Republican Presidential Candidates Made Uncomfortable by Abortion Issue

Wow, YouTube debate questioners make anti-choice candidates answer the question "If abortion is made illegal, with what should a woman who receives an illegal abortion be charged and how much times should she do?" You can judge the candidates' responses for yourself (and watch Ron Paul and Fred Thompson do some hemimg and hawing):



As Feministing points out:

Pro-choice candidates have consistently been forced by anti-choice rhetoric into positions where they end up compromising on reproductive rights issues; this is no big news... In short, Journey's question last night is an opportunity to not only reframe the abortion debate, but to reclaim it altogether.

It's about time! Tip of the hat, Ms. Journey from Texas!

Atlanta Cops: Turning a Blind Eye to Sexual Abuse

From this morning's AJC, we learn that the Atlanta police department has known for seven years that one of its officers was making child pornography, yet did nothing to stop the sexual abuse of underage girls:

Atlanta police were told seven years ago that the husband of a sergeant on the force was paying young girls for sex — and saw photographs of the encounters — but the tip resulted in no investigation or charges, according to federal authorities.

Terrill Marion Crane was arrested Thursday on federal charges of producing child pornography and is scheduled to make his first appearance in court Friday on charges he paid the young girls as much as $100 and photographed their sex acts.

...A photo shop clerk, bothered by the pictures brought to him for processing, called police in 2000. He gave APD copies of pictures brought to the shop through 2002, according to federal authorities.

As it turns out, Crane's wife, also a police officer, knew of the abuse and decided to cover for him by destroying sexually explicit photographs and their negatives. While she has not been charged with a crime, she has been suspended without pay. U.S. Attorney David Nahmias is now searching for the victims, and has identified four. Nahmias is trying to assure victims that they will now be cared for, after so long being ignored:

"None of the girls are under investigation," Nahmias said. "There are girls out there who were victims. It's hard for these girls to come forward."

If they do come forward, Nahmias said, they would be treated "with the dignity and protection they deserve."

What does it mean when the very people charged with our protection turn a blind eye to crimes committed by one of their own? Is the refusal to act a symptom of a sense entitlement? Of cowardice?

(Via Of Council)

Things to Buy: Body Drama

A book for adolescent girls that frankly discusses the human body? Well, it sounds like both a great idea and a recipe for some disastrously embarrassing birthday parties (I still blush when I remember opening a gift of ... underpants(!) in front of all my friends at my 6th birthday party). Yet, despite Body Drama's potential for some initial awkwardness, it has already gotten the Broadstreet nod of approval:

Because, as Redd herself puts it in the book's introduction, "our educational system spends millions of dollars creating detailed health programs, but those programs skip over the basic ABCs of basic body smarts. We've been so focused (and understandably so) on sexual education that we've completely ignored body education ... How can we respect and protect our bodies if we don't know what real bodies look like? If we can hardly utter the word vagina, much less peek at it without feeling dirty, how can we own and love it and ourselves?

How indeed!? This looks like the sort of book that perhaps I should have stumbled upon as a lass. Heck, my body still has the power to surprise me occasionally. With so many of my family and friends experiencing pregnancy for the first time, it seems like I can't go a week without my managing to work "It does what? No way!" into some conversation about completely normal biological functions. So. Giving this book to the kids seems like a good idea. Just slip it to them discreetly, though, instead of assembling a large group of people to watch them unwrap it. The same goes for boxes full of undies.

Emory's Beyond Hollywood's Rwanda

This evening I attended "Beyond Hollywood's Rwanda: Truth and Justice, Security and Development," a panel discussion held at Emory University. As I sat in a little Emory church listening to several eye-witness accounts of genocide, one from a Tutsi survivor whose entire family was killed during the genocide, I could not help but feel shaken by the knowledge that such things can happen - have happened over and over again. Each of the panelists spoke passionately for the need for awareness and justice. Each mentioned the evil that comes from denying the horrors of the past. All spoke as though addressing one man, Paul Rusesabagina, who was not even present.

Rusesabagina, whose story was the basis for the movie Hotel Rwanda, "...used his influence and connections as temporary manager of the Mille Collines to shelter 1,268 Tutsis and moderate Hutus from being slaughtered by the Interahamwe militia" during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. His bravery in the face of such atrocities is astounding. He saved many lives during that time of unspeakable depravity. Yet, as the panelists spoke, it was clear that they had Rusesabagina in their thoughts as they tried to define for the audience what form the denial of the Rwandan genocide has taken, for, as Deborah Lipstadt of Emory's Religious Studies Department explains, Rusesabagina has been advocating a form of denial lately. Lipstadt clarifies:

...deniers cannot, of course, deny that the killings took place but they try to depict them as the "normal" course of business in Rwanda.

