New York judges can no longer bar people from changing their name to one that matches "the other gender."
Obama will reportedly push for ratification of the women's equal-rights treaty known as CEDAW, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Check out Sociological Images' series of posts on people of color in advertising.
On the high rate of cervical cancer in Nicaragua.
New media: Gawker lays off its lone female employee. Old media: Meet the Press will again be hosted by... a white dude. Totally shocking.
In Maine, the Senate president, House speaker, and attorney general are all women.
The Vatican still considers gay people criminals.
Shark-Fu on the conservative definition of "life" and "family."
Jessica Yee on native youth and the power and importance of native land.
Who was overlooked in the '100 Greatest Movie Characters' list? Women.
Obama's speechwriter and the "boys will be boys" defense of sexism.
Krista at Muslimah Media Watch on a truly bizarre fundraiser for Afghan women: the wine-bottle burqa. Just... wow.
How the child marriage rate in Nigeria relates to the prevalence of obstetric fistula.
Obama looks likely to appoint the first openly gay cabinet member.
Read Dan Barry's moving piece on hate crime in the wake of the election.
The New York Times reviews Alison Bechdel's new The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For.
Renee remembers the women of École Polytechnique.
Actions
Ask Congress to Act Now: Reimbursement for Birth Centers
Support Antigone magazine by buying their 2009 calendar, Dreams for Women.
Action Alert: Empowering Women & Girls Against HIV/AIDS
The DC Abortion Fund is seeking emergency donations.
Sign the petition asking the Obama administration to be a pro-breastfeeding administration.
Teen Voices is looking for volunteers.
Call for papers: Representing Disability and Emotion.
Call for papers: The Palin Factor: Political Mothers and Public Motherhood in the 21st Century
Make a donation to help Cara and Marcella make it to this year's Women Action and the Media conference.
Become an ongoing supporter of Bitch by joining the B-Hive.
Events
Join a live chat at RH Reality Check about the future of reproductive health, December 17.
What have you all been reading/writing this week?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Weekly Feminist Reader.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10801
I don't know if I'm too upset that Meet the Press is going to be hosted by David Gregory.
For a job like that (widely considered to be the most important political talk show on planet earth), you need someone with a lot of visibility, name recognition, anchoring experience, a relatively unpartisan past and a firm relationship with network execs.
That really only points to one person at MSNBC: David Gregory.
Why not Andrea Mitchell? She's more of a reporter than an anchor.
Why not Joe Scarborough (not that he's a woman or an African-American)? Partisan past.
Rachel Maddow? Extremely partisan and no anchoring experience.
Carol Marin? Almost ZERO name recognition.
I don't know if I'd call it sexist that they picked the news anchor who would be best for the show.
Do we really need all high-profile positions to be filled by women or persons of color?
Perhaps we should be more disappointed that there isn't a more diverse crowd of qualified anchors.
All of that in addition to the fact that whoever becomes the new host of Meet The Press is going to have gigantic shoes to fill. NBC has to make the safe choice to keep the show alive because they already replaced Tim Russert by the one person on their network--Tom Brokaw--who can command a similar level of respect from politicians/important people.
To some extent, I think the host also has to be someone who's already had experience getting answers from the people who would prospectively be guests. The answer then has to be someone like David Gregory because he's had an immense amount of experience covering Washington politics and not doing so as a talking head like the people on cable news.
I agree wholeheartedly with Destra--there aren't enough qualified people in the "applicant" pool to fault NBC for choosing a while male. Plus, I've never liked Andrea Mitchell or Katie Couric, and I feel like I'm probably not alone in that.
I was pulling for Gwen Ifill, myself. BTW, Betsy Fischer will stay on as the executive producer of "Meet the Press."
I'm ok with the grope Clinton debacle. Was he an idiot for making sexual gestures towards a rival on camera? Hells yes. But I can easily see myself cupping an Obama cutout's balls. Or licking Rice cutout's face. I'd say it's more inappropriate than sexist. And really, I can't say that that wouldn't go down at any other yuppie party that I'd throw.
If there is a picture of someone, who is applying for a high-powered job in the administration, pretending to grope Obama's balls, I would like to see it. Somehow I doubt it.
