anythings.org

Rebecca Walker really just wants me to hate her, doesn’t she? I feel like she’s playing an immature game where she pisses off feminists across the globe in a desperate plea for attention and wealth. Here’s a tip: you’ll never be your mother, so just let it go. Alice Walker is a far better writer, and a much more likable person overall. On the bonus side, Alice Walker doesn’t hate feminism and blame it for everything she sees wrong with the world.

After her ridiculous article for the Daily Mail where she blamed feminism for women’s lack of babies, she found a way back into the media spotlight by publishing an article on CNN calling Clinton’s female supporters “reverse-sexists.”

But with a Democratic house divided, now is the time for healing, and this can only happen if Hillary’s staunch female supporters let go of the reverse-sexist ideology that women are inherently better, wiser, and more compassionate leaders.

They will have to acknowledge that sometimes the best woman for the job is actually a man — if it’s the right man. Obama’s vote against the war, marriage to his female mentor, outstanding record on reproductive choice and a host of other progressive issues, and his uncanny ability to inspire people all over the world suggest he’s just that.

It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility.

I really thought we’d gotten over this whole thing about women voting for Clinton because she was a woman, and black men and women voting for Obama because he was African American, but apparently Rebecca Walker doesn’t agree with me. While I’m sure some women voted for Clinton because she was a woman and some African Americans voted for Obama because he was, I’m sure the majority of them were motivated by their political views, and not their similarity to their candidate of choice, whether it be race or gender. I really thought the feminist movement came to terms with this awhile ago: people are so shallow and stupid as to vote for the candidate that matches their personal identification, and accusing them of doing so is downright offensive and patronizing.

I didn’t even need to get to the need of the article where she admits to being an Obama supporter before I figured out that she was one. It’s almost like she’s trying to prove to the world just how bad-ass of a feminist she is by saying “see, look at me, I rose above the female greed and voted for the male candidate!”, as if that somehow makes her better than the feminist women who voted for Clinton.

I’m sorry, but where is her feminist solidarity? Does she really think she is so much more superior than the women who voted for Clinton because she didn’t engage in “reverse-sexism?” For a woman who is striving to encourage empowerment of individuals across the lines of race, gender, etc, she really doesn’t think highly of her fellow women.

She accuses women of voting for Clinton simply because of gender, but pens no response to the men who have voted for her, harking back to the stereotype that men are logical thinkers, and women are irrational and emotional. Why is it acceptable to call women out for voting for Clinton, but say nothing to the men who did? Were all women who voted for Clinton motivated by her gender, and the men motivated by her political views and campaign promises? If she’s going to continue playing such an immature game of blaming feminism for society’s problems, maybe she should make the jump and find a way to blame feminism for all the white men and women who voted for McCain, as well as all of the African Americans who were blinded by their race and voted for Obama.

But she won’t. And you know why? Rebecca Walker hates the feminist movement and she hates empowered women. She blames it for everything that was wrong with her childhood, and she blames it for her terrible relationship with her mother. Why not blame it for her ambivalence regarding motherhood, or the way women voted in 2008? One can only imagine what else she’ll find to blame feminism for. Higher clothing prices because we dare to demand non-sweatshop clothing? Global warming because feminism encouraged us to be the women we wanted to be, so we used aerosol hairspray and put a hole in the o-zone layer? Really, Rebecca, let it go.

Hating the feminist movement from the inside does nothing to increase its effectiveness, no matter how you try to mask your hatred of other women and the movement.

And BY THE WAY, there is no such thing as “reverse-sexism.” Sexism is discrimination based on gender, and while more women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis than men, it can cross gender boundaries and create problems for men as well.

Via Feministe.

The feminist blogosphere has been up in arms lately (rightfully so) about an Oklahoma bill that requires a woman to get an ultrasound, and look at the images, one hour before she gets an abortion. The bill says that the woman will be required to get either an vaginal or abdominal ultrasound, whichever shows the best picture. Aside from this being a completely pointless and unwarranted medical procedure, most women in early pregnancy will have to get a vaginal ultrasound, since that provides the best picture:

The bill combines many new abortion regulations. The most invasive and unprecedented provisions of the bill relate to mandates for an ultrasound before a pregnancy termination can be done. The bill states that either a transabdominal or transvaginal transducer, whichever gives the clearer picture of the embryo, must be used. For early terminations that will mandate an ultrasound done with a probe placed in the vagina. There is no provision for the woman to opt out of this procedure. My main concerns about the bill are the following:

1) The bill dictates how doctors obtain informed consent in a way that does not conform to medically-accepted practice. Current state law already requires the doctor to refer patients to information about development of an embryo or fetus twenty-four hours before a pregnancy termination. The website is one required resource. She must also be notified about facilities that will offer her a free ultrasound.

