March 2006 Archives

Thanks, Tennessee Guerrilla Women!

And she's a New Yorker. I'm in love!

New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney has introduced legislation that would regulate the advertisement of "crisis pregnancy centers" that aim to convince pregnant women against having abortions.

The centers are all owned by anti-choicers, and use names and signs intended to look like Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. When the women arrive, the coercion begins. "Women I've talked to are just unbelievably shaken by it," says Maloney. "One said they closed the door and wouldn't let her get out."

The bill would essentially require the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit any group from advertising "with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such person is a provider of abortion services if such person does not provide abortion services." Maloney says the legislation was carefully drafted so it wouldn't infringe on free speech, but some (libertarians and such) claim that proposing the bill is a bad move and is, in fact, unconstitutional.

Yet the American Civil Liberties Union has endorsed the bill, saying that the FTC should have addressed this issue before and that "It's already clear that deceptive advertising and false advertising is illegal."

Sweet. Let's hope this one passes.

Broadsheet links to this article by ex-Wonkette Ana Marie Cox, who takes on the recent warnings against girls going wild. She mentions James Garbarino's new book, See Jane Hit, which examines "the less savory outcome of freeing girls to excel beyond gender stereotypes." (Garbarino must have thought Mean Girls was poignent social commentary.) Cox takes his idea-- that girls haven't yet learned to deal with their freedom from gender norms-- and argues that it's fine for girls to go wild... just not too wild. I'm not sure if I buy this part of her argument, but I'll run with it:

Freeing girls from stereotypes hasn't made them more masculine, it's made them more more. Unbound from cultural constraints, they don’t flip to the male side of the spectrum. They just flip out.

Hear that, Concerned Women for America? It's not that alcohol is corrupting our pure, innocent young coeds. It's that some women actually like drinking, dancing and having sex. What a revelation!

Maybe it would be progress if we had a definition of femininity expansive enough to include shaking one's thing without raising one's top — so that girls could go a little wild without having to rely on what we used to refer to as the "sorority girl's mating call": "I am soooo drunk."

Cox basically gets it right where the AMA, Concerned Women for America, and Female Chauvinist Pigs get it wrong. There's certainly a way to embrace your sexuality and have fun dancing and drinking without being exploited or jeopardizing your safety. I think a lot of women walk that line quite successfully.

But it makes for better television to show us girls in bikinis doing body shots on South Padre Island, and it suits CWA's agenda to point to women like Natalee Holloway and Imette St. Guillen as examples of what will happen if girls party and enjoy it. It's simply not newsworthy that there are there are lots of women who get drunk and just spend the night dancing with their girlfriends, who are willing to flash their friends for a laugh but never a camera crew, who make out with strangers at a bar and then arrive home safely.

If there's any justice in this world, next week we'll be seeing a slew of studies and hand-wringing over the growing problem of urban sausages.

Make sure to check out the info for the NOW National Conference and Young Feminist Summit to be held in Albany, NY this July.

Side note: I love the fact that "Young Feminist Summit" has been written in graffiti as well as taken out the "g" in every verb. 'Cause us young'uns are down with slangin'.

A recent study has shown that 9 out of 10 women say that they believe one-night stands are immoral. While they didn't condemn the sluts, er, I mean women who decide to engage in casual sex, they felt that they do so due to "something lacking in their lives" or because "they had got drunk or high on drugs."

Because no emotionally stable or sober women would ever have sex purely for pleasure or anything.

The most infuriating thing about this study is that the research involved interviews from a whopping 46 women.

On Wednesday, the sex worker rights magazine Spread opened its first art exhibit titled, "Sex Worker Visions." Artists include former SuicideGirl and illustrator Molly Crabapple, sex activist Heather Corinna, exotic dancer and photographer Charise Isis, and former prostitute and filmmaker Anne Hanavan.

So if you're in or by NYC, get thee to the LGBT Community Center, where the exhibition is being held.

Welcome to the new site! Please be patient, as we'll be working out some kinks over the next few days.

An extra special thanks to John for help making this happen.

A blog, Justice 4 Two Sisters, has been created to follow the rape investigation at Duke University. Make sure to check it out and show your support.

Also: Alas, a Blog has a great roundup of stories and posts.

Hat tip: Alternet's The Mix.

Don't forget that the Women, Action & the Media (WAM!) conference is this weekend! You can register at the door, so if you're around get your ass to Cambridge, MA.

