this case, let's assume that the judge isn't pulling that impression from thin air, because that's not as interesting a discussion), and this is a way to do that without locking her up.

Seanster- that's very true. Also, her children were taken from her. If she were to have other children, wouldn't they be taken from her as well anyway?
I see a twinge of grey in this one, so I'm wrestling with it in my head a bit.

Not a thing unconstitutional about the judge ordering her not to have children. First of all probation is a privilege. It means you should be locked up in jail or prison and are released upon leniency from the court. However, a convict pays for that leniency by agreeing to certain conditions. Often a curfew or the ability to only be away from the home at certain times. Often you agree to wear an ankle bracelet. Usually you agree that your home can be searched at any time without a warrant and you will give urine and or blood at any time to be checked for drugs or alcohol. Get it? You have almost zero constitutional rights and the judge saying that she can have no more children during the pendency of her probation is very legal and has long been settled as constitutional in common law.
There is no such thing as a judge sneaking conditions up on the convicted party. In every state you sign a probation agreement that is gone over with your attorney and you present the signed agreement at time of sentencing. You can reject or accept its conditions and can also reject any condition at anytime. She could right now say she refuses to follow that term of her condition and simply go to jail and complete her sentence.
At the very least this woman allowed her children to be abused by her man. She could have called the police at the very least. And don't give me any of this "battered women syndrome" nonsense. Being a feminist does not mean children should be at risk. She deserves scorn and punishment for what happened to her children. I hope she never has any again.

ThinkingClearly,
I have some major issues with what you said. You said, "At the very least this woman allowed her children to be abused by her man. She could have called the police at the very least. And don't give me any of this "battered women syndrome" nonsense. Being a feminist does not mean children should be at risk. She deserves scorn and punishment for what happened to her children. I hope she never has any again."

Yes, this woman could have done something to protect her children, but why are you putting the blame on her instead of on the man who actually beat the kids?? I am torn on the terms of her probation. I feel that there should be stricter laws when it comes to parents and abuse (what the man did) or neglect (which I believe this woman did) of children, but this woman did not beat her children. Why is she being blamed for it? Why isn't the blame being transferred to the man?

Men beating women and children is no longer horrifying to us. Instead, we blame the women in these kinds of situations and always ask, "Why didn't you leave? Why didn't you stop him? Why didn't you call the police?" I have to admit that I'm guilty of this kind of thinking. Growing up, my dad beat my mom a lot until she eventually divorced him. I always wondered why she stayed for ten years, but never wondered why he beat her. It's only now, years later, that I can see how fucked up my thinking was. Yes, my mom could have left sooner, but why was it on her to stop the abuse rather than on my father, the abuser, to stop it?

Sarahcat:

Read the story and then google it for all of the other articles. The Man got FIFTEEN years in prison - NO probation. BUT, she was there, too and she NEVER got medical care for the horribly abused 19 month old. Not when the man went to work, not when SHE went to the doctor herself and not the two time she accompanied her sister to the pediatrician's office with her sister's children.

Feminism doesn't mean women get a free pass for breaking the law. Feminism doesn't mean that before anything we blame men. If you are the weakest, most scared, most moronic woman in the world if a man is routinely and regularly abusing your child you can still: 1) Stab him in his sleep, 2) call the police while he sleeps, 3)climb out a window with the child while he sleeps, 4) leave while he is at work, ETC. ETC. She's a pig, I would throw her in jail.

Wow, ThinkingClearly, maybe you should take some courses on domestic abuse so you have a better understanding of it and its victims. Before anything the man should be blamed because, get this, he was the one doing the beating! Maybe this woman was scared if she went to the police or hospital her child would be taken away. Maybe she had no financial means of leaving and was trying to save up some money to leave. What happens when she climbs out of the window? Does she put herself and child in another kind of danger by living on the street with nothing to eat? Does he hunt her down and kill the child and her? Maybe he has threatened that if she goes to authorities or leaves he will tell them she is the abuser and he will gain custody of the child. We don't know those kind of details and without them we really can't make judgements. Well, we can, but we just come off sounding naive. Oh, yeah, and I am pretty sure that stabbing him in the neck when he is asleep would not be a better decision.

Oh, I am also curious how this judge feels about abortion. If this woman got pregnant would he want her to get an abortion or at the very least let her off the hook if she did or would he be very much against it? Was the requirement as stated that she "not have kids" or not get pregnant? Is the abusive father allowed to have more children? (yes he is in jail but there are conjugal visits and he may not serve his full term). Maybe he should not be allowed to marry a woman with children? There seems to be a very good chance that racism and sexism were both involved in this case and though I would agree that there are plenty of people I don't think should have kids it is not the right of the government to make that decision. When the government encroaches on our rights and starts making decisions like who is allowed to have children or not I think it has frightening ramifications.