How’s this for something I didn’t know before?!

A groundbreaking recent study finds that (GASP!) women wear shoes that cause pain!  What an enlightening finding!  I had absolutely no idea!!  From the NY Times article:

More than 60 percent of women said that in the past they generally wore high heels, pumps, sandals and slippers, all of which researchers rated as higher risk.

Women who wore heels, sandals and slippers were at greatest risk of the most common pain linked to poor choices in shoes, the study found: pain in the hind foot and around the ankle and the Achilles’ tendon.

What a revelation!!

“I think women need to really pay attention to how a shoe fits, and realize that what you’re buying could have potential effects on your feet for the rest of your life,” said the paper’s lead author, Alyssa B. Dufour, a doctoral student in biostatistics at Boston University. “It’s important to pay attention to size and width, and not just buy it because it’s cute.”

When it comes to shoes, men make much better choices, the study found; fewer than 2 percent wore bad shoes.

Hmph.  “When it comes to shoes, men make much better choices”?  Gee, maybe women don’t make “better”, “smarter” choices about shoes they buy and wear because of social pressures exerted on women to look good all the time, which entails wearing high heels.  Or maybe it’s because high heels are gendered female.  There really isn’t much of a market for male high heel shoes.  And since high heels are gendered female, it is harder to find comfy and supportive women’s shoes.

Just maybe.

A Look at some of Graph Jam’s stuff

I saw this on Unapologetically Female and laughed out loud (because it’s so true):

Then I went to the website to see what other graphs they had up and I saw this one:

Now this one is problematic and irritates me for the following reasons:

1. First of all, the axes are switched. The graph is meant to show that the higher your heels are, the more retarded you look, not that the more retarded you look, the higher your heels are.

2. People need to stop saying “retarded”. It is ableist language that is used in a pejorative way and has been normalized in society which adds to the stigma against different-abled people.

3. This is misogynist and reinforces the patriarchal objectification of women, that women are just their bodies and nothing more. Some of the comments that follow the graph are misogynist as well and make me want to cringe. For example:

A commenter named Karen said: “FINALLY! I was wondering if I was the only person who thought this. I want to beat these girls to death with their own shoes!”

Prisbro wrote: “What about all the dumb bimbos who wear big fuzzy boots with mini skirts in august?? Can we throw them into some quicksand?”

Pencilsharpener wrote: “The rapist who murders you will find them adorable and very practical, as they will help him catch you easily.”

Um. Wow. This last comment seems to be based off of and perpetuates the rape myth that a rapist is a sketchy guy lurking on the street corner who will chase a woman down the street, and the myth that what you wear influences your likelihood of being raped. Wrong and wrong.

These comments are disturbing and symptomatic of the the patriarchal culture that we live in, with misogyny (and internalized misogyny) so deeply entrenched.

Weekly Feminist Reader

Cara covers the story of a Trans Woman Murdered in Hollywood

Partisan Politican Contributions by US Companies

A Take on The Good Wife: The Wrong Side of the Mommy Track

Health Care Reform — at the Price of Women’s Health?

Nike Makes Black Athlete Look Like…an Animal? An Alien? What?

Cross-generational discussions can be difficult – but we need to have them

Trans-misogyny? There’s an app for that

A topic that’s worth revisiting over and over again: How to be an ally

The Reverse of Discrimination is “Not Discrimination”

Minor Offenses: The Tragedy of Youth in Adult Prisons

What’s wrong with [not just young people] everybody now

Malkin’s venom knows no bounds: Obama “doesn’t like this country very much”, is the “Groveler in Chief”

Anti-feminist fun

The Family Research Council (whose motto is Defending Faith, Family and Freedom – that’s enough to make me never want to be associated with them) held a conference last weekend called the 2009 Value Voters Summit that featured Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly (Hmph,what a lovely bunch) as speakers. So at this ultra conservative gathering, one of the talks was called “The New Masculinity”:

Feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men. It is time to redress the disorder it has wrought and that must start with getting the principles and ideals for a new “masculinism” right. Such a “masculinism” will have its dovetailing counterpart in a new “feminism” for they mutually define each other and, in nature, are meant to be complementary.

