February 2006 Archives

The Supreme Court ruled today that federal racketeering and extortion laws can’t be used to stop anti-choice extremists from obstructing access to clinics, damaging property or using violence. (Legal Momentum has a history of the case, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women)

This case has been going on since 1986, when the National Organization for Women (NOW) brought a class action suit against violent anti-choice groups in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Unfortunately, violent protests are not a thing of the past. From NARAL:

Among other acts, in the past year there has been an attempted firebombing at a Louisiana clinic and one incident of arson in Florida. In the past decade approximately two murders, one attempted murder, two bombings, 18 incidents of arson, 298 acts of vandalism, 642 anthrax threats, 121 bomb threats, and 27 blockades have occurred at clinics. Since 1993, three doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard have been murdered. In addition to these seven murders, 17 attempted murders have also occurred since 1991.

This is a huge loss for women and choice, even if it is--as Broadsheet points out--largely symbolic: "[The] ruling will likely do little to change the situation on the ground. But it is the symbolic victory -- coupled with South Dakota's recent anti-abortion vote -- that may further embolden a pro-life movement eager to test the country's more conservative Supreme Court."

After years of news reports that male birth control is on the way, now there's some support for what feminists have always suspected. It's not science that's holding up the creation of a Pill for men-- it's society.

The original developer of male birth-control pill says they stopped work on it because men wouldn't use it.

"It would be possible to make a male pill today. We know how hormones work and we could use the same principles that are used to make the female pill," Carl Djerassi, 82, told weekly news magazine "Sabado".

"The problem is that men are afraid to lose their virility. Even if taking a pill carries only a remote chance of impotence, they won't take the chance," he added.

In other contraception news, here's a compelling reason not to eat at Domino's Pizza.

Give it up for Effa Manley, the first female Baseball Hall-of-Famer. She co-owned a Negro League team with her husband, and ran the business end of the team for more than a decade.

Manley used baseball to advance civil rights causes with events such as an Anti-Lynching Day at the ballpark. She died in 1981 at age 84.

"She was a pioneer in so many ways, in terms of integrating the team with the community," said Leslie Heaphy, a Kent State professor on the committee. "She's also one of the owners who pushed very hard to get recognition for Major League Baseball when they started to sign some of their players."

Awesome.

Rachel Kramer Bussel at the Village Voice takes on the question of hetero dating and who pays--is it sad that I really didn’t know this was still a dating issue? I thought at least with younger folks this wouldn't really even be a question. (My boyfriend insists that I must live in an alternate universe.)

Apparently--and I really do feel kind of foolish admitting that I thought otherwise--it’s still considered pretty standard for the guy to pay for dates.

Most women claim the guy should pay, regardless of who asked whom out or who makes more money. Like it or not, the tradition's a stubborn holdover from past eras when women couldn't afford to go halfsies. Lauren Henderson, author of Jane Austen's Guide to Dating (Hyperion, 2005), believes paying is a sign of respect. "Symbols are important, and a man who can't buy a woman dinner on their first date is a man who will be emotionally deficient at making a woman feel cared about," she elaborates. "Men need caretaking, but their need doesn't express itself in having dinner bought for them. Men want their ego bolstered by feeling strong, capable, and necessary."

(Puke.) I just don’t get it. Do guys agree with this? How does spending cash make someone feel necessary?

The only situations where someone has paid for my dates on a semi-regular basis has been when I was seeing someone who made significantly more money than I did and wanted to go places that I just couldn’t afford. But otherwise, I can’t really imagine not paying. It seems so weird. I also find it kind of insulting--I’m not a child, I can manage to feed and entertain myself.

I suppose it’s easier--as Bussel points out--when you’re actively dating someone and can just go by the I’ll-get-this-one, you-get-the-next-one way of paying.

Seems to me that even having to think about something like this kind of ruins the fun of dating.

Any thoughts?

I can't believe I missed this gem of a graphic used on IWF's Campus Corner. Classic.

Best caption wins a very fashionable Feministing shirt.

A report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) says that worldwide, women are making progress in national parliaments but that true equality is a long way off.

Women fared best in Rwanda, Norway and Sweden, but there are no women MPs in nine countries, including Saudi Arabia and Kyrgyzstan.

