September 2004 Archives

It looks like the League of Women Voters have created a randy new program that has a great potential to mobilize young people to vote -- when they turn 18, that is! The News Review reports.

The League of Women Voters of Oregon are seeking high schools and middle schools across the country to participate in a mock election that will take place next month. More than 10 million students took part in the mock elections during the last two presidential years. The purpose of the program is to get youngsters interested in politics and the electoral process, as well as motivate them to get out there and vote when they turn eighteen.

I think this is a fantastic idea that can really inspire young voters and future voters. So if any of y’all are teachers (or students) and wish to participate in the nation's largest voter education project, click here to get more information about getting your school involved!

There was a great article on Women’s eNews yesterday about voters in Berkeley, California that are considering the possibility of decriminalizing prostitution, which would greatly increase social services to the prostitutes in the city. Many people, however, consider it even more of a risk and claim that the measure would only give more business to pimps.

Robyn Few -- a former prostitute and founder of the Sex Workers Outreach Project -- is one of many who are reaching out to voters to think about this measure, which would essentially put prostitution at the bottom of the police department’s list of priorities of city crime. With this in effect, violence and rape against prostitutes would decrease, health care would increase, and it would enable prostitutes to get off the streets and stimulate statewide reform. "We want to show the state that Berkeley believes that prostitution should be decriminalized to save the lives of women and to end discrimination against women." states Few. Berkeley would be the first city in the country to decriminalize the profession.

How would all of this reform take place? If prostitution is decriminalized, the city would be required to direct a good amount of the $ 1 million it spends annually on enforcement of prostitution towards social services for prostitutes. The city council would also lobby new state leaders that oppose current prostitution laws.

Many are arguing against this possible measure, including the city’s police department. They claim that pimps will become businessmen and prostitution will only spread. They also complain that under decriminalization, even more valuable street time will wasted on complaints of discarded condoms and open sex acts. Wasted time? This is their job, is it not? And we wonder why prostitutes never go to the police when they’re raped or abused...

What we should think about is the 2,000 prostitutes that are murdered every year. Murder is the number one cause of death among street-walkers. Decriminalizing prostitution would be giving prostitutes some power over their lives, like the power and freedom to go to a health care clinic that will test them for HIV, or to the police if they are raped and/or beaten. The lives of these women should be priority, no?

Everyone’s always screaming about young Americans' political apathy and our inability to make it to the polls. But what about election officials—instead of supporting youth participation—try and make it more difficult for us to vote?

The NY Times reported in an op-ed yesterday about the recent trend of discouraging student voters from registering in their college’s state—even though the Supreme Court says they have the right to:

In Texas this year, a county district attorney threatened to prosecute students from Prairie View A&M University if they tried to register. The students had to file a lawsuit before he withdrew the threat and apologized. A student at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., was told that he was not a "permanent resident" and had to vote from his parents' home in another state.

The Feminist Daily News Wire also reported recently that after a group of feminist activists at University of Arizona organized a registration drive on campus, they were warned by a Fox News reporter that they were committing a felony by registering out-of-state students. The Tucson Fox affiliate later carried a report with the same inaccuracy.

In addition, the NY Times op-ed also points out that election officials also are generally averse to putting polling places on campus and have very few registration drive resources—steps integral to making student voting easier.

This strikes me as more than a little hypocritical: young people are disparaged for not voting, but those in charge are actively trying to make it harder for us to do so! Craziness.

Some random food for thought: Why is it when talking about the “youth vote,” everyone concentrates on college students? A lot of young folks don’t go to college, it’s a privilege not everyone can afford—where’s the discussion of those voters? Just wondering…

According to a new book, young women want nothing to do with feminism or politics. Here we go again…

“The F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy—Women, Politics and the Future,” says that young women today don’t want to be labeled by their political beliefs, especially by being called a feminist.

A Seattle Times review of the book says, “It's a tough pill for some of us to swallow, but ‘feminist’ is a near-insult to many young women today.”

For fuck’s sake—what is so crazy about calling yourself a feminist?! I know the debate over young women shying away from the f-word has been done a million times over, but it never fails to baffle me.

Author of “The F-Word,” Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, seems to posit that it’s not anti-feminist views driving women away from “feminist,” but rather a disdain for being labeled at all—by “political party, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, race or physical ability.” And that includes feminism.

Maybe so. But I still think that it’s the stereotypical notion of feminists that is scaring young women off. It pains me to say this, but it seems that so many young women are afraid of making waves, or of not being considered attractive to men that it’s keeping them from speaking out about their political beliefs. How many times do I have to hear, “I’m not a feminist, but…” followed by some insanely intelligent feminist perspective!

Ladies, I love you all—but what the fuck?! Why is “feminist” so off-putting? Please, someone tell me…

In a not-so-shocking move, the Justice Department said yesterday that it will appeal the Nebraska ruling which struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf declared the ban unconstitutional earlier his month, following similar rulings by federal courts in New York and San Francisco.

As predicted by NARAL interim President Elizabeth Cavendish, these rulings striking down the bogus act have become “just a speed bump on the fast track to eliminating women’s right to choose entirely.”

These were a big hit at our fundraiser this summer, so we've decided to make them available online. We apologize for the poor quality of the pic; our scanner is a little outdated!

To buy our Feministing magnets, just click on the image...

A new survey released today by Women’s Voices, Women Vote (WVWV), a non-partisan project, says that Bush and Kerry are not discussing issues that resonate with unmarried women--like health care and equal pay. And guess what: despite what the media has been feeding us lately, 40& of unmarried women want to hear less about terrorism.

Almost two-thirds of the women polled (61 percent) want to hear more about affordable healthcare, and nearly three-quarters want to hear candidates talk more about equal pay between men and women (73 percent), and about a higher minimum wage (75 percent). Two out of three women polled also want to hear more from presidential candidates about retirement security (64 percent) and more educational opportunities (63 percent).

Page Gardner, co-director of WVWV says, "The security issues these women want to hear about are economic security, health care security and retirement security. The candidates are missing an important opportunity to engage and mobilize this huge cohort of 22 million non-voting women who overwhelmingly say they are certain to vote this year. Unmarried women are a most important voting bloc and candidates cannot afford to ignore them."