Here we go with the classic villification of feminism again… Evil feminism, responsible for destroying men, women, children, families and marriage. So to remedy that, we need a “new masculinism”? The rhetoric used to discuss this “new masculinism” is blatantly homophobic. Here’s a taste. Michael Schwartz, Chief of Staff to Sen. Tom Coburn said:

…Pornography is a blight. It is a disaster. It is, it is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven’t been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. But one — It’s been a few years, not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys who are like 10 to 12 years of age. But it is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it. And that’s a good instinct. After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people. [Bold emphasis mine]

Homosexuality is inflicted on people?!?!?!?! I don’t understand his twisted logic. And then he continues:

I had a very good friend who was in the homosexual lifestyle for a long time and then he had a religious conversion in the eighties. And he bought a old motel and turned it into a hospice for some of his former associates who were dying of AIDS. He helped, he helped almost 300 men die. This man was a real hero. But he knew that he wasn’t as healed as he thought he was. He was able to resist temptation. He was able to resist sin. But he wasn’t healed enough to take on the responsibilities of marriage. And he was a brilliant man in the sense that he knew himself. And he knew his limits. And he and I had good conversations about, about the malady that he suffered. And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people. [Bold emphasis, again mine]

Say what?!?!?! Homosexuality is not a sin. Nor is it a malady. And besides, HOW the hell can looking at pornography “turn” someone gay?!?! This stupidity is way beyond me, and it scares me to think that a roomful of similar close minded conservatives all huddled together to promote a “new masculinism” through homophobia?!

Some of the other panels were:

DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD – PALLADIAN ROOM
Mark Bucher, Bucher & Palmer, LLP; Lila Rose, President, LiveAction

As many state and local governments are tightening their budgets to weather this fiscal storm, communities are taking a second look at the funding of the controversial abortion corporation Planned Parenthood. Since 1987, Planned Parenthood has taken in $3.2 billion in taxpayer funds. Planned Parenthood has used its money to support candidates who will continue this money stream and to lobby against initiatives such as parental notification laws in cases of minors seeking an abortion. Learn from people, like you, who have successfully stopped Planned Parenthood funding in their communities.

Ugh. Anti-choicers, go away!!

TRUE TOLERANCE: COUNTERING THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS – CONGRESSIONAL B
Candi Cushman–Education Analyst, Focus on the Family Action

True tolerance my ass.

MARRIAGE: WHY IT’S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY – DIPLOMAT ROOM
Charles Donovan, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Thomas Messner, Visiting Fellow; The Heritage Foundation; Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Founder and President, Ruth Institute

Redefining marriage poses serious threats to the religious liberties of people who continue to believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. This understanding of marriage is an important religious belief for many Americans, but the freedom to express it will come under growing pressure as courts, public officials, and private institutions come to regard the traditional understanding of marriage as a form of irrational prejudice that should be purged from public life. This briefing will focus on policy and legal developments, as well as how to communicate the link between marriage and religious liberty.

Heterosexist much?

GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA: THE NEW FACE OF THE “PRO-DEATH” AGENDA – CABINET ROOM
Dr. Calvin Beisner, National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Why did the President’s science advisor support coerced abortions to protect the planet?

Why are top abortion funders underwriting efforts to co-opt evangelicals on global warming?

If “people are the problem,” what’s the final solution?

Cap and trade is about more than saving the planet. It’s the biggest tax hike in American history. It threatens to concentrate massive amounts of power into the hands of central government and international bureaucrats. And its ascendancy marks the rise of a new, more subtle challenge to the culture of life.

Ultimately, climate change hysteria rests on an unbiblical view of God, mankind, and the environment. Come and hear how the Cornwall Alliance is pushing back–producing ground-breaking studies on Biblical environmentalism, educating pastors and churches across the country, and activating thousands of Christians to rally against the hype through the WeGetIt.org Campaign. Learn why policies to fight alleged man-made global warming will instead cause hundreds of millions of premature deaths throughout this century, and how human liberty, responsibility, and flourishing are the key to a healthier environment.

Oh my god. Seriously?!

Sometimes this is all so ridiculous and laughable that I can’t imagine anyone buying into it or believing it. The unfortunate thing is that a lot of people do believe this bullshit.

