Jewelry Face Says It All

Let's all celebrate the fact that I no longer have a fever, and that I'm back to posting on TheFU... by laughing with Sarah Haskins!



I've never been a big fan of expensive jewelry (though I love cool, handmade jewelry like FeministGal's), so jewelry commercials have always made me scratch my head in confusion. People really spend all that money on these things?! On a regular basis?! Oh my.

Vintage Sexism: Pop Science from Centuries Past

Google Book Search has recently added a massive collection of vintage Popular Science magazines dating back to the 1800's and, throughout the decades, most issues spend a considerable number of pages dedicated to the controversial questions of Lady Brains and The Woman Question. Here are some classics:

From May 1872 (p. 87): "...excellent suggestions are frequently made by those who are not fitted by Nature to carry their own ideas into operation. This is especially true in the case of women, who, if they were to devote their whole energies to science or politics, would do violence to their physical organization." (Read: oh noes, if we let them have power or education, their titties will fall off!)

From May 1872 (p. 91): "Women, however, with intellects truly masculine, are, and have always been, more rare than women with masculine development of muscles. There are few, if any, distinctively masculine pursuits in which any woman has ever succeed..."

From October 1872 (p. 165): "It is a lamentable truth that the troubles which respectable, hard-working married women of the working-class undergo are more trying to the health, and detrimental to the looks, than any of the irregularities of the harlot's career."

From March 1872 (p. 553): "It is true that the actually existing generation of women do not dislike their position. The consciousness of this haunts Mr. Mill [as he argues for women's rights] throughout the whole of his argument, and embarrasses him at every turn."

From August 1910 (p. 161): "One phenomenon in this connection is almost embarrassing to mention, in view of the present growing sentiment in favor of women's rights and woman suffrage. It appears from the effects of a recent earthquake on the American people, that human reason is more readily inhibited in the gentler sex and in children, than men... This statement will hardly pass for anything new. This distinction is implied in the wording of one report, which states that 'men were excited, women and children frightened.'"

From February 1920 (p. 36): "'I care nothing for style; I can wear the suit I have on indefinitely,' said Miss Fanny Harley... That, presumably, is why she wears trousers instead of skirts... She is convinced that women's success in the business world is threatened by their traditional, fashionable clothing. Undoubtedly, she would prefer to see our stenographers dressed in white trousers... We gravely doubt that would add to their efficiency."

Of course, today's Popular Science is not much better, as you can see by looking at the stories currently on the front page:

1. Science Dweebs Often Virgins - in which we learn that Science Dweebs are always male: "He blames a dearth of sexy role models for today’s blossoming men of science..." (emphasis mine)
2. Sex, Thighs and Video Games - the audience of this book review is assumed to be all-male as it discusses the depiction of women in video games. Here's an actual quote: "So have a read, ogle the pictures, and then grab your, er, controller and get your game on."
3. An article that dares to ask 'are men more likely to fall fast asleep after sex?' in which the author quotes a "sex expert" as saying "Men go to sleep because women don't turn into a pizza" - creepy image there, dude.

So, Popular Science still delights in gender stereotypes. I'll leave it to you to decide how far we've progressed in our popular notions of both science and gender over the last 136 years.

Hoping I Never Ride in an Ambulance

I couldn't not post this as soon as I saw it because it's just too disgusting:
Ambulance Attendants Accused of Molesting Patients

What kind of country/world do we live in where this is even a possibility?! You'd think that in a situation where a person is most defenseless -- in an ambulance, presumably en route to the hospital because of an emergency -- that would be the safest place to be. The people in the ambulance with you are supposed to be the ones there to help you. You basically have to put all your trust in them, whether you're conscious or not, because there's nowhere for you to go and nothing for you to do.

So to learn that almost 130 ambulance attendants have been accused of molestation just in an 18-month period is appalling. For one, if 130 were accused, how many others have been molesting patients without being accused? Then there's the fact that it's 130 attendants, not 130 times, meaning it's quite likely that many of those attendants had done it before they were finally accused. In fact, the article mentions one man pleaded guilty to five counts of molestation! This is also the number of attendants accused, yet it's unclear what the fate of most of these attendants is/was.

