Recently in Updates Category

Community blogger MaraJ3791 covered this a couple of days ago, and thankfully some good news has come out of this heinousness.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) attempts to mitigate violent crimes in the UK by giving victims reparations. But in their most recent case, a 25-year old woman who was raped was told the £11,000 she was to be given was actually going to be reduced by 25% because she was drinking on the night she was assaulted. She received a letter saying that, "the evidence shows that your excessive consumption of alcohol was a contributing factor in the incident."

"It was just so cruel and unthinking and so wrong because there is nothing you can do to prevent yourself being raped. It is not illegal to go out and have a drink, it is illegal to rape somebody," said the survivor.

The good news is that after some pushing, the decision has been overturned. But unfortunately, this is too little too late for others. The CICA also acknowledged that they had already cut reparations for 14 other rape victims this year, but refused to review the past cases to potentially right their wrong.

"If an applicant accepts our decision then that case is finalised and closed," the CICA said. "If they wish to ask for a review they must do this themselves, in writing."

The fact that these people can be so smug after admitting guilty to blatant injustice through victim-blaming is beyond me. Let the CICA know that they should take responsibility for their shameful actions and give the 14 women their reviews; they certainly shouldn't have ask for it.

Check out Keith Olbermann's takedown of Limbaugh's oh-so-hilarious joke about Edwards' affair.

Via Community blogger Stellar.

Note: In our recent Feministing retreat, we decided that some back and forth dialogue between editors would be a cool thing, so every once in a while you may see a post title with "re:" in it - that's how you'll know it's us doing some good old fashioned feminist debating.

Miriam, I'm so happy that you posted this amazing video of An Open Letter to Alix Olson. I thought it was just incredible and I really appreciated your take on MichFest.

I have to say, though, that it really bothers me when MichFest is framed as a feminist "controversy" rather than straight up discrimination. This isn't a controversy - it's deliberate exclusion and it's shameful.

I also find the "Oh, but we're not doing genital checks"(!) just as offensive as a stated and enforced womyn-born-womyn policy. There doesn't have to be a written policy on the website for the discrimination to still be there. If MichFest wants to do the right thing, they'll be proactive and have a statement denouncing their womyn-born-womyn policy and stop hiding behind their silence on the issue.

I personally think the festival should be open to people who identify as women (or womyn), and if there are issues with safety or harrassment (which seems to be a fear) then they should be dealt with directly, not via discriminatory policies.

I totally agree, though I wanted to just point one thing out. I find the "safety" issue really uncompelling - as did Carasande in comments. Not only because it's not just penises* that rape women, but also because it uses rhetoric of the Right. As thebeatles11 noted on the Community blog, the latest anti-trans campaign (tellingly called "Not in My Shower") cites the fear that women will be assaulted as the reasoning behind their discrimination. Feminists shouldn't resort to the language (or actions!) of fear and discrimination - we're better than that!

You mentioned Julia Serano--who I think is probably the most brilliant feminist writing today--and I think that no one talks about trans woman exclusion better than she does. So I thought it fitting to end my post (though hopefully not the discussion!) with her words:

*Because the fear here does seem to be about penises, rather than "men."

What a dick. A Boston Herald op-ed covers this "Horribles parade" in MA:

At this year’s Horribles parade in Beverly Farms, the biggest laughs - and loudest complaints - were inspired by a float mocking the “Give It Up” girls of Gloucester High. Ladies from “The Fahm” adorned themselves in fake baby bumps and danced to “I Got It From My Momma.” Guys tossed condoms and waved signs rhyming words in a decidedly family-unfriendly manner.

Pretty horrendous, no? Apparently, this guy thinks it's appropriate to shame the pregnant students at Gloucester High:

..Other communities and families send a far clearer message condemning teen sex. There are 15-year-olds who know that if they make the wrong choice, they will be greeted with embarrassment and disappointment, not on-campus day care.

When the same girl shows up at the school clinic for five pregnancy tests in one month, shouldn’t somebody be mocking her for it? In fact, isn’t promoting shame through mockery our civic duty? (Emphasis mine)

He also condemns comprehensive sex ed supporters for rejecting the use of shame as a value and tactic to woo kids away from sex.

I'm actually glad the author published this, because at least he's exposing the truth by standing proud to what the abstinence-only movement feeds on.

Talk about shame.

h/t to Emmeline.