I'm super excited for it--I'm moderating a panel on feminism and blogging with some amazing ladies: Echidne, Lakshmi Chaudhry, Amie Newman, and our very own Samhita. Word.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wants every pharmacy in the state to post a sign that details what options customers have in buying contraceptives.

The new signs would notify customers that pharmacies must provide an alternative drug if they are out of stock or allow the prescription to be filled at a different pharmacy. The signs also will list a toll-free [800-280-4149] pharmacy hot line [and website] for complaints.

Dreamy! Next step? Let's require hospitals to post similar signs informing rape victims they have a right to EC.

Talk about the worst trend ever. Lawmakers in Alabama have introduced abortion ban bills a la South Dakota.

"I thought if South Dakota can do it, Alabama ought to do it because we are a family-friendly state," said state Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, who has introduced a bill in the Senate that would even ban abortions in cases where a woman became pregnant because of rape or incest.

What you're about to read may shock you: The CNN segment Jess wrote about yesterday wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Here's the transcript from the show, which was about porn websites that coerce young women into stripping and doing various other things for the camera.

CHERNOFF [reporter]: Jill says she was drunk and that pressure from the crowd and the cameraman pushed her to do things she normally would never have done.

JILL: I couldn't stand up for myself and say, you know what, no, I'm not going to do this. There is no way that I could stop because I was so scared of what they would do if I stopped.

Sounds pretty slutty to me!

[Internet "photographer" Micah] COY: No one is forcing anyone in any situations. It is entirely up to the person -- at their discretion.

CHERNOFF: And, Coy argues, there is no undue pressure from men at the parties.

COY: Serious problems arise when you have two people naked and a bunch of people drunk around them and you have everyone's emotions are going, you have a lot of hormones flying around. It can easily turn into a mob mentality and that was something I never wanted to have happen.

Coy doesn't mention that it's two women who are naked, surrounded by drunk men. I'd say that changes the dynamic somewhat.

CHERNOFF: But your site is full of that. It is full of people egging them on. All of that.

COY: There is a finesse about it, I guess.

I'll say. But CNN isn't really one to talk about "finessing" a story... seeing as how they chose to market their segment girls-gone-wild style, rather than as a warning about an increasingly common type of sexual predation. Even though the actual show wasn't nearly as offensive as the promos, it's still not excusable.

Tonight on Paula Zahn, CNN will cover the story of girls who are sexually assaulted while passed out and end up with their picture on the internet.

How much do you want to bet this will be yet another "girls gone wild and paying the price" piece?

Why isn't the segment being promoted as guys who prey on unconscious women?

UPDATE: Here's the transcript.

What is this, the third time already this week that all sexually active, nonmarried women have been called cheap whores? Check out this letter, from Missouri state Representative Cynthia Davis, who recently introduced legislation to remove a state requirement that sex ed classes teach contraception:

From: Cynthia Davis
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 8:02 PM
To: (redacted)
Subject: RE: Contraceptive Article...

Dear (redacted),

I appreciate your dedication to your legislative duties while on Spring Break. Your letter seemed to indicate that if we create chemical and pharmaceutical ways to tamper with mother nature, then we will solve the problem. Even if you solve a physical problem you still have not solved the moral, emotional and spiritual problems that come with a promiscuous lifestyle.

When I was listening to the debate last week I wondered what kind of man would want to enjoy free sex and then expect her to provide for her own contraceptives? These are the kind of men who want free whores. Any man who would be so low life as that does not deserve to have any woman love him. Smart women will stay away from men who use them and abuse them.

Contributed by: Gwen Beetham (our unofficial Caribbean correspondent)

Yesterday in the Dominican Republic, the term “sexual freedom” was deleted from a clause in a proposed Civil Code reform for fear that it "would open the doors to future homosexual unions." Of course, it came as no surprise to me that a primarily Catholic country would cite “conservative and strong family” values as a reason for the deletion (abortion is also illegal in this country, as it everywhere in the Latin American/Caribbean region except for Puerto Rico and Cuba.)

Actually, on that topic, I would like to point out that across Latin America, an estimated 5,000 women die every year as a result of illegal abortions, and 1 in 30 Dominican women has an illegal abortion every year – one of the highest rates in the region. (The abortion rates are highest in Chile and Peru, where the rates are 1 in 20. In the United States, the rate is 21.3 per 1,000 women.)

