Oct

31

Just when you forget how horrible and irresponsible women are with medical decisions, you can depend on the media to remind you

Filed Under media, misogyny, parenthood, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice, women’s health | 14 Comments

So you know what’s always fun? When a newspaper digs up a study from the “well, duh” files, decides that it needs fresh coat of paint, and decides to use the “women are stupid and selfish” brush.

And here we go, my fix for the week: an Australian newspaper on how unnecesasry c-sections are dangerous.

WOMEN who choose caesarean births double the risk of death and illness to themselves and the baby, a new study has found.

Doctors are now urging women to give birth naturally if they can.

Doctors say most women who choose caesarean sections do so for important medical and psychological reasons, but there are a number who just want to avoid a vaginal birth.

And some doctors encourage the decision because of the decreased legal liability. . . .

The report published yesterday in the British Medical Journal found non-emergency caesareans were linked to twice the risk of death, hysterectomy, blood transfusions and admission to intensive care, compared to women who had a vaginal birth.

There was a five times higher risk of having to have antibiotic treatment after birth.

There also is a 70 per cent higher chance of a baby born by either elective or medically-advised caesarean dying before discharge from hospital.

Well, yes, you may be saying, doctors are performing too many c-sections that women don’t need, and it’s causing a lot of problems. We know that. I don’t see any woman-hate!

Well, that’s because you missed the little line about women “who just want to avoid a vaginal birth.” The paper sure didn’t! What’s the title of the article?

Vain C-sections kill more babies

Read more

Popularity: 17% [?]

Oct

31

Dems Come Out Swinging

Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, politics | 18 Comments

So who caught the Democratic debate last night? This time around, I actually feel kind of sorry for you if you missed it — it was definitely the most interesting so far, and I didn’t even need any alcohol to make it through!

The questions weren’t new or exciting. It was all Iran, Iraq, and more foreign policy, with questions about immigration, health care, global warming and (inexplicably) UFOs confined to the “lightning” round. No questions on Florida, no questions on the Obama homophobia controversy and nothing even on the Mukasey nomination. And neither Brian Williams or Tim Russert knows how to keep the candidates in line and on time — can we please get Anderson Cooper back?

The interesting part was how, as predicted, Edwards and Obama finally let loose on Hillary Clinton.

I’m not sure what to think quite yet. Neither are most other analyses that I’ve read so far. Who won this thing, and whether or not this will have any impact, or if it foreshadows other moments of impact, I don’t know. But here are some observations.

Read more

Popularity: 14% [?]

Oct

30

Man Makeup

Filed Under beauty myths, gender, homophobia and transphobia, marketing, objectification, pop culture, products, sex and sexuality | 7 Comments

Salon has an article up today on a slightly unusual topic: makeup for men. I remember a few years ago, some companies tried this out. And it was ruthlessly mocked pretty much everywhere that there was a platform from which to do the mocking. But apparently, the idea is making a comeback. Sort of.

It’s no secret that actors have been prone to powder their noses, but a growing number of high-profile guys are drawing notice for rocking suspiciously ruddy glows offstage. Alongside Efron, a bevy of pretty boys have been cited recently for egregious makeup application: John Mayer, Jesse McCartney, Ryan Seacrest. Fall Out Boy’s Pete Wentz, the world’s most approachable hipster and patron saint of “guyliner,” even gave a sober demonstration on applying eyeliner in People magazine a few months ago that would have made the late Tammy Faye Bakker proud.

So are we ready to embrace makeup on men? After all, the Beatles’ long-ish hair was once considered an affront to modest ’60s sensibilities. Or will men’s makeup go the route of the men’s skirt trend circa 2003 that never quite took off?

If foreign markets are any indication, we may be slathering on foundation soon enough. The U.K. drugstore giant Boots has started carrying a men’s makeup line, and H&M in London stocks mascara in its men’s section. In Asia, Japan’s Gatsby line of men’s makeup and South Korea’s Man Holding Flower line by Somang featuring “Color Lotion” are doing brisk business.

But the culture that gave birth to the rugged masculine ideal of the Marlboro Man may not be ready to reach for the blush brush just yet. A GQ survey in 2005 reported that “92 percent of men would not wear makeup even if it guaranteed them a more fulfilling sex life.” U.S. sales figures seem to confirm the ongoing resistance to men’s makeup. Tres Wilson, executive director of Clinique Global Treatment Marketing, said, “Clinique’s Skin Supplies for Men M Cover [a concealer that debuted earlier this year] and Non-Streak Bronzer products sell very well in Europe, much more so than in the U.S.”

Interesting.

You know, I think that the first liberal inclination might be to embrace a culture that accepts makeup on men. It would show a blurring of gender roles, an increased acceptance of varying genders and sexualities and a lack of concern about whether one might be called “gay.” These are good points, but I do have a slightly different take.

Read more

Popularity: 23% [?]

Oct

30

Learning and Educating About Police Brutality Against People of Color

Filed Under LGBTQ issues, WOC issues, activism, bigotry, feminism, human rights, media, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | Leave a Comment

Via BFP comes this kick-ass pamphlet from INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (pdf): Police Brutality Against Women of Color and Trans People of Color.

It’s filled with tons of useful information. If you’re not fluent in these issues, you’ll learn a lot — I did. Other than stats and an overview of the issues, there’s also information about community organizing against police brutality.

It’s great for sharing. You can share it via email or blog post (like I just did), print it yourself to distribute or even contact INCITE! at incite_national AT yahoo DOT com with your address and how many copies you’d like them to send.

So check it out! You won’t be disappointed.

And in related news, the new Erase Racism Carnival is now up at Kill Bigotry. There are tons of great posts on a huge range of topics — a little something for everyone.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Oct

29

You Really Got Me

Filed Under discrimination, gender, marketing, misogyny, objectification, pop culture, products, sexism | 82 Comments


I don’t think anyone would ever make the mistake of calling me a gamer. I’ve never been very good at them, and with the exception of puzzle-type games like Tetris and Mahjong, they just don’t interest me. It’s not my thing.

But I love Guitar Hero. My husband got me hooked on it a couple of years ago, when the first game came out. Since then, we’ve bought all the sequels since on their release date, even the shitty 80s expansion pack. I’m pretty good; I can complete hard with little effort, and get five stars on most songs with a bit of work. I will, in fact, get obsessed with it.

As any good rock geek should know, Guitar Hero III was released yesterday. We bought it. We got it home. We were excited. Then we turned it on and I came to the very fast realization that I just paid $50 for a game that was going to blatantly and guiltlessly insult me.

Read more

Popularity: 90% [?]

Oct

29

Why We Can’t See Eye to Eye

Filed Under Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, politics, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 5 Comments

Yesterday there was a Washington Post Op-Ed column by George F. Will about the politics of abortion. It’s pretty standard anti-choice fare, but the very premise of the column — that in some areas, the issue of abortion is actually non-issue — struck me.

To sample today’s confusions, consider California.

There the electorate so strongly supports abortion rights that no right-to-life candidate for governor, U.S. senator or president has won in California since 1988. This is so despite the fact that a governor, U.S. senator or president has only slight relevance to the status of Californians’ abortion rights.

Nevertheless, it is said that if the Republican Party wants to be competitive in California in presidential politics, it must nominate a pro-choice candidate, of which there is only one — Rudy Giuliani. This is almost certainly true. It certainly is irrational because pro-choice Californians have next to nothing to fear — just as pro-life Californians have next to nothing to hope for — from a right-to-life president. The practical consequences of such a president concerning abortion would not differ significantly from Giuliani’s consequences. . . .

The next president probably will have an opportunity to significantly shape the court, which has frequently divided 5 to 4 on important questions, including abortion issues. But regarding abortion, the reasonable response to this fact from residents of many, perhaps most, states, and especially from Californians, should be a shrug of a question — “So what?”

You see, here’s what Will is arguing: if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, abortion would not become illegal. The matter would “simply” return to the authority of the states (until they managed to garner enough votes to pass a national law, but shhhh). Therefore, in liberal enclaves like California, abortion is a non-issue, because the state will ensure that abortion is legal regardless of what the Supreme Court does.

We have a couple of things going on here.

Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

Oct

28

Democrats: We can’t go a week without proving that we’re hopeless

Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, assholes, politics | 10 Comments

Just what I love to see first thing in the morning: that all of my worst fears are coming true:

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) — Nearly 3,000 Democrats rallied around their top politicians and party leaders in Florida Saturday, but the biggest impression was made by who wasn’t there: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and other presidential candidates.

The candidates skipped the convention to honor a pledge not to campaign in Florida because the state violated party rules by setting its primary date before Feb. 5.

Well, not all of them.

”Mike Gravel for president!” shouted state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller, announcing his support for the former Alaska senator and the only candidate who agreed to come. Geller had previously endorsed Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, but withdrew it because of the Florida boycott. . . .

On Saturday morning, Florida Democratic Party Chairman Karen Thurman took the stage to raucous applause as she sang along with a recording of rock star Tom Petty: ”I will stand my ground, and I won’t back down.”

Idiots. Every last one of them, all of the candidates and all of the the Florida Democratic delegates who are proud and think that they’ve somehow won something are a bunch of fucking idiots. It boggles my mind. I mean, I really should not have more basic common sense than the people I hope will run the country.

And if you think that voters switching to truly hopeless candidates like Gravel is either an isolated incident or the worst that can happen, think again:

Many of the 2,600 Democrats gathered conceded the candidates’ absence could already be hurting the party’s chances of capturing Florida next year, with the Democratic feud showing signs of angering some voters.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson cited a new poll by Quinnipiac University that shows 22 percent of the state’s critical independent voters say they are less likely to vote for a Democrat because of the clash between the state and national parties.

“The average citizen in Florida can no longer see their candidates for president,” Nelson told the delegates. “The party bosses have barred them from campaigning here except for private fundraisers. This is unacceptable.”

What’s that? If you show voters that an equally obscure and ridiculous principle is more important than their vote — or apparently, the desire to win the presidency — they’re going to vote for someone else? Someone who might bother to do even a shitty job of pretending they care? Who would have thought? Other than, you know, me. And every other clear thinking person who still happens to be in existence.

I really have tried to believe in these people.  I really, really have.

It’s 10 a.m. on a Sunday, and I need a damn drink.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Oct

27

Halloween and Racism: Both Scary

Filed Under bigotry, discrimination, human rights, products, race and racism | 16 Comments

So this is interesting: with all of the recent hate crimes involving nooses, some Halloween decorations are gaining increased scrutiny. All over the country, displays that include corpses hanging from nooses — very similar to the one at the left — have caused furor and distress over their racial connotations.

In a dozen incidents during the weeks before Halloween this year, black and white Americans around the country faced a kind of Rorschach test of the national psyche: Is that a funny Halloween ghoul in a noose hanging from your neighbor’s tree? Or is that a racist symbol of lynching hiding in the Halloween tableau?

The question has frayed nerves in New Jersey, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Georgia. It has prompted protests from the N.A.A.C.P. and from black leaders who have raised questions about possible links between the displays and a rash of what have been considered race-baiting incidents involving nooses, from Jena, La., to Teachers College at Columbia University.

Unlike those incidents, though, the mock hangings — considered relatively new to the panoply of Halloween mock-menace — have been displayed openly. And they are defended vigorously by people like Jennifer Cervero of Stratford, Conn., who this week removed the figure of a man hanging from a noose in her tree, after protests, but still finds the complaints of racial insensitivity she received “completely overblown and ridiculous.” . . .

The Rev. Johnny Gamble, pastor of the Friendship Baptist Church in Stratford, heard complaints from parishioners and went to see it for himself.

“At first, I couldn’t believe my eyes. But there it was. A mannequin of a black man, hanging from the neck,” said Mr. Gamble, who is black.

When he knocked at the door, Joyce Mounajed, Miss Cervero’s mother, told him the figure was not meant to be a black man, but was dark-hued to convey the idea of decaying flesh. It was “just a decoration,” he said she told him.

“I told her, ‘We don’t decorate like that. That is a symbol of lynching,’” Mr. Gamble said. “What if my great-grandfather was lynched? There are no two ways of looking at this; that thing is extremely offensive.”

I think that this is going to be one of those situations where lines get drawn between stubborn white people and the people of color that they think are “overly-sensitive.” It also makes me think about my own history of Halloween directions.

Read more

Popularity: 19% [?]

Oct

26

The most interesting thing about breast cancer is the breasts

Filed Under beauty myths, marketing, race and racism, sexism, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 8 Comments

AlterNet has published a really great article on Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Lucinda Marshall decides to take a look at many different women’s magazines and take a look at how they cover the issue. There’s a lot going on there, so I strongly suggest reading the whole thing.

Her first point: the reporting on breast cancer is often erroneous, insulting or conveniently incomplete.

This year there is even [a magazine] called Beyond Breast Cancer that cheerfully proclaims that there are “10 Good Things About Breast Cancer.” Who knew? And just what are the pluses of getting this dreaded disease? According to the bubblegum-colored magazine, one perk is a pair of new boobs that “will face the horizon, not the South Pole.’ Better yet, they will be paid for by insurance. Oh, and you get lots of cards and flowers.

Meanwhile, both Good Housekeeping and Woman’s Day give incorrect information about mammograms. Good Housekeeping claims that “[N]o one disputes that all women 50 and over should be screened annually.” Yet physicians in different countries disagree on how often women over 50 should be screened. While doctors in the United States recommend annual mammograms, those in Europe say every two to three years. In Australia, where a study out last year shed significant doubt on the extent to which mammograms save lives, the recommendation is every two years. Interestingly, in some of these countries, the incidence and death rates for breast cancer are actually lower or comparable to the United States.