Feminist Reader

Here’s some stuff that’s out there on the interwebs right now.  Check it out.

A piece by Ann at Feministing about the Hofstra case and rape culture.

All female trains in India.

Rush Limbaugh once again being a jackass, says that we should return to racially segregated buses.

Cara at The Curvature does an excellent job explaining why we should not pressure rape survivors into naming their attackers.

Stuff white people do-  feel entitled to touch black women’s hair.

Marvel writer has rape in storyline, then responds to criticism with rape-culture apologism.

Katrina’s lessons are as important as 9/11′s.

In upcoming stuff:  ”Sex, Lies, and Gender” will appear on the National Geographic channel Tuesday Sept. 22 at 6 PM.  Check out the airing times near you.  I have seen it.  I will watch it again.  You should definitely watch it too.

“ACORN pimp sting, child prostitution, and accountability” by Atlasien at Racialicious

Tenured Radical goes to Washington D.C., offers some thoughts on the Tea Party rally.

The toy NOT to get your daughters

Thoughts on this pole dancer doll has been circulating among the feminist blogosphere recently:

Yup – it’s a pole dancer doll for children to play with. This Pole Dancer doll “dances to the music and moves up and down the pole as well as around and around the poll”. My initial questions upon seeing this are:

1. Who the heck thought that creating this and marketing this product to children was appropriate and acceptable?

2. What kind of parents would want their kids to play with this doll?

Not that pole dancing isn’t an acceptable activity or profession, but this pole dancing doll hyper-sexualizes girlhood and reinforces the idea that the most important thing about a girl is her ability to flaunt her sexuality for the male gaze.  As Melissa writes:

My objection to this item is that it introduces as a fun activity a sex act to which a child cannot consent and actively seeks to sexualize children, specifically girls, and specifically in an objectified and submissive sexual role.

By objectifying and hyper-sexualizing girls, this doll reinforces society’s fetishization of youth (especially for girls/women). This fetishization of youth creates ageist standards of beauty which further enables the cosmetics and plastic surgery industry to thrive.

Cougar Town – more on why I hate the word cougar

I’ve shared my thoughts about the cougar label before, so I’ve been really annoyed at all the ads I keep seeing on the New York subways for Cougar Town, a new ABC sitcom set to premiere on September 23rd, featuring Courteney Cox.

Cox plays 40 or 40-something year old Jules Cobb, a newly divorced woman in Florida with a 17 year old son. She decides to get back in the dating scene to add excitement into her life. There’s an older post on Jezebel about why Cougar Town looks awful, and the first reason that they list is the use of the word “cougar”.

There is nothing liberating or transgressive about the cougar label when it applies to women.  As Rebecca Traister writes in Salon:

Cougars. Pussies. Foxes. Faster pussycat! Kill! Kill! Active, aggressive female sexuality is always talked about as feral, often feline. When it’s older, apparently, it develops sharper claws and teeth. Unless, that is, it’s exhibited by a primmer and more contained MILF. That’s just a lady with kids who men want to fuck. It’s impossible to tell, until we get closer to the specimen, whether she has any interest in doing the fucking herself.

The enthusiasm for the “Wild Kingdom” analogy is a sign of how strange and hysterically funny the idea of energetic female sexual desire is — whether it’s in the form of 34-year-old Drew Barrymore, who has cheerily referred to herself as a “pre-cougar” or “puma” because she’s dated men a couple of years younger than her, or 50-year-old Madonna, who recently dated 20-year-old Jesus Luz. How sad and backward that we have to give it a nickname, animalize it as if it’s outside the boundaries of civilized human behavior, make it a trend, pretend that Demi Moore invented it. That’s not progress, and it’s not a step forward for women.

Yes, must we animalize female sexuality and try to cutely conflate older single, attractive women who have sex with younger men with (the Wikipedia definition of a cougar) “large, solitary cats [with] the greatest range of any large wild terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere, extending from Yukon in Canada to the southern Andes of South America.”

If you go on Urban Dictionary to look up what a cougar is, you will find degrading definitions:

An older woman who frequents clubs in order to score with a much younger man. The cougar can be anyone from an overly surgically altered wind tunnel victim, to an absolute sad and bloated old horn-meister, to a real hottie or milf [Mother I'd like to fuck, made popular by American Pie]. Cougars are gaining in popularity — particularly the true hotties — as young men find not only a sexual high, but many times a chick with her shit together.

