|
This isn't in the news...
but I had to watch it before I was allowed to watch a youtube video. Nice, Allstate. Why is this acceptable? Why isn't it on the news? |
This came out over a month ago, but I don't think it's been posted.
The Daily Show's Woman Problem The Daily Show is many things: progressive darling, alleged news source for America's youth, righteous media critique. And it's also a boys' club where women's contributions are often ignored and dismissed. |
A man never gets headlines like this, does he?
Linda Hogan to Marry Boytoy Lover
Linda Hogan: The Hulkster's Ex to Marry 21-Year-Old Linda Hogan: The Ultimate Cougar? Linda Hogan is a cougar Linda Hogan's Fiance is How Old?!? - ABC News eta: these are headlines from today that I snipped. |
it has been pointed out to me that yes, dating and then marrying your childs classmate may be gross.
my point was that the big deal is never made about age difference when the gender is flipped. |
Quote:
While the point is effectively made with regard to new/teen drivers, it would have had the same impact had it simply said, "I'm a typical teenager." |
Ariz. Illegal Immigration Law Judge Threatened
Authorities say a federal judge in Phoenix has been getting some threats since her ruling on Arizona's controversial immigration law. David Gonzales, the U.S. Marshal for Arizona, says U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has received thousands of phone calls and e-mails since her preliminary injunction Wednesday that put key provisions of the state's immigration law on hold. Gonzales says some of the messages sent to Bolton are positive, but others are "from people venting and who have expressed their displeasure in a perverted way." Gonzales says his agents are taking some of the threats to Bolton seriously. He refused to discuss any extra security measures, which U.S. marshals routinely provide federal judges. |
warning--pic may be disturbing for some on cover of Time.
The Plight of Afghan Women: A Disturbing Picture
eta: you can make a donation to victims like Aisha and others through this site: http://www.grossmanburnfoundation.org/aisha.htm |
Quote:
|
Psychology Today:
Cutting off your vagina to spite your Face(book)
By David J. Ley , Ph.D. Created Jul 31 2010 - 10:13am Many cultures have celebrated the vagina. Many more have feared it. In the past week, Facebook deleted a number of pages from their website, ostensibly due to their concerns about the sexual nature of the material. Interestingly, the organization appears to have primarily targeted the pages of several women and female sexuality organizations with Facebook pages. It may be that there were male-run pages deleted that I haven't heard about, but at this point, I'm only aware of sites that were focused on the lovely vagina, and that celebrated female sexual empowerment. My dear friends at Self Serve, a women-owned and run sexuality resources center (toys, books, videos, educational materials and gear, all in a wonderful positive, safe and welcoming environment) had their Facebook page taken down because of a video they posted about the "fad" of labiaplasty. Labiaplasty is a cosmetic surgery, where women have their genitals surgically altered to be "more attractive," and fit the ideal image of a vagina (whatever that is). Matie, Molly and Alee walk the viewer through the physical risks and dangers of this surgery, and educate them about the diversity of the female genitalia. The video contains images of the female vulva, from Betty Dodson's work, when she began educating women years ago, about how to love themselves and their bodies. The video has a heartfelt message, urging women to love their bodies as they are, and not to give in to mutilation to fit an unrealistic, and uncommon ideal based upon porn. Check out their video and website, and support them in their defense of female sexuality. Violet Blue is a sexuality activist, writer, and educator, whose Facebook page dedicated to women who celebrate and enjoy sexuality and pornography, was also deleted. Blue had over three thousand Facebook members supporting her page, and had worked hard to comply with Facebook's rules. She was given no advance notice and no explanation of why her page was deleted. Blue wrote a letter to Facebook, as yet unanswered. So what's going on here? In the past few months, Facebook has attacked and deleted pages with breasts, breastfeeding, naked female dolls, and now Ms. Blue's page and the Self Serve video that tries to educate women to love themselves and their vulvas. Does Facebook have a problem with female sexuality? In the past, men feared the “vagina dentate,” an almost universal myth that suggested that women's vaginas were not only dangerous, but actually contained teeth that could bite off the penis of any man so foolish as to insert it in the woman's body. A very rare congenital abnormality can in fact create tumorous cysts near the