Recently in Media Category

Seems that some people are upset that one of the models on Teen Vogue's November cover is pregnant.

19 year-old Jourdan Dunn isn't visibly pregnant, but talks about her pregnancy in the magazine.

The cover has raised eyebrows among some parents, teens and advocates against teen pregnancy.

"There's no message to send to them that that's not OK. Maybe if she's on the cover to tell them 'Be careful,' that's one thing," said Catherine Essig, a 19-year-old sophomore at Dallas' Southern Methodist University, who was concerned about 15- and 16-year-old readers.

Many advocates said parents should use the cover as a way to talk to their kids about sex and the importance of planning pregnancies for the right moment in their lives.

"Teen parenting isn't glamorous, even if you are a teen model," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

First of all, I'm not sure why this magazine cover is scandalous and this one isn't. Teen pregnancy is talked about and featured everywhere - from glamorized pics of Bristol Palin to MTV''s 16 and Pregnant. And the fact is, the teen pregnancy is a reality - the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. went up for the second year in a row for the first time in a decade (thanks, abstinence-only education!). Is it really better to hide the issue?

I understand concerns about making teen pregnancy seem "cool," but I don't think that shaming young women who are pregnant or ignoring their existence is an answer. As Teen Vogue Editor-in-Chief Amy Astley said, "Teen pregnancy is a difficult, real-life issue that Teen Vogue readers (with an average age of 18) are mature enough to be exposed to...[we] felt it was important to support, not punish, Jourdan." Agreed.

Earlier this year, Rihanna became the center for a media spectacle after being attacked by then boyfriend Chris Brown and having pictures of her released. Brown has made several public appearances, "apologizing," and defending himself. But Rihanna hadn't made a peep, it was just continual speculation about whether it was her fault (!) or if they had gotten back together.

Well, Rihanna is speaking out now. She will be on the Today Show this Thursday, along with 20/20 this Friday and is featured in the December issue of Glamour. Some bits of her interviews have been released and she is putting forth the words of a confident, young woman that got the support she needed to deal with this painful and humiliating situation.

Speaking to "Good Morning America," the singer will send the message, "This happened to me. ... It can happen to anyone," according to excerpts of the interview released on Tuesday (November 3).

Rihanna, 21, also reportedly tells Diane Sawyer that the attack by Brown was especially difficult because of how she felt about him before the incident occurred. "He was definitely my first big love," she said in an interview that will continue on Friday night's "20/20."

The singer also opened up for the December issue of Glamour magazine, describing how she coped with the aftermath of the assault. "I went to sleep as Rihanna and woke up as Britney Spears," she said in the Women of the Year issue, out on November 10. "That was the level of media chaos that happened the next day. It was like, 'What, there are helicopters circling my house? There are 100 people in my cul-de-sac? What do you mean, I can't go back home?' "

Last month, the announcement that Marge Simpson, everyone's favorite overworked and underappreciated cartoon mom, would grace the cover of the November issue of Playboy, caught some observers by surprise. I was not one of them. After all, Playboy has always depicted women as cartoonish and two-dimensional: the only thing that really sets this particular cover girl apart is that she has blue hair and eight fingers.

Women with cartoonish proportions and features are and have long been Playboy's bread and butter. When you open up a copy of Playboy, or of any other mainstream soft core porn magazine, the images of women you're likely to find there are a far cry from reality. Surgically augmented breasts, topiaried pubic hair, uncomfortable-looking poses and often-overzealous airbrushing are porn industry standards and the result is that flipping through a copy of Playboy can leave you with a sneaking suspicion that the women staring seductively back at you aren't quite real. Given its long-standing tradition of printing photos of women whose bodies look like cartoonish exaggerations of the female form, it was only a matter of time before Playboy gave up on human women altogether, and started putting actual cartoons in the centerfold.

With Olympia Snowe's surprise vote this week during the passing of the Senate Finance Committee's health care reform legislation, conservative pundits are taking any sexist shots they can at a woman with power who, like, uses it. Media Matters has a good round up, which are pretty ridiculous:

Savage dubs Snowe "Jezebel." After airing a clip of Snowe discussing her vote, Savage played a portion of the song "Jezebel" by Frankie Laine that included the lyrics, "If ever the devil was born without a pair of horns, it was you. Jezebel, it was you." Savage added, "Jezebel is Olympia Snowe. Of course she has thrown over with the turncoats who have stabbed America in the back, dragging us into a socialized medical system against the will of the majority of the American people." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 10/13/09]

Limbaugh: The "voice of the new castrati, those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage" applaud Snowe for health care reform support. Anticipating that Snowe was "going to vote yes" on the Finance Committee's health care reform bill, Limbaugh attacked Snowe by praising the "bipartisanship" of the bill using "the voice of the new castrati." Limbaugh described the "new castrati" as "those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage throughout our culture and our political system." Limbaugh has previously described the "new castrati" as supporters of Hillary Clinton. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/13/09]

Not to mention Jim Quinn dedicated the Garbage song, "Stupid Girl" to Snowe and Limbaugh referred to Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins by saying, "'Women, damn it.'"

And I doubt this is the end of it. Misogynists, damn it.

Nan Robertson died last night.

She was the author of The Girls in the Balcony, a book chronicling the class-action gender-discrimination lawsuit brought by female employees of The New York Times. (The title refers to the standing-room-only accommodations for female journalists at Washington's National Press Club before it admitted women as members in 1971.) Because the case was settled out of court, Robertson's book remains the most comprehensive account of discrimination experienced by women at the Times in the 60s and 70s.

Robertson also won a Pulitzer Prize in 1983 for an article chronicling her near-death experience from toxic shock syndrome (TSS). While her illness wasn't caused by a tampon, she helped to raise awareness about the risks of tampon use.

A totally inspirational, pioneering woman journalist. She will be missed.

Amanda Marcotte has a piece up at the Guardian giving us the many reasons as to why Rachel Maddow has become the best talk show host in the country.

So, as you know from Military Missive Part One, I'm having an adventure in military life and culture this week. Through out the briefings I've attended, the facilities I've toured, and the panels I've observed, a few things have been foremost on my mind--first among them my interest in holding the military accountable for the epidemic of military sexual assault that takes place.

First I have to admit that this whole experience has been far more trees than forest. In other words, we've focused much more on the nuts and bolts of military training, protocol, and infrastructure than we have on bigger social, organizational, and moral questions. Thus, it's been sort of hard to figure out when to ask various military leaders about my concerns. (For official military speak on the issue, go to thise site.) In any case, you know that a little awkwardness can't keep me quiet, so here's an account of my attempts to get answers:

First I questioned a strategic communications officer--a likable guy who told us all about the army's changing philosophy of "engagement." According to him, the priority is to become "an agent of change" (yes, they are using this exact language) and shift the army's reputation from "cumbersome and bureaucratic to coordinated, collaborative, and cooperative." Great, I asked him, then what is the army doing about the military sexual assault problem. His answer:

I personally have never experienced an issue with gender.

Second...

I've been in two unlikely places this week--Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. That's right, I've left behind my Brooklyn coffee shops and my MLK books for an adventure in military culture.

The Media & the Military Workshop, a collaboration between the University of Kansas Journalism School and the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, is in its second year (funded by the McCormick Foundation). It is an attempt to help journalists understand the military better, and visa versa. A group of about 25 of us have been learning about the military, meeting new soldiers, and even experiencing a bit of life inside (I did "PT," aka physical training, at 4:30am yesterday with a group of soldiers!).

It's been thrilling to have the experience to really learn firsthand about an institution that I have such complex feelings about.

As some of you may know, I've become increasingly interested in veterans' affairs over the last few years because my dear cousin Lang was in the Marines and served two tours of duty in Iraq, and also because I wrote an in-depth profile of Maricela Guzman, an amazing veteran activist who co-founded the Service Women's Action Network. This led me to write frequent columns on the topics of military sexual assault, veterans' benefits etc. While I've learned a lot from my interviews, and even a trip to a Congressional Round Table of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in DC, I felt like I was lacking in very basic knowledge about how the military works, and how those involved in it relate to their work.

I'm particularly interested in--shocker, I know--the intersections of gender and class in the military and military culture, more generally. Stay tuned for Part Two to hear some of my insights after a few days in the trenches...

Women, Action and the Media (WAM!) Director Jaclyn Friedman sent out an email blast yesterday with some big news about WAM! The organization is in transition, and becoming an entity independent of the organization it was born from, the Center for New Words. They've got big plans for the new WAM! including a national focus, local chapters to provide regional support and more.

We won't lie -- it's not going to be easy. In order for the new WAM! to succeed, we have to find brand-new sources of funding at a time when many funders are having a hard time even fulfilling their existing commitments. But we have one thing most organizations don't have: YOU.

Around the country and globe, there are thousands of women who consider themselves WAM!mers. If you're reading this, it's likely you're one of them. Maybe you've had your work published or produced because of WAM!. Maybe you've found a source or a story you wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe you've been exposed to a new idea that's changed the way you see the world, or changed the kind of media you're working to create. Maybe you were inspired to action. Maybe you got the chance to inspire others to action. Maybe you connected with someone who's become a valuable friend or colleague, or plugged in to a community that helps you feel less alone and more energized.

Whatever your story, if you've ever considered yourself a part of the WAM! community -- or even wanted to -- this is the moment to be counted. You are WAM!, and what you do right now will determine WAM's future.

The sad news is that the WAM! Conference, for which they are known, is being postponed until March 2011. WAM! was my first in person introduction to the world of feminist media and it remains an amazing gathering place for all sorts of writers, filmmakers and media folks focused on bringing the lens of gender to their work. I don't want to see it go.

Join the fundraising campaign that will set WAM! up to begin it's new phase. They've set a lofty goal to raise $30,000 by October 20th. You can donate by going here, and as always, every little bit counts.

A September 16 Research 2000 poll reports 48% of Maine voters support taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples, 46% oppose, and 6% remain undecided. This close race merits some media analysis.

One nefarious aspect of the Yes on Proposition 1 effort is its similarity to the Yes on 8 effort in California. Here is a radio ad in support of Proposition 1:

"The chair recognizes the representative from Brunswick."

(Narrator) Special interest groups got the legislature to approve homosexual marriage and tried to prevent Mainers from voting on it.

(Representative Charlie Priest) "We ought not to send it out to referendum."

(Narrator) But Question 1 gives us our vote.

(Scott Fitzgibbon, professor of law from Boston College Law School) "Unless Question 1 passes there will be real consequences for Mainers. It will no longer be live and let live. Homosexual marriage will be the law whether Mainers like it or not."

"Dear Governor Baldacci, we write to provide you with an analysis of the effects..."

(Narrator) Distinguished legal scholars wrote the Governor warning of the flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious groups. Church organizations could lose their tax exemption. And in Massachusetts, homosexual marriage is taught in public schools. Federal courts have ruled that parents have no right to notice, or to pull their children out of this instruction. Vote Yes on Question 1 to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman. 

Compare that to this TV ad in support of Proposition 8:

This video is really poignant in addressing the ways in which Africa is so often overgeneralized, pitied, romanticized, historicized, and misrepresented. Check it out:

Thanks to my girl Kate for the heads up.

The Women's Media Center points out the names being thrown around for regulars on CNN's new Crossfire-like show are pretty...male:

So far, the names mentioned in consideration for the show include Roland Martin, Errol Louis, Cenk Uygur and Steve A. Smith on the left and Roe Conn, Joe Watkins, Steve Malzberg and Joe Pagliarulo on the right. Hopefully the names of the women candidates being considered for these slots will be released soon. As we often note at the WMC, despite being 51% of the population, women hold only 3% of clout positions in media. And as the the recent success of Rachel Maddow has shown, news consumers are hungry for a break from all-male news shows.

No joke. Who would you want to see on this new show? (My top picks would be Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Rinku Sen.)

It was announced yesterday that current Good Morning America anchor Diane Sawyer will serve as the next ABC World News anchor, beginning in January 2010. (Charles Gibson, who has served as anchor of World News since May of 2006, is retiring.)

Carol Jenkins, the President of the Women's Media Center, called it a "watershed moment in the presence of women in media" in her reaction on the Majority Post. Sawyer, of course, is the second to shatter the nightly news glass ceiling, Katie Couric of CBS News being the first.

The question on my mind, and I imagine most feminists', is: Will Sawyer receive the same kind of scrutiny that Couric has? Of course there have been moments when Couric earned her own criticism. Remember this?

Ugh ugh ugh.

But other times it has seemed as if Couric has been judged more harshly than her male counterparts. Hell, even her own network photo-shopped her thinner!

On the occasion of her second anniversary in the high-pressure position, Couric attested:

It's not always easy when you feel like you're being attacked, when you can't win for losing at times. But I do think quality really prevails, if we just stay focused and continue to do really good work. It was really wonderful when we got the Edward R. Murrow Award for best newscast. It was sort of like, you know, just look at our show and don't look at my hair.

Another issue, which Ann reported on back in the day, is that "Broadcasting & Cable reports that in the six weeks since Katie Couric has taken over the anchor's chair, female reporters and correspondents on the CBS Evening News have recevied 40% fewer assignments." Will the same happen over at ABC?

Sawyer seems like a perfectly decent interviewer and a hardworking journalist, but I'm also struck that she fits into the "Newsmommy model" that Ann reported on back when Couric was chosen--essentially that the networks are choosing women who are non-threatening, aka maternal, for the top positions so as not to freak out viewers still not used to the idea that women can be assertive, independent, and--gasp--childless.

Another part of me is thrilled because I think that having two women in these coveted spots will lessen some of the pressure felt by the initial trailblazer. If Sawyer's newscast doesn't do well, as Couric hasn't, then people won't be able to blame it solely on her sex. Perhaps critics will get more used to seeing women in this traditionally male media position and start to look at the work, not the haircut.

Your thoughts? Are you excited about Sawyer taking over or do you predict more backlash?

Possibly triggering

Has anyone seen this movie? A friend of mine passed it on as something to maybe show in the Gender & Pop Culture class I'm teaching at Rutgers this semester, but I thought I'd see if any lovely Feministing readers could tell me more about it first. It seems like a combination of Killing Us Softly and Tough Guise - and those two filmmakers are featured in this clip. The short bit on hip hop gave me pause - I think Byron Hurt's Beyond Beats and Rhymes is probably better for that subject. Any thoughts?

From the early 80s...

And now.

I've been a huge fan of Bitch Magazine ever since I discovered it in my college library. I've been an avid subscriber, supporter, and even had a Love it Shove it piece published there a few years ago. Trust me, getting that edition in the mail was one of my most exciting writer moments.

I've been eagerly awaiting the Fall edition of the magazine, which was delayed by a redesign and organizational changes.

Yesterday, it came in the mail. Unfortunately, I couldn't find an online replica of the new design, so I old-school scanned on of the pages from the new edition, it's after the jump.

I love you Bitch, but why so much pink??

The new design of the magazine is in color (great!) but the color makes it kind of blinding to read. It's a bubble gum/hot pink and it's just too much. I don't mind the headlines, the title boxes, the pink accents. But a good percentage of the graphics and photos are also pink hued (see scanned page after the jump). It makes it hard to read and unpleasant.

Any color, used this way, would produce a similar effect. But I still have to ask the question--why pink? As a magazine that has always been an amazing feminist critique of pop culture, I think we've seen enough pink to last us quite a while--in every product and commercial targeted to women. I'm not a pink hating feminist, but I can't help but seriously question this design decision.

I've worked on enough publications to know that a muti-colored layout would be way more expensive, but to be honest I prefer the old black and white version to this pink mania.

Update: I got this email from Andi Zeisler, Editor of Bitch (I had emailed her to let her know about my post):

Since this was our first issue with spot color, we expected some technical difficulties with the transition from black-and-white to spot color. Because of this, we decided to use magenta, which as one of the four process color makes it a known quantity -- you know what to expect and there are generally few unpleasant surprises in the printing process. Aesthetically, we felt like it announced Bitch's new look in a way that was fun and splashy, and since the Bitch website uses bright, poppy colors, the magenta fits well with the color palette we've been developing.

As for the girly implications of the color pink, obviously we're aware that pink still signifies a lot with regard to women and representation, and this issue was meant to neither comment on that nor reclaim it. Bitch has always engaged with the varied meanings of the color (you might recall that we did a whole Pink Issue back in 2001), and we're really not interested in either writing it off entirely or embracing it in an ironic, pink-can-be-feminist-too! way. For this particular issue, the color choice was an aesthetic and practical decision, and we're very happy with it. We did expect that some people wouldn't be, but we're also well aware that we won't please everyone every time.