Remember how Henry Morgentaler, Canada's best-known abortion-rights crusader was to the Order of Canada? Apparently some folks aren't too happy about it.

A Calgary-based activist group has filed an official request to the Governor General, asking that she strip abortion crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler of his membership in the Order of Canada.

..."Henry Morgentaler's conduct is unbecoming that of a member of the Order of Canada and thereby tarnishes all recipients of this tremendous award," the coalition wrote in its letter to the Order of Canada advisory committee.

Yes, supporting women's rights is pretty "unbecoming." Sigh.

I'm in shock. TIME magazine followed up their original story about the pregnant teens of Gloucester, but now suggesting that the girls' decision is not just one of personal choice, but one of rejecting abortion and "taking responsibility." And the credit is partly given to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).

You must read the whole piece, which reeks of anti-choice language, but the last paragraph really says it all:

Whether a girl--or a woman--decides to end a pregnancy or see it through is as complex an emotional and moral and medical calculation as she ever faces. But I wonder if some soft message has taken hold when the data suggest that more women facing hard choices are deciding to carry the child to term. This has been the mission of the crisis-pregnancy-center movement, the more than 4,000 centers and hotlines and support groups around the country that aim to talk women out of having abortions and offer whatever support they can. If not in Hollywood, then certainly in Gloucester, teen parents and their babies face long odds against success in life. Surely they deserve more sympathy and support than shame and derision, if the trend that they reflect is not a typical teenager's inclination to have sex but rather a willingness to take responsibility for the consequences. (Emphasis mine)

Now, we obviously know these girls shouldn't be shamed in any way regarding their decision to have sex or to go full term with their pregnancies. But to imply that it's more responsible to have a child than to have an abortion is just ridiculous. And I won't even get into the fact that the piece blatantly lauds crisis pregnancy centers and the "support" they apparently give women. If by "support," she means deceiving and misleading women to believe they're giving them all of their options - sure. "Support."

And it's not surprising considering the author; Nancy Gibbs wrote an article in TIME last year all about how CPCs help women titled, "The Grassroots Abortion War", with headline conveniently placed over an image of a crib. Send a letter to the editor and let Gibbs and TIME know they're promoting deceiving organizations.

It seems that the anti-choice organization profiled in The Washington Post, Pharmacists for Life International, was not very happy that Feministing blogged about them.

A snapshot from the top of their website:

It's nice to know an organization that holds itself up as a paragon of virtue, morality and Christian values finds the time to make snarky personal insults. Nothing pleases me more than when groups like these show their true colors.

(Is anyone else just shocked that they didn't choose to quote the part of the post that called them out for supporting racists?)

Fox's Senior Vice President of Programming Bill Shine told the Politico that the producer responsible for labeling Michelle Obama "Obama's baby mama" in a segment "exercised poor judgment." Uh, yeah, I'd say so. (So much for a heartfelt apology.)

Via the newly-launched Michelle Obama Watch, created by What About Our Daughters. (Add it to your blogrolls, and get involved in keeping tabs on the media!)

Incredible.

Via Echidne via blinkytreefrog, Amanda takes this 1951 book, "On Becoming a Woman" and compares it to the Just for Girls/Just for Guys abstinence-only teen magazine that I posted on last week. You absolutely must check it out.

Via Consumerist, we find out that Kmart is claiming their True Love Waits sweatpants have absolutely nothing to do with abstinence.

A spokeswoman for Sears Holdings Corp., which owns Kmart, told The Buzz the pants have absolutely nothing to do with taking any kind of position, either way, on abstinence. "It was not associated with any group or any cause," said Amy Dimond. "It was just a graphic put on the pants."

Piper & Blue, Kmart's private label brand, designed the sweatpants as part of its summer collection that hit stores in late April.

Although the pants were not designed to make a statement, Dimond admitted that "there may be some (customers) who made the (abstinence association), but it was not the intention."

Oh, wow. How stupid of me! When I saw the description of the pants on Kmart (right after "drawstring waist) as having a "bold abstinence screen print," I must have been hallucinating. Oh wait, no. There it is.

Note to Kmart flacks: If you're going to lie, make sure to cover your tracks.

Shortly after women ski jumpers rallied in Vancouver this winter while the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was in town, it looks like they're now filing suit against the Vancouver organizing committee for the 2010 Olympics:

The women ski jumpers say not being included in the Games is a violation of the women's rights under Canada's bill of rights.

The lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court, says the failure to include a women's ski jumping event in the Games is discriminatory and based on stereotypes of the types of activities suitable for women.

Last year, the women also filed a suit with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who compromised to press the IOC to change its mind. And the Vancouver organizing committee had told the IOC it didn't want to include women's ski jumping because of budget constraints, and the IOC voted in 2006 to not allow women ski jumpers in the Games because the sport hasn't developed enough. Not to mention the International Ski Federation has stated in the past that the sport "isn't appropriate for ladies" and could damage their ovaries and uterus. For reals.

In the meantime, badminton was approved in 1985 by the IOC to be given full-medal Olympic status.

Check out the Let Women Ski Jump in 2010 campaign for more info on this ridiculousness.

Not two months after charges were dropped against an Oklahoma man who took photos up a 16-year-old girl's skirt while she was shopping at Target, a similar Florida case has been thrown out which charged a man who used a mirror to look under a woman's skirt at Barnes & Noble:

Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.

The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.'

This is the same reason the Oklahoma case was thrown out, in which Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote in his dissent:

"What this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress. . . In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress." (Emphasis mine)

Looks like he was right.

Go Washington University! (I also have some great footage of students turning their back on Schlafly, but YouTube hates me and won't let me upload it.)

Should we be surprised this is the work of PETA? It just never ends. And you have to love their press release on the "demonstration":

Wearing sexy yellow bikinis outside the legislative meeting of the United Egg Producers in Washington on Wednesday, six PETA beauties will crowd into three cramped cages to mimic conditions for laying hens on factory farms. The ladies will hold egg-shaped signs that read, 'Chicks Suffer for Eggs.'

One of the women in the cages, Shawn Herbold, made a statement, "I'll heat things up a little to show exactly what cold-hearted egg producers do to make hens' lives a living hell." Nothing hotter than caging women up like chickens.

Washington University students and faculty turned their backs to Phyllis Schlafly, as a form of silent protest, as she received an honorary degree at the school's commencement.

The crowd was mostly quiet as [Trustee emerita Margaret Bush] Wilson introduced Schlafly to the crowd. Hundreds of graduates and faculty stood and turned their backs during the introduction. A few of the faculty even walked off the stage to turn their backs.

Awesome! If anyone has pictures, please send them in!

The protesters, who Schlafly called "a bunch of losers" and "bitter women," also started a website to tell the Washington University community how they could join in on the action.

Several days ago, Chancellor Mark Wrighton apologized for the "anguish" the decision to give Schlafly a degree caused, and noted that the school is not endorsing her views or opinions. (They're just honoring them, is all.)

UPDATE: I've received an email from Michael Murphy of Washington University's Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program - he tells me the article grossly underestimated the number of people protesting. He estimated that about 75 percent of the 2800 graduates and two-thirds of the other members of the crowd turned their backs in protest.

Here's a partial video, and some pics.

Phyllis Schlafly, who is set to receive an honorary degree from Washington University this week has reiterated her support of marital rape. (Because, sorry, if you think that women who have gotten married have don't have a right to refuse sex - you are supporting rape.)

In an interview with Washington University's student newspaper, Schlafly held her anti-woman ground:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Find out how can you can contact Washington University about this honorary degree nonsense here.

Via Right Wing Watch.

Anyone remember the oh-so-controversial pro-choice ad that Manhattan Mini Storage ran last year?

Well it seems that the company is taking their support of choice a step further. According to a press release from Planned Parenthood of NYC, they've committed to donating a total of $200,000 to 5 NYC charities – including PPNYC.

Send them an email to say thanks.

Some bad news via Female Impersonator:

At the beginning of the semester, there was an incident here at Yale involving a "fraternity prank" and the Women's Center where 12 members of the Zeta Psi frat stood in front of the Women's Center chanting "dick dick dick dick" while holding a sign saying "We Love Yale Sluts." Quite the incident.

On Monday, the Executive Committee of Yale College found the members of this group not guilty of intimdiation [sic] and harassment charges. No charges of sexual harassment were ever filed, even though complaints were issued with the Sexual Harassment Grievance Board.

The men also intimidated women trying to enter the center. But I guess that's not harassment, huh? One of the harassed women penned an article for the college paper, noting that she has no recourse to appeal the decision and that "all 12 brothers of Zeta Psi were allowed to read my written affidavit before they wrote their own — 12 iterations of the same collective story." Charming.

Thanks to Kari for the link.

