A Picture Worth a Thousand Tears

A coworker had warned me that this was going on today...but it wasn't until I saw this photo on Shakesville that it really hit me. This image is from a hearing against the Obama administration's requirement for employers to provide birth control to their employees.

Susan G. Komen Foundation: Extremism Over Mammograms

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

My mom is a breast cancer survivor.

When she was diagnosed in early December of 2009, I was just 20 days short of the biggest transition of my young life. I was moving 1,100 miles away from everyone I knew. Of course, the idea of leaving my family at a time when my mom would need more support than ever was terrifying. That Christmas, 3 days before my departure, I gave her a Susan G. Komen shirt. I had a matching one. I wanted her to wear it and know that I was thinking about her no matter where I was.

President Obama, a Genuine Thanks

Dear Mr. President,

All too often we forget to give thanks where thanks is due. But today, I'd like to give you a heartfelt thanks for the fact that preventative services are now covered under the Affordable Care Act. In the contentious political climate, the voices complaining about "Obamacare" are getting a lot of attention and I'd like to bring a little perspective to the situation.

I went to the doctor today for my annual exam. Because of the coverage of preventative care, I didn't have to pay a bill when I left.

The Iron Lady

Ok, I know Margaret Thatcher isn't exactly popular amongst feminist circles, that said, I still think that you've got to acknowledge the barriers that woman broke.

And, in that spirit, I couldn't help but get chills at this trailer.

And Meryl's in, y'all. Come on! Meryl!

If you're not interested in just chills, check out a much more nuanced discussion of the feminism of this film.

Sex Scandals: Tread Carefully

Ok, I haven't been fully following the Herman Cain sex scandals. What I catch are tidbits here and there...mostly from Jezebel, which while one of my favorite online reads, isn't considered a bastion of hard news. However, it appears there is some new big development with a 13 year affair and everyone is talking about it.

Taking a step back from Herman Cain specifically, I'd like to issue a reminder when we are discussing sex scandals in general, which seem to come up so very frequently.

1) It is totally different for someone to carry on consensual adult affairs than for someone to be accused of rape, assault, pedophilia, sexual harassment, or any other non consensual act. It is illogical to ever try to draw comparisons between the two. Having an affair behind your wife's back makes you a shitty, untrustworthy partner, but not a criminal. Big difference.

2) A sex scandal is not worse ipso facto if it involves people of mixed races or same genders. Any assertion otherwise is typically rooted in racism and/or homophobia.

3) I agree with Jill at Feministe that it is different to judge someone's personal life and personal actions for fun vs. calling someone out for their hypocrisy. I'll admit, I do more harshly judge conservatives who tout family values for their personal indiscretions than I do social liberals. It seems fair...you can't try to hold everyone to values that you do not personally uphold.

YAY Mississippi!

There's something I never thought I'd say...

It's looking good! I'm sitting here, watching a real time election results and it's too early to call it as I'm writing this. BUT should this post see the light of day, it means that the personhood amendment was defeated in Mississippi. That means that a (small?) majority of people in Mississippi understand at least one of the following things:

1. A fertilized egg is not a human being. It is a grouping of cells with the potential to become one. 
2. A fertilized egg should not have the same rights as actually born citizens.
3. Forcing a woman to carry a child robs her of 9 months of her life and produces yet another child into the world that the right wing wants born, but immediately ceases to care about once they are here. 
4. A small government stays out of uteruses. 
5. There are not many things more heinous than forcing a woman to carry her rapists' child. 
6. This amendment is misogynist.
7. There would be an EXTREMELY chilling affect of a law of this nature. Extremely.
8. Choice is a deeply personal thing that should be up to individual women, discussed under sound medical advice, and not legislated by the government. 

And by the time I finished writing this not even exhaustive list of things wrong with the personhood amendment, the site I was watching officially called it! YAY indeed!

Yeah...

Anyone who tells you that we live in a post-feminist society needs to read a few things.

1) The GOP is trying to kill women. No I'm not kidding. Thankfully, it looks like Obama will have our backs, but that's still incredibly terrifying.

2) And as everyone is talking about, intimate partner violence is now legal in Topeka. WTF.

I don't have a lot to say about these things. I feel I can let them speak for themselves. Besides, I'm super stressed out of my mind lately with about 100 troubling things going on in my personal/professional life. So, call this a half assed attempt at staying up to date.

