An Update

myiq2xu, the man who posted the gossip about Ali Campoverdi on The Confluence, has shown himself to be a complete douchebag of the what about teh menz variety since he was challenged by some actual feminists. In part because he has recently insisted that people can not unilaterally decide someone is not a feminist for any reason, shortly after declaring Campoverdi could not be a feminist because she did something he didn't approve of. Apparently soon we're going to be told how we are hypocrites by this guy. ha!

His attempts to "clarify" what his original post meant have pretty much been shallow, defensive statements. He refuses to look at the implications of what he's saying, which is that it is no surprise that Jon Favreau would be attracted to "that kind" of woman.

What "kind" would that be, myiq?

You see, this is exactly what slut-shaming is: making a judgment about and categorizing a woman based on a) a sexual act, b) sexual activity, c) attitude towards sex or d) the way she dresses, among other things. Basically, it revolves around a woman's sexuality and whether she has done something the shamer believes a woman shouldn't do.

Of course, we don't have to approve of everything every woman does; but it is anti-feminist to reduce a woman to our perceived notions of her sexuality.

Thank Bush for keeping us safe from zombies

Read this, especially if you need a good laugh for the weekend.

A sample:

The call has gone out to the Republican Establishment Media that it is only through Bush’s vigilance that any of us are alive today. Just take a look at the record:

No terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Bush kept us safe from terrorists.
No hurricanes in New Orleans since Katrina. Bush kept us safe from nature.
No comets have hit Earth since Tunguska, 100 years ago. Bush kept us safe from celestial collisions.
No #1 albums from Creed since Weathered (2001). Bush kept us safe from Power Ballads.
No reanimation of serial murderer and cannibal, Jeffrey Dahmer. Bush kept us safe brain-devouring zombies.
No sightings of the Four Horsemen on the Interstate. Bush kept us safe from the Apocalypse.
When you think about all of things that didn’t happen during the Bush years, you can’t help but be grateful for the omnipotent scope of his protective embrace.

Multiple births and hypocrisy

Public womb #239487235.. oh, wait, I mean a woman who recently had octuplets is the target of a round of pearl-clutching because she didn't have a gazillion children in the approved way. Instead of having child after child while preaching Christian Quiverfull values and letting a man prove his virility by getting her pregnant each time, a young woman apparently used fertility treatment which resulted in eight embryos that all survived to be born. And now people are looking into every detail of her life so that they can heap their judgment onto her. She "already has" six kids! The family filed for bankruptcy! Where did the money come from? ZOMG THERE IS AN IRAQI IN THE FAMILY.

The difference between how the media has treated this woman and how they portray a family like the Duggars is stunning.

For example, take a look at this media coverage of the Duggars:

The Discovery Health channel has an entire television show devoted to the Duggars, and on the website you can "Name that Duggar!" and leave well wishes for the newest baby.

MSNBC has an article that is positively glowing, in which they quote Ann Curry referring to the family as "very traditional, even old-fashioned."

Of course, the Duggars are still targetted for ridicule and derision, but the mainstream media has, for the most part, embraced them.

Not so the mother of the octuplets.

Zuzu posted about the octuplets after I'd started writing this, and she has some very interesting things to say, as well:

The problem is, we’re not supposed to judge women who want to have lots of children, we’re supposed to look at every birth as a “miracle” and as desirable, we’re supposed to ooh and ahh over the vast medical team assembled for the delivery, we’re supposed to find it heartwarming that government resources are used during a massive disaster to save frozen embryos rather than finding and rescuing real live people, we’re supposed to say that isn’t it great that she was pro-life, had a choice, and refused a selective reduction that would have resulted in fewer, but healthier, and possibly full-term babies.

I think that looking at the issue from the point of view of what pressures are put on women and how a subset of women respond (and whether that is healthy for all involved or not) is not the same as judging women. It's important to point out the hypocrisy of the culture that sentimentalizes babies and multiple births, but condemns women who don't give birth in perfect circumstances.

Julie Shapiro at Feminist Law Professors also puts this in the larger context of whose right to parent is questioned.

And finally, I find it simply amazing that a woman could find a doctor willing to implant several embryos in a fairly young woman with six children, yet it is nearly impossible for a woman of the same age or younger to find a doctor willing to perform a tubal ligation.

