Enough Psuedo-Feminist War-Mongering in the Name of Islamic Women
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on July 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM.

Sometimes hypocrisy is hard to discern, other times not so much.

When it comes to neoconservative claims that we have to occupy far-flung lands in order to defend Islamic women from their sons, brothers and husbands, it's nothing short of striking. After all, any mention of the "plight" of women in Christendom is dismissed by the very same conservative bobble-heads as the incoherent rantings of hairy-legged "feminazis."

I'm on a bunch of political press lists, including several from the Right. Today, I got this:

On Wednesday, French lawmakers met to discuss whether or not to legalize a nationwide ban of the burka, the head-to-toe dressing that Muslim women are expected, if not demanded, to wear. Academics present at the hearing called the tradition archaic and cult-like behavior. France, as it happens, has the largest Muslim minority out of every other European country.

Mano Bakh, an ex-Muslim banned from Iran for speaking out against Islamic radicalism, feels that US lawmakers should follow suit with evoking similar regulations.

Mano Bakh, it appears, is trying to join the prosperous ranks of "former Muslims" who tell right-wing activists that their virulent Islamophobia isn't racist at all, but is entirely justified. It's a great gig if you can land it.

“The Muslim religion belonged to a barbaric society that lived 1,400 years ago,” says Bakh. "Many of its facets are not applicable for today’s advanced world. The wearing of the burka is just one example.”

Of course, fake Western feminists (and I'm not talking about actual feminists -- you know, people who take issues that affect women seriously) don't give a damn about what the Islamic feminists they claim to care for actually want.

Case in point: the Burqa. I've met a large number of real, live feminists from majority-Islamic countries, and each and every one has said that dress is an obsession of Westerners, and that what they care about, fight for, and sometimes risk their safety over is reforming marriage and divorce laws, education, political participation, etc. What's more, they report that within their own, home-grown movements, women are themselves deeply divided over veiling. And, finally, because the dress issue is of interest to foreigners, it allows traditionalists to paint their indigenous fights as a product of Western meddling, endangering their persons and marginalizing their fights. Thanks for nothing.

That's not to say that indigenous women's rights activists don't benefit from international solidarity from their sisters and brothers abroad -- the point is that the expansion of rights is a domestic struggle that's worthy of support rather than something foreigners can realistically impose from without.

Let me leave you on an interesting note. In the midst of this whole French burqa brouhaha, IPS News sent a correspondent into the streets of Paris -- in neighborhoods with large Muslim populations. Guess what she found?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hot Chicks Eating Burgers: Carl's Jr. Finds a New, Sexist Way to Hawk Its Disgusting Crap
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on July 8, 2009 at 12:01 PM.

It’s a little-known industry secret that models and actresses eat massive amounts of fast food. That’s why Carl’s Jr.’s recent series of ads, featuring “top-rated bikini body” Audrina Patridge ramming a Carl’s Jr. burger in her mouth while wiggling around in a gold bikini, is both realistic and helpful.

“To look this hot in a bikini” she coos, “I have to give up ... like ... everything. But there is no way I’m giving up that Terriyaki burger. I have to be a little bad. I call it my ... bikini burger.”

Is this a public service announcement? Because it's about time somebody armed women with the information they need to achieve the sexy, lithe frame of a pre-pubescent boy with fake boobs.

But that’s not the only way Carl’s Jr. has chosen to empower women. The burger chain is also offering some lucky "girls" the life-changing opportunity to star in their own Carl’s Jr. commercial. A few days ago Feministing posted a blog about a craigslist ad promising women 1,000 dollars and a spot in a Carl's Jr./Hardees ad if they “submit a video of themselves eating one of their burgers and is "hot" enough for their marketing campaign.”

While the Craigslist ad is down, the campaign is still in the works. And if you needed more convincing of the burger chain’s noble intentions, the kicker to the campaign, itself aptly titled “Hot Chicks Eating Burgers”, is “More than just a piece of meat.” It’s like a fun-house mirror version of the ads in the Dove 'real beauty' campaign (in themselves problematic, but not in such a vomity way.)