I have to say, though, that as shocked and disgusted as I was while reading about this, I was completely unprepared for the quote from the EMS director in Delaware:

"Is even one case tolerable? I think most state directors would say no. But we're bound by reality here."

Could he not think of a better way of wording this? "Most" state directors would say no?? I would hope that ALL state directors would admit that even one case of molestation is intolerable. In fact, I would hope that all EMTs (minus the perverts themselves, I guess) would find one case of molestation intolerable. And, no, you're not "bound" by reality. Sure, there is a reality that exists that you're striving to change, but saying you're "bound by reality" is like saying "hey, this is really messed up and, you know, ILLEGAL, but my hands are tied b/c that's just the way things are." Somebody please fire or impeach this man as soon as possible.

But I guess I live in some crazy world where privacy should be protected, stranger's bodies are not public domain, and sexual assault should be punished. Sorry, what on earth was I thinking?

(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge)

I Gotta Go Home, I've Got a Bad Case of Gay

You're at home in your jammies now, right? No!?? Damn it, people - you were supposed to call in sick today, with a bad case of the gays. Because, if we're going to treat gay as a disease, then we should get sick leave for it. But the point won't sink in unless we all do this at once, and today is the day.

So, go find your boss and tell her that you've got to go home - you feel a case of the gays coming on and you'd hate to spread it around the office. Then you can go sit in bed and watch the new Sarah Haskins video about vampires. This is my type of activism! (Actually, you're supposed to use the time off to volunteer for your local LGBT or Human Rights organization - otherwise you're not doing it right. Still, you could watch the new Sarah Haskins video first - and you can wear jeans and sneakers to volunteer instead of that stuffy button-up you're stuck in now.)

So, get to it!

Baby Dood Sells Studio Rights to "How to Talk to Girls"

You remember that little kid who wrote an advice book that warned all males to steer clear of 'pretty girls' - girls who "have big earrings, fancy dresses and all the jewelry but are like cars that need a lot of oil"? Remember how Harper Collins gave this little dood a book deal (and, yet, they still won't return my calls)? Well, now he's sold the film rights to Fox. Classic.

Seriously, you can't get too irked with a 9-year-old for the dumb things he says or writes. Little Dood is getting these ideas about 'high-maintenance ladies' from somewhere, maybe there's a Big Dood at home. Seriously, though, what makes us so eager to buy back our own sterotypes repeatedly? What about a kid parroting them back to us makes us all sigh "awwww"?

UPDATE: Oooo, it looks like Guanabee is already working on a script. Go help them!

Quick Hit: Feminism's Little Victories Make Me Smile

Over at Daily Kos, SusanG has noticed something about President-Elect Obama's most recent weekly address:

Aside from the commitment to what sounds like a great progressive stimulus plan, one sentence struck me: Will your job or your husband’s job or your daughter’s job be the next one cut?. Read that closely. In a speech about universal fears and hardship, he is addressing his primary listeners as women. Never have I heard sentence construction like that from a president -- women addressed directly in a non-"women's issues" setting as legitimate, fully fledged and very concerned and invested breadwinners.

Little moments like these, they make me feel good.

Arkansas Would Rather No Parents for Needy Kids Than Equal Rights for Same-Sex Couples

The right to wed is not the only civil right under attack for lesbian and gay couples in these United States. While all eyes have been turned towards California, the right of lesbian and gay couples to parent adopted or foster children has suffered a major setback:

Arkansas residents recently voted to ban people who are "cohabitating outside of a valid marriage," as Shelley and Ross do, from being foster parents or adopting children as these women did.

The measure was written to prohibit straight and gay people who are living together from adopting or becoming foster parents, but its real objective, child welfare experts say, is to bar same-sex couples like Shelley and Ross, 52, from raising children—even if it means youngsters who desperately need families will wait longer.

This vote to keep same-sex couples from becoming parents is hateful, and it hurts children as much as it does the couples whose basic rights it revokes. Susan Hoffpauir, the president of the Arkansas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, lamented in the pages of the Chicago Tribune, "We don't have enough quality homes as it is, and now we're going to place more restrictions?"