…But back to the homophobia. What’s really puzzling to me is that the Attorney General (Rodolfo Espiñeira) also said: "I believe we still aren't sufficiently civilized for legislation of that nature.”

In case you’re saying to yourself “surely this gringa has misinterpreted”… he actually said: "Creo que todavía no estamos tan civilizados para una legislación de esta naturaleza". See for yourself (if you read español).

Sorry, I’ve only been living here a month. Can’t explain.

How many things can you find wrong with this quote from Sharon Stone:

"Young people talk to me about what to do if they're being pressed for sex? I tell them (what I believe): oral sex is a hundred times safer than vaginal or anal sex. If you're in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job."

Via About.com's sexuality blog.

Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath said yesterday that insurance companies must cover contraceptives in prescription drug plans--doing otherwise is sex discrimination.

Attempts by women's advocacy groups, like NARAL Pro-Choice Montana, have failed in recent years to get lawmakers to force insurance companies to automatically offer the coverage.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana said company lawyers are still reviewing the decision and have not yet determined when the mandate will become effective in current prescription drug policies.

Why is it so hard to cover something as easy as birth control pills? Because seriously, paying $50 a month not to get pregnant sucks.

My roommate just brought this to my attention as her girl Manju (they are both from the League of Pissed of Voters w00t!) has participated in the protesting of Duke's lackadaisical ignorance to charges of gang rape.

In as ugly a story as is likely to be reported in college sports this year, a black exotic dancer says she was beaten, strangled, and raped at a party hosted at a house rented by the three Duke lacrosse captains. The woman, who says she was told she'd be dancing for a few men at a bachelor party, told police she fought fiercely against her attackers, losing four fingernails in the process.

Initially, the lacrosse team denied it all. It was all overblown, they said, although they did admit hiring a dancer and doing some drinking. The drinking was certainly no surprise. The Winston-Salem Journal reported this week that 15 of the 47 players on the team had previous misdemeanor chargers "stemming from drunken and disruptive behavior.'' In fact, police have reportedly been called to the house four times since September.

And then the police found four red, polished, broken fingernails at the house.

via SFChronicle.

As Tiffany points out at Blackfeminism.org, not only is this an example of elitism, race, class, and gender clearly playing out in the rape of a black woman by a group of white men (AND how it is dealt with by authorities), it also highlights the negativity (aggressiveness) of athletic culture, especially on university campuses.

This story is awful, but these activists are rightfully making some noise. Duke's failure to respond effectively sets a precedent that this type of aggressive and violent behavior is acceptable.

Scottish researchers are developing a new-and-improved birth control pill. It sounds positively dreamy: Non-hormonal! Prevents cancer! No PMS! Lower risk of blood clots!

While the Pill is the most effective form of contraception, many are put off by side-effects from the female hormones on which it is based... The new Pill works on a completely different principle, using a chemical called mifepristone to block the action of progesterone, which the body needs to ovulate and support a pregnancy.

But wait! Before you get too excited, note that the new Pill is an extremely low dose of mifepristone, which is the main drug used in medication abortion. So scientists are expecting anti-choice opposition to the pill's approval.

"If it was decided just on scientific grounds, and the pharmaceutical industry did not respond to all sorts of irrational factors, it could be developed within five years," he said. "As it is, I would expect it to be within five to ten years."

In other words, don't hold your breath. If everything were decided on scientific grounds, we'd have Plan B over-the-counter and a male birth control pill by now.

In case you aren't tired of being called a slut yet, check out Concerned Women for America's audio interview about girls gone wild on spring break. (Clearly, this is what the AMA warning hath wrought.)

Apparently somebody bought CWA's Janice Crouse a copy of Female Chauvinist Pigs, because she repeats the book's message nearly word-for-word: Young women are complicit in a culture that objectifies them.

What we find is the whole culture is really encouraging girls to be more wild. For instance, the Playboy is saying, you know, girls need to be more rebellious, a bit more out there in your face, a bit more like the guys. To be a prude or someone who is straight-laced is the worst thing you can do... So I think it's high time the AMA and the government got into the business of warning young women, and saying to them this is not just something that’s dangerous to your health, it’s dangerous to your life.

Yes, clearly young women are to blame for their portrayal in "the Playboy." Crouse then wades into unbelievablly offensive territory, suggesting that women who have been raped/murdered/kidnapped were asking for it because of they were out drinking and socializing.