In trying to remember to take care of myself first, I probably won't be writing as much in general until mid November, and then maybe even through the new year. Of course, as the occasional discussion/anger/question/laugh pops up, I'll be sure to share.

Until then, at least follow the advice given at Feministing, and contact your representative against the legislation in point #1:

Here’s how: Call (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Representative–you can call 24 hours a day and leave a message if the staff is not in the office. You can also email them here. If you’re not sure who your Rep is, click here to find out.

Female Bodies Are Not Unprofessional

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

I’ve been hearing few murmurings around the internet of this story, in which people are upset that the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, had a little smidge of cleavage showing. As one Canadian opinion writer said, Clark should be wearing clothes “that won’t risk compromising her professionalism and stature in the eyes of some.”

This makes me bristle. Perhaps it’s because I had to have some professional head shots done recently, and it was near impossible for me to have them taken without at least a smidge of cleavage showing. Or perhaps it’s because this just smacks of sexism.

It’s well reported that female politicians are continuously picked at for their clothing choices. For male politicians, sticking to a basic dark suit is a fail safe. As long as men make this choice they’re rarely seen as under dressed. Or over dressed. Or inappropriately dressed. In fact, their clothes are virtually a nonissue all together. Read more...

Cookies for Racism, Hooray!

Have you heard about anti-Affirmative Action bake sales? Yeah, they're a thing.

The most recent one, which went down today at UC Berkeley was hosted by the College Republicans. According to their Facebook page,

The Berkeley College Republicans firmly believe measuring any admit's merit based on race is intrinsically racist. Our bake sale will be at the same time and location of a phone bank which will be making calls to urge Gov. Brown to sign the bill. The purpose of the event is to offer another view to this policy of considering race in university admissions. The pricing structure of the baked goods is meant to be satirical, while urging students to think more critically about the implications of this policy.

(However, the original event details read a little differently...) You ever notice how the ones who are actually pretty racist are the first to play the race card? (See: Mr. Hear No Evil.)

Basically, the bake sale hopes to make the point that Affirmative Action is wrong by charging racial/ethnic minorities and women less for exactly the same baked goods. So very clever.

I won't lie--Affirmative Action is, no doubt, a tricky issue. I remember writing many a paper on it during my stint as a Poli Sci undergrad in the race politics classes I took. While I have lost my reasoned, academic thoughts on the topic, I can still figure out why these bake sales are as stupid as they are overdone. Simply put, the analogy just doesn't hold up. I mean, Affirmative Action doesn't get minority students into college, no questions asked. As famously quoted in the Houston Chronicle these bake sales:

...reinforce the common misconception that affirmative action policies give academically unqualified minority students a get-into-college free card, and they ignore historical discrimination that denied nonwhites opportunities to be successful at any price, no matter their talents or intelligence.

In actuality, justly applied Affirmative Action looks at similarly ranked students (along traditional academic standards) and seeks to create a diverse student body. It acknowledges the well proven obstacle of racism often faced by minority students. It also includes measures of diversity beyond race, such as geographic representation and socio-economic status. It takes race as one consideration and thus strives for true diversity. (And almost anyone who has gone from a non-diverse setting to a diverse one can tell you what a resource diversity is in the classroom.)

Affirmative Action is not the same as racial quotas, which mindlessly require certain numbers be met. So in this way, the bake sale really doesn't make sense as it is much more a critique of a quota system. For example, an academic admissions quota situation might require 15% of the student population to be black, so the school would just admit the students necessary to fulfill this quota without paying attention their individual attributes. In bake sale land this translates to all black people receiving a standard discount on the cookies.

If the bake sale analogy commonly used was to actually make sense, it would utilize some kind of fair-pricing/sliding scale fee by looking at each individual customer as a whole. For example, a very poor customer might only be charged 10 cents. However, if the bake sales were to take this method, their message wouldn't be so controversial. Therefore, time after time this silly attempt to vilify Affirmative Action policies is utilized.

What always boggles my mind about the fear mongering surrounding Affirmative Action is the myth of the highly qualified white male who gets a shit deal (let's call him Rick, for simplicity's sake.) In this myth, Rick is this amazing scholar and young man, who somehow gets left behind because some under-qualified minority (and probably female) student took his place. He is a hard-worker and now he's left to, I don't know, attend community college or something. His life's ruined. Oh how unfair!

Except I've never met Rick. No really--have you? For every highly qualified and hard working Rick there seems to be a place for him to learn and grow and turn out just fine. Affirmative Action's been around a while. If this myth was true there should be some Ricks out there, yes?

