Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[Soon]

Bangladeshi sex workers take steroids to 'plump up' for clients

[Jess]

New book looks like a great view of misogyny involved in politics.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=129938556

[Heart]

Girls in Afghanistan, "passing" as boys, gain temporary freedom and status for their families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/wo.../21gender.html

[Laerkin]

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.

Originally Posted by June

Here is a good explanation I found via google-fu:
The father provides an X or Y chromosome; the mother always provides an X chromosome. Therefore, the sex of the child is determined by the chromosome of the individual sperm that fertilizes the egg.

Male offspring carry XY chromosomes; female offspring carry XX chromosomes.


Information from another contributor

the father deposits the semen containing sperms in the vagina of mother. ideally the X and the Y sperms are in same number (this is rarely the case).


the germ cell in father's testicle initially divides into 2 cells. one of which is Y sperm responsible for male child. second one is X sperm responsible for female child. These cells then each divide in 2 these 2 cells further divide in 2 each producing 4 of one kind. this process goes on and on to produce 50 millions to 150 millions sperms in the semen. Half of them are Y sperms and Other half are X sperms.


If the X sperm unite with female egg then a female child is born.


If Y sperm unite with female egg then a male child is produced.


As same number of Y and X sperms are deposited in the vagina; which type of sperm ultimately will unite with female egg depends on the conditions of female reproductive system. Whether the condition is favorable for the rapid and safe movement of X sperms or the Y sperms.


The Y sperms are very delicate and are easily get destroyed by acidic and toxic environment of vagina. Thus if the vagina is very acidic most of the Y sperms are destroyed the rest may get immobile and not fit to swim in the cervical canal.


The X sperms are stronger and can withstand the acidity and toxicity better.


Thus if the medium of the reproductive organ mainly vagina, cervix, uterus and fallopian tubes is not favorable then the Y sperms get destroyed or immobile and the surviving X sperms swim in to unite with X egg of the woman to produce female child. This is why failure of family planning method like condom, spermicides, jelly, or withdrawal mostly results in female child. Similarly women having vaginitis, cervicitis, leucorhea, candida infection, cervical erosion almost always produce female children.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Laerkin

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.

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?

[Corkey]

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/...ving_sex?me=nl

[Glenn]

KFC pays college girls $500.00 to wear the words "Double Down" on their rear ends. www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

KFC pays college girls $500.00 to wear the words "Double Down" on their rear ends. www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22

YUCK!

[Corkey]

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/

[Nat]

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".

[Jess]

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.

[Soon]

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."

[Greyson]

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

[The_Lady_Snow]

GQ's Gross 'Glee' Photos: The Objections Are Right For The Wrong Reasons



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...27&sc=fb&cc=fp

[Soon]

Vote No on Sexist Politics

[Soon]

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

[Soon]

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

[Nat]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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

um. wow. hmm.

[JustJo]

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 ....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.

[katsarecool]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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 ....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.

I totally agree. It also feels like Red State paranoia as well. Oh heaven forbid if one single undocumented person mistakenly gets a license. The same rules apply here in Ga! It would encourage women to keep their own names all their lives. I wish I had!!!