On average, women made up about 20% of the deputies elected in the 39 countries which held parliamentary elections last year, the IPU report said.

The numbers fall short of UN targets set in 1995 of a minimum of 30% women lawmakers in all parliaments.

Don’t forget, this year’s CSW is focusing on women and decision-making. For more information on women’s political representation, check out the Women’s Environment and Development Organization’s 50/50 campaign.

At the opening of this year’s CSW, Louise Frechette, the deputy secretary-general, said that “the world is starting to grasp that there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women and girls.”

“Study after study has taught us that no policy is as likely to raise economic productivity or to reduce infant and maternal mortality,” she continued.

A cool thing: Featured in one of the UN buildings (to help celebrate CSW) are pictures and bios of 1,000 women activists from around the world. This project is a part of 1000 Peacewomen Across the Globe, which was started to demonstrate how many women worldwide are worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. The campaign also recently came out with a book featuring all the women--it’s amazing.

Dahlia Lithwick has a great op-ed about how pharmacists who refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions are different from doctors who won't participate in executions.

The similarities between the doctors and the pharmacists are striking: Both are refusing to participate in the performance of services acknowledged to be lawful -- capital punishment and abortion/contraception. Both cite as grounds for refusal their professional interest in promoting, as opposed to ending, human life.

Then she notes two reasons why the pharmacists can't refuse but the doctors can. One is that doctors have taken a Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." The other?

One reason doctors have generally been kept away from lethal injections is the historical anxiety about the past participation of physicians in state executions, from the guillotine to Nazi experiments. When medical expertise was pressed into aiding government murder, physicians became accomplices of the worst sort. Pharmacists, on the other hand, have no such history.

Sad stuff.

Octavia E. Butler, considered the first black woman to gain national prominence as a science fiction writer, died after falling and striking her head on the cobbled walkway outside her home, a close friend said. She was 58.

A friend and colleague, Leslie Howle, noted that Bulter’s work explored issues like race, poverty, politics, and religion. "She stands alone for what she did," Howle said.

One of Butler’s many awards was from the MacArthur Foundation (the “genius” award); she was the first science fiction writer to be granted the honor.

The fiftieth session of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) starts today and will run through March 10.

The two themes of this year’s session are:

Enhanced participation of women in development: an enabling environment for achieving gender equality and the advancement of women, taking into account, inter alia, the fields of education, health and work.

Equal participation of women and men in decision-making processes at all levels.

Check out the Women’s Environment and Development Organization for more info on this year’s CSW.

Unfortunately I won’t be attending this CSW (sniff sniff), but I’ll do my best to bring you updates as I get them.

Something kind of cool: You can watch some of the sessions through the UN’s webcast.

From The Washington Post:

More than 60 bills concerning EC have already been filed in state legislature this year, some seeking to increase access and some seeking to limit it.

..."The FDA made this a major issue for state legislatures," said Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, a women's health research organization. "For the first seven years Plan B was on the market, this largely didn't happen."

Click here for a timeline of the FDA’s (non)action on emergency contraception.

After an extremely successful (and well publicized) girlcott of Abercrombie & Fitch, the clothing company has come out with some new and improved shirts.

“Brunettes have brains” and “Blonde with a brain” aren’t exactly super-inspiring slogans, but they sure beat “Who needs brains when you have these.”

Via Broadsheet.

VeganKid is spreading the word on Blog Against Sexism Day set to take place on March 8, 2006--which is also International Women's Day.

So go sign up and spread the word.

It was quite a dreary week for abortion rights, with South Dakota passing a flat-out ban and the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the "partial-birth" abortion case. On that note:

SCOTUSblog has the details on a recent 6th circuit ruling regarding RU-486, in which the court applied Ayotte.

Bad news for all of those programs that encourage gay people to "leave the lifestyle." Scientists may have discovered a common gene in mothers of gay sons.

Slate examines the "Aryan sisterhood" of female news anchors.

France now grants same-sex couples joint parental rights.

And because we haven't linked to Slate enough today (and because Margaret Cho is awesome), I give you The Passion of the Cho.

After the FDA's continual neglect of reviewing emergency contraception, advocates are looking to state governments to make EC available to women in (as of right now) about 12 different states.