When they’re not spewing misinformation, the October issues of the traditional women’s magazines are offering overly simplistic information about breast cancer risk factors and tips for preventing it. Woman’s World (not to be confused with Good Housekeeping) discuss factors you can change, such as smoking, and those you can’t, like genetics. Missing is any mention about the purported connection between breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy. Also absent is information on parabens, phthalates and other carcinogenic chemicals, which are disturbingly common in consumer goods from lipstick to lotion.

Read more

Popularity: 20% [?]

Oct

26

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, misogyny, politics, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 4 Comments

Reason #8637 why we know we can’t trust Rudy Giuliani:

Sen. Sam Brownback pronounced himself “much more comfortable” with Rudy Giuliani’s position on abortion after the one-time rivals for the Republican presidential nomination discussed the issue Thursday.

If you need a refresher course on Brownback’s politics, brace yourself. And if you need reminded of the first 8636 reasons why you can’t trust Giuliani, be prepared to not want to get out of bed for a few days.

And bookmark both of those articles, because they’re highly useful. Rolling Stone may be absolute shit when it comes to women’s issues or even when it comes to respecting women as more than just naked bodies, but when it comes to unflinching political and social exposé, they’re almost too good. Reading that magazine, I regularly learn more about our crazy, sad, evil government than I ever wanted to know.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Oct

25

Reproductive Rights or Reproductive Justice?

Filed Under WOC issues, abortion, activism, feminism, human rights, reproductive justice, women’s health | 5 Comments

There is a really interesting post up at Feministe by guest-blogger La Lubu about some of the modern problems with feminism and why many do not identify with the movement. It’s a good post, albeit one that I have conflicted feelings on. I agree 100% with La Lubu’s points about racism, classism and erased histories. She is absolutely right. With reference to motherhood, I’m not as sure. I see mother’s issues addressed quite regularly in feminist circles, but I will admit that it’s not as frequent as many of our other discussions. As for the “gatekeeping of female sexuality,” I’m not quite sure what she means. Most feminists I know are incredibly sex-positive, while still being strongly against sexual violence and exploitation. I see feminists actually complaining about this kind of gatekeeing on a very regular basis, so I’d need more expansion on that point to see where La Lubu is coming from. As for feminism’s secular nature, I see that as a feature, not a flaw.

The point I’m most interested in, though, and which doesn’t seem to (at the time of writing) be getting a lot of discussion on the thread, is this one:

the primacy of a narrow definition of reproductive “choice” as meaning “the ability to choose to have an abortion,” rather than the more comprehensive phrase reproductive justice, that encompasses all facets of reproductive choice and parenting.

For those of you who don’t know, the definition of reproductive justice “is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality and reproduction for ourselves, our families and our communities in all areas of our lives.”

Reproductive justice is an amazing concept. But the question that I would like to discuss is how truly different it is from the concept of reproductive rights and from the concept of “choice.”

Read more

Popularity: 16% [?]

Oct

25

South Australia Works to Update Rape Laws

Filed Under Australia, International, legislation, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 2 Comments

South Australia (which, for those of you who don’t know, is a state in Australia) is considering “tough” new rape laws. What this really means is that they are redefining the terms of what does and does not constitute consent:

Announcing proposed changes to the state’s rape laws, [South Australian Attorney General] Mr Atkinson said less than 20 per cent of rape and assault cases that reached the courts resulted in a conviction.

“So there may be something wrong with how we define what is a rape or a sexual assault,” he said.

“That’s unacceptable so we are changing it.”

The government’s proposed reforms would require a person’s agreement to sexual activity to be free and voluntary.

In a key change, a rape also would be committed in a situation where a person withdrew their consent after initially agreeing to sexual intercourse and the other party continued regardless.

Until now there has been a degree of ambiguity in how the courts viewed such circumstances.

The new laws also would regard sexual activity as non-consensual if obtained by force or threats, while the victim was asleep or unconscious, while the victim was too intoxicated to agree and if the victim was unable to understand the nature of the sexual activity.

They also would take in situations where the victim was mistaken about the identity of the person they were having sex with or if they were being unlawfully detained.

Judges would be required to explain to juries that consent to sexual activity should not be assumed just because the victim did not say anything, did not protest or resist or had previous consensual sexual encounters with the alleged offender.

I find this to be incredibly disturbing. Not because I don’t agree with the provisions — if I agreed with them anymore, my neck would break from all of the enthusiastic nodding. I’m disturbed that so much of this was not already written into law.

Read more

Popularity: 14% [?]

Next Page →