anythings.org

Cutest baby ever, wearing the World’s Tiniest Feminist baby t-shirt.

Courtesy of “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”:

The quintessential liberal fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade-school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

You can tell Goldberg was dying to say “black female grade-school teacher”, but couldn’t quite find an excuse to. And possibly, the second best thing: Goldberg stole his cover graphic from Prussian Blue.

Even better: Nazis were animal rights activists, and therefore, Nazis weren’t bad people.

Apparently the goal of his book was to link everything liberals do (have done, or will do) with Hitler and other fascists in order to point out how awesome conservatives are. Genius, really!

[via Sadly, No]

Time magazine recently wrote about a research study that linked abortions to future occurrences of premature births and low birth weight babies, by 2 and 3, respectively. I understand that Time was trying to explain to the general population that

the study is hardly perfect; the data is more than 40 years old and doesn’t distinguish between medical abortions and ’spontaneous abortions,’ better known as miscarriages.

Even with this statement in the first paragraph of their article, the shocking headline doesn’t quite convey the same message.

They claim that the large sample size helps to increase significance, but when they sample used for the study is over 50 years old and doesn’t distinguish between medical abortions and miscarriages, I would think that sample size doesn’t matter when something this big was ignored by the researchers. While the journal it was published in is not that credible, but the general American public doesn’t know these things.

Do your part to help spread the word about bogus studies that impact a woman’s right to choose!

Find out more at Choice USA.

Maybe if Jamie Lynn Spears had received an education other than one that was focused on abstinence, she wouldn’t be three months pregnant right now. She would have learned how to use a condom properly or she would have been on birth control. Technically, legally, she shouldn’t have been having sex anyways: the age of consent in Louisiana is 17. I didn’t initially plan on vocalizing my opinion about the Spears pregnancy disaster, but I just couldn’t hold my tongue any longer.

Yes, it was her choice to have the baby and not get an abortion or give it up for adoption, but the way this story is being publicized is a bit ridiculous. Nickelodeon, the network which boosted Baby Spears to stardom with Zoey 101, released a statement in which they praised her for “taking responsibility”. With her family’s track record, I don’t think giving birth to a child at the age of 16 (or at all, really, let’s be honest) is even close to taking responsibility. Yes, Jamie Lynn is (was?) a teen role model (she might not be for long…), there’s nothing I can do about that. But there is something parents can do about it: they can stop sitting their kids in front of the television every night and bond with them and encouraging them to have healthy and safe lifestyles. Yes, Jamie Lynn is a celebrity and she’s 16, but the sad part is her life right now so sadly mirrors the life of many girls stuck in the same situation.

If Jamie Lynn was an adult who had an high school education, financial resources, and a solid home, I don’t think it would matter so much that she’s pregnant. I could care less that Lily Allen and Jessica Alba are pregnant: they are adults with solid finances and (supposedly) healthy homes. Regardless of the fact that she isn’t married, Jamie Lynn is only 16 years old. She’s barely experienced life and now she’s giving birth to a new one. You’d think she would have learned from her sister and that double disaster.

This sudden stream of celebrity pregnancies that appear to be completely unplanned and blockbuster flicks about the same can only negatively impact young women. If you see someone doing something easily (or perceive that they are doing it easily), it makes that alternative all the more desirable. Would it really be so bad if one celebrity said “you know, I was pregnant, but it’s not the right time in my career and I’m not ready for a family, so I had an abortion”?

And, by the by, has anybody bothered to mention that Jamie Lynn technically had no legal rights to consent to sex in the first place? I know in California there is a provision for age difference (as long as it is less than 2 or 3 years - don’t know which - it is allowed), but is there one in Louisiana? Now, I am not a fan of statutory rape laws (I don’t think they are necessary, especially since there are provisions solely related to child molestation on the books in every single state) but statutory rape is something that must be prosecuted if law enforcement knows about it (just like mandated reporting for child abuse). How much do you want to bet that her ex-boyfriend won’t be taken to court on statutory rape charges, even though it is mandatory to prosecute?

HELLO, DUH! Of course sex education works!

Being a huge Hillary Clinton fan, it is only natural for people to assume that I will be voting for her in the upcoming California primary. I’m not going to lie - I love the Clintons. The whole family, actually. It’s a shame they didn’t have any sons or gay daughters, because I’d do anything to be a Clinton.