2) This compels a physician to perform an invasive, vaginal procedure — not for the benefit of the patient, and possibly against her wishes — before the requested medical procedure can be done.

3) The fines for failure to follow the requirements begin at $10,000 go up to $100,000 or more for subsequent violations. The highest fines for negligent homicide or driving under the influence in Oklahoma are $1,000.

4) The bill defines “unprofessional conduct” if a physician does not perform this unnecessary procedure and suggests that the medical board may remove the physician’s license. This violates the standard medical practice that any patient has the right to refuse medical procedures or treatment.

This bill dictates how a doctor obtains informed consent, violates the patient’s right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, and places disproportionate punishments on physicians who do not comply.

Now, just wondering, but has anybody else noticed that a forced vaginal ultrasound is more than a little akin to rape? Last I checked, rape was defined as unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, regardless of what object was doing the penetration. Almost makes me want to go to Oklahoma, get pregnant, have an abortion with a vaginal ultrasound against my will, and then file charges against the state for rape. But let’s be real, that would never happened in a state that is even considering passing this legislation, especially after they brought it back to life after the governor’s veto.

Most amusing to me, however, is #4: if a doctor doesn’t perform the ultrasound but does perform the abortion, the doctor is at risk for losing his/her license to practice medicine, simply for following a patient’s wishes to not perform a medical procedure. Last time I checked, it wasn’t a crime for a physician not to perform a procedure at the patient’s request, but apparently, Oklahoma has decided to make it so.

This headline is absolutely grotesque and inexcusable: Victim ‘had sex with captor willingly’

While the contents of the article are a little more divulging with the details than the headline, it’s obvious that the headline was created purely to attract attention and raise a shock factor. Which, congratulations, it has. However, I don’t think it’s the kind of attention any paper wants: degrading a victim’s suffering and her exploiting her experiences while being held captive to get more attention. That’s not ok.

The back story includes many more details than the New Zealand paper. Natascha was kidnapped when she was 10, and escaped when she was 18. During that time, she held captive in a small basement cell with no windows and a locked door, with books to keep her company (after the first two years anyways). She was also beaten and coerced into taking sexually explicit photographs and having sex with her captor. While the dynamics of a situation such as this are never simple, it more complicated than a victim having sex with their captor “willingly”. Putting the word willingly in air quotes doesn’t make it ok, and it’s not enough to explain the multi-layered situation that exists here.

From The New Zealand Herald:

Austrian police are at the centre of a storm after interrogation reports were leaked showing that the kidnap victim Natascha Kampusch admitted she “willingly” had sex with her captor, Wolfgang Priklopil.

She also indicated that Priklopil - who killed himself in the hours following her escape - had accomplices; something she later denied. And the papers also reveal she was examined by a gynaecologist and left a suspicion that she may have become pregnant by Priklopil while in captivity, prompting speculation in Austrian and German media that she had a baby while being held. […]

The newspaper Heute received witness statements testifying about Priklopil’s love of S and M and how he routinely hurt females dressed as schoolgirls. Photographs of Kampusch being used as a sex slave by her kidnapper were hidden by police.

In the leaked documents, Sabine Freudenberger, the first person to interview Kampusch at the police station, said: “I only really asked her three questions - whether she had had sex with her kidnapper, how it is that after all this time she seemed to be so educated and whether there were accomplices.

“She admitted that she had had sex with him and that she had done that voluntarily. She had been given books by him to read, could listen to the radio and was given videos to see. When asked if there were any accomplices she said: `I do not know any names.”‘

Of course the photos of Natascha being used as a sex slave were hidden by the police, they had every right to hide those photos. She was a victim.

I think that interviewer needs some sensitivity training if you ask me. My three questions would not be if she had sex with him and how is it that she became so educated! Those questions were asked at the curiosity of the office, not out of necessity for the investigation. While it may have been relevant to ask is she was raped or had been subject to any type of sexual assault, asking a victim if their captor had sex with them is an entirely different question: it implies that the victim had a choice in the matter and that there was some enjoyment to be gained from the experience.

Disgusting!

Via The Curvature.

This is disgusting and beyond reproach:

A man who admitted giving a woman a fatal dose of “date rape” drug during his alleged drive to have sex with 100 women was sentenced Friday to five years in prison during a hearing that exposed the stark emotions of his victim’s family.