Now, before Carl's Jr. decided to promote the interests of women, their ad campaigns for a million years consisted of those infuriating "dude-bro" commercials. In those ads, manly, attractive guys did manly things like ignore their carping, whiny girlfriends while eating manly things like Carl's Jr. burgers.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sick: Operation Rescue Founder Launches 'Defeat Sotomayor' Tour, Including Press Conference at Dr. Tiller Clinic
Posted by Ian Millhiser, Think Progress on July 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM.

Randall Terry, founder of the right-wing extremist group Operation Rescue, has announced a twelve-city tour intended to convince senators that “[t]o refuse to filibuster [Sotomayor] is to bow in abject obedience to the Angel of Death.” The graphic depicted to the right is taken from a flier promoting the event, which claims:

“We must stop permitting this hypocrisy, cowardice, and treachery in our midst. Pro-life voters are calling on pro-life Senators to filibuster Sotomayor.

“A Senator cannot say, ‘I want to overturn Roe,’ and then vote to confirm a Supreme Court Judge that will uphold Roe. A vote to confirm Sotomayor is a vote to uphold Roe.

“Many senators use pro-life rhetoric to seduce us; they get our money, our volunteer labor, and our votes. But once an election is over, they discard us like an embarrassing mistress. . . . Whether they ‘have the votes’ to sustain a filibuster or not, they need to fight to stop her, for the sake of the babies who will die under her judicial reign.“

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Scientific Shocker: There Were Cave Women!
Posted by Echidne, Echidne of the Snakes on June 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM.

Who would have thought? Not researchers, it seems:

For about as long as humans have created works of art, they've also left behind handprints. People began stenciling, painting, or chipping imprints of their hands onto rock walls at least 30,000 years ago.

Until recently, most scientists assumed these prehistoric handprints were male. But "even a superficial examination of published photos suggested to me that there were lots of female hands there," Pennsylvania State University archaeologist Dean Snow said of European cave art.

I'm not sure if it's possible to prove which hands belonged to men and which belonged to women, because anything one might use (size of hands, length of fingers, finger length ratios) will allow considerable overlap between the genders. Still, I'm astonished with the assertion that most scientists simply assumed those handprints were male. How could they assume that?

The problem with studying something that ancient is that many of the working assumptions will by necessity come from something else than the actual physical evidence. Our current values, for instance, and the odd way women become invisible to some people if we are not talking about reproduction.

Somehow all this reminds me of those old cartoons about the caveman coming home to the cave after a long day of hunting for mammoths and there sits the cavewoman, cooking the dinner (of mammoth, of course). That whole scenario was based on the social myths of the era of those cartoons, not of the era of the "cavemen".

Link courtesy of Lynne.

Dear Anti-Choicers: Please Shut Up About the Non-Existent Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on June 25, 2009 at 9:45 AM.

I can't believe the anti-choicers are still on the "abortion causes breast cancer" kick.

"Susan G. Komen for the Cure is no friend of women," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. "Komen perpetuates the breast cancer epidemic by withholding the truth that abortion increases breast cancer risk. We have three challenges for Komen.

"First, we challenge Komen to debate the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link with us at the next Catholic Health Association (CHA) meeting or another venue. Since science is on our side, we expect Komen will duck the debate, as others have.

Leaving aside that there are legitimate criticisms to be made of SGK4Cure (and let's genuinely leave that aside in this thread, please), among them is not that SGK4Cure "perpetuates the breast cancer epidemic." And possibly the reason SGK4Cure will "duck the debate" is because

there is no debate

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Gasp! New Study Reveals Mothers Drink Sometimes, and Other Scandals
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on June 23, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

Sit down, kids, because I have some terrifying news: Sometimes, women drink. And smoke. Sometimes they even smoke marijuana. To top it all off, some of those women are mothers.

Yes, this is the news that USA Today brings us, in an article about post-pregnancy “substance abuse” -- a term apparently so loosely-defined that it includes any alcohol use at all.

Women drink in fairly low numbers while pregnant -- only one in eight women has a drink during the entire course of her pregnancy, and most of that seems to be in the first trimester, when some women don’t realize they’re pregnant. The number of women who drink alcohol — not binge-drink, mind you, just drink -- within three months of giving birth is 31%, a figure that strikes me as fairly low (I haven’t ever had a baby come out of my body, but the day I do, someone had better give me a glass of wine). And despite the fact that women with children use alcohol, cigarettes and drugs in low numbers, USA Today still thinks you should be Very Concerned:

The portion of pregnant women using alcohol dropped during pregnancy (19% the first trimester, 7.8% in the second, and 6.2% in the third).