I honestly can say I have never been to a party like yours, and wouldn't have thought it up. I can imagine people kissing Obama, but not the picture of them making a demeaning gesture of ownership and blatant sexual harassment. Moreover, while they are applying for a job in the administration.
The man is demeaning her, reducing her to her sexual parts and making an attack that is solely based on her gender.
I've been to parties that are raunchy, the sex references don't flow more to one gender than the other.
You can see my argument in furtherance below.
Next time you're applying for a job, go ahead and publicly post pics of you groping figures of your boss and/or coworkers.
Ok, now you're just deliberately ignoring what I'm saying. It's inappropriate business behavior, and of course you wouldn't show your boss pictures of it. Nor would you show her pictures of 80% of behavior at parties (all picture of you with a drink in your hand or any references to sex at all, for example). The man's an idiot, flat out, for posing for a picture like this when he's in such an occupation. No doubt. But inappropriate behavior does not mean that it's automatically sexist.
Sorry, I see your point. I was responding more to you saying that you're ok with it than the point you were making near the end. See my other post for a response to that.
Thanks for the apology. ^_^ It's good to know that that part was a misunderstanding rather than an attempt at being directly confrontational.
You know Destra I thought that Jim Jones followers were all dead by now, imagine my surprise. This is the very definition of sexism. These kind of frat guys think ALL women are the same. See what we all need is to get laid and then we won’t be uppity. Is that not how they portrayed Clinton as uppity and frigid? So this is systemic of their very belief about women. I am so glad Obama is so sensitive to women’s issues that he lets this guy continue on his team, he shouldn’t even have a job within the administration. This makes me sick. I wish I could take my vote back. I am so upset by this.
Wow. You really just called me a cultist? I'm impressed. It's an impressive insult in it's use of shock value, unrelated and unthoughtful out connection, and abuse of the deaths of hundreds to serve your needs. You should name drop Hitler and round out the session.
You don't know that these men were frat boys. You don't know that they were the ones calling Clinton frigid and a bitch, or even that's what they believe. I know that a lot of men out there do think these things about women. See below for my further explanation of my stance on the subject.
Also, for more information about how Obama is not the perfect idol everyone makes him out to be, see my post over at community.feministing:
http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/fulfilling-gener-roles-with-do.html
And don't forget that Maine has two female senators!
Two pro-choice senators, no less! Maine rocks! (Although Collins did vote for Laci' and Conner's law)
Thanks Ann for mentioning our calendar! We really appreciate it at Antigone. You totally rock!
That sounds like potentially great news on CEDAW. Hopefully it's got a good shot to make it out of the Senate now.
We suggested 10 things you can do on World AIDS Day.
We talked about how much Saxby Chambliss really really deserved to lose his Senate seat, which unfortunately didn't happen.
We addressed PA Governor Ed Rendell's comments about AZ Governor Janet Napolitano being a great choice for DHS Secretary because she has no family and therefore can devote 100% of her life to the job.
In our ongoing feminist watch series, we discussed NOW's 2009 Feminist Agenda, and the survey that they're doing now to collect feedback on which parts of the agenda are most critical to us right now.
Great, Destra, then I don't think you should have a high-powered job in the administration either. There are plenty of people who do know better than to post pictures of themselves on Facebook doing obviously inappropriate things, especially when they're seeking very high-profile jobs.
Just saying that other people have done bad things doesn't excuse Favreau's idiocy. In fact, that's the response to this that makes me angriest. The whole problem with his action was that it didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened in the context of a society where women are groped and sexually harassed as a way of putting them in their place. See Melissa's post at shakespearessister.blogspot.com on "Owning the Context" - I won't repeat it all here.
Oh, good God, I said the man was an idiot.
My point was that it wasn't sexist, that it has happened and could've happened to either sex. And if it can occur to either sex, then it isn't specifically encouraging sexual assault to women, but people in general. So, as I said above, irresponsible, but not sexist.
Men can be sexually assaulted by women as well, you know. The fact it can happen to women is not what makes it sexist. The fact it happens to women more often than men, and is part of a general overarching attitude towards women, is what makes it sexist.
I do know that women can sexually assault men too. That's why I said "encouraging sexual assault to ... people in general," meaning women AND men.
