February 2005 Archives

Well not really. But you can hear her on Sex Talk, "a weekly podcast on gender issues, equity and feminism," that Rebel Dad started up. Good shit.

In addition to Jess' odd ramblings on masturbating in Atlanta, the show features an interview with Lissa Bell of the National Partnership for Women & Families, and some great news items.

Click here to download the full show.

Peter Benenson, the founder of human rights organization Amnesty International, died Friday evening. Very sad. Send Amnesty a message of condolence here; I believe they are collecting them for a later tribute.

According to a recent poll, most single Japanese women would prefer not to marry and think they would be happy living alone for the rest of their life.

While the newspaper that did the poll, the Yomiuri, noted that the results reflect "a recent trend among single women who no longer attach social stigma to choosing the single life," they didn't necessarily think this was such great news.

Japan's government is struggling to stem a tumbling birthrate and keep the population from shrinking...

"The result depicted a tendency among younger generations to remain single, leading observers to the conclusion that the number of people who marry late will further increase and will lower the birthrate," the newspaper said.

So ladies, I know you're happy being alone, but screw you! The world needs populating; get to it!

So Samhita beat me to the chase a bit on this one, but just to elaborate a bit...

The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) begins its two-week run starting Monday in New York City. I know a lot of folks aren’t really into the UN processes (for varying reasons), but this meeting should be really interesting.

Firstly, over 5,000 people (mostly women) have registered for the meeting from all around the world. Also, this particular CSW marks the ten year anniversary of the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, a meeting that resulted in the Beijing Platform for Action, an agenda for women’s empowerment. For a lot of great background info and ideas for action, check out Beijing and Beyond.

During the next two weeks there will be a tremendous amount of events, discussions, panels and official UN meetings; I’m hoping that I’ll be able to blog about a good number of them.

First bit of juicy gossip concerning the meeting:

Thursday night the U.S. started up shit during a discussion of the political declaration for CSW. They proposed an amendment to a paragraph which discusses reaffirming the Beijing Platform. They wanted to add a statement saying that “reaffirming does not create any new international rights and does not include the right to abortion.”

Shocking, I know.

The Beijing Plus Ten Conference starts today in New York which is the ten year review of the Beijing Conference in 1995. The Beijing Conference raised awareness of the international status of women's rights and attempted to bring about legislative change by way of a document called the Beijing Platform for Action, that were a set of principles and strategies of action to help enforce change around women's issues.

After ten years, there is a lot to discuss. According to one article on Voice of America several of the sponsers of the conference (including the World Bank) believe that we have made progress in the area of women's issues. On the contrary, groups such as Amnesty International believe that issues such as violence against women have continued uninterrupted since the last conference. Furthermore, Kyung-wha Kang, the chairperson of the Commission on the Status of Women (the folks facilitating the review), said the issue remains the biggest obstacle to the advancement of the world's women.

Kang also discusses that the goal of the conference it to create a strong document to reinforce the standards set in 1995. But that goal is already stirring some controversy with reports that the United States is pushing for the inclusion of an anti-abortion plank.

Shocker. We will keep you posted about the happenings of the Conference.

Meet Dr. Farrell. He's the asshole of the week that the NY Times Business Section decided to give in-depth coverage. He's a pseudo-scientist that believes he's finally figured out the gendered wage gap. His answer: women self-sabotage.

"Women, he believes, methodically engineer their own paltry pay. They choose psychically fulfilling jobs, like librarian or art historian, that attract enough applicants for the law of supply and demand to kick in and depress pay. They avoid well-paid but presumably risky work - hence, the paucity of women flying planes. And they tend to put in fewer hours than men - no small point, he says, because people who work 44 hours a week make almost twice as much as those who work 34 and are more likely to be promoted."

Ummmm, yeah. But where is the analysis on how women are pushed out of partnerships and senior level positions when they become pregnant. Or how women are *still* left tending to the majority of childcare and house work. And how no matter how many hours we put in, we will still *never* be eligible for the boys club. I don't care how you spin it, it is just plain *wrong* to blame women for their lower pay. (sigh).

Now I guess that because Dr. Farrell served on the board of NOW in the 1970's we're supposed to think that he's not so anti-feminist after all. That he's just presenting a new paradigm of economic analysis. Ummmm, yeah.

"It is O.K. to trade a fatter paycheck for more time with children and hobbies. Just recognize that society did not force the choice on you. 'Feel powerful and happy that you have control over your own life,' Dr. Farrell said. 'It's better than feeling like an angry victim of discrimination.'"

Well, you know what. I think anger is a pretty valuable tool. And rather than just accepting wage discrimination or blaming myself & other women for our low wages, I say that we keep giving the Dr. Farrells of the world hell.

One final thought--could the Times *really* not find anything better to publish than this propaganda? Well, hey, maybe in the post-Summers media climate, backlash is cool.

Check out Cynthia Gorney's piece for the NY Times, Imagine a Nation Without Roe v. Wade. After giving a brief purview of the states that still have pre-Roe abortion laws on the books (Michigan, Colorado, Alabama & fourteen others) and the states likely to keep abortion legal (New York, Maryland, California & seventeen others), she offers this thought-provoking passage:

"Roe created the national right-to-life movement, forging a powerful instant alliance among what had been scores of scattered local opposition groups. What would happen to that movement, should the galvanizing target of its loathing suddenly disappear? How different would it be, fighting on simultaneous multiple fronts? And how would politicians react if an antiabortion vote were no longer easy theater, an appeasement gesture likely to be neutralized by court challenge, but instead could actually make abortion a felony? How might voters themselves react, if the election booth decision could truly make the yes or no difference?"