"Women are getting the message and are reducing their drug use across the board when they’re pregnant," Delany says. "We need to do better in helping women understand: Not only should you not use while you’re pregnant, you should continue not using."

According to the study, 31.9% of women used alcohol within the first three months after childbirth.

The study also found that the number of postpartum women who used drugs and alcohol was significantly less than the number of non-pregnant women who were using substances, except in the case of cigarettes.

The implication, Delany says, "is that having children creates a protective factor so that women may not be going back to drug use."

Delany says the study highlights the importance of getting the message out to women to not resume substance use after pregnancy.

"It’s just something we need to work better on as a nation," he says. "Women just aren’t stopping the way we would hope."

I'm all for efforts to help people -- all people, not just the ones with uteruses -- curb substance abuse. I'm in favor of efforts to encourage parents not to smoke around their small children. But I can’t get on board with the message that women need to stop all substance use after pregnancy. And I definitely can’t support those efforts when they conflate "use" with "abuse." Mommies are people too, and it doesn’t make someone irresponsible or an addict to have a beer or a cigarette after they have a kid.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dear Cruise Lines: Your Response to Rapes Aboard Your Ships is Crass and Clueless
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on June 22, 2009 at 2:20 PM.

[Trigger warning.]

So, I'm reading this article about the FBI reporting that "sexual and physical assaults were the leading crimes committed onboard cruise ships in recent years," and it's the usual depressing litany of failures to properly protect people from sexual assault and subsequent failures to properly serve resulting victims. And then there's the Blame Game, in which everyone who has a finger to point points it, in a wild attempt to identify who's really at fault for all these failures:

The number of attacks on ships is probably higher than reported, sexual assault experts say, because rape victims are afraid to come forward on an isolated ship with perpetrators in close quarters.

They also say cruise travelers are at a higher risk for attack because of readily available alcohol and a partying mentality on the vessels, which haul an average of 2,000 passengers each from across the globe. Of the attacks investigated by the FBI, a majority involved the use of alcohol.

Note the vague "involved the use of alcohol," which could mean a victim was drinking or that a rapist was drinking (or both), but because, of course, we can't actually ever have a real discussion about how alcohol might lower the inhibitions of rapists, most readers will naturally go immediately to the well-worn trope of drunken sluts deserving to get raped.

Cruise lines disagree, saying people are safer on the ships than they are in their own communities. The companies provide 24-hour security and screen passengers' belongings.

"The cruise ship is a closed community," said Michael Crye, executive vice president of the Cruise Lines International Association. Security officers "have absolute access to everyone onboard," he said, because each person has been documented before boarding the ship.

Note the complete ignorance of what actually causes rape -- not a lack of security, not people being allowed willy-nilly to carry unexamined junk around with them, not a sense of community, not being known to authorities, but the presence of a rapist who's determined to rape someone, a rapist who knows that the illusions of safety thought to insulate "good people" from rapists, coupled with massive canons loaded with victim-blaming and set on a hair-trigger, will make raping someone and getting away with it incredibly easy.

Who's responsible for sexual assault on cruise ships? The same people who are responsible everywhere else -- rapists and rape enablers, the people who see a borderline-incapacitated person being plied with more alcohol, who see someone already incapable of giving enthusiastic consent being dragged off to private quarters, who see someone being hounded by a stranger whose attentions they don't want, who see someone being bullied into dancing, sitting near, kissing, spending time with a person with whom they clearly don't feel comfortable, who listen to someone telling rape jokes, who hear someone making inappropriate comments about what they'd like to do to someone younger, drunker, more vulnerable, who see someone slipping something into another person's drink, who see any one of a million different clues that Something Bad Is Going to Happen, and do nothing, say nothing, just let it go. Or worse: Egg it on.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Should the Burqa Be Banned?
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on June 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM.

French legislators are considering introducing legislation to ban the burqa in their country, in the name of respecting women. The burqa, these politicians argue, is a “prison” and “degrading” to women.

