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.

Younger women arrive at a new office pumped up on Suze Orman and you-go-girl self-empowerment, and are quickly deflated by the necessary drudgery of copying and collating. Older women, who have paid their dues dealing with sexism and grunt work for decades, are chagrined that younger women assume they can just show up and take over. Commence an intergenerational clash.

Paula Bruno, the 43-year-old founder of a financial blog for women called Chicks and Balances, has noticed this dynamic developing more frequently. “There’s this influx of young women who don’t understand all the baby steps necessary in order to make it to the top,” she says. “I’m glad they have confidence, but boy do I wish they also had the savvy to realize that they can be pretty offensive to the veterans when they clearly don’t expect to play by the rules.”

I don’t agree with everything Courtney Martin says in this article. Our generation is, actually, quite entitled - at least in the way this article claims we are. The millennials (born in the 1980s to 2000s) are go-getters: they have the skills, knowledge, and ambition to get it done, so of course they grunt and groan when they are placed in positions much below their caliber because of their limited experience or age. It’d be like trying to run for President when you’ve only been a Senator for one term… Opps.

Yes, this is an intergenerational conflict, but it not what Martin claims it is. She puts all of the burden on the younger generation’s ambition, and not on the lack of communication between generations. The problem is the older generation doesn’t understand the younger generation can do so much more, and that they want to do so much more because they have the skills, expectations, etc. The younger generation doesn’t understand that the older generation expects them to put in their dues before they can get the good assignments, positions, etc: they feel entitled because they have a fancy degree and were told by their parents that they could do anything they wanted.

So, yes, there is a sense of entitlement on the younger generation’s part, but there is also a skewed perspective on what your job requires of you, and what is expected of you as someone entering the workforce for the first time.

Justifying the anger of the older generation by saying they had to fight through grunt work, etc, to get where they are today is totally unfeminist. Working women have been fighting to make the workplace safer and more beneficial to women for decades, and not just because they wanted it better for them, but because they wanted it better for themselves, and future workers. The problem is, of course, they’re threatened by a 22 y/o fresh out of college who knows who to work 3 operating systems, manually code web pages, dabble in graphic design, put together a decent article for the company newsletter, handle registration for events, control travel arrangements, AND copy, fax, print, and scan. Oh, and she can do it all in half the time.

While you can justify some of the jealous or anger on the younger generation’s aptitude with technology, that’s not always true. You can’t make the generalization that every older woman is not good at computers while their younger counterparts are. I have met 50 y/o computer genii and 21 y/os who can’t even find the on button. It’s not an age gap that causes the differences in technology, it’s the individual and whether they are willing to adapt to new technologies, and whether or not they like to use computers.

That financial blogger she quotes is a moron. Last time I checked, doing work above your pay grade, but within your skill level (and with permission), was not “against the rules”, it just makes people uncomfortable because you’re willing to do more work for less pay, making them and their big salary disposable. Unless you’re coming to work naked and doing that, I don’t see a rule violation here. And, the last time I inquired, doing an extra project to prove you have skills was not verboten: it was good business sense.

The only part of the article that is based on research actually holds a lot of truth, and explains why millenials (not just female ones) have difficult entering the workforce after college:

Jean Twenge, a psychologist and professor at San Diego State University, explains the mentality of 20-somethings in the workforce in her book Generation Me as wildly ambitious, not great at taking criticism, hungry for praise, and constantly craving flexibility. In other words, all that self-esteem education has had the nasty side effect of making younger women seem too big for their Blahniks.

Besides Martin’s snarky remark and incorrectly based assumptions, that paragraph is spot on.

When trained correctly, a millenial worker can be the best person on your team. When you pair that ambition with a nasty attitude, they can be the bane of your existence.

She’s been described over several weeks of testimony as a Christian singer and a point guard, a participant in three-way sex and as the goddaughter to one of the music industry’s biggest stars.

As far as opening lines go, that’s pretty catchy. Sex! Scandal! Three-ways! Christianity! And then you read the next sentence, and you start to wonder what this article is really about:

Even the family of the alleged victim in the R. Kelly child pornography trial doesn’t seem to agree about her, especially about whether she’s on a 27-minute sex tape that could send the R&B star to prison for up to 15 year if convicted.

Continuing on with the story, they make it sound like the victim is on trial, rather than a pedophile:

Prosecutors say she was as young as 13 when the tape was made. Now 23, the woman has been identified at the trial. She has not spoken publicly about the case.

Prosecutors said they would not ask the alleged victim to testify. The defense hasn’t said whether they will, though Kelly attorney Sam Adam Jr. asked jurors in opening statements why prosecutors chose not to call her.

“One answer,” he said, his voice booming. “One: It’s not her on that tape.”

Let me say this now before my head explodes: it shouldn’t matter whether or not it is her on the tape. R. Kelly is at trial for having sex with a minor, and if the prosecution can prove that without being sure of the victim’s identity, then he should be convicted.

Not once does the entire article mention the word “pedophile”, which I find extremely shocking since the alleged victim was 13 at the time the tape was made, making her just on the cusp of puberty, which in the medical sense of the word, would make R. Kelly a pedophile.

So we can call (potential) child sexual abuse victims “vixens”, but we can’t call their attackers pedophiles?

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.

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.

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They’ve missed the opportunity and they’re bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

Now, see, this is what bothers me. Feminism has not told women to forgo having babies in favor of their careers. It has suggested that they take their careers into consideration when planning a family - and this is not a suggestion they have made only to women, they have made their suggestion to everyone. As with many other movements, the ideal is not necessarily executed properly when practiced by the masses.

In the end, it really does come down to make a choice: taking the time off to have a baby in the middle of your career and risking the loss of promotions, etc, or waiting until you’ve reached your goal and then taking the time off, risking that you won’t be able to have a baby. No matter how equal our society becomes, this will still be an issue for women that isn’t necessarily one for men. Feminism hasn’t forced women to wait until they are 40 to have children, it has simply made them realize that children do not have to come first. Their marriage, career, or other aspect of their life can come before children, as long as they have had the common sense to plan it out ahead of time.

Of course, that’s a totally different situation than deciding to have a child at 42 when you never wanted one before.

Via Feministe.

It is worth noting that they did compare electronics purchases to shoe purchases, which means we still have a long way to go until women can shake the Imelda Marcos stereotype.

Via Switched.

There is no place in the feminist blogosphere for sex positive feminists with a decent brain. You’re either a sex crazed pot-psychology pop culture obsessed Jezebel, or you’re a Jessica Valenti/feministing fangirl who drinks in everything she/they says/say, despite her/their ridiculous lack of perspective, and their penchant fror jacking stories from smaller feminist blogs without credit. My other not-so-mainstream blogs have gone a little by the wayside, but I still read them when, and if, they post.

I’m currently working with a fabulous feminist on her new project creating a more sex positive feminist oriented site. We’re making feminism fun again. Drop me a line if this sounds like your cup of tea, