In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

On contraception, and why those snotty-nosed college punks don’t deserve it

Those of us in the reproductive rights crowd have been talking about the increase in birth control prices on college campuses for some time, now. The change came about due to new rules passed in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and went into effect a few months ago. Don’t let the name of the act confuse you, though — 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 they’re already-monstrous yearly profits.

Lawmakers say that the change was unintentional. Seeing when it was passed and the track record on support for contraception from our government, I don’t quite buy it. But I’m also not even sure how much that matters, anymore. What’s important is fixing the problem.

Finally, the NY Times has published an article on the subject. It’s late, but I’m also thrilled to see the issue getting some press coverage. I do know that Planned Parenthood has recently been hyping the story to the media like mad. The affiliate that I work for has held several media events in the last week and we had a local news team in the building the other day. Thank god someone is finally listening.

A couple of paragraphs in the article, though they didn’t surprise me, did make me laugh (bitterly) out loud:

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.”

Read More…Read More…

Forced Miscarriage = Murder?

I’ve been musing over this one for a little while and I’m eager to hear what you think. Recently, a Texas Court ruled that a fetus can be murdered, but not by abortion.

Texas laws allow the killing of a fetus to be prosecuted as murder, regardless of the stage of development, but the laws do not apply to abortions, the state’s highest criminal court has ruled.

The Court of Criminal Appeals announced the ruling Wednesday, rejecting an appeal by Terence Lawrence, who said his right to due process was violated when he was prosecuted for two murders in the killings of a woman and her 4- to 6-week-old fetus.

The court ruled unanimously that state laws declaring a fetus an individual with protections do not conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Now, I have made my feelings on sentences for the killing of fetuses very clear in the past. In this case, I’m very glad that the court ruled that violently causing the miscarriage of a pregnancy is different from abortion. It is different. But murder?

Read More…Read More…

Perks

Much ado is being made about law firms offering specialty services to their employees. Sure, it sounds ridiculous to offer “perks” like therapy, nap rooms and yoga, but when the firm basically owns your life — and at New York firms, you’re easily putting in 80-plus hours a week and never taking vacation — it’s not so insane to hope that they make things somewhat pleasant. Dry-cleaning and concierge services might seem over the top, but when you’re chained to your desk from 7am til midnight every day of the week, good luck finding someone to clean your clothes during your off time. I think it’s particularly interesting, though, that on-site child care is listed in the article as a “perk” akin to pet insurance, car discounts and Spanish wine-tasting events. That certainly speaks loud and clear to who’s in charge at these firms, and who is drawing the line between employees’ “needs” and “wants.” There’s a wee bit of difference between your place of employment providing a space to care for you children so that you can work and your place of employment providing you with Knicks tickets.

As for my legal career, if someone wants to stand in line for an hour to bring me Shake Shack and red wine after yoga class, I’ll be theirs forever. Also, they should buy me a puppy.

Posted in Law

Transgender Politician Sued for “Fraud”

So this is utterly repulsive: City Councilperson Michelle Bruce is being sued for fraud by her failed opponent. Why? Because Bruce is a transgender woman.

Four years after she won a City Council seat, making her what is believed to be Georgia’s first transgender politician, Michelle Bruce is battling a lawsuit by an unsuccessful opponent who claims she misled voters by running as a woman.

Michelle Bruce, a transgender member of the Riverdale, Ga, City Council, is being sued by a woman she beat in an election.

Ms. Bruce, a tall woman with shoulder-length graying hair, said she has always identified herself as transgender.

“I’ve always been Michelle,” she said. “If someone has a problem with that, I can’t help them. It’s a personal issue.”

Ms. Bruce, 46, who runs an auto repossession business, began her political campaign in 2003. Running unopposed, she landed one of four Council seats and promised to attract more jobs and residents to Riverdale, a town of 12,000 about 12 miles south of Atlanta, lined with rundown strip malls and used car shops.

Three rivals ran against her in the Nov. 6 election. She captured 312 votes, not enough to avoid a Dec. 4 runoff against the second-place finisher, Wayne Hall, who earned 202 votes.

The third-place finisher, Georgia Fuller, who collected 171 votes, filed a lawsuit claiming election fraud.

The complaint, identifying Ms. Bruce as “Michael Bruce,” says she misled voters by identifying herself as female. It asks a judge to rule the November election results invalid and order another general election.

Ms. Fuller did not return calls seeking comment, but her lawyer said voters in Riverdale tended to favor female candidates, particularly if they were incumbents.

“It gives her an unfair advantage,” said the lawyer, Michael King. “It’s not just sour grapes. The people need to know whether the election is fair.”