While I’ve had quite enough of studies talking about young people and all their risky sex (AMA, I’m talking to you!), I thought this one was worth checking out.

Apparently, young men who feel good about the way they look are more likely to have unprotected sex with multiple partners while young women with a positive body image were less likely to have risky sex. Interesting.

The men who were most satisfied with their appearance, and the most appearance-oriented -- meaning they were highly invested in their looks and considered appearance to be important -- were also the most likely to have sex without condoms and to have sex with multiple partners, Dr. Eva S. Lefkowitz of Pennsylvania State University in University Park and colleagues report.

...Among young women, in contrast, those with a more positive body image were less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, Lefkowitz and her team found.

I think this is interesting stuff, but there’s a part of me that’s wary about an alternate conclusion that could be reached from this study--that women have “risky” sex if they have low self-esteem. If risky is defined as having multiple partners, the argument that women who “sleep around” actually just hate themselves isn’t exactly new.

Thoughts?

A Mississippi bill that would have banned most abortions died last night when the House and the Senate couldn’t reach a compromise:

The Senate voted for the negotiations to try to put language in the bill that would protect the state's current informed consent law if the new legislation was ever challenged in court.

Senators also wanted to include a provision requiring doctors to perform an ultrasound before an abortion...The House plan said that the proposed ban would not take effect until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that made abortions legal in the nation.

...The Senate conferees refused to sign the bill, and the House conferees refused to sign the Senate proposal.

I would be pleased if this wasn’t just a temporary thing. Sigh.

The United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations is seeking ways to boost the number of women in uniformed peacekeeping positions.

While 27 percent of civilian positions in peacekeeping are held by women, the number of women in military and police units remain extremely low--less than five percent.

Considering all of the recent problems the UN has had with sexual assault committed by their own peacekeeping units, this is a long time coming.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, released a resource guide today for young women, Know What to Ask & Know Your Rights: A Pay Equity Guide on How to Help Yourself in the Workplace.

It’s really more of a pamphlet than a guide (as her press release calls it), but whatever. It's something.

At a seminar on pay equity, Sen. Clinton said, "We still have work to do to level the playing field. And we all have a role to play as we pursue that goal together: the public sector, private sector, and individuals...I hope this guide is a tool that helps to empower women, looking for jobs or holding jobs and perhaps unaware of their rights and the resources available."

For more info on pay equity, check out the WAGE project.

[Also, it's worth noting that the Department of Labor used to make this sort of information available. But the Bush administration has dramatically reduced the number of resources -- such as "Know Your Rights" guides -- on the Women's Bureau website. They've also stopped collecting data on women workers. --Ann]

This is kind of scary. A teacher in a UK Catholic school had to contact the police after she received threatening letters from an anti-choice organization over her teaching contraception.

Diana Vernon, of Woldingham School, in Surrey, was sent hostile letters and e-mails by anti-abortionists attacking the move to teach girls aged 14 and 15.

Anti-abortion group UK LifeLeague said the school did not have to teach it.

Vernon said that “we make sure that the girls are aware of the options and then can leave here and make an informed moral choice for themselves.” Well there’s the problem! I guess no one told her that young women aren’t allowed to make decisions for themselves--that’s what old white men are for. Duh.

Um, seriously? Apparently you can get Playboy pencil cases, eraser sets, notebooks, the whole terrifying back-to-school package.

What parent would buy this for their kid? I'm completely freaked out.

I love coming across a story that lets me post this pic of Vanessa.

A New Zealand anglers’ club has had a sex discrimination complaint made against them after they refused to rent women a cabin for a weekend fishing trip.

A group made up of men and women tried to make a reservation, but were told only men were allowed in the cabins.

The Wairoa Anglers Club maintains that they’re not being discriminatory, they’re just trying to protect women. Club secretary Esther Foster says they won’t rent cabins to women “so that you're not having young girls in with old men. It's a politically correct type of thing.” Um, ok.

NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota is working with other pro-choice activists to repeal the state’s abortion ban--last week they filed a petition to get a measure on the November ballot so that South Dakotans can vote out the ban.

But to get the measure on the ballot, they need to collect 17,000 signatures from voters in in the state.

NARAL has put together some ways you can help:

Volunteer: Sign up to collect petition signatures in South Dakota. We are organizing volunteers for the coming weeks – sign up today!