I have to say, I'm impressed. When I posted an anti-feminist hate email from the (now former) public relations officer of the Southern Illinois University College Republicans, I didn't expect any action to be taken.

On the contrary, not only did officers of the CR - Wess Haubrich and Jermaine Raymer - come into the thread to offer apologies (as did the emailer himself, Alex Kochno, though his apology was not as well-taken by commenters), but SIU also took out an ad in their college paper (4/23, p 14) renouncing the act. Kochno also resigned from his position at CR, I'm assuming under pressure from his peers.

And to top things off, I received an email from the SIU administration informing me how seriously they took the email and that Kochno's email privileges were suspended pending a student conduct code review.

I think major kudos go to the SIU administration and the officers of the CR for their prompt and thorough response.

SIU's response has really heartened me. I think we all know how rampant online misogyny is, and how difficult it is to deal with because of anonymity issues. But I think incidents like these show how we can hold harassers accountable, and how seriously the "real" world will take hate speech - online or off.

So big thanks to SIU administration, the CR, and the many SIU students who emailed us. I have a little more hope today because of your action.

Thank god.

After the highest court of Maryland reheard the case which made the horrifying ruling that a woman cannot be raped once she has consented to sex, the court has overturned the decision and broadened the definition of rape to, um, rape:

With this expansion of the legal definition of rape, Maryland joins seven other states whose courts have determined that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins.

'This goes to the heart of women's autonomy,' said Lisae C. Jordan, legal director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a brief in the matter. 'It says that, yes, women do have the right to make decisions about something as intimate as sexual intercourse.'

The Maryland Court of Appeals' opinion in a rape case from Montgomery County overturns what defense attorneys and a lower appeals court said was existing common law and the high court's own 1980 opinion.

Like Jessica said, it's hard to believe that this was actually up for debate in the first place, but at least the right decision was made. (Nearly two years later.)

It looks like all the attention POPLINE has received from their decision to omit the term "abortion" from their search engine has been brought to the attention of the Dean of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who released the following statement:

I was informed this morning that the word "abortion" was blocked as a search term in the POPLINE family planning database administered by the Bloomberg School’s Center for Communication Programs. POPLINE provides evidence-based information on reproductive health and family planning and is the world’s largest database on these issues.

USAID, which funds POPLINE, found two items in the database related to abortion that did not fit POPLINE criteria. The agency then made an inquiry to POPLINE administrators. Following this inquiry, the POPLINE administrators at the Center for Communication Programs made the decision to restrict abortion as a search term.

I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the POPLINE administrators restore "abortion" as a search term immediately. I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klag, MD, MPH
Dean, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Good stuff.

The New York Times has a piece in the Style section today (as usual) about sexism within some vegan/vegetarian circles like Johnny Diablo, owner of the new vegan strip club in Portland, who just loves using the word "feminazi" and signs his name "Lord & Master." Check out Ann's great post for more background.

You may remember Virginia Delegate John Cosgrove from the oh-so-sensitive bill he proposed in 2005, which would require a woman who has a miscarriage to report the occurrence within 12 hours to a local law enforcement agency or face 12 months in jail for failure to report a death. (Thanks to the efforts of blogging and online activism, Cosgrove pulled the bill.)

Well, it seems that Cosgrove - who seems to have a penchant for legislation that involves women's bodies - is the man behind a bill that requires strippers to wear pasties. He must be so proud.

h/t Reason Magazine.

I couldn't help myself, I needed one.

UPDATE: To those who asked... the "/" symbol is akin to "end" in coding. Hence, /patriarchy = end patriarchy!

Katha Pollitt has a must-read piece in The Washington Post today, smacking down Charlotte Allen's notorious women-are-dumb column.

Pollitt points out that Allen isn't so miffed by women's supposed "dimness" as much as she is pissed that women today "reject, with every fiber of their latte-loving beings, the abstinence-only, father-knows-best, slut-shaming crabbed misogyny of the Republican right." Snap!

Shhh, dolly! Charlotte Allen gave away how we really feel about women so now we have to stay VERY quiet.

As the political blogosphere is busy blowing up over Charlotte Allen's women-are-dumb column, Allen's homies at the Independent Women's Forum are eerily silent. (Though they did have time to blog about how campus rape is a myth. Charming.) The IWF claims that it works for women's best interests. Shouldn't they let us know if they stand by Allen's column calling women "dim?" I say contact them and leave comments in their blog posts until we get an answer.

