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

I believe we’ve just gone down the rabbit hole

Follow the bouncing ball: a group of fake abortion clinics are suing a group of real abortion clinics, claiming that the real abortion clinics were posing as fake abortion clinics to lure pregnant women to have abortions.

I’ll let LifeSiteNews explain it to you:

WHITE PLAINS, NY, September 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Yesterday, Expectant Mother Care-EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers filed suit against “Dr. Emily’s” abortion clinic with sites in the Bronx and downtown Brooklyn citing evidence of deceptive advertising practices.

“EMC is taking the lead in countering a truly deceptive abortion advertiser which pretends to be an alternative to abortion agency advertising under pro-life ad categories in New York City yellow pages,” said Chris Slattery, founder and president of EMC, operator of 15 pro-life crisis pregnancy counseling centers and medical clinics in New York City and suburbs.

“To aggressively compete against pro-life centers, we’re seen three NY abortion clinics pose as alternative centers to lure confused women who might be seeking help and support, into abortion clinics to possibly undergo abortions they may not want,” Slattery added.

“In a year when unfounded charges of deceptive advertising are flying against pro-life alternative to abortion groups from abortion industry advocates like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the National Abortion Federation, we filed a sixteen-count complaint supported by affidavits alleging deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of an abortion clinic’s business in violation of N.Y. General Business Law 349,” Slattery said.

EMC is seeking an order from the New York Satte Supreme Court in Westchester County preliminarily enjoining the defendant from submitting any “Abortion Alternatives” advertising and compelling it to withdraw any such advertising it may already have submitted. EMC also seeks, at the conclusion of the case, a permanent injunction and the damages that are statutorily authorized.

Yes, my head hurts, too.

Is it me, or does this whole thing have a hint of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” to it? Amanda wrote about the deceptive practices of “crisis pregnancy centers” several months ago. The web site for Dr. Emily’s is pretty straightforward, what with the multiple references to abortion on its web page. The website for EMC is a little more cagey. They state the following:

EMC serves sexually-active young girls or women of any age, pregnant or not, who are in need of pregnancy help or are considering abortion, or are hurting from abortion.

EMC’s goals are to encourage expectant moms to choose motherhood, and either marriage, adoption, or self-sufficiency, and to turn toward chaste lifestyles. EMC strives to offer high-quality pre-natal care and in the future pediatrics, through physician partnerships, on-site at most of its centers.

Interestingly, they also include an entire page of links to stories about NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer’s fight against deceptive practices and advertising of crisis pregnancy centers — much like those Amanda documented. There’s also a page where defenders of the centers speak out; a page of articles about New York City’s requirement that medical residents at city hospitals receive abortion training; and a page showing the dark, shadowy connection between NARAL and Spitzer.

Oh, and a page about the importance of sonograms to crisis pregnancy centers (“If they just knew that they were carrying babeeeez, they’d change their minds!”).

And while I don’t have a Westchester phone book handy, neither this search nor this search turns up Dr. Emily’s listed under “abortion alternatives,” but there are several crisis pregnancy centers listed with names that just might deceive a pregnant woman into believing that they offer abortion there (such as “Accurate Abortion Information,” which is listed separately from “Pregnancy Resource Ctr” at the same address).

So, here’s what I think is going on: Yellow Pages publisher misfiles listing for Dr. Emily’s clinic, and crisis pregnancy centers, feeling embattled because Spitzer is going after their deceptive practices (an investigation by Rep. Henry Waxman found that 87 percent of CPCs provided false, misleading or medically inaccurate information about abortion), jump on the opportunity to slam a legitimate abortion provider for — well, what, exactly, I’m not sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Emily’s provides counseling about alternatives to abortion, so a listing under “abortion alternatives” isn’t exactly deceptive.

H/T: Lindsay.

Bonus find while looking for the web sites above: Dawn Eden is both geographically challenged and a liar. No, Dawn, College Point is not part of Flushing, no matter how hard you wish it to be so.

UPDATE: While reading the Dawn Eden link, I came across this bit of information from commenter Sunny Chapman:

Crisis Pregnancy Centers all over the country have been investigated and/or sued for various forms of deceptive practices. One of the most common was listing themselves in telephone directories in the abortion clinic or abortion services category. States attorneys general in every state had to file suits against CPCs to get them to stop this practice and now pregnancy crisis centers advertise under “abortion alternatives” in the New York phone book(and elsewhere), rather than in the “abortion services” section, in compliance with consent decrees signed with two former state attorneys general, Robert Abrams in 1987 and Dennis Vacco in 1995. However, they still manage to sneak into the abortion services category online, as we see.

Well, this explains why this group was so het up over a phone book listing, doesn’t it?

See also Amanda and R. Mildred.

Behold Manliness

Jessica brings us this quote from Harvey Mansfield’s book Manliness:

“To resist rape a woman needs more than martial arts and more than the police; she needs a certain ladylike modesty enabling her to take offense at unwanted encroachment.”