True spirits told me to post this

I have to share a letter to the editor published in my local newspaper:

FALSE SPIRITS SPEAK TO PSYCHICS


In response to Pauline ------ (letter, Jan. 28) —

I was warning this young man of this evil practice, which was and is the issue.

It is written, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

Of this matter of fear in God's people, it is written, "For God hath not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 2:7)

In regards to men writing the Bible, it is written, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

As for New Age, God is in everything. It is written, "Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

Romans 1:16-32 speaks of those who worship Earth and think God is in everything. Plants and animals are incapable of knowing God. Not every spirit is from God.

In 1 John 4:1 it is written, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but rather try the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

These demons who speak to psychics are false and need exposing for the sake of the souls of others. The devil will always tell people what they want to hear, and he is a spiritual being. Choose God, choose life. John 3:16 still works!

Because nothing proves your point like random quotations from the Bible.

ETA: Unfortunately I don't have immediate access to the other two letters leading to this one, but here is the snippit that was available from the first letter written by the same religious wacko as the one above:

Courier promoted necromancy

I was greatly saddened and disturbed by the Jan. 26 article, "Psychic gets into the spirit of new job." I was even more disappointed at the Courier's promotion of necromancy and consulters of familiar spirits.

In the article, this young man stated that he was a Roman Catholic. Most Roman Catholics today follow their priest, their pope, and the canon laws of the Catholic church, which have replaced the Bible and...

Thank you, Lilly Ledbetter...

...and all the other women who have fought for so long for equal pay for women. Passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is only one victory in the war, but I hope that it will make it easier for the many women who have lost thousands of dollars due to discrimination to seek justice. As RKMK has reminded me, those women included Congresswomen who broke party ranks to support this bill.

Thank you.

Where is this common ground you speak of?

The efforts by Republicans and the media to ridicule family planning help for low income women proves what a lie any "common ground" is between the pro-choice movement and the conservative forced birth lobby. All the big talk - mostly by men - about how pregnancy prevention is a place where the two sides can come together in agreement has been shown to be complete bullshit. As most reproductive justice advocates already knew. This is what many Obama crticis and Clinton supporters tried to point out over and over during the primaries when we were all being told to shut the fuck up and think of the party/think of Roe.

Thank god Roe is safe because some women are gonna need it if they can't afford birth control! Oh wait, they can't afford or get access to abortion, either. Well, I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats will at least help them get pre-natal care, right? If not, we can all agree on the common ground that women should just not have sex unless they are middle class or wealthy. Change you can believe in.

BIMA

BIpartisanship my ass

My less eloquent response to this whole thing:

Fuck Obama, fuck the Democratic Party, fuck the Republicans. You all fucking suck! Along with NARAL, Ms Magazine and NOW.

Women deserve better 2

Sometimes the problem with all the ways to communicate... e mailing my cronies, sharing on Google reader... is that I forget I haven't railed against something here as well. I could have sworn I talked about the way Obama pulled the rug out from under subsidizing birth control under Medicaid.

Some hero.

This isn't a shock. Obama's made it clear over and over again that when it comes time to "compromise," those icky women's issues will be the first to go. And Democrats have made it clear that they're all too happy to go along with it.

Which is why I am bewildered by so many feminists falling over themselves to praise every tiny little thing he does... even when he hasn't actually done anything. Are we really so battered from 8 years of conservative rule that we are grateful for the smallest, emptiest gestures?

Is this what victory looks like to Naomi Wolf?

ETA: Great post on Alegre's Corner highlighting statements from NOW-New York State and Planned Parenthood calling out Obama. Alegre rightfully calls out Kim Gandy of NOW for her silence. I also ask, where is NARAL? On their front page they still show Thank You Obama for repealing the Global Gag Rule. I can't find anything in their press releases or news. NARAL chose to endorse Obama and now they are silent when he abandons poor women for political expediency.

Underwear models are obviously just dumb bimbos, according to some "feminists"

Is Amy Compoverdi being punished for her apparent-boyfriend Jon Favreau's misogyny, and by feminist bloggers of all people?

Both Tennessee Guerilla Women and The Confluence have posts up about rumors taht Favreau is dating Campoverdi, and focus on the fact that she modeled for Maxim, reducing her to nothing more than a pretty body in order to make the connection to Favreau's misogyny. Which makes them little different from all the other sexist reporting on the gossip.