Word. Let’s hope they listen.

If you're a decent artist and looking to get active, you should check out the National Organization of Women's 2005 Love Your Body Campaign. It's a poster design contest with the intent of responding to society's negative body images that effect women's and girl's esteem and health. They are looking for the following in their art-eest:

"Winning images will provide a visual response to advertisers who attempt to link smoking, drinking, and dieting to women’s liberation; fashion magazines who imply that anorexia is the path to beauty; and marketers who tell us that more expensive cosmetics will improve a woman's sense of self worth."

The grand prize winner recieves $600, and a her/his poster with be part of a national campaign that challenges the industries that prey on women's insecurities with their bodies. Sounds dandy to me! (Now, if only I could draw...)

Wal-Mart's latest attempt to appear woman-friendly in the face of their class action sex discrimination suit is just sad.

For two days Wal-Mart stores will host their Speaking of Women's Health Community Event, which is "designed to inform and educate women about living well."

Cause who knows better about women's health than those that hold business meetings at Hooters?

The best part: the main information about women's health that will be available at their event is The Book: Recipes for Living Well, "a book packed full of tips and recipes on healthy living and eating."

Yeah, bitches--get cooking! Apparently equal pay won't make you healthy, but getting your ass to the kitchen will.

I had both a relieved and angry reaction to the article in yesterday's Times, Men, Women More Different Than Thought. Turns out the medical profession is finally acknowledging that there is more to "women's health" than what goes on in our uteri. As the article says, there is a "quiet but revolutionary change infiltrating U.S. medicine as a growing number of scientists realize there's more to women's health than just the anatomy that makes them female, and that the same diseases often affect men and women in different ways."

HELLOOOOO? What year is it? I'm glad this transformation is finally happening (because for years women have been misdiagnosed and mistreated for lack of female-specific research on disease), but I can't help but feel angry that it took them until 2004 to do this. Think of how many women have suffered as a result!

I'm super thankful for women's involvement in the medical profession. Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association,
"became the journal's first female editor in 1999, [and] says she has made it a mission to publish only research in which data are broken down by sex unless it involves a disease that affects just men or women."

YEE HAW! Final-fucking-ly!

For more information on women's health (NOT JUST REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH!) see our Health issue page.

From Nerve.com:

The Porn For Kerry DVD claims to be the "hottest political porn ever shot!" The summaries on the website are priceless: "Scene 1: After a particularly heated TV debate, blonde bombshell conservative Ann Cunter and quirky comedian Al Frankenbeans blow off some steam in the dressing room ... Scene 3: Jorge Bush thought his hot tub business meeting with King Fahk of Sexy Alabia would be, well, all business. But his highness always knows how to entertain guests with his personal squad of sex minions!"

Plus, all proceeds go to the Kerry campaign.

Any thoughts? Strategic humor, or tasteless activism run amok?

Yikes! The Bush administration announced a new plan last week that would offer federal employees a Catholic health plan that deliberately excludes coverage for birth control, abortion, sterilization and artificial insemination.

This “faith-based” insurance plan, while touted as a way to “empower” employees to have greater control over their medical care, is just another way the Bush administration is attempting to blur the line between Church and State.

…some critics expressed concern that this trend in health care might grow into a wider phenomenon. Is this "explicit denial" the first step in "denying federal employees a normal benefit that has been traditional for 30 years?" asked Philip R. Lee, a professor of social medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and a former assistant secretary for health in the Clinton administration. "Is this simply the opening wedge?"

Of course it is! And that’s exactly what Bush wants; he isn’t offering this plan because he wants Americans to have more insurance options, he’s putting it in place as part of his larger agenda to limit our options concerning reproductive health. What could be more obvious?

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) told the NY Times: “Medical care is a science. Getting medical care and religion mixed together is just as bad as getting church and state mixed together.”

I would say it’s not just as bad—it’s the same thing.

Feministing was on Air America!

I got the chance to go on Janeane Garofalo's show The Majority Report on Friday night...super exciting. If you didn't get the chance to listen, you can hear the archived show here. You have to create a user name and password to listen, but it takes but a second...

Feministing's segment is about 1:34 into the show.

Bus drivers in Swaziland have said that they will rape any female passenger wearing a miniskirt. No, I'm not shitting you.

Check this out:

They have banned women from wearing revealing clothes on buses after three men were arrested for allegedly gang-raping an 18-year-old schoolgirl at a bus station in the town of Manzini.

When about 1,000 women demonstrated against the attack, drivers and conductors threatened to do the same again. One conductor said: "Women who wear miniskirts want to be raped, and we will give them what they want."

Ah, yes. Didn't you know that the universal "fuck me" fashion was wearing a miniskirt? Completely appalling.

A new ballot measure in California calls for the state to spend almost $3 billion dollars in stem cell research over the next ten years—particularly the kind of research that cannot receive federal funding because of Bush’s current policy. Go California; you guys aren’t screwing around! This kind of cash is pretty much what is being spent now by the federal government on embryonic stem cell research.

According to the NY Times, the ballot measure—Proposition 71—“would expand embryonic stem cell research far beyond the 20 or so cell lines that can be studied with federal support under the Bush policy, thus allowing the fuller range of research that most scientists deem important.”

What’s even better news is that Proposition 71 is likely to pass in November. A survey by the LA Times showed that after reading the proposal, the majority of voters supported the measure; 54 percent of voters in CA said they were inclined to vote for it.

The NY Times asks an interesting question, however: whether the nice folks in CA want to pay for advances in science that will benefit not just their state, but the whole of the country. That’s a mighty big burden to take on—one they wouldn’t have to shoulder alone if Bush would start supporting science that could save lives instead of pushing regressive policies. Just another reason to vote…

Courtesy of CommonDreams.org, some of my fave headlines in case you are looking for some good Sunday reads...

Mark Morford's What's Wrong With John Kerry: Is it the Hair? The Lack of Charisma? Or do we just wish he was more Angry and Ruthless?

Katha Pollitt's Fox Hunts Student Voters

Stephen Zunes' Bush’s UN Speech: Idealistic Rhetoric Hides Sinister Policies

Jonathan Freedland's Still No Votes in Leipzig: US Policy Now Affects Every Citizen on the Planet. So We Should All Have a Say in Who Gets to the White House?