I’m personally of the mind that calls for women to cover their bodies because the female form is somehow inherently tempting or representative of sex are misogynist, regressive and certainly out of line with the most basic tenets of feminism. But women make choices about the way we dress for all kinds of reasons -- sometimes to follow a religious tradition, sometimes to be perceived as attractive, sometimes to be invisible, sometimes to just cover our bare asses. Most of our motivations aren’t feminist or anti-feminist. When it comes to religious requirements especially, we know that outlawing certain garments in public doesn’t make women shed the offending item of clothing; it just makes women refrain from public interactions.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Michael Savage Feels Oppressed
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on June 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM.

"The white Christian heterosexual married male is the epitome of everything right with America, and yet it is the white Christian heterosexual married male who has been made the beast of America."

—Michael Savage, who, like most conservatives, doesn't understand that it's not being white that's bad, but privileging whiteness, and it's not being Christian that's bad, but privileging Christianity, and it's not being straight that's bad, but privileging straightness, and it's not being married that's bad, but privileging marriage, and it's not being male that's bad, but privileging men and maleness.

What's bad is not being these things, but benefiting from the undeserved privilege conferred upon them. The beast is not the white Christian heterosexual married male, but the white person, or the Christian person, or the heterosexual person, or the married person, or the man who sits on hir laurels not challenging the institutions that grant them a birthright of unearned privilege, access, and opportunity.

Anti-Choice Group 'Operation Rescue' Threatens to Buy Dr. Tiller's Clinic
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on June 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM.

After the brutal assassination of Dr. George Tiller, his family discussed closing down his controversial abortion clinic. Surprisingly, anti-choice group Operation Rescue — which had made closing down Tiller’s clinic one if its main goals — opposed the move. “Good God, do not close this abortion clinic for this reason,” said president Troy Newman. “Every kook in the world will get some notion.” However, yesterday, the Tiller family announced that the clinic will be “permanently closed.” Kate Klonick observes that “it seems like Newman isn’t quite as upset by the means of closing the clinic — at least not upset enough not to see his movement profit from it.” From the Kansas City Star:

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said that his group has discussed the idea of buying the tan, windowless clinic in east Wichita. He made the comment after the Tiller family announced that the clinic would be closed permanently.

“I would love to make an offer on that abortion clinic, and that’s some of the discussion that we’re having,” Newman said in a telephone interview Tuesday from his group’s headquarters in Wichita.

It’s unclear for what purpose Operation Rescue would use the clinic. (HT: Yglesias)

Horrible: Dr. Tiller's Wichita Clinic Will Shut Down For Good
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on June 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM.

This morning brought the distressing news that the Wichita clinic where Dr. George Tiller treated his patients will not reopen, following his death by an assassin's bullet on May 31.

"The family of Dr. George Tiller announces that effective immediately, Women's Health Care Services, Inc., will be permanently closed," read a statement sent to the reporters earlier today. "Notice is being given today to all concerned that the Tiller family is ceasing operation of the clinic and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic."

We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women's health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service. That is a legacy that will never die.

Like Dr. Tiller himself, the clinic that he ran was the target of decades of harassment, threats, and violence. After opening in the 1970s, it was the site of constant protest by anti-abortion activists. In 1985, it was bombed.

Following news of his murder, Dr. Tiller's colleagues expressed concern over the fate of his embattled clinic. In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, Dr. Susan Robinson, a California gynecologist who used to fly out to Wichita multiple times a month to work by his side asked, "What's going to happen to all those patients? Where are they going to go?"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

George Tiller's Alleged Murderer Threatens More Violence
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on June 8, 2009 at 12:13 PM.

Scott Roeder, the 51-year-old man accused of fatally shooting OB-GYN George Tiller last Sunday, has threatened more violence against abortion providers. In a conversation with the AP, the alleged murderer stated:

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," ... When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.

It’s not clear if Roeder was just mouthing off to get publicity or if the alleged killer was referring to specific events planned by possible accomplices. While it sounds like the former, this time around authorities are thankfully taking the threat seriously and upping protection of abortion facilities:

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a written statement Sunday that "we take this matter seriously, which is why the Attorney General ordered increased protection of appropriate people and facilities last week."