Under the proposed Maryland law, pharmacists who volunteer to receive special training may dispense the pills. The law does not require all pharmacists to furnish the pills, and the State Board of Pharmacy estimated 5 percent of Maryland's 5,331 licensed pharmacists would initially participate.

Legislation in other states would allow pharmacists to provide Plan B directly to women under an agreement with a doctor giving the pharmacist blanket permission to sell the drug or require emergency rooms to provide it to rape victims, said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights group that is tracking the efforts.

Abortion-rights groups have been lobbying state lawmakers to increase access to the morning-after pill since 2000, and 16 states, including California, have passed laws that do so in some form.

I am curious to see how state elections will influence passage of Plan B.

via Baltimore Sun.

Nothing pretty. This past week when South Dakota passed one of the most restrictive anti-choice, anti-abortion bills seen in the last ten years, some anti-choicers jumped for joy at the prospect of overturning Roe. The question is, could this tragically regressive move hurt the anti-choice movement?

New York Times discusses,

The South Dakota strategy itself has already splintered the anti-abortion movement. One faction is chafing at the timing of this campaign, wondering aloud whether the court — and, perhaps more important, the American public — will really embrace a complete reversal of Roe just yet.

Some, like Daniel McConchie of Americans United for Life, which did not take part in the South Dakota effort, said they would have preferred to reduce abortions by continuing to press for restrictions like waiting periods, parental and spousal notification laws, and the prohibition of certain types of abortion — quieter measures that draw less attention and strike a less head-on blow to Roe.

"There is tension," Mr. McConchie said, between those who agree with him about abortion but not about strategy. "A lot of those people — what we tend to think of as the purists — in essence think that people who would push a more incremental approach are sellouts. I understand that type of zeal, but there is a severe penalty you can end up paying."

In the coming weeks as the Supreme Court reviews "partial-birth abortions" we will see exactly how far the damage has gone, but I will say I am not feeling optimistic. In terms of whether or not this drastic move in South Dakota will help or hurt the anti-choice movement (one can hope) is yet to be seen. What I can say is that I feel so so sorry for the women of South Dakota.

I put the rest of the article (and I can't believe that Leslee Unruh of National Abstinence Clearinghouse had the audacity to compare their tactics to Martin Luther King's, biznatch is trippin!) after the jump cuz you have to register to read it...

You heard it.

District administration has decided to issue free bus passes for pregnant women in rural areas, so that they could avail the medical facilities in time. The new scheme was implemented from Friday.

According to district medical and health officer Ramakrishna Reddy, periodical medical tests and checkups for pregnant women were necessary for a smooth delivery and they were also important for the health of the newborn after the delivery.

This is huge considering many of the women in this part of India (Andhra Pradesh) can't afford even public transport to the medical center. This is really amazing that a law like this was even passed, although South India has consistently been passing progressive laws concerning the rights of women. Is there anything in the states that makes it easier for pregnant poor women to get to the doctor?

via Newindia Press.

After a narrow win, Portia Simpson Miller currently holding a position in the Cabinet beat Rastafarian candidate Peter Phillips for the prime ministership.

In the Jamaican system, the majority party's president automatically becomes prime minister. About 3,800 delegates of the People's National Party voted.

Portia Simpson Miller, local government minister, received 1,775 votes for the party presidency, while Peter Phillips, national security minister, came in second with 1,538 ballots, said Danville Walker, director of elections at the Electoral Office of Jamaica.

Three Cabinet ministers and a party vice president vied to replace the party's president, Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, who said he would resign by April after 14 years on the job.

I think this is a big win for the women of Jamaica, but it is yet to be seen what kind of leader she will be.

via AP.

Book of the Day recently re-read Judy Blume's pubescent classic, Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. Like 99.9% of awkward, bookwormish pre-teen girls who've grown up in the past three decades, I loved this book. It's one of Time Magazine's 100 greatest novels, and also one of the American Library Association's most frequently challenged books.

Turns out they've updated the novel to reflect advances in menstrual technology. Margaret now uses "disposable adhesive pads" rather than the slightly frightening "sanitary belt." (This is really old news, but I hadn't heard.)