“An overly surgically altered wind tunnel victim”, “an absolute sad and bloated old horn-meister” or “a real hottie or milf “? Are those really the only ways that we can think of older women in society? Is that the only vocabulary that we have to describe older women? Ageist much? Misogynist much? And isn’t it demeaning to call an older, more sexually experienced woman a “chick with her shit together”?

The third definition listed says:

An attractive woman in her 30′s or 40′s who is on the hunt once again. She may be found in the usual hunting grounds: nightclubs, bars, beaches, etc. She will not play the usual B.S. games that women in their early twenties participate in. End state, she will be going for the kill, just like you. Associated with milfs.

And the example they give of how to use cougar in context: I bagged a cougar last night at the club.

Sigh. I don’t even know what to make of this.

Women and feminists “detrimental” to the family says VA Gov. Candidate Robert McDonnell

Virginia Attorney General and Republican Candidate for Governor, Robert McDonnell, wrote a 93 page master’s thesis in 1989, “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of The Decade”, for the evangelical school he attended in Virginia Beach, Regent University. In that thesis, he states that women and feminists are “detrimental” to the family. He describes feminism as one of the “real enemies of the traditional family.” He declares a 1972 Supreme Court decision in Eisenstadt v. Baird, which legalized contraception use by unmarried couples, illogical. At the end of his thesis, he maps out a 15-point plan that the Republican Party should implement in order to protect American families.

McDonnell spent 14 years in the General Assembly before going on to be Attorney General and his political track record exhibits blatant opposition to women’s rights. During his 14 years in the General Assembly, he pursued at least 10 of the policy goals he wrote of in his thesis, including restrictions to abortion, covenant marriage, school vouchers and tax policies to favor “the family”. In 2001, he voted against a resolution in support of ending wage discrimination between men and women. Then in 2004, he voted against allowing student health centers on college campuses to dispense emergency contraception, and has supported a lot of anti-choice legislation throughout his tenure, including a ban on late-term abortions, mandating that minors receive parental consent prior to having an abortion and requiring women seeking abortions to observe a 24-hour waiting period.

Now as he runs for Governor of Virginia, he tries to distance himself from his thesis, which clearly exhibits a lot of misogynist sentiment. However, actions speak louder than words and his track record is telling enough. According to Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal:

It would be one thing if this thesis was a satire, but it was a policy directive to the Republican Party. McDonnell went on to enact major planks of the policy agenda developed and described in the thesis. It also revealed that he has a well-developed belief against separation of church and state. One of his defenses on his views regarding working women is that his wife and two daughters work. However, we have seen with other advocates of the religious right that personal lives often have no relationship to public policy positions. We must evaluate McDonnell’s views by his actions as a public official, which have furthered an anti-women’s rights record.

I am sick of the religious right using rhetoric of “the American family” to promote and further homophobia and misogyny. It is frightening and disturbing having people like McDonnell as public officials.

Chris Broughton agrees with Pastor Anderson and wants Obama to die and go to hell

Earlier, Pastor Drake prayed for Obama’s death on Fox News and now, Chris Broughton wishes death on Obama. Earlier this month, on August 17th, Broughton brought a loaded AR-15 to Obama’s health-care town hall meeting in Phoenix, Arizona (He carries guns around for self defense apparently). His fundamentalist pastor, Steven Anderson, prayed for Obama to die and go to hell, and Broughton completely agrees.

Below is  the video of Anderson’s infamous August 16th sermon:

Broughton concurred with the sermon, because Obama is “destroying our country”. He further said that he’d like to see Obama “deader than a doorknob”:

It would be good for the country if he were to go sooner than later. However it happens, I’m going be happy that it happens. I’m gonna be a happy man…I would rejoice.

When a reporter asked him if he was advocating violence against the President, he responded, “I’m not going to answer that question directly.” While he dodged the question, it is obvious that Broughton is advocating violence against the President. Bringing a loaded AR-15 to an Obama health-care rally shows violent intent. Wishing for someone’s death is violent. Violence is a continuum and although he may not have committed any violent acts to the President, he certainly is guilty of many violent thoughts.