With that said, the upcoming Presidential election (that I have been waiting far too long for) is not as clear cut for me as it should be. I love Clinton and some of her policies. At the same time, I like some of Obama’s policies… and some of Edwards’s as well. When it comes to the 2008 election, I’m facing a bit of a problem: the Democratic candidates are all so solid that I’m not sure which one is most likely to take the White House on January 20, 2009.

Which brings me to the question: how big of a role will my vagina and my race play in 2008? Now, granted, I’m white - but not everyone in this country is. It’s impossible to say that gender and race won’t have any involvement in the upcoming election - because they will. Should I vote for Clinton because I’m a woman? Hey, solidarity sister! It sounds great: there is an opportunity for a strong Democratic woman to be President, and I’m all for it. But do her policies sway on the fence voters? Does she have a shot at beating whatever drone the Republicans dig up? Is she electable?

But I think the same of Edwards and Obama. Are they electable? Are their policies and opinions and extremely short track records enough to sway on the fence voters? And really - we have to bring it up - what about the Oprah factor? This celebrity stunt makes Obama appear to be a weak candidate when he’s not, and it makes him less appealing to me as a voter.

But Obama could be the candidate that takes it all. Goodness knows he’s got the support. And I do like some of his policies. But will his race hurt him? I hate to ask the question, but let’s face it, someone has to (and better it be someone who doesn’t care about race in “that way”). Will the crazy racist bastards that still inhabit our country make it impossible for him to be elected? And if he is elected, it’s not a matter of if someone will attempt an assassination, but how soon will an assassination attempt come. Obama’s race is a big deal for many American voters. Will this impact his ability to take back the White House?

Which leaves me with Obama and Clinton. While Clinton is using the other Clinton to draw attention to her campaign, I have less of a problem with this. Bill has been involved in politics for a very long time: him lending support to his wife in her election campaign is to be expected, since they share some of the same views on certain issues. But focusing on the issues, I am still torn between the three candidates. Who has the drive, funds, policies, and charisma to take the White House back from the evil clutches of the Republicans? Will my vagina become more important than my politics? Will I feel compelled to vote for Clinton just because she’s a woman? It’s a sticky web and it all comes down to who can beat the Republicans.

My biggest fear is that Clinton couldn’t do it because she’s a woman, and the chauvinistic pigs would do everything in their power to stop it. My second biggest fear is that Obama couldn’t do it because he’s black, and the ignorant racists would do everything in their power to stop it. My third - and final - fear is that Edwards lacks the experience to persuade on-the-fence voters our way. Who can do it? But beyond that, who will save us?

In an interesting side note, being born in 1985, if Clinton gets elected, there will have only been Bushes and Clintons in the office for my entire life span. Well, except for my first 4 years of life, which were governed by Reagan.

This is so infuriating! If a woman says “no”, she says “no”! It doesn’t matter who she is saying “no” to. Apparently, in the UK, a top Tory senior adviser says that “suggested rape accusations made by women against their partners should be treated as “disagreements” between lovers.”

Well of course it’s a disagreement. One person wants to have sex, the other doesn’t, and the one who wants to doesn’t give a shit what their partner wants and rapes them. That is, very obviously, a disagreement. His justification is ridiculous:

None of us want men to rape women, but there is a difference between a man using unreasonable force to assault a woman on the street, and a disagreement between two lovers over whether there was consent on one particular occasion.

Who is to say that a partner doesn’t (or can’t!) use unreasonable force to rape their significant other? Last time I checked, the definition of rape was anal, oral, or vaginal penetration without consent. How is a situation where a couple disagrees about whether or not there was consent NOT rape? Everything about that screams rape. Just because you know someone doesn’t mean they can’t rape you. Assaults on the street are far less common than assaults by people the survivor knows.

This can only have bad consequences. Every acquaintance rapist in the UK is now going to use the defense that it wasn’t rape because they knew each other. They’ll say “we just disagreed about consent! We’re friends, we’re work it out. It was only a minor disagreement, no need for the law here!” Sorry, not ok with me. With only 15% of rapes in the US being stranger rapes and the other whopping 85% being acquaintance rapes, this can only spell bad things for rape survivors. If you consider the fact that rape is one of the most underreported crimes, assholes who run around saying stuff like this will only decrease the number of acquaintance rapes that are reported.