John F. Berger, 38, of St. Louis, was sentenced in the death on April 7, 2002, of Tressa Gross, 26, whom he had met earlier that evening at a club on Washington Avenue. On Nov. 30, he pleaded guilty in a deal that included the five-year sentence.

Prosecutors said they had evidence Berger wanted to have sex with 100 women, was close to his goal and had given similar drugs to other women. Berger wasn’t charged until November 2006.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry accepted the five-year term, of which he must serve at least four, and added five years of probation with mandatory drug and mental health treatment. She ordered him to pay Sandy Murray, Gross’ mother, the $5,622 cost of her daughter’s funeral. Murray was not in court.

Berger admitted he gave Gross cocaine and the “date rape” drug before having sex with her at a downtown loft, where she lost consciousness. He also said he disposed of the drugs before asking a friend to call an ambulance.

The St. Louis medical examiner determined in July 2002 that Gross died of an overdose of 1.4 butanediol, which converts to Gamma-hydroxybutyric, or GHB, in the body. GHB can cause drowsiness, loss of inhibition, amnesia and — at higher doses — breathing trouble and death.

How is it that a man who admits to raping and letting a woman die only serves 5 years in prison? That’s not right, and it’s definitely not justice for the victim.

The past few months, the media has been overrun with stories relating to rapes that have been covered up by the military and KBR (and KBR, again), immigration officials, and many more. The coverage of rape myths has continued to remain popular, despite the thousands of women who have experienced otherwise. Stories have been released that tell us just how frighteningly common rape and sexual assault are in the military, even though we all know that the majority of sexual assaults go unreported, even though it is extremely frequent.

And you know what? I’m sick of it. Sick of the fear, the stigma, and the trauma all associated with rape. Sick of the guilt, sick of the terrible media coverage, sick of people blaming the victim. And you know why this happens? Do you? Because if you don’t, I do.

When companies like KBR discover that their employees are being victimized and violently attacked, they have the opportunity to do one of two things:

1. Take a stand for their employees and fight like hell for their rights. Assist them in the investigation and prosecution of the offender(s), and provide them with paid medical leave and access to trained rape crisis professionals, free of charge. Accept that you are responsible for what happened to them and reach an agreement with them privately.
2. Cower like idiots, take absolutely no responsibility for the crimes, discourage them from reporting it, force them to sign agreements taking away their constitutional right to a jury trial, and make them feel so much shame and guilt that they can no longer function physically or emotionally.

KBR, of course, being a huge, rich, and wealthy company, opted for route #2. Despite the fact that they have the money to help these women prosecute the offenders and the resources to provide them with help when they return home, they neglected to take care of their employees. They decided to force these women into arbitration so they don’t have pay exorbitant punitive damages to the victims if these charges were sent to a jury. Because, really, let’s be honest: if these cases went to trial, the circumstances are not in their favor. While the offenders may not be convicted, the women would most likely win in civil court.

But KBR knows just how many zeros can follow the number 1, and they didn’t want to take any risks. Instead of taking the high road and setting examples for corporations across America, they took the low road and continued to victimize their employees by not allowing them access to justice. It’s sick, and it’s wrong, not to mention cruel and inhumane.

But back to the point. All of this happens, the lack of reporting, the believing in rape myths, and the blaming of the victim because of the very public actions taken by KBR. If you are a 16 year old girl and you happen to stumble upon the story of one of these KBR rapes, what will you think? Will you think it’s safe to bring rape charges up on someone? Will you think the law is on your side? Will you think people will believe you? No, you won’t. And you won’t report your rape, and you won’t seek help. You will live your life in fear and shame, and you probably won’t even tell your friends what happened to you.

Rape is the dirty crime - it’s a crime associated with shame and dishonor. If you walk outside and discover your car is stolen, you report it. If you wake up and your house is on fire, you report it. If you are walking home from a night class and you are raped, you report it.

If you have been a victim of sexual assault, rape, or domestic violence, I urge you to REPORT IT NOW! April 29, 2008 is Angela Shelton Day: a day where victims come together, break the silence, and transform themselves into survivors.

Courtesy of Shakesville, I found an absolutely disgusting story on ABC News today:

Hillary At White House on ‘Stained Blue Dress’ Day
Schedules Reviewed by ABC Show Hillary May Have Been in the White House When the Fateful Act Was Committed

Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been in the White House when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.