(I sent an email myself this afternoon. No response as of yet, but I'll keep you updated.)

The Washington Post is running letters (including one from Katha Pollitt) in response to their oh-so-hilarious column about how women are dumb. Besides finding it kind of funny that they started with a positive letter, like others, I'm a bit eye-rolly that the letters are run under the innocuous heading, "Barack Obama and the Female Vote." (What? No more "Women Aren't Very Bright?")

And didn't even bother to get my name right. Thanks to Jeff for reminding me. That is all.

The Politico is reporting that Washington Post editor John Pomfret said Charlotte Allen's women-are-dumb fucks article was “tongue-in-cheek.� I call bullshit.

Any quick search of Allen's past writing shows just how seriously she takes her women-hate. Instead of making excuses for running the most craptastic article ever, how about WaPo just takes some fucking responsibility? Weak.

I imagine that yesterday's Washington Post article about how dumb women are brought in some pretty pissed off letters to the editor - after all, there are over 600 comments already. So how does WaPo respond? They change the headline from overtly misogynist to questioningly sexist.

Yesterday:

Today:

And yet, us "dumb" gals aren't placated. Try again, assholes.

Don't forget, write a letter to the editor or complain to the ombudsman - The Washington Post owes its female (and male!) readers a big ass apology, and let's not let them forget it.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but reader Deja points out that the link that once housed the now-pulled rape shirt currently displays a "Miss Bitch" shirt. Slight dig at feminist complainers, perhaps?

UPDATE: Thanks to commenters for catching what I totally missed. This:

You know, if pointing out that trivializing rape is wrong makes me bitchy, so be it. I am a bitch. If bringing attention to the fact that a company shouldn't be selling pre-teens shirts that say rape is okay if a girl is drunk makes me a bitch, I'm okay with that. I am a big fucking bitch. So David and Goliath, you think the gals at Feministing are bitches. That's fine. Cause at the end of the day, we're still the bitches that got you to pull a shirt.

Via Hear Me Roar, we find out that David & Goliath has pulled the oh-so-funny rape t-shirt (at least online, it seems). First Wal-Mart's panties and now this - we're on a roll, folks!

But don't worry, they still have the classic "I'm too pretty to do math" shirt. (Sigh.)

Nora Niedzielski-Eichner from SAFER has a piece in the LA Times responding to Heather Mac Donald's recent op-ed claiming that there is no rape problem on college campuses.

Niedzielski-Eichner not only refutes Mac Donald's claims that commonly-cited rape statistics are wrong, but also points out that fewer than half of colleges have sexual assault prevention programs - something that must change given the very real problem of campus rape.

Check it out for yourself, and comment over at SAFER's blog.

Nearly six months after the House passed its companion measure, the Senate heard testimony for S. 1843, the "Fair Pay Restoration Act," or the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act", reports the ACLU. Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, stated:

"This bill is a modest and logical fix to an ongoing civil rights problem. American workers should know that they are protected from wage discrimination and are able to challenge such discrimination when they discover it. There should be no benefit to employers in keeping pay discrimination hidden."

Let's hope this is soon put to bed.

Yesterday, women's rights activists in Saudi Arabia kicked off 2008 with a petition which they handed in to King Abdullah, calling for him to take off the ban restricting women from driving. Over 1,100 names were signed.

They gave in a similar petition in September with over 1,000 signatures, and intend on continuing to hand in a new petition for 1,000 signatures they receive. The statement on the petition states that the people who sign the document "hope that 2008 will be the year in which Saudi women obtain their natural right to drive a car."

Let's hope this becomes a reality.

After talks last spring in New Jersey of making HIV testing mandatory for pregnant women, we find that the state has decided to move forward and enforce new legislation.

The law requires health care providers to make the test a part of routine prenatal care, with an "opt out" exception. However, newborns will also be required to be tested if the mother is HIV positive or her HIV status is unknown.

We had some really good discussion here around the issue, where commenter Sassygirl pointed out the ACLU's position with some background information on mandatory testing for pregnant women and newborns, which explains that the testing of newborns is more or less senseless. It also features an example of a HIV-positive woman (from New Jersey, no less) whose child was taken away from her because she refused to give her newborn AZT treatment and was deemed an "unfit" mother. The baby ended up being HIV negative.

And while having the option to refuse testing is a good thing, studies show that many women who live in states that have mandates didn't feel comfortable refusing testing, and almost one in five didn't even know they were even tested for that matter. So how much of "an option" really is it?