The AP has a VERY FRIGHTENING article about the evangelical Christian get-out-the-vote movement. These people want Bush back in office, and they want it bad. Don't believe me? Check out this quote from Thomson, an active member of the Christian Coalition.

"Never allow the enemy to block you. Get around them, run over the top of them, destroy them -- whatever you need to do so that God's word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures.''

Wow. And aren't those the same people we just gave access to assault weapons?

One of the legislative lobbyists for the Christian Coalition explained: "If you asked people in this group their top priority, the first thing they would say is changing the U.S. Supreme Court. These people want Roe v. Wade overturned and that authority returned to the states."

The Christian Coalition has created voter guides which outline politicians' views on a Constitutional marriage amendment to ban gay marriage and abortion. In the 2000 election they distributed 70 MILLION voter guides--they plan to increase circulation this year. Scary, huh?

If you haven't yet, PLEASE register to vote. Thirty-two states have voter registration deadlines between October 2 - 8. The Right is ridiculously mobilized, so we have to FIGHT BACK! If they are going to do everything they can "so that God's word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures'' then I'm going to do everything I can to preserve and promote a feminist-friendly/queer-friendly/person-friendly progressive agenda!

Anyone have any recommendations on progressive voter guides?

I am absolutely obsessed with a new selection of ecards I've found, thanks to BUST.com. When a birthday or holiday comes up, or even when you just feel like you've been a shitty friend, ecards can be a perfect and convenient way of reaching out to loved ones in the midst of our crazy lives. And I don't know about you, but I feel like most ecard sites out there, well, suck. BUST cards are a damn good choice to use.

For example, one of my favorites to send to a friend simply says, "You're the Breast!" I'll let you check out the pic yourselves! They also have a choice of music you can put with your card, examples being "I'm Too Sexy", "You Shook Me All Night Long" and "Into The Groove". I love it!

For anyone inclined to think that the play-nice, feel-good pretensions of the GOP is a harbinger of a new moderation, check out Dr. Tom Coburn, Republican Senate candidate from Oklahoma.

In 1990, Dr. Coburn saved Angela Plummer’s life, removing a fallopian tube in response to ectopic pregnancy. However, she was "stunned" to learn that he also removed her other fallopian tube. Dr. Coburn claims she gave him oral consent for the procedure. Ms. Plummer has publicly disagreed:

"Dr. Tom Coburn sterilized me without my consent -- verbal or written -- and I know he's stating that he got oral consent. That is not true… I'm not up here to smear him. I'm up here because I wanted to have more children, and he took that away from me."

Is oral consent enough for decisions like this? Given the stress and duress Plummer was under in this situation, what kind of judgment skills does this guy have? More profoundly, what entitles someone to be so flippant about the reproductive rights of a woman?

While Coburn’s campaign has dismissed this story as a smear campaign, it is important to view this as the flip-side of a broader debate about the ability of women to control their own bodies. Coburn and other Republicans have rhetorically grounded their anti-choice politics in the language of “compassion” and “protecting life.” And yet on the flip-side he has shown little respect for his patient.

In a radio interview this week, Dr. Coburn was asked to clarify whether this was an isolated incident, to which he replied: "I've done this lots to women who have come in with emergency things who have asked me to sterilize them, under-age. When they've already had three babies." What the hell?

Oh yeah, and then there is that whole problem of America’s legacy of FORCED STERILIZATION, particularly of women of color, but I’m sure that clearly has nothing to do with this story…

What this case reminds us is that while the Republican party can talk a good game about being “pro-life” and promoting a “culture of life”, the history of right-wing America reveals its profound disrespect for the rights of women.

--Contributed by Brendan Sweeney

Remind me never to get old in Romania....This shit is just mean!

If you get the chance, tune into tonight's show "The Majority Report" on Air America Radio with Janeane Garofalo and guest host Bill Scher of LiberalOasis. Jessica will be a guest tonight, on the air and doing her thang between 9 and 10 PM, eastern time. Hope you get to check it out!

Click here to listen live.

Check out Newsweek's article It's About Abortion, Stupid on John Kerry and his supposed inability to make a moral argument.

The article explores Kerry's lag in the Catholic vote due to his pro-choice platform. A recent Zogby poll found that in key swing states (including Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, & Pennsylvania) Catholic voters are far more likely than the general public to vote to re-elect President Bush. While the article is somewhat obnoxious with quips about how democrats should "stop marginalizing their own pro-life members", it raises an important discussion about whether Kerry's campaign is effectively targeting issues that Americans are voting on.

Critiquing the supposed Clintonian legacy of never striking a moral issue, the article notes that: "Democrats stick to the uninspiring and oversimplified notion that people reliably vote their pocketbook, period...Republicans make the economic pitch, too, of course—tax breaks, come and get ’em!—but are smart enough to know that we want our vote to count for more, much more."

And it's true. While the rich undeniably seem to vote largely based on economic interest, I think for middle & low income voters it's not such a clear-cut decision. Republicans have done an amazing job of creating this hegemonic fantasy where Bush stakes claim to the moral "high road." While it's all clearly bullshit (as the Bush administration has done nothing but marginalize and disenfranchise women, people of color, etc.), Democrats need to actively AND strategically deconstruct the Bush regime's fascist social policies.

Check out this kickass commentary from Kerry that I somehow missed. “Four years ago, this president came to office calling himself a ‘compassionate conservative.’ Well, in the story of the Good Samaritan, we are told of two men who pass by or cross to the other side of the street when they come upon a robbed and beaten man. They felt compassion, but there were no deeds. Then the Good Samaritan gave both his heart and his help. For four years, this president has talked about compassion, but he’s walked right by. He’s seen people in need, but he’s crossed over to the other side of the street. For four years, we’ve heard a lot of talk about values. But values are not just words. They’re what we live by.”

Whoo-hoo! I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that this passion and moral fortitude will make a primetime appearance in the debates next week.

The AP reported today that an Austin Planned Parenthood abortion clinic that had its construction delayed for two months last year after anti-choicers organized a boycott will open on time in November.

Last year anti-choicers targeted local suppliers of building materials and construction workers (including plumbers, air conditioning & dry wall installers) and encouraged/intimidated them not to participate in the construction of the clinic. The boycott stopped construction within six weeks.

But Planned Parenthood fought back! They stepped in and took over as their own general contractor.

What's so disturbing is that the right is embracing construction boycotts as a new national tactic. Chris Danze, the Texas contractor who organized this boycott, told the AP that: "He has been contacted by anti-abortion groups across the country seeking advice on how to conduct similar boycotts. He said one is being waged against a Planned Parenthood clinic project in Houston."

Wow. Talk about scary. I nominate Danze as asshole of the day. Any thoughts on how to strategically take on the tactic?

If you've seen the very funny “Shrek 2”, you might all remember that there was a lot of sexual humor present in the movie. And a lot of that sexual humor included transgendered characters. For example, there is an evil bartender with a five o’clock shadow and boobs -- the voice being that of talk show host Larry King. Well, it looks like some people are making a stink about these “abnormal” characters in the movie. Sigh.

The Traditional Values Coalition have written a report titled, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream”, where there is discussion of the transgender agenda to deconstruct the biological existence of male and female, using “Shrek 2” as a perfect example.

I’m sorry, but give me a fucking break. The report is quite hysterical actually. The horror of Pinocchio wearing women’s underwear! Or a joke made about the wolf wearing granny’s dress and his gender confusion. My favorite is when they describe a scene at the end of the movie where the evil bartender expresses that he’s got the hots for Prince Charming, jumps on him, and they “both tumble to the floor.” Gasp! And we all know what tumbling to the floor always leads to!

They continue with pretty upsetting claims concerning transgender issues that I really can’t even repeat, it’s so infuriating. All that I know is that they’re using a light-hearted, humorous animated movie to make their point -- they’re super smart, those crazies!

Accord to a recent study by Harvard University, there's been a decline in their Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ senior jobs to women within the past couple of years. Boston.com News reports that it seems the dilemma began when Lawrence H. Summers became president of the university.

During the last term of former president Neil L. Rudenstine’s of 2000-2001, 36 percent of Harvard’s offers of tenured jobs were to women. Yet last year, women received only 13 percent of offers. Yeah, that number went down just a wee bit! Out of a total of 32 offers of tenure last year, only 4 were made to women. Only one female candidate accepted the offer.

“When you see statistics like that, you have to wonder whether the president of the university takes women scholars seriously," said Ingrid Monson, a music professor. Yet Summers claims that a lot of responsibility lies in the university’s departments. They review and nominate the candidates for senior positions, but still need the okay from Summers.

Regardless of how this happend or who is responsible, something obviously has to be done about this. it's good to know that 26 professors have signed and sent a letter to the president stating that the school will suffer a continuing decline of female professors if action is not taken. Summers and the professors are scheduled for a meeting on October 6, so hopefully they’ll be able to do something about this. After all, this is Harvard!

Rebecca Traister from Salon.com asked the question that some of us ladies have been wondering during this political season’s campaign for female voters. “Do activists have to resort to gyno-talk to get our attention?” We check out her thoughts in the hysterical article provided by the Guardian Unlimited titled, “Enough with the Vaginas!”

Traister discusses her experience at last week’s Vaginas Vote, Chicks Rock concert at the Apollo Theatre, which was sponsered and planned by a variety of organizations, including V-Day, and the head of the organization, Eve Ensler, including “her blessed freaking vagina”.

Traister describes the event, for the most part, to be quite impressive and inspiring. She praises various speakers such as Gloria Steinem for their words of wisdom and inspiration. It was just the moments of vagina-crazy talk that caught her off guard.

"’Are there are any registered vaginas in the house?’ Ensler asked the mostly white crowd at the Apollo. No, actually. But there are registered women. ‘I have never been so afraid in my being,’ Ensler said, urging the audience to ‘pull out that other paradigm living inside of us waiting to be born.’ What? ‘Step into your vaginas and get the vagina vote out.’ Aaaaah! What does stepping into your vagina mean? It sounds like it would hurt! And since Ensler wants us to be frank about our bodies, let me tell the truth: My vagina's role in voting will be pretty minimal compared to the effort my hands and eyes and brain are going to put in.”

I should hope so! Yes, we do have vaginas. They’re just swell. But do we really need to use them as a strategy to get women to vote?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We all know that both Bush and Kerry are earnestly courting women’s votes. But what I didn’t know is that the press can’t seem to make up their mind over who’s doing a better job.

Recent articles would have you believe that Kerry's lead among women is slipping, but despite all this brouhaha, the fact remains that the Ladies Love Cool Kerry. (Forgive me; I couldn't help myself...)

But apparently there’s one thing the press can agree upon: it’s no accident.

From the NY Times:

It was no accident that John Kerry appeared Tuesday on "Live With Regis and Kelly'' and recalled his days as a young prosecutor in a rape case. Or that he then flew from New York to Jacksonville, Fla., to promote his health care proposals. Or that on Thursday in Davenport, Iowa, he will preside over a forum on national security with an audience solely of women.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

It's no accident: First lady Laura Bush, at seven campaign stops in the last eight days, has employed exactly the same phrasing to pound in an important theme to the women who crowd her events.

I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself. Isn’t there such a thing as an original lead anymore?

Repetitive media aside, I’m getting a little tired of these articles saying that women’s fears over terrorism are leading them to Bush. I would hope at this point, women know about Bush’s incessant war on women and that his claims of being a champion of women are, well, complete and total bullshit. What really gets me is when the administration claims that Bush’s actions in Afghanistan freed women from the Taliban. Umm, I’m pretty sure that feminists were going nutty over the treatment of Afghan women for years and no one did squat. But when you need to pull out that ladies-love-me card, the issue is quite useful.

The moral of my incensed-story? Prove this recent media nonsense wrong! Kerry is the only choice for women this November. So let’s get to it—register if you’re not already; if you are, send this along to friends.

Click here to register to vote.

The UN organized a conference this week on “Gender Justice in Post-Conflict Situations,” where women from around the world gathered to talk about the growing problem of sexual violence used in warfare.

…from systematic rape to intentional transmission of the AIDS virus has become a standard weapon of modern warfare, used in conflicts from Sudan, Iraq and Rwanda to Russia...

