Amen to that! Of course, my father was the biggest jerk of all of the men in my life....so keeping his name feels a bit yucky too. I seriously should just make up my own! :)

Jo - did they end up not letting you have a license, or were you just not allowed to get one of those "secure" ones. Here my friend was able to still get one without that info., but it expired one year early and wasn't "secure" or some such crap.

Hi Dapper,

They sent me home for more documentation...wouldn't do anything without full documents.

Luckily I found my most recent marriage license and (miracle of miracles) it had my maiden name on it as well as my previous married name....sooooo back to the office I went, and am now the holder of an actual FL driver's license. Woot!

If that one document hadn't included the maiden name I'd have been literally writing to Australia and praying I could get something that would make them happy. I was married in a podunk town in middle-of-nowhere Queensland in the 1980s by a marriage celebrant (who left our wedding and went home to shoot his wife in the leg....whole other story)....and just don't have the official sealed, stamped, notarized stuff they wanted here. Our marriage license was handwritten by the celebrant....which was good enough for Australia at that time.

What a pain in the neck!

Geez. Thank God that document had what was needed. Would have sucked worse! Glad it worked out.

I don't understand why people change their names in the first place.

Good luck with the red tape!

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl..._lnk3%7C189819

I missed the above mentioned review last month. Sorry if the topic has already been discussed elsewhere. This crap just ticks me off.

It is good to hear that she was able to take it in stride, especially when she has a history of an eating disorder, and also good to hear that she got a lot of support around the negative comment.

This made me really unhappy:

Apparently now letting your daughters aged 12 and under get stuff waxed is "the new normal"

Just fan fucking tastic. I am especially upset by the mention of getting girls waxed before they even develop pubic hair because apparently that will keep them from -ever- getting it. It's abusive and exploitative.

What the hell is so wrong with body hair, anyway?

That is really disgusting to sexualize a minor in that way. What mom in her right mind would do such a thing?

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That would seem to include protection against exactly the kind of discrimination to which Scalia referred.

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.

"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."

Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.

"In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."

In 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.

This is really, really disturbing to me. Bikini waxes on children? There should be a freaking law about that. To me, that is sexualizing a child.

Warning: Article concerns Afghan women who set themselves on fire to protest their social status.
 

I posted this a while ago in a different thread, and I recently shared it with my partner. She found the below article, which irked me enough to come post it here:

It's from Time

Okay so this isn't news but I saw this commercial earlier and found it to be a really beautiful illustration of the differences that are so common between the way women and men are portrayed in the media. In this case, that's achieved by posing men the way women are often posed.

I assume they are just trying to be funny, but I thought it was well done in that it showed the ridiculousness of how women and women's beauty are marketed.

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape



Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

I knew nothing about this.....not anything at all....the date of the op ed is August 26, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/op...%20rise&st=cse

Received this in email.
 

Tell 1-800-Flowers to offer Fair Trade flowers this Valentine's Day




Dear _________,

Valentine's Day, which accounts for 40% of fresh flower sales annually, is fast approaching.

If you're planning to order a bouquet from 1-800-Flowers -- the world's largest florist -- you should know where most of those flowers really come from.

At flower farms in Ecuador and Colombia -- the countries that export the most to the U.S. -- two-thirds of the workers are women. These women are routinely subjected to harassment and even rape from their male supervisors. They suffer eye infections and miscarriages from consistent contact with dangerous pesticides.

In the weeks leading up to Valentine's Day and Mother's Day, they're routinely forced to work 80-hour weeks with no overtime pay. Attempts to form a union are met with opposition by police and armed forces.

Many retailers -- such as Whole Foods and Stop & Shop -- have taken the important first step of offering Fair Trade flowers to consumers who want no part of these abuses. Fair Trade certified farms must adhere to strict standards for workers' rights, which prevents the abuses described above.

1-800-Flowers is the largest florist in the world. Yet they offer no Fair Trade flowers at all.

Tell 1-800-Flowers to join other major retailers in offering Fair Trade flowers.