Now I have actually met plenty of sorta racist underachieving blame-it-all-on-someone-else white males (let's call them Bob.) Bob is that guy who will say that a minority or woman got a promotion or opportunity over him and claim reverse discrimination, but then not actually be able to back up in any substantial way how he was more qualified than the other person. Interesting. Maybe I just know the wrong people--or maybe Affirmative Action is often used as a scapegoat. It's sort of like, once it exists, it's an easy thing to blame you own shortcomings on. You're not the one who's insufficient--no, that other person just had Affirmative Action on their side!

At any rate, all I know is that of all the things a student group could come together and protest (like rising tuition or racism) Affirmative Action should be super low on the list.

Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including My Disappointments

I truly have no idea, but somehow, this news slipped through the cracks and didn't make it to me until today, when a friend posted the story on Facebook.

After nearly 40 years of partnership, the state has cut its ties to Planned Parenthood of Austin, defunding its East Seventh Street clinic, which provides basic reproductive health care and family planning services to low-income and uninsured women. The clinic last year received $474,000 to provide services to approximately 3,700 women; now it will get nothing, and neither will its clients. Notice of the cuts came just four days before the beginning of the new fiscal year, leaving area providers scrambling. "We didn't expect zero funding with four days' notice," Sarah Wheat, interim co-CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region, said at a press conference last week.

My sadness and anger at this situation is...well, I'm not sure there are words for it. I work in the nonprofit sector, closely with Planned Parenthood. I know most everyone in their Health Education department, personally and professionally. They are a team of dedicated, compassionate, intelligent educators who care deeply about spreading good information to young people and their parents. I have had meetings to discuss sexual health programming for Central Texan teens in the offices of that very clinic on East 7th Street--where they house not only the standard clinic, but also their teen center.

Thinking about the implications of a loss of almost $500,000 to their organization is heart-breaking.

However, this situation has ramifications well beyond the employees (even though they are at the forefront of my mind since I know them.) Like Ms. Wheat said later in the article, "The impact is going to be even bigger than we can even calculate at this point." Yes, the impact is incalculable, but for anyone who has access Planned Parenthood's vital services when they needed them the most, knows personally about the cost.

Let me give my personal anecdote, from when I regularly accessed Planned Parenthoods in Indiana (another story of disappointment!) I was 22, and I had discovered a lump in my breast. I was petrified of the possibilities and I didn't seek medical treatment for quite some time. Finally, at my annual exam with the nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood, I felt comfortable enough to ask her about it. She checked me out and calmed me saying that it seemed to be a hormonal cyst, with the kindest words and soothing care. She referred me to the Indiana Breast Center where they confirmed with an ultrasound that it was nothing serious. It was because of accessing affordable, compassionate care that I finally confronted my biggest fears and was examined.

I am so lucky. My story turned out to have a very positive ending. But somewhere out there, there was a nerdy feminist who didn't have an affordable, trustworthy health provider to turn to, who continues to fear the abomination growing in her breast, and has no idea if it will someday kill her. Nowhere to turn.

Women who need to access low cost, reliable health care have so very few options. Unfortunately, they are often caught in a highly politicized environment, which sways to the whims of zealots over continuing to grant them life saving services. I am pro-choice, there is no question about that. But the greater purpose of an organization like Planned Parenthood is to actually prevent the need for abortions in the first place by not only making birth control accessible to a much wider audience, but also with good, solid information provided by those community health educators. It amazes me that this fact is almost always overlooked.

If you are able, please consider donating to the downtown clinic to continue to provide a litany of life saving reproductive and health services to Austin's neediest individuals. And if you are not in Austin and you prefer to support your local Planned Parenthood, you can do so here.

Symbols Only Take You So Far

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

This past Friday was Women’s Equality Day. According to the National Women’s History Project, this day “was selected to commemorate the 1920 passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. This was the culmination of a massive, peaceful civil rights movement by women that had its formal beginnings in 1848 at the world’s first women’s rights convention, in Seneca Falls, New York.”

Awesome, right? You’d think a feminist would be ecstatic about that! Well, yes and no. Read more...