The mantra of these deniers is: Tutsis have been killing Hutus for years. This was an example of the Hutus striking back.

Other than simply being incorrect, this mantra essentially blames the victims for their own brutal deaths.

Deborah Lipstadt spoke with great passion about how important it is not to deny the terrors of the past, for that denial allows for the continued dehumanization of the victimized group. She explained three tacts that denialists of any atrocity often take - putting blame on the victims, arguing that there is no morality in war, or arguing that the violence was a legitimate outburst of anger. She made it clear that a genocide is neither a war of two armed groups, nor is it the consequence of chaos, but rather an organized and systematic attempt to slaughter an entire race of people. When asked why people believe the arguments of the deniers, she pointed out that we would all rather believe that we live in a world where that sort of calculated evil simply does not exist. Lipstadt spoke with great insight and eloquence, and without fear of difficult truths. She definitely makes my list of most admired women.

I was also impressed by the presentation given by Egide Karuranga, a Tutsi who survived the genocide. Karuranga stayed in the Hotel des Milles Collines under the protection of Rusesabagina himself. Karuranga also spoke of denial as the evil at the core of the genocide - the denial of a group's humanity, the denial of the past, and the denial of justice. Rather than focusing on the pain of his past, Karuranga spoke of the awareness that is needed in order to prevent such atrocities in the future. The American media received much of his criticism. He insists that no help came to Rwanda because the public was ill-informed and distracted. While I see this distractability as the very mark of callousness, I agree whole-heartedly that the media has, and continues to fail us.

Yet, while Rusesabagina was at the center of Karuranga's personal story, and although Lipstadt names him as a denier of the genocide on her blog, none of the panelists evoked his name when discussing denialism. Nor did they presume to define how he or any other survivor should view their own history. While the very title of the discussion prompts some consideration of Rusesabagina (for he is at the center of the only Hollywood movie to discuss the genocide), and while it was clear that the panel felt that it was responding to ideas that he has promoted, the purpose was to inform and warn the general public. And I must admit that I was relieved that no one attempted to chastise a survivor of genocide for what he is saying in the aftermath. The point was clearly that all nations must understand that such things are possible, because if we deny the possibility of genocide, we open the door for it to happen again.

India's Pink Gang

When I was very young, I sometimes wondered why a slight difference in height and strength translated into a huge disparity in political and social power for men and women. After all, I reasoned, if there were as many (or more) women as men, couldn’t women just gang-up on any bad-acting men? As I grew up, though, I simply learned to accept that strength differences have accounted for the predominance of all forms of disempowerment for women across cultures, and I came to believe that any gains we make must necessarily be earned through the political process.

Some women in India, however, have not been so quick to abandon physical force as a means of effecting change and are, in fact, ganging up on bad actors. They call themselves the "gulabi gang" (pink gang), and according to the BBC:

Two years after they gave themselves a name and an attire, the pink women have thrashed men who have abandoned or beaten their wives and unearthed corruption in the distribution of food grains for the poor.

They have also stormed a police station and thrashed a policeman after they took in an untouchable man and refused to register a case.

"Nobody comes to our help in these parts. The officials and the police are corrupt and anti-poor. So sometimes we have to take the law in our hands. At other times, we prefer to shame the wrongdoers," says Sampat Pal Devi, between teaching a "gang" member on how to use a lathi (traditional Indian stick) in self defence.

While I would not usually come out in favor of vigilantism, I must admit that I was moved by the plight of these women, and by the courage they have shown in defending one another.

UPDATE: One line from the BBC article, "The pink sorority is not exactly a group of male-bashing feminists," has irked Samhita from Feministing. "Why are women that work for the rights of other women labeled as potentially male bashing?" Yeah, that is a stupid take on feminism. Yet, the irony here, is that the while these women may not qualify as feminists in the eyes of the BBC, they are bashing men from time to time- with clubs.

How Much Should Poor Women and Students Have to Sacrifice for Contraception?

