anythings.org

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous defenses in a rape trial that I have ever heard, emphasis mine:

The attorney representing a Lansdale man in a high-profile rape case wants a mold made of his client’s penis to prove to jurors that he couldn’t have committed the crime.

Attorney Marvin Gold wants Montgomery County prison officials to give Ronald A. McDade, 33, the privacy and a special kit to make a cast of his genitalia before he’s tried on charges that he raped a 13-year-old girl in January.

Gold said McDade’s accuser didn’t suffer injuries consistent with someone who had been assaulted by his client, whom he described as a “freak of nature” who is “extraordinarily large.”

Prosecutor Todd Stephens called the request an outlandish attempt to create a sideshow. […]

Gold said he came up with the idea for the mold on his own after learning about the extent of the girl’s injuries. He said they weren’t as serious as one would expect.

Gold said he plans to show the mold to the jury to bolster his case that the girl should have had more injuries.

Stephens said he’s unaware of any medical experts who would testify that every rape victim suffers injuries.

Gold initially received permission from Judge Paul W. Tressler to take a camera and yard stick into prison to photograph his client.

“While I was in the process of making arrangements, it occurred to me, wouldn’t it be better if I had a three-dimensional, life-size casting?” Gold said.

The prison refused to comply with the request, and on Thursday Stephens filed a motion opposing it as well.

Gold said McDade is “embarrassed” about the possibility of having to get a mold of himself, but “he doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Ok, seriously? You want to make a cast of your penis to prove to the jury that the 13-YEAR-OLD victim’s injuries were inconsistent with the size of your gigantic penis? You’ve got to be kidding me. While I’m sure there is some correlation between penis size and vaginal/anal injury in consensual intercourse, the act of rape does not require a large (or small) penis to cause severe injuries: a rapist causes emotional and physical damage even with the smallest penis in the land. If this is the rape suspect’s only defense, I’m going to have to side with the victim here and say GUILTY. Especially when the suspect is awaiting trial for luring a young girl into his car less than a year ago.

Who is to say that the rape victim should have had more injuries in order for this to be her attacker? I get that defense attorneys still find it fairly easily to attack the victim and blame her for being raped, but to say that she’s lying and that the wrong person has been arrested because of his penis size and her “lack” of injuries, now that’s just hateful. What kinds of injuries of the defense expecting? Permanent damage to vaginal tissue? Tearing? Shredding? Scars? Did it ever occur to the defense attorney that his expectations were over exaggerated and completely off base? The prosecution agrees with me on that one:

Stephens said he’s unaware of any medical experts who would testify that every rape victim suffers injuries.

Not every rape victim suffers from physical injuries, but many of them do. Focusing on her lack of vaginal injuries is like focusing on the lack of evidence in an embezzlement case. Just because it is not there, or it isn’t what you expected, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

If a judge grants his request, that opens a floodgate for rapists and their defense attorneys. “No, your honor, my client could not have raped that woman because his penis is too small to have caused such severe vaginal injuries.”

I’m pretty sure that all defense attorneys are scum, but this one has to be a real gem. Requesting permission to photograph and measure your client’s penis is a little out there, but then having the epiphany to create a three-dimensional model of it? That’s one sick bastard, let me tell you.

This poster for The Women is not ok with me:

Not only is the movie poster in the shape of a woman’s torso, it has outlines of (perfectly even) breasts in bright red lipstick. Oh, wait! Don’t forget the belly button, and the perfect Barbie waist and hips! I suppose it wouldn’t be so awful if the poster didn’t make a massive generalization about women and shove them into a stereotyped box. I’ve taken the time to type out the text for those who are curious and do not feel like squinting:

The girlfriends. The joy. The boding. The betrayals. The breakups. The makeups. The sex. The fun. The jealousy. The gossip. The success. The struggles. The marriage. The divorce. The beauty. The warmth. The work. The family. The dreams. The career. The husbands. The kids. The laughter. The tears. The secrets. The support. The lovers. The fighters. The balance. The intuition. The thighs. The shoes. The diets. The trust. The loyalty. The lies. The intellect. The elegance. The confidence. The doubt. The mothers. The daughters. The compassion. The courage. The humor. The passion. The love. The friendship. The women.