Across the country, similar laws aimed at keeping lesbian and gays from becoming parents are threatening the wellbeing of children in need of loving homes and robbing same-sex couples of an equal status in the United States. Utah only permits straight married couples to adopt, while North Dakota allows child placement agencies to "rule out prospective adoptive parents based on religious or moral objection."

One state, however, is working to reverse its bigoted and harmful laws: a Florida judge ruled last week against a law that had previously baned adoptions by lesbians or gays.

For those still unconvinced, the Tribune article also frames the issue in economic terms:

Some 129,000 U.S. children are in foster care, and the only criteria should be who can best provide a loving, permanent home, according to Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

In a recent report, the non-partisan group concluded that a national ban on gay adoptions could add $87 million to $130 million to foster care expenditures annually because these children would then be living in other types of institutional care, such as group homes.

"On its face, this [Arkansas] law is just crazy," Pertman said. "I fear what will happen if other states see this as a model."

In answer to this economic incentive for justice, compassion, and equality, one social conservative group that lobbied for the ban on same-sex adoptions argued that better advertising for straight couples willing to become foster or adoptive parents will solve the issue.

We still have so far to go.

Teen Girl Fights Off Armed Robbers with Mad Tae Kwon Do Skills

Kids, I'm not saying you should try this at home, but I have to admit I'm impressed:

...when a San Diego dad who preferred not to be named found himself hogtied by house burglars, his teen-aged daughter--a tae kwon do black belt--fought them off until he was able to free himself and run for help. Father and daughter both survived the ordeal in fine health.

You can read more over at San Diego's NBC affiliate site.

Female Genital Mutilation as Grounds for Asylum

I apologize for my complete lack of posting. I haven't been feeling well, which is one excuse. But the real one is that sometimes it's just hard to find a good idea that sticks and is post-able. When they do come, it can be from strange places. Like last night, when the fluff-mystery novel I was reading happened to have a little side-plot on female genital mutilation and for some reason this got me wondering why I hadn't heard anything on the role it's playing in US Immigration cases.

Asylum is a tricky thing to petition for. It has strict requirements. Reading denied asylum cases is just about the easiest way to get yourself good and depressed. We've posted on it before with domestic violence cases. They're a prime example of the problems you run into. Getting beaten by your husband, your family, even your village, isn't enough to get asylum. It has to be your government that's out to get you. If the mafia is after you, tough luck.

With all of the denials that go on in asylum cases, I was expecting the worse for female genital mutilation (FGM) cases. It's the kind of practice that is widely done in certain cultures, but we don't hear much about a governmental role. It also can make things difficult when you come from a particular country but are formally governed by a smaller tribe.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that FGM is a recognized basis for protective asylum. In fact, the controversy surrounding FGM in immigration cases is actually concerning women who have already undergone FGM. To get a little background, a February 2008 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress is a good place to get started. While the federal courts seem to find past FGM as sufficient for asylum, the Immigration courts themselves still aren't following suit.

A 2nd Circuit case from June 2008 dealt specifically with three women from Guinea who were all previous victims of FGM. The Court really hit the issue of the deep problems created by FGM and how they may extend far beyond the actual act. It is also an act that can be performed more than once, which offers more protection to those women who have already undergone FGM. The common practices of rape and sex trafficking also played a role in their consideration of potential future harm. You can read the entire opinion here.

It appears that FGM is making some great progress as a successful claim for asylum. Let's hope the trend continues.

When Nice Guys (TM) Attack: Hot Chicks with Douchebags

First, a word about Nice Guys™:

“Nice Guys™”: The “™” marks the difference between men who are genuinely nice people and men with entitlement issues who wail “but I’m a nice guy!”. There are two types, which often overlap in one individual:

1. a guy who believes that the simple act of being decent means that the universe owes him a girlfriend.[defn from Mickle][more from Jeff Fecke at Shakesville]
2. men who are looking to date a woman with the appearance of a supermodel, and yet they continually whine about how “women don’t like nice guys - they only want good-looking assholes”...

And now that you know the Nice Guys™, I give you... their website! That's right, Hot Chicks with Douchebags is run by and for Nice Guys™ - a special place where they can collectively assert that the universe owes them women that look like supermodels while chanting "women only want assholes" in unison.