Since the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 went into effect in January, college students and many low-income women are suddenly having to shell-out much more money for prescription contraceptives. According to the New York Times:

..some students using popular birth control pills and other products are paying three and four times as much as they did several months ago. The higher prices have also affected about 400 community health centers nationwide used by poor women.

The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.

As Cara from The Curvature points out, lawmakers claim that the price hike was an unintentional consequence of the Deficit Reduction Act, and it would be an easy fix since:

...going back to the old rules and lowering the price of contraception for college students wouldn’t cost tax payers a dime, though it would force the pharmaceutical industry to lose out on a tiny portion of their already-monstrous yearly profits.

Yet, lawmakers have been slow to act, causing some speculation that, intentional or not, the higher cost of contraception for poor women and students is widely seen by many politicians as a benefit of the legislation.

While the NYT piece helps to shed light on an issue that has been ignored by much of the press, The Curvature took issue with the article's framing (or invention) of a supposed controversy over whether or not college students should be allowed to purchase contraceptives at the lower rates. The Times article states:

Not everyone is troubled by the price increases. Some people said they wondered why college students, many of whom manage to afford daily doses of coffee from Starbucks and downloads from iTunes, should have been given such discounted birth control to begin with, and why drug companies should be granted such a captive audience of students. Others said low-priced, easy-to-attain contraception might encourage a false sense of security about sex.

“From our perspective, this does bring to light a public health concern, but for a different reason,” said Kimberly Martinez, the executive director of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, which advocates abstinence from sex until marriage. “These young women are relying on this contraception to protect them. But contraception isn’t 100 percent — for pregnancy or for disease.”

After reading the article, I was annoyed that the Times felt the need to go fishing for controversy, and by the deployment of the "latte drinking liberal" stereotype to belittle a problem that is impacting students (who might not be able to depend on their parents for a birth control allowance) and women dependent on community health centers alike. Cara, however, saw the logical fallacies inherent in Ms. Martinez's argument, and her response is too eloquent to merely summarize:

In short, unless you’re living on the street, you deserve to pay through the nose for basic health care... Of course, this is also the same crowd that argues that the rich deserve tax breaks because “they’ve earned their money.” Why the rich are entitled to keep their money to buy boats but the poor and middle class aren’t allowed to buy coffee without being called greedy, I’ve never quite understood...

But just when you think the fun is over, you realize that the second part is fun, too! You see, if a drug doesn’t work 100% of the time, not only should it not be available at an affordable price, but it’s incredibly dangerous to give to people at all.

And, I mean, it makes sense. Think about it: when people have heart conditions, do we give them medication to help regulate the problem? No! Then the heart patients will just think that they’re cured and start skydiving and eating donuts for every meal! We can’t have that. And do we give insulin to Type 1 diabetics? Of course not, they’d just stop paying attention to their blood sugar if we did. And don’t even get me started on anti-depressants. They don’t always work, and they work differently for different people, so it’s better to just not give the severely depressed any hope at all.

. . . Wait. What was that? That’s not how it works? How odd. In that light, it’s almost as though Ms. Martinez’s argument doesn’t make any sense. I think that I have to go lay down.

Or maybe she has a point after all. Maybe we can’t trust the people who we allow to live on their own, have credit cards, vote, join the military and die in Iraq, and operate motor vehicles (but strangely enough, not have a beer) to have TEH SEX. After all, TEH SEX can be dangerous.

Brilliant synopsis of why this sort of thinking is utterly absurd. Cara's whole post is worth reading, so go check it out.

As for me, I'm left simply feeling ashamed that our own government does not seem to understand what Brazil's does - that providing women with easily accessible, reliable contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies, and hence also reduces abortions.

UPDATE: The L.A. Times is running an excellent editorial that lays out how this problem could be fixed. The piece also asks "Has the federal government really been so hung up over a minor wording fix, or was there an underlying reluctance about making contraceptives affordable to young college women, many of whom are single?"

Muppet Ladies Stand Proud!

Here's a little Sunday hymn for you. Careful, though - it comes from the ever controversial Sesame Street crowd.


(via Shameless)

Let The Research Begin!

Somehow I have been tagged as the resident sports expert. I will dub Agincourt as my partner in crime with this endeavor. As such, for the duration of this project, kindly refer to us as Solo and Mia.

The book Playing With The Boys:Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports by Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano was called to my attention so I ran right out and bought it. My hope is to create a little blog mini-series as I read through this book. When a point strikes a cord, I want to dissect it and share with our ever growing group.