While I believe with my heart/mind/soul that the majority of women *aren't willing to go back*, I believe that a post-Roe society is something that we must think *critically* about. And not just in a oh-my-god-it's-too-scary-to-think-about kind of way. What *would* happen to the reproductive rights of women in red states? Would their state legislatures suddenly develop a conscience? Or would women be the victims of their conservative state legislatures? Would the issue be contentious enough that state legislators would allow constituents to go to the polls and vote directly on the issue? And if the polls are right, and the majority of Republicans are pro-choice, how would this sentiment map onto a post-Roe political landscape?

To this end, Gorney concludes with a warning to the left:

"Since the last presidential election, reflective discussion among Democrats has included the once unthinkable proposition that the end of Roe might not prove an unqualified disaster after all - that the political process, and Democrats themselves, might have something to gain from the tumult that such a ruling would set off in the states. This thinking isn't lost on the other side. 'All it's going to do is kind of balkanize the pro-life battle into 50 individual battles,' said a Michigan anti-choice lobbyist. 'There's always the phrase, Be careful what you wish for.'"

Well *clearly* none of us are wishing for this outcome. But it leaves us with the same old question--where do we go from here?

According to Reuters, U.N. officials are finally acknowledging that sexual assault by peacekeepers is not limited to African missions such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Ivory Coast. A recent examination revealed that widespread allegations of sexual exploitation have emerged in all *sixteen missions* worldwide.

In an attempt to address the issue, the U.N. is now threatening to expel countries that refuse to prosecute its offending soldiers. U.S. State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said that the U.S. would consider supporting the move. He also noted that, "We have worked very carefully with the U.N. to try to get them to...make sure that in fact prevention becomes a top priority for U.N. peacekeeping operations and troop contributors." While I'm glad that the U.S. is willing to back the effort, I'd say that we still have a lot of work left to do with our own soldiers in combat.

Overall, I think this is a *really* important step for the U.N. to take. Since the U.N. does not have jurisdiction over foreign soldiers, it can only demand that a country prosecute their offenders at home. With such limited power, naming countries that refuse to address sexual assault by their soldiers, and requiring them to leave the mission is probably the most pragmatic step the U.N. can take.

While this, of course, would then create new problems--mainly, who would take the place of these soldiers--I still think that it has the potential to create change. Being named as a country that refuses to prosecute its rapists never makes for good international PR. And for many developing countries, there are *big* economic incentives for being a part of a mission (i.e. soldiers earn significantly more working for the U.N. than they could at home). In any case, I think it's worth a try.

U.N. undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guehenno, noted that, "The whole issue of the professionalism of peacekeeping is at stake." Yeah. Well, that and the lives of the hundreds of women and children who are the victims of these assaults.

My, my, the Bush administration sure does seem to make fashion waves on its trips to Europe. First there was the shameful Cheney in his "Staff 2001" knit hat and green, fur-trimmed parka at the Auschwitz ceremony. And now Condoleezza Rice is raising brows among cultural critics with her fashion pick for the Wiesbadan Army Airfield.

Washington Post style writer, Robin Givhan critiques:

"Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual."

"Rice challenges expectations and assumptions. There is undeniable authority in her long black jacket with its severe details and menacing silhouette...If there is any symbolism to be gleaned from Rice's stark garments, it is that she is tough and focused enough for whatever task is at hand."

While I'm still wrestling with Givhan's critique, I'm struck by the fashion conundrum that powerful women are left to wrestle with. By breaking with her usual uniform -- "a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps" -- Rice got cast a dominatrix. While I personally think that the "power-suit" is an extremely unflattering look, why does breaking free of a two-piece suit imply sexual deviance? It seems that even in wardrobe choices, critics are eager to impose the virgin/whore dichotomy on women.

Any thoughts?

It looks like a state house in Georgia approved a bill that will require women seeking abortions to undergo a 24-hour waiting period.

In fact, the bill also includes a laundry list of little additions: minors will be required to tell their parents, and every women seeking an abortion will be told of the health risks involved, as well as brochures with fetal pictures and information on child support. What. The. Fuck.

A decent amount of the more controversial aspects were actually taken out of the bill, like informing women of the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer (although it's been proven nonexistent) and allowing fathers and parents to sue abortion providers for malpractice. Whaa?

Supporters of the bill said that it ended up being a compromise between pro and anti-choicers. Um, yeah. I don’t what the hell they’re talking about, because there is absolutely no middle ground when it comes to this bullshit.

Apparently I’m a little late on this crazy-ass story out of Florida, but I had to write something:

Kelli Davis, 18, had her senior class photo taken in a tuxedo top and bow-tie outfit provided for boys rather than the gown-like drape and pearls provided for girls. The school's principal decided it could not appear in the yearbook because she didn't follow the dress code.

Kelli, a straight-A student with no discipline problems, is a self-proclaimed lesbian. She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo. “Because that's me, you know. That represents me. The drape does not,” Davis said. “They're not accepting me, that's the whole reason we're here.”

Kelli’s school principal decided to ban her pic from the school yearbook. Lovely.

Even better, School Superintendent David Owens said that the decision had nothing to do with Kelli’s sexual orientation: “There's a dress code to follow -- a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It's just that simple.” Yeah fucking right.

You gotta love this girl’s parents though; they wanted to make sure that their daughter’s picture made it into the year book, so they bought a two-page ad in the back of the book for $700, which will feature the picture.

As an update to Jessica's post yesterday on Kansas Attorney General’s demand for the medical records of ninety women who have received abortions, I thought I’d delve a bit deeper into this nonsense.

Attorney General Phil Kline was actually permitted by a district judge in October to see these private files, but two medical clinics in Kansas have brought the case to the Supreme Court, reports ABC News. The clinics say that Kline demanded complete and unedited medical records of women who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancies, as well as girls 15 years and under who sought abortions.

No hearing has been scheduled for the clinics’ appeal, but if the higher courts don’t intervene, women who have obtained abortions may have government agents at their door. There may even be a gag order that prevents the clinics from even telling these women that their records are being exposed. So not only will they be stripped of their privacy rights, but won’t even know about it?? The fact that this guy even has a shot at this makes me feel like I’m in the fucking twilight zone.

