Recently in Media Category

If you didn't listen to WBAI's Hip-Hop Takoever-Election Style this weekend, you definitely missed out. But lucky for you, we have a segment that you can listen to right here: "Politics for Goddesses Rising: Our Relevance in Election '08."

Hosted by Feministing friend jaz and Nida Khan, the show featured Rosa Clemente, VP Presidential Running Mate of Green Party and Presidential Nominee Cynthia McKinney and Kevin Powell, who is running for a Congressional seat in Brooklyn. The show takes on how women's issues are being addressed in this election; the importance of local politics and politicians, the media's lack pundits who are women of color and more...

WBAI 99.5 FM's Hip-Hop Takeover was 17 hours of non-stop hip-hop programming - but this is definitely the hour to listen to!

Say it isn't so, Helen!

In a recent interview, actor Helen Mirren talked about being raped and, shockingly, why she doesn't think women should bring date rape cases to court.

She told GQ: "I was [date-raped], yes. A couple of times.

"Not with excessive violence, or being hit, but rather being locked in a room and made to have sex against my will."

Dame Helen said it was rape if a couple engaged in sexual activity but the woman said "no" at the last second.

However, she said: "I don't think she can have that man into court under those circumstances."

Mirren said that she didn't report her own rape because "you couldn't do that in those days."

I feel terrible for Mirren, but I think her comments are really damaging. Jess at the f-word puts it best: "In reality, in this country, right now, men can rape with impunity. And in this country, right now, rapists are getting away with it because of woman-blaming attitudes."

You can always count on The New York Post to bring you the bottom-of-the-barrel headlines.

And this one is no exception.

38 year-old Elizabeth Acevedo, a human being, was murdered in Brooklyn after someone hit her in the head. The police are still looking for a suspect.

Renee at Womanist Musings has more.

Via Ren at Feministe.

Variety has recently released their 2008 "Women's Impact Report," which profiles influential women in movies, television, music, business and technology. Apparently there are only a handful of influential women of color...ugh.

Love. Love. Love.

Via Andrew.

...and, for good measure, criticizes feminists for decrying violence against women.

On his radio show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said,

Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim.

Ah yes, those ridiculous feminists trying to convince the American people that domestic violence is a bad thing -- even if she was asking for it. And that ridiculous media, daring to publish anything favorable about a black man.

I can't say I'm surprised, though. It's Limbaugh.

Seems like an appropriate moment to republish Samhita's "fuck you" to Limbaugh:

Swoon!

Clearly, they're just ASKING to be raped.

Here at Feministing, we've seen our fair share of victim-blaming articles. But this one takes the asshole, rape-apologist cake.

Trigger Warning

Peter Hitchens (yes, they're related) writes that a rape victim that was drunk "deserves less sympathy."

Wait, it gets worse. As Melissa at Shakesville points out, Hitchens makes flat out false statements like "women who get drunk are more likely to be raped than women who do not get drunk," and that rape is "the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality." (You know, because rape never happened before free love, per-marital sex, feminism, etc)

But here's the real kicker:

Of course she is culpable, just as she would be culpable if she crashed a car and injured someone while drunk, or stepped out into the traffic while drunk and was run over.

Getting drunk is not something that happens to you. It is something you do.

Melissa's response:

At this point, as you can see, Hitchens has totally lost the plot. Indeed, "getting drunk" is not something that happens to you--but getting raped is. Comparing getting behind the wheel of a car and getting held down and forcibly penetrated without consent is patently ludicrous, not to mention about as divorced from the actual experience of being raped as I can imagine. Essentially, Hitchens' argument is that women should be responsible for their choices, without ever acknowledging that rape isn't a fucking choice.

Hitchens can't seem to get his head around the idea that rapists rape women, rather than women magically "getting themselves" raped. There's so much more to say, but really, it's impossible to unpack all of the idiocy in this article (including the charming accompanying art above). So I'll leave that you, lovely readers, in comments.

Sometimes, there are no words.

Via The Curvature.

via Renee comes the latest PETA nekkid-lady ad, featuring U.S. Olympic swimmer Amanda Beard:

The argument against this ad is not that Amanda Beard is being exploited. The issue here is that once again PETA is employing the tired old tactic of using a conventionally beautiful woman with conventionally "perfect" body, posed naked or nearly naked, to call for animal rights. But the thing I hate most about this particular PETA propaganda is that it takes what should be a message of empowerment, Love-Your-Body-style, and turns it into yet another affirmation of the female ideal. As Renee puts it, "It seems that they respect the rights of animals far more than they respect women. Consider that they don't use images of male nudes, nor do they use images of women with varying body sizes."

As you'll recall, PETA has defended this advertising strategy with the weak response that "sex sells." It's an excuse I expect from Axe and Maxim, but not from a movement that is supposedly about justice.

Oh, and we're not done yet! From Debbie at Bitch (via Vegans of Color) comes the horrifying news that PETA now wants to advertise on the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico.

While many view the contentious border fence as a government fiasco, an animal rights group sees a rare opportunity.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans today to announce an unusual marketing pitch to the U.S. government: Rent us space on the fence for billboards warning illegal border crossers there is more to fear than the Border Patrol.

The billboards, in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will -- Go Vegan."

WTF?! I have no words. This is so fucked-up, even for PETA.

As a follow-up to Kayla's community blog post... Reader Anna tipped us off to the fact that the Sydney Morning Herald covered the gold medal victory of Australian women's 4x200 relay swim team with the following illustration:

Anna writes, "Yeah... they just couldn't resist. Even when women are the best in their field they still receive a pejorative term!" As far as I can tell, the caption has since been changed to "The Fab Four." Much better.

(More from Courtney on what it means when we call a woman a "gold-digger.")

In other sexist Olympics coverage, Hoyden About Town highlights this photo accompanying coverage of the Brazilian women's volleyball team. (The Sydney Morning Herald is once again the guilty party.) And this is just... disturbing.

On a more positive Olympic note, colleen on the community blog writes about her love for softball player Jennie Finch.

Rev. Steve Emmett and Joe Kelly sent out an email this week announcing that their nonprofit advocacy group, Dads and Daughters, is closing shop after ten years of frustrating and failed fundraising efforts.

Over the last ten years they've committed themselves to spreading the word about the importance of fathers (stepfathers, male influences etc.) in daughters' lives, encouraging a renewed commitment to engaged parenting on the part of men, and particularly targeting the media's often gross misrepresentation of girls and young women.

When I was writing Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, I was really interested in the role that men play in influencing their daughters' body images, and Dads and Daughters was one of the only organizations that was looking at that issue as well.

Steve and Joe recommend these resources if you're looking to investigate the father-daughter dynamic in the future:

* Future of Fatherhood: DADs co-founder Joe Kelly's online & in-person resources for Dads, Daughters, and Professionals working with families.
* Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood: coalition making the world safe and fair for all children by countering harmful effects of marketing to children.
* New Moon Girl Media: girl-run media, plus parenting resources and blog by former DADs executive Nancy Gruver.
* Girl Scout Research Institute: valuable research on the healthy development of girls.

Thanks to both of them--and all their partners--for doing this important work.

Check out this piece I co-wrote with the amazing Elaine Tyler May on the Gloucester teens. We felt like two things were really missing from the coverage last month: 1) a race analysis and 2) a historical perspective. We tried to provide both and would love to hear your thoughts. An excerpt:

Americans seem to have collective amnesia about the long history of white, "respectable" girls getting pregnant. Black, brown, immigrant and working class girls have long been the public face of teen pregnancy, thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan's racist invocation of the "welfare queen." When these young women get pregnant, it is often framed as an economic problem: who will support these babies? When young white women get pregnant, however, it is the moral question -- not the bottom line -- that fuels the debate: Who will marry these girls?