Spread the word: There are 12 other states considering abortion bans right now. Help us spread the word to people in your community about these outright attempts to end a woman's right to choose by writing a letter to the editor. Click here for a list of newspapers in your state to contact.

Contact your governor: With 12 other states considering abortion bans, it's up to pro-choice Americans to send a message to their governors urging them to veto any anti-choice legislation this session.

Learn more: Read NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota's press release about the ballot referendum, and click here to learn more about the ban.

Donate: Together with a state-based coalition of doctors, nurses, clergy, and other pro-choice groups, we can collect enough signatures, but we need the resources necessary to do it. Click here to support our organizing efforts in South Dakota!

Make it stop. An article by a British academic Alison Wolf in Prospect Magazine has people's heads spinning. It is about what she calls "elite women" and their ability to get whatever they want in a high-paying, high-power career. Her basic thesis, these women are ruining society because talent is leaving jobs that need women, such as teaching and other social services.

Someone, stop me now.

Three consequences get far less attention than they deserve. The first is the death of sisterhood: an end to the millennia during which women of all classes shared the same major life experiences to a far greater degree than did their men. The second is the erosion of "female altruism," the service ethos which has been profoundly important to modern industrial societies—particularly in the education of their young, and the care of their old and sick. The third is the impact of employment change on childbearing. We are familiar with the prospect of demographic decline, yet we ignore, sometimes wilfully, the extent to which educated women face disincentives to bear children.

When has there ever been a real universal sisterhood?

As in the Lisa Jervis article quoted in the post before this, if Wolf was talking about how feminism should not be centered around women being able to enter the commodity fetishism/corporate culture sucking the world dry, that would be one thing. But she is not, she asks for an innately "female altruism" that she thinks has disappeared due to the advancement of women in work.

Yikes. I agree that there are fewer incentives for *successful* women to have children, but why the blame on women for not living up to there role of childbearer.

'Families remain central to the care of the old and sick, as well as raising the next generation, and yet our economy and society steer ever more educated women away from marriage or childbearing,' she writes. 'The repercussions for our future are enormous, and we should at least recognise the fact.' The growth, Wolf argues, of the 'because I'm worth it' generation has led to the end of 'female altruism', where women would see the caring part of their life as normal.

via Guardian UK.

Oh dear. Thoughts?

Hello, I am slow but I just came across this piece by Lisa Jervis on Lip Magazine about the short-comings of American Feminism. She totally breaks it down and although I think many feminist writers are attempting to juggle newer conceptions of a feminism to include gender (as opposed to women only)-analysis, along with looking at how race and a capitalist society create a much more complicated understanding of oppression, her analysis is necessary for us to move to more radical feminist stance.

A transformative progressive feminism envisions a world that is different from the one we currently inhabit in two major and related ways. Most obviously, this world would be one in which gender doesn’t determine social roles or expected behavior. More broadly, it would also be one in which people are not sacrificed on the altar of profit—which would mean universal health care, living wages, drastically reduced consumption, and an end to the voracious marketing machine that fuels it. The link between these two elements is clear: Both gender and race, as they currently exist, are socially enforced categories that shore up a consumer capitalist system by providing opportunities for both marketing and exploitation.

But much of the contemporary American feminist movement is preoccupied with the mistaken belief—call it femmenism—that female leadership is inherently different from male; that having more women in positions of power, authority, or visibility will automatically lead to, or can be equated with, feminist social change; that women are uniquely equipped as a force for action on a given issue; and that isolating feminist work as solely pertaining to women is necessary or even useful.

I still think it is useful for women to come together on certain issues that pertain to their own lives. Bottom line is we still live in a society that is gender binary where a male dominated government is taking away women's rights. But I think her point is really important for us to think about. Men should be as concerned about issues pertaining to women and their choices and feminists should be equally concerned about immigration rights as they are about the issue of a wage gap.

She continues...

Furthermore, the most pressing issues facing women worldwide—slave wages, inadequate health care systems, environmental degradation, the endless war and surveillance society of Bush-era neo-conservatism, and rampant corporate profiteering involved in all of the above—are a) no less important to feminists just because they also happen to be the most pressing issues facing men and b) directly related to the particularly ruthless brand of global capitalism we’re currently living under.