This is absolutely sickening and infuriating, especially since Anderson and Broughton are using a religious platform to advocate for Obama’s death. It is okay if you disagree with Obama’s policies and politics, but do you really have to take it to the extreme and preach hate and wish/pray for his death?

What’s scarier than a clown itself? A clown that teaches ab-only sex ed.

Needless to say, abstinence-only sex ed is proven ineffective. Not only does ab-only sex ed eliminate a lot of (slash all) important truthful information about safe sex: using contraception (condoms, birth control, etc.), but it also is highly moralizing (who are you to tell me what choices I should make concerning my body and my sexuality?), slut-shaming and heterosexist by alienating the LGBTQ population. Ab-only sex ed relies on false facts (which are essentially lies), scare tactics, and the reinforcement of patriarchal gender roles. Furthermore, countless studies have proven that students of ab-only sex ed don’t have decreased rates of pregnancy, HIV and STIs. The research shows that after receiving ab-only sex ed, people are less likely to use contraceptives when having sex.

The latest in ab-only sex ed epic fails: clowns teaching sex ed. Elizabeth’s New Life Center in Ohio employs Derek the Abstinence Clown to go around to middle schools teaching them that having sex before marriage is “just like juggling machetes!” (yes, what an apt comparison) and “will destroy all your life’s dreams!” Seriously, this is what our tax dollars are funding?! Clowns using ridiculously absurd scare tactics to tell kids not to have sex until they’re married?! Sigh…just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse.

And then, over at Feministe I saw Operation Keepsake’s Are you a treasure or a target? quiz. Operation Keepsake is one of Ohio’s highest funded ab-only sex ed proponents and providers. And the quiz questions? Absolutely ridiculous, as expected. One of the questions is:

Your crush asks you out.  He seems really nice but you’re not sure he values waiting to have sex until marriage like you do.  You:
a. Ask him straight up.
b. Go with the flow-it will come up sooner or later.
c. Assume he’s a good guy. I mean, he’s cute and dresses well.

Who would ask someone right after they’ve asked you out, “Do you value waiting to have sex until marriage too?” Seriously, come on!! More evidence that ab-only sex ed is waaaaaaay out of touch with reality.

And then when you’re done answering all the questions and add up your score, you will see that if you are a treasure, then:

You know who you are, what you believe, and where you want to go in life.  When it comes to guys, you value yourself and your future too much for random hook-ups.  Besides, it takes time and some investigation to find out what someone is really all about.  And, while you appreciate looking good, you know that if a guy wants to be with you simply because you look hot, that could be trouble down the road.  Our advice: continue respecting yourself!  You’ll build healthier relationships if you do.

Such slut-shaming language. Only girls who don’t have sex until they get married “know who they are, what they believe, and where they want to go in life” (because having sex before marriage will ruin all your future career and life aspirations!) Meanwhile girls who have sex before marriage don’t respect themselves and don’t build healthier relationships. Ab-only sex ed doesn’t teach about healthy relationships, healthy sexuality, communication and mutual consent. It just reiterates over and over again, DON’T HAVE SEX! JUST DON’T DO IT!

But I digress…If  you’re a Danger Zone, then:

You value yourself, but when you’re in tough situations you have a difficult time speaking up for the things you value.  You get scared that your friends or your guy will think you’re stupid, so you don’t speak up.  It’s normal to feel scared, but if you want to be a leader instead of a follower you’ve got to practice speaking up and doing the right thing.  You may get laughed at for the moment, but in the long run you’ll be better off.

If you’re a target, then:

You make decisions based on what others think instead of what is best and healthiest for you.  It’s not a big deal when it comes to picking simple things like shoes, but when it comes to major decisions-like who you date-you could be in a lot of trouble.  If you want to be truly respected and valued for the real you, then you’ve got to know what makes you truly valuable.  Hint:  It’s more than your body, your looks, the friends you hang with, and the guys you date.  If you don’t know what really makes you valuable, then why would anyone else?

Aha. Of course. What makes you truly respectable and valuable is if you “save yourself” until marriage. Because you don’t want to just toss your “treasure” to just anyone; no it’s just too valuable and irreplaceable. Saying “…but when it comes to major decisions – like who you date – you could be in a lot of trouble” is fear-inducing, slut shaming, and victim blaming rhetoric.