So not only do you have to be an intellectual mother who cares about her thighs, her shoes, and diets, but you have to have a career, elegance, and confidence - and be successful. I think the designers of this poster took the phrase “having it all” a little too seriously: they’ve suggested that a woman must experience all of this (with the perfect figure and red lipstick) in order to be a true woman and belong to the “women” collective. A woman is not a woman if she does have breasts, a belly button, a husband, some doubt, a few tears, and success.

Image from Wild About Movies.

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.

Courtesy of the Broadsheet, when being interview by a female reporter, Sen. Obama responded to her question by saying, “Hold on, one second, sweetie.”

This isn’t the first time Sen. Obama has made sexist remarks towards or about women that he’s had to go back and apologize for. Better yet, there’s a video clip of the sexist comment.

Sen. Obama, of course, apologized for the comment in order to avoid any additional negative press. He claimed “sweetie” was a term he used out of habit. Sorry, still not buying it.

Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I’m calling to apologize on two fronts. […]

Second apology is for using the word ’sweetie.’ That’s a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front.

So, where is the video of Sen. Obama calling a man “sweetie?” Right, that’s what I thought, there isn’t one.

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.

I read this on DollyMix last week, and I thought I posted it already, but apparently not. The incident which state-side feminist blogs have only now just gotten wind of actually occurred early last week, but we’ll let them pretend they were the first to blog it even though they’re presenting the facts inaccurately.

As I’m sure many of you have already heard, a London mayoral candidate, Richard Barnbrook (via mouthpiece Nick Eriksen), likened the idea of a woman being raped to a woman being force-fed chocolate cake. While I’m not surprised this quote came from the same man that described career women as “unnatural and vile”, I’m sincerely shocked he actually thought putting it into bring on his blog would be a good idea. A direct quote from his blog said:

“I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime… Rape is simply sex (I am talking about ‘husband-rape’ here)… Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal…To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.

The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors.”

Now, while he was talking about spousal rape, he is still completely off his rocker. So, following his logic: if men enjoy sex, and they are raped (anally, by another man) it can’t possibly be that traumatizing or that terrible of a crime, now can it? You can’t use the excuse that it’s a different type of sexual act: sex is sex, rape is rape, regardless of where you happened to be penetrated and what with.

I thought misogyny of this obscenely blatant nature by politicians was going out of style? Apparently, I was wrong.

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]

When I was younger I was quite the reader. I liked to read because I wanted to be just like my mom (and I still do want to be just like my mom, hence the knitting and the reading) and she loved reading, too. After my brother was born, we spent a lot of time trying to prepare him for school by teaching him how to write and read (he has Asperger’s). When we started working with my brother, I started reading more because my mom began purchasing books that were shorter, quicker, and easier to read. I like books that go by quickly, even if they are 700 page bricks. But the one author I never liked was Dr. Seuss.

I was scared to death of Dr. Seuss. The rhymes, the scary pictures, the political undertones, it was all too much for little four year-old me. The only Dr. Seuss book I read was I’ll Teach My Dog 100 Words - which I probably still have memorized. And then, one day, even though she knew better, my mom brought home Horton Hears A Who!. I begrudgingly read the book, and it ended up being one of my favorite books as a child. As an adult, I even have a Horton Hears A Who! tshirt with his catch phrase “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

So this weekend I went to see the movie. I was excited for many different reasons, but the two most prominent being 1.) Horton!! and 2.) amazing new animation technologies. And I can just say, I really really do not like it when my childhood memories get hijacked by wing nuts.

From AlterNet:

Anti-choicers demonstrate at a children’s movie to claim that “a person’s a person no matter how small” — unless that person has a uterus.

The book was written in 1954, long before Roe v. Wade and the modern framework of the abortion debate. If Seuss’ simple rhymes do contain social commentary, they appear to be a condemnation of Cold War era paranoia. But context doesn’t matter to the anti-choice crowd — in fact a quick internet search reveals that there are many out there who believe that God spoke through the decidedly liberal Seuss’ pen, willing him to write this line that can now be used to justify a movement he didn’t support. They are undeterred by Seuss’ widow’s support for Planned Parenthood and an interview with Seuss Scholar Philip Nel, who said that the author threatened lawsuits against anti-choice groups: “It’s one of the ways in which Seuss has been misappropriated. He would not agree with that.” Death of the author, indeed.