Look, I know what you and Pig are trying to say. Yes, women are sexually assaulted far more than men. Yes, it is our society that objectifies women and excuses violence against them. I know that you are trying to say that any example of any violence against women perpetuates that, but my point is that if the violence is directed at both sexes equally (like say in bank robber movies where the thief is just as likely to backhand a male hostage as a female), then it cannot specifically encourage violence towards women any more than it can towards men. EQUAL encouragement means not treating the sexes differently means not sexist.
So to review: encouraging violence is bad but not sexist.
Sexual violence does NOT take place against both genders equally.
One guy is pulling her hair back and forcing beer down her, while another guy is grabbing her breast. It is extremely suggestive of the kind of sexual assault a disproportionately large number of women face, and it's not innocent. It's aggressively violating and is a severe reference to real-life, gender-based violence. At the very least, terrible PR. Do I really have to explain social context here? There's a difference between threatening McCain with a noose than Obama.
In general, I do think this pic is incredibly offensive. I don't mind people expressing sexual attraction at all (god knows I do all the time), but expressing violence and demeaning attitudes through sexual aggression is not ok, towards either gender. It's worse due to his current and desired position.
I actually just addressed the noose/black issue just before you posted. ::points to her response to Pig below::
I see sexually aggressive and violent behavior towards many politicians' images, and that if one politician happens to be a woman, then it's treating both sexes the same. Your point is that because of the violence and abuse that is put disproportionately on women in real life, that joking about it in any context is terrible. Am I summarizing your point correctly?
I think the disconnect that we are having is that I think it's ok to make light of terrible things (like violence, murder, rape) as long are you're doing it to all the different classes of people equally. That way you're not saying it's ok to do these behaviors to any one class of people. You think that this kind of joking will hurt the abused class of people by making a society where this kind of thing is accepted in real life (right? I don't want to put words in your mouth).
Having such different outlooks on life and society, I don't think that we are going to be able to come to an accord this evening.
"I think the disconnect that we are having is that I think it's ok to make light of terrible things (like violence, murder, rape) as long are you're doing it to all the different classes of people equally."
PROVE to me that sexually aggressive and suggestive behavior happens to images of males equally as to images of females. Prove to me these kinds of "jokes" happen equally to both, and that this particular man in the picture does this equally to both.
Then re: your comment below, prove to me that images of nooses are used suggestively towards white people in a proportionate way to the way they are used towards black people.
See, when you're making an argument that someone is sexist, YOU have to prove that he is. I want you to prove to me that this man is sexist, has sexist attitudes, and that this picture is sexist because the majority of sex and violence jokes out there in politics are aimed towards the women. Go on. Prove it.
YOU are the one making claims that his actions aren't sexist on the basis of the assumption that these kinds of jokes happen to men and women equally. (which you seem unable to prove, and which I think many of us doubt)
Other people were saying it WAS sexist based on the fact that sexual assault and sexual harassment happens more often to women than to men, which is something we KNOW based on numerous studies.
Sexual violence does not take place against both genders equally.
One guy is pulling her hair back and forcing beer down her, while another guy is grabbing her breast. It is extremely suggestive of the kind of sexual assault a disproportionately large number of women face, and it's not innocent. It's aggressively violating and is a severe reference to real-life, gender-based violence. At the very least, terrible PR. Do I really have to explain social context here? There's a difference between threatening McCain with a noose than Obama.
In general, I do think this pic is incredibly offensive. I don't mind people expressing sexual attraction at all (god knows I do all the time), but expressing violence and demeaning attitudes through sexual aggression is not ok, towards either gender. It's worse due to his current and desired position.
Sorry for the double post! Please delete one. :)
I read the Shakesville post that you recced. I understand the argument Melissa is trying to make. That images of you sexually molesting women have cultural baggage that come with them. Like putting a noose next to a black person. I'm directing my argument more into the "if you do it to everyone, it doesn't carry the same weight" area. I suppose the equivalent in the racism sphere would be if at Halloween, a family hung many fake corpses by nooses outside their home, some white, some black, among other races. If you have all races involved in the violence, it is furthering hatred towards one type? And if you have sexual and possessive gesture towards both sexes, is it furthering it against just one? I say no. Obviously you and others say yes.
Destra, it seems like the point you're making is that *you* would do it equally to everyone, thus rendering *your* motivations not based in sexism, so it doesn't bother you.