An opponent of abortion, Kline also attempted to make it a requirement for health care professionals to report underage sexual activity. Luckily a federal judge blocked him, but the case is yet to be resolved. Kline commented on Thursday, “I have a duty to investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children.”

Child rape? Kansas law prohibits teenagers under 16 to engage in sexual activity, but associating “underage sexual activity” with "child rape” is a bit of a stretch. I also don't doubt that one of these “other crimes” is late-term abortion.

Additionally, the fact that he is demanding their personal information, such as names, details of their sex history, and psychological profiles makes it a bit obvious what the agenda is here. Not only is this a gross violation of patients' rights, but a blatant strategy to attack reproductive rights.

As an update to Wednesday’s post on Alabama’s ban of selling sex toys, we found that other countries are enjoying their rights to the fullest. While Amsterdam is pretty big on using vending machines for everything -- cash, food, condoms, even toothbrushes -- well, you can guess what’s coming next.

It looks like the southern Dutch city of Tilburg has begun to install sex toy vending machines at various businesses. There was actually some resistance by the city council’s building inspectorate, but the machine was approved after it was made child-proof. It can’t be purchased with money, just bank or credit cards.

So while Alabama residents are fighting just to be able to purchase one, the Dutch merely has to pop in some plastic to get their pleasure.

The New York Times has a piece today on a potential new fad in dating—don’t. Just get yourself a virtual girlfriend for your cell phone. Ick.

Feministing reported on this more than disturbing invention from Hong Kong software maker Artificial Life Inc. last year.

“Vivienne” (yes, she has a name) behaves in varying ways depending on how much money you spend on her.

Users eager to advance quickly toward a virtual kiss or even marriage should know that she has a faintly mercenary appreciation for gifts, from flowers and chocolates to cars and diamond rings. Some virtual gifts are free, but others will require users to make real charges against their monthly phone bills of 50 cents to $2.

What an innovative way to promote a tired stereotype of women!

But it doesn’t stop there:

If you marry her in a virtual ceremony, you even end up with a virtual mother-in-law who really does call you in the middle of the night on your cellphone to ask where you are and whether you have been treating her daughter right.

As Feministing pondered when we first reported on this—where is the virtual boyfriend who doesn’t return your calls and cheats on you?

A recent national poll showed that more than 6/10 voters believe the United States is ready for a woman president in 2008 and 53% of them think Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should be the woman to do it. The poll, conducted by the Siena College Research Institute and sponsored by the Hearst Newspapers, found that 81% of voters surveyed would vote for a woman for president; 62% said the country is ready for a woman president; and 67% said a female president would be better than a male chief executive in handling domestic issues.

Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, director of the Siena Research Institute and professor of statistics, stated: “The results are fascinating and very encouraging for women – and all Americans who want the nation’s highest office held by the best people, regardless of their gender".... "There was very little difference between men (64%) and women (60%) on whether or not the country was ready for a woman president in 2008 and whether or not respondents were prepared to vote for a woman – 80% of men and 82% of women said ‘yes.’

Now, I'll believe it when I see it. But this is always nice to hear.

For those of you near Albany (or for anyone who's interested), Sienna College is hosting a ‘First Woman President’ Symposium on March 4-5 to talk about this issue and to launch Women’s History Month. The sessions are open to anyone who registers. (To register, visit http://www.siena.edu/sri/FirstWomanPresConf.asp). They have some pretty serious panelists, including Eleanor Clift and Marie Wilson. Check it out.

In giving props to Alas, a Blog’s Ampersand.

Always on top of shit, Ampersand called out Peek (Alternet’s blog) on their blogroll’s lack of women. Peek responded by adding seven blogs by women. Well done!

And break out the liquor—a tremendous congrats to Amanda at Mouse Words for winning the Koufax award for Best New Blog!

Ok, my ass-kissing is done for the day.

Looks like Kansas is taking cues from former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Kansas AG Phill Kline is seeking the medical records of almost 90 women who received abortions. WHAT?!

Kline apparently is looking for evidence of a crime under late-term abortion laws. The records he's looking to get would include every patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile. This is such a disgusting violation of privacy rights; I'm fucking speechless.

I don't know if anyone has been following the recent Judith Warner buzz, but I'm curious to know what folks think.

(Warner's book, "Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety," says moms are going nuts trying to be perfect.)

To me it reeks of the Lisa Belkin "Opt-Out Revolution" silliness from a while back because of its assumption that the only mothers that count are white, educated, middle-to-upper class women.

Check out Salon's coverage and let me know what you think...

We started Feministing to provide a forum to critically analyze and discuss issues that young women and feminists care about. Yet, as our web traffic has grown, we've had less critical discussion on the site. Whether it's the never-ending stream of comment spam *or* the assholes that think that it's okay to appropriate feminist space for their own agendas--we are tired of losing great feminist voices.

Because young feminists have so few spaces to *openly* analyze the world, we are re-committing ourselves to trying to provide a safe space for our readers. (While we know that we will never be able to provide a truly safe space, that doesn't mean we won't try).

Starting tomorrow, you will have register to comment. It's a one time registration process that will require you to provide a *real* email address. This new policy will have little impact on most of our readers. But it will have a significant impact on the two or three readers that write harassing & hateful comments under a barrage of names.

Our policy is not about censorship, it's about fostering a space for the voices of young feminists and progressives.

We are sorry if you disagree with this policy. And we're sorry that you have to take the time to register. But we think that this is an important step for Feministing to take.

We hope all of our regular readers know how much your thoughts / criticisms / voices mean to us, so *please* let us know what you think.

UPDATE: We're figuring out all the weird kinks with this new registration thing, so please be patient as we work it out. Thanks!

LiberalOasis' post yesterday, How Bush Could Protect Iraqi Women, But Won't.

