May 2007 – Page 11

Go. Read the whole thing. Pam’s post on this resurgence of overt racism is just brilliant.

Giving “feminine protection” a whole new meaning

Behold the Pink Stinger:

The copy is a riot:

A new trend in security systems is on the horizon that will inspire the self defense/security demographic, shock the criminal community and give a new-found respect to the dismal tampon sector.

Ladies can replace that monthly period with an exclamation mark as feminine hygiene goes lethal with The Pink Stinger, a taser/stun gun creatively disguised as a tampon…except for the buttons, prods and high voltage. This weapon of mass absorption aims to target a niche market consumer, that being the tampon wielding women who desire private and discreet security in a friendly familiar package.

The tampon taser/stun gun is the latest in portable and personal security systems. The beauty of this taser/stun gun, aptly named The Pink Stinger, is its ingenious design and ability to be concealed nicely and unassumingly into any purse for ultimate stealth. The taser’s gentle glide zapplicator easily fits in the palm of your hand for incredible comfort and protection and ready for honorable discharge at a moments notice. In addition, its fresh floral scent helps eliminate the smell of fear, not just cover it up.

Found at Laurie Toby Edison’s Body Impolitic.

Yet Another Way To Get Screwed Over

Didja know that tariffs for imported men’s clothing ~~is lower~~ is different by item than that for women’s clothing?

‘strue!

Take the article in The Times by Michael Barbaro that detailed the disparities in the fees levied on imported apparel. There is an 8.5 percent duty on an imported wool suit for a woman, but none for a man’s, a 10 percent duty on women’s hiking boots and an 8.5 percent levy on men’s. A vast majority of these tariffs go back to 1930, preserved in round after round of trade-liberalization talks by politicians who won exemptions for their most favored constituents. The reasons for many of them are as forgotten as the factories they were meant to protect.

Yeah, I can’t imagine how we could have forgotten any reasons why men’s clothes would have been subject to a ~~lower~~ different tariff than women’s clothing for the same items — particularly when that clothing has to do with economic or recreational freedom. Or, for that matter, why clothing from countries full of brown people would have to pay higher tariffs than clothing from countries full of white people:

There’s a similar effect abroad. The Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic research group, found that the American tariff system is “uniquely tough” on poor countries in Asia and the Muslim world that produce labor-intensive goods. It said the United States imported $2.2 billion worth of goods from Cambodia last year and goods totaling $36.8 billion from France. Both paid $367 million in duties.

So good on the Times for calling this shit out. There’s no reason at all that we should be living with the tariff structure of 1930, when girls were girls and men wore hats and ~~nigrahs~~ the people in the colonies knew their place.

Edited because several people pointed out the original article to me, showing that the tariffs aren’t higher for women’s clothing across the board. That’s what I get for tossing off a post late at night just because I felt like I needed to post somethng. I still think that there’s no reason we should be differentiating between the two, though, and in a postcolonial world, there’s no good reason to keep higher tariffs on goods imported from developing nations than for goods from the industrial world.

Carry on.

Hey! I know her!

I was riding the subway tonight and saw someone reading a magazine. The photo with the article looked awfully familiar.

I managed to unobtrusively peek at the mag to see which one it was, then looked up the article online.

I think my soul just died a little bit

After reading this.

Now, we all know that Pamela of Atlas Shrugged isn’t exactly a shining star of reason, intelligence or humanity, but good God — did the woman really just defend Japanese internment and suggest that Muslims should be next?

Why is CAIR making pilgrimages to internment camps? WTF? What do they know that we don’t know? All this hand wringing about intermenny camps. A country does what it has to do to survive when it is under existential threat. The Japanese wanted to take out America, America took no chances. The left cannot bear the thought of America defending herself. Every savage in the world? No apology necessary. Full benefit of the doubt and then some. America? Off with her head!

But what’s this bullshit CAIR is pulling down? Do you suppose that after Islamic jihad drops the big one or the giant war starts that the rubber-band is going to boing in America and intern camps might be considered? Think CAIR knows this and is attempting pre-emption (something they deny America.)

Um.

She goes on to refer to FDR’s Executive Order 9066, which called for the internment of Japanese Americans, as “smart.” When the article she quotes points out that of the 120,000 Japanese Americans interned during WWII a grand total of zero were ever charged with espionage or sabotage, Pamela opines that, “Perhaps the internment camps were an effective deterrent.”

Who needs evidence when we can just make wild and ridiculous statements in favor of locking people up based on their ethnicity or religion?

Just go read her post. I can’t do it justice.