opening of a female’s vagina, which could resemble teeth, but the global prevalence of this mythical symbol is believed to have much more to do with a general fear of female sexuality. In the folklore, men combated these toothed vaginas, much as knights fought monsters. In a Jicarilla legend from New Mexico, the boy hero fed sour berries to the women's hungry vaginas, which ended up destroying their teeth (remember good dental hygiene!), while in a legend from India, the boy hero used an iron tube like an indestructible dildo, to knock out the teeth that lurked in the vagina of a demon female. In her marvelous book, The Story of V, Catherine Blackledge recounts similar stories in a history of the vagina. She describes that all of these tales carry similar meaning: “pulling vaginal teeth is a metaphor for how some men would like to make women meek and biddable, remolded in a shape defined by them. In these stories, instead of shaming her into submission, physical means are used to tame her sexuality.” Is Facebook hurting itself with these actions and hurting women? Will women start leaving this site, and heading to social networking sites that are more accepting of female sexuality? I've heard from many Insatiable Wives, who have left Facebook, for sites where they can freely celebrate their sexuality. Who's next? And where does it stop? If Facebook was a client, sitting on my couch, I think I'd be asking "How was your relationship with your mother?" and "Do you think you stopped breastfeeding too early?" |
on the other hand...
|
Quote:
|
www.rhrealitycheck.org
Rape, Violence, Abortion? Radical Right Says its All Your Fault
By Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check I was pleased to watch “The Rachel Maddow Show” Thursday night, as Rachel dedicated not just one, but two segments on the surprising number of severely anti-choice candidates running for major offices this election cycle. As reported on the show, the story is getting very little mainstream attention, but it’s certainly a new thing to have three major Senate candidates---Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Ken Buck---come out not just for restricting abortions for choice, but also for criminalizing abortion in the case of threats to a woman’s health, and in the cases of rape or incest. Since all three candidates reluctantly allow that they might allow an abortion should they be convinced that a pregnant woman’s life is in danger (though often said restrictions are so high they are functionally death sentences for the “crime” of being pregnant, for the doctors fear that a 5 to 10 percent chance of survival might be enough to prosecute), they adamantly stand for forcing rape victims to carry the rapist’s baby to term. Yes, even if the rapist is the father or brother of the victim. Melissa Harris-Lacewell came on the show to offer the perspective that hard times often make the populace more open to sadistic intrusions on a woman’s right to control her own fertility. She made some excellent points about how the increasing acceptance of forced childbirth, even for rape victims, coincides with other enthusiasms for control over reproduction, such as the new talk of repealing the 14th Amendment strictly to punish immigrant women who give birth. I have some points I’d like to add to Melissa’s excellent commentary. This unwillingness to extend abortion rights even to rape victims may indicate more than simply a hard line attitude about abortion, but also a negative attitude about a woman’s right to live free from violence. As Rachel reported, the Paul campaign’s response to the issue of abortion rights for rape victims was to scold victims for not being more careful about “family planning.” Reasonable people might be as bewildered as Rachel about this point, but sadly, I feel these kind of responses indicate an acceptance of the widespread right wing myth that rape and other forms of violence against women are something that feminists made up in their supposed mission to get men. There’s widespread myths that rape victims are either lying about being raped or somehow brought it on themselves, and therefore if they get pregnant, they deserve to be punished for being liars or temptresses or both. Add these stereotypes to the anti-choice fears that any exceptions to a ban would be exploited by slatterns eager to get away with being loose women, and you have a toxic brew. If you think the myth that exceptions are mainly used by liars isn’t widespread, may I remind you that 2008 presidential candidate John McCain expressed a belief that most late term abortions performed for health reasons were nothing but the patients and doctors lying to cover up abortions by choice, even though there’s not a lick of evidence to support that claim. The misogyny that prompts anti-choice beliefs tends to bring along a host of other anti-woman beliefs about how women are stupid, fickle, and