I love that the piece calls on Bush to ratify CEDAW (aka the Women's Treaty). The US is the only industrialized nation not to sign on to CEDAW, and our unwillingness to ratify puts us in the company of oh-so-woman-friendly countries like Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.

Yikes. The Alabama ban on selling sex toys is here to stay for now; the US Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the law claiming that it violates privacy rights.

The law was adopted in 1998 (that’s right, 1998!) and blocks the sale of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human sexual organs." Breaking the law could mean up to 10,000 dollars in fines and one year in prison.

Maybe the women in Alabama should have a masturbatory sit-in (or sit-on!) to protest. That would go over real well.

Via Trish Wilson and Stone Court (who we have also added to the blogroll).

Go check out Third Wave Agenda and Lefterer immediately if you haven't yet.

And if you want some audio along with your blog-reading, make sure to go to BlueGrassRoots (props to Ben Carter for his infinite patience with my inability to understand AM versus PM) and Rebel Dad's brand spanking new show, Sex Talk--a "weekly Podcast on Gender Issues, Equity and Feminism." The first show includes an interview with NOW president Kim Gandy.

I wish we could update our blogroll more often, but we're completely swamped these days. So if you think we're missing anyone, drop me a note and let me know...

An article called "Love Hurts", was recently published in Vibe magazine, discussing the occurrence of domestic violence within the hip hop community. The author, Elizabeth Mendez Berry (one of our readers!) asks several important questions about whether hip hop lyrics that condone/discuss violence against women, actually cause violence against women.

"When you get paid big money to call every women a ho, at what point do you start believing you're a pimp?" She also talks about many famous rappers, including Biggie, Dr. Dre, Busta Rhymes, Mystikal, and Big Pun, who have all been accused of violence against there partners.

Some other interesting stuff...

"Violence against women crosses class and racial line, but it affects certain groups disproportionately...

"Because of socioeconomic factors, African American men have a harder time fulfilling the protector and provider roles, so they overcompensate in other areas," says Flowers. "They focus on wielding power they can-in their own communities and in their intimate relationships." Author and activist Kevin Powell has called this "bootleg masculinity"-and hip hop's studio pimps and gangstas are it's poster children. "Of course hip hop didn't create violence against women, but it can endorse and accelerate it," says Powell, who admits that he has himself been violent toward women in the past. "If you listen to mainstream rap over the last 10 years, you would think that we men of color hate women."

Interesting stuff, check out the article. I am really glad this article was published in VIBE. This is a much needed discussion in mainstream rap media.

Thanks Elizabeth!

The AP reports that Gov. Arnold "Girlie Man" Schwarzenegger recently managed to make some *big enemies* in the California Nurses Union.

Last month when a group of nurses gathered to protest Schwarzenegger's decision to delay changing the state's nurse-to-patient ratio, Schwarzenegger responded: "The special interests don't like me in Sacramento because I am always kicking their butts."

Are you *kidding* me? First off, if there is any special interest he's playing to, it's hospital administrators. And second, he's "KICKING THEIR BUTTS"? Is this lame macho rhetoric the only way Arnie could come up with to respond to the *very* valid criticism by nurses that they are tired of being overworked?

Rose Ann De Moro, executive director of the California Nurses Association, explains that: "He behaves like an arrogant patriarch with respect to women's occupations. Nurses, teachers, home health workers — it's vulgar how he's run roughshod over them. He's arrogant, and he's a bully."

Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, chimes in that: "The arrogance of taking on teachers, nurses and other professions where women are underpaid, overworked and vital to society is beyond the pale. But Arnold is someone who treats women as objects, so it's natural for him to have a tendency to disregard and devalue professions that are made up of women."

But here is something to make you smile. The AP reports that: "Last week, some 300 nurses and their supporters disrupted a movie premiere in Sacramento, booing Schwarzenegger as he posed with actors Vince Vaughn and The Rock." Wow. Now I would *love* to see that.

Reuters released a scary report about some research in Scotland showing that although women are at less risk to get a heart attack than men, they are more likely to die afterward. Their research also suggests that it may be because women receive inferior health care.

The findings were published in the medical journal Heart, where a study was conducted in Scotland of over 1500 men and women between 1994 and 2000 who were admitted with a first heart attack to the hospital.

During a follow-up time period of three years, 41 percent of men and 51 percent of women died. Even though the initial inquiry showed a heightened death risk for women, this dissipated after ruling in other factors, such as smoking, age, and other diseases.

The researchers concluded that, due to their findings, “‘it is tempting to speculate’ that the survival differences reported in other studies may reflect sex bias in the way patients are treated, as well as in other factors such as age.”

Eek.

It turns out that chicks just don't like politics. Whew. I'm glad that mess got cleared up!

Amnesty International's latest report, Iraq: Decades of Suffering--Now Women Deserve Better, found that the status of women has *not* improved in Iraq over the last two years. For all the women's lib rhetoric that Bush likes to throw around, it's just not true. While the war succeeded in getting rid of Saddam, it replaced him with violence & religious conservatism. Not exactly a net gain for women.

According to Amnesty, "The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work."

And of course Iraqi women gained new threats too--foreign soldiers. Amnesty explained that, "Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some women detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped." (The Pentagon had no real response to the allegations. They claimed they needed time to review the report and determine its validity. Ummmm, yeah).

*BUT* I guess there is always a silver lining of sorts. The report also documents the emergence of several indigenous women's rights organizations in Iraq. Too bad we won't invest in these homegrown feminist projects instead of Bushie's IWF exported imperialism. (sigh).

Click here to check out Amnesty's full report.

Check out the Philadelphia Inquirer’s piece, Democrats Sound A New Note On Abortion. The article focuses on the Democratic Party's shift towards the center on the issue of choice, and the growing *inside* movement to dismantle reproductive rights from the party's core platform.