As many commentators pointed out following Tiller's murder, violent acts by anti-choice extremists are meant to intimidate women's health providers into abandoning abortion services. As Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, pointed out in a statement released following Tiller's death:

Dr. Tiller's murder will send a chill down the spines of the brave and courageous providers and other professionals who are part of reproductive-health centers that serve women across this country. We want them to know that they have our support as they move forward in providing these essential services in the aftermath of the shocking news from Wichita.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Budget Cuts Take Aim at Educational Opportunities for Women, Bike Paths, And Technology Innovation
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on June 4, 2009 at 1:34 PM.

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) sent President Obama a proposal with budget cuts that they claim could save taxpayers “in excess of $375 billion.” From their letter to Obama:

Of course, reducing spending is never easy. … The proposed terminations and reductions your Administration released last month garnered immediate opposition from many Democrats. Likewise, the proposals we have put forward here will not be supported by all Republicans. However, if we work together, we are confident that we can come up with a common-sense package of entitlement reforms, program terminations, and spending reductions that will generate significant savings for the American taxpayer and reduce our current deficit. For example, enactment of the proposals we have outlined in the enclosed document could save taxpayers in excess of $375 billion [over the next five years].

First of all, Boehner and Cantor are inflating their cuts. Their proposal actually equates to just $23 billion in spending cuts over the next five years. As the AP points out, many of the GOP cuts “haven’t been estimated by federal scorekeepers and the party has padded its own estimate by assuming $317 billion over the next five years from limiting non-defense agency budgets to inflation-adjusted levels that Obama is sure to reject.”

Second, Republicans are planning to slash more than just “wasteful and unnecessary spending,” as Boehner and Cantor wrote in their letter to Obama. A small sampling of the proposed cuts:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Conservatives' New Sotomayor Opposition Stategy Same as the Old One
Posted by Ryan Powers, Think Progress on June 4, 2009 at 9:32 AM.

Republicans in Congress and conservative activists spent last week attempting to paint President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a racist. Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, and Rush Limbaugh all made the charge explicitly, while Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared to come to the same conclusion using softer language. At different points, others attacked her temperament, her intellect, and misrepresented her record on the bench.

This week, however, prominent Republicans are attempting to distance themselves from last week’s smear tactics, with Politco reporting that they have embraced “toned down rhetoric on Sonia Sotomayor.” On the Sunday talk shows, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) urged Republicans to refrain from harshly-worded racism accusations. Sessions explained that “he would prefer fellow Republicans stop attacking Sotomayor over remarks about her background as a daughter of Puerto Rican parents.” Yesterday, Newt Gingrich wrote in Human Events that he should not have used the word “racist” to describe Sotomayor “as a person.”

But their new and supposedly more civil opposition strategy is no different than their old strategy. Republicans in Congress still appear to want the public perception of Sotomayor to be skewed by misinformation from the far right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told CNN’s John King on Sunday that he had “better things to do” than to denounce conservatives who called Sotomayor “racist.” And now it seems his office is encouraging the spirit of this and similar arguments. As the Hill reports today, “Senate Republicans have kept their distance from conservative attacks on Sonia Sotomayor, but behind the scenes, they have encouraged activists to keep their crosshairs trained on the Supreme Court nominee”:

Lanier Swann, an aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), told a private meeting of conservative activists Wednesday to keep up their pressure on Sotomayor.

“Swann told us she wanted to encourage all of us in our talking points and that we’re having traction among Republicans and unnerving Democrats,” said an attendee of Wednesday’s weekly meeting hosted by Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The point was we should keep it up,” said the source. “She told us at this meeting to put our foot on the pedal.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

More Proof That PETA are Just Opportunistic Ghouls
Posted by PZ Myers, Pharyngula on June 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM.

Oh, how I despise PETA. Now they're putting up new billboards in Kansas —can you guess why?

Lindsay Rajt, campaign manager for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said the billboards were prompted by the recent shooting death of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was killed Sunday at his church.

"The discussion of the value of life is front and center right now in the public conversation," Rajt said today. "We think we would be irresponsible if we don't talk about how we're all guilty of extreme cruelty to animals every time we sit down to a meal that includes meat."

They have two billboards: one that says "Pro-life? Go vegetarian" and the other says "Pro-choice? Choose vegetarian". PETA reminds me of the undertaker in Yojimbo: a town is tearing itself apart, and the only one prospering is the ghoul who's happily selling coffins to both factions. I can only hope their ham-handed campaign repulses both sides.