Which is your perogative, but that doesn't mean that since someone, somewhere, would do that to a cut out to a male candidate equally there's not sexism in that guy's actions in that particular picture. Sure, someone off camera could be doing that to McCain cut out at the very same party, or it could turn out that guy dragged the Hillary cut out around and does that at every single party.
It's not feasible to judge the picture on what might be happening elsewhere. I don't think had they been doing that to an actual unwilling woman in the picture, you'd be arguing someone, somewhere, is posing with a man like that so it's not sexist. I understand your point, an act is not sexist if it's committed on or by both sexes. However, that this is committed equally, by these men, thus negating the sexist context of the picture, is a pretty huge assumption.
There isn't a picture of them molesting John McCain's image, so where are you getting this from? Sure, hypothetically you might have a point, but the situation your describing is incredibly unlikely. You're offering a totally hypothetical situation to justify their actions, but that hypothetical situation doesn't exist, so their actions are unjustifiable, sexist, and totally inappropriate.
I've been actively live blogging my reading of Twilight and my impressions on the relationship between Bella and Edward and the way the characters actions and words set up a very unhealthy and in some ways, sexist relationship
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/im-sorry-i-almost-choked-on-your-victim-blaming/
"I've been actively live blogging my reading of Twilight and my impressions on the relationship between Bella and Edward and the way the characters actions and words set up a very unhealthy and in some ways, sexist relationship"
Check out this article:
"Romance has rebirth in pop culture : 'Twilight' and teen stars take spotlight off sex" By Don Aucoin and Joan Anderman , Globe Staff / December 6, 2008, http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2008/12/06/romance_has_rebirth_in_pop_culture/
...and the comments...
"I'm stunned at the naivete of adults where 'Edward' is concerned. Since when is abstaining from sex the only criteria in a suitable boyfriend for a teen? Yea, he doesn't pressure her for sex. But he stalks her. He is hopelessly in 'love' with her long before he knows her at all -- simply because of the scent of her blood. His mood swings would have any psychiatrist reaching for an Rx pad. Then there's that age difference -- 90 years or so? He's entirely possessive and violently jealous of her. And of course, in order to be with him, she must forfeit her life. And yet, the mommies love him.
"Sex isn't everything. Abstinence from sex isn't either. This was an entertaining book for late teens and adults. For younger readers, for whom this is their first experience of romance, of 'true love,' I find it horrifying. Wake up, Moms. If your daughter finds a non-vampire with the characteristics of Edward Cullen, heaven help her."
by insomniacmom December 06, 1:53 PM
"'Most boys are kind of cocky,' she said. 'They think they're all that, and that you would be lucky to be their girlfriend. Edward, though, is honored to be in Bella's presence. And he goes out of his way to protect her.'
"I'm all for girls making their own choices, but I find it disturbing that young women feel the need to turn to a boyfriend for protection, instead of feeling that they are strong enough to protect themselves."
by skitten410 December 06, 6:02 PM
Hmm... interesting.
My mom has not read the books, only heard of them, but she likes the concept as well. We got into an argument, as we always do about this topic.
I think she simply cannot rap her head around the fact that teenage girls could ever want to have sex. She think everytime a teenage couple has sex it must be a matter of the boy having pressured her. So, my mom thinks Edwards sounds like a very nice guy for "controlling his own needs for the sake of his girlfriend".
The thing that cracks me up is that there might be abstinence but what do they think Edwards constant desire to suck Bella's blood is supposed to signify. Vampire's blood lust has always been played as incredibly sexual desire and aggression. His trouble refraining from sucking her blood is the equivalent to wanting to rape her
Yes, and whenever I am turned on by someone who doesn't want to have sex with me, it is all I can do not to rape her. having a hot crush on someone doesn't equate with wanting to rape someone.
Yeah, having read the books including the half draft of the first book from Edward's perspective (Yeah, I know. I'm embarrassed. I had the flu, ok.) I can't get behind the 'barely not raping her'. I think ignoring how the framing of Edward being essentially an inhuman monster affects the story and interpreting it strictly through the lens of "what if he was a normal human" is deliberately removing context to make your point. If you remove the context that vampires drink human blood, the you could argue the book is about Edward's eating disorder. Willfully re-interpreting the the book by ignoring certain aspects can make endless fun, but it's not fair to judge the book by that standard.