I'll Let This Misogynist Speak for Himself

This has got to be a joke. I was listening to Out Q on my lovely XM Radio today, and I heard an excerpt of Bryan Fischer's show in which he claims:

If you look at the Scriptures, I believe it's clear that God has designed men to exercise authority in the home, in the church, in society, and in government. So let me repeat that - that is my personal take on what the Scriptures indicate about the way God has designed man and woman to work: God has designed men to exercise leadership and authority and headship in the home, in the church, in society, and in government.

Now then the question becomes what if God can't find any men with the spine and with the testicular fortitude to provide the kind of leadership? Well, what he'll do is He'll send a woman to do a man's job.

I'm speechless. I've never heard of Bryan Fischer and I genuinely feel like my life was better off about an hour ago when I didn't know he exists. I'm not going to discuss this quote. I'm just going to let it sit there as I soak in the reality that people still (ever?) feel (felt?) this way.

To clarify this is how people who are so conservative that they don't believe a woman should be a politician justify backing someone like Michele Bachmann.

What the fuck?

Is a Bad Photo Sexism?

As usual, conservatives only pay any attention to an "-ism" when it affects one of their own.

This time, the controversy is over a Newsweek cover of Michele Bachmann. According to the Yahoo News' account of the situation (did my credibility just go down?), conservative pundits and readers are up at arms about the photo.

"Newsweek needs to be ashamed for propagating one of the typical female stereotypes used to denigrate women," a commenter on Newsweek.com wrote. "If you don't like Bachmann's positions, say so. But to slot her in the typical witch, bitch, nut, or slut memes hurts all women!"

So what do you think? Take a look at the photo. Is this sexism?

I'm not convinced. I'll agree that it is an unflattering photo, but I think that Sarah Palin's Newsweek cover was much more sexist. She was shown in running shorts from a photo she took for Runner's World, an exercise publication. This picture of Bachmann just seems crappy, if anything. Is that inherently sexist? I mean, how often do we see media of both persuasions using really unflattering pictures of the politicians they don't admire. It's a totally standard media trick. It's not really sexist if we can answer the question, "Would this also happen to a male politician" with a resounding: yes.

If anything about the cover is sexist, it might be the copy which calls her rageful. I can't help but think that male politicians who are just as passionate are called just that--passionate, not rageful. But far be it from me to condone her views, which are dangerous, extreme, and hateful. So perhaps, it's not inaccurate to call her the "Queen of Rage" even if it does hint of sexism.

At the end of the day, I have a really hard time objectively receiving conservative's claims that the Left is being sexist (racist, classist, homophobic, what-have-you) since the Right's actual policies seek to limit the freedoms of these people on a daily basis. I'm always feeling that their intention is to use these claims as a smoke and mirrors trick designed to keep the public from noticing what they're really up to.

Tim Gunn, You've Got to be Kidding Me

Oh hey, Hillary. How are you? Are you sure you're ok? You don't look ok. You look kind of mad.

Oh, what's that? Yet another person, this time Tim Gunn, is critiquing your looks/clothes and not focusing on your policies, accomplishments, or the actual purpose of your career? In fact, he went as far as to say you're confused about your gender because he doesn't like your pants suits!?

Yeah, I'd be pissed off too! I am pissed off too!

Do I really have to go over this? Hasn't it all been said before?

Let me make this crystal clear: The way that female politicians are treated regarding their looks and clothes is sexist.

We virtually never hear anything about Obama's or Boehner's clothing or hair choices. And even when we do hear something about about a male politician's appearance, the stories are frequently framed by emphasizing the femininity of the man involved, as a means of painting them as ridiculous. For example, when it was discovered what John Edwards spent on a haircut, Fox News ran this line, "Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as 'a unique boutique for the mind, body and face' that caters mostly to women."

HAHA! GET IT!? Edwards is such a little girl...but back to the matter at hand.

Tim Gunn--I get that your thing IS fashion, and that's great. However, our politicians are not supposed to be sex or fashion symbols. The undue attention to Hillary's clothing, "cankles," and gender identity is both tired and harmful. Not only does it unfairly distract from the actual purpose of politicians' work, but it also perpetuates the myth that women are necessarily supposed to care about their looks above all else. I know being catty about these things is sort of what you're know for, but perhaps save the snark for a less obviously sexist discussion.

And now for some resources on the topic...for a nuanced analysis of gender in our last presidential election, check out Big Girls Don't Cry by Rebecca Traister. I also think that the movie Miss Representation has a great message on this, but I haven't yet seen it (I'm hoping it comes my way!)

A Vote for One Woman is not Necessarily a Vote for All Women

This post is a part of my “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column at The Progressive Playbook in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.