Also Bitch previewed the new design on their facebook group--if you search through it you can find images of this edition. I'm happy to hear that the pink is not permanent, and interested to see how the spot color turns out in future issues.

You know, it's been a really long time since I thought about pageants.* Yes, every once in a while we see a beauty queen get shamed for some pseudo-controversial picture and everyone shakes their head in mock disapproval - but pageants themselves? I don't tend to give them much mind; they seem too silly to expend feminist energy on.

Boy was I stupid.

When I was clicking around my television Sunday night I landed on the Miss Universe pageant and I was transfixed. I guess I forgot how utterly ridiculous and gross these things are. But it occurred to me that a pageant where women are parading around - and literally being judged on how they look in a bikini - could be feminism's best friend. I mean, what proves the existence of nationwide sexism better than the Miss Universe pageant (or Miss USA, Miss Teen USA, etc)? Just a thought.

Oh, and for fun - here's the winning contestants final question and answer. (Hint: It's not feminist.)

Sigh.

*I wrote about them a bit in The Purity Myth, but only in terms of how the beauty queen fall-from-grace fits into the virgin/whore dynamic.

I promise I'm not just posting this episode of WBAI's Healthstyles because I'm interviewed on it. The awesome Tristin Aaron of the Women's Media Center guest-hosted this show and interviewed me, Jaclyn Friedman, and Jennifer Block - author of the great book Pushed: The painful truth about birth and modern maternity care. Tristin, Jaclyn and Jennifer are some seriously smart and compelling women - so please give a listen.

I really like Fast Company's coverage--they manage to produce a lot of fresh, interesting material that isn't just about fuddy duddy notions of business, but the intersections of sustainability, design, creativity, leadership, innovation etc. (Full disclosure: I'm one of those nerds who likes futurist talk about where the world is headed culturally, technologically, sociologically etc.).

That's why I was purdy disappointed to find that only 24 of the top 100 of their "Most Creative People in Business" list were women. Really Fast Company? Women are launching businesses at twice the rate of men. Super innovative microlending businesses are taking the world by storm, largely led by the efforts of women. Between 1997 and 2006, the number of majority women-owned businesses increased 42%.

I'm not going to trot out gender stereotypes about women being more creative than men, but God knows we're as creative as men. We may be historically less likely to get involved in business, but all that's changing in a huge way, and I would guess, the women who are blazing trails in business are largely doing it in creative ways (out of both necessity and ingenuity). I don't claim to be a business expert, but this just seems short-sighted on the part of the Fast Company editorial team, who touts themselves as quintessentially big-picture and future-thinking.

The seven women in the top 25, FYI, are: Melinda Gates, Michelle Ganeless, Stella McCartney, Susan Athey, Trish Adams, Dawn Danby, Jil Sander.

Feel free to put your nominations in comments.

Spencer Jones and Tyler Barrick were married at San Francisco City Hall on June 17, 2008, the first day California gay couples were legally allowed to do so.

Happily ever after? Well, sort of. But now their hometown paper, The Spectrum, in St. George, Utah, refuses to publish their wedding announcement. An excerpt from the gladd blog:

At first, the paper said they could run the announcement in the "celebrations" section of the paper - but only if there was no picture.

Jones and Barrick objected to being told their picture would be excluded, and in response president and publisher Donnie Welch decided that no announcement would run at all. He told the couple, "As our policy is to run marriage announcements recognized by Utah Law, I have made the decision to not run this announcement."

They are trying to get as many people as possible to email and call the publisher over the next few days, so do your part if you've got an extra minute:
Donnie Welch, President/Publisher, The Spectrum
435-674-6222
dwelch@thespectrum.com

On Tuesday, George Sodini opened fire in a gym outside Pittsburgh, killing three women at injuring at least ten others. It was a crime he had planned for months - and it was a crime that targeted women.

The New York Post has published the full text of Sodini's blog (read with caution), where - in addition to racist ramblings - he writes about his disdain for women and his plan to kill them.

Time is moving along. Planned to have this done already. I will just keep a running log here as time passes. Many of the young girls here look so beautiful as to not be human, very edible.

...I dress good, am clean-shaven, bathe, touch of cologne - yet 30 million women rejected me - over an 18 or 25-year period. That is how I see it. Thirty million is my rough guesstimate of how many desirable single women there are. A man needs a woman for confidence.

This isn't the first gender-based misogynist shooting in recent years - in 2006 a gunman went into an Amish schoolhouse (also in Pennsylvania), sent the boys outside and opened fire on a dozen girls, killing three. That same year in Colorado, a shooter sexually assaulted six female high school students he had taken hostage, before killing one of them. When these shootings happened, the only person making the misogynist connection was Bob Herbert at The New York Times.

I'm at least glad to see that the mainstream media is reporting this as a crime against women. The Christian Science Monitor even discusses misogyny as a factor in the crime (can't remember the last time I saw that word in a mainstream news outlet):

While the gender-equality movement has made strides in the past century when it comes to some of the more blatant forms of societal misogyny, such as banning women from academic and professional settings, misogyny persists in American and other cultures around the world, according to historians.

"This killer fits into a long pattern of males who harbor hatred towards all women, the image of 'woman,' and towards individual real women, and who take out their frustration on a female scapegoat," says David Gilmore, an anthropology professor at Stony Brook University in New York and author of "Misogyny: the Male Malady."

It's also important to remember that Sodini's crime is not so different from the misogynist violence that women face every day. As Amanda writes:

George Sodini was angry at the entire world of "desirable" women for not up and volunteering to have sex with him, and every day anonymous men around the country and world beat, rape, and even kill women because said women were also considered insufficiently compliant, often to unstated demands that women were supposed to just anticipate and fill without complaint.

As ill as Sodini may have been (and it seems clear from his blog and videos that he was indeed sick), we can't separate this from the larger culture of misogyny and sexism. And also like Amanda, I find it disturbing - and downright frightening - to see how similar Sodini's writing is to a lot of MRA/NiceGuy ramblings we see so often online. Anna at Jezebel even finds some bloggers in the "pick up artist" world who say if women would have just fucked Sodini, he never would have killed.

So yes, let's continue to talk about this horrible shooting as a crime against women. But let's also make sure that we're discussing this not as an isolated crime - but as one part of an incredibly dangerous, culture-wide problem.

More at The Pursuit of Harpyness, WIMN's Voices, and Feministe.

Image via Jezebel

From Talking Points Memo:

Remember how last week, in an episode of the much-derided web series Mouthpiece Theater, Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza joked that "Mad Bitch" beer would be an appropriate beverage for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Well, after TPMDC's initial report on the episode, the Post has killed the feature entirely.

"I don't think the series worked as they intended," said Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli. "It was meant to be funny and insightful and translate the superb journalism Chris and Dana do in print and online into a new format."

But...it wasn't. The Clinton joke, he said, was "a serious lapse. . . . It's really beneath us and not something we should engage in."

Cillizza says at the end of the day the show "wasn't funny." I couldn't agree more.

Naomi Sims, who died over the weekend, has been identified in the media as the "first black supermodel" - largely because of her appearance on a 1968 cover of Ladies' Home Journal.

But Robin Givhan at The Root says the supermodel label does Sims a "huge disservice."

That wasn't Sims. She was not known for her strut or her attitude or for throwing any sort of communication devices at the help. And her relatively short career of only about five years preceded the 24-hour news cycle when a model's love life or her various temper tantrums could be cocktail chatter.

Appearing on the cover of Ladies' Home Journal--and Life magazine, too--was not some esoteric coup noted only by the fashion-obsessed. It was a cultural revelation. Sims pushed black beauty into the mainstream in a way that was more provocative and resonant than a million "black issues" of Italian Vogue.

Sims was also a successful businesswoman with a line of wigs aimed at African-American women. She was a model-turned-entrepreneur long before Tyra Banks ever uttered the word "fierce," long before Banks was even born.

For more on Sims, check out this post from Shark Fu.

As I'm sure you've already heard, journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling were freed and returned home today after more than four months jailed in North Korea.

Thirty hours ago, Ms. Ling said, "We feared that any moment we could be sent to a hard labor camp." Then, she said, they were taken to another location.

"When we walked through the doors, we saw standing before us President Bill Clinton," she said to applause. "We were shocked but we knew instantly in our hearts that the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end, and now we stand here, home and free."

Pic via Shakesville.

I'm not a player, I just shit a lot.

Can someone please tell me what's going on with women and poop lately? Seriously, it feels like every commercial I see is the sisterhood of the fucked up intestinal tract. Let me be clear. I have no problem with openness surrounding women and bodily functions - it's certainly better than the sexist women-don't-poop thing or the hilarity that dudes find in women shitting (because it means we're like actual people). But I find commercials like these, well...hard to stomach.

Ladies' insides = The Perfect Storm. I'm fairly sure that men have stomach-related problems, so why is nearly every shit-product marketed solely to women?

Take the most famous of crap-making yogurts, Activia. (Said much classier on the Activia website, which notes the yogurt will "reduce long intestinal transit time.")

Or fellow poop-pusher, Yoplait:

In a recent MSN article - How to De-Fang a Toxic Boss - one can't help but notice that the accompanying art (above) seems to be sending a pretty gendered message. Boss ladies sure are bitchy!

Just saying.

Remember the Virginia teen we wrote about who was suspended (and recommended for expulsion) when she was "caught" taking birth control at school? She's featured in a segment for The Colbert Report...

Trigger warning.

Prepare to seethe. On a popular Australian 2DayFM radio show segment where hosts "Kyle and Jackie O." have guests on to undergo a lie detector test, little did they know that the 14-year old girl who was brought by her mother and subjected to the test was a rape victim.

The girl had told Kyle Sandilands she was scared before the questions began, but they continued, in which they knew the mother intended to ask them about her daughter's sex life and drug use:

The mother then asked her daughter: "Have you ever had sex?"

The 14-year-old replied: "I've already told you the story about this ... and don't look at me and smile because it's not funny."

After a pause she then raised her voice and said: "Oh OK ... I got raped when I was 12 years old."

Sandilands hesitated before asking "Right ... is that the only experience you've had?"

The girl's mother interrupted, saying she found out about the rape only "a couple of months ago". (Emphasis mine)

The mother also added she just wanted to know if she had had any other sexual experiences. (As if the rape wasn't enough to be alarmed.) The girl also hadn't received any counseling, which the hosts claimed they'd provide if needed, telling the girl she was "off the hook" from answering any more questions.

It's hard for me to fathom how someone could subject their child to that kind of public scrutiny after surviving a rape. But whether her mother is ill, just in complete denial or the issue is more complex than it seems, it's still very upsetting. Not to mention Sandilands' complete dismissal of the rape; while he's obviously no crisis counselor, are you fucking serious dude?

You can hear the entire segment here. Community poster mindprovender also covered this.

h/t to reader Claire.

As a follow-up from Miriam's post earlier this month on noncustodial moms, we find The Today Show had a feature highlighting the issue.

Okay, here's the thing. This New York Times Magazine article about men in Japan who have romantic relationships with imaginary characters inspires nothing if not pity.

These 2-D lovers, as they are called, are a subset of otaku culture-- the obsessive fandom that has surrounded anime, manga and video games in Japan in the last decade. It's impossible to say exactly what portion of otaku are 2-D lovers, because the distinction between the two can be blurry. Like most otaku, the majority of 2-D lovers go to work, pay rent, hang out with friends (some are even married). Unlike most otaku, though, they have real romantic feelings for their toys. The less extreme might have a hidden collection of figurines based on anime characters that they go on "dates" with during off hours. A more serious 2-D lover, like Nisan, actually believes that a lumpy pillow with a drawing of a prepubescent anime character on it is his girlfriend.

That's sad, undoubtedly - and the men profiled in this piece are clearly very lonely, so it's difficult to begrudge them a fantasy life with an imaginary character. But here's the thing - not only are the men who indulge in these "relationships" lusting after characters that are supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 12 years old, one of the reasons they like them is because they're devoid of annoying things like opinions and personality. So is the perfect woman a blank-slate little girl?

Much like the Real Doll enthusiasts who tout sex with their "girlfriends" as "just like sex with an organic woman...who doesn't say anything and is brimful of Quaaludes," much of the attraction here seems to be the ability to imbue any kind of personality (or lack thereof) onto an inanimate object. And then believing that object is better than real human interaction.

"I was steps away from getting married," he explained earnestly when prodded about his experience. "You have to make sure you don't hurt a real person; you have to watch what you say, and you have to keep your room clean. In Japan, it's not O.K. to like another person if you're already with somebody else. With an anime character, you can like one character one day and a different character the next."

But this is all stuff we've discussed before (in fact, I discuss it in my book!). In this particular piece, it was the age of the characters that really got to me.

When Momo talks about Karada-chan, his mousy face lights up like a kid opening Christmas presents. "Her existence to me is like daughter, younger sister and bride all put into one."

Not. Okay. Assuming these men develop relationships with real women - will it be women that they're actually looking for, or little girls?

Related: She's Twelve, She's Scantily Clad, And a Thirty Year Old's Dating Her. She's a Pillow.

Transcript (and links) after the jump.

In this week's New Yorker there is a great profile of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. (Sorry, the full text isn't online.) Although it contained a lot of stuff I already knew about Arpaio -- that he's virulently racist, sexist, anti-immigrant; that he is dedicated to creating the most inhumane conditions possible in his jails; that he is a major attention whore -- it made a few unsettling points really hit home.

Arpaio is popular because he's hateful. He racially profiles Latinos, his ratings go up. He divides families and goes out of his way to deport peaceful people who are just here to make a living, his ratings go up. He treats jail inmates -- some of whom have not even been convicted of a crime -- as subhuman, his ratings go up. He sort of functions as a conduit for the worst impulses in our society.

The sheriff also raises a question I think about often: When do we call out hatemongers who are looking for attention, and when do we decide the best course of action is to ignore them? In Arpaio's case, I think it's important to call it out -- even though what he desires most in the world is more attention. And this is the reason:

Maricopa County is not a modest, out-of-the-way place. It includes Phoenix, covers more than nine thousand square miles, and has a population of nearly four million. Joe Arpaio has been sheriff there since 1993. He has four thousand employees, three thousand volunteer posse members, and an over-worked media-relations unit of five.

In other words, whether we like it or not, he's powerful. When it comes to the immigration issue, one federal policy that empowers him is the 287(g) provision, which essentially allows local police and sheriffs to act as national-security officials. It is this provision that has enabled Arpaio to turn his law-enforcement unit into a racial-profiling and immigrant-hunting unit. Even when this provision is wielded by non-crackpot sheriffs, Nezua points out,

It's simply not a good idea to give police, who are (in ideal) in existence to help the community, the powers to enforce the borders of the nation--a job that is normally in the province of the military

Many organizations have called for the repeal of 287(g). However, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano recently announced she is actually expanding this program, despite some evidence that in 287(g) districts like Arpaio's, actual crime-fighting is suffering because of the focus on immigrant-hunting. Let's collectively smack our palms against our foreheads, shall we?

What the New Yorker profile underscored for me is that Arpaio is more than your average Fred Phelps or Pat Buchanan-style hatemonger. He is one of the most popular politicians in Arizona. And, disgustingly, he has built that popularity by doing everything he can to push people who are on the margins of society even further out. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be closer to the center should be doing everything we can to disempower him.

It looks like the Telegraph has pulled their completely inaccurate victim-blaming piece from last week, also publishing an apology that's barely satisfying:

Owing to an editing error, our report "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists" (June 23) wrongly stated that research presented at the recent BPS conference by Sophia Shaw found that women who drink alcohol are more likely to be raped. In fact, the research found the opposite. We apologise for our error.

While the BPS has stated they're happy with Telegraph's actions, this is a completely lazy (and really not entirely accurate) correction. Nonetheless, it's good this was taken down.

h/t to Anne!

The Women's Media Center just released this assemblage of clips showing the ridiculous treatment that Sotomayor has already experienced at the hands of right-wing pundits and the mainstream media.

Take action here so that she can get the most fair nomination hearing possible.

Wow.

What's worse is that (via bioephemera) Bad Science blog found that, these weren't the findings at all, according to the researcher Sophia Shaw from the University of Leicester:

"We found no evidence that that women who are more outgoing are more likely to be raped, this is completely inaccurate, we found no difference whatsoever. The alcohol thing is also completely wrong: if anything, we found that men reported they were willing to go further with women who are completely sober. . .

When I saw the article my heart completely sank, and it made me really angry, given how sensitive this subject is. To be making claims like the Telegraph did, in my name, places all the blame on women, which is not what we were doing at all. I just felt really angry about how wrong they'd got this study."