I'm glad they've updated it. I remember reading this book and thinking I knew nothing about getting my period because I'd never heard of the belt-- and was later relived to find out the sanitary belt was outmoded before I was even born.

So let's all take a minute to appreciate this book. It's like the Our Bodies, Ourselves for girls growing up without feminist moms.

via Bookslut.

Over at Nerve, Kara Jesella reminds us that it’s not just abortion access that’s become restricted in the U.S. Women--especially young and low-income women--are having a hard time getting contraception. Even at Planned Parenthood.

This is how you know it’s gotten bad.

Jesella mentions Hannah, 17, who couldn’t afford Planned Parenthood's $100 exam and $40-per-pack birth control. Jennifer, 24, also tried to get the Pill through Planned Parenthood, which had a hard time understanding her lack of health insurance. Erin, 25, left her local clinic without the morning-after pill when she was told it would cost $50.

Women I spoke with reported encounters with clueless receptionists and lines worthy of the DMV. (One woman says she waited three hours to see a doctor for the morning-after pill; eventually, she got the prescription, but never did get to see a doctor.) Voicemail systems are hard to navigate; many phones are staffed only during business hours, when most women aren't able to deal with their reproductive-health issues.

The point here isn't to knock Planned Parenthood, an important and effective organization that is doing everything it can in the face of an administration that's incredibly hostile to reproductive rights. Jesella's point-- and it's a good one-- is that restrictive state legislation and stagnant Title X funding have had a real impact on young, uninsured and low-income women's access to family planning services.

The ACLU has settled the lawsuit against Silver Ring Thing, the Jesus-fied abstinence-only program. HHS froze Silver Ring Thing's funding back in August, and this week's settlement ensures the program won't receive federal dollars to Bible-thump until they change the curriculum.

But, like all federally funded abstinence-only programs, Silver Ring Thing will still be able to tell young women they're sluts and spread misinformation about condoms. Anyway...

Check out the ACLU's press release on the settlement, then compare it to the one put out by the Alliance Defense Fund, the group that defended Silver Ring Thing:

"Apparently, the ACLU of Massachusetts would have us believe that discussion of abstinence is unconstitutional, and that it is purely a religious issue," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. "ADF is pleased that abstinence-based sex education programs like Silver Ring Thing will continue to have the right to seek federal funding for its educational programs."

Nah, we pretty much think that discussion of abstinence is a health issue. Discussion of religion in sex-ed programs? That's a religious issue.

Also, Silver Ring Thing is indeed allow to reapply for federal funds. But they have to change their curricula first.

And I love the misleading link near the bottom, to a Zogby poll showing most parents prefer their kids learn "abstinence is best." Not so much a poll about the abstinence-only curricula, which parents are far less likely to support. Where have we seen this before?

The pro-comprehensive sex-ed group SIECUS has a report on the new requirements for federally funded abstinence-only programs. Who's gonna get sued next??

While I’ve always been interested in midwifery and the discussion of how the western world increasingly treats full-term pregnancy like a medical condition, this seems a bit much. The Royal College of Midwives in the UK are suggesting that women giving labor should pay for epidurals.

Louise Silverton, RCM Deputy General Secretary, elaborates:

"Epidurals provide effective pain relief but, where there is no clinical indication that they are necessary, they can significantly raise the likelihood of other interventions such as Caesarean section occurring.

The UK already has an extremely high Caesarean rate and, as the acknowledged experts in normal pregnancy, labour and birth we midwives need to debate ways in which we might help to bring this rate down."

They believe that charging women for the drug may decrease its usage and lead to healthier labors.

RCM will be holding a conference in May where they will vote whether they should start lobbying at health departments to start a charge. The education and research committee called the motion, requesting that epidurals should be “free to women who have a definite need of it” but states that a fee should be “levied for all other women who desire an epidural.”

Whaa? But how will that be decided? And who will decide? While a fifth of women choose to have an epidural during labor, it seems that this may a fight over something that should be a woman’s decision, no? And let’s not even get into the possible effects on poor women. But maybe RCM didn’t think about that; after all, they are royalty.

Thoughts?

My liberal, straight male friend Jonathan sent me a link to this open letter to all the liberal straight men, from the latest Carnival of Feminists, and asked if I would sign on to a letter like this.