So far I have only finished the preface. It is the holiday season after all. However, take heart as I already have a few thoughts. The first few paragraphs address the now infamous Imus "nappy-headed ho" comment. Agincourt and I went off on that at the time. And now, here is a book echoing our initial sentiments. As the book said, "somewhere in the background, with a little less fervor, we heard about gender." How true!

It amazed us how gender was truly left out of the equation. Of course it was a racist comment. However, it was primarily denigrating to women. Oh, how we wished Hillary on her campaign trail or Condoleezza in her power suit or *someone* other than those girls who were lambasted for being excellent athletes, or C. Vivian Stringer who brings out not only the athlete but also the woman in these individuals had stepped up and pointed out the obvious gender outrage.

Who's with us? Who also felt the outrage?

Feminism Stole My Skirt!

Are feminists forcing you to wear trousers?

What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman." Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance.

See that? Masculinity is about unhindered movement and femininity is about the prohibition of physical activity - about passivity and the resulting venerability. Because nothing says elegance like the inability to move, and nothing is as graceful as a sitting duck.

What, still not crazy enough for you? Then try this one:

The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood.

Because there is no distinction between showing your hair and selling sexual favors.

Alright, perhaps it is beneath me to take notice of the misogynistic ramblings of a Texan college junior. Yet, it is interesting that this University of Texas at Austin school publication is printing what sounds exactly like the Taliban's line of argumentation, all under the guise of American values - more proof that everyone's crazies resemble each other more than they do the majority of the group that they pretend to represent. Misogynist ideologies are international, and apparently intergenerational as well. If this child is our future, then I'm a little worried.

(via Shameless)

To Grandmother's House We Go!

We're off to spend Thanksgiving with the family, and may not be able to sneak-off and post until Friday. No need to feel lonely, though! To keep you company during the holidays, I present you with the Tampon Turkey!



(Via Feministing, like so many beautiful things.)

And, if you want to feel like you're actually in the car with us as we drive to Nana's (and I know you do), here is a short list of things we will undoubtedly be discussing:

Why I heart Jill Scott
Oxytocin Myths
The Pope and Pharmacists
Fembots

Have a happy (sexy) Turkey Day!

Progressives: Telling the People Who We Are

Like us, MoveOn.org has been thinking about why terms like liberal, feminist, and progressive are often misunderstood or viewed with suspicion, even by people who should be natural supporters of the movements they describe. So, in an effort to help reintroduce the public to both the word progressive and to the values the word denotes, MoveOn has teamed up with the Center for American Progress and produced ads like these:





Go vote for the ad you like best to get it on the airwaves.

Now we just need some commercials defining feminism. Any ideas?

How Many Blonds Does it Take to Write a TimesOnline Science Review?

You might have noticed the media stir today about a study that reportedly proves that exposure to blond women makes men dumber. The alleged study, reported in the TimesOnline, concludes that men believe that they are dealing with an idiot when talking to a fair-haired female, and therefore mimic the perceived idiocy:

Researchers discovered what might be called the “bimbo delusion” by studying men’s ability to complete general knowledge tests after exposure to different women. The academics found that men’s scores fell after they were shown pictures of blondes.

Further analysis convinced the team that, rather than simply being distracted by the flaxen hair, those who performed poorly had been unconsciously driven by social stereotypes to “think blonde”.

“This proves that people confronted with stereotypes generally behave in line with them,” said Thierry Meyer, joint author of the study and professor of social psychology at the University of Paris X-Nanterre. “In this case blondes have the potential to make people act in a dumber way, because they mimic the unconscious stereotype of the dumb blonde.”

Of course, the TimesOnline provides no link to the original research, this month's Journal of Experimental Psychology (where the findings were reportedly published) mentions no such study, and a search for "Thierry Meyer" and "Journal of Experimental Psychology" produced nothing remotely similar to the research described.

But, for kicks, let's suppose that this study actually exists.

It's bunk. Experimenters merely had men view pictures of women and then gave them a test? How did researchers establish that men mimic the projected performance of the people seen in pictures? Did the men fail the test after being shown pictures of babies, because they know that babies are dumb? Would they have failed the test if taking it in the presence of, say, a guppy?

So, you can hold-off on affixing a warning label to those golden tresses, this is just more hype. Damaging hype for women, since we know that repeating a stereotype reinforces it. And as for this post's title question - it's a trick. The TimesOnline apparently doesn't cover science.