A few select headlines (all linked above):

Ali Campoverdi: Obama Hottie, Feminist Paradox (Gawker)
Ali Campoverdi: White House Maxim Model (Right TV)
Report: Girlfriend of Obama's Speechwriter Is a Maxim Model (Fox News)
Meet the new girl at the White House (good job Clinton's not still President!) (Daily Mail, UK)
Meet Obama's sexy Maxim aide (Metro, UK)

It's almost a side note that Campoverdi has education and has been pursuing graduate level education, something not even mentioned by the two feminist bloggers who oh so helpfully provide a picture of her from the Maxim shoot. The posts both seem to imply (as do many of the sexist headlines coming from such upstanding organizations as Fox News) that Campoverdi doesn't deserve to work at the White House because she posed for Maxim. If it's true she has no qualifications, then talk about that. Don't slyly imply it just because she's worked in a profession you don't approve of.

As TinfoilHattie commented in response to The Confluence:

I don't know. This doesn't sit well with me. First of all, why the lingerie shot? To show that Campoverdi was an underwear model? Then talk about that. Should she have been one? Are underwear models "bad"? Does Ms. Campoverdi purport to be a feminist, making her career selection as an underwear model fair discussion fodder?
Or are you trying to show that someone like Favreau would OF COURSE date an underwear model, because … underwear models are … fill in the blank for me, please. Do you object to his dating an attractive woman? Do you object to his dating an underwear model? Because I don't think you can object to Favreau's choice here without maligning the woman. The message seems to be, "Look what kind of woman HE dates! Doesn't it figure! HE dates a (slut? bimbo? what?)"

ETA:
Been going around and around with a few people who seem to think that this is appropriate because certain women who participate in the patriarchy should be condemned. ("She's asking for it," anyone?)
Funny thing, though, those women who deserve to be condemned and criticized (even 5 years after their supposed offense) happen to work in - go on, guess - the sex industry (which includes sexy modeling of the Maxim variety)! However, this is apparently not slut-shaming because the word slut does not actually appear.

How not to report about rape

[TRIGGER WARNING}

A 33 year old man was arrested for rape when his 11 year old victim became pregnant. This seriously abysmal article about it not only describes what happened as the alleged rapist having sex or intercourse with the victim. It also describes events in a way that communicates absolutely nothing and most likely glosses over forcible rape.

The 11-year-old girl told investigators Dyson several times attempted to have sex with her while the two were residing at a residence along East Larwill Street, said Merillat, adding the girl said Dyson was successful in having intercourse with her twice.

Of course it doesn't matter if the girl said yes, it is still rape, and a 33 year old man has absolutely no excuse for raping an 11 year old. I can think of a few scenarios in which actions can be described as above that aren't violent or forceful that involve the girl changing her mind, being physically unable, and the man actually listening. But somehow that doesn't seem the most likely.

If he did indeed try to force the girl violently against her will, it is unconscionable to write about it in this way. It trivializes rape and makes it sound as if the girl was willing, as if at 11 she could be capable of meaningful consent.

Not just "another woman"

I very strongly believe in trying to get more women into all levels of politics on both sides of the aisle. I think that the new organizations The New Agenda and 51% are doing very important work. Even though I personally might have trouble supporting or voting for a conservative woman over a progressive man, it is crucial to work on increasing women's representation. A perfect illustration of this is the Senate vote on the Ledbetter bill. All four Republican women Senators voted for the bill. That's not to say that Republican women will always do what I believe is best for women, but it does show that women are needed to represent women's interests.

So even though the woman I preferred is not going to be Secretary Clinton's replacement in the Senate, I am very pleased that Patterson did choose a woman. Making note of this shouldn't be problematic, but I was still uncomfortable with the way that NPR promo'd their news piece about the appointment. I heard it in my car, so this isn't quite an exact quote, but the pertinent words are correct: "Gov. Patterson chooses another woman to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat."

I've been trying to piece out exactly why this bothered me. First of all, no one in the mainstream media was talking about how Blagojevic appointed "another man" to replace Obama. Just like no one in the MSM is going to talk about how another white person has been selected in Colorado. White men are the default, anyone else is a special case.

I think that I wouldn't have such a problem with this if the MSM put it in the context of representation. Instead, the way it's mentioned just serves to make women and minorities the non-default, the other. What do you all think?