Thank goodness President Obama is eliminating the federal funding for ab-only sex ed for the 2010 budget. But that doesn’t mean that this madness will just end, like it should. It will be up to the jurisdiction of state/local governments and whether or not the ab-only organizations can manage to stay afloat on their own.

The Terminator terminates funding for domestic violence in California

I am a bit late on posting this but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently recklessly terminated California’s entire domestic violence budget.  Yup, all of it.  There’s not a single penny left in the state budget for addressing and dealing with domestic violence.  This is deeply disturbing and infuriating.  As V-Day founder Eve Ensler has said:

What same governor does this as the state economy is plummeting and violence is escalating? When the STAND Hotline, that serves Contra Costa County, fielded more than 12,500 calls for help in the first seven months of 2009, triple the number in a normal year (if violence is ever normal)? In a state where over the past six months at least five men, desperate from losing their jobs, have murdered their families and themselves? What other governor is willing to sacrifice the lives of his constituent daughters and mothers in order to protect oil corporations from paying taxes on their multi-billion-dollar profits – fair taxes that could easily fund these same programs?

Here again we see “women’s issues” being sidelined and shoved off the table because they are not deemed worthy enough for our attention and recognition.  As feminists have argued and demonstrated for so long, domestic violence is not merely a “women’s issue”.  It is a serious matter that affects the entire community.  Victims of domestic violence are not limited to just women.  States and institutions need to take domestic violence (also called intimate partner violence or relationship violence) seriously.

Fortunately in New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson (also a Tufts alum!) has preserved funding for domestic violence programs and has expressed a deep and sincere commitment to ending violence against women in New Mexico.  But it is completely unacceptable that Governor Scwarzenegger has chosen to eliminate all funding for domestic violence programs in California.  He needs to get his priorities in order.

Weekend Reads

Dana Goldstein on the need for a public health insurance plan to provide reproductive health coverage.  Over at The Nation, Sharon Lerner has more on why women need health care reform.

An interesting photo essay that questions and explores what it means to be masculine.  It’s accompanied with an interview with the photographer, Chad States.  The subjects of some of the photos include trans men.

The children’s books industry is a very much white run industry and often children’s books are embedded, subtly and not-so-subtly, with racist undertones.  Read this post on Racism Review about children’s books are very much white-framed and whitewashed.

Here are some thoughts on 18-year old South African runner Caster Semenya whose female-ness was being questioned because she doesn’t conform to traditional western standards of femininity.  Bird of Paradox has more.

Michelle Obama should be allowed to wear shorts without coming under such scrutiny by the media and the public, especially while vacationing at the Grand Canyon.

Being careful with language is very important, especially since language is used to normalize.  There has been much discussion online about language and privilege.  Deeply Problematic takes on being blinded by privilege in these two posts: “Blinded by Privilege”: ableist language in critical discourse and For the Uninformed: Privilege, Perspective and The Little Things That Jab.  Hoyden About Town also has a post on unexamined privileges and unconscious behaviors.

Here is a long but interesting article that contextualizes the use of rape as a weapon of war.  Author Crystal Feimster, a historian at the University of North Carolina, claims that rape was used as a weapon of war way back in the Civil War, which is a new contention.

This one’s more of an uplifting story about a woman in a small West Virginian town, Maria Gunnoe, who took on the coal industry and was victorious.  She was a great community organizer who took action against the coal tycoons and despite threats, harassment and violence, she is not giving up the fight.

This article is an EPIC FAIL

The Los Angeles Times had an article out on July 27th in their Health section titled, Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for health care.  I kid you not, that is what the actual article is called.

Tax their food?  Because fat people just gorge themselves off junk food all day.  You know, chips, cookies, ice cream, soda.  So taxing “fat people food” would mean taxing junk food, assuming that only fat people eat junk food (that’s why they’re so fat, duh).  Not a sound assumption because being thin does not necessarily equal being healthy.  And being fat does not necessarily equal being unhealthy.

Also, what is this fat tax supposed to do?  Taxing and increasing the price of cigarettes has done little to make people quit smoking.  Is the logic something like, if fat people have to pay more to eat their fatty foods they’ll stop buying it, therefore stop eating it and magically become skinny?