William Galston, a former policy adviser to the Clinton administration explains that: "Those who won't ever compromise on 'choice' should spend a bit more time with folks who aren't 100-percenters. Because if the 100-percenters keep insisting on total obedience, they will end up dominating a party that will never again win another national election." I don't believe it. I think that Emily's List is much more on point in noting that, "Support for a woman's right to choose has, in many ways, become the scapegoat for Democrats' losses." No joke--with the Dems busy running defense choice becomes an easy target.

Well anti-choice democrats are certainly *thrilled* with the recent developments. Kristen Day, director of Democrats for Life of America, explained that: "Three years ago, when we founded the group, we didn't hear this kind of dialogue. Nobody in leadership returned our phone calls, and the party wouldn't link us on its Web site. But now we're finally getting a seat at the table." Is this who we really want speaking for us?

I agree that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. BUT, I believe that you make abortion *rare* by providing comprehensive sex education, requiring insurance companies to provide contraception & assign it a reasonable co-pay, and making emergency contraception readily available (to name only a few). Maybe we do need a shift in the language of reproductive rights to garner support from a wider base, BUT if Dems try to expand by getting anti-choicers elected, what have we really accomplished?

But this time they are lashing out at their own. According to the Washington Post, evangelicals are up in arms at the latest translation of Today's New International Bible (TNIV).

Evangelicals claim that the translation committee was misled by feminist theology and distorted biblical teachings through their use of gender neutral language. Randy Stinson of Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, alleges that the use of gender neutral language, "undermines significant things about fathers, about manhood, about brothers, about relationships between men and women, and the way that the Bible fundamentally teaches from cover to cover about the role of men leading in the home, about the role of men leading in the church." Hmmmm...fundamental relationships like wives submitting to their husbands? Gee, I sure would hate to lose *that* interpretation. (sigh).

Some examples:
Isaiah 19:16
NIV: "In that day Egyptians will be like women. They will shudder with fear at the uplifted hand that the Lord Almighty raises against them."
TNIV: "In that day the Egyptians will become weaklings. They will shudder with fear at the uplifted hand that the Lord Almighty raises against them."
Hebrews 12:7
NIV: "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
TNIV: "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?"

Are you kidding me? First of all, I have *no idea* how this distorts core biblical teachings. And, second, if feminist theology *really* was infused in the issue, I would hope that God would emerge as a gender neutral figure. (The translation committee clearly thought that was going too far--"We're not going to jettison 2,000 years of history where God the Father is God the Father.") For more on the issue, check out the PBS Religious and Ethics Newsletter. Any thoughts?

There was an interesting article in The Washington Post yesterday (free subscription) questioning what happens when a female chief executive leaves her position. More specifically, will her departure call more attention than when a male chief executive falls? The author examines the presence of corporations led by women and the stigma that comes with their (sadly) rare existence.

After all, there’s only about one percent of female chief executives in the Fortune 500. The author uses Carly Fiorina as an example -- the chief executive who just resigned from her successful tenure of six years at Hewlett Packard Co. But the author questions, “Will her departure also just be another ‘aha, see?’ moment in Corporate America?”

Betty Spence, the president of the National Association of Female Executives, puts her two cents in. “’Everybody is so interested when a female executive goes under...The coverage [Fiorina] is going to get for it has everything to do with being a woman because there are so few women at the top, and they receive a great deal of scrutiny.’”

The author also mentions Harvard President Summers’ controversial comments and the resulting debates involving interests, leadership styles and abilities between the sexes. She predicts that Fiorina’s departure will question even more of what women’s “natural” abilities are.

Barbara Gault, director of research at the Institute for Women’s Policy and Research, seems to have a good take on what this bullshit is about:

"An aggressive, risk-taking style is viewed more negatively in women than among men. Women face a double standard in that if they are too accommodating and feminine, they are seen as weak. Too aggressive, it brings up negative associations for a lot of people...Given that there are already so few women in the Fortune 500 . . . it seems likely that her departure is just going to add to that perception that clearly already exists."

Thoughts?

Maureen Dowd's piece, Where's the Road Beef?, on some of the lovely things men say about women and how beauty standards haven't changed much. At all.

Here's a snippet:

At the dawn of feminism, there was an assumption that women would not be as severely judged on their looks in ensuing years. Phooey. It's just the opposite. Looks matter more than ever, with more and more women spending fortunes turning themselves into generic, plastic versions of what they think men want, reaching for eerily similar plumped-up faces and body shapes.

Check out yesterday's article in The Washington Post on sexual assault in the military. The article highlights the Miles Foundation, an *awesome* non-profit that provides support to victims of violence within the military. According to the Miles Foundation, only about one third of the 307 sexual assaults that were reported to them have received official documentation. Well, thanks to the Miles Foundation at least these soldiers feel like they have someone to tell without fear of retribution.

In January, the Pentagon pledged to start taking sexual assault in the military more seriously. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath...

Talk about animal attraction. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Two San Francisco women who were caretakers for a gorilla have sued their employer, claiming they were fired for "refusing to show the animal their breasts." Um, what?

The lawsuit says the president of the Gorilla Foundation, Francine Patterson, sought to have the women bond with the gorilla by performing "bizarre sexual acts with Koko."

"Patterson pressured plaintiffs to perform such acts, regularly and consistently, and on at least one occasion, outdoors where others could see," the lawsuit added.

Weirdest. Thing. Ever.

For only fifteen bucks, you can get yourself a pretty beaded bracelet. But this is not just a bracelet; it represents a secret society of self-destructive young girls and women.

I’ve heard of these underground “pro-ana” websites before, where young women bond over their eating disorders and feel that there’s no need to get better. It’s a way of life and they don’t want to change. For example, bluedragonfly.org. is one of the sites where you can purchase these bracelets.

The pretty jewelry is a sign of membership that can distinguish each other in public, so they can identify their fellow members. But the bracelets aren’t just limited to eating disorders.

Red bracelets represent anorexia.
Purple represents bulimia.
Black and blue is for self-injury, like cutting.