deceitful by nature. A lack of sympathy for pregnant rape victims brings up a lot more questions than just ones about a candidate’s view on reproductive rights. For instance, I’d worry that someone who has this attitude towards pregnant rape victims might generally not take the problem of violence against women seriously. Currently, it’s political poison to avoid nominal support for legislative efforts fighting violence against women, but that doesn’t mean that office-holders are necessarily dedicated to the cause of really taking steps to improve services and law enforcement in ways that would actually fight this problem. Already this election cycle, we’ve seen an anti-choice Senator get exposed for problems in this area. Even though Senator David Vitter knew one of his aides was convicted of domestic violence, he kept him on staff and, alarmingly, as an advisor on women’s issues, including the issue of domestic violence. Fighting violence against women and supporting reproductive rights are so intertwined that it’s really hard to separate the two. Paul’s comments about “family planning” were illogical in really obvious ways, but they also showed a lack of understanding of how gendered violence undermines women’s ability to prevent pregnancy in the first place, often making the need for abortion rights all that more important. As Lynn Harris reported in The Nation, a new (albeit limited) study of 71 women who had suffered domestic violence reported being the victim of birth control sabotage by partners who used forced pregnancy as a way to dominate and control their victims. If the state takes a stance of supported forced pregnancy, that only makes it that much easier for domestic abusers to hurt and control their victims. And that, in turn, makes it that much harder for law enforcement and social services to fight the problem of domestic violence. In a way, I appreciate it when anti-choicers take the “no exceptions for rape” stance. Not for the reason some give, which is that it’s at least more consistent with the belief that a fetus is a person. (I still don’t think they consistently believe that an embryo is the same as a 5-year-old.) But it is more consistent with the overall view that women are chattel, that their rights are unimportant, and that their bodies are objects to be controlled by men and the state. In a strict patriarchy, rape is considered a crime against the man who controls the woman, and after the rape has happened, her status plummets in the eyes of the community. Anti-choicers who make no exceptions for rape are being consistent with this view---since the rape victim is already ruined, there’s no reason to offer any sympathy or relief to her. “No exceptions for rape” is indeed a consistent worldview, but it’s mainly consistent with a pro-patriarchal one. |
Saudi women Raise voices over male guardianship
|
|
|
This terrifies me on such a gut-wrenching level I now feel ill.
These women scare me and I really worry about the future of this country with these very Conservative and restrictive politics gaining attention. They are using women to sabotage women. Ugh! Sick to my stomach... Quote:
|
Quote:
|
For several years I was a clinic protector here in D.C. helping women get into clinics safely when they were surrounded by violent, aggressive protesters. I saw and heard things that would make most people's blood run cold.
One husband and wife came in because the fetus died inside her and she needed it removed (for her health, obviously) and when the protesters started assaulting them and calling out these nasty things, the husband came running at them screaming. And even after the protesters realized the situation and calmed down, they never apologized and continued saying these horrific things about God's will - saying she lost the baby because it was God's will because of murders like us and to blame the clinic and the volunteers (me). Horrifying, horrifying stuff. I fear we are about to lose Roe. And truth be told, there is a group of us here who have pledged to get trained in abortion care services to start an underground service...it's scary that it might actually come to that in my lifetime, but I feel like it may. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
|
'Girls Don't Cry': Beware 'Campaigning While Female'
New book looks like a great view of misogyny involved in politics.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=129938556 |
Girls in Afghanistan, "passing" as boys, gain temporary freedom and status for their families.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/wo.../21gender.html |
I would highly, HIGHLY recommend reading "Woman: An Intimate Geography" by Natalie Angier. She's a biologist and examines the female body from genetics and hormones to cellular function in hysterical and engaging ways. I haven't laughed this hard during a book in a long while. But it's fascinatingly educational, too.