I'm certainly not denying the books are problematic, but the interpretive cherry-picking bothers me.
What I was refering to was the fact that the act of blood drinking is often times interpreted as sexual in nature. Many stories play on the level of intimacy and erotica in the drinking of the blood. IF edward has any desire to drink Bella's blood against her will, if looking at it from a sexual point of view that would equal rape. If I was viewing him as a human than I would look at it strictly from the abstinence point of view but there is also the layer of vampire and what the drinking of her blood would mean/signify. I was just commenting on how people miss that analogy.
Yeah I see your point that if you equate sex with blood, a vampire drinking a presumably unwilling victim would be akin to rape. Even in that context, I don't think people "miss" the analogy because Bella enthusiastically consents to having Edward drink her blood. Repeatedly. And yes, the whole "all for love even unto death," is part of what's problematic. However arguing it's rape because Bella is presumably unwilling goes against the text of the book.
Incidentally, I do think the "Edward's perspective" book mitigates a lot of this because Stephanie Meyers writes Edward as just as much or more of an insecure, melodramatic puppy-lovestruck teenager.
Also, its a bit brash to dismiss Gregory's qualifications simply because he is a white male.
Ah, but I didn't say Gregory wasn't qualified for the job. I simply said that yet another white man had been given this very prestigious political journalism job. That is all.
I read that post on women of color in advertising, and I have to say that it's rather ridiculous. By the standards of the writer, you cannot include women of color in advertising at all without somehow being racist or having a racial undertone. If they conform to caucasian standards of beauty, they're being "assimilated", if they conform to African-American standards of beauty they're somehow "threatening". And by the way, some of the ads she lists where black women are "conforming to white beauty" doesn't portray anything of the sort, the women aren't beautiful in a "white way". They're just beautiful black women.
We live in a diverse world, with people of many different hues, and, sometimes, advertising reflects that (isn't that a good thing?). It's clearly the case that there is a lot of racist images in modern culture (including advertising), but this sort of analysis where you look for hidden meaning to every image with a non-white person is ridiculous.
One of the ads is for a show E!, featuring one of their on-air personalities, who happen to be black. What symbolism could you possibly read into using her in their ad? She's part of the fucking show! Should they not have included her in the ad, to avoid any implication of using her skin-color? Should they not have hired her? How is that not a hundred times worse?
I had the same response to the post. I questioned my fiance on whether or not it was me, or if the author was basically saying that you couldn't use minorities in advertising at all without either white-izing them or putting them into stereotyped boxes.
There are a lot of instances of minorities being used in racist ways, but the author goes too far in suggesting that including minorities merely for the sake of appearing tolerant and global is bad. Yes, the advertisers are obviously purposefully putting minorities in order to be diverse, but isn't it good to be diverse?
"Including minorities merely for the sake of appearing tolerant" is called tokenism, which has nothing to do with promoting real diversity. And it is a bad thing, because it is often used in an attempt to mask the true lack of diversity or the inequities that exist just beneath the surface of the commercial/photograph/etc.
So while yes, it is good to be diverse, creating the illusion of diversity in no way helps achieve that goal in a meaningful way. Many would argue that things like tokenism actually hinder the goal of increasing diversity.
I'm not sure that tokenism is a bad thing in itself. Pairing having diversity with actions that back that is obviously better. But by itself, tokenism creates an expectation by society that minorities are to be included in companies, life, and the media. And companies and government could feel more pressure to back up their ads with actual diversity.
I suppose it's an academic argument that can go either way, unless you know of any concrete examples or studies that can back your position? (I don't have anything except common sense to back my own opinion here).
Tokenism *is* a bad thing, because it implies that a company, school, whatever is trying to appear diverse when in actuality they are not. It's disingenuous and that, all by itself, is a bad thing.
Talk to people who have been "tokens". It is stressful and insulting knowing that you are supposed to be representing some supposedly monolithic group for which you are the "token", and you may also face discrimination from others who believe that you didn't really earn your position since you're "just the token ______." When you are treated as a token, you are being told that the company/school values you first and foremost for your ability to give them good PR. Not okay.
From what I have seen, tokenism does not typically serve as a stepping stone toward encouraging more diversity. It simply encourages more tokenism.