I have to say that I am completely shocked that ABC would even consider this as news. This story was published to embarrass Senator Clinton, plain and simple. This is not news! In now way, shape, or form is this news! I also like how they call her “Hillary” in the header: almost as if it doesn’t matter that she’s a Senator or a Democratic presidential candidate.

From Shakesville:

Susie Madrak says, “In all my years in journalism, I’ve never seen anything quite as disgusting as this,” while Brad Friedman notes, “A more shameful display of ‘journalism’, we don’t believe we’ve ever seen.”

Meanwhile, Lambert offers dryly: “Some people are of the opinion that misogyny has been pervasive in this campaign. How could they have gotten such a crazy idea?” Indeed.

And it doesn’t matter whether you support Hillary or not; letting the media get away with this tactic against her only legitimizes and tacitly encourages it, which means they’ll inevitably use it against everyone.

You can contact Brian Ross of ABC (the genius behind this spectacular piece) and the Executive VP of ABC News Dave Davis from the information Susie Madrak has here. Make sure to be concise, polite, and to the point in any messages you send their way. We don’t want to stoop to their level!

You can also check our more at Salon, Gina Cobb, Feministe, Slate, Glenn Greenwald, and probably dozens more.

Apparently, a company called Pipedream Products (google at your own risk) produces celebrity blow up sex dolls as part of their “Super Star Series”. They have dolls of:

Eva Longoria: she’s your whore next door!
Lindsay Lohan: no witty slogan, just references to her bad driving and Herbie movie
Jessica Simpson: Crazy Daisy! (pictured)
Jessica Alba: Jessica Sin, explore the dark side of this sexy lil angel!
Sarah Jessica Parker: Sex in her Shitty, She loves Big!, and Sarah Jessica Porkher

You can view all of the images here (if you dare). While some of the dolls do not look identical to the real person, they similarities are uncanny, especially when they borrow from current or past roles to encourage the sense of familiarity and desire.

This is absolutely disgusting. While I am horrified by sex dolls and the way they objectify women’s bodies for the sole purpose of sexual fulfillment, I am sick to my stomach at the thought of these dolls being produced. I’m not big on lawsuits, but I could definitely get behind any of these women for suing the shit out of Pipedream Products for producing sex dolls in their likeness.

I can understand that for some people, sex dolls are an innocent fetish and they do not intend to objectify women… but too bad. You do. A sex doll is 100% under the control of its owner and serves as a passive sex object. These women did not consent for their likeness to be used to create a sex toy, and highly doubt many women (except for those who have willingly entered the sex industry) would.

There is a huge difference between female porn stars and these dolls. For one, (most) female porn stars provide their consent every time they make a pornographic film. For another, well, they have a pulse. I don’t really know what I can say to illustrate the vast difference between sex workers and sex toys. Some sex workers feel a sense of agency in their work, while others are forced into it and suffer from violence, drug addiction, and STDs. Sex toys, more accurately sex dolls, are not alive, they cannot consent. They are passive recipients, to put it mildly. For the women whose likenesses have been used to create these dolls, I’m sure it’s a more horrifying experience and an extreme personal violation. I highly doubt they see the dolls as passive recipients of sex.

[Image from Splash News]

I am not a fan of the Boston Globe. On top of their already biased reporting in terms of the 2008 presidential election, they printed an article titled “Want to have a baby? Now’s the time women eager to have children need to direct career drive toward mating.”

For an extremely short article, it is riddled with tons of sexist “facts” from various fields of research. The author of the article advocates getting pregnant before you’re 30 (especially if you want to have 3 kids!), because the quality of a woman’s eggs takes a “notable nose dive” in quality after the age of 35. While it has been scientifically proven that the older a woman is when she gives birth, the more likely it will be that the baby will have certain problems, it hasn’t been proven why these problems exist. Theories out there that blame aging eggs are very popular, but they are just that: theories. These can range from risky pregnancy, to still birth, to Down’s Syndrome. However, these same risks exist for any woman who gets pregnant, they are not limited to women over the age of 40.

For many young women today, they aren’t even beginning their careers until they are in their late 20s or early 30s. More women are attending medical school than ever, which is only 4 years in the classroom, but does include a lengthy residency period where you are still technically a student immediately following graduation from medical school. I myself am planning on obtaining a PhD, and if I receive that before I’m 30, it’ll be a miracle.

No generation of women has had more trouble with fertility than this generation, who received the terrible baby boomer advice, “Wait. You have time. Focus on your career first.”

But in fact, you have your whole life to get a career. Obviously, that’s not true of having a baby. If you are past your early twenties, and you’re single and want to have children, you need to find a partner now. Take that career drive and direct it toward mating - your ovaries will not last longer than your career.

The good news is that psychology research shows you will gain more happiness anyway by finding a partner than by having a good job. While you should not have to choose between a satisfying marriage or a good job, your biological clock does not care. You can control where you spend your time and energy, and you should search for your mate if you don’t want to face fertility problems.

Stephanie Trunk, the author, also says that “it’s recommended that you breast feed” your children, without offering any explanation of who is doing this recommending and based on what information. Last time I checked, breast feeding can be beneficial to the baby, but in some situations it is better for the mother to not breast feed her child. Which, again, runs you into the rhetoric of “who is more important, mother or baby?”

Of course, there is no mention of men rushing to have children in this article - the burden is placed completely upon women in their mid-to-late twenties to start reproducing. She includes two “alternatives” to having children early, one of which is good luck, hope your kid doesn’t have Down’s syndrome, and the other of which is a very judgmental spiel about freezing your eggs. Not once does she mention surrogacy or adoption.

The article is clearly targeted at women who are in my age range - just about to hit their mid-twenties - who are at my particular stage in life. She advocates for women my age to “focus on finding a partner”, but here’s the thing… if we’re so quick to find a partner just because we want to reproduce, what are the odds that we’ll actually find at a partner (when we’re 25…) that we want to be with until we’re 90? I’m going with slim.

While her ridiculously biased piece focuses on women’s careers, she completely neglects any other life experiences - including travel, experiencing different relationships, personal growth, your education, etc. Many of those things either can’t be done when you have children, or are extremely difficult.

My advice? Have a kid when you want to, not when some trumped up writer wants you to.

[Image from Getty]

I think every single feminist blog I read has picked up on Charlotte Allen’s sexist “women are idiots” piece already, but it’s my turn now:

So I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are… kind of dim.

I don’t even know where to begin with this. It’s just so ridiculous that this was even published in the Washington Post. Articles like this not only infuriate feminists because they are based on ridiculous personal views, but they continue to stereotype women. I know more women who don’t fit into Ms. Allen’s (yeah, Ms., not Mrs.!) pathetically chauvinistic view of women than do. And maybe that’s because I use my brain for things other than reading 2007’s lame book of the year, Eat, Pray, Love, but I highly doubt it. I think it’s because I’m a woman, and I’m intelligent.

She, of course, preys on the view of women as “women haters”: us “smart” women (or women like herself, who have accepted our “lower status”) hate these stupid women for all their inadequacies and embarrassments.

Allen also claims that men do stupid things, too, but they have completely justifiable reasons for their stupid actions. Of course, men do stupid things with far less frequency than women, but that’s not her concern. I honestly don’t see how a man can justify liking Rambo because it’s about violence, rape, murder, and mayhem - but a woman can’t justify liking Love Actually because it’s about relationships, communication, and love. How is the former a more sensible reason the latter? Oh, I know, because it is coming from the superior male.

What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?

We don’t. You just think we do. So what if millions of copies of Eat, Pray, Love have been sold? Just as many women don’t own it as those who do.

And here’s a shocker - men fall for the hysterical (disgustingly stupid physical comedy a la Superbad’s menstrual blood scene), the superficial (fake breasts and blond hair - Victoria’s Secret expectations of women and an obsession with outer beauty), and the non-gooily sentimental (overcompensating with too many action films).

And here’s an even bigger shocker - not all men are the same. Oh, and, neither are women.

This post is dedicated to Sergeant Huxtable of the Aspen Village Platoon and Sarah Sannebeck, my little firecracker.

[Image from Getty]

I can’t believe to express my words of anger, frustration, and downright disbelief about this.

CLARKSBURG, West Virginia (CNN) — The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people’s physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.

But it’s an issue that raises major privacy concerns — what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.

The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information — from palm prints to eye scans.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI’s Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is “important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in.”

But it’s unnerving to privacy experts.

“It’s the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Technology and Liberty Project.

So, let me get this straight: it’s important to record every defining physical characteristic of every person living legally in the United States in order to better identify criminals? I’m sorry, but if people can remove their fingerprints and not leave their DNA behind, I’m sure they can cover up their tattoos and disguise their eye color.

This is such an invasion of privacy - I can’t believe this is even being considered. I do not feel safe because they have decided to create this database. I feel more at risk because criminals are going to find different, more discrete, and possibly more violent, ways to commit their crimes. An identification database is not going to prevent criminals from committing crimes. Fingerprint and DNA databases haven’t done that, so what makes the FBI think this will?