Tell author Richard Alleyne that not only creating false news but resorting to victim-blaming for the sake of getting a "good story" is completely heinous (not to mention illegal) and demand the article be taken down. (Or contact The Telegraph directly.)

I was also found that Current reposted the Telegraph piece (trigger warning re: accompanying image); tell them to take it down.

h/t to Ele.

Exciting bit from my publisher's news this morning:

The Iranian-American journalist who was sentenced in April, 2009 to eight years in Iranian prison and freed on appeal in May following broad based international pressure, Roxana Saberi's account of her six years in Iran, her imprisonment, her trial, and her ultimate release, providing a look at Iranian society and culture, and the political tensions which have sparked debate across the globe, to Harper for publication in March, 2010.

Via Media Matters, I wasn't shocked to find that Rush Limbaugh was happy to mock the White House appointment of Adviser on Violence Against Women Lynn Rosenthal, but felt it necessary to point out his thoughts on what one who occupies the appointment would advise: "Put some ice on it."

It's a domestic violence adviser. What the hell kind of advice are you gonna get? About the only kind of advice - I mean we're talking about democrats here, right? We're talking about the party of Bill Clinton. So I assume If you're going to have a domestic policy adviser, the advice you're gonna get - put some ice on it. Your lip's a little bleeding and swollen - put some ice on it, as you leave the swanky motel room.

Domestic violence, domestic policy, same shit. Read the whole transcript after the jump; his complete inability to make sense shines through.

Note: A reader pointed out that this comment was meant to be a reference to Bill Clinton's allegation of rape against Juanita Broderick, in which in her story, she said Clinton told her to put ice on her swollen lip after the alleged attack.

Even if you don't watch reality television, or television at all for that matter, you'd be hard-pressed to avoid the recent controversy over Kate and Jon Gosselin, and their eight children. The stars of the beloved reality spectacle, Jon and Kate, Plus Eight, are divorcing. Despite salacious rumors about infidelity, they claim that it is just a gradual growing apart and, they add, the media spotlight certainly did help matters. It's hard to feel much empathy for a couple complaining of overexposure when they signed the contract that would expose their entire family, eight little children included, to 24 hour cameras.

But perhaps it's not just the media, or Jon and Kate, that are to blame. Kiri Blakeley, of Forbes.com, argues that female consumers are also culprits in this family dissolution. We're the ones hungrily scavenging for every last juicy morsel about the couple's demise, particularly the stories about what Kate did wrong, Blakeley argues. We're feeding the sexist media beast. She writes:

It's obvious who is devouring the Monster Mom headlines: Women. Research firm Mediamark estimates 73% of US Weekly's, 83% of In Touch's, and 77% of Star magazine's audience are female.

It's complicated. One of the most powerful ways in which we can practice our feminism is in our consumption choices. This can mean everything from where we buy our food to what kind of tampons we use to, yes, what magazines we read. The editors of feministing aren't afraid to admit that we've got some of our own guilty pleasures (All My Children, horror movies, reggaeton etc.), but they induce guilt for a reason--we know that our consumption of these things contradicts our values on some level.

No one's perfect. At the same time, I get incredibly sick of hearing everyone complain about the quality (or lack thereof) in the magazines marketed at women, and then turn around and support these same magazines by buying them at the airport kiosk. If we really want television programming or print media that speaks to our issues, then we need to tune into shows that reflect our desires, write letters to the magazines that don't.

It takes some self-discipline to avoid some of the more salacious crap on television and in print, that's for sure. But if we really want the media world to change, then we're going to have to start taking responsibility for our consumption choices. A guilty pleasure here or there makes us human. Blindly consuming "monster mom" stories about Kate Gosselin, celebrity weight loss exposes, or the latest Real Housewives series threatens to keep the sexist status quo very much in place.

I'm wondering how the feministing community draws the lines when it comes to television and media consumption. Do you allow yourself People magazine at the airport? Do you watch reality television that degrades women? Have you ever written a letter to the editor when a magazine did something you either loved or hated? Why or why not?

See community blogger crazyface8d on the topic.

At 12pm CDT (1pm EDT, 1800 GMT) Shark-Fu will be on BBC World's Have Your Say discussing race and the fashion industry.

Click here to listen live!

Or catch the episode on their podcast.

Shoulder-baring brides with jaunty hats are clearly strumpets.

Calling young women who are getting married "MySpace generation brides," Newsweek complains that brides today are "like a virgin no more." (I'd be outraged, but this is just too fun for me to post about to be all that angry.)

Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they'd most likely conclude--with some prompting from Cinderella--that on their big day they'd be a princess. They'd be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.

So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs. They're selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives.

Are we seriously supposed to be scandalized by back-bearing dresses and cheesy bachelorette parties with penis straws? Come on now. But apparently this article is less about how immodest brides are, and more about moral panic over women in general.

This is, after all, is a generation that is comfortable with "sexting" and posting provocative pictures of themselves on Facebook and MySpace.

Wow, MySpace and sexting in one sentence - impressive! The article goes on to point out (smugly) that women are getting married later, having raunchier bachelorette parties, having their ceremonies in locations other than churches, and living with their significant others before getting married. And we're supposed to think, I guess, that these are all bad things.

What's really interesting to me is how the media is able to frame anything as women being slutty. Fun.

(Naturally, you can find out more what I think about sex and sexism in The Purity Myth.)

TaraK on the Community blog has more.

You know, it's bad enough that PETA puts out the sexist crap that it does - but does HuffPo really need to support it?

Related posts: Sometimes there are no words
Quick Hit: PETA's Ad Banned from the Super Bowl
PETA: Cause objectifying women never gets old
When you thought PETA couldn't get worse.
PETA does it again
Same old shit from PETA

In the latest issue of Essence magazine, Queen Latifah speaks candidly about her experience with sexual abuse as a child.

For a short period of time when she was a child, Latifah was the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a teenager charged with her care. "He violated me," she says of the abuser. "I never told anybody; I just buried it as deeply as I could and kept people at an arm's distance. I never really let a person get too close to me. I could have been married years ago, but I had a commitment issue." Eventually, she opened up to her parents, who separated when she was young.

...She points out that one in four girls is sexually abused in some way. "That's 25 percent of all girls. This is a real problem," she says. Not unlike many victims of abuse, she wondered if she had played a role in what happened. Her talks with a therapist helped her find the unequivocal answer. "He said, 'Imagine yourself as an adult and think about what a child can do to you. Can they beat you? Can they defeat you? No. Now, imagine yourself as that child.' That really helped put things in perspective. I was a kid, and I had no power or control over the situation."

I have been a fan of Queen Latifah for...well, forever. And I think it's wonderful that she's talking about her experience in a way that recognizes just how common sexual abuse is. The US Department of Health and Human Services reports that 15-33% of females and 13-16% of males were sexually abused as children.

Via Racialicious.

The Women's Media Center had its first annual media awards last night at the Arthur M. Sackler Foundation (yes, the same Dr. Elizabeth Sackler who created the feminist art center at the Brooklyn Museum). The place was packed with supporters--folks who obviously recognize that the media is still sullied with sexism and must be held accountable. Think Bill O'Reilly. Think C. Gordon Liddy. Enough said. The honorees were...

Print and Broadcast Journalists:
Christiane Amanpour (CNN)
Helene Cooper (New York Times)
Candy Crowley (CNN)

Online Journalists:
Pam Spaulding (Pam's House Blend)
Rebecca Traister (Salon.com)

Broadcast Hosts:
Bonnie Erbe (To The Contrary)
Rachel Maddow (The Rachel Maddow Show)

Documentary Film:
Abigail Disney & Gini Reticker (Pray The Devil Back To Hell)

Theatre:
Lynn Nottage (Ruined)
Dolly Parton (9-5, the musical)

Entertainment:
Tina Fey (30 Rock)

Congrats to all the winners and the Women's Media Center for all the incredible work that they do.

Serious props to NPR's Nina Totenberg today. Rather than simply reporting about "concerns over Sotomayor's temperament" or allegations that she's a "bully," Totenberg actually compared audio clips of questions asked by Sotomayor and those asked by her male colleagues -- or those who would be her colleagues if she is confirmed for the Supreme Court. And -- SURPRISE! -- Sotomayor is no "meaner" than your average justice. She is just femaler.

Judge Guido Calabresi, former Yale Law School dean and Sotomayor's mentor, now says that when Sotomayor first joined the Court of Appeals, he began hearing rumors that she was overly aggressive, and he started keeping track, comparing the substance and tone of her questions with those of his male colleagues and his own questions.

"And I must say I found no difference at all. So I concluded that all that was going on was that there were some male lawyers who couldn't stand being questioned toughly by a woman," Calabresi says. "It was sexism in its most obvious form."

And what if such criticism came from a woman lawyer? Well, says Calabresi, women can be just as sexist as men in their expectations of how a woman judge should act.

This echoes so many familiar themes. Women in positions of power in the workplace are often considered meaner than their male colleagues who act the same way. And how many times have we seen a woman of color who exhibits strength and power described as threatening, "fiery," or too angry? (This is why so much effort has gone into reclaiming the term "bitch" -- if society is going to use it to describe a woman who is bold and direct, shouldn't we consider that a compliment?)

Listening to the clips, Sotomayor sounds an awful lot like John Roberts -- who did not face any concerns about his "fiery temperament" during his confirmation hearings. Totenberg exposes this talking-point for what it is: straight-up sexism, with some racism mixed in for good measure.

(For a great take on reclaiming "bitch," see Shark-Fu's post on taking back words. She also talked about this subject on NPR!)

His publicist told TMZ:

Chaz, after many years of consideration, has made the courageous decision to honor his true identity ... He is proud of his decision and grateful for the support and respect that has already been shown by his loved ones. It is Chaz's hope that his choice to transition will open the hearts and minds of the public regarding this issue, just as his 'coming out' did nearly 20 years ago.

According to Broadsheet, mainstream media outlets are handling it fairly well thus far, with the exception of (suprrise, surprise) the NY Daily News, which used the pronoun "she" when announcing the news.

We've received a ton of reader mail (and public requests) over the course of the past week asking us to blog about an article that appeared on Playboy's website about conservative women they'd "like to hate-f*ck." Several people have asked us write about it to "prove" we are against sexism and hatespeech directed at all women, regardless of their ideological orientation. Others are saying that, because we haven't blogged about this one article, which has since been taken down, we are ok with sexism directed at conservative women.

And I'm getting annoyed. Because this sounds really familiar. During the presidential campaign (and long after) conservatives liked to invent a narrative in which feminists did not decry sexism directed at Sarah Palin. These poor souls are all apparently unable to use The Google. Because if they were, they would have turned up:

Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: O'Reilly Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Proud Uncle McCain Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: C-Word Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Sex Doll Edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Halloween Costume Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Sexist Stereotypes Edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Schoolgirl action-figure edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Skirt-wearing, SexyMom edition
Palin Sexism Watch: VPILF Edition

And there's more -- including a recent post calling out the misogyny against Miss California Carrie Prejean.

What I find almost laughable is that most of the conservatives who have said, "HA! See? Feministing doesn't care about that Playboy article, and therefore all feminists are hypocrites!" are not folks who normally give two shits about sexism. They only care about this article because they think it's a "gotcha" moment.

The real reason I, personally, have chosen not to blog about the Playboy article (or the follow-up on a right-wing blog titled "liberals we'd like to hate-f*ck") is the same reason I choose not to write about every offensive thing published in Maxim or on many other sites that are repeatedly, link-baitingly sexist: because I (or any number of feminists) am not going to change the very editorial mission of these publications. My writing about how fundamentally screwed up an article is will not lead to more feminist or less sexist content in Playboy in the future. It will just give them many more hits. I'd rather spend my time calling out widespread media narratives that are sexist (i.e. Palin is a "VPILF") and trying to change them.

You know you're in for a treat when you see this headline! Not that I expect anything less ridiculous from the Daily Mail, but this one was just too good not to post about.

"Reporter" Neil Lyndon regurgitates all of our favorite misogynist standards, from feminism making women miserable to barely concealed rage against women who have the audacity to want equality.

Despite sexual and marital liberation, massively increased career opportunities and earning power, educational privileges and the wholesale demolition of the inhibiting conventions that restricted the lives of women in the past, today's women report themselves as feeling a low sense 'of life satisfaction and well-being'.

Well, men might be entitled to retort, welcome to the real world, sweethearts.

What you are complaining about is the very same life that you promoted and celebrated when you were swanking around chanting 'sisters are doing it for themselves'.

But perhaps what's better than Lyndon's own tripe, is the oh-so-telling accompanying art and content alongside the article.

In the middle of the piece, here are a couple of the related stories:

Why are women so horrible to each other?

Men told secret to a longer life is marrying a younger woman, but wives with toyboy husbands are MORE likely to die early

But my favorite is the picture of a man getting his head smashed in by a woman's high heel with this caption: "The selfish, conceited, man-despising yet predatory 'have-it-all' feminism of the Cosmopolitans was always a recipe for insupportable burdens for women."

The fear practically drips off the page; it's awesome. (I imagine Lyndon waking up every night in a cold sweat because of a reoccurring vagina dentata nightmare.) The thing is, pieces like this don't make me mad any more - they light a fire under my ass. Because they serve as yet another reminder of why the work feminists are doing is just so damn important. So thanks, "sweetheart," for the motivation; it's much appreciated.

Washington's former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson called the sentencing part of "a high-stakes poker game" being played by North Korea. He said on NBC's Today show that he thinks negotiations for their "humanitarian release" can begin now that the legal process has been completed. Other South Korean analysts also said they expect the two to be freed following negotiations.

But we should still keep the pressure on. Click here to sign the petition for their release. There are more action suggestions here. Join the Facebook group. And for regular updates, follow LiberateLaura on Twitter. AngryAsianMan also suggests "emailing the State Department at secretary@state.gov demanding they step up negotiations with North Korea."

Using journalists as political pawns and bargaining chips is unfortunately nothing new. Roxana Saberi's case made headlines recently. But this is not only a tactic used by Iran and North Korea. The United States -- yes, the very U.S. that claims to honor freedom of the press and human rights -- is holding an Iraqi journalist named Ibrahim Jassam. He hasn't been charged. An Iraqi court ordered he be released. And yet he remains in U.S. military custody. This is by NO means a suggestion that it's "fair" for North Korea to hold two American journalists. But it's hard for America to have credibility on this issue. Those of us who push for Ling and Lee's release need to expect the same standards of our own government. (See more at the Committee to Protect Journalists.)

Interestingly, Nerdette encountered a lot of push-back when she tried to get folks to sign the petition and take action for Ling and Lee. She writes,

I know that this petition will not directly sway the North Korean government. That doesn't mean its not a meaningful act. That's not why I'm trying to get people to sign it. The point is to keep the energy, the noise and the interest at as heightened a level as we can... so that maybe the media will pay attention to what's going with Laura and Euna... As we come together - online or even off (there was a vigil for Laura and Euna last week) - we are building capacity. Yes, none of us are diplomats, but that doesn't mean we don't have an opinion. Moreover, why would anyone want to silence that? Isn't that the problem with North Korea? That they censure their people? Even if you think the petition is dumb, futile or pointless, luckily the internet is so vast there is space for me and 13,000 other people to publicly declare that we want Euna and Laura to come home. The idea that someone would tell me "don't try, you look ridiculous" just makes me more committed to becoming even noisier.

Those are wise words for any action campaign. Even if it doesn't achieve the desired result, the very act of collectively standing up and saying that we are watching, that we will defend human rights, that we value the right to free speech and fair trials, that, in and of itself, is valuable and important. 

More on Euna Lee and Laura Ling from Matt Yglesias, Jezebel, and Latoya Peterson.

I had an awesome opportunity this week to attend the Association of Women in Radio and Television's (AWRT) annual Gracie Awards. The Gracies are a beloved tradition among broadcast journalists, a time for the women in the industry to bond and celebrate one another for the good work they're doing. I could do a fairly long analysis of the ways in which the award show was totally de-politicized (other than the content of the shows that were awarded), as to make it a little ridiculous, but it's Friday and I'm feeling frivolous. So... the celebs were in full effect. I kid you not, I got butted away from singing Ruby's song with Amy Poehler (swoon!) and Will Arnett by one of the Real Housewives of New York City (don't worry, they weren't getting an award, just presenting one). Suze Orman was there (just as scary in person as I find her on TV), as was Rachel Ray (way more endearing in person than I find her on TV), and Kathy Griffin dropped the f-bomb about 20 times in 3 minutes. Niecy Nash hosted with tons of humor in a fabulous olive green dress.