In the 2008 election season, the American public became painfully aware of a new type of political woman: Sarah Palin. For those of us involved deeply in discussions of gender and feminism, it was a little heartbreaking. Here was this politician, only the second woman in American history to be the Vice President nominee of a major party, and her views were decidedly anti-woman. (Even though she co-opted our label.)

According to Ann Friedman and many other feminists, Palin’s role in the 2008 election became a symbol of the right’s tokenism. The message from the McCain campaign was patronizing at best, sexist at worst. It appeared that they felt they could appeal to women voters simply by adding a woman to the ticket, and seemingly any woman would do. It didn’t matter that Palin was inexperienced, uninformed, or extreme.

Read more...

Liberal Doesn't Mean Open Minded

I'm going to tackle something I've had an issue with for a while--many of my peers over here on the left are super judgmental. But hey! They love the gays! And they appreciate every multicultural background and acknowledge the struggles faced by various ethnic minorities! And they're totally pro-choice! And they won't oppress you with religion!

Ok, all of those are great, really. And I'm all of those things. But I have seen an increasing number of liberals and feminists who only really accept you if you believe what they do, all while claiming open mindedness. Put them in front of a woman who wants to stay at home with her kids, or a family that goes to church every Sunday, and suddenly, you'll hear them make assumptions. A lot of assumptions and judgements.

Seriously--that's not ok. Actually being open minded means that you truly accept people as they are. You let them define themselves. I'm all for challenging each other through civil discourse--but not for making unfair judgments about others and certainly not hating people. Not ever.

It's like I say in my line of work: being pro-girl doesn't mean being anti-boy. You can extend this to so many other situations...being pro-queer doesn't mean being anti-hetero. Being pro-religious freedom doesn't mean being anti-Christian, and so on.

So yeah friends, just because you're liberal, it doesn't mean your automatically open minded. It's very easy to accept others who are very similar to you. Try accepting someone who isn't.

I Feel Weird

I was going to write a whole blog about the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time, then this whole Osama Bin Laden thing popped up and threw me for a loop. I'll get to that in a moment, but before I do, I will say that the movie, Super, is a steaming pile of crap. Let me put it like this...if you would like to sit through no less than three extended rape scenes/jokes feel free to go see it. But you'll be making a huge mistake becuase offensive stuff aside, it was also just boring and not funny.

"(Bin Laden's death) should be welcome by all who believe in peace and human dignity." President Obama, addressing the nation yesterday.

Ok...so Osama's dead. Let the masses rejoice.

Um wait, what?

Here's my take on all of this. (And I realize by posting this I am forgoing my chance of ever running for any political office in America, ever.)

It's really weirding me out how people are quite literally celebrating someone's death. Facebook posts about it were pretty chilling. I mean, I'm able to understand that this was a consequence of the war on terror. I'm able to see that he was an evil man. I'm able to see how this can provide the relief of justice for the families of those killed on 9/11. But, to me, none of that excuses celebrating another human's death.

How does this make us any different than the masses over seas burning American flags that we so fully scorn?

Besides, this is not the end of anything. If there is one thing we know, it is that organizations like Al Qaeda are not dependent upon a single, unified authority. And I'm fairly certain that cultural clashes will never be solved through deaths. Is it really our plan to kill all of them? Is it their plan to kill all of us? Where is that taking us? I don't know the solution, but adding more and more tallies to the death count isn't creating the tolerance we need in order for cultures to exist peacefully. Our short time on this planet is unfortunately filled with violence, hate, death, and suffering. I don't see a reason to throw a party about it.

Update: Here's some great reading that says how I feel much more clearly.

Personal Opinions and Feminism: It Gets Scary Out There

The personal is political. Any person who has read any 101 feminist text is probably familiar with this phrase, which originally comes from Carol Hanisch's 1969 article. The term has come to mean that very personal things, (like your womb, your relationships, your clothes, how much money you make) all have a political context. It's very standard feminist fare.

However, I'm beginning to worry this mindset is starting to get a little over broad. Specifically, I'm talking about personal opinions becoming nonproductive political debates in the feminist world. What I see happening time after time is a feminist sharing her view on something (anything really) and suddenly the chorus of other feminists rises up and say, "WUT!? You think that? HOW OFFENSIVE You've erased the perspective of xyz people!!! I'M NEVER READING THIS BLOG AGAIN!"