“The nature of conflict has changed, and the battlefields are now women's bodies,” said Noeleen Heyzer, executive director of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).

While the use of sexual violence against women as a war tactic isn’t exactly news, women need to make sure it is at the front of our minds—and our activism.

Some places to get started:

UNIFEM

UNIFEM special Web portal on ''Women, Peace & Security''

Rape as a War Crime Website (International Centre for Migration Policy Development, ICMPD)

International Alert: Women Building Peace Campaign

This is some freaky shit.

Apparently cigarettes are the new date rape weapon of choice in the UK, where a woman was recently assaulted after smoking a cigarette laced with embalming fluid. Ugh.

Has anyone else heard of this before? Because it's news to me...

Democratic superstar Barak Obama may have his invitation to speak at an Illinois Catholic school reneged because of a recent uproar by anti-choicers.

The American Life League says it is “outraged” that Obama is scheduled to speak at Benedictine University next month due to his “radical support of abortion.” Since when is believing in an established constitutional right radical?

American Life League is "urging the administration of Benedictine …to put an end to this scandal by forbidding Mr. Obama from speaking on the Catholic campus."

Uh yeah, having a Senate candidate speak at a public affairs symposium sponsored by the school’s political science department is just so freaking scandalous… Oh my gosh, what would the neighbors say?!

Now this is just going too far. A university—religious or not—is there to teach students. What kind of political education will come from banning Obama from speaking? This just pisses me off; instead of promoting an informed debate at the school, this group just wants Obama to go away. Guess what though, folks? He’s on the ballot whether you like it or not.

And I like it.

Apparently a new Victoria’s Secret marketing campaign that targets college women is pissing some people off. Um, why? Is this really news?

I’ll tell you though, while the idea that Victoria’s Secret wants young women to buy lingerie isn’t exactly a shocker, their weird campus-invasion technique is insulting in a do-you-really-think-I’m-that-stupid kind of way. I mean come on now, they’re trying to lure us with little pink doggies for fuck’s sake.

The new collection for 18- to 22-year-old women, PINK, is designed with sexiness and youthful energy...The models who wear the sexy apparel belong to a diverse group of all nationalities...

Because didn’t you know? College girls—unlike the rest of women—are diverse!

Rebecca Lehmer…of Christian Student Fellowship, said she’s not against the clothes, but questions the message Victoria’s Secret is issuing by marketing on campus...

Lehmer said some of Victoria’s Secret’s advertising is explicit and provocative. In some ways, it might be selling sex, she said.

Wow, really? Selling sex? She’s a sharp one. (Forgive me, my mood is cruel today.)

While marketing to a supposedly new demographic might help sales, we at Feministing once again suggest not making cheap-ass underwear that falls apart after two washes.

As the New York Post recently reported, a bunch of new magazines are debuting this season, and some of them target us ladies.

Many of you have heard about Suede, the "first-ever fashion and beauty magazine to be inspired by the young, contemporary woman of color". I am (cautious but) excited about this. It's about time someone recognized the women of color out there -- you'd think when reading Lucky or Jane (lets not even get started on Cosmo) that every young woman was white! It's also great that streetwear is being recognized as a legitimate form of fashion - it's already one of the most influential. (Suede is especially focused on what women wear "on the block"). But I really, really hope this magazine is run by intelligent people. The potential here for exploitation of an already exploited group is high. I also hope Suede capitalizes on its own great idea. Not all women of color are from "the block" -- some are from the suburbs, other countries, etc. If Suede is smart enough to touch on all these angles, I think the magazine could be an important and rad addition to the racks.

Then there's All You, Time Inc.'s new monthly women's magazine. According to Isobel "Bella" Price, the magazine's editor, All You "will talk to women as they really are -- recognizing all they accomplish every single day -- instead of telling them they could do better.... We want to inspire, not patronize, our readers with affordable, down-to-earth ideas tested by real women just like them. And because we also know that women are looking for quality as well as value, All You will feature the very best design and photography in a unique package to enrich every aspect of our readers' lives, no matter what their budget."

Now, that sounded good to me until I heard this: During its initial distribution phase, All You will be available at Wal-Mart stores only.

WAL-MART???? Has Time, Inc. been reading the newspaper? I am all for a magazine that recognizes women's tight budgets and inspires rather than patronizes. (I am also aware that many women in this country shop at Wal-Mart.) But I can't really get over the hypocrisy of selling a pro-woman magazine exclusively at a women-oppressing retailer. This seems to me the first sign that All You is not all that.

Let's keep a (critical) eye out for these and other mags coming our way this fall.

I love my city, but this is just ridiculous...

New York magazine is running a piece on pregnant NYC women who are way too concerned about their weight. But wait--aren't you supposed to pack the pounds on when with child? Apparently not in Manhattan. (I refuse to let my precious Queens and Brooklyn take the blame for this one.)

An extra odd element? The main woman interviewed in the piece is Margot Tenenbaum. But she's not an eyeliner-heavy Gwyneth Paltrow, just a New Yorker who was friendly with The Royal Tenenbaums director. Freaky.

In any case, check it out--it's not pretty. It's sad enough that so many women are constantly psychotic about their weight, but to be all nutty when you're pregnant is too upsetting for words...

In relevance to a recent post on video game characters being debuted in Playboy next month, Women's eNews wrote a more optimistic article Sunday on the first women's gaming conference last week, which hopes to result in the recruitment of more female designers in the industry.

The five ladies that organized the conference last week in Austin, Texas believe that the more female designers there are, the less objectification of women will exist in video games. It can also increase the numbers of female gamers themselves, for the typical male designer primarily creates games that appeal to men.

For more feministing info on women gamers, click here.

You've gotta love assholes like this...

"What do you want in a female companion? What is the first thing that attracts you. Her ability to cook and keep house or is it the way she looks? It's not politically correct, GM hates it when I draw that analogy. But it's absolutely correct."

--General Motors Vice Chairman BOB LUTZ likening women to an automobile's exterior design.

In the tradition of dumb-as-shit court cases: a man in Spain tried to charge his wife with domestic abuse because she refused to have sex with him for five days in a row. The horror!