The next day the regional Gracies were held. Far less fabulous, but very fun. I gave some quick remarks and got to give a scholarship (from AWRT and Dove) to awesome NYU grad Elly Park, who made an amazing film called Sea Woman. It's about a community of women in South Korea who have made their living for generations by diving (no scuba gear!) for precious metals. The fact that they were the breadwinners in their families gave them societal power, but as this area because more touristy, and the men in the families began working in hotels and cafes, the power dynamic shifted. Fascinating stuff. Here's an eight minute excerpt of Elly's movie:

Congrats Elly!

Mary Alice Carr has a really poignant piece up at the Washington Post about why she has chosen to never go on to O'Reilly's show again after having faced his hypocrisy in the past.

[O]n Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.

O'Reilly had the opportunity to apologize for his words, and he didn't. He had the opportunity to say that this tragic outcome was something about which he felt sorry. He didn't. When restraint and perspective were called for, he fanned the flames higher. In fact, on his June 1 "Talking Points," he played the martyr, saying his critics were seeking to stifle any criticism of "people like Tiller -- that and hating Fox News is the real agenda here." On his show the next day -- the show I declined to appear on -- he again called a murdered man "Dr. Killer."

I admit that after the call from the producer, I hesitated. What an opportunity, I thought, to sit across from O'Reilly and call him out for what he has done and where his responsibility lies. To speak for everyone in America who is hurt and scared and angry. I have never been a Fox News hater; clearly, I've used the show for the benefit of my movement and my organization, and I've answered his questions on some of the toughest issues around. Didn't I have the right to also call him out for his speech?

But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?

Naturally, I don't have the kind of profile or connections that land me in a seat in front of the jerk myself, but I can say from my small world of fighting with people on the internet at a certain point you have to decide what you can and can't do. It is really powerful that Carr said no, because it is such an incredible opportunity for exposure. But bet the producer didn't understand why she would chose not to. The problem with going against conservative pundits is that for them it is funny hour, their news spots are just more time for them to act like jerks and say off the wall things (that they unfortunately believe) that gets them higher ratings. For people like Carr who have dedicated their lives to actual policy change, it is not worth doing a show like that just for publicity if it doesn't result in fair exposure, confidence in the movement or is attached to a campaign goal. Perhaps it is time we stop giving him the opportunity to talk to us since he is so unapologetic about his relationship to the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

We talk about this a lot at Feministing, how we choose to devote our energy and to who. It was an early moment in my career at Feministing I remember sitting in a panel with Lynne D. Johnson and Professor Angie Colette Beatty at WAM and Dr. Beatty was talking about how she had given up talking to brick walls. I always think about that when I am engaging in especially painful conversations that don't seem to be moving, my words not being absorbed but merely bouncing off the density. At a certain point you have to think about if you want to talk to a brick wall, is it even worth it? The sad thing is that Bill-O has such a huge viewership and it is an incredible opportunity. But perhaps facing him head on is not the way to do it, perhaps the way to do it is to campaign against media consolidation and ownership and fight to give more voice to the pundits that do say the things we need them to and train new, up and coming voices.

It's been interesting to catch up to the Sotomayor coverage this morning. I really like this clip from CNN, which features Erica Gonzalez, the opinion page editor for El Diario/la Prensa, the third largest Spanish-language daily newspaper in the country. She actually manages to position Sotomayor's accomplishments in the history of Hispanic people contributing to this country in diverse ways. (It's incredibly difficult to say such complex, historicized statements on our soundbite news shows.) It also has "man on the street" interviews with folks talking about how her roots are inspiring, and of course the requisite America Dream talk from the pundits.

My personal feeling is that the American Dream stuff always gets oversimplified and overplayed when exceptional political leaders like Obama or Sotomayor get their due. It's important that we not lose sight of the fact that though our government, at the highest levels I might add, is becoming less white, male, and less historically privileged, that doesn't mean that the majority of barriers have been smashed or the majority of Americans of color given truly equal opportunities to become the next Obama or Sotomayor. Will it be easier? Probably. It's hard to aspire to be what you can't even see. But will it be easy? Absolutely not--especially with our failing public education system, health care inequities, rampant environmental racism etc. etc. None of these things are eradicated just became Sotomayor steps into her rightful place of power. Neither does her election eradicate the sexism--both institutional and social--that still prevents so many women from living the lives they want to live.

On that note, I find it interesting that a lot of the coverage I saw while surfing around this morning seems largely focused on her ethnic background with just a mention of her gender identity. Perhaps it is still easier for the mainstream media to figure out how to talk about ethnic "uplift" because it fits so nicely into the American Dream narrative than to explore the ongoing gender issues still so implicit and insidious in our daily experiences.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see this headline: "Sex, drink and fashion. Is this the new face of American feminism?"*

After all, if there's anything the mainstream media loves, it's painting feminists - specifically young feminists - as vapid and sex-crazed. (See here, here, here, here and here.)

While I'm tempted to weigh in on this particular article and the many ways in which it got things wrong - especially since it touches on something I blogged about recently - I think there's a larger issue that's more important to get at. (Though damn it's hard not to say anything about the piece - especially the 6 bullet points at the end. Wow.)

There's a reason that the mainstream media continually covers young feminists in this way. Backlash is part of it, of course: framing feminism as a perpetual catfight or a watered down movement based on drinking and fucking is a great way to dismiss it. But it's also indicative of a media that has no interest in nuance or truthfulness when it comes to covering women.

When I read this latest article, I was reminded of something I wrote in The Purity Myth about the moral panic wackiness surrounding young women's sexuality:

The fact is, focusing on hyped-up problems that sell newspapers and titillate the imagination make it that much easier to ignore actual problems young women are facing, issues that take a lot more than a moral scolding to fix. For a young woman living in poverty, spring break isn't even an option, let alone a concern. For a young woman who has no health insurance, the "moral" debate over STIs won't do anything for her the next time she needs to see a doctor. And for a young single mother, hearing about herself as an unfortunate statistic isn't going to make her life any better or easier.

The same could be said about the media's feminism problem. Salacious headlines about feminists-gone-wild not only sell newspapers - they also make it that much easier for people to ignore actual feminist work that's being done. When was the last time you saw an article about youth organizations like the Pro-Choice Education Project, or feminist media like Shameless? Have you ever seen a mainstream media profile on any of the women here? Of course not. Because focusing on the truth of what feminists activists and media makers are up to would mean portraying women as thoughtful, socially engaged citizens. (Wouldn't that be ridiculous!) It just doesn't jibe with how America wants to see women, especially young women; they'd prefer to think we're all nekkid, drunk and stupid.

Now, I don't fool myself into thinking that this media narrative about feminists (or women) is going anywhere anytime soon. But that doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. When you see an article that relies on bullshit stereotypes about feminism, inundate the reporter with links to profiles of young feminists and youth-led organizations. Show them what feminism really is.

*Full disclosure: The reporter who wrote this piece contacted me via email for an interview, I didn't have the time to respond. (And now I'm really glad that I didn't!)

Charming. You'd think that conservatives would have come up with a new line of attack for women politicians by now - the whole "she's ugly!"thing has to get old after while, right? Right? Sigh.

Via Ta-nehisi Coates.

Check out Ann's piece over at TAP. An excerpt:

The proliferation of woman-centric sites raises the sorts of questions that keep a feminist editor up at night. If Slate saw a demand for more content about women, why didn't it start publishing more articles for and by women on its main site? The decision to devote micro-sites to groups that aren't white men -- The Root for black readers, Double X for women readers -- implies that Slate recognizes the need for more coverage that caters to women and people of color. But it doesn't want that coverage mucking up its main product....When publishers create separate sites dedicated to women or to black people, they are signaling that they don't see a need to have their main site serve these people as core readers. They are, in essence, saying, "We want the ad revenue associated with your readership, but we don't create our homepage with you in mind."

I really want to like Slate's newly launched "women's"* website Double X. They have some great writers and contributors on board, so I was stoked for the site's launch. And then...not so much.

Why? Well, let's take a look at the headlining pieces that the magazine chose to kick off with:

Whine, Womyn, and Thongs: How feminism has failed.

What's the Problem Now? Feminism's Dilemmas

Yes, Virginia, Feminism Really Is Dead.

and the slightly more optimistic...

How I Got Bored With Feminism: And why it still matters.

Oh, and the quote of the day? "'Feminism' had come to seem, well...just the teeniest bit tiresome." - Terry Castle

It seems my excitement was a bit premature! Here I thought that Double X might be a site for forward-thinking conversation about feminism and women's issues - alas, it's just a sounding board for warmed-over stereotypes and an oh-so-tired "those darn kids" take on younger women.

But what's even stranger to me than a supposedly progressive site for women that relies on hackneyed anti-feminist pieces is the response to criticisms of the site. Susannah Breslin writes:

Apparently, if you launch a website for women in 2009, the most important question is whether or not it's feminist. At least, that's what you'd think, judging by today's launch of the women-oriented website you're reading. Only, the funny thing is, I thought feminism was dead. I mean, didn't we kill it already?

Breslin, who calls feminism "cultural road kill," takes issue with the fact that recent criticisms of Double X assume that "the only way to judge a female-oriented site is by whether or not it's 'feminist.'"

Get over it. Get on with it. I hope the feminist mantle doesn't fit Double X. I hope this site is bigger than that.

Um, okay. But perhaps if you don't want folks to talk about your site using a feminist lens, you shouldn't launch said site with a series of posts asking writers to reflect on Betty-frigging-Friedan. Sorry, you don't get to publish a handful of feminism-is-in-the-crapper articles and then expect the responses and critiques to ignore feminism.

Bob Herbert has a really interesting Op-Ed at the NYTimes about how the coverage of white murders tends to be more extensive than the coverage of the murder of people of color. He writes,

[T]he press is still very color conscious in the way it goes about covering murder. Editors may not be asking, "What color is that victim?" But, on some level, they're still thinking it.

Which is why we've heard so little about an awful story out of Chicago. Some three dozen public school students have been murdered since the school year began, most of them shot to death. These children and teenagers have been killed in a wide variety of settings and situations -- while riding a city bus, playing in parks, sitting in the back seats of cars, in gang disputes, in robberies, in the crossfire of sidewalk shootouts.

It's an immense and continuing tragedy. But these were nearly all African-American or Latino kids, so the coverage has been scant.

In contrast, the news media gave the public enormous amounts of information about the Wesleyan student, Johanna Justin-Jinich, and -- in another big story -- about Julissa Brisman, the masseuse who had advertised on Craigslist and was killed in a Boston hotel room last month.

I think that we can recognize the tragedy in these stories and still have an analysis of the rate of coverage of different communities. I actually think that Herbert is giving them an easy way out suggesting that it is just that mainstream media frequently overlooks the deaths and murders of people of color. When people of color are involved in the death or murder of a white person, that is definitely headline news. Or when a person of color lives up to their given "stereotype," i.e. terrorists, cop-killers, "hookers," etc., that is also all over the news.

So, while Herbert is suggesting that the stories that cover the murder of women of color, poor people and other disenfranchised communities are far less, it is not just that they are overlooked, it is that they are strategically woven into the narrative of good verse evil. White women are pitted against communities of color, contrasting innocent verses guilty. Not only does it tell us, as Herbert suggests, how we see each other, it also shows us that white women are considered helpless, innocent, and need the support, coverage, protection and watchful eye of the news media, along with legal counsel, police and politicians. And that people of color are perpetrators of crime, always guilty, not victims and therefore need our harshest penalties and strictest of eyes.

Via MSNBC:

A lawyer for a U.S. journalist jailed in Iran says she has been freed from prison after an appeals court suspended her eight-year jail sentence.

Abdolsamad Khorramshahi says Roxana Saberi is "now out of jail."

She was freed after an Iranian appeals court cut her eight-year jail sentence for spying to a suspended two-year term.

The development came a day after an appeals court held a hearing on the case of Saberi, a 32-year-old journalist who has worked for the BBC and U.S. National Public Radio.

You can background on Roxana Saberi's case here and here.

Back in 2004, we were excited to announce the beginning of an international magazine about women and activism called World Pulse. Well, World Pulse had a rocky road in print, migrating online to become PulseWire, another development that we were proud to announce. And now, we're excited to let you know that World Pulse is back in print and the online home is thriving. Check out the latest issue for everything from exploring the benefits and often overlooked dangers of microlending to Best Buy's new women's program called WOLF to self care for activists to new media activism across the globe. There's nothing like World Pulse out there, so we all need to heartily support its continued survival--whatever form it takes. Congrats to editor Jensine Larsen and her team for their determination and vision.

I do not like Miss California Carrie Prejean. I think she's a bigot, and I don't particularly dig the way she's making the understandable negative reaction to her comments about same sex marriage about people "persecuting" her.

But no matter how I, or anyone else, feels about Prejean - this shit is simply wrong. It wasn't enough that folks were mocking the woman for getting breast implants, now they have to slut shame her into oblivion for some "nude" pictures. (And seriously, the pics are hardly scandalous considering the bathing suit competition and all.)

From the Associated Press:

The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to gay marriage and by posing semi-clad when she was a teenage model.

Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday it appears the 21-year-old Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the state contest.

The contract contains a clause asking participants whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards" and if they've ever been photographed nude or partially nude.

Apparently it's only okay for women to be objectified when it's the pageant that's doing it.

It also irks me to no end that sites like the one that released these "scandalous" pictures (and no, I won't link to them) justify themselves by claiming that they've caught Prejean being a hypocrite.

From Jezebel:

The text posted along with the photo on [redacted] does describe Prejean as a "self-proclaimed bible thumper," and concludes: "So much for being a good role model for the state of California Carrie. Looks like your Dirty photo shoot makes you a sinner too."

You know, there are plenty of ways to fight back against discrimination and hypocrisy - sexually shaming women isn't one of them. Not only is it intellectually lazy (really, there's no other way to show that Prejean's comments were terrible?), but fighting homophobia with misogyny pretty much reeks of hypocrisy itself, no?

I'm happy to be able to share the video from my session at WAM 2009: In/Out of Focus: Gender, Non-conformity and the Media.

I unfortunately don't have a transcript and the live twitter feed from the session (the tag was #wam09gnc) seems to have expired. My apologies to folks who are not able to listen to the video. Here are a few links to a few liveblogs from the session:

Susan Mernit
Kerri Kanelos
Jill at Feministe
Anna J. Cooke
Chicks Rock Blog
Mikhaela Reid drew this cartoon in response to the panel

I was really excited to be part of this conversation with Jack Aponte (of Angry Brown Butch and Feministe), Julia Serano and Kate Bovitch. Our hope was to focus on the issues of gender non-conformity within feminist spaces like WAM, feminist blogs and feminist media. I think we got a really interesting conversation going.

I've been reflecting a lot on this panel lately, since there has been conversation (and criticism) about how discussions about trans issues go down on feminist blogs, in particular ours. I think what it reiterates for me is how important these conversations about gender and gender non-conformity are to feminism and how difficult they are to have, particularly online.

At the WAM panel we never had issues with people asking questions that were offensive, or off-topic, or derailing in the way people talk about our comment threads. Maybe that's because the panel was a self-selecting group of people, or because people with those kinds of comments/questions didn't feel comfortable asking them in such a public way.

I've made some mistakes in how I've begun these conversations at Feministing, particularly on the Focus on the Family post. I appreciate those who called out these mistakes in a constructive way. I'm definitely learning from those moments and I'm committed to continuing this dialogue, both on and offline.

The criticisms about comments at Feministing are well heard, and, as I've said before, we're hoping to revisit and revise our comment policy at our upcoming retreat at the end of May.

For those of you who have time to watch some of the video (the session was an hour and a half) or check out the liveblogging, I recommend it. Again, sorry about the lack of transcript!

UPDATE: Some other videos from the WAM conference are available here as well.

I was on the Laura Ingraham show yesterday morning to talk about The Purity Myth; it was a trip. One listener even called in to say that I was just pissed about not being a virgin anymore so I wrote the book to spread my sluttitude around. It was awesome.

If you want to listen (and check out my brand spanking new website!), click here.

As always, Jay Smooth breaks it down.

Journalist Roxana Saberi, 31, was convicted of espionage in Iran last week after a one-day trial behind closed doors and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Saberi is a freelance journalist who has lived in Iran for six years and was raised by an Iranian father. From the Huffington Post:

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The most high-profile case came in 2007, when Iran arrested four Iranian-Americans, including the academic Haleh Esfandiari. The four were imprisoned or had their passports confiscated for several months until they were released and allowed to return to the U.S.