This vulture capitalism would not magically disappear if women were in charge of more stuff. Racism would not go away. Hell, sexism itself would probably be alive and kicking. God knows the gender binary would be stronger than ever. In short: The actual workings of power will not change with more chromosomal diversity among the powerful.

Thoughts?

This is a recent piece by a Brooklyn based artist, of Britany Spears giving birth (since when did people give birth doggy-style?) and is supposed to be a homage to the pro-life movement. I can't say anything Alternet and Broadsheet haven't. But this image is just so freaking weird.

With the attitude of, "if they can do it, so can we..." two Alabama legislators have introduced bills that are eerily similar to those recently passed in South Dakota.

"I thought if South Dakota can do it, Alabama ought to do it, because we are a family-friendly state," said state Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, who has introduced a bill in the Senate that would even ban abortions in cases where a woman became pregnant because of rape or incest.

A similar bill has been introduced in the House by Rep. Nick Williams, R-McIntosh. The bills would make it a felony crime to perform abortions in Alabama.

With only seven days left in the 2006 session, the bills do not have much chance of passing this year, but supporters say they expect to keep trying.

Apparently family friendly means taking away women's rights. Who knew they were two mutually exclusive things? Similar legislation is being proposed in Mississippi, Tennessee, and Georgia.

Scary.

With married women being all the rage right now, it's no wonder that several of California's Women of the Year count "wife of state legislator" among their primary accomplishments.

I wonder if Swiffer sponsored the awards dinner?

In Monday's Senate floor speech honoring the selection of the women of the year, first lady Maria Shriver boasted that, "This is an achievement that will never leave you. You will always be known as a California woman of the year. No one can take it away from you. You didn't come here because of who you were married to."

Well, at least some of them didn't.

This prompted me to look up past winners of Time's Person of the Year Award-- which was called "Man of the Year Award" until the shockingly recent year 1999. Queen Elizabeth II (1952) and Corazon Aquino (1986) are the only "non-wives" to be given the honor (though some women have been honored in groups). In 1936 Wallis Warfield Simpson received the award after she married the Prince of Wales. And in 1937, Time gave the "Man and Wife of the Year Award" to Mr. and Mrs. Chiang Kai-Shek. Most recently, 2005's Man, Wife and Rockstar of the Year were Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono.

Not saying these honored wives weren't worthy of recognition for other accomplishments outside of their marriages. But it certainly seems like the best way to be noticed for your achievements is to marry a prominent man... or divorce one:

A thin and playful Jennifer put modesty aside as the first ever woman to be honored on the cover in the 10-year history of GQ's "Men of the Year" issue series! ... Aniston earned the honor because the magazine said she showed a lot of poise, grace and good humor during her breakup with Brad Pitt this year. The couple's divorce was granted last month after four years of marriage.

We were so into the beard thing first.

With midterm elections approaching, the Democratic party is running women candidates as outsiders against a "culture of corruption." In other words, "let's exploit some stereotypes!"

"In an environment where people are disgusted with politics in general, who represents clean [floors] and change [diapers]?" asks Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Women." [Insertions mine.]

I'm glad the DCCC is making an effort to increase female representation in the legislature. But the way to do that is just to nominate more women candidates, and then trumpet their actual political strengths-- rather than a list of stereotypes. (The article goes all Lakoff on our asses, noting that women candidates are a good fit for the Dems, who are "more concerned with nurturing, caring and domestic policy, while the Republicans care more about security.")

Though I can't be too upset at the DCCC. I think it is true, unfortunately, that voters respond better to politicians who are traditional/stereotypical (tough/decisive men, nurturing women) – which is a broader social problem that goes waaaay deeper than the Democratic party.

The public loves women politicians whose personal lives adhere to the stereotypes (devoted wife, mother, etc.), but has a much harder time stomaching women whose political positions are actually pro-woman. Note that Rahm Emanuel isn’t talking about getting more "nurturers" into office because they'd enact some great policies for women and families. He likes women candidates because he thinks they’re more electable.

I have to wonder: If the Dems were the party in power, would they give a shit about recruiting more women candidates? This article makes it seem like a desperation move... "Well, we aren’t winning elections with men, so I guess we’ll try anything. Even women!"

UPDATE: Broadsheet has a different take.

This is horrendous. A recent conference in nairobi highlighted the disturbing statistics and stories of women affected by unsafe abortions. Unbelievably, 90 African women die every day from unsafe abortions.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 4.2 million women in Africa have unsafe abortions every year--30,000 of them die. Africa accounts for almost half of the world’s deaths from unsafe abortions.