Did you know the X chromosome is large and healthy (carrying like 2,000 genes) while the Y chromosome is small, puny, fragile and only carries like 90 genes? The X chromosome, scientists are finding, is capable of tremendous things, far outside the scope of anything the Y chromosome is able to do. Also, the egg is the only cell in the entire human experience that is capable of taking the DNA from any cell in the body and turning it into a multiplying zygote? Meaning, you can take a liver cell, isolate a few things, put it into an egg and voila - the egg turns on all of these light switches within the liver cell turning it into a full blown zygote and it begins to reproduce and form a new being (that's how cloning works - not advocating cloning here, just demonstrating the ultimate power of the egg!). I think XYs have a lot to be worried about. Women are magical, powerful, genetically fantastic creatures capable of amazing things that they aren't even fully aware of. But, I agree with you, June, that women suffer the consequences and are pushed into inferiority by some cultures for no reason other than fear. It's heartbreaking and infuriating all at once. :( Quote:
|
Quote:
OK, ordering this book, pronto! EGG POWER!!! Ever thought of males in our society only being those that began as female (although, personally, I believe that many that transition were male anyway)? Reproduction via egg plus egg, only? My main question would be- would this alter the patriarchal power structure at all in terms of societal norms and male/masculine being in control? I sometimes think about this simply in terms of how women being the ones that carry our young and traditionally the main caretaker. But, this could take oin a very different role in an egg-only reproductice schema. One of the reasons that I could never accept the more radical and separatist feminist ideologies has to do with how women that choose (did we really choose based upon social dictates?) to work within the home and be the main child rearing partner being viwed as less than men. Child rearing outside of being a "bread winner" has always been the "less than" factor. Even in the face of statistical facts demonstrating the high numbers of women working outside the home as sole bread winners and as equal bread winners!! What I find terribly sad is how little respect we in the US have for child rearing. Gee, you think this has something to do with what has happened to our educational system? Until work of the home and children is viewed and valued in the same ways that work outside the home is... women will continue to be second class citizens. Would and Egg Power structure change this? |
|
KFC pays college girls $500.00 to wear the words "Double Down" on their rear ends. www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22
|
Quote:
:| |
Just in case anyone had any thoughts of voting for these guys, here's something to mull over.
http://dccc.org/blog/entry/republica...towards_women/ |
Lithuanian Firm Wants to Create an "Island of Blondes"
Olialia is creating an "Island of Blondes", where the staff will be exclusively made up of blonde women. Oh, and among offerings such as spa treatments and "entertainments", they also plan to have an education center called "Pretty Women", which will "teach female guests to always be perfect and look great." There's the possibility of an airline and yacht service being launched as well, which will also employ only blondes, just in case there are guests who want to start their Barbie overdose vacation ahead of time. Names for this resort are still being debated, with "Olialia Paradise" being tossed around, but I don't know why they don't just go for the obvious, "Vacation Spot for Endorsing the Objectification of Women". |
Citigroup sued for gender discrimination
Oct 14, 2010
source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/6746931.cms BOSTON: Financial services conglomerate Citigroup was yesterday sued for gender discrimination by six of its current and former female employees who alleged the company paid women less than their male counterparts. According to the lawsuit filed in US District Court in Manhattan, Citigroup is more likely to lay off well-qualified women and retain less qualified men. "The outdated 'boys club' is alive and well at Citigroup where women are denied equal terms and conditions of employment that are provided to similarly-situated male employees," the complainants said in the lawsuit. Five of the six women who moved the court against the 'discrimination' by the bank yesterday had worked in its public finance department and were among those laid off in November 2008. The women alleged that Citigroup did not compensate female employees the way it did the male counterparts and overlooked them for promotions. "As a result of this 'boys club,' men dominate the senior ranks of Citigroup's management and executive positions", they said in the lawsuit. The sixth woman, who currently works in the asset finance group of the banking behemoth, alleged that she was demoted after returning from the maternity leave and has faced offensive comments at workplace. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, class-action status and a court order to end discrimination. The complainants assert that Citigroup's 44-member senior leadership committee includes only five women, and that its 19-member executive committee comprises entirely of men. It further said there was significant disparity in the number of women and men laid off in the November 2008 cuts "that was unlikely to have occurred by chance and instead was the result of intentional gender discrimination." "While Citigroup has worked so hard to right the ship and repay (Troubled Asset Relief Programme) funds borrowed from the federal government, it has failed to address the pervasive discrimination and retaliation that its female employees have been subjected to throughout the course of their employment," the lawsuit said. "As a result of this company wide discrimination, there is a glass ceiling adversely affecting female employees, especially those female employees who become pregnant, take a maternity leave, or have childcare obligations at Citigroup in all facets of their employment," it added. |
Yale fraternity pledges chant about rape
A viral video shows young men marching through campus while barking, "No means yes!" Sometimes, the post just writes itself: On Wednesday night, Delta Kappa Epsilon pledges marched through Yale's Old Campus -- where most first-year female students are housed -- chanting, "No means yes, yes means anal!" The fraternity pledges were marched blindfolded while barking like soldiers ... with marching orders of anal rape. They also threw in, "My name is Jack, I'm a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women." A video of the initiation was immediately posted on YouTube and, what do you know, it's gone viral. Now, DKE President Jordan Forney has been forced to apologize for this blatant sexual intimidation by calling it "a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste." But this sort of hateful crap isn't a "lapse in judgment." It doesn't innocently happen that you're guiding male pledges by young women's dorms in the dark of night chanting about anal rape. It isn't a forehead-slapping slip-up, it's a sign that you need major reprogramming as a human being. Student feminist magazine Broad Recognition has it right: It's calling for Yale to take disciplinary action against DKE -- where George W. Bush got his presidential training -- "on behalf of its female students." |
Gender in Politics
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1016-gender-politics-20101016,0,1971721.story
latimes.com It's a strange year for gender in politics Polite sensitivities are being shelved during this election cycle, a trend led by the conservative female candidates who call themselves 'mama grizzlies.'By Kathleen Hennessey, Tribune Washington Bureau October 16, 2010 In one of the stranger moments in the Nevada Senate debate Thursday, Sharron Angle, the ever-grinning, grandmotherly GOP Senate candidate, fired off the retort of the night. "Man up, Harry Reid," the 61-year-old said, dropping the smile as she pushed the Senate majority leader to discuss Social Security's solvency. Angle's zinger stood out for its unexpected near-hipness. But in the current political climate, the fact that it was loaded with sexual stereotypes seemed hardly to register as controversial. The 2010 election cycle may be remembered for a jarring shift in the political dialogue between the sexes, a moment when polite sensitivities were shelved and bold gender-based power plays became the norm. The trend is clearest among a new class of conservative women — the "mama grizzlies" who pride themselves on a strong and irreverent post-feminist posture and frank rhetoric. Their leader, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, set the tone when she told Fox News Channel in August that President Obama didn't have the "cojones" to get tough on illegal immigration. About a month later, Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell told a radio interviewer that her primary opponent should "put his man pants on." Angle's "man up" seemed another link in that chain. "The references to manliness have gotten more explicit," said Deborah Tannen, an author and linguist who has studied communication between the sexes at Georgetown University. At the same time, Palin "has built a sort of brand on" such brash statements, while the culture at large is welcoming less formal conversation. "The lines between public and private keep blurring, so ways of talking you used to do only in private you more and more do in public," Tannen said. The trend isn't exclusive to conservative women. Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan also told Republican Rep. Roy Blunt to "man up" in their Senate debate Thursday. Male candidates also have used the phrase with increasing frequency — usually in an attempt to insinuate an opponent's lack of political courage. "At least man up and say I'm fat," the rotund Republican Chris Christie said last year in answer to ads from then- New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine accusing him of "throwing his weight around." But experts in political discourse see another subtext, particularly when coming from a female candidate. "Male candidates have traditionally been assumed by would-be voters to be tough and competent. Women have traditionally been assumed to be caring and have to establish their competence," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communication at the Annenberg Public Policy Center. " 'Man up' frames the attacker as tougher than the person attacked and suggests the male candidate is not taking responsibility or being accountable for his failures." Others see the origins as more closely tied to the identities of the two parties and the way they connect with voters.George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at UC Berkeley, describes the Republican Party as emphasizing masculinity and strength in its world view and rhetoric, while Democrats underscore the more feminine quality of empathy. Conservative women, in order to trigger cues in some voters, must project strength, he said."If you're a woman candidate who's a conservative, then you have to say you're more masculine than the other guy," Lakoff said. The boldly direct approach seems to suggest a double standard. It is hard to imagine a male candidate telling a female opponent to be more ladylike without facing repercussions. In fact, the candidates who have recently been accused of sexism were men. In Colorado, Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck was widely criticized for telling voters to support him because, unlike primary opponent Jane Norton, "I do not wear high heels." In California, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown apologized to Republican Meg Whitman after an aide was recorded calling Whitman a "whore." But in the Colorado Senate race, Buck was not the first to strike on gender terms. In a July ad, Norton assailed attack ads against her. "They're paid for by a shady interest group doing the bidding of Ken Buck. You'd think Ken would be man enough to do it himself," she said. None of this is to suggest female candidates do not face sexism, said Jamieson. Women continue to be criticized based on gender stereotypes, she said — often for being too weak, incompetent or, in some cases, not feminine enough."The attack is made, but not in explicitly gendered terms," she said. Implicit remarks are no less effective. It was Margaret Thatcher, a hero of Palin's, who, when sensing that President George H.W. Bush was wavering on the Gulf War, reportedly warned, "Don't go wobbly on us, George." kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times |
|
|
http://msmagazine.com/blog/files/201...s1-500x375.jpg
No Comment: A Big Fat Sexist Welcome from LSU! How about some school pride at the expense of women? Here’s a banner that is currently on display at an apartment complex near Louisiana State University (LSU), presenting two supposed LSU fans and one University of Alabama fan in anticipation of a recent football game between the two rival teams. As my LSU friend (who originally spotted the banner) notes, “it is obviously sexist, fat-phobic and caters to a male gaze and sports rivalry through objectification of women.” Individuals from two feminist organizations at LSU, WOW and WGSGO, repeatedly called the apartment complex to ask that the banner be taken down. It’s a perfect example of how fat bodies are both themselves stigmatized and used to stigmatize others. In this case, not only is this individual woman being mocked, but marking her as an Alabama fan serves to mock and denigrate all other fans by association. Because, as we all know, the campus with the hottest (according to conventional standards of attractiveness) chicks wins! This post was originally published at Sociological Images |
Study: Over 1 in 3 South African Men Admit to Rape
In the Study, More Than 37% of Men Say They Had Raped a Woman; 7% Say They Had Participated in Gang Rape |
Quote:
|
Okay, so this isn't in the news, but it still pissed me off today...
I went to get my Florida driver's license...trying to be responsible and not drive illegally on my NY license. I trotted up to the counter with my pile of paperwork....2 proofs of identity, 2 proofs of address, etc. I had my original birth certificate, social security card, proof of car insurance, voter registration card, car registration and my cable bill....more than enough. The woman behind the counter looks at it all and says "okay, but we need to prove the name trail from *birth name* to *current last name* and they have to be certified copies from the court house, not the church." I looked at her :blink: ....and said, "my birth name was 3 marriages and divorces ago, and one of those happened in Australia....how am I supposed to accomplish that when you give me 10 days before I'm driving illegally?" She shrugged. Okay....this pisses me off. Our culture strongly encourages women to take their husband's name when they marry. I've been married 3 times. A man who was married 3 times would have *surprise* still the same name he was born with....and not this insane documentation burden that women are being subjected to. It just feels like unfair bullshit to me. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 AM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018