It's a complex issue and obviously prevention should be the priority, but do women's private medical decisions need to be sacrificed in the process?

Yay Feministing readers! The gross "Who needs credit cards..." panties have been pulled from Wal-Mart:

"We have directed our stores to remove this merchandise from our shelves," Linda Brown Blakely, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The undergarments had caused a stir on some blogs prior to Wednesday's announcement. Scarlett, a reader of Feministing.com, alerted the blog to the holiday-inspired undies, which she found on a rack in the juniors department of a Wal-Mart in Cary, N.C.

Go Scarlett! And as Ann just said via Skype to me: File this away for the "online activism isn't 'real life' activism" rebuttal files. Indeed.

UPDATE: This is hilarious; Fox News has the panty story on their front page. Please go look at the headline this instant.

You may remember the horrendous story from The New York Times about how female Jets fans are routinely harassed and abused at Giants Stadium:

At halftime of the Jets’ home game against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, several hundred men lined one of Giants Stadium’s two pedestrian ramps at Gate D. Three deep in some areas, they whistled and jumped up and down. Then they began an obscenity-laced chant, demanding that the few women in the gathering expose their breasts.

When one woman appeared to be on the verge of obliging, the hooting and hollering intensified. But then she walked away, and plastic beer bottles and spit went flying. Boos swept through the crowd of unsatisfied men. (Emphasis mine)

Charming, right? Well it seems that maybe (maybe) something will get done about it.

Dennis Robinson, who recently became chief executive of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (which is responsible for Giants Stadium security), has blocked access to the stadium ramps where the majority of harassment takes place and is considering long term measures such as limiting alcohol sales. Yeah, I'm sure that will go over well.

While it's great that steps are being taken, there's no easy fix to change the sexist sports culture and mob mentality that breed harassment and assault against women. Any ideas?

Carol Platt Liebau, author of yet another book--Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!)--about how sex is ruining young women, takes issue with my analysis of Kathleen Parker's theory that women boning is a sign of a "mental health crisis."

In Prude, I talk about the existence of "do-me feminists" -- women who think it's a sign of "liberation" and "empowerment" for young girls to have sex consistent with the worst stereotypes of the way men do it, i.e. without affection, emotion or commitment.

For anyone who thinks such women don't exist, check this out. From their perspective, it isn't that young girls can suffer physical, emotional, psychological and (for people of faith) spiritual damage from giving too much, too soon to the wrong person (or people). Apparently, the problem is that someone, somewhere might be encouraging young girls to behave modestly. Heaven forbid!

Yes, heaven forbid we continue to shame girls and women about their bodies and sexuality. Heaven forbid we keep telling women that their moral compass lays somewhere in between their legs. Heaven forbid we teach abstinence-only education that not only is creating a generation of sexually misinformed and lied-to youth, but that is also responsible for unplanned pregnancies and STDs in that same generation. Heaven forbid.

You know, I am just so sick of these liars--and that's what they are, liars--pretending to have young women's best interest at heart while creating policy and social norms that destroy our sense of self and put our health at risk. I'm sick of these same liars spouting ridiculous myths about feminists wanting children to have sex because it's "empowering." I challenge Liebau, or any of her cohorts, to come up with just one example of a feminist (on this site or others) saying that teens having sex is "liberating." It's a sham, a distraction to take attention away from the fact that they are destroying young women.

What feminists really believe (and what Liebau and friends refuse to address): That young women should be informed and not lied to. That young women's moral character shouldn't be based on whether or not she has a hymen. That young women deserve access to health care that will enable them to live the lives they want--and that will potentially save their lives. That young women are smart. That young women are to be trusted. That young women can make decisions for themselves without moral panic assholes telling them they're whores.

(Not-as-angry-aside: I laughed when I found out about Liebau's Prude, because it's basically the anti-book to what will be my third venture with Seal Press--a book about how the myth of sexual purity is fucking up young women.)

Why in a teaser for my local news (ABC) about the harassment of women at Giants Stadium, the voice over said "hear about women fans behaving badly?" What the fuck?!

While Clay wants to whup Ann's anti-cat ass, Cracker thought he'd reach out to all the anti-felines in a more sympathy-inducing way; the poor baby had to endure 10 days with "the cone" after getting three stitches from a cat fight.

Now if that's not worth some respect, I don't know what is.