Generally my dry spells are accompanied by furious masturbation, not court cases and domestic violence accusations. But hey, I'm an old-fashioned gal.

The judge shelved the case, but the idea that this was even allowed before a judge is a little creepy.

Bibliofemme.com had a pretty interesting article on Saturday about the growing popularity of pornography and erotica books in mainstream bookstores. The author seems surprised by the leniency of the public condoning the sale of these books. "The baring of Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl in February fed a week of outrage and prompted a crackdown on broadcast indecency, but bookstores are now selling material reminiscent of a sex shop." Not a problem with me!

Infamous porn star Jenna Jameson recently released her book, “How to Make Love Like A Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale”, a 580-page volume that is now in seventh place on the New York Times’ best-seller list (I did a double-take too). The book describes her life, her climb to stardom, as well as personal strifes such as her drug addiction and being raped by her ex-boyfriend’s friend. Rape and drug addiction? Sounds pretty pornographic to me!

Regan Books, which is Jameson’s publisher, also released a book by the Vivid Girls (a group of 15 porn stars) called “How To Have A XXX Sex Life”, basically giving advice on how to excite your sex life, including tips about how to use vibrators, lubricants and sex toys in “creative ways”.

Even mainstream American authors are beginning to fall for the trend. Tom Wolfe wrote “I am Charlotte Simmons”, which was about “a university where students spend their time drinking, having sex or both simultaneously.” Ah, the goods old days!

The fact of the matter is that porn and erotica books have been published, sold, read and enjoyed for quite a long time in this country. I would say the difference now is that people aren’t ashamed to buy them (or put them on their store bookshelves). Good for them.

Salon.com has a great piece today on the new surge of pro-choice activists and their not-so-traditional methods.

Author Laura Barcella focuses primarily on the controversial “I had an abortion” t-shirts put out by feminist Jennifer Baumgardner (who also is working on a film of the same name).

While this new unapologetic attitude has gotten a lot of criticism, I think it’s about goddamn time. The longer women give into the notion that abortion should be accompanied by shame and secrets, the harder the fight will be to protect choice.

The amazing Kathleen Hannah of Le Tigre says, “It sounds fucked up, but having an abortion was one of the best things I ever did…It was one of the first things I did on my own; I worked at McDonald's, raised the money and did it. I'm really, really passionate about pro-choice, because I wouldn't be here talking to you right now if I'd had a kid at 15.”

Now, why should that sound “fucked up?” Making a decision about your body and your future isn’t something that should be looked down upon.

The Salon article also discusses websites, such as imnotsorry.net, that provide a space for women to talk about their experiences openly. Founder of the site, Patricia Beninato, says that “it's the positive experiences that are being silenced, not the negative ones.”

Clearly the decision to have an abortion is a private one, and some women are just not going to want to talk about it. But by creating spaces and opportunities for open discussion, and by fostering an environment where we don't have to feel shame over our constitutional right, we are making an invaluable contribution to the fight for choice.

Turns out that a new poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that men know more about the upcoming election than women. In fact, the NY Times reports that men were more likely than women to answer every question right on the quiz.

Well, the biggest gender gap was on the question asking which candidate supported moving American troops from Europe and South Korea to other places. (60% of the men correctly answered Bush, while only 43% of women knew the answer). Seems that the ladies also had double-digit gaps on questions about Social Security and taxes. Hmmmm...I wonder if our [mis]information could have anything to do with how ridiculously alienating electoral politics are these days?

Kate Kenski, a senior analyst that conducted the poll, believes that the difference is a result of reporting. She notes that: "Reporters' obsession with the horse race rather than the substance of politics is likely to be more of interest to men, who pay more attention to sports than women." Huh? So while I'll agree that election reporting is largely skewed, I'm not sure that I'm buying her sports-theory logic. I find it hard to believe that by cheering for TEAM KERRY I'd gain new insight into his too-hawkish foreign policy.

My advice: talk about issues that women care about (i.e. the stagnant economy, the growing gender wage gap, reproductive rights, declines in education, inabilities to access healthcare, etc).

OH. And check this out. A recent NY Times/CBS Poll revealed that when asked whether Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 29% of men said he was versus 47% of women. (sigh). Any thoughts on this disturbing fact?

MAN hunt mastodon. Woman sweep cave, suckle young. Fast forward to 1950. Man hunt paycheck. Woman vacuum cave, suckle young and drive to Little League. Progress painfully to 2004. Man and woman both hunt paycheck. Woman still suckle young, vacuum cave, etc. Man hunt remote control.

So if you haven't yacked yet, I'd recommend checking out the NY Times Real Men Don't Clean Bathrooms for a follow-up on Jessica's Duh-Article of the Week. While the pithy anthropological exploration of the gendered division of housework leaves a lot to be desired, it provides a bit more insight into the latest depressing Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In a surprising move yesterday, CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into legislation The Battered-Partner Bill which will allow individuals convicted of killing their abusers to challenge their sentences.

The Mercury News reports that, "The battered-partner bill, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, will expand a law that allows women convicted of killing their alleged abusers before 1992 to file court petitions seeking a new trial or a reduced sentence." The law also changes language about "Battered Women's Syndrome" to be more neutrally termed "battering and its effects."

The law will go into effect on January 1, 2005. Prisoners convicted before August 29, 1996 (when the California Supreme Court ruled that domestic-violence victims have a right to have an expert on battering and its effects testify in their defense) will be able to challenge their sentences. Survivors can petition the court for writs of habeas corpus on the basis that expert testimony on the effects of battering could have changed the outcome of their cases.

To learn more about the history of this bill and why it's so important that it was passed, check out Free Battered Women (a project of the CA Coalition for Women Prisoners).

Feministing wrote back in August about the chance of safe sex being legislated in porn after the HIV outbreak in the industry early this year.

Looks like we're one step closer:

The Associated Press reported today on California state officials who are fining two adult film companies for allowing actors to have unprotected sex:

The companies received citations for violating the state's blood borne pathogen standard, a regulation that requires employers to protect workers exposed to blood or bodily fluids on the job. The companies have 15 days to appeal the eight citations.

...The Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit group that conducts sexually transmitted disease testing for the porn industry, said only about 17 percent of actors use condoms on a regular basis.