Read More…Read More…

Time to create that “fuckwit college columnist” tag

Because, really, who deserves it more than Ryan Haecker, writing for the Daily Texan?

Ryan certainly starts with a bang:

Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world.

Grab the popcorn, kids! There’s gonna be a show!

Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West’s Germanic barbarian heritage). Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

Wow. Just…wow.

Dresses are the epitome of womanhood because they allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. That’s deep, man.

Really, you have to love a guy who switches from immutability to change back to immutability all within a couple of sentences. Dresses have been the epitome of womanhood, but only since the sixth century. Yet they’re an immutable sign of femininity, because pants — which have only been around since the sixth century — are an immutable sign of masculinity. Dresses symbolize fucking and piety all at the same time — maybe nun’s habits get this guy hot.

But that last sentence really amuses me. Let’s see it again:

Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

I dunno about you, but I can flirt just fine in pants. But this whole “obligations of our form” business makes me chuckle — because I can’t help thinking of that scene in The King and I where the children of the court keep trying to look up Anna’s dress because they think English women must be shaped like their dresses since they don’t wear pants like other women.

You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women – the form of a true lady – is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.

Um, Ryan? Women’s bodies may very well be the same as they’ve ever been, but it doesn’t follow that a) what men find attractive in women is immutable and unchanging; or b) that therefore dresses are the only thing that’s feminine and/or sexy. Because, as you’ve stated in paragraph 1, in the West, there’s only been a pants/dresses distinction since the sixth century, and even if you’re a Young Earth Creationist, that’s just a drop in the bucket, history-wise.
Like all opinion pieces, there must be someone whose opinion Ryan is implicitly if not outright refuting — the villain of the story, so to speak. And this is where he busts out the villain. Who could it be?

Wait for it…. wait for it….

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.”

That’s right! You can blame ANYTHING on feminism!

Read More…Read More…

Posted in Uncategorized

Friday Random 10 – the Knut is Cute edition

It’s officially Friday on this continent, which means my Thanksgiving-longing is over and it’s FRT time.

I believe I’ve mentioned this before, but I have a wee obsession with Knut, the kleiner Eisbar of the Berlin Zoo. I don’t think I’ll be getting around to seeing him this weekend, but I’m excited just to be sharing some air with the adorable little guy. So this FRT is for him:

1. Bebel Gilberto – Tanto Tiempo
2. The Clash – Janie Jones
3. Girl Talk – Too Deep
4. The Notwist – Off the Rails
5. Tom Waits – Swordfishtrombone
6. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds – Lucy
7. Minutemen – West Germany
8. The Kinks – Big Sky
9. Pissed Jean – Don’t Need To Smoke To Make Myself Disappear
10. Des Ark – It’s a Hard World Sometimes for the Little Things

And while I’m not a huge Streets fan, this song has been all over ze German MTV and now it’s stuck in my head.

[Insert blonde joke here]

Apparently blonde women bring out the dipshit in men. And dumb studies bring out the dipshits in newspaper articles:

Although the finding appeared to reinforce the influence of stereotypes on behaviors and abilities, “EastEnders” and “Doctor Who” star Michelle Collins had a different take.

“I don’t think it’s to do with hair at all; it’s all about the breasts,” the blonde actress told the newspaper.

Of course it is.

Thanks to NYQ for the link.

So You Wanna Be a Rock n Roll Star

About a month ago, I wrote a post about Guitar Hero III. The main gist was that as a big-time previous fan of the series, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the the changes that have been made to the game, which are quite misogynist, exploitative of women and completely insensitive to the fact that the game has a female audience. To my great surprise, the post became a big hit (and troll target) and was linked to in all kinds of forums and blogs that would normally never give me a second glance. This was also to my slight dismay, because I didn’t spend much time on that post, and frankly, I don’t think that it’s very good. Anyway, lesson learned.

The point is that I now feel compelled if not required to say a few words about Rock Band.

Read More…Read More…

C is for Cookie, but that’s not good enough for today’s kids

One of the frustrations of my new job is that I hear about great things that I want to write up for the blog but can’t. This story is one of them.

Sunny days! The earliest episodes of “Sesame Street” are available on digital video! Break out some Keebler products, fire up the DVD player and prepare for the exquisite pleasure-pain of top-shelf nostalgia.

Just don’t bring the children. According to an earnest warning on Volumes 1 and 2, “Sesame Street: Old School” is adults-only: “These early ‘Sesame Street’ episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child.”