Last night at Colgate University, Iranian filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi, read a letter in support of Saberi, who served as his translator. An excerpt:

Roxana wanted to leave Iran. I kept her from it. She is the one who took care of me while I was depressed. Then I convinced her to stay, I wanted her to write the book she had started in her head. I accompanied her, and thanks to my friends and contacts, I knocked on every door and was able to set up meetings with film makers, artists, sociologists, politics, and others. I would go with her myself. She was absorbed by her book, to the point that she could stay and bear it all, until my film would be finished, and we would leave together.

Roxana's book was a praise to Iran. The manuscripts exist, and it will certainly be published one day, and all will see it. But why have they said nothing? All those who have talked, worked and sat with her, and who know how guiltless she is.

I am writing this letter for I am worried about her. I am worried about her health. I heard she was depressed and cried all the time. She is very sensitive. To the point she refuses to touch her food. My letter is a desperate call to all statesmen and politics, and to all those who can do something to help.

The full text of Ghobadi's letter is after the jump.

Check out the Free Roxana site to take action.

And more on Roxana at BBC News.

Thanks to Cornelia for pushing us to get on the ball and June Cross for news of the Ghobadi letter.

This 2009 Pulitzer Prize winners in journalism have been announced. Of note...

For public service:
Awarded to the Las Vegas Sun, and notably the courageous reporting by Alexandra Berzon, for the exposure of the high death rate among construction workers on the Las Vegas Strip amid lax enforcement of regulations, leading to changes in policy and improved safety conditions.

For explanatory reporting:
Awarded to Bettina Boxall and Julie Cart of the Los Angeles Times for their fresh and painstaking exploration into the cost and effectiveness of attempts to combat the growing menace of wildfires across the western United States.

For feature writing:
Awarded to Lane DeGregory of the St. Petersburg Times for her moving, richly detailed story of a neglected little girl, found in a roach-infested room, unable to talk or feed herself, who was adopted by a new family committed to her nurturing.

I'm sad to say that the majority of those who won individual prizes appear to be men (although it's always difficult to tell from names alone). Congratulations to all those courageous wordsmiths who told the important stories even in a transitioning field.

Last week I talked about the impacts of media consolidation on independent magazines and press. Something I touched on, but is elaborated on Freepress's blog Stop Big Media, is that actual impact this has on coverage of disenfranchised communities. If who you cover is based on ratings, there is a good chance you are not going to make an effort at covering issues equitably. Jordan Berg looks at the case of the coverage of missing women.

The Seattle Medium, a local, independent newspaper, highlighted one particular way Big Media is harming citizens: by failing to report on missing persons based on race.

The article's investigation shows, "...national media operations often fail to present what is in fact a very diverse missing persons population," instead focusing primarily on white victims.

Why the preferential treatment? The corporate news media approach missing persons as another news segment that will draw advertising revenue. In other words, only a certain segment of missing persons is viewed as important enough to cover.

Take, for example, Latasha Norman, a black Jackson State University honor student who went missing for more than two weeks in late 2007, and barely got the media's attention. It was only after her body was found in Greenville, Miss., two weeks later that CNN picked up the story (only to quickly drop it).

At the same time, Stacey Peterson, a Caucasian woman who also disappeared, was becoming a household name due to constant media coverage on all the major TV stations. This is not to say that Stacey Peterson's disappearance should not have been covered. But why weren't both women given equal airtime when they went missing and needed the public's eye to help find them?

As anti-racist feminists this is something we talk about endlessly, but it is rare we discuss the actual reasons for disproportionate coverage of missing white women verse missing black women. Outside of blatant racism, if we can't sell the 10 o'clock news, our stories are probably not going to make it on there. This is a clear violation of what the purpose of media should be, which is a watchdog for our communities and a supplier of information.

Learn more about the work of FreePress and the organization I work for, the Center for Media Justice, two organizations working nationally to stop media consolidation and petition outlets for balanced coverage on the issues that impact our most historically disenfranchised communities.

Also, take action now to Stop Media Consolidation.

A typical line of discussion these days (particularly among media people) is what affect the internet has had on traditional journalism. It's particularly relevant in a time when newspapers are folding at high numbers and online media has really changed the way we get our news.

Kay Steiger has an interesting analysis of a recent The Atlantic "informal poll" which asked traditional media makers if they think the internet has been bad for journalism. The article that came out of the poll was called: Media Insiders Say Internet Hurts Journalism.

I'm not surprised at this stance, particularly if you take a look at the analysis that Kay did about the "media insiders" they polled.

You can see on her blog, the 45 people that they talked to were overwhelmingly white, male, and over the age of 50.

Kay has some good points:

Granted, I know that mostly The Atlantic decided to do this poll to gain some quick hits and generate discussion about the future of journalism. It is, after all, something that is weighing heavily on media professionals' minds these days. But a poll like this doesn't really tell us much except that a few of the old guard of media elites are distrustful of a medium that has been around for more than a decade. The Internet certainly isn't going away as means of distributing information. It's more than a little frightening that so many "insiders" think that a research tool like the Internet is doing harm to journalism.

Granted, I don't think that the Internet is a substitute for reporting. Nothing will ever substitute talking to experts and people that are deeply immersed in an issue. But I don't think the Internet is a "harm" to journalism. Maybe if they would've asked a few people under 30 they would have gotten some very different results.

The only thing I will add to this, which is important for all us involved in things like the feminist blogosphere, is that these media insiders also used to be the media gatekeepers. They were able to decide who was able to write, on what platforms and about what topics. That has long kept the kind of content that we want to see, that we want to write, out of the mainstream press. This is why independent press had been created as an alternative outlet--see Samhita's discussion of the difficultly of keeping indy media alive.

This conversation is important to me because I am very aware of the fact that without the internet, without blogging, I would not be able to do what I am doing today. If I had taken the traditional journalism route (which was the primary one available to me ten years ago) I would be lucky to be interning at a big magazine or newspaper, fact checking or doing other background work, trying desperately to get my stories published. Would my feminist, queer, radical content be easily accepted by these publications? Not likely. Would my work have the readership that I have today at Feministing? Doubtful.

The issue of money, financing and the future of investigative journalism (which costs real money, I know) is a serious one. It's a conversation we at Feministing are extremely invested in. But, like Kay, I'm a little tired of hearing negativity and whining from the media insiders of yesterday. There is a new playing field, with way more diversity of voices then ever before, and we've got to make something out of it. I for one feel privileged to be part of creating something new.

*Trigger Warning*

A young woman in Detroit, Asia McGowan, was shot and killed by someone who had been leaving her nasty comments on her Youtube account and also had been stalking her on Facebook. This was someone she knew in real life-it was one of her classmates.

This story is really upsetting me, but I am trying to keep my head straight about the issues at hand. It is stressing me out for two reasons. One, almost every woman I know that has an internet identity has received some sort of threatening, stalker-ish, troll-ish email, comment, forum posting, death threat, blog post or shit even a vlog. This story is chilling and it is important to remember the stalking and murder of women happened before the invention of social networking technology, but this story is chilling nonetheless. As Miriam just said to me over IM, maybe these cases are just more visible now because of technology.

Two, why isn't this story on any of the national news networks? Because black women getting stalked and killed isn't worthy of national news coverage?

For more on this story check out What About Our Daughters, she has all the youtube videos up.

Thanks to Tiffany for the link and reminding me that this type of thing happened even before the internet.

One of the best panels I went to at the Women, Action and Media Conference was about the state of non-profit media models and how to sustain and thrive as a non-profit magazine in a competitive marketplace, where you can get material for free on the web, you are not supported in investigative endeavors and you are already marginalized for being lefty. Yeah, the conversation was a little bit depressing.

According to Katharine Mieszkowski at Salon in the article "Spare Change," about non-profit media models, things are looking grim for business media, so many local papers are looking for alternative types of funding. The question is, is this a viable solution.

But newspapers have been driven to the brink by the expectation of making the kind of double-digit profits that large corporate owners demand, and by the financial shenanigans, including loading up on debt, that corporate ownership has brought. That's why some observers, notably financial experts, believe the future of the news business is not business at all.

On the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, David Swensen, chief investment officer at Yale University, and Michael Schmidt, a financial analyst, argued that newspapers should operate through endowments, like universities. San Francisco investment banker Warren Hellman convened a meeting about possibly taking the San Francisco Chronicle nonprofit in an attempt to save it from extinction.

The challenge for nonprofit journalism is both daunting and exciting. Long before the current recession and radical cutbacks, many newspapers had lost their community watchdog function, no longer bothering with the expensive and time-consuming work of investigative reporting. A 2005 survey by Arizona State University of the 100 largest U.S. dailies found that 37 percent had no full-time investigative reporters, and the majority of the major dailies had two or fewer.

As many of our readers who work in non-profit funded magazines can tell you, it is a daily battle to stay afloat and many, many good magazines have shut down over the last few years due to an inability to find consistent funding sources. I have even heard of editors and publishers working for no salary for months at a time in an attempt to keep their magazine open.

We have multiple issues here, from the variations in different types of magazines and newspapers, to the dearth of investigative journalism, to the corporate take-over of media, and the increase of new media and blogs that have changed the media game as we know it, but the underlying issue of access remains the same. The American public has the right to news in its varied, complex and multiple incarnations and one of the side effects of corporate takeover of media has been an increase in independent news sources (monetizing and non, ahem) to bring the truth to the people. The problem isn't trying to figure out if the non-profit model will work on a theoretical level. It should work, but it is generally not sustainable. The problem is that when media became corporate-owned and corporate-driven, it became commodified and the basic belief that access to media and fair representation in all aspects of media from production to reporting-is as fundamental a right as education, health care and housing-went out the window.

Hey, if you can get your newspaper to stay afloat by using a non-profit model I am all for it, but we must critically think about the role of the news in the life of the American. The representations of women and people of color in mainstream corporate owned media based on stereotypes and non-truths as opposed to evidence and investigative methods have had detrimental impacts on our communities, and we have a unique opportunity to organize around that while we risk losing even more control of public media.

Thanks to Neela for the link.

File this one under inspirational.

Literally.

I know Ann already linked to this story in the WFR, but I thought it deserved a full post.

Two ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers have altered a photo of Israel's new cabinet, removing two female ministers.

Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver were grouped with the rest of the 30-member cabinet for their inaugural photo.

But Yated Neeman newspaper digitally changed the picture by replacing them with two men. The Shaa Tova newspaper blacked the women out.

See the pics above: The one on top is the original, the second is the one that was altered. Women in politics are often made invisible, but this shit is ridiculous.

To clarify, I did not create this picture but was created to accompany this piece. When the creators put up a statement I will add it.

Update: The artist's statement here.

Last week, Lovelle Mixon allegedly shot 5 cops, killing 4 of them. This fact is tragic. It is not only tragic because 4 public servants who have families were killed, but also because the retaliation in the black community in Oakland by police will be severe. If you know what I know, angry cops are capable of anything.

I suppose you are thinking what many Americans are thinking. How could he do this? He deserves to die. Armed dangerous gunmen deserve to die. Why are black youth so violent? But I want to push your thinking on this situation.

As Kevin Weston points out in a really controversial piece at New American Media,

If there were a scoreboard that displayed the number of police killed by black people versus the number of black people killed by police - it would look like the scoreboard of the Lakers playing a junior high school team. So when an aberration like Mixon appears - a once in a generation kind of event -- the implications are cosmic.

When police officers are found to have murdered young black men, they are almost always let off the hook, they do not face life in prison and they are not then hunted and killed. This is not to suggest that the murder of cops is justified, but to ask that we look at it within the context of police brutality and the damage it has wreaked on the black community.

The power that resides in the laps of armed police officers is terrifying. Imagine living in these conditions, in the kind of world where you can be gunned down just for being young, black, male and walking down the street. This story is almost impossible to understand given dominant narratives around race, class, gender and black masculinity. It is considered OK to kill young black men, often violently. We may be outraged, but not nearly as outraged as when cops are killed.

I do not deny that Mixon was armed, dangerous, a career criminal and potentially linked to the rape of a young woman. Lovelle Mixon's actions are deplorable. But if we look at them within the context of police brutality, they sadly start make sense. Lovelle Mixon was trying to get out of going back to jail and this compounded with not finding work led him to desperate actions. Earl Ofari Hutchinson reports,

A general consensus is that it was a deadly mix of panic, rage, and frustration that caused Lovelle Mixon to snap. His shocking murderous rampage left four Oakland police officers dead and a city and police agencies searching its soul about what went so terribly wrong. Though Mixon's killing spree is a horrible aberration, his plight as anunemployed ex-felon isn't. There are tens of thousands like him on America's streets.

In 2007, the National Institute of Justice found that 60 percent of ex-felon offenders remain unemployed a year after their release. Other studies have shown that upwards of 30 percent of felon releases live in homeless shelters because of their inability to find housing. And those are the lucky ones. Many camp out on the streets.

A significant number of them suffer from drug, alcohol and mental health challenges, and lack education or any marketable skills. More than 70 percent of all U.S. prisoners are literate at only the two lowest grade levels. Nearly 60 percent of violent felons are repeat offenders. They are a menace to themselves and, as the nation saw with Mixon, to others. In some cases, they can be set off by any real or perceived slight, insult, or simply lash out from bitter rage. Mixon was one and he made four Oakland police officers victims and left a terrible trail of grieving and distraught families and a shell-shocked city and police department.

I don't support young people in Oakland suggesting that this is somehow fair revenge for Oscar Grant, but I think it is apparent that Oakland is fed up with watching our young men die at the hands of our public servants. While the conversation in mainstream media is really focused on Lovelle Mixon's history of crime, violence and imprisonment, let's try and change the dialog and have a honest conversation about police brutality, the production, harassment, imprisonment and murder of "angry black men" everywhere, and ways we can work collectively to bring peaceful solutions to our communities. And I ask the youth of Oakland to hang back, look at the bigger picture and think honestly about what will help your community the most in this volatile situation.

In light of Bill O'Reilly's upcoming speaking gig with the Alexa Foundation, an organization that supports the rights of victims of sexual violence, Amanda Terkel at Think Progress exposed O'Reilly's victim-blaming past. In the past O'Relly asserted that the rape and murder of a woman was partially her own fault based on what she was wearing. Strange that Bill O would be speaking at Alexa.

This odd match becomes more apparent because due to the frustration by the O'Reilly camp, Terkel was stalked and harassed by the producers of Fox News. In her own words, Terkel writes,

This weekend, while on vacation, I was ambushed by O'Reilly's top hit man, producer Jesse Watters, who accosted me on the street and told me that because I highlighted O'Reilly's comments, I was causing "pain and suffering" to rape victims and their families. He of course offered no proof to back up this claim, instead choosing to shout questions at me.

I expect O'Reilly to air this "interview" at some point this week, possibly as early as tonight. I have no expectation that he will show the entire altercation or give the entire story about what happened, so here is the full account, offering a glimpse inside the O'Reilly harrassment machine:

You can read the play by play stalking on her post. Terkel concludes that the point remains that O'Reilly needs to apologize that it is in any way relevant what woman was wearing or drinking when she is raped and killed. Suffice it to say, O'Relly and his team owe Terkel an apology for stalking and harassing her.

Feministe, Raw Story and Daniel at the Feministing Community have more. You can also join the Facebook group in support of Terkel here.

Jesse Watter's the producer who followed Terkel can be emailed here.

Also, last night in full O'Reilly style, he called Terkel a 'villian' for standing up for rape victims.

UPDATE: Check out Amanda on Keith Olbermann's show tonight, discussing the incident.

Most industries are facing difficult times right now. Media, and independent media in particular, have long faced uphill battles, but the economic emergency is pushing many state and local newspapers to fold. As the bad news continues, I wanted to speak with someone about the possible ramifications of these losses.

Tracy Van Slyke, former publisher of the progressive, independent magazine In These Times, is the program director of the The Media Consortium, a network of the country's leading independent journalism organizations. (Full disclosure: Feministing is a member.) From their website:

"Millions of Americans are looking for honest, fair, and accurate journalism. We're finding new ways to reach them. Our strategy has three focal points: Making Connections, Building Infrastructure, and Amplifying Our Voice."

Here's Tracy...

There has been some discussion lately about the impending remake of Dora the Explorer, one of the first Latina cartoon characters. Well Dora is growing up and they've just released her new image.

Veronica at Viva La Feminista has some thoughts about the make-over.

The outrage is not just about Dora, it is because we know that Dora is the safe one. The good girl. The toy and cartoon that we haven't had to monitor. Any tampering with our Dora rocks our world. If Dora isnt' safe, what the hell will we do?