My response? I think statements like this give all feminists a bad name.

The only real complaint I could find within this screed is that there are liberal, straight men who "derail the discussion" of gender by superimposing their personal experience. To which I say, sure, and there are also lesbians and straight women and gay men who do the same thing. I don’t think this implies self-centeredness. How can anyone completely separate from their personal experience while discussing gender issues? And why would we want to? Personal experience is what makes for a meaningful dialogue about how gender is lived on a daily basis. I want to hear what my straight, male friends have to say. And I expect them to listen to me, too.

I don't see this as a "defense of the male voice" so much as a defense of a wide variety of perspectives on gender. I understand that, as a group within institutions (like, say, the Democratic party), straight men have historically dominated and today continue to marginalize other voices. But I this isn't what the "open letter" is addressing.

And I do take issue with men who are unwilling to listen to women’s concerns/complaints/anecdotes about the subtle and not-so-subtle ways they experience sexism — and men who write off those complaints because they’ve never personally experienced or witnessed something similar. But in this post, she’s not making that argument. So I digress.

Other than that, I couldn’t really find anything specific to respond to. I honestly think this letter "detracts from the focus of the discussion" about gender by painting all liberal, straight men with such a broad brush.

Apparently this track inspector can’t escape scrutiny, regardless of whether her life is on the line or not.

The Daily News had an article on Monday about the New York City Transit Authority’s only female track inspector, and the sexist bullshit she has to deal with for simply being brave.

Ronda Rivers is the only female track inspector among 21 women working in the division, which includes another 1,800 men. But apparently, someone wants to keep ladies off the tracks. Written in the yellow chalk that’s issued to TA maintenance supervisors and other track inspectors, graffiti in one of her tunnels read, “Women should be cleaners, not track inspectors. Women don't belong on track."

"I was offended and it was humiliating," said Rivers. It’s at least good to see that her union has her back and are investigating into the matter. "These women put their necks on the line every night," said John Samuelsen, vice president of Transport Workers Union Local 100. "We don't tolerate this type of treatment of our employees.”

Don’t you just love the fact that a woman can’t escape sexism even in some random, dark underground tunnel?

Up to three million women may have heart disease which has gone undetected because signs and symptoms are different for women than they are for men and are ultimately missed by standard (men’s) health tests. It is the leading cause of death among women in the U.S.

Wanna find out if you’re at risk? Take the Heart-O-Scope!

The American Heart Association’s Go Red for Women campaign has created an online test that specifically caters to women’s hearts. Corny name? Absolutely. But it's still a great idea.

This online tool allows women to assess their risk of heart disease, letting them give a number of details such as cholesterol and blood pressure levels in order to accurately check the health of their heart. (Don’t worry guys, a separate scoring sheet is available for you too.)

Click here to check it out.

While big bikes are a wee scary to me, I was still happy to see that this summer will be a good one for female motorcyclists. The 2006 AMA/FIM International Women & Motorcycling Conference is to be held this June in Athens, Georgia.

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and the Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) are holding the event, and has a shitload of sponsors, including Harley-Davidson and Buell. (We’re not surprised about Harley-Davidson considering they have a section of their website dedicated to female bikers.)

The conference is also being organized by a slew of awesome groups dedicated to improving the world of women motorcyclists, including MXGirls.com, Ebony Angels, Motor Maids, and Femmoto.

Check out the website for more information on the conference -- just beware, these ladies give a new meaning to "hell on wheels!" (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.)

The polls did not turn out in favor of women in election for the Chamber of Commerce in Eastern Saudi Arabia, but history was made and a female presence was seen.

The polls for the Eastern Province Chamber of Commerce and Industry were only the second time in Saudi history that women have run for elected office. Women and men are strictly segregated in the conservative kingdom, and women were not allowed to vote in the country’s first nationwide municipal polls last year.

via Khaleej Times.

First classic rap ballads, now the pride rainbow?

Isn't anything sacred anymore?

A new survey by a recruiting firm says that women and people of color are still largely underrepresented in corporate boardrooms.

A study of 2,357 directors of the top 200 Standard & Poor's 500 companies found that 16 percent of the directors are women and 15 percent are minorities.