1-800-Flowers uses a certifying agency called Florverde, which ensures that its flower farms measure up to certain environmental standards -- this is a good thing. But Florverde has almost no labor standards: A farm can be certified even if it uses forced labor.Indeed, Florverde is owned by the Association of Colombian Flower Exporters, so it has a financial incentive to keep wages low and suppress workers' rights.

This is the week before Valentine's Day -- more people will purchase flowers during the next seven days than any other week this year. This is our best opportunity to demand a promise from 1-800-Flowers to join its competitors in offering Fair Trade flowers. So after you sign the petition, please share this email widely and post on Facebook -- do everything you can to pressure 1-800-Flowers to show a little respect for the women who toil in unbearable circumstances. The women without whom they'd have no flowers to sell.

Click the link below to tell 1-800-Flowers to make a promise this Valentine's Day to sell Fair Trade flowers:

http://www.change.org/petitions/ask-...XVYwIfwh&me=aa

Since this campaign began, the company has emailed to tell us that it will post more information on its website about the farms that supply their flowers. But this is a far cry from selling fair trade products -- and we have much more to do to make sure workers are protected. This is the week to do it.

Thanks for taking action,

Patrick and the Change.org team



ETA: I received this in email and have no supporting information to validate the above information, but thought I would pass it along.

Alabama Lesbian Attacked by a Dozen, But She Alone Was Arrested

There was a good satire of this on the Daily Show regarding this. It was funny because it outlined exactly how fucked up this is - but unfunny because the concept really IS too painful to laugh at. :whoop:

Rape-ish V Rape-Rape

Republican Lawmakers Face Grassroots Pressure Over 'War On Contraception'


WASHINGTON -- Women's-rights activists are taking the fight to preserve family-planning funding outside the Beltway, calling on grassroots activists to pressure their representatives into maintaining the Title X program.

Enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act, the family-planning program was designed to focus on low-income Americans. The preventive-health services it provides include information and access to contraception, earning the ire of social conservatives.

Though there is no mention of Title X in President Barack Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, Republicans have placed a high priority on cutting the $317 million the program received in FY 2011 appropriations, which would effectively eliminate it. The stopgap budget proposal the GOP released last week includes no money for the program, and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced separate legislation to "deny Title X funds to Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider."

The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America launched a campaign on Monday to mobilize activists in six districts where abortion-rights advocates lost to "anti- or mixed-choice representatives" in November's midterm elections. The campaign targets Republican Reps. Charlie Bass (N.H.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Richard Hanna (N.Y), Nan Hayworth (N.Y) and Steve Stivers (Ohio).

NARAL is also stepping up pressure on longer-serving members, including Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.) and Republican Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.), Charlie Dent (Penn.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J), Leonard Lance (N.J), and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.).

"And where is your alleged 'moderate' representative on this?" reads the email going out to activists in Stivers' district. "We don't know. Rep. Stivers has said nothing of this proposed cut, and it's very possible that he could choose to vote for an anti-choice budget that decimates family planning."

"Politicians who campaigned on the promise of focusing on jobs and the economy need to be held accountable if, at the first possible opportunity, they join with John Boehner to launch a full-fledged war on contraception," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said. "It is the height of hypocrisy for anti-choice politicians to seek to abolish a program that helps prevent unintended pregnancy and thus reduce the need for abortion. How many jobs will be generated by eliminating women's access to birth control?"

Democratic lawmakers are working to increase public attention to Pence's bill and two other measures that would restrict abortion access.

"We have to make this issue too hot to handle," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during a Thursday conference call with reporters. "I would like to make the fight in the House and see where some of these Republicans are -- maybe we could win it on Title X. I can't believe that everybody who is anti a woman's right to choose is anti-birth control and contraception and family planning. But we don't know that, and we don't have any idea -- or I don't, anyway -- where the Tea Party people come down in all of this."

In an interview with The Huffington Post at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) disagreed with the argument that this focus on social issues is a distraction from the economy.

"It is an economic and a moral issue, so anytime you can kill two birds with one stone, we ought to do that," King said. "And if we can kill the whole flock with one rock, we ought to do that."