It turns out that the only thing truly unprecedented about the Gloucester girls is the way they are answering -- or more accurately, not answering -- that very question. They don't seem to want to get married.

Maggie at The Feminist Underground alerts us to the fact that, of the three presidential and one vice-presidential debates this election cycle, only one will be moderated by a woman. Gwen Ifill will be posing the questions during the VP debate.

And here's where I hand it over to Maggie to hit you with the sad stats:

Ifill had the same job back in the 2004 debates. Turns out she's the only female involved in moderating since 1992.

What's even worse is that this isn't a big step forward for the debates, instead it's a big step back. The first televised debates were in 1960, and, not surprisingly, had no female moderators or panelists. But when the next debates came in 1976, there was a significant amount of female involvement. All four debates had a female panelist or moderator. All four women from that year are excellent role models, the kind of women who entered journalism at a time when it was a heavily male-dominated industry but went on to become highly successful reporters.

From 1976 to 1988, every debate had a female moderator or panelist. In 1992, three out of four had one or more women as a panelist or moderator. Barbara Walters appeared three separate times in those years.

She goes on to explain some of the changes that have taken place at the commission that controls the debate -- and how that's contributed to the notable lack of women moderators. Read the rest.

I'd argue there are just as many accomplished, serious women in broadcast news today as there were in the '70s and '80s. Sure, there's still an element of what Samantha Bee calls the "N.I.L.F." factor in network news. But there are also a lot of female political correspondents and analysts who are just as qualified to query the presidential candidates as the white-haired old men who were chosen for the job. For one, I nominate Candy Crowley. And, for the love of god, please give Gwen Ifill one of the presidential debates next time around. Don't relegate her to the VP slot.

Copyranter points out this latest Wonderbra ad, one in a long line of...interesting takes on boobies and bras.

It seems that the Wonderbra will not only allow you to crack through glass walls (not painful at all, of course), but they'll also allow your girls to hold umbrellas, make train-riding a little more interesting, ensure that you don't have oh-so-horrible "pancake tits," and will even make you bodacious once you're dead.

You know, I think I'll stick with my un-Wonderbras - they may not make my breasts boobs-of-steel, but they also don't reduce me to a body part.

Girls Gone Wild crew supervisor Matthew O'Sullivan, 37, was arrested for sexually assaulting a 20 year-old woman on the "party bus" while the show was filming in Long Island, New York.

[Trigger Warning]

At O'Sullivan's arraignment yesterday, Suffolk County prosecutors said he and the victim started touching and kissing, which she had no problem with.

But things took a tawdry turn when he allegedly pulled down her shorts and underwear as he put his hands around her throat to keep her from running out.

The young woman was able to break free when her friends came on the bus. The pals yanked back a curtain and saw her struggling with O'Sullivan, prosecutors said.

The friends called 911 and the victim was able to flag down a passing police car...

Seriously, when is someone going to shut this fucking operation down? How many more women have to be assaulted by Joe Francis and Co. before something is done? And yeah, I realize that you can't put them out of business because of the actions of a few of their employees, but it's clear that this company breeds and condones violence against women.

Via Gothamist.

I just took this screenshot from The New York Times website; it leads to this story from the upcoming magazine about black politics and Obama. Noticeably absent from the picture is anyone with a vagina are any women. Lovely.

(The article isn't much better, save for one quote from Cheryl Contee of Jack and Jill Politics and a quick mention of Valerie Jarrett.)

The Financial Times has an interview with Gloria Steinem if you want to check it out. Not-so-favorite moment? When reporter Chrystia Freeland (fully aware of the slightly ugh nature of the question) asks Steinem if she regrets not having children.

Rebecca Traister has written a profile of Feministing crush subject Rachel Maddow for The Nation. A tiny taste:

Unlike her beautiful, bilious conservative female counterparts or the cocksure boys-on-the-bus analysts, however, Maddow didn't get here by bluster and bravado but with a combination of crisp thinking and galumphing good cheer. Remarkably, this season's discovery isn't a glossy matinee idol or a smooth-talking partisan hack but a PhD Rhodes scholar lesbian policy wonk who started as a prison AIDS activist.