The article stupidly tries to argue that fat people are putting an immense strain on the health care system, so if we tax their food then they’ll stop dragging the rest of us down along with them.  It also demonizes and further shames fat people – yes, there are some fat people who eat a lot of junk food, but there are also lots of skinny people who eat a lot of junk food but don’t get fat.  And there are also a lot of fat people who exercise regularly and eat healthy yet do not lose weight.

So fat = unhealthy, unmoral and disordered is not necessarily true. A significant amount of the dialogue around fat and obesity is very fat-shaming.  And saying that the health care system is strained because of all these fatties pits fat people against thin people, which is ridiculous and not at all a constructive way to discuss the health care system.

You can love men AND still be a feminist, Lady Gaga

Just a few days ago, I wrote about how recently when former model Elle Macpherson was asked if she was a feminist, she dodged the question and spoke about how “the concept of equal rights” doesn’t quite sit well with her.  And then today I saw this interview with Lady Gaga:

Lady Gaga talks about a double standard in the music industry – if a female artist talks about and expresses sexuality in her music, then it’s something that raises eyebrows or criticized as being too raunchy.  Meanwhile if a male artist talks about and expresses sexuality in his music, then it’s normal and even celebrated.

She says:

You see, if I was a guy, and I was sitting her with a cigarette in my hand, grabbing my crotch and talking about how I make music ’cause I love fast cars and fucking girls, you’d call me a rock star. But when I do it in my music and in my videos, because I’m a female, because I make pop music, you’re judgmental, and you say that it is distracting. I’m just a rock star.

Right on – it’s important to highlight these ridiculous double standards.  Women are judged for doing certain things that men are not judged for, and vice versa.  But then when asked if she was a feminist, she responds:

I’m not a feminist – I, I hail men, I love men.  I celebrate American male culture, and beer, and bars and muscle cars.

Ahhh… Way to disappoint, Lady Gaga… Loving men, beer, bars and muscle cars and being a feminist are not mutually exclusive.  The stereotype that feminists are man-hating remains pervasive and persistent.

Lady Gaga’s prior statement about the double standard in the music world is a feminist insight because it highlights the gender inequality in one area of life.  However, her response to the “are you a feminist” question reflects the false belief that feminism is about man-hating.

Sigh… When are people going to get over that idiotic idea?

Still shying away from the F word

Feminism is still very much the F word that people do not want to associate or identify with, which I’ve written about before.  It’s always interesting to see how celebrity or high profile women respond whenever the F word comes up in an interview.

On July 23rd, in an interview with the Guardian, former model Elle Macpherson shed some light on her ideas about feminism.  When asked, “Are you a feminist?” she responded:

I’m somebody who truly honours femininity. And I believe in individuality, and uniqueness, and that’s all I’m going to say on that.

Wow, can you be any more vague?  Macpherson’s answer shows how women want to dissociate from feminism because of all the pervasive negative stereotypes attached to it, like the classic stereotype that feminists are ugly and un-feminine.  Femininity is a social construction and it is based on a narrow and constricting gender binary that does not allow much room for variation.

The follow-up question was “But you shy away from the word ‘feminism’?”  Macpherson responded:

It’s one of those coined phrases that has a lot of innuendo and not much meaning these days. There’s a stereotypical perception that a feminist is somebody who believes in equal rights for men and women. Well, I believe men and women are different and they have different needs, therefore the concept of equal rights doesn’t really sit with me in many ways.

Gee, thanks for your profound insights!  Feminism does not have much meaning these days?  Actually, I beg to differ.  I can go on and on about why feminism is still relevant, but in a soundbite: 1. The Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be ratified, 2. There is still a wage gap and women only make 77 cents to the male dollar, and 3. Rape is a primary weapon of war in many conflict zones, which places women in greater harm than men.

And yes, men and women are different.  But they should still have equal access to opportunities and institutions in society.  There’s a quote that comes to mind now (June Jordan said it) that goes like, “There is difference and there is power.  And who holds the power decides the meaning of difference.”

“…the concept of equal rights doesn’t really sit with me in many ways”?!  Oh dear.  Here comes my head against the desk.