Reminds me of an episode of "Scrubs" (back in the first season, IIRC?) where Turk ended up photoshopped into his college's pamphlet covers not once, but twice in the same picture because they couldn't find any other black students. It happens again later in Sacred Heart ads/billboards.
(Now that I think of it there are very few POC in Sacred Heart, except among the nurses.)
I'm a big Carol Marin fan. She is much better than David Gregory. She has shown herself to have a real integrity and to be an excellent journalist.
But I couldn't imagine that they'd give MTP to someone who doesn't already have national name recognition. That being said I'm sure they could have found a host that wasn't white, male, and a complete tool like Gregory is.
I responded to Octagalore's post about Tina Fey in Vanity Fair with my own (about Fey, Vanity Fair, women "sexing-up" for ratings and 30 Rock.
Sigh. I tire of the ignorance of Catholicism that is shown by the eds. of Feministing, whom I otherwise love. The Vatican is objecting to the UN Declaration NOT because it believes that homosexuality is a crime, or that any nation should be treating it that way, but because the declaration ALSO states that it is a violation of human rights to discriminate against homosexuals in any way.
Which, obviously the Church opposes because it sees the writing on the wall about gay marriage, and fears (rightly, I think,) that declaring "don't discriminate against" is inevitably going to mean "you must now allow gay marriage."
Please, disagree thoughtfully with the Church's position on such things; there are plenty of ways to do that, but lay off the hateful mischaracterization. Catholicism's own dogmatic documents specifically speak against injustice or discrimination against people who are gay, for Pete's sake.
And, just to clarify, before you all get all "troll"y on me, I didn't say that I agree with the Church's position on gay marriage, just that I think they are right in seeing that the trend is going to be to make gay marriage legal by declaring it to be discriminatory NOT to.
The Catholic Church DOES believe gay behavior is a sin, though. I've read theology from the last couple of popes. I believe their positioin is that god ordained man and woman to marry and have kids, and sex is only ordained by god in the context of that relationship.
Ooh, also thanks for the link to FRIDA about the call for papers. I have been seeing more and more about feminism and disability around these parts lately and I am psyched.
@ the Sociological Images link
I would never say that advertising is past racializing ANYTHING, but I really think the poster is stretching on some of these.
What's more, she spends a lot of time deconstructing and criticizing advertisements, but never once offers an alternative. I have absolutely no problem with people calling out the media on irresponsible antics, but when your studying something that isn't entirely clear-cut, you should be prepared to offer up an alternative, ie "this is not an appropriate way to portray women of color in this context, but THIS IS." There's no such alternative here.
The problem with this post is the fact that the writer mistook real diversity for tokenism! These companies know that they have customers of many different skin-colors, so they use ads with people of different skin-colors (and I'm sorry, I don't see what is so wrong about that). There's absolutely nothing objectional what-so-ever in any of those ads, yet the very fact that there was a black person in them is enough for the writer to accuse them of some sort of subtle racism. By her standards, it would be impossible to put any people of color at all in advertising.
Even more ridiculous are her insitance that people of color in the ads are somehow conforming to a "white standard of beauty". The women in the ads are simply beautiful, not "white"-beautiful (of course, there is a huge problem concerning the ridiculous standards for beauty for women in advertising, but that is another issue altogether).
It's a ridiculous post, and it doesn't deserve a mention on feministing.
Sorry, meant that as a reply to Tofu further up in the Sociological Images thread.
Here's the issue regarding the sociological images post:
Yes, these women are black. And including them in ads are a good thing right?
Well, not in the way they did it. The facial features, the way the hair is done up- is in the stereotypical "white" way. The noses are narrow, the hair is straightened and lightened, their skin is very light.
And you could argue that they are looking for a "beautiful ideal." However, that ideal is based on white standards. The underlying attitude says basically that "its ok to be a black woman, as long as you look like a white woman."
Or better put, "Black women are beautiful and deserve to be in magazines and on TV, only if they look like white women."
"We celebate diversity, but only if they look white."
Does that help to understand the post better?
She doesn't offer alternatives because she doesn't see any yet, as she mentioned to one of her commenters. I don't remember if she was optimistic about figuring it out or not...
And Oskar, I must respectfully disagree- I am really happy to see something like this on feministing- this is something that bothers me greatly. Oh! And this post is not necessarily directed at you, your post is just the latest in a series of posts that didn't see the point in SI's blog entry.