Researchers at the conference blame sexist and restrictive laws:

"A lot of people are not aware of the disaster unsafe abortion provokes," said Eunice Brookman-Amissah, vice- president of Ipas, a reproductive health organisation. "Too many laws in Africa are too restrictive. They would only allow abortion to save the life of the mother - this is unethical and not enough."

"By continuing to adhere to archaic colonial laws, by failing to implement international agreements, and by failing to act on growing evidence, we have allowed abortion to become the killing field for women in Africa," said Ghanaian gynaecologist Fred Sai. "This is the worst case of medical apartheid that exists. There is no law forbidding men to decide on their own body."

90 percent of the abortions in Africa are done using terrifying methods: “inserting sharp objects into the uterus, flushing the vagina with caustic liquids, throwing oneself from high places or repeated blows to the abdomen.”

Just horrible.

According to this particular study, more than one-third of women believe that “making the first move” is desperate. Wha?

On the other hand, two-thirds of men believe that it’s a good thing when women are aggressive.

"To begin with, men are pleasantly surprised to be spoken to by a woman,” says German psychologist and flirting expert (ha!) Stephan Landsiedel. “The reason is most men experience it seldom, and the attention is flattering.”

Not because it exudes confidence or anything. Sigh.

This is just bizarre.

Apparently a new condition has been getting attention as of late called “persistent sexual arousal syndrome.” In short, women get horny.

The International Journal of STD & AIDS came out with a report on the condition, claiming that women (and only women have experienced this, I might add) with PSAS “become involuntarily aroused genitally for extended periods in time in the absence of sexual desire." Doesn’t sound too bad, right? The only thing is that the arousal isn’t relieved by having an orgasm.

Has anyone heard about this? Sounds a little nutty to me.

The Office of National Statistics has released a report (coincidentally less than a month after the Women and Work Commission came out with their own report on the significant gender pay gap in the UK) on how good British women have it in the workplace:

Women's employment has increased from a rate of 56 per cent in 1971 to 70 per cent in 2005. . .This is equivalent to four million more women in work over the last 35 or so years, with much of the increase driven by the rise in working mothers.

Over the 10 years to spring 2005, the employment rate for married or cohabiting mothers increased by six per cent and the rate for lone mothers rose by 14 per cent, reflecting increases in both full-time and part-time employment.

In response, the Equal Opportunities Commission made it a point to show that the ONS figures skews the pay gap for working mothers by using the median full-time gender pay gap of 13 percent, while almost two-thirds of women with kids under the age of 12 work part-time. (Where the pay gap is almost 40 percent.) As their spokesperson said:

"These figures are nothing to celebrate. Although more women are in work, the real question is - where are they in the workplace?"

I'm sure you remember the lovely South Dakota senator Bill Napoli who said that the only women who should be able to have abortions are religious virgins who were "brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it."

Well so does the artist who did this comic strip, which encourages women to call Sen. Napoli whenever they need to make a decision. At work or at home. You know, since he clearly knows what's best for us silly gals.

Via Boing Boing.

In Mississippi you can buy a a gun with no background check, but vibrators are outlawed. Genius.

Reporting that a Mississippi court upheld a law banning the sale of sex toys this week, Dan Abrams at MSNBC ponders over the state’s priorities:

Well, I am glad to see that the local legislators are focusing on the most pressing issues of the day. I’ve long believed that a three-dimensional, possibly battery-operated device is far more menacing than a handgun. In Mississippi, people can buy guns at a gun show with no background check and certain weapons can be carried almost anywhere. Sure, guns and toys can bring joy and a sense of comfort to the user, but apparently the legislators concluded that a genital replica is a far greater threat to society.

I wonder if legislators would be ok with the Gunslinger vibrator. (Perhaps the scariest thing I have ever seen.)

A new Pew poll shows that 51 percent of Americans continue to oppose same sex marriage, a significant decrease from 63 percent in February 2004.

I’d say this is a pretty impressive drop in homophobic nonsense.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, agrees: “This poll confirms that if you give people the information and time they need to understand the harm discrimination in marriage causes real American families, the majority will continue to move toward fairness...Not only is the middle moving, but those who have traditionally been against us are also beginning to embrace the need for equality in marriage.”

Damn, do I hope he is right.