For the record, I'm not talking about situations where someone has written harmful, shaming, or hateful shit. I'm talking about when a feminist shares her thoughts on a topic which are simply a personal opinion. Here's my current example. Jill over at Feministe covered a NY Times trend piece which claimed that women are now finding sex "so last year."

Here's the basic premise of Jill's thoughts on this claim:

No. Gladiator sandals are so last year (or so 2009, whatever). Sex is Lauren Bacall. Sex is a pencil skirt. Sex is fucking timeless and totally awesome, is my point. (But maybe I just think that because I have not yet found a husband who will serve the crucial role of convincing me that I never want to have sex ever again. Marriage, can’t wait!).

There are, of course, asexual people who have zero interest in sex. But that’s not what this article is talking about — it’s covering women who at some point did like sex, and now are tired of it. And that is not good! Because sex is really great, and is supposed to be a pleasure, and if it’s getting put on the backburner, that’s an issue.

I honestly thought this was a totally innocuous opinion, albeit an opinion not pretending to be anything else. However, people kinda jumped her case. Objections ranged from claiming that Jill was creating pressure on women to maximize sexual pleasure, saying that everyone should like sex, oppressing everyone with her view of what's normal, and that women who don't like sex had better pretend they do.

Wait, what?

Seriously?

I don't understand. Maybe I should go back and read the whole things again, but all I got was that Jill's basically saying, "Hey, from where I'm sitting, sex is pretty great, and to claim that there is a societal trend that women are viewing sex as 'so last year' isn't cool. If there's a real problem with women's disinterest in sex, then perhaps we should actually examine that and not chalk it up to a trend."

I'm really confused why she can't say that. I'm really confused why we, as feminists, can't share and discuss our personal opinions without it being declared that we're automatically oppressing others, simply by stating said opinions. I just fail to see how an opinion, like Jill's, is causing harm to anyone. Her view isn't creating a system of oppression or perpetuating stereotypes or invoking sexist/racist/homophobic/abelist/etc imagery. She's not trying to pass legislation that requires women achieve X number of orgasms weekly.

I (assume) we can agree that it's very hard to pinpoint a single unified feminist ideology, so why can't differing feminist personal opinions exist simultaneously? Why does sharing one's personal opinion automatically connotate a political attack on another person? I can see how a personal opinion like "homosexuality is evil" can be harmful to others, but "sex is great" doesn't seem to fall into this same category.

I know that it is human nature to find things that challenge our opinions/perspective as threatening. But, if an otherwise generally like-minded feminist shares a viewpoint you disagree with, resist the urge to attack and rather, engage her/him in a discussion.

The truth is, we're all experiencing life and writing from our unique circumstances and identities. If you feel that someone hasn't taken your experience into account, then advocate your view, but take it beyond "I AIN'T READING THIS NO MORE." Use your voice and get your perspective into the mix.

And for what it's worth...sex is NOT so last year.

Seriously, Indiana?

I can't take it anymore! THE WORST headlines are coming out of Indiana lately. I'm becoming utterly embarrassed to call that place "home." I would have never, ever, ever imagined three years ago when we went blue, I'd someday be feeling safer and more at home in TEXAS. Texas, people.

Texas.

Anyway...here are the headlines making me so very ashamed.

Criminalizing suicide.

Selling a child to a pedophile.

The gay marriage ban.

The war on choice.



You're breaking my heart, Hoosierland.

Big Girls Don't Cry

I'm going to do another partial post, simply because I am bursting with enthusiasm about the book I am currently reading. It was recommended to me by a friend and I can't put it down. It's all about gender in the 2008 election. I feel like as the author, Traister, discusses the feminist opinion of Clinton as a presidential nominee, she's writing my exact thoughts/feelings/experience of the time. (And it's totally changing my perception of Hillary Clinton.)

I will try to do a full review later, but for now I just wanted to share this. Should you ever be foolishly tempted to think we live in a "postfeminist" society, here are some of the words printed on T-shirts in TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT (not 1908) about Clinton:

• Life's a bitch so don't vote for her.
• Fuck Hillary: God knows she needs it.
• Anyone but her '08.
• Even Bill doesn't want me.
• Stop mad cow.
• KFC Hillary meal deal: Two fat thighs, two small breasts and a bunch of left wings.
• I wish Hillary had married O.J.
• Wanna see Hillary run? Throw rocks at her.

...and then try to tell me I don't live in a misogynistic world.