Women deserve better (Updated)

Women suffer and they die because their bodies are considered teh property of others. Sometimes a specific man, sometimes just society as a whole.

Women suffer and they die because they are not given the power over their own lives, treated as children who can't decide what's best for them or their families.

Women suffer and they die because people in power yield authority to religious ideology over rights of bodily autonomy and real world results.

Women suffer and some die because doctors' convenience outweighs how they would choose to give birth.

Women die. Because we're still fighting the people who put their religion, their misogynist "morality" above women's well-being.

This isn't an intellectual debate. It's not a disagreement between two reasonable positions. There is no fucking common ground. Women are dying.

ANd all Obama can give us is an equivocating statement that's nothing more than platitudes.

Women fucking deserve better.

UPDATE:
Apparently, I am not supposed to be so emotional about this. And making a gesture to the anti-choicers is more important than a gesture to the base of the Democratic party.

And don't call a character "wheelchair guy"

Cheney is a morally bankrupt man who contributed to who knows just how much suffering in America and abroad. Everything about him is reprehensible.

But can we cut out the comments about how he looked extra evil in a wheelchair at the inauguration? I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as I should be to talk about the imagery of people in wheelchairs, but all the snarky comments smack of ableism. This has nothing to do with Cheney and everything to do with the way people who use wheelchairs are Othered.

Warning: Contains acrimonious sarcasm

OHNOES! Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors and Amy Siskind of Radical Leftist (and The New Agenda) have been ridiculed by the notoriously hard core feminists at XX Factor, Jezebel and Stalknblog for criticizing the Ms. Magazine Super!Obama cover.

I hope you two have learned your lesson, you silly PUMA women. Feminism is for everyone! Who are you to insist that a feminist actually lives feminist values or even feels comfortable saying they are a feminist in public? And OMG, how dare you apply feminist criticism to the cover of a feminist magazine? YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES.

WTF Ms.?

Yes, I'm wading into the Ms. Magazine Super!Obama cover mess. I hate it. I'm not too impressed with the rather shallow analysis of feminists who approve, either. Ellie Smeal's reasoning is especially galling (h/t Feministe):

And better yet, he ran on the strongest platform for women’s rights of any major party in American history. Feminist Karen Kornbluh, the platform’s principle author, ensured women’s rights, opportunities, advancement, and issues were addressed throughout the historic document.

Obama didn't run on a very strong platform for women's rights during the primary, despite the presence of Karen Kornbluh. On the contrary, he was weak in his support of many issues important to feminists, and used sexism to his advantage. The insistance that the strong women's rights positions in the Democratic platform in the presidential election is thanks to Obama is exactly why we absolutely cannot forget or get over the Democratic primaries. History is being rewritten, and the women who refused to simply give silent support to Obama have been forgotten. Hillary Clinton's role is being forgotten.

To give Obama credit for the role of women in the Democratic platform and presidential campaign is to buy into the notion that while he has not played a leadership role in women's issues and did not give strong support to feminist issues in his primary campaign, he is secretly a feminist who is just hiding it for political purposes and he actually pushed for the "strongest platform for women's rights of any major party in America's history."

It boils down to one more man given credit for the work of thousands of women, and women's leadership being undervalued. A man can be a feminist superhero just for saying in private to feminists that he is a feminist. Meanwhile, he leaves all the actual work of supporting women's issues and leading the fight against misogynist policies to the women.

Superman Returns with an impossibly young Lois Lane

Spoilers ahead!

Second caveat: I'm much more into superhero movies than comic books, so I haven't read the Superman comics. I can't compare the characters to the more "authentic" comic book characters.

I was desperate enough to rent Superman Returns several days ago and my initial intention not to see the movie was pretty well validated. I don't understand why it received such positive reviews from many critics. It was long and boring and I couldn't figure out wtf was the point other than to indulge in a nostalgic need for continuation of the Christopher Reeve movies.

Much of the way the movie was made was not very updated from the 70's and 80's films. Even the music was used in the same ham-handed beat-the-viewers-over-the-head way.*

But Lois Lane has been de-aged to the point of ridiculousness. But 23-year-old Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was the biggest turn-off in the movie. We're supposed to believe that her romance with Superman happened before she was old enough to graduate college, and that by 23 she had won the Pulitzer Prize?