...Irene Natividad, co-chairman of the nonprofit CWDI, said the lack of women on corporate boards occurs because they rarely make it to the highest ranks of management.

"Only 16 percent of senior executives are female in the Fortune 500, Natividad said. "The pool is too small. They're not being recruited to rise to the top positions, so no one is putting them on boards."

The Spencer Stuart study also found that 97 percent of the top 200 largest S&P companies had at least one women on their boards, while 90 percent had at least one minority director.

Oooh--at least one! They must be so proud.

Nothing quite scares kids into abstinence like puffy reminders of your sluttiness.

May I introduce...the STD Crab and the Pregnant Puff.

Enjoy.

The only thing standing between a total abortion ban in South Dakota is the signature of an anti-choice governor. Terrific.

...After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman's life.

Gee, thanks. But if you're raped by your dad, you're just shit out of luck. What's particularly disheartening about this is that it's just a taste of things to come.

Who knew?

Unmarried women are "by far the most Democratic base, except for African-Americans," said Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, the chief executive officer of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, which conducted the survey. "We ought to be looking at this" as a political opportunity, he added.

About 54 million women in America aren't married, nearly half of all voting-age women, according to Greenberg. His survey, sponsored by the "Women's Voices. Women Vote. Action Fund," explored the reasons that 20 million single women elected not to vote in 2004.

One of the reasons they found that women were not voting was that unmarried women felt that politics are too complicated to understand. Now what kind of survey questions would ask such a thing? My unmarried head is hurting from all these complications.

via San Jose Mercury News.

The mainstream media's sexual imaginary is a growing capitalist venture and increased visibility of women's overt sexuality continues to grab attention. The ongoing battle about the commodification of terms such as "pimp" and "ho" in music, video, advertising and film is a complicated one that plays off different stereotypes about women's sexuality and men's masculinity. What is up with the popularization of "pimp chic" and how do racial stereotypes interplay with the construction of these sexualized identities?

Anita Roddick President of The Body Shop speaks out against the use of the terms and the marketing of these images. She says,

"A lot of people seem to think that it's cool to be a pimp or whore. It's not cool. The reality is dark, evil and appalling and unregulated. The reality is sex trafficking, which is about young women being forced into rooms to have sex however many times a day so that the pimp can take all the money."

Now I have to say I agree with this. But I think there is more then just a lack of education as to the dangers and reality of sex trafficking in this equation. Pimp/ho culture or as the article calls it "pimp chic" is a manifestation of capitalist desire playing out in exaggerated sexual (and racial) stereotypes. It is the American dream.

Dame Anita criticised stars such as Beyoncé and Britney Spears for simulating sex in their music videos, and highlighted the trend among some hip hop artists to make porn films to be marketed alongside the graphic lyrics of their songs. "What we have now is what I call "pimp and ho chic" with all aspects of the sex industry presented as hip and cool," she said."Pole dancing as exercise, lap-dancing clubs as places to see celebrities, fancy-dress balls and the everyday use of the words "bitch" and "ho" to refer to women are just some of the examples I have come across."

Glamorizing pimps and hoes is problematic, I think that point is obvious. But I think there is a fine line between being portrayed/objectified as a "ho" and being empowered about your own sexuality (or profession as the case may be). I think a lot of women in media ARE empowered and visible in their sexuality and not just within the constraints of a male vision of sexy, but one that they own. Or is that empowerment just more marketing and feeding into dominant ideas of sexy (which are usually determined by male/capitalist desire)?

Spike Lee has also come out against "pimp culture."

He said: "We are bombarded by these gangsta images again and again and again and again ... they do make a difference to human behaviour. No one gets upset any more that pimpdom gets elevated on a pedestal."

So we have the age-old is this empowerment/visibility for women and men (often of color who historically are left out of the mainstream) or objectification and fetishizing of women as "hoes" and men as "pimps"?

via The Independent.

Oh and I made the mistake of looking up the word "hoes" on urban dictionary. Read and weep.

Remember Michelle McCusker, who was fired from her job as a Catholic high school teacher for getting pregnant out of wedlock?

Feminists for Life has sided with McCusker, claiming that by firing her, the Catholic school was essentially encouraging abortion.

Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, talks about McCusker at anti-abortion rallies, saying taking away a woman's job and income for being pregnant is anti-life.

"It is not pro-life to take away the resources and support that women need and deserve to bring children into this world," Foster says. "The appropriate response for the employer when they found out she was pregnant, is to say, 'Congratulations,' and, 'How can I help?'"

I agree. Has hell frozen over?

Don't worry-- I'm not rushing to join up with FFL, which doesn't take a position on contraception. I don't know if they've heard, but contraception tends to prevent unplanned pregnancies like McCusker's.

If you haven’t watched 30 Days on FX, you should. Spawned from Morgan Spurlock's Oscar-nominated film Super Size Me, the show asks folks to walk in someone else’s shoes for 30 days. It’s like reality TV for smarties.

The show is planning on doing an episode on the abortion debate and they’re looking for a pro-choice woman to go live in a faith-based center for young pregnant women in California. Seems really interesting, but of course brimming with controversy.

Check out the full casting call after the jump.

The REAL hot 100 is issuing a final call for nominations--March 1 is the deadline.

Q: What do a Protestant minister from Iowa, the owner of Chicago’s first woman-friendly sex shop, a political cartoonist from New York, and a lawyer from D.C. have in common?

A: They’ve all been nominated to the REAL hot 100, a list of young women who are smart, savvy, and actively trying to make the world a better place.

Do you know a young woman who is breaking barriers, fighting stereotypes, or making a difference in her community or the nation?

Nominate her today and she will join over 150 women, from over 30 states that have already been nominated.

The REAL hot 100 will stop taking nominations on MARCH 1 so visit our website and nominate a REALLY hot woman today!

Scary shit today. Legislators in South Dakota are gearing up to vote on a bill that would pretty much outlaw all abortions in the state. It would be the most anti-choice law approved by a state in more than ten years.

But this is about a lot more than just South Dakota. If the bill passes a Senate vote today and is signed by anti-choice Gov. Michael Rounds, pro-choicers will take their asses straight to court. Which of course, is exactly what the bill’s supporters want.

The anti-choice folks behind the abortion ban hope that a court fight could eventually lead to the overturning of Roe.

State Representative Roger Hunt, who sponsored the bill, noted the recent Bush-friendly appointments on the Supreme Court and said, “I'm convinced that the timing is right for this.” What’s truly terrifying is that he couldn’t be more right.

The Office for National Statistics says that the percent of children born outside of marriage in the UK has risen from 12% in 1980 to 42% in 2004.

15 other EU countries had an average of 33% of children born outside of marriage.

This increase was due not only to more single-parent families, but also an increase in cohabitation:

From 1986 to 2004, the percentage of non-married people under 60 who cohabited rose from 11% to 24% among men, and from 13% to 25% for women.

I know a good deal of my paired-off friends live together and have no intention of getting married. And of course, some of them can’t get married.

So is marriage on its way out? Are younger people more likely to raise a family together without getting married? (And please spare me the “feminists are killing the family” argument. I have no patience today.)

Lawrence Summers has resigned as president of Harvard University.

From a letter Summers posted on the school’s website:

Working closely with all parts of the Harvard community, and especially with our remarkable students, has been one of the great joys of my professional life. However, I have reluctantly concluded that the rifts between me and segments of the Arts and Sciences faculty make it infeasible for me to advance the agenda of renewal that I see as crucial to Harvard's future. I believe, therefore, that it is best for the University to have new leadership.

Summers is best known in feminist circles as the dipshit who said perhaps women were “naturally” worse and math and science.

Make sure to check out the REAL hot 100’s nominee of the week, Rachel Burton, 31, of North Carolina.

Rachel cofounded and directs Piedmont Biofuels Co-op, which aims "to lead the grassroots sustainability movement in North Carolina by using and encouraging the use of clean, renewable biofuels."

In fact, the above pic is Rachel filling up Willie Nelson's tour bus with biodeisel made by her Co-op.

Now that’s hot.

The Supreme Court has announced that it will consider the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a bullshit law that has been struck down in California, Nebraska and New York.

Considering the new Bush-friendly make-up of the Supreme Court, I’m absolutely terrified.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and w