SWOON.

Read the rest here.

Feministing got a request a few days ago to go on a morning show and talk about a new website that offers women a chance to find a "sugar daddy" (I don't want to give the site any traffic, so I won't link to it here). I called the producer back to chat over the logistics and encountered an ugly reminder of just how much most television producers buy into and continually shape sexist narratives.

The producer, a woman, informed me that the first segment would feature a self-proclaimed "gold digger." They were hoping I would come on the second segment and talk about how bad it is that this woman is making this choice and how it is a real step backwards for women's empowerment. Here's the dialogue (roughly) that followed:

Me: I'd actually like to offer a systemic analysis. Women are disproportionately affected by economic downturn, and beyond that, women still make 76 cents to the man's dollar.

Her: Really? Do you have data to back that up? I'd get laughed out of the office if I made that argument.

Me: There's a lot of data to back this up; it's not, like, my little theory. I could send you some very easily. Also, it might be good to bring in some analysis about objectification and the ways in which young women are taught to see their bodies as their most potent source of power. It sort of makes sense for a woman like this to resort to this website when you consider all the societal factors involved.

Her: Okay, well we were hoping for a feisty debate kind of...

Me: Oh, I can be very feisty about these issues.

Her: Okay, I'll call you back at 2pm.

Never called. Never wrote. In my fantasy, this producer lady googled some of my claims, marched into her supervisor's office, and quit because she realized she had been underpaid for years. In my sober life, I realize they probably did a really shitty segment blaming the "gold digger" for her ridiculous behavior.

Not only does this headline from 10News in San Diego victim-blame in the worst (and perhaps most common) way, the article itself is no dream either. Not once are the words 'rapist' or 'men' mentioned. Check out the lede, for example:

San Diego police are investigating a rising number of rapes involving young women who go on drinking binges, becoming too intoxicated to fight back or say "no," it was reported Tuesday.

What's so hard about instead writing, "San Diego police are investigating a rising number of rapes involving men who attack intoxicated women." It's shorter, more accurate, and doesn't blame women for being raped. It's like magic! I guess I won't be holding my breath.

This is the second time Snickers will have to pull a gay-hating commercial. (Remember this nonsense?) But this commercial is just one of many that punishes men for being too "feminine," whether it's growing breasts after having the audacity to cry at the movies or being crushed by a giant beer can after screaming "like a girl." Anxious masculinity, anyone?

Via Consumerist and community blogger shellchin.

UPDATE: Renee has more.

Because I certainly do. And my crush was re-established last night when I got to see her in action (along with Paul Rieckhoff) at Lizz Winstead's Shoot the Messenger. It was bad-ass. Since a video of the show won't be up right away, I figured I'd get my Maddow-fix elsewhere for now. Above is a somewhat recent video of her take on McCain's birth control stumble, which also features the super cool Nation editor (and fellow outer borough native) Chris Hayes. Enjoy!

Those sly foxes are at it again, this time doing a highly complex analysis of whether sexism still exists, prompted by Katie Couric's recent comment that sexism is more pervasive than racism (when is the ridiculous oppression olympics ever going to end?!).

An excerpt of the enlightening conversation:

KILMEADE: I don't see it. I look at women and say, "Hey! Hey equal!"

DOOCY: No, what you say is, "Hey, honey! Get me a sandwich!"

KILMEADE: No, I don't say, "Honey, get me a sandwich!"

DOOCY: I do! Sweetie!

CARLSON: This is a slippery slope. So I think we should just end the discussion and move on to something else.

To see the full clip, go to Think Progress.