I'm all for safe sex--but should people be able to sue over it? Is this a workplace health issue or a personal one? I'm open to suggestion...

The NY Times reported this week on a Department of Labor study that shows women spend twice as much time as men on household chores and caring for children. You don't say...

The average working woman, for example, spends about an hour and a half a day caring for other members of the family, the average working man barely 50 minutes. Likewise, the average working woman spends more than 1 hour 20 minutes on household chores, the average working man less than 45 minutes...two-thirds of all women said they prepared meals and did housework on an average day, compared with only 19 percent of men who said they did housework and 34 percent who said they helped with meals or cleanup.

The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that Kerry is losing the support of women voters:

In the past month, the president has started whittling away at a gender gap that has long provided an essential lifeline to Democrats running for the White House. Less than seven weeks before Election Day, strategists from both parties say there are a growing number of suburban, independent-minded voters who believe Bush would do a better job securing America...

That is precisely the sentiment the Bush campaign is seeking to spread among married suburban women...

Yeah--a sentiment of fear.

What kills me about this article is that author Jeff Zeleny seems to assume that women are scared little girls, looking for a protective-father figure rather than a socially-aware and just president:

Teresa Conway...doesn't mind parting ways with the Republican Party on abortion and gay rights, explaining: "We really can't get into those things until we are safe..."

"...People want somebody who is really strong as their president," Laura Bush said in an interview.

Please. While naturally women are concerned about security, there's a lot more at stake this November. My favorite woman of the moment, Elizabeth Edwards, puts it quite nicely.

"What they have generated is not a sense of security among women but a sense of fear of John Kerry...You can't just say `W is for Women' and have that be the beginning and end of the conversation. Has he improved their lives? What has he done?"

Um, a big fat nothing as far as I'm concerned. Unless you count taking steps backwards which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be a bad thing...

Now this is just low. Americas PAC—headed and funded by right-wing nut Richard Nadler—has been running the most insanely offensive election ads ever, targeting African-Americans.

Check this out:

Today, one third of African-American pregnancies end in abortion. Black babies are terminated at rates triple that of white babies. Under Title X, schools can council scared kids to abort their babies without even consulting their parents.

Learn the racial truth about America's abortion laws. Don't buy the Democratic lie. Killing unborn babies is no way to help those in poverty.

Huh. Reading this ad for the first time almost rendered me speechless. Almost.

Outside of the outrageousness of using accusations of mass murder as a campaigning tool, this Nadler guy doesn’t exactly have a squeaky clean record on race.

Check out this description of an ad that Nadler produced for the 2000 presidential election:

The ad, running on television stations in Kansas City, promotes the GOP and its policies that would help parents who send their children to private schools. Seated on a couch, an actress playing a worried mother says her son Ralph was "hanging with the wrong crowd" at his public school.

"We didn't want him in a place where drugs and violence were fashionable," she says. "That was a bit more diversity than he could handle." On the screen, a white teenager at a cafeteria table pulls a pistol on a racially mixed group of students. Then the message flashes: "Vote Republican."
(From The Washington Post, Everybody Can Get Into the Act With Issue Ads, 9/19/00)

A bit more diversity than he could handle? That’s just lovely. So in 2000 Nadler can spew racist bullshit, but then in 2004 he wants to appeal to African-Americans using prevaricating faux-concern about “black babies?” Please.

Click here to join NARAL Pro-Choice America in calling on the White House to renounce these disgraceful ads.

Check out Alternet's The Women of Wal-mart for a frightening look into the insane discrimination that women had to endure on a daily basis.

As an update to Jessica’s 8/19 post on BushvChoice, we have discovered some disturbing news concerning a proposal created by anti-choicers allowing hospitals, doctors and pharmacists to refuse women of their right to abortion and birth control. Two years ago the House passed the bill, but it didn’t pass the Senate. It was reported by the Guardian Unlimited today that this time, however, the revival of the proposal has been sent to the Senate as a part of the broader appropriations bill and it will, at the least, go to a House-Senate conference committee. Sigh.

In July, Mississippi passed what they call the nation’s largest “conscience clause”, which allows all health care professionals and institutions to refuse to perform any service on religious or moral grounds. Many women have already started to travel to Alabama or Tennessee to get an abortion. “We have doctors who won't even issue birth control prescriptions,” says Nsombi Lambright of the American Civil Liberties Union's Mississippi branch. “It's not their job to impose their beliefs on others.”

So who would this effect if the Senate passes the bill? Oh, mainly just low-income women who depend on federally subsidized health care and use Roman Catholic hospitals. Hospitals would have the authority to refuse abortion even to rape victims or women with serious medical conditions. And they’re saying this bill is about morality?

Lourdes Rivera, director of the Los Angeles-based National Health Law Program, brought up some good questions. “Yes, we need to respect individual freedom of religion. But at what point does it cross the line of not providing essential medical care? At what point is it malpractice? If someone's beliefs interfere with practicing their profession, perhaps they should do something else.” Amen to that.

You have got to be kidding me. Reuters reported yesterday that "slutwear" (yeah, you heard me right) is so last year:

Now you see it. Soon you won't. In a trend sure to be a relief to some and a disappointment to others, women will cover up instead of baring it all next season as the "slutwear" look comes to an end.

"The slut is out now. She's dead," said Godfrey Deeny, senior fashion critic at Fashion Wire Daily.

Um...is it just me or is the Deeny guy just a tad scary?

A group of 9/11 widow activists have announced their endorsement of the Kerry campaign, and their determination to get George W. Bush out of the White House.

In a press conference yesterday, Kristen Breitweiser of Middletown, NJ stated that "in the three years since 9/11, I could never have imagined I would be here today, disappointed in the person I voted for, for president."

She went onto to note that she plans to travel around the country to campaign for Kerry: “I have not flown on a plane since 9/11. I have now committed myself to get on a plane and fly wherever I have to fly...I don’t know if it’s going to be successful, because I have serious anxiety about getting on a plane, but that is how committed I feel.” Breitweiser voted for Bush in the 2000 election.

The main reasons behind the endorsement was the women’s feelings concerning the Bush administration’s actions (or lack thereof) after the 9/11 attacks, and the absence of support for funding of the commission to investigate the attacks. Many of the women also feel that the administration used 9/11 to justify the war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden remained at large.