Sure, I'll admit HCwDB is funny at first glance. The site routinely mocks some colossally over-the-top displays of a particularly ridiculous idea of masculinity - one that would define 'manliness' as enormous muscles, tough-guy tattoos, and a loudly-stated and often-repeated interest in firearms. Muscle-flexing guys strutting for the ladies through loud displays of faux aggression and crotch-grabbing are an embarrassment, and they no doubt deserve to be mocked.

Still - the icky on HCwDB works on a lot of levels, and - after an initial guffaw - will ruin your fun. The problem is that instead of sticking to pointing out one type of harmful (and silly) gender performance, the site mixes in a healthy dose of misogyny and some huge double standards. Here are a few of the ways Hot Chicks with Douchebags goes wrong:

1. Drooling over the women in the photos is, in large part, what this site is about. Sure, Jay Louis, the site's author, tries to be 'ironic' as he publicly lusts over the women in the photos he posts- he writes "I would humbly bongo her hindquarters with only a quart of yak's milk and a small Malaysian sherpa named Shingwa to guide me" and "Speaking of manna, [this] blonde is trashy/tasty, but undeniably sexy, with a shoulder I'd suckle with the fright of a caged calf sensing his impending transition into veal" and "I long to fondle her inner thighs with chicken grease" - because ridiculousness is totally an antidote to creepy - right? Yet, this guy is posting pictures of women without their consent and writing about what (funny?) sex act he'd like to engage in with them - and that's not cute, its icky. Adding a few lines about the guy in the photo doesn't change the essential creepy wanker dynamic here either.

2. Just... this quote: "...Native Hottmerican on the right makes my wumpa want to wigwam, and my Native American term for something want to Native American term for something." I have no words. There's more like the above though - pretty much every woman of color on the site gets some type of similar treatment.

3. So, let's see if I've got this straight - if a woman works out, applies some makeup, and sometimes chooses revealing outfits... she's hot. And that's good, hot is what's she's supposed to be - so that men can have the pleasure of looking at her and deciding that they deserve her more than the guys she's freely chosen for her company. Yet, if a guy goes to the gym, styles his hair, and chooses an outfit that reveals what he considers to be his best physical assets... he's a douche who has somehow stolen the women that better men (men less concerned with their looks) deserve. That seems a bit like a sexual double standard. Of course, Louis responds to a similar criticism (deploy irony shield!) on the site:

[...] My mission quest is to save the hott by changing the culture. By rearranging the semiotics of discourse into a new alignment in which douchery is no longer necessary.

Then, and only then, will the boobies be free.

So someday it will be socially acceptable for a normal-looking guy to be the love interest of women who invest time and energy into looking like supermodels. Oh, wait a minute:














Look, to me HCwDB is a maddening display of male entitlement a la Nice Guys™. Yet, I haven't been able to convince a single person out here in the 'real world.' Several friends of mine maintain that the site is uproariously funny and that, if I just keep reading, I'll see how clever it is and fall madly in love with it. There have even been threats made of buying me the book. All I can say is... this guy got a book deal?!? I'm a nice blogger, the universe owes me a hot book deal... but not the accompanying lawsuits.

And so, dear readers - what do you think: is HCwDB super-plus funny or about a million tons of just plain gross?

Martin Defeated

Damn... it looks like the good guy lost.

Vote Jim Martin Tomorrow!

Alright, Georgia - it's time for us to vote again. The runoff election between Jim Martin and incumbent Saxby Chambliss is TOMORROW, December 2nd. You can check your polling place here.

Why am I supporting Martin, you ask? It's true, he's not quite as progressive as most of us would like, but he's the pro-choice candidate and would help build a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And, as the NARAL Blog for Choice notes:

Jim signed amicus briefs in support of Roe v. Wade and always voted in support of the landmark Supreme Court decision that recognized that women and their doctors -- not politicians -- should decide what's best for women's health. When Jim was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Georgia legislature, he stood up against an anti-choice abortion ban that came for his committee -- more than once -- because it didn't include an exception for women's health.

So, Georgia women, stand with those who've stood with you. Support Jim Martin for U.S. Senate.

It isn't easy to be a pro-choice politician here in Georgia, so Jim Martin's opposition of anti-choice agendas shows real character. So, Georgians, let's help Martin win - because a defeat for Chambliss is a victory for choice.