Probably the best part of the whole thing is that they know this:

“It has also been suggested that around three-quarters of rape victims do not report the crime to the police.” Mr Cameron told the Conservative Women’s Organisation that this meant only 15 out of 1,000 victims see justice done.

He said: “We have a situation where rapists think they can get away with it, while victims fear not being believed and wonder what’s the point of pursuing the criminal process. How can any civilised country, that sees the sanctity of consent to sex as a vital right for every woman, accept these facts?”

If we live in a society where rapists think they can get away with it, and survivors fear not being believed I am highly doubtful that running around telling people that rape is simply just a “lover’s quarrel” will help fix this discrepancy. This is so disgusting. If a woman says no, she says no! It doesn’t matter who she is saying no to!

What is with all the countries I want to move to disappointing me with their political opinions and judicial rulings surrounding rape?

Source, via Feministing.

A judge in Canada called a rape victim “stupid” and “naive” because she got into a car with a man who offered to take her to a bus station, but instead drove her to a cemetery and brutally raped her. While the judge did sentence the rapist with 3 1/2 years in prison, he took the opportunity during sentencing to blame the victim for her foolishness.

Now, none of the articles I have found say whether or not the survivor knew the man who raped her, but regardless, she shouldn’t be blamed for the fact that she was raped. This is just as bad as saying it’s her fault for getting raped because she wore a short skirt or had cleavage the night she was attacked. You cannot blame the victim for the circumstances surrounding their attack. They are not wearing a sign that says “I KNOW, I’M ASKING FOR IT. PLEASE RAPE ME.” And for the old school chauvinists who still think that being sexy means you’re asking for sex (even though you may say “no” when it’s forced down your throat or into your vagina), take a look at it this way: it’s a young Asian American woman’s fault for being raped because she happened to be Asian American and she bumped into a man at the coffee shop, who later rapes her because he has a fetish for Asian American women and dominating them.

Or, even more obvious, if a woman was completely incapacitated (either from drugs, drinking, or being drugged while drinking) and running down the street naked and was raped, it wouldn’t be her fault. In every single one of these situations the victim is not to blame.

Asshole judges like this are why so few rape cases are reported, and even fewer go to trial. This is almost as bad as the rape case in the US earlier this year where no one in the trial could say “rape”, “assault”, or “victim” and the jury DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT.

And to think all this time I’ve been praising Canada for it’s awesome-ness and non United States-ness and wanting to move there… and then they go and get some asshole judge (cough - ALITO - cough) who screws up everything.

[Image from Peace Over Violence]

Facebook crossed a line with its new advertising program, and, apparently, I’m not the only person who thinks so. Other people are getting pretty angry and are starting to write about the frustration they are feeling because Facebook is owned by money grubbing whores.

Even with the changes they made as a result to the outcry, there is still no clear and easy way to opt out.

Apparently, teen birth rates are up (quite a lot) for the first time in 14 years. I also enjoy the fact that births by unwed mothers are still connected with teen births. I thought we had accepted the whole single parent thing?

Think it has anything to do with Bush’s ridiculously failed attempt at sex education? Abstinence only education does not work, Mr. President.

[Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs]

According to the ever amazing New York Times, people with asperger’s syndrome refer to themselves as “aspies”. My 21 year-old brother has asperger’s, knows it, and has never once called himself an “aspie”. He just says he’s “different” and “cool”. He even went to a special school for kids with developmental disabilities and he doesn’t call himself an “aspie”. Way to make a neurological disorder sound like a puppy dog.

“Aspies”? Seriously? It makes it sound so cutesy - like they have a support group that meets every Thursday at 6:30pm. They don’t need a support group, they just need other people to understand them.

While the article was clearly written for laypeople with little knowledge of autism spectrum disorders, it is riddled with pointless sentences. My favorite probably being “they often have normal or above-average intelligence”. This is really a pointless sentence altogether, seeing as how people with asperger’s are just like anyone else as far as intelligence goes: there are just as many intelligent people as their are dumbasses. Like almost everyone else in the world, 99% of people with autism spectrum disorders have things that they are good and bad at. They’re called skills - or even strengths and weaknesses. I thought we had killed this whole “autistic savant” stereotype?