This past Saturday a group of anti-abortion protestors filtered in to the Hollywood premiere of the “Horton” film, voiced by Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell and Carol Burnettt, and others. They interrupted the screening with a coordinated protest, shouting during the film and then walking around with tape over their mouths. It was a bizarre stunt, considering the fact that most of the audience was made up of children who doubtless missed their political message, and Hollywood journalists who made fun of them.

But these kinds of shenanigans, while frustrating, weren’t exactly shocking. Despite lawsuits and voiced disapproval from Dr. Seuss and his widow, the “a person’s a person no matter how small” line has snowballed and is now a de facto motto for the anti-abortion movement. Just google the line: some pro-life sites show up above Dr. Seuss.

[…] The anti-choice protesters, incidentally, were happy to ruin the afternoon of hundreds of those kids, too busy advocating on behalf of blastocysts to pay attention to real people — real “small people,” in fact. This kind of behavior sums up the hypocrisy of a movement that would give personhood to a fertilized egg while denying health care to children and physical autonomy to women.

The problem is that those who are particularly proud of saying “a person’s a person” don’t care about actual persons.

And from Seuss’s side of things:

None of this sat well with Audrey Geisel, widow of Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), who attended the screening. So did Karl ZoBell, the lawyer who represents her and who has represented the interests of Dr. Seuss for some 40 years. In an interview with NPR, he said he couldn’t make out the yelling and thought maybe “some nut” was in the theater. Later, he asked the protesters what group they represented, and none would answer. Their silence didn’t seem like an accident to him, which makes sense, because ZoBell has not been bashful about sending cease-and-desist letters to those who appropriate Dr. Seuss’ material for their own purposes. And many do. (According to ZoBell, politicians love to sling the term Grinch at their rivals.)

ZoBell says it would be nice if these people came up with their own material. But if they don’t go too far—by copping the illustrations, for example—they can use a line like “A person’s a person, no matter how small,” even if it wouldn’t have pleased Dr. Seuss. And it wouldn’t have. The Geisels were opposed to using the Dr. Seuss books for any political agenda.

STOP RUINING MY CHILDHOOD, ANTI-CHOICERS! And more importantly, stop ruining the childhoods of the millions of children going to see this movie.

I understand that they are trying to make their point in as public a venue as possible, but it is a children’s movie: the primary audience is children (and families)… not exactly the kind of people that need to be converted to their cause.

If a person’s a person (no matter how small), then why is the person in my uterus more important than me?

Ridiculous! I am not that shocked that a Catholic school would cancel Dolores Huerta’s speaking engagement, but at the same time, I thought they would have enough intelligence to understand that the talk was about “her founding role in the United Farm Workers and the importance of public service” and not abortion.

Apparently, to the Catholic church, it doesn’t matter what kind of a person you are, or what type of good you have done for humanity: if you’re pro-choice, you’re out.

From the LA Times:

Huerta said that the school’s principal, Sister Eva Lujano, left a voice mail at her Bakersfield office over the weekend, informing her that she had been disinvited. Lujano was out sick Thursday and unavailable for comment, school officials said.

But the editor of California Catholic Daily, a website that published an article about Huerta’s planned appearance, took credit for scrubbing the talk. Editor Bob McPhail said that after the website’s reporter called the school and a diocese superintendent to ask about the talk, Lujano agreed to cancel the planned assembly for sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders.

“Her appearance would have created the impression that the school was overlooking her prominent role in promoting abortion,” he said.

Huerta, who lives in Bakersfield and runs a foundation there, said she was puzzled by the school’s action. She has been unable to reach Lujano, she said.

“I was not going to talk about reproductive rights at all,” Huerta said. “I think the parents could have asked if their child could be excused.”

Huerta said it was the second time in a month that a talk she had scheduled had been canceled due to protests. Last month, administrators at St. Thomas University in Texas called off an appearance citing her views on abortion.