I don't know what's more irritating, that Kilmeade actually gets air time on national television or that Carlson--the only woman present--doesn't tell him to stop being a patronizing asshole. Or um, maybe it's even more irritating that Fox tries to analyze whether sexism still exists (ah, yeah) while invoking the most sexist cliche in the book. It's like analyzing whether the corporate conglomerate media big wigs are biased by asking Rupert Murdoch. Ah, yeah.

Ophelia at Feminocracy observes something about the language used to discuss two very similar -- and very tragic -- cases in which a pregnant woman was murdered, her uterus cut open, and the fetus stolen.

The details provided about Kia Johnson's death are gory and detailed. Words like "eviscerated" jump out at you as you read the account. They call her a corpse. They note that the foul smell emitting from the body that was in "moderate decomposition" is how they found her.

Bobbie Jo Stinnet is called a "slain mom", a "pregnant woman" who had her "womb" cut open.

Kia is an "eviscerated pregnant teen."

Yes, there were gory descriptions of Bobbie Jo Stinnett's murder published, too. But I do notice a difference in tone -- especially in the headlines -- between the coverage of her and that of Kia Johnson. I think it's less subtle when you see those headlines (all from CNN) next to the pictures of these women:

Maybe this particularly resonates with me because I work as an editor, and I see it as a heartbreaking example of why language matters. How word choice can humanize (and dehumanize). How racism can pervade what probably, to the writer of those CNN headlines, seemed like straightforward, cut-and-dried sentences.

Pic from Time.

I nearly lost my mind when I read this gushing piece from Time Magazine about purity balls.

What was amazing to me about the reporting of this article was despite hearing all of these creepy anecdotes - and admitting that girls as young as four are participating in a ceremony about their virginity - writer Nancy Gibbs still managed to be smitten over the whole shebang. (One of the subheads actually reads 'A Delicate Dance')

But first...a creepy anecdote.

Kylie Miraldi has come from California to celebrate her 18th birthday tonight. She'll be going to San Jose State on a volleyball scholarship next year. Her father, who looks a little like Superman, is on the dance floor with one of her sisters; he turns out to be Dean Miraldi, a former offensive lineman with the Philadelphia Eagles. When Kylie was 13, her parents took her on a hike in Lake Tahoe, Calif. "We discussed what it means to be a teenager in today's world," she says. They gave her a charm for her bracelet--a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. "On my wedding day, he'll give it to my husband," she explains. "It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I'm supposed to be loved."

Paging Dr. Freud! But Gibbs is loving it.

Leave aside for a moment the critics who recoil at the symbols, the patriarchy, the very use of the term purity, with its shadow of stains and stigma. Whatever guests came looking for, they are likely to come away with something unexpected. The goal seems less about making judgments than about making memories.

And making sure young women think their worth is dependent on whether or not they're sexual. So, no Ms. Gibbs, I think I won't "leave aside" that very real and very dangerous message. Thanks anyway!

Gibbs continues to totally miss the point:

Purity is certainly a loaded word--but is there anyone who thinks it's a good idea for 12-year-olds to have sex? Or a bad idea for fathers to be engaged in the lives of their daughters and promise to practice what they preach? Parents won't necessarily say this out loud, but isn't it better to set the bar high and miss than not even try?

Are families who don't expect their daughters to promise their virginity to their dads promoting sex for 12 year-olds? Can't dads be engaged in the lives of their daughters without worrying about the state of their hymen? And is telling women that their moral compass lays in between their legs really setting the bar high?

Flowery language and valorizing these days doesn't change what purity balls are about: the ownership and fetishizing of young girls' sexuality. Perhaps someone should remind Time of that fact.

via Copyranter, this ad's a real gem:

The text says: "You know you're not the first. BMW Premium Selection Used Cars." (Larger version here.)

A really charming message: Because lots of other men have driven this car fucked this woman, you know she'll be a good ride. Tracy at Broadsheet parses it this way: "Used cars, used women -- get it?!" Charming.