I’m quite speechless. The depressing part of this is that when young girls do come together, it’s for an unhealthy and destructive lifestyle. Is this the only way we can support each other, by killing ourselves?

Much thanks to Rebecca for the link.

I don’t know a bunch on the justice system, but this case caught my attention and made me wonder.

A man’s rape conviction was overturned because a jury member researched the crime on the internet, reports Mirror.co.uk. He will now face a retrial and the jury may be banned from using the internet during the hearings.

It seems that after the conviction was made, two downloaded documents -- “The Feminist Position on Rape” and “Rape and the Criminal Justice System” -- were found in the jury room. Although there was no indication that the documents were discussed among the jurors, the judge told the court that “The internet can provide material which may influence a juror's views. If used for research purposes during a trial, it can just as easily influence the juror's mind as a discussion with a friend or neighbour.”

Thoughts?

On the day that Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers releases a transcript in response to his comments on how biological differences could be the reason why women don’t have top science positions at universities, the Washington Times releases an article titled, “Sex Differences Scientific.”

The article contains quotes from a panel conference at the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), where president Nancy Pfotenhauer stated:

"President Summers is being vilified for telling the truth about women...Women have children and choose to raise those children...and neurobiology shows us women are better in certain fields than men and tend to gravitate towards those fields they do better in."

Like fields full of babies and aprons?? Pardon my french, but give me a fucking break. The article continues to cite numerous comments made at the discussion, along with the “research” that they found proving Summers’ statements true. Pfotenhauer even chastises Summers for “telling the truth” and then backing out.

Even the first line of the article seems to have bias relating with Pfotenhauer’s statement. “Speaking honestly about differences between men and women can be dangerous, as Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers recently proved.” Speaking honestly? Doesn't seem too far off than Pfotenhauer's reference to him "telling the truth", does it?

The article does briefly describe the Summers’ incident, the feminist response, as well as a letter signed by various faculty members acknowledging the sexism in the comment. The author also mentions how the National Organization for Women (NOW) called for Summers’ resignation, yet chooses to end the article with Tammy Bruce’s thoughts. Bruce is a former NOW chapter president and radio talk show host. She believes that NOW’s request for a resignation is “close-minded” and “over the top,” saying that “They shouldn't be so surprised when this kind of statement is made."

Anticipating this kind of statement doesn’t mean it should be overlooked or excused. And is it really an overreaction to expect the president of one of the most prestigious colleges in the country to have nonsexist views? This nonsense and the controversy behind it is beginning to feel never-ending.

In an article on AllAfrica.com...

After presenting a paper at a conference on Monday entitled, 'Breaking the Barriers of Limitations: the Role of Women in Development', Mrs. Machel-Mandela (wife of Nelson Mandela) said, that in the case of Africa, "electoral legislation, education and conquering the male chauvinism, are ways of breaking the barriers against women rights enhancement."

After her presentation, Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, responded by backing an electoral legislation in Nigeria that demands 25% of all political parties must be women. He agreed, "the surest way to get women into elective offices would be through a legislation, which will bring about changes in the country's electoral law."

He didn't seem to like Ms. Mandela saying that "conquering men" was the appropriate course of action. Hee hee, I think she actually said "couquering male chauvinism," but...

Apparently, the African Union has agreed to reserve 50% of it's commission offices for women. Does anyone know anything else about this?

Who knew that my discriminating taste in men was due to my choice of contraception?

Reuters reported yesterday that birth control pills change women’s preference in men.

Psychologists at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland asked 1570 young women on oral contraceptives and 1325 women who were not, to choose between healthy and less healthy male faces. The same face was presented twice, one image glowing with apparent health, the other looking pale and unwell.

All women preferred the healthier face on average but those on the Pill were significantly more choosy. "Women using oral contraceptives expressed stronger attraction to apparent health than women not using oral contraceptives," the researchers reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Um, who were these chicks who wanted pasty, sick-looking guys? And I wonder if the study took into account that not all women like the men-folk at all, sick or healthy-looking…

According to Stuart Elliot's New York Times email column In Advertising, the YWCA is changing its image with a new, honest and bold marketing campaign — "Eliminating racism. Empowering women." As the article states, it is intended to declare the modern-day goals of the organization, which was founded 147 years ago, and to highlight the problems of misogyny and racism in mainstream society.

One main part of the campaign is a television ad which will be played on BET, MTV and MTV2. As Elliot's NY Times article reported, one of the TV commercials features scenes of girls innocently playing while the soundtrack plays a medley of rap, country and rock tunes (composed for the spot) with harsh lyrics using words like "ho" and "bitch."

Two radio spots present confident young women discussing the contradictions of modern womanhood. "The best kind of success comes in both suede pumps and sneakers," says one woman of the need to choose between motherhood and career. Being "both gentle and assertive," another woman says, does not mean she likes "being considered inferior," nor does she like "being called a bitch just because I know what I want."

The final two radio commercials describe the YWCA as serving women's diverse needs. In one, as the listener hears the sounds of a woman running, an announcer asks whether she is jogging, hurrying to pick up her child or fleeing abuse. The YWCA is "a finish line for all women on the run, regardless of the reason," the announcer concludes.

Looks like the YWCA is revamping -- and I like it. I like that it's not afraid to be both Christian and feminist. This is a combination that certainly exists, but is rarely publicized. Right on.

Now if we could only get the YMCA to ban that Village People tune forever.

*Thanks to Narguess for the article.

Check out these new bracelets available at Voices for Choice!

So bad-ass…must…have…

Similar to the Never Surrender bracelets available a while back, the proceeds from the bracelets will support NARAL Pro-Choice America’s work to keep choice safe. And if you’re feeling like sporting some more choice fashion, check out Prochoicetee.com.

I suddenly feel the urge to shop...

Sorry about the recent weirdness with the site...Should be all good now.

