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

Shameless self-promotion Sunday

Let’s have it.


36 thoughts on Shameless self-promotion Sunday

  1. Made a couple of comments about how the Anna Mae He case on the ABC board.

    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/comments?type=story&id=4250114

    IMHO, it was instigated by the Bakers, a wealthy well-connected White Tennessee couple who thought their privileged status entitled them to take advantage of the He family’s ignorance of the American legal system and society by manipulating the legal system to terminate their parental rights and falsely portray them as negligent parents. It is quite rich the Bakers had the chutzpah to complain that taking Anna Mae He away from them will be traumatic…..when it was they who instigated the whole mess through manipulating the law enforcement and judicial systems to keep the He family away from their daughter till she was 8-9 years old. Heck, the Bakers and their lawyer even attempted to have the He family deported.

    In short, a good old boys network run amuck…with the Bakers and their supporters throwing White upper-class classist and racist assumptions right into the mix. šŸ™„

  2. On the Lori Gottlieb article about “settling” (yeah, I’m late).

    Excerpt::

    My third wife taught me an important lesson about ā€œsettling.ā€ Itā€™s one thing to marry someone whose politics you find inexplicable, or whose taste in movies is wince-inducing. (My fourth and final wife loves ā€œDirty Dancing.ā€ ā€˜Nuff said.) Itā€™s another thing altogether to build a partnership with someone who doesnā€™t inspire deep and intense longing. Yes, over time that longing may fade. It will certainly fluctuate. But the memory of passion can be a reliable fuel to sustain a marriage; if even that memory isnā€™t present, thereā€™s probably trouble ahead.

    Thereā€™s much to be said for compromise in intimate relationships. But wisdom is knowing the difference between a ā€œhave to haveā€ and a ā€œwould like to haveā€. And I think the collective experience of a great many people is that at least a period of powerful, mutual, sexual longing falls into the first category.

  3. I’ve got links to the full endorsement lists for Sens. Clinton and Obama, and ask folks (you all) if the media endorsements in their cities are slanting coverage of the two candidates.

    There’s been a ton of discussion in the blogosphere this week about media bias this primary season, but do any of you notice it in your hometown papers, esp. if they are any of those that endorsed one candidate over the other (NY, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, L.A., SF, Denver, Hartford, KC, St. Louis come to mind)?

    Also, I have a round-up of HRC supporters in the context of the shame many of us feel for supporting her, tackle some of that mutual ambivalence from a personal angle, and discuss the issue of legitimacy that keeps coming up in this campaign.

  4. Not self-promotion, but all of the Shakesville posts on the sexism Hillary is undergoing, and on women’s reactions to it were fabulous this week, and kept me sane:

    Damned If You Do (Melissa McEwan – “Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that a lot of women who support Hillary see the depth and scope of the organized institutional misogyny being levied against her and feel, somewhere in their guts, that a massive “women for Hillary” movement would actually be used against her and undermine her campaign.”)

    Stealth Vote Salon (Melissa McEwan – “Meanwhile, women who don’t support her are being used against her, too. This is a perfectly encapsulated case study of the patriarchy at workā€”a woman candidate is undermined both by women who support her and women who don’t. Priceless.”)

    I am Not Ashamed (Kate Harding: “Because, in a nutshell, I GOT YER GENDER CARD RIGHT HERE, ASSHOLES. AND IT SAYS “REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.”)

    And today’s post on Women and Caucauses nicely brought everything together.

Comments are currently closed.