Salon covered this story in a comprehensive article today:

The endorsement was a sword clanging against Bush's political armor. Polls show that voters rate Bush high on his handling of 9/11 and its aftermath, and Republicans have been quick to exploit that approval with television ads and their recent convention, held in Manhattan around the theme of Bush's leadership against terrorism…

… the widows cited the invasion of Iraq as one of their top reasons for supporting Kerry. "Unfortunately, before the work in Afghanistan was complete ... this administration moved our most precious resources, America's sons and daughters, into Iraq, without the support of our allies. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that is what we learned from the 9/11 commission's final report," said Lorie Van Auken of East Brunswick, N.J. "Sept. 11 was an enormous intelligence failure, and yet nothing was done to fix our intelligence after 9/11, and that same intelligence apparatus took us into Iraq. So it's doubly frustrating to learn that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." Van Auken said she is also worried that with military forces stretched thin, her 17-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter could be called up in a draft.

I’ve been griping for some time about Laura Bush’s push for women’s votes with the bogus “W Stands for Women” campaigning, but some other folks took it a step further than just talk.

When Laura was in Maine last week, a group of people protested outside of her speaking venue, taking sex education into their own hands! Around twenty women lined up and demonstrated the proper way to use condoms by using a banana. The action was directed at the dangerous abstinence-only education programs W wants to double funding for with a whopping $273 million in the next budget. Yikes...

If anyone knows of any other creative protests going on in your area, make sure to let me know!

The NY Times reported today young people's interest in the upcoming election is the highest it has ever been since 1972, when 18- to 20-year olds got the vote: “State election officials say registration of new young voters is coming in at levels they have not seen in years.”

Nice!

The article looks at the reasons behind this increase in registration, and notes that it’s not just due to the hard work of organizations—young people are actually interested in politics. Imagine that!

Nothing better than a happy ending. The woman from Alabama who was fired over having a Kerry sticker on her car now has a new job...with Kerry!

Because of the bad publicity, Lynne Gobbell's former employer offered her job back. But later that same day, Kerry himself gave Gobbell a call.

"He was telling me how proud he was that I stood up," Gobbell told me. "He'd read the part where Phil said I could either work for him or work for John Kerry. He said, 'you let him know you're working for me as of today.' I was just so shocked."

Gobbell accepted Kerry's job offer, "so I reckon I'll be working for John Kerry."

Good stuff!

Via Daily Kos and CE Petro.

JOURNEY FROM THE LAND OF NO
Roya Hakakian (Crown, August 2004)

This is the haunting memoir of Roya Hakakian's Jewish coming-of-age story during the brink of revolution in Iran. The writing is lyrical and evocative, pulling readers into her intricately woven tale of family, Judaism, Middle-Eastern politics, and self-realization. Roya tells her story of her youth in pre-Revolutionary Tehran, home to the largest community of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel. A year after the Ayatollah Khomeyni's return, two-thirds of that community would be gone. She bears witness as swastikas are painted on the walls in her previously peaceful alley, and watches as her classmates are escorted from school by Islamic Morality Guards, accused of reading blasphemous books, never to return to class. Hakakian is spared because her teacher likes her writing, which we sample along the way.

Overall, I found THE JOURNEY OF NO to be a wonderful portrait of Jewish life in Tehran and of a one girl's quest to find herself while her country is falling into the hands of fanatics. Roya was 12 in 1979 and escaped from Iran at the age of 17 in 1984. Roya Hakakian has written and produced programming for some of the most prestigious documentary units on network television, including 60 Minutes and ABC Documentary Specials with Peter Jennings. She is also the author of two highly acclaimed collections of poetry and has been the recipient of the prestigious MacDowell Fellowship in writing.

Contributed by Alli

An Alabama woman has apparently lost her job because of her support for Kerry. Compassionate conservatism in the workplace, I suppose...

Lynne Gobbell claims that her boss fired her because of the Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker on her car.

Her boss, Phil Gaddis, hasn't responded to the allegations as of yet.

Gobbell said, "We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired...I told him that Phil couldn't tell me who to vote for...When I told him (Phil) that, he told me, 'I own this place.' I told him he still couldn't tell me who to vote for."

Another manager later told Gobbell, "I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry."

Apparently this oh-so-cool boss had also distributed a flyer outlining (in a slightly threatening way) the pros of the Bush administration--specifically tax cuts:

Just so you will know, because of the Bush tax (cut):

You got the benefit of the Bush tax cut. Everyone did.

Jesus, this guys makes Lumbergh look like a good supervisor...

Remember my rant about ABC's upcoming prime time lineup? If not, check it out HERE.

Turns out I'm not the only one who thinks "Desperate Housewives" and "Wife Swap" are culturally significant and indicative of the role feminism and femininity play in our society. Sunday's NY Times Week in Review section featured an article on these shows, claiming that this new trend in television is not as coincidental as it may first appear.

The article's author, Alessandra Stanley, writes:

It's been a long time since married women made much of a mark on television. Yet suddenly the fall season is all Emma Bovary all the time.... And the swing of the pendulum is particularly timely given the undercurrents of this election year. The country is once again examining wifely roles through the prism of the candidates' wives: Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz Kerry are pitted against each other in a replay of the Barbara Bush/Hillary Clinton clash. This time, however, the issue is not career woman versus stay-at-home mom....Instead, it is the women's style of wifeliness that contrasts so starkly: Mrs. Bush is the calm, self-effacing helpmate; Mrs. Heinz is the high-strung, powerful consort. They are not the two faces of feminism as much as they are dueling notions of femininity.

Interesting and alarming. Stayed tuned for further analysis once these shows are underway.

Check out the Village Voice's Defeat Bush: The Guide for great ideas and resources for action.

Then send it around to friends...we need all the help we can get!

Check out this article by WomenseNews from last week on the Department of Education's ruling on Georgetown University's policy concerning campus sexual assault and the survivor's freedom to speak out.

The school policy had required that a rape victim sign a confidentiality agreement before receiving the outcome of any disciplinary action against the assailant. The Department of Education, however, ruled that this policy was illegal. Hell yeah it is!

The thing to think about is, how many more sch