In conjunction with Ann's post on Monday about the anti-immigration bill, The REAL I.D. Act, this article in the Kansas City Star discusses the incidents surrounding the murder of an immigrant women, who had a been abused repeatedly, but due to fear of deportation, never alarmed authorities.

The victim, Estela Garibay was murdered on Christmas Day 2003. The article states...

The abuse, like the victim, left no paper trail. Garibay never called a domestic-violence hot line. She never filed a police report or requested a restraining order. She never sought refuge at a women's shelter.

So they endure it. Quietly. In the shadows.

If you don't know, now you know. This just gives us a glimmer of a devastating national crisis.

As a former Rutgers University student, I have always been quite obsessed with the infamous “fat sandwiches” that are sold in a random parking lot by what we call “grease trucks” to the drunken college students looking for some late-night munching. My favorite fat sandwich? The “fat cat.” Sooo good. Yet I was dismayed to hear of some other sandwich names that weren’t as harmless as a chubby kitty. How about ordering a “fat bitch” or “fat dyke” for dinner? Wow.

These names have actually been around for more than a decade. And it’s only now that action has been taken by the LGBT community at Rutgers, and the owners of the trucks have been ordered to take the signs with the sandwich names down, reports The Daily Targum (free subscription).

“I don't like it. I'm going to lose a lot of business,” says one of the owners. “These names are attractive to people. They're extraordinary.” He also added that he was going to have to replace two of the signs on one of the trucks, which could cost $1,000.

“Extraordinary”??? What the fuck is so extraordinary and “attractive” about “fat bitch” and a “fat dyke”?? That statement makes it even more necessary for the end to this homophobic and sexist shit.

The thing that also pisses me off is that the article by The Daily Targum (which is Rutger’s newspaper) implies that the action taken is overblown. I mean, they’re just sandwiches, right? Ugh. As a university with a pretty liberal reputation, I must say I’m pretty disappointed.

Thanks to Mike for the article.

Harvard Pres. Lawrence Summers isn’t quite off the hook yet; his faculty confronted him yesterday in a no-holds-barred meeting where they expressed “strong dissatisfaction” with his leadership.

Though the concerns voiced went beyond the recent controversy surrounding Summers’ comments on women and science, many still felt that his lack of transparency concerning his remarks was disconcerting:

Several, including Barbara J. Grosz, chairwoman of a new task force on women in science and engineering, called on Dr. Summers to release a transcript of his remarks about science and women. Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology, said, "President Summers appears to be apologizing profusely, yet he refuses to release for honest discussion his actual remarks." The result was that commentators have cast his critics as "unreasonable opponents of academic inquiry and openness," with Harvard "ridiculed as a center of close-minded political correctness."

As Katha Pollitt pointed out recently, “while much was made of MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins walking out of his talk…we heard little about how Summers, who says he only wanted to spark a discussion, has refused to release his remarks. The bold challenger of campus orthodoxy apparently doesn't want the world to know what he actually said.”

In a related story, the presidents of MIT, Princeton University, and Stanford wrote a critical essay on Summers’ remarks, noting that have “speculation that 'innate differences' may be a significant cause of underrepresentation by women in science and engineering may rejuvenate old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases,” and that “the question we must ask as a society is not 'Can women excel in math, science, and engineering?' -- Marie Curie exploded that myth a century ago -- but 'How can we encourage more women with exceptional abilities to pursue careers in these fields?’”

As some of you know, I'm not exactly a huge fan of Even Ensler, but this bullshit backlash against The Vagina Monologues is just insane.

The National Review thinks that the play promotes promiscuity, and now RedState.org is claiming that it’s an indicator of how feminism has turned women into rape-promoting maniacs.

The Republican blog’s post Women Who Treat Women as Sex Objects, claims that “most mental health professionals would regard Miss Ensler’s obsession with her crotch as a treatable condition,” and that “maybe the Patriarchy wasn’t so bad.”

Is this the best that anti-feminists can do? I’m unimpressed.

Check out this morning's front page NY Times article, For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks. It's more on the resistance Dems are feeling from abortion rights advocates in their own party.

Arizona has been in quite a choice-tizzy lately, as legislators are trying to impose new penalties for the “death of an unborn child.”

Currently, the state permits a manslaughter charge for the death of a fetus; this new proposed law however, allows a charge for first degree murder—making the death of a fetus equal to the death of a woman:

Under this legislation, the same laws that govern killing an individual would apply to a fetus. So if the prosecutor could prove that someone intentionally caused the death of a fetus, he or she could be charged with second degree murder…And doing so with premeditation would be first degree murder, which is punishable by death.

While proponents of the bill claim that its language excludes abortion, pro-choice advocates recognize that this is just a small step in the larger anti-choice agenda. Sen. Bill Brotherton (D-AZ) noted that the proposal covers a fetus “at any stage of development.”

Obviously I think that people who commit violence against pregnant women should be punished. But I have to say, it really pisses me off that the anti-choice folks think they can be so frigging blatant in legislation like this, all the while claiming that abortion has nothing to do with it. This law is straight up saying that a fetus has the same rights as a woman. And we’re supposed to buy that this isn’t a choice issue? Puh-leeze.

Whether it’s academia, science or blogging, it seems that the question is always the same: “Where are the women?” So it was only a matter of time before someone took on women in tech companies.

Wired reports that the lack of women’s representation in tech companies is widespread, but counterintuitive—companies with more women in higher positions make more money.

Companies with the most women in senior management had a 35 percent higher return on equity than those with the fewest, according to a study (.pdf) by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that studies women in business. It also found those companies paid their shareholders 34 percent more than companies with the fewest women in top management.

"I think almost without question that all of the companies we work with know they are able to offer better technology if they have a more diverse group of people," said Telle Whitney, president and CEO of the Anita Borg Institute, a nonprofit that promotes women in technology companies.