The outrage is powered by pent up outrage over the sexualization of our daughters, of their dolls and their clothing.

The outrage is far more than just tween-ifying Dora. It is about all the other small things that inch our daughters closer to 90210 and further away from cuddling with us on the couch with the Backyardigans. It'll happen in its own time...if society let it happen in its own time.

My first thought was, well I'm glad they didn't lighten her skin. It's frustrating how little control we have over these representations of women and girls and how large of an impact they have on us.

What do you all think of the new Dora?

For those who don't remember, her before picture is after the jump.

A reader sent in this story, about how this 18 year-old man was given only 6 months in jail for raping two women. (Oh, and he gets work and school release privileges.)

Michael Philbin, son of a Green Bay Packers coach, said he was "ashamed" and "embarrassed." Well, that's lovely, but I wish he was feeling ashamed from prison for more than 6 frigging months. The short jail sentence aside, what really bugged me about this article was the language it used to describe the attacks:

Philbin had sex with one girl after she passed out and was placed on his parent's bed. He then joined another 17-year-old boy in the basement and forced a second girl to perform oral sex, according to the criminal complaint filed last month.

Excuse me, but you don't "have sex" with an unconscious girl. That's called rape.

Brown County Circuit Court Judge Sue Bischel, in accepting a joint sentencing recommendation, said by all accounts Philbin was a good person who made a horrible decision.

Making a "horrible decision" to rape someone doesn't make you a good person who fucked up - it makes you a rapist.

Reading from a pre-sentence report, Bischel said Philbin acknowledged that he took advantage of the girls knowing they had too much to drink.

Took advantage of? Again, rape. Judge Bischel also ruled that Philbin didn't have to register as a sex offender because it was "excessive" (and raping two women isn't?) and that after completing probation he could petition to have the convictions removed from his record.

I am so tired of the rape apologism - in the media, in the courts, in the culture. How much more can we really take?

Chris Brown's alleged violence against Rihanna has sparked intense debate and discussion about these celebrities.

I decided to ask Traci C. West, PhD, a professor of ethics and African American studies at Drew University's Theological School, for some perspective on the violence and the public's reactions. She researched the historical legacy of violence against black women for her book, Wounds of the Spirit: Black Women, Violence, and Resistance Ethics.

Here's Traci...

Shockingly good article from Newsweek on the way the media has been talking about Rihanna and Chris Brown.

In honor of their 70th Anniversary, Glamour has an American Icons photo shoot with current female entertainers posing as important female icons.

I'm not usually a fan of magazines like Glamour but I thought this spread was pretty cool.

In the spread they've got Lindsay Lohan as Madonna, America Ferrera as Dolores Huerta, Hayden Panettiere as Amelia Earhart and Alicia Keys as First Lady Michelle Obama plus 9 more. I thought it was an interesting way to honor these icons and they did a good job of picking women from different types of fame--athletes, activists, political figures, etc. I particularly liked the picture above of America Ferrera.

Via Amplify, we find that Fox News is having a grand ole time slamming President Obama's plans to repeal the HHS regulation that allows medical professionals to reject birth control to women because of religious or moral reasons. In fact, they're having so much fun that it's compelled them to blatantly lie and say that Obama's plans will result in doctors going to jail if they don't perform an abortion.

This is despite the fact that rules have already been in place for quite a long time that protect doctors from this happening. Check out Media Matters for more.

While we all know the media has been handling this situation disgustingly, I was still pretty stunned to see this Daily News headline. This is not to mention the actual content of the piece is full of victim-blaming banter:

[I]nsiders are rumbling that Chris shouldn't be taking the anger management classes alone. "Rihanna is temperamental, too," says our snitch. "They're both too hot-headed for their own good."

Adds another source: "It didn't help that Rihanna grabbed the keys out of his rented Lamborghini and threw them down the street. She knew it would really infuriate Chris, and it worked." (Emphasis mine)

Um, what? So not only does she need anger management for throwing keys out of a car (because of course that totally equates with domestic abuse), but she also "got what was coming to her"? Regardless of how angry a person may get or how much they're perceived to have "provoked" their partner, there is no excuse to turn to violence. Ever.

The Daily News should be ashamed of themselves. Send a letter to the editor and let them know.

Yeah, that cartoon that was run in the NY Post last week that was so obviously racist. Well, Murdoch says the Post didn't mean it that way, but sorry if that is how you took it.

But is that good enough?

Related video:
Baratunde's take
Jay's take.

Earlier this week, I was in Virgina speaking at Emory & Henry College at the school's winter forum - it was a day-long group of discussions on gender and sexuality. This talk was different than others I've done - generally I speak about Feministing and my writing. But the organizers at E&H wanted me to speak about the so-called hook up culture on college campuses, and they wanted me to have a "discussion" (a debate) with this woman, Elizabeth Marquardt. (I actually felt very odd about debating Marquardt because she was so damn nice and friendly - I don't know that I'm cut out for this kind of thing. More on this in an upcoming post...)

In any case, I had a lot of fun with the talk, because a lot of it related back to the work I did for The Purity Myth. So on the chance that anyone gives a shit, I thought I'd repost my speech here...dirty jokes not included.

Samhita and zp27 on the community blog have mentioned this, but I really appreciated what Hussein Rashid had to say at Religion Dispatches,

Last week, Muzzammil Hassan apparently beheaded his wife, Aasiya Zubair. Although the reasons for this heinous act currently remain unclear, there was a history of domestic violence.

God rest her soul.

Mr. Hassan was co-founder, with his wife, of Bridges TV, a station dedicated to improving the image of Muslims in the US. His work was well-known and admired, and the case has shocked American Muslims. Although their private life was private, it was assumed that a couple who lived and worked together for eight years did not have more than average amount of spousal disagreement.

Fatemeh at Muslimah Media Watch has more links related to Aasiya Hassan's murder, but because more details have yet to emerge, Fatemeh is holding off on weighing in. (It's not clear that this was an honor killing, although some media outlets have defined it that way.) Here, I'll defer to Hussein Rashid again, who continues,

I cannot fathom the anger, the rage that would result in a beheading. According to my TV, crimes of passion tend to be the most violent, but a beheading is just such a foreign concept, in any context, that it is inconceivable. Yet it happened. I believed that it would be described as an expression of innate Muslim values, as though only Muslims are capable of such a crime. Although there is no monopoly on violence, there is a discourse that projects violence as being only a Muslim trait. A typical Orientalist fantasy that holds that the "Other" is inherently violent no matter what the reality may be. Thankfully, aside from some of the fringe sites, the media has been responsible in reporting this as a case of domestic violence.

Horrible things are done to women every day, every minute, everywhere, by all kinds of people. It's not as though we are not aware of it violence against women in the Muslim community. We are and we are trying to do something about it. But a moment like this shows how immediate the need is. The reality is that every community suffers from forms of domestic violence. It's not about religion; it's about power and control. We don't know why Aasiya Zubair was slaughtered. We do know that in difficult economic times, men tend to act out more, in an attempt to exercise control. We are seeing an increase in domestic violence issues, and this case is one of a larger pattern, that has nothing to do with religion.

Read the rest here.

Also, you can join the Facebook group In Memory of Aasiya Zubair: A Pledge to End Domestic Violence.

via Kate at Female Impersonator, check out this lovely photo illustration in a recent issue of Details:

Ah yes, the recession. Making it so difficult not to stuff women into trash cans.

As Kate points out, this isn't exactly new imagery. See Esquire, 1967:

Such a convenient shorthand for "we don't give a shit about women."

At a town hall meeting last week, Henrietta Hughes bravely stood up in front of the room full of people to ask the president for help for those like herself who are unemployed and forced to live in their car. She said:

"I have an urgent need, unemployment and homelessness, a very small vehicle for my family and I to live in. The housing authority has two years' waiting lists, and we need something more than the vehicle and the parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom. Please help."

Via Feministe, we find that her question resulted in an assault by conservative pundits, and it's truly enough to make one sick. Michelle Malkin was the biggest bully, snarkily saying:

If she had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too... Well, pardon my unbending belief in fairness and personal responsibility, but why should my tax dollars go to feed the housing entitlement beast?

Um, I don't know about you, but this "housing entitlement beast" i.e. homelessness is a pretty damn good cause to care about and put our money toward. Of course Rush Limbaugh jumped in as well, falsely saying that she "ask[ed] for a car," with others contending that she's "using the system." It's stories like this that exposes just how truly disgusting the likes of Malkin and Limbaugh are.

Womanist Musings has more.

Jay Smooth of Ill Doctrine has a great interview up with Elizabeth Mendez Berry, who wrote a 2005 Vibe magazine article about domestic violence and the hip hop community, Love Hurts. Watch it. Seriously.

If you didn't see our last post on Courtney taking on Bill O'Reilly, here's the short version: O'Reilly called C a hypocrite for taking him to task for sexist comments against Helen Thomas while not defending Sarah Palin back in the day. (Uh, yeah.)

Wait for the last sentence of the segment: "You did not defend [Sarah Palin] in public and if you can show me where you did - tomorrow I will apologize to you."

Not only did Courtney write about sexism against Palin, she called O'Reilly himself out for it!

Well, Bill - we'll be watching with bated breath tonight!

Courtney was on The O'Reilly Factor tonight, taking on O'Reilly's sexist statements against Helen Thomas.

If you missed it, it will be on again at 11pm Eastern (and if anyone can record and send to us, we'll love you forever!). Predictably, C rocked it.

But here's the kicker: O'Reilly kept bringing up Sarah Palin and how women's groups were silent when there were sexist attacks about her (as if that had anything to do with why Courtney was there, but whatevs).

O'Reilly even told Courtney that if she could prove that she ever criticized the sexism levied against Sarah Palin, he would apologize. WELL, Courtney has not only taken issue with sexism against Palin in the past - she's actually called out O'Reilly himself on it! So, Bill - when will Courtney be getting that apology? Why don't we ask him?

Related: Microbicide trial to prevent HIV in women stopped because of increased risk of infection

Click to enlarge

The woman who gave birth to octuplets has provided plenty of fodder for feminist conversation, but that's not what I'd like to write about. I want to know why someone from the Los Angeles Times sent out an email (above) calling selective reduction "killing off" babies.

Andrew Malcolm, a writer and blogger for the paper, sent out a mass email last week with the subject line: "fyi octuplet mom alrdy had 6 kids so docs offered to kill off some of the 8 for her."

So much for objective journalism.

PETA's incredibly ridiculous ad trying to convince all those hot wing munchers to convert to vegetarianism during the Super Bowl has been rejected. Shocker. It contains thin white woman prancing around in their underwear rubbing vegetables all over their perfectly toned bodies. I'm not even going to post the video, cause it's, well, inane. Suffice it to say that, once again, PETA proves it has no notion of intersectional exploitation.

Thanks to all the readers who let us know. Why can't PETA spend some of that money hiring community blogger lorenc to talk about his actual experience being a dude vegetarian? See his smart post below.

And other community posters take:
Peta's New Strategy
Peta Denied Commercial Airtime

I guess Dick is, well, a dick. Check out Dick Armey, Texas Republican and former Majority Leader, stoop to the most unoriginal sexism ever on Hardball with Salon's Joan Walsh:

Congrats to Joan Walsh for maintaining such composure and even going on after Armey's "prattle" to make a really solid point about the Earned Income Tax Credit. And thanks to feminist ally and New York Times columnist Bob Herbert for calling Armey out in the next segment.

It's amazing that pundits like Armey are still falling back on such blatant sexism in an effort to intimidate women who speak out, especially after the last election season--where the issue of women's treatment in the media was such a hot topic. I mean even Chris Matthews pseudo-defends Walsh.

But I suppose it should be expected from ol' Dick. He also said President Barack Obama's name could "give people concerns that he could be or have been too much influenced by Muslims, which is a great threat now." Classy. Now he's alienated all Muslim Americans, all women, and anyone who cares about the fair treatment of either.

Walsh, on the other hand, is even more justified in her reputation as a fierce, savvy debater and Bob Herbert even more worthy of feminist celebration. If you don't read Bob's consistently feminist columns, start today.

NPR's Juan Williams went on Bill O'Reilly's show and said this about Michelle Obama:

WILLIAMS: Yeah. And let me just -- let me just tell you this: If you think about liabilities for President Obama that are close to him -- Joe Biden's up there -- but Michelle Obama's right there. Michelle Obama, you know --

O'REILLY: But it's not her fault in the sense that --

WILLIAMS: -- she's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine suggested, her instinct is to start with this "blame America," you know, "I'm the victim." If that stuff starts to come out --

O'REILLY: Yeah, it'll be death.

WILLIAMS: -- people will go bananas --

O'REILLY: Right.

WILLIAMS: -- and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross.

As dnA points out, sounds like somebody took that New Yorker cover to heart. Clearly, in the cable news world, an outspoken woman of color is downright militant when she's anything more than demure arm candy. There's no middle ground: she's either a passive object or an active threat.

And in what world is Michelle Obama a potential "albatross"?! The fact that Barack Obama's partner is a strong and outspoken woman is a good thing. Where Juan Williams sees a militant, a victim, an albatross, most women see dignified strength, intelligence, grace, and independence. Talk about going bananas.

Video is below the fold.

I am glad that Obama said something about Rush Limbaugh. I know it is usually "classier" to ignore someone as ridiculous as Limbaugh, but as myself and others have reminded readers before, Limbaugh has a pretty serious following and while I am sure a percentage of his listenership is for shits and giggles, I think it is telling that he has so much support. I do believe that he is considered right-wing thought leadership, which I think further highlights the need for the right-wing to reassess what types of thought they support. But I digress, these two gems really take the cake.

The first is that he hopes that Obama fails and secondly, he made the sexist statement that if you want pregnancy rates to go to down to post a picture of Pelosi in your bedroom. His "bully in the schoolyard" speak is not political punditry, it is frat-boy-esque humor and shows that he has no arguments left that actually counter logic. Someone needs to let him know it is the era of the nerd! We prefer evidence and science to prove the things that wing-nuts bullshit and evangelize.

In the New York Times Sunday magazine cover story yesterday journalist Daniel Bergner goes in search of female sexologists who are asking the question, "What do women want?" in a variety of clinical trials and philosophical posturing. It's all, of course, very confusing and mysterious. But for starters, I thought I'd let Bergner know a few simple things that women DON'T want:

• Misleading and even inaccurate subtitles, like "A postfeminist generation of researchers discovering things Dr. Freud could never have imagined." The very researchers featured in the article identify as feminists. I understand that the NYT wants to sell papers, but these kinds of sensationalistic headlines undermine their integrity as a news organization purportedly trying to attract more and maintain their current feminist readers.


• Photo illustrations that, once again, indicate that the New York Times Magazine thinks that all women are white. Seriously? It's 2009 people.

Now that we've gotten those obvious offenses out of the way, let's look more closely at the piece itself, which is actually quite fascinating. Bergner hangs out with a few really interesting, fairly young scientists and psychologists who are trying to understand what it is that really turns women on. As you might imagine, it's more complicated than any of their academic fields have historically let on.

Lisa Diamond, author of Sexual Fluidity, explores her theory that women generally tend to experience sexual arousal across a spectrum, rather than identifying as hetero, homo, or bi, and that it has a lot more to do with emotional intimacy than the gender of the human being dishing it out. To me this is all sort of "duh" but I understand that the mainstream media, and to much of America, this, in itself, is a shocking take on female desire.

Meredith Chivers, a researcher from Ontario, finds clinical results that jive with Diamond's ethnographic research: women, regardless of sexual orientation, are turned on my just about anything and everything, including a pair of apes fucking. The surprising and important thing about Chivers' research is that she found that there was a larger gap between women's self-identified arousal and their physiological actual arousal (tested by "a little plastic probe that sits in the vagina and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow"...cool right?!).

Lots of discussion follows about why women wouldn't know when they're turned on. Is it socialization--girls taught not to pay attention to their own desire? Is it something anatomical--it's not like we have erections to give us the loud and clear signal? Chivers sums it up smartly: "The horrible reality of psychological research is that you can't pull apart the cultural from the biological." So there we are.

Another researcher Marta Meana of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (the one who identified as a feminist, despite the article's framing), has another interesting theory that flies in the face of stereotypes about women:

"The generally accepted therapeutic notion that, for women, incubating intimacy leads to better sex is, Meana told me, often misguided. 'Really,' she said, 'women's desire is not relational, it's narcissistic'--it is dominated by the yearnings of 'self-love,' by the wish to be the object of admiration and sexual need.