When I visit my mom, I love to cozy up to her More and, I admit it, O Magazine, and read about just-released novels, the latest science on happiness and resilience, and long beautiful personal essays on death, love, aging. I feel a little like my second grade self sitting at the feet of my babysitter, Carly, and listening to her talk on the phone while she flips through a Sassy Magazine (the old school style).

I know I'm not the target audience (and I recognize that some of their content sucks too), but it feels nice to read pieces that actually teach me something or move me in women's magazines. Too often, the magazines targeted at my age group are chock full of anxiety-inducing body features (even when they claim to be giving you a "body image makeover" it tends to feel like they're secretly making you hate yourself), fluff pieces on what kind of sex you're supposed to be having, and shock-and-awe memoir by women who were kidnapped by a cult or discovered that their mother was their sister etc. etc.

The editors at these magazines, I imagine, would argue that they are just supplying the demand, that young women ask them for this kind of content in letters and focus groups.
But where are the women who ache for these anxiety-inducing sex columns and another frickin' article on working out? Why is it that older women seem to want complex personal essay and complex features on cutting-edge science, reviews of literary novels etc., but we youngin's just want fashionfashionfashion?

What would your dream magazine contain? Mine:

Lots of personal essays by really smart, funny women
Reviews of memoir and novels, indy movies and music
Profiles of social entrepreneurs, feminists, great thinkers
Cutting edge science that features legitimate peer-reviewed studies on health, psychology, and the environment
Op-eds where women take different points of view on complicated issues
Photo spreads featuring women with diverse body types wearing gorgeous, original, affordable clothing
Those awesome spreads where a magazine takes an issue--like the wedding industry--and gives all kinds of fascinating facts and figures (my favorite version of this is in Mother Jones)

Sitting in on the interview with creators of the Midwest Teen Sex Show. They are awesome. When asked why they started MTSS they said, "We started by doing something that was funny and entertain ourselves." It has turned into one of the most effective forms of harm reduction around young people and sex, along with educational and honest.

The moderator asks, "Why is humor so effective in trying to reach this audience?" They reply, "Sex is funny, repackaging info in a way people will listen. Not talking down to kids (and sometimes) we are making fun of them. We are building a relationship with youth through humor."

In my opinion everything should have more humor and MTSS is a great use of humor while putting out information for young people around sex and sexuality. Because of the nature of their content they have gotten negative feedback along with positive, but hey, isn't is always like that.

When asked about their favorite episode they chose this the older boyfriend.

They also gave a Feministing shout out from the stage! Thanks Nikol and Guy. We love you!

I am sitting in the panel "Totally Wired Hip-hop: Reaching Urban Youth." Lynne D Johnson is moderating this panel that features MC Hammer, Adisa Banjoko from the Hip-Hop Chess Federation and Jesus Lara from MTV Latin America. I guess you are wondering why I am sitting at a panel on how to market to the hip-hop youth. Since my job is supporting strategic communications in disenfranchised communities, I am interested in how marketing is important in the hip-hop urban youth community.

Lynne asks "when we talk about hip-hop youth, we mean black and Latino youth, how is this relevant?" Panelists respond discussing how hip-hop is a lifestyle and culture along with a form of musical expression. Hip-hop is global and always mixing with other forms of music and reproducing new and unique sub-cultures.

I think it is very important to think about and strategize how to reach youth of color, but I have more questions about what kind of content we are pushing and what behaviors we are asking of youth. How is simply reaching youth effective or important if they are being hand fed content that is ignorant, racist, sexist or merely marketing product?

But this is not a call for increased censorship. I completely support the flow of diverse forms of content. As Lynne just said, "sometimes the only way to get your message across is by using profanity." I definitely do not fall in the camp of "turn off that profane rap music!" I think the bigger question is what does the messages in mainstream hip hop tell us about lived conditions about urban youth of color? What marketers don't care about is the images that sell the most are glamorized visions of "ghetto life" which is not that glamorous in real life.

MC Hammer smartly asks, "How do we change the conditions and environment that are producing these songs?"