Is sexism so rampant among the higher-ups in tech companies that they’re disregarding the financial incentive of having more women in their ranks? Any thoughts?

Who knew that talking about vaginas would make you a big whore?
Check out this National Review article that takes on Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues, essentially saying that it encourages promiscuity.

Author Dawn Eden’s argument defies logic:

One University of Washington student group is doing its part to get out the V-Day message by making "Consent is Sexy" buttons to pass out to the Vagina Monologues audience before the show, according to that same article. "[They] do this to visually show the statistic that one in four women and one in five men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes," explained ASUW Women's Action Commission director Marissa Hackett.

Picture students, many of them teenagers, wearing "Consent is Sexy" buttons on a college campus. What kind of message does that give? It's intentionally provocative. By using the words "Consent" and "Sexy" together, it implies, "Say yes! I'm easy! Do me!" — a message that is, or rather should be, the exact opposite of the V-Day campaign's intended mission.

So championing consent is tantamount to promoting sexual activity? Odd.

In any case, make sure to read the whole piece to see just how afraid of sex some folks are.

Fun fact: The author is an anti-choice blogger who has previously called out yours truly as being a threat to minors (because of my opposition to parental notification laws.)

UPDATE: Also check out Mouse Words' take on this nonsense.

Check out this article by Student Life, the website for Washington University (St. Louis) students. (free registration required--sorry!)

They give the suggestion for the college ladies who don’t have a date on the holiday to find a date in the convenience of their own dorm room -- alternative sex toys, that is. But a curling iron?? Ahhh!

I’m all about sex toys, but shouldn’t this site be promoting “safe sex”??

..cause once they're born, no one gives a shit.

Check out this editorial in The Baltimore Sun, After they're born, compassion ends. (Originally published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

Fun (but not really) fact from the piece:

Pro-life states are less likely than pro-choice states to provide adequate care to poor and needy children.

Imagine that.

So it looks like Valentine's Day is kicking off National Condom Awareness Week this year, so don't forget to be safe as you're celebrating the holiday!

In celebration of the week o' contraception, also make sure to check out everyone's favorite cartoon condoms, The Three Amigos.

If you haven't seen the Amigos' PSA spots before, you must go see them now. Amazing.

The latest anti-immigration bill to hit Congress could also compromise the safety of immigrant women fleeing domestic violence.

The REAL I.D. Act, which passed the House on Feb. 10, would make it even harder for refugees and asylum-seekers to wade through the paperwork necessary for them to remain safely in the U.S.

For battered immigrant women, this extra red tape could prevent them from successfully applying for asylum under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Currently, battered immigrant women can avoid deportation if they prove they were subjected to “extreme cruelty” by a spouse or partner who is a U.S. citizen.

Is it so hard for lawmakers to understand that not all people who apply for asylum are terrorists?

Write your representatives and let them know this bill would harm battered immigrant women.

Contributed by Ann Friedman.

On a recent trip to India I stumbled upon a scandalous story that my cousins in India and several of my NRI (non-resident Indian) friends had been chatting about. Apparently, a male college student in Dehli video taped his girlfriend giving him oral sex on his cell phone and proceeded to pass the footage around to his friends. He also tried to auction the footage on Bazee.com (the India subsidiary of ebay).

A commentary on Pacific New Service by Neelanjana Banerjee discusses...
It wasn't just that the Delhi student recorded this girl in his bedroom with his cell phone and passed it around to his classmates at an exclusive prep school. Or that an enterprising 23-year-old college student decided to auction off the clip on Baazee.com, India's eBay subsidiary. The real global excitement came when Indian police decided to go after Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Baazee and a U.S. citizen, for allowing the pornographic clip to be distributed on his site. Bajaj was jailed for several days, causing an uproar in the IT community, which saw this as a threat to India's rapidly growing market.
For all the hoopla surrounding the 17-year-old cell phone auteur, the horny/money-grubbing IIT student, Bajaj and the anxious IT moghuls, I was left wondering: What about the girl?
I am wondering the same thing. The commentary continues...
In reality, very few stories have been written about the girl. Soon after the scandal broke, she was reported to have left the country. Indian Web site Sify.com later reported that she may have been blackmailed into the sexual act. Indian media seem to be doing their best to deny her sexuality.

And what does this mean for the sexual evolution of India? India is still imbibed by traditional conceptions of female(ness), while concurrently admist a technological revolution, granting young people access to copious amounts of pornography. What will this do for the sexual identity of young women in India? Will they begin to be held to these sexual standards, presented very poorly on internet porn sites, by their male peers?

As Neela's commentary discusses, this literal writing out of what happened to the girl, along with the media denial of her sexuality, compounded with young people's access to pornography and lack of sex education are creating quite the volcano in India's cultural/sexual landscape. Quite frankly, I am scared to see what is to come!

Although the majority of America contain a gender wage gap where women earn approximately 75 cents to men’s dollar, we find that about 15 random counties in the U.S. have a different case. In fact, women are the ones raking in the dough, reports NPR.

The counties are in the western part of U.S., like Kings County, Texas. There, women generally earn 30 percent more than men. I could never live in Texas, but it sure is tempting!

The fact is that this is one serious cowboy country. Residents: less than 400. Cows and horses: more than 10,000. No stoplights, restaurants or supermarkets. This is the reason behind the wage gap, for much of the work here is defined as “men’s work”, while more women work at the local courthouse and the school, which typically pay more than being a ranch hand.

Yet a wage gap that favors the women doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s gender equality in this little town. The ranches are still run by men, men control the courthouse, while both the principal and superintendent at the school are men.

I didn’t expect any more surprises myself, but ‘tis an interesting find!

Because what kind of sex life would you have if there wasn’t an aerosol spray involved?

Today Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) was denied the chance to speak or submit testimony at a public hearing held by the Justice Department on its National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examination.

As Feministing has reported before, this national model was more than just a little lacking—there was no mention of emergency contraception, a vital