I suspect we aren't supposed to believe any such thing, but that we're supposed to accept that the very young pretty actress is believable as an older professional woman. In contrast, Margot Kidder was 30 when the first Superman movie premiered, and 39 when Superman IV came out. I guess audiences just wouldn't be able to handle a woman in her 40's as the romantic interest in a comic book movie. Older women are so icky! They're much more appropriate to play aging witches who will do anything to stay young, like the OMG 49 year old Michelle Pfeiffer in Stardust.

*What's also not updated? Sexism! Woohoo! The weird not-earth timeline setting was disorienting, with new technology and cars but old-fashioned costumes and attitudes. Including openly acknowledged lack of women working for the Daily Planet, and regressive roles for women. mmm, nostalgia.

But Roooooooooooe! Part 5

Wishy washy pro-lifer, pro-abstinence education Tim Kaine has been appointed by the great protector of women to be chair of the Democratic National Committee. Like Obama, Kaine is oh so concerned about reducing the number of abortions because they're icky. I love it when men can come together on this issue and discuss abortions as if women are just inconvenient barriers to protecting Teh Babies. Surely we can all agree that women need to just stop having the sex lest we risk creating a few cells we'll decide we don't want. It's not like we'd have to give it up forever. We can have the sex once we're married, because married women never have unintended pregnancies or need an abortion.[1] And come to think of it, what if there was a way for a woman to not have to raise a baby she didn't want or couldn't take care of??? WHY DON'T THOSE SILLY WIMMINS THINK OF THAT?[2] I'm sure if they did, they would gladly go through pregnancy and not kill the poor innocent cells because, hey, pregnancy is just a temporary inconvenince.

Amy at The New Agenda explains how this is yet one more slap in the face to women and women's organizations who supported Obama.

And I'm reminded of all the people who carried on about how we needed to get behind Obama for the sake of the Democratic party because otherwise the Republicans could win and OMGROE.

But hey, don't get mad, Kaine and Obama are "unifiers"! (pay no attention to the similarity to the word "uniter." It is just a coincidence.)

1. "I have a faith-based opposition to abortion. As governor, I will work in good faith to reduce abortions by: Fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education;"
2. "Promoting adoption as an alternative for women facing unwanted pregnancies."

Where is the common ground here?

So are these the kinds of things Obama agrees with Rick Warren on?

However, an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education. More disturbingly, Warren’s allies have rolled back key elements of one of the continent’s most successful initiative, the so-called ABC program in Uganda. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times their activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”

During the early 1990s, when many African leaders denied the AIDS epidemic’s existence, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke openly about the importance of safe sex. With the help of local and international non-governmental organizations, he implemented an ambitious program emphasizing abstinence, monogamous relationships, and using condoms as the best ways to prevent the spread of AIDS. He called the program “ABC.” By 2003, Uganda’s AIDS rate plummeted 10 percent. The government’s free distribution of the “C” in ABC—condoms—proved central to the program’s success, according to Avert, an international AIDS charity.

By 2005, billboards promoting condom use disappeared from the streets of Kampala, replaced by billboards promoting virginity. “Until recently, all HIV-related billboards were about condoms. Those of us calling for abstinence and faithfulness need billboards too,” Ssempa [who is supported by Rick Warren] told the BBC at the time. A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch documented that educational material in Uganda’s secondary schools falsely claiming condoms had microscopic pores that could be penetrated by the HIV virus and noted the sudden nationwide shortage of condoms due to new restrictions imposed by on condom imports.

With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa led hundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. “Arrest all homos,” read placards. And: “A man cannot marry a man.” Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a website he created, along with photos and home addresses. “Homosexual promoters,” he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda’s children into their lifestyle. Soon afterwards, two of President Yoweri Museveni’s top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding.

Oh, wait, that last paragraphs is just one of those little things we can respectfully disagree with. It's not like it has significant impact on thousands of people's lives.
Read the whole thing from Max Blumenthal at The Daily Beast.

A privileged white man's crusade against AIDS in Africa doesn't deserve to be lauded as holding him up above those other Evangelicals when it's not so much about eliminating a disease as it is about reinforcing regressive religious morality and exporting so-called Christian values through fear. HOW RADICAL AND UNHEARD OF.