Because sluts can’t be raped, duh.

Scott has more.

Bless You, Times Select

Because you put your columnists behind a subscription wall, I don’t have to court high blood pressure by coming across stuff like this:

New York Times (subscription required): David Brooks opines that differences in male and female brain chemistry mean that humans are happier with gender roles “that nature and evolution laid down long, long ago.” Unfortunately, he writes, “some feminists still argue that talking about biological differences between the sexes is akin to talking about biological differences between the races.” We tried to be outraged, but just found ourselves fatigued. Brooks needs to mix it up a little more.

I just buy the dead-tree edition on Mondays for Krugman and Herbert, and Fridays for Krugman again, and everybody’s happy.

Know Your Place

I touched a bit on the idea that Althouse was trying to put Jessica in her place in my earlier post. But I want to expand on the point, and to draw in some of the other reactions to the Clinton blogger lunch, particularly with regard to race and complaining.

Althouse wasn’t the only one trying to put Jessica in her place; as I also mentioned, there were any number of commenters across the progressive blogosphere that made comments about Jessica’s fuckability. They didn’t know who she was, or why she was there, but they sure as hell felt free to speculate that it had something to do with sex.

Even those defending Jessica have often focused on the appropriateness of her posture, her pose, her clothing and her smile, as if those were really the issues. They’re not. The issue is that Jessica was invited to that lunch because of her accomplishments and her intelligence, but people like the commenters discussing her fuckability and Althouse criticizing her for having breasts are reminding her that no matter how much she’s accomplished in her life, no matter how smart she is, she doesn’t really belong in that group.

In other words, they smacked her down for being so uppity as to think that she had the right to be there.

Read More…Read More…

More about that Clinton blogger lunch

[NOTE: I was working on this post at the same time Jill was posting hers. Since there’s enough different content, I figured it was worth posting even though some of it might be repetitive.]

No, this isn’t about race this time. It’s about this kind of shit:

I wanted to elevate a discussion from the comments section of a post from Wednesday, you know the one with the photo of the Daou-wrangled bloggers posing in from of Bill Clinton? The first commenter, Goesh, picks up on my prompt — “Let’s just array these bloggers… randomly” — and wisecracks: “Who is the Intern directly in front of him with the black hair?”

That “intern” is Jessica Valenti.

Eventually, Jessica from a blog called Feministing, shows up and says: “The, um, ‘intern’ is me. It’s so nice to see women being judged by more than their looks. Oh, wait…”

Snarky but somewhat conciliatory, I say: “Well, Jessica, you do appear to be ‘posing.’ Maybe it’s just an accident.”

After Jessica challenges Althouse on this (with the obvious-to-anyone-with-half-a-functioning-brain-cell concept that people pose for photos), Althouse (remember, she’s a law professor), comes back with this stunning bit of logic:

Jessica: I’m not judging you by your looks. (Don’t flatter yourself.) I’m judging you by your apparent behavior. It’s not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don’t know why people who care about feminism don’t have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don’t assume you’re the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog….

Follow that? Because Comedy Central made fun of Katherine Harris for her aggressive cheesecake campaign style, and because Althouse thinks Bill Clinton set back feminism (though that link just discusses her batshit attack on Atrios), it’s just peachy-keen for Althouse to “give [Jessica] a small dose of the kind of judgment for brains she seems to demanding” by . . . criticizing Jessica for having breasts. And then telling Jessica she’s no feminist. Apparently for . . . having . . . breasts . . . while . . . standing in front of Bill Clinton.

But she’s not judging Jessica for her looks. Oh, no.

As we’ve previously established here, Althouse isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

Hilariously, Althouse then decides to check out Feministing and demonstrates oh-so-perfectly the generational divide in humor that Amanda and piny have pointed out:

Making this colloquy into this new blog post, I actually click over to Jessica’s blog, and what the hell? The banner displays silhouettes of women with big breasts (the kind that Thelma and Louise get pissed off at when they’re seen on truck mudflaps). She’s got an ad in the sidebar for one of her own products, which is a tank top with the same breasty silhouette, stretched over the breasts of a model. And one of the top posts is a big closeup on breasts.

Sooooo… apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?

Psst. Ann, darling — the mud flap girl is giving the finger. See? Irony? And the giant breast post you’re talking about is of someone showing off a t-shirt.

As if the crime of having breasts and associating with the likes of a former president weren’t enough, Althouse then accuses Jessica of being a Karl Rove plant.

Really.

So, Ann, do you do this to your first-year Con Law students? Assess the perkiness of their breasts and reduce their grades accordingly?

Here’s what Jessica had to say:

I found a couple of other posts like it–talking about the way I looked–and it was really upsetting on a personal (and political) level. But this thread in particular turned kind of nasty.

You know, I was psyched to be invited to this lunch and was feeling pretty honored. But then things like this remind me that no matter what I do or accomplish, because I’m a young woman all I’m good for is fodder for tacky intern jokes and comments that I don’t “represent feminist values” because of the way I posed in a picture.