I understand that Pamela has an unbridled, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of brown people, and particularly of Muslims. That isn’t exactly unheard of in conservative circles, and has pretty much been a staple of right-wing movements for the past few decades. But we did the internment thing — in hindsight, it was a huge fuck-up. And, as a general rule, when you hugely fuck up, you don’t propose doing the exact same thing two generations later.

Unless you’re a blithering borderline-fascist racist ass. Which Pamela is.

Of course, it’s not like this is her original idea — conservatives have had the internment corner staked out for a few years now. But this can’t possibly be the mainstream conservative view, right? I mean, it’s not like people who espouse these ideas are embraced by the right-wing media machine, right? It’s not like they run some of the most popular conservative blogs on the internet, right?

…right.

I’d like to see conservatives do what they always demand moderate Muslims do: Distance yourself from the extremists. Michelle and Pamela are suggesting that we intern people based on their nationality and/or religious beliefs. And all I hear from conservatives is, well, crickets.

Thanks to Auguste for the link.

Arrested by the Fashion Police

Check out these Iranian policewomen:

On one hand, these women are pretty badass. On the other, they’re police officers for an authoritarian government in a country rife with human rights violations. So while I think it’s fantastic that these women are working (especially in a traditionally male-dominated occupation) and that this video challenges all kinds of stereotypes about passive women in chadors (or hijabs or burkas or other religious coverings), I wish they were doing it for a better cause. Then again, you work with what you’ve got, so I certainly can’t fault them.

Also interesting is the fact that policewomen in Iran are active members of the “fashion police” — the people who chastise, harass or even arrest women who aren’t sufficiently covered. It’s always depressing to see women promoting the oppression of other women, but so it goes.

When one woman, Nazanin, 28, was stopped last month in Vanak Square, she thought she had dressed more modestly than usual, she said. But she was told that her coat was tight and showed the shape of her body.

“I just joked with them and tried to stay calm, but they told me to sit so that they could see how far my pants would pull up in a sitting position,” said Nazanin, a reporter. She was told by the police officers that they wanted to help her look modest so men would not look at her and cause her inconvenience, she said.

She received a warning about her large sunglasses, her coat, her eyeliner and her socks, which the police officers said should be longer. She was allowed to go after she signed a letter, which included her name and address, saying she would not appear in public like that again. The police have said the letters will be used against violators in court if they defy the rules a second time.

If too-short socks are causing men to “inconvenience” her, perhaps we should deal with the men and tell them to get the hell over it — or recognize that the more we force women to cover, the more any exposed bit of skin will be a “temptation.” But considering that blaming women’s dress for (among various other things) inciting men to sin seems to be something of an international asshole pastime, I don’t have high hopes for this changing anytime soon.

Friday Random Ten – the Homestretch Edition

1. Can-U – Old Song
2. The Avett Brothers – Salvation Song
3. Guided by Voices – A Salty Salute
4. Jay-Z – December 4th
5. The Kinks – Big Sky
6. Tom Waits – Shore Leave
7. Portishead – Mysterons
8. The Mountain Goats – Lion’s Teeth
9. Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds – (Are You) The One I’ve Been Waiting For?
10. Bob Dylan – Not Dark Yet

Friday Random Video – last week it was Michael, so now it’s Miss Jackson:

And finally, because I’ve been up to my eyes in dry legal whatnot all week (and will be until May 9th — cross your fingers for me), I could use a little literature. So I give you two of my favorite Adrienne Rich poems:

No, I did not get Anthony Ciolli fired.

On AutoAdmit, Anthony writes:

My impression from the phone conversation was that this was the chronology:

1) Jill Filipovic from Feministe tells WSJ that I worked at EAP&D

2) WSJ reporter calls EAP&D, and the firm says I had my offer rescinded.

3) WSJ reporter emails me saying they’re going to run a story on it tomorrow.

Believe me, the last thing I wanted was this to be public. I just want to be left alone.

I did not know where Anthony worked, and I took no steps to get him fired. Apparently someone did post his firm on a 600-plus comment thread two months ago. I didn’t do anything with that information, and didn’t even pay much attention to it when it was posted. I don’t remember reading it. I may have, or it may have gotten lost in the 600-comment shuffle. Either way, I didn’t commit it to memory, and I didn’t pass it on to anyone else. If you had asked me two days ago where Ciolli was employed, I wouldn’t have known. I definitely didn’t contact Ciolli’s firm, WSJ, or anyone else.

The WSJ reporter emailed me yesterday afternoon telling me that Ciolli had his offer rescinded, that the WSJ law blog was doing a story on it, and could he call me for a quote. That’s how I found out about it.

So, sorry AutoAdmit posters (and Anthony), but you’re gonna have to find someone else to blame for this one.