Wowzer. I think this is fascinating. In a world where women are often objectified against their will, is the ultimate turn on being able to control and even illicit our own objectification? This line of thinking also holds up when considering the number of women who have fantasies of being dominated, and sometimes raped. Is it sexually arousing to feel a sense of power over your own decision to submit in a world where you feel vulnerable to others domination against your will? (See Stacey May Fowles' essay in Yes Means Yes.)

And if this is the case, is it something we should problematize (i.e. why should my sexuality be determined by my experiences of a patriarchal society? what would it look like if it was truly created from my own original physiology, emotional states, and ideas? is that even possible?) or should we embrace it and get off, counting it as sweet revenge on a half-changed world?

All fascinating questions, not really explored in much depth by Berger, who by virtue of writing this piece, controls how the researchers' voices and ideas get organized and communicated (interesting parallel to how female sexuality gets processed through a male lens so often).

Check out these great takes from our community bloggers:
Why does it have to be either/or...?
I Don't Know What All Women Want--But I Want My Sexuality Respected!
Reconceptualizing Sexuality

Prepare to be pissed. Nick Coles at Spike thinks that women like Salma Hayek and Mandy Moore have bodies that have "gone to butter." Frankly, I think we get all we need to know by checking out Coles' other articles, like "The Top 13 Hottest Dead Girls."

As the reader who emailed the link in said, "Spike TV still exists?"

I generally can't take these shows. But I couldn't help but watch this episode of Wife Swap that reader Angela emailed us. First of all, one of the women featured was a bad ass doctor/roller derby player. Add in all of the mouth-dropping moments from the husband of a beauty-obsessed pageant mom - like when he says he hopes his daughter will be a man's "accessory" one day - and I was pretty much hooked.

Maybe this can be my unfeminist guilty pleasure...

Just wondering... And please, share your fave feminist new sources in comments. (Or shamelessly self-promote your feminist blog, mag, etc!)

There are no words for this. I feel so much rage and I can only send my support and encouragement to my Bay Area organizers and remind everyone that now is a time for non-violence. Yet another example of how gross abuse of power leads to the loss of lives for youth of color.

This is video from a camera phone of Oscar Grant being shot by BART police while he was handcuffed.

*trigger warning*

You can read about it more here and Postbougie has another video that is equally as stunning.

What you can do right now:

1. If you are in the Bay there is a march today at the Fruitvale BART, details here.

2. If you are not in the Bay here are 5 things you can do right now.

We must let the world know we will not stand for our youth being murdered senselessly.

It looks like 2009 will be a very unchanged year for Fox News' bad habits.

On New Years Eve, Fox News Channel allowed folks to text in Happy New Years wishes to be scrolled at the bottom of the screen where news headlines are usually featured. One text I guess "slipped" through the screening process, where someone referenced to the racist "Barack the Magic Negro" song:

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND LET'S HOPE THE MAGIC NEGRO DOES A GOOD JOB. LOVE JEN AND JOHN C.

Via Think Progress.

This headline certainly made me pause when it popped into my inbox so I had to share, even if it is for a laugh. According to this study of over 2000 adults, 46 percent of women said they would forgo sex for internet access as opposed to 30 percent of men.

The U.S. survey, which queried 2,119 adults last month, found that the gap grew even wider for both men and woman who were 18 to 34 years old. For woman, the percentage of those willing to skip the sheets in favor of the Web rose to 49 percent, while it climbed to 39 percent for men.

And for women 35 to 44 years old, the figure jumped to 52 percent. (Results as of Monday from CNET's related online poll showed that 30.5 percent of respondents would give up sex for one year, while 26.1 percent would do without Internet access for a year. Almost 40 percent of voters didn't want to sacrifice either.)

For many of us the internet is how we work, so it is not really an option for us to "give up" the internet. Also, many women get sex from the internet as do many men, along with the increase in long distance relationships that also lead to sex via internet. So basically, if the options ain't looking good in your "real life" the internet functions as an excellent way to not only meet people but have sex with them.

And what was the sexual activity of the people questioned? Were they in relationships? Were they single? I think all these have to do with how long people are willing to give up sex. Hey, some women would rather have internet than have sex with the people they can possibly have sex with at any given time.

Thoughts?

There is no doubt that I was super upset when hearing the news of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's arrest on federal corruption charges. After all, he has been a huge advocate for emergency contraception in Illinois. But amid the disappointment, the New York Times added even more distaste to the debacle when covering his wife Patricia Blagojevich's role in the scandal.

While many are in shock and awe over the "brash" phone conversations she took part in that resulted in the charges against the governor, the Times' tabloidy take on Blagojevich by painting her as this "first lady gone bad" is just tacky. Firstly, the author takes it upon herself to identify what the proper role of a first lady is:

The Web site for the governor's office says that in addition to raising the couple's two daughters, Ms. Blagojevich occupies herself with typical first lady issues: raising awareness on children's health, food allergies and literacy, and starting the State Beautification Initiative, which planted native wildflowers along state roads. (Emphasis mine)

I didn't realize horticulture was a "first lady issue" (whatever that means). Of course breeding is expected, but planting flowers too! Yet behind the blooming buds of a first lady's life, Ms. Blagojevich didn't only know about her husband's dealings but is, in fact, a potty mouth.

And, in a blast of vulgar language, Ms. Blagojevich eggs on her husband when he reportedly threatens to prevent the Tribune Company from selling the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field unless The Chicago Tribune fired editorial writers who had called for the governor's impeachment. Ms. Blagojevich is quoted in the complaint as saying that the state should 'hold up that [expletive] Cubs [expletive] ... [expletive] them.'

Taking any opportunity to paint women involved in politics as divisive and manipulating is sadly an old tactic by mainstream media. But when it specifically comes to women who are married to men involved in political scandals, the media seems to usually victimize them for not knowing about their husband's "double life." This case, however, is different; her knowledge of it immediately makes her not only his partner in crime, but the trophy wife turned trickster.

h/t to Boondoggle.

Related: A few days ago, community poster Nicolechat questioned what the "role" of a first lady actually is.

Jack and Jill Politics reports that NPR has axed News & Notes. Yeah, times are tough -- programming cuts are understandable. But this is a serious blow. Baratunde writes,

Yet I can't help but think that now, of all times, is not the time to cut any sort of programing that brings intelligent discourse to black issues. Couldn't they have cut that weird news quiz show, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, instead? I mean, really?

Jasmyne Cannick has contact info to write NPR and ask them to make budget cuts elsewhere.

Courtney and I have both discussed before our love/hate relationship with Oprah. The woman is complex and frequently, I disagree with her but I do respect her greatly and the work that she has done. And as a feminist, the way the media treats Oprah in talking about her weight, well, I think it is sexist.

Yesterday, I watched an entire segment on CNN devoted to Oprah's weight. Two female news anchors concluded that it was a hyperthyroid that has led to her fluctuation in weight. yet other news outlets weren't so forgiving or "scientific" in there assumptions. One google news search brings up how much she gained, her denial in it and calling her chubby and "heffer."

I am so disgusted by this, I almost don't know where to begin. First of all, why is weight gain newsworthy? Oprah is one of the most accomplished business women of our generation who has shown to not only be smart, but interesting, complex, well-read. Why does her weight make major headlines? Secondly, between having a health problem and being really busy, yeah she might gain weight and the fact that this is looked down upon shows us loud and clear the unfair standards put on women to not only be uber-successful but to also be svelte.

I know what you are thinking. But Oprah put this out as news herself! Probably to sell her brand even more! Yes, I think there is some validity to this argument, Oprah herself has pushed the, "I gained weight and this is why" story. But I guess it is important to ask, is Oprah creating this narrative herself or is she merely buying into a narrative that centralizes the way a woman looks before what she does? She is after all a savvy business woman. I don't agree with her using her weight as a selling point but really the joke is on the US consumer for buying into it.

As I have written about before, I struggle with this myself. I am really busy and don't have time to watch after my weight non-stop. Frankly, I don't care enough to since I think I look great anyway, but the constant barrage of comments I get about my weight is infuriating. I am successful in my personal endeavors, not to mention managing multiple relationships, projects, familial obligations and so much more, yet there are some people that only notice that I gained weight.

Bottom line, it is sexist to focus on Oprah's weight in the media. Men don't have this same pressure. You would never see a special on Lou Dobb's weight gain, nor would it be lucrative for him to have a special on his weight gain (although this sentiment is changing). As long as popular culture and mainstream media outlets stay fixed on women's physical characteristics we are bound by these constraints, holding our bodies as representations of who we are. It is not fair and we shouldn't stand for it.

Related:
Kate Harding: Dear Oprah
Rachel Setzer:Oprah done with fat shaming

Samhita beat me to posting Jon Stewart's direct confrontation of Mike Huckabee's anti-gay views. And while I share in the swoon-fest, I think it actually calls for a bit more conversation.

Huckabee has been making the rounds to various media outlets, promoting his new book. A few weeks ago, after the Huckster appeared on Rachel Maddow's show, Pam Spaulding noticed that Maddow chose not to bring up gay rights during the interview -- despite Huckabee's bigoted views. ThinkProgress asked her why, and Maddow responded,

I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don't care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn't bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her -- it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.

(Emphasis Pam's.) Maddow is saying her decision was a journalistic one, and Pam's not buying it. But I disagree with Pam that this is "closeted journalism." In the past, Maddow hasn't shied away from discussing gay rights on her show. For example, she covered the Prop 8 fallout.

Tami had a really great take on some of the questions this raises:

But that thinking puts a tremendous burden on successful members of marginalized communities, who already have to work extra hard and overcome myriad obstacles. Does Oprah have a right to be a talk show host, not a black talk show host with an extra burden of addressing "black" topics in a way that is acceptable to the black community? Can Rachel Maddow be just a super-smart, kick-ass pundit and political show host without the specter of her sexuality looming behind every decision? Where does our responsibility to our people end and our responsibility to ourselves begin? What does a community have the right to ask from its most successful members?

(Did you read Tami's entire post? 'Cause you should.)

These questions hit really close to home for me. Like Maddow, I work in political/opinion journalism. And I find myself considering these things in so many situations. Do I assign this piece to a lesser-known journalist who is not a white man (who may have less experience, but who would bring a different perspective and much-needed diversity to the magazine), or do I try to assign it to the well-known author (who is usually a white man, who is often a more experienced writer, but whose name is known and more impressive to our readers)? Do I make my feminist perspective very clear in my writing, or do I make a concerted effort not to have every piece with my byline focus on gender? Am I going to be seen as a nag when I bring up, over and over, the lack of diversity in our pages?

To be fair, I know plenty of white, male editors and writers for whom these questions are also important. But the difference is the weight of the obligation. And it's clear that it weighs heavier on journalists who are women, who are queer, who are people of color. It's not a perfect analogy, but in some ways, it's like child care. When a mother takes the kids to the park, she's just doing her job. When dad does it, he's a hero. That's why it's hard for me to fault Rachel Maddow, and why I force myself to temper (just a little bit) my joy at watching that Jon Stewart segment.

Oh Cosmo, did you really have to go there? Their latest online is about how to find and appeal to a rich man:

Landing a loaded guy has long been a fantasy for some females. In fact, your own mother may have even quipped that it's just as easy to fall for a wealthy man as it is a poor one. And high-income dudes (those earning $104,000 and up, as defined by the Tax Foundation Group in Washington, DC) are on our radar even more thanks to such shows as The Hills, Gossip Girl, and The Millionaire Matchmaker.

This includes tips like "They Have Gold-Digger Radar," "They Feel Entitled to Arm Candy," "But They Don't Want to Marry a Dummy Either." They even refer to rich guys' preference in hair color.

Between pop culture's obsession with the rich elite and the media's love of portraying women as gold diggers, it's really disappointing to see a woman's magazine only perpetuating the stereotype. But should we be surprised?

UK tabloid The Sun had stays classy by featuring a slide show of "ugly" sex workers' mug shots.

They even quote a cop mocking the women:

One police officer laughed: "It's amazing that some of these women could make a living. There must be a lot of desperate guys out there."

This just makes me sad. Not for the women they're ridiculing, but for humanity. Sigh.

Via the f word.

UPDATE: Seems they may have taken it down. Is it too much to hope it was in a crisis of conscience?

Last week I wrote about an article run by Salon about "upskirting" and "downblousing" using a quote from John Morris at the Center for Democracy and Technology that certainly set off some alarm bells.

From my post,

Unfortunately, the debate that ensues is a question of whether or not your privacy is being violated since you are on the street and as a public place is free to be photographed with all participants or as John Morris, from the Center for Democracy & Technology, says in the article, "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

I have a friend that works at CDT and felt this was a bad characterization of the goals and values of their organization and brought it to the attention of the Director and CEO Leslie Harris, who has released this statement.

The recent Salon article, "Porn in a Flash," contains a quote from our General Council John Morris that was taken out of context. John's quote: "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street," spoke to the broader, general question of whether someone has an expectation of privacy in a public place. Placement of the quote, however, made John sound unsympathetic toward "upskirting" and "downblousing." Of course these practices are wrong, and of course there is a difference between a snapshot on the street and this sort of invasive voyeurism.

CDT is a strong advocate of personal privacy and commends the steps states have taken to criminalize these nefarious practices. Federal privacy laws were passed before the majority of today's portable technologies existed outside of Dick Tracy comic books. That's why CDT is pressing Congress to rewrite the privacy laws and bring them up-to-date with today's technology and provide the sorely needed protections missing from the law as it stands today. We fully believe that state invasion of privacy laws can, if carefully drafted, adequately address these upskirting and downblousing practices.

Leslie Harris
President & CEO
Center for Democracy & Technology

Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon has an informative piece up about the increase of creepy upskirt photography. What is upskirt photography? When someone stands behind you or below you and snaps a pic on their camera phone up your skirt when you don't realize it. Then shares it with other upskirt fetishists on the internets. It is gross, offensive, violating, and a very popular form of pornography.

When it comes to voyeurs who photograph or videotape up a woman's skirt (known as "upskirting") or snap a photo down a woman's shirt ("downblousing"), though, "there are not many practical, legal remedies available to people who find themselves the victim," says Anita Allen, a privacy expert and professor at Penn Law. That's if the woman even realizes she is a victim in the first place, which is unlikely, as the voyeur typically manages to go undetected. If the photo or video is published online -- which, increasingly, it is -- it would be difficult for the subject to ever come across the material. Even if she did, how could she recognize one underwear-clad rear as her own?

Unfortunately, the debate that ensues is a question of whether or not your privacy is being violated since you are on the street and as a public place is free to be photographed with all participants or as John Morris, from the Center for Democracy & Technology, says in the article, "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

But as Clark argues and I agree, there is a big difference taking a picture of someone on the street and strategically placing a camera between a woman's legs or down her shirt for kicks and jerk off material. Suggesting if a woman doesn't want to be upskirted, she shouldn't be on the street or shouldn't wear a skirt-well that just sounds like a "blame the victim" line of defense to actually be a legitimate excuse for a blatant violation of privacy.

Thoughts?

Last week Salon put up a list of the sexiest men alive and boyyyy they sure were sexy! The list included some hotties including, Kal Penn, Robert Downy Jr., Van Jones and even our favorite, Ill Doctrine. I had no choice but to tease Jay about his sexy status, but realized as I was joking that when I get written about as sexy on other people's blogs it is usually in a "get back in the kitchen-shut up bitch-you are hot" kind of way which is far from flattering.

So this morning I was reading through the HuffPo and came across the world's sexist woman alive. Here is the list as decided by E!

Check out Hannah Seligon's great overview of how the entire world woke up to sexism in the media thanks to the last year of political coverage. There's a special focus on the Women's Media Center, definitely an organization to know. In fact, they're accepting applications now for their next class of the Progressive Women's Voices project, an experience I thoroughly enjoyed (media training + amazing community of women + publicity support for your organization or your own personal writing/activism). Check it out and send those applications in ASAP!

This is an oldie-but-goodie; Samantha Bee reflects on her discovery at the RNC that there's a new c-word that's not to be uttered. Transcript below the jump.

In no particular order.

1. You are expected to dress nice and act a certain way "waiting" to get asked out.

2. You have to play by the rules which generally give men most of the power. (wait till he calls you, don't be too forward, be mysterious-you don't want to scare him off, etc)

3. If you show emotion too early on or too much of it, you are needy.

4. If you don't show enough emotion, you are making the other party insecure forcing them to wield social privilege to silence your daring attempt at independence from self obliteration via coupling.

5. It fetishizes unequal power relations between women. He'll get the tab, he'll get the door as long as he gets the vagina, and that is considered "romance."