What’s worse is that this comes from other women, other progressives, and other supposed feminists. How are we supposed to move forward as a movement if we’re busy bashing each other with this ridiculousness?

She’s absolutely right about the comments. I did a bit of reading on this meeting due to the race angle, and I don’t think there was one comment thread, even on progressive blogs run by feminists and pro-feminists, where Jessica’s appearance wasn’t at the very least noted. More often, the stupid intern jokes were made, as well as cracks about where Clinton’s hands were.

And for the most part, these comments went unchallenged. This is no better, or different, than letting the absence of bloggers of color at this meeting go unchallenged.

Because you know what happened? Jessica was put in her place with those comments, reminded that as far as the patriarchy is concerned she’s no more than a sexbot and that even though she got the invite to lunch with the former president due to her hard work and brains, the fact that she is young and attractive and has black hair and breasts means that her contributions to blogging and to this meeting have been reduced to being the butt of jokes comparing her to a woman famous for sucking that former president’s dick.

And now she has to spend time feeling angry and discouraged and fighting with an idiot like Ann Althouse who dares to tell her she’s no feminist just because she dares to be pretty, instead of feeling like someone will hear her when she gets her voice out.

Fuck you, Ann Althouse.

Wherein Ann Althouse Shoots Any Credibility She Had Left

From the “chicks just can’t win” files: Jessica from Feministing has the honor of being invited to meet with President Clinton, along with several other bloggers. Said bloggers pose for a photo with Bill. It’s fairly clear that the photo is arranged by height, with the shorter people in the front. Jessica, one of the shorter people there, is in the front row. She stands, back straight, with her hands at her sides like everyone else. She moves slightly over so that she’s not blocking the former President.

But clearly, it’s all about the tits.

Jessica: I’m not judging you by your looks. (Don’t flatter yourself.) I’m judging you by your apparent behavior. It’s not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don’t know why people who care about feminism don’t have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don’t assume you’re the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog….

Note that Jessica is posed in pretty much the exact same way (mirror-imaged) as the woman standing next to her. That woman, though, is wearing a black top, so you can’t see the outline of her breasts as well.

Note that Jessica is also wearing a simple grey sweater, with a high neck and cap sleeves. And long pants. And yet Althouse is criticizing her for her “behavior” — which apparently comes down to how she was standing in the photo.

I saw the photo yesterday. I did not notice that Jessica was “posing;” I did not notice her breasts; I didn’t think twice about the arrangement of the photo. Different perspectives, I guess.

Ann’s commenters also jump on Jessica, referring to her as an “intern” — har har — and debating her fuckability. Ann then accuses Jessica of not being a “real” feminist (compared, apparently, to… Ann…), and tells her that she’s misappropriated the word feminism and has done nothing for the movement.

Really, Ann, fuck you. You’re out of line, and this is incredibly shitty.

Perhaps this isn’t the kind of evidence that Ann is looking for, but here’s what Jessica’s done for my feminism: She inspired me to start blogging in the first place. She broadened my perspective as to what even constitutues a feminist issue. She’s shown me that determined women can take their passion and turn it into a career. She has helped to mobilize an entire generation of younger feminists. She’s taken risks, and has been willing to lend her wisdom to the development of our movement. She’s been remarkably successful at a very young age. She’s been a key part of creating online feminist communities, and creating real-life activism and action out of those communities. Her writing has made me think. It’s taught me more than entire women’s studies courses I took. It’s demonstrated that young women are active, intelligent, assertive and engaging. She’s made me proud to identify as a feminist. And she’s one of my feminist heros.

I know she’s inspired many more than just me. And talking about her breasts all the live-long day won’t change the fact that she is an amazing, brilliant, good human being who I’m sure will shape the world in more positive ways than Ann Althouse could ever aspire to.

What Jessica did wrong was show up at a political event in a female body. End of story. Ann, you should be ashamed.

And Jessica, as always, you should be incredibly proud of everything you’ve accomplished.

Pity the Poor White Folks

Apparently, there just aren’t enough black and Hispanic people being portrayed as criminals in movies.

Of course, in the pre-movie infomercial, all three criminals were white men. Which got me to thinking. In the make believe land of movies, television, and commercials, if there is a heinous crime to be committed, 99.9% of the time, it’s now going to be done by a white guy. In fact, it has to be done by a white guy.

Read More…Read More…

Planned Parenthood = Terrorist Organization

Planned Parenthood was doing the same accursed thing on 9/11 that the terrorists were doing: Killing innocent people. And just like the terrorists, they’re proud of themselves and consider each death to be something to celebrate. But the terrorists are at least honest enough to admit that they’re killing, and they identify their victims as enemies. PP plays semantic games and dresses up their killing in pretty words about “freedom” and “choice.”

When your idea of freedom is “I get to kill children with impunity” you’ve joined the ranks of evil. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is and it’s asinine to pretend otherwise.

Read More…Read More…