My bigger question is what is the role of gender in marketing to youth via hip-hop? Why is sexist and homophobic music the most popular and what does tell us about current conditions for youth of color? And finally, how does feminism need to broaden to understand how to address the representation of women of color in mainstream hip-hop that is heavily marketed to youth?

I will be repping Feministing at Y-Pulse today. If you are there please say hello! Here is the information and expect some live blogging.

From today's New York Times:

Indian versions of Vogue, Rolling Stone, OK!, Hello, Maxim, FHM, Golf Digest, People and Marie Claire have all sprung up this year, and GQ and Fortune are soon to follow. They join familiar names like Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping and Reader's Digest. [...]

Some, like Maxim, seem to pride themselves on pushing the envelope of good taste even further than they do in their home markets. The magazine's July issue includes the feature "48 Ways to Get a Gori" (gori is Hindi for fair-skinned woman, and is used in this context to mean a foreign white one). Some ideas the article offers: keep in mind most American women are extremely angry at Indians for stealing their jobs; don't ask an Italian woman if her family is part of the mob; to approach an Israeli woman, try a suicide bomber joke.

Ugh.

(h/t Isaac.)

via Michelle Obama Watch, this video from Brave New Films is a stomach-churning reel of all the vile Fox News clips about Michelle Obama. We've blogged about several of these individual incidents, but it's pretty appalling to see them all put together like this:

Isn't it depressing that the election is still months away and already there are this many examples? Brave New Films has a rundown of what's in the video, and a petition you can sign to tell Fox to stop the racist, sexist smears.

So a reader sent along this article about a Pakistani man in Georgia that strangled his daughter because she didn't want to get married to the man they had arranged for her to marry.

The Clayton County Medical Examiner confirmed that Kanwal died of strangulation. Police recovered an iron by the young woman's bedroom doorway and a necklace on a family room table that may have been used in the killing, according to a Clayton County police report.

Authorities allege that Rashid killed his daughter because he feared that her resistance to a recently arranged marriage would disgrace the Pakistani-American family.

Sounds so simple right? He killed her because his "culture" made him. Not because he might be mentally ill or pathological. There is no denying that in basically every culture there is pressure put on women to act a certain way and especially with regard to marriage or the ownership of her sexuality. But the way that "honor" killing is discussed in the media you would think it is some normal cultural phenomena, when it is not. It is a sign of illness, culture gone awry and patriarchy at its most exaggerated.

In a ground-breaking essay, that I recommend you read if you are into theory, Leti Volpp talks about the notion of the cultural defense. One of the moments that this plays out is through the justification of violence against women as a cultural norm (usually based on racist ideas of culture).

It appears that there are two ways the mainstream US media talk about "honor" killings. The first is in a way the demonizes the horrid, brown, ugly, probably terrorist perpetrator, that is trying to hurt the innocent child like brown female that must be saved. Or making assumptions about the role of women in a given non-American culture as much more misogynist than our own and thereby engages in these forms of blatant abuse of patriarchal power that are cultural.

Neither scenario gives us much hope for how the case will go or allows for an intersectional analysis of the ways gender, culture and power play out. And when it is revolving around a violent murder of a young woman, it is very difficult to understand the nuance.

via.

I say that's hilarious considering who this is coming from. I'm a week late on this, but it's a necessary mention. Via Think Progress:

Kristol: I think Hillary Clinton was gracious, she's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated. I'm appalled by it, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party, you know...we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women. That's why McCain is going to put Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, on the ticket.

This is coming from a guy who said that "white women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that" and was named in the Media Hall of Shame by the National Organization for Women.

Inspired by a ten page article about Rush in NYTimes Magazine, I figured this was FU worthy. Rush has been spewing crap since I was a wee one and his frequently unfounded and baseless arguments are clearly constructed to be controversial, but actually affects public opinion. This is scary.

(I know I need to get a real camera.)

Thanks to George for the link.