6. It makes same sex couples feel "less than."

7. It dictates your interaction in most social settings and social circles, whether you are single or coupled. It is either/or, there is no 3rd identity or in-between.

8. If you have sex too early you ruined it.

9. If you don't have sex early on you are a prude.

10. It is expected to lead to marriage (and if you don't have a ring on your finger you are "on the market.")

Big time.

Last month, Jessica gave us the lowdown on how the mainstream media has been feeding the whole Palin-as-Feminist rhetoric that's been going around, and Ann reminded us earlier this week about why Palin's attempt at feminist talk is completely empty of meaning. But apparently, the Washington Post disagrees. Lois Romano writes:

Palin's candidacy has sent a jolt through traditional liberal women's organizations as she tries to redefine feminism, suggesting that the old movement has become detached from the hockey moms Palin champions. The mother of five and former beauty queen is the antithesis of the bra-burning militant libbers of the '60s, and she is adamantly antiabortion. Yet Palin has grabbed the feminist label vigorously and has been hailed as one by the thousands of supportive women who wave their lipstick tubes at her rallies.

The author also contends that the "unexpected recognition of a conservative as a role model for women has forced some traditional feminists to reconsider the movement's mission," specifically referencing to her stance on abortion multiple times, as if Palin being anti-choice is the only issue that distinguishes her from feminists. Forget about charging residents in Wasilla for rape kits and her general apathy for rape victims, her lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the fact that she's against emergency contraception , her history of cutting funding for young, low-income mothers - you get the gist.

What's the most infuriating is that Romano pretty much labels her as this subversive revolutionary working against a puritanical movement:

Palin proclaimed that feminism is no longer synonymous with liberalism but something that could be shared and celebrated by all women.

You mean no longer synonymous with the "bra-burning militant libbers of the '60s"? And speaking of, she quotes a Clinton-supporter-turned-McCain-supporter who says that, "Sarah Palin rocks all the stereotypes of feminism and can only enhance progress for women."

Somehow this writer managed to reinforce feminist stereotypes while deeming Palin as proof that feminists can be so much more than just stereotypes. You know, they can be airbrushed sexymoms with hot legs.

Sigh.

So, Campbell Brown keeps having these moments where she calls out sexism and I really like it.

I agree with her that there is an enormous double standard in focusing on what Palin is wearing and not cross-checking it against how much male candidates are spending on their images. However, 150K is a disgustingly huge amount of money to spend on "prettying up Palin" in the middle of a financial crisis. Furthermore, what Brown doesn't mention is part of Palin's whole appeal is to make her a "sexy" gal next door and the money was spent to create that image. The Republicans are using her look as part of her appeal and manipulating the sexist double standard to boost her popularity with voters that adhere to normative standards of feminine beauty. You know, the gal next door that looks "normal," but for women to look "normal" they need to spend tons of money on hair, make-up and clothes. Hillary's image was not used in this way because she didn't brand her self as the "sexy" mom next door, but was scrutinized nonetheless for her not being feminine enough.

Either way, they can spend 2 million dollars "prettying up Palin", but that will not cover up or distract any of us from her horrid politics, policies-history of government abuse, misinformation and corruption-or deplorable stance on women's issues. Seriously, can this election be over already.

Well this is a new one. If you thought Fox News was bad, check out their bloggers. Greg Gutfeld, also host of Fox News' Red Eye, wrote a post yesterday on Fox Forum that may just leave you speechless. The title: "Obama Is as Untouchable as a Really Hot Chick." And that's just the tip of the iceberg:

Seriously, the man isn't a presidential candidate, he's a really hot chick. You know what I mean, right?

You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let's say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah's Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won't matter.

Blinded by beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke, riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead. (Emphasis mine)

It must be hard to put so many misogynist stereotypes in less than a hundred words. Sounds like this guy has some serious fucking issues.

After you've recovered from the speechlessness, let the fury sink in and let Greg know what you think of his blogging.

Thanks to Lisa for the link!

Holy rock star! This just in from Radar:

New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal sees something special in a certain teensy Gaelic man who refuses to remove his sunglasses. That's right, the Timesman announced last night his first acquisition for the paper's Op-Ed pages for 2009: Bono. Yep, Bono. The activist-creator of Zoo TV will pen between six and ten pieces for the Grey Lady next year, Rosenthal told students Wednesday night at Columbia's School of Journalism.

Every time I think I couldn't love Rachel Maddow more, she comes out with something like this. Sigh.

More at Think Progress.

The Atlantic has a huge piece on transgender children out - what do you think of it?

So as most of you know I am taking some time off from the nitty-gritty of the 9-5, quit my non-profit job and am living at home to work on some writing. Now, I don't generally share a ton of personal stories, mainly because I don't want to be too self indulgent and I don't want to bore you, but this one I just had to share.

When I was 21 I decided the only hope for my personal survival was to move as far away from my strict Hindu parents as possible. My escape from NY was to escape from my parents and what I felt as the suffocating South Asian community we are part of and I found my freedom in San Francisco. Moving back 7 years later was a difficult decision, but I figured I am 30, I am who I am, what can they say to me now?

Before moving in, I set some ground rules for my parents. They were not allowed to talk to me about my lack of allegiance to our religion, my dating and/or marriage status and my weight. I got to give it up to them, they have definitely not bothered me about religion or dating (too much), but they have failed miserably at making comments about my weight.

It's discreet, but it's there. Yay for positive representations of breastfeeding. It can be sexy.

Via DoulaMomma

You have to find it funny that this is coming from Fox News. Because Newsweek's recent cover of Sarah Palin isn't airbrushed, conservatives are up in arms. They claim all of Obama's covers are flawless. Yeah, totally flawless.

This is not to say either of these photos are even "unflattering," but to make the demand that Palin needs to be airbrushed like a supermodel rather than, um, a real woman, is what's sexist here. Nice try, Fox!

Thanks to stuperb for the heads up!

Via.

Thanks to Katie for the link.

The New York Times had a really interesting article up yesterday about the condescending language some use addressing older people, "In 'Sweetie' and 'Dear,' a Hurt for the Elderly."

To study the effects of elderspeak on people with mild to moderate dementia, Dr. Williams and a team of researchers videotaped interactions in a nursing home between 20 residents and staff members. They found that when nurses used phrases like "good girl" or "How are we feeling?" patients were more aggressive and less cooperative or receptive to care. If addressed as infants, some showed their irritation by grimacing, screaming or refusing to do what staff members asked of them.

The researchers, who will publish their findings in The American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, concluded that elderspeak sent a message that the patient was incompetent and "begins a negative downward spiral for older persons, who react with decreased self-esteem, depression, withdrawal and the assumption of dependent behaviors."

Dr. Williams said health care workers often thought that using words like "dear" or "sweetie" conveyed that they cared and made them easier to understand. "But they don't realize the implications," she said, "that it's also giving messages to older adults that they're incompetent."

I'm really glad that the NYT addressed this - and I think that an ageism/sexism combo probably really adds to the "sweetie" effect as well.

I like Ellen Kirschman's response: "As I get older, I don't want to be recognized for my age. I want to be recognized for my accomplishments, for my wisdom."

To avoid stereotyping, Ms. Kirschman said, she often sprinkles her conversation with profanities when she is among people who do not know her. "That makes them think, This is someone to be reckoned with," she said. "A little sharpness seems to help."

Heh, nice. Before my grandmother (my Nanny Ann) passed away, when she was sick with dementia, she would often curse up a storm and get pissed when babied by her caretakers. An example: She was on the phone with my sister and the woman who was caring for her was making her mad. Vanessa sat there in horror as dear Nanny Ann screamed, "Leave me alone, you whoremaster!" and "Stick it up your hole!" The call ended when with my very frustrated Nanny saying "Ah fuck it," and hanging up. Oh, Nanny, I miss you.

Listen to an interview with Samhita on RH Reality Check's podcast, Reality Cast.

Some topics covered: The Planned Parenthood donation chain, Sarah Palin's gay friend, the Colorado amendment and forced C-sections...

It is rare that armed resistance movements are given positive news coverage. And understandably so when groups use brutal force on civilians. However, the dialog of acceptable and unacceptable moments of violence has been dominated by a history of colonization. Basically, war is only acceptable when it is protecting the interests of rich and white people. But for those of us that believe in a more fair and just world where everyone should have access to the means of production and women should not be enslaved by patriarchy it is good to hear in some places people are fighting for their own rights. I don't support their tactics of hurting or killing civilians, but I do see what they are fighting for.

The women of the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) believe that without a dismantling of patriarchy no one is free. They have been branded as a terrorist organization by NATO, Turkey, Iraq and the United States. The PKK wants an independent Kurdish state in Kuridistan. The women's demands are simple,

"We want a natural life, a society that revolves around women -- one where women and men are equal, a society without pressure, without inequality, where all differences between people are eliminated," says Rengin, the head of a female battalion of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.

Perhaps this is a leap of imagination for those socialized to think there is only certain types of right and wrong violence. We don't want violence in our communities or anyone else's. But given the context they are working with in, a country ravaged by war and a place where women are subject to inhumane conditions, I can actually empathize with their frustrations.

Revolutionary movements have been around for decades now, both using violent and non-violent tactics to fight for the world they want and generally focused on an anti-colonial stance (one notable example being the Zapatistas, who also believe in gender equity). We may not agree with them, but I think it is important to understand them.

Related:
Kurdish women fighting on the frontlines.

Right-wing bloggers and journalists are making noise about Gwen Ifill moderating tonight's debate, because (gasp), she is writing a book about race and American politics. Naturally, this fact combined with her being black makes her blind to her own racism and favoritism of Obama. No, wait, actually, that assumption is racist.

Here is why. If Ifill were a white journalist and even more so a white male journalist, there would be no question in her ability to moderate the debate fairly. Furthermore, George Stephanopoulos moderated a debate between Hillary and Barack during primary season and he worked in the Clinton administration. Did anyone make noise about that? (No, really did they? I can't remember.)

Furthermore, the assumption that her book is somehow "pro-Obama" is also problematic. People write books about key figures in history all the time, does that assume they are biased towards them or merely contributing to the political dialog? Even Elyas Bakhtiari at the Moderate Voice said,

I skeptically use quotations because the book is about how the black political structure of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality. That trend has been observed by many scholars in the last year and isn't exactly a sign of political bias. The title, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," might raise some eyebrows. But honestly, how can you write a serious book about changes in the black political structure without making Obama the central focus?

Andrew Sullivan gives us the worst case scenario. Well, I guess leave it to the right-wingnuts to come up with any excuse, irrelevant of how racist, to stop us from seeing the *real* Sarah Palin.

I can't wait for the debate!

Via Media Matters, we find that O'Reilly is apparently trying to say "women's privacy" is "the new mantra" that encourages "infanticide" when responding to awesome Ashley Judd's statement on McCain's horrendous rap sheet on reproductive health. Here's the transcript:

JUDD [audio clip]: With regard to women, who I think do make such an important constituency in this upcoming election, McCain has a zero record on voting against women's privacy and reproductive health. Senator Obama has a 100 percent voting record for women's privacy and reproductive health. And the only reason that McCain has a zero is organizations like Planned Parenthood couldn't find a lower number. And a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

O'REILLY: OK, somebody wrote that for her. Now notice "women's privacy" and "reproductive health." Notice that. That's the new mantra: Women's privacy. So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby -- women's privacy. Notice that. Very interesting new description. Reproductive health. That could be anything. Anything at all. Migraine headache. Panic attack. But "women's privacy" is the key there. So, if you want to have an abortion or even infanticide, it's privacy.

This is just laughable, because it shows how ridiculously out of touch O'Reilly is. Sorry Bub, but the term "women's privacy" has been around since Roe v. Wade was passed. Because, you know, that is what the decision was based on and all. Notice that.

Check out the transcript after the jump.

Ok, ridiculous dated slang, I know. But! Bitch magazine reports that they've already met their fundraising goal! Phew! Way to go, feminist community. Debbie writes:

Please help us keep the momentum going and continue donating and offering your feedback and ideas. We know many of you have ideas and concerns about Bitch's future and sustainability, and we're grateful for the critical feedback and ideas you've offered so far. We're listening. And we assure you we're hard at work on a sustainable vision, based on your feedback (and we're at work on a survey to help facilitate this process). [..]

On behalf of the staff and board here at Bitch, we offer our deepest thanks and appreciation. We're thrilled to be demonstrating the incredible power of community-supported publishing with you.

I'm gonna put in a little plug for Bitch's sustainer program, which allows you to give a set amount per month -- as low as $10. So if you've got a bit of financial security, you can choose to skip a restaurant meal or a few lattes a month (or whatever your minor extravagance is), and have that cash go toward sustaining awesome, independent feminist publishing.

Warm fuzzies all around.

Bitch magazine, the wonderful feminist publication, is in dire need of help. The past issue it put out may be its last if the mag doesn't raise $40,000 by October 15.

That's a lot of money - but with all the kick-ass feminists out there who know and love bitch, I'm betting it's possible.

So please take a moment to watch this video of Debbie Rasmussen and Andi Zeisler explaining what's going on, and consider donating here. I know I will be.

Not to have articles about their political interests represented by a fucking tube of lipstick. (At least the cover is promoting a piece by the fabulous Dahlia Lithwick, softening the grossly sexist blow a bit.)

Anyone watching it? What do you think?

I'm excited by the mix of formats--debate with ol' Uncle Pat, good back and forth with progressive columnist and theologian (a woman and man of color!)--and a little pop culture to end it off.

There's really nothing about this clip that's good. According to Donny Deutsch, host of CNBC's Big Idea, the "new feminist ideal" (ahem) is selling women in power as a sexy SuperMom. Also, Sen. Hillary Clinton made a mistake when she "didn't put a skirt on."

There is the new creation that the feminist woman has not figured out in 40 years of the feminist ideal that men can take in a woman in power and women can celebrate a woman in power. Hillary Clinton didn't figure it out. She didn't put a skirt on!

...She [Palin] talked about energy. Didn't matter! Today everybody's running in circles -- we want to have her over for dinner. I trust her. I want her watching my kids. I want her laying next to me in bed. That's the way people vote.

Via Think Progress.

The mainstream media seems confused these days. It appears that because Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin is a woman, she is also a feminist. And not just a feminist, but THE feminist - a sign that all is right in the world when it comes to gender equity. But how could that be, you ask? How could anyone paint Palin - whose policies make it all too clear that she's about as anti-feminist as they come - as feminism's second coming? Well, by pithy misleading headlines - that's how!

The Wall Street Journal: Sarah Palin Feminism

Townhall: Sarah Palin: A Liberated Woman

LA Times: Sarah Palin's 'new feminism' is hailed

NPR: Sarah Palin: New Face Of Feminism?

Adweek: Feminism's Next Wave

The New York Post: A Feminist Dream at the GOP

Even more interesting is that the reporters touting this Palin-as-feminist nonsense are people who pretty much know jack shit about feminism.

Take Wall Street Journal reporter Naomi Schaefer Riley, who writes that progressives should rest easy about Palin's candidacy because "most American evangelicals have wholeheartedly embraced the idea of women in the workplace." A radical feminist sentiment if there ever was one! But perhaps one should take Riley with a grain of salt, considering she's the same reporter who wrote that murdered NY college student Imette St. Guillen should have known better than to be out drinking at 3am. Victim-blamers aren't exactly bastions of feminist thought.

Karin Agness, who wrote the piece for Townhall, calls Palin a "success of feminism" and "truly a liberated woman." Agness is also the President of the Network of Enlightened Women, an anti-feminist college organization that lurves Elizabeth Hasselbeck and even (sigh) mocked a NOW conference attendee in a wheelchair on their blog.

Really, most of the "feminism" talk is coming from conservatives appropriating the language of the movement to push a ridiculously anti-feminist candidate. This, of course, is nothing new (cough, IWF, cough) and fairly transparent.

But what I find even more upsetting is the Palin/feminist talk coming from mainstream outlets who are demonstrating absolutely no knowledge of feminism. Take the Adweek article, for example, which says "Palin is a classic third-wave feminist, benefiting from all that came before her in terms of the women's movement..." So by this definition, any woman who has benefited from feminism is a feminist. So, all women are feminists? Uh, yeah.

So, please, esteemed members of the mainstream media - if you want to write about Palin and feminism, how about you get a feminist to do it? Or at least interview one of us for goodness sake - there's plenty of us around and we'll be happy to talk to you about what the movement is about. (Hint: It's a lot more than thinking any woman is a good choice for all women.)

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 thou