Let that one settle in for a bit. “May not suit the needs of today’s preschool child.” Two things come to mind: One, what exactly was so dangerous about these early episodes that they need to be hidden from the kids today, and Two, how are the “needs of today’s preschool child” so different from the needs of the preschool child circa 1972?

I asked Carol-Lynn Parente, the executive producer of “Sesame Street,” how exactly the first episodes were unsuitable for toddlers in 2007. She told me about Alistair Cookie and the parody “Monsterpiece Theater.” Alistair Cookie, played by Cookie Monster, used to appear with a pipe, which he later gobbled. According to Parente, “That modeled the wrong behavior” — smoking, eating pipes — “so we reshot those scenes without the pipe, and then we dropped the parody altogether.”

The obesity “crisis” strikes again! But it’s more than that — apparently, today’s preschoolers must be protected from all depictions of adultish behavior, for fear, I suppose, that they’re going to take to the pipe (and swallow it) by the time they hit first grade.

Something to consider about Original Recipe Sesame Street — it was created with adults in mind, because research showed that kids learned better if their parents and older siblings were involved. And it was created for a particular segment of kids — inner-city kids of color, who were lagging behind white kids in preparation for school. Without that adult humor, the adults and older kids in the house would be far less interested and engaged in helping the younger ones learn. And some of the bits on Monsterpiece Theater were quite sophisticated, while still presenting goofy characters and simple lessons. Not only that, that multilayered presentation gives kids something new to discover as they get older and continue to watch the show, and keeps adults involved. I mean, back in 1972, I didn’t get all the adult references, either, but I look back on it now and I can see them (sort of like how I didn’t get all the Cold War humor in “Rocky and Bullwinkle” until I started watching it as an adult — up until then, it was just a goofy moose and squirrel).

Which brought Parente to a feature of “Sesame Street” that had not been reconstructed: the chronically mood-disordered Oscar the Grouch. On the first episode, Oscar seems irredeemably miserable — hypersensitive, sarcastic, misanthropic. (Bert, too, is described as grouchy; none of the characters, in fact, is especially sunshiney except maybe Ernie, who also seems slow.) “We might not be able to create a character like Oscar now,” she said.

God forbid preschoolers might be exposed to some complexity. I presume that Oscar has mellowed over the years; to be perfectly honest, I never really cared for him. But at least he’s not that insipid Elmo.

Snuffleupagus is visible only to Big Bird; since 1985, all the characters can see him, as Big Bird’s old protestations that he was not hallucinating came to seem a little creepy, not to mention somewhat strained. As for Cookie Monster, he can be seen in the old-school episodes in his former inglorious incarnation: a blue, googly-eyed cookievore with a signature gobble (“om nom nom nom”). Originally designed by Jim Henson for use in commercials for General Foods International and Frito-Lay, Cookie Monster was never a righteous figure. His controversial conversion to a more diverse diet wouldn’t come until 2005, and in the early seasons he comes across a Child’s First Addict.

Snuffleupagus was a little after my time, so I don’t have much to say about him, but let’s talk about Cookie Monster. I understood, even as a little kid, that he was not someone to imitate. He was over-the-top, a rampaging Id. I was discussing this article with the guys I work with, and they had both understood that as well. Are “today’s preschoolers” so impressionable that they will follow his example, zombie-like?

I find it interesting that the change in Cookie Monster’s food choices came about in the 2000s (Monsterpiece Theater was a 1980s-90s skit), just as the moral panic about the obesity “crisis” started reaching a fever pitch in the media. But consider: so he’s eating fruits and vegetables now instead of just cookies. Does that make his behavior any different? Isn’t it wrong to simply switch out the food without changing the habits (unless, of course, they have, which means they might as well just dump the character altogether).

The dumbing-down, sanitization and Elmo-ization of the show, however, might have more to do with competition from “Blue’s Clues” than anything else. I have unfortunately loaned out my copy of Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point so I have to go by memory, but Gladwell discussed the development of “Sesame Street” and later “Blue’s Clues” in terms of “stickiness,” meaning how much attention kids were giving the show and each of its segments. The linked excerpt shows how “Sesame Street’s” stickiness was somewhat accidental and haphazard and the show wound up succeeding in spite of itself. “Blue’s Clues” was the result of far more sophisticated research methods (including tracking eye movements) and has become very popular with preschoolers, who love the simplicity, long cuts, repetition (the same episode is repeated for five days straight) and leisurely pace. Even if it drives their parents nuts and they won’t be searching out videos from the show 35 years hence.

Via Julie, who says:

But what do I know, I buy my daughter candy cigarettes.
Just don’t call CPS on me, okay?

Hide the children! Inappropriate videos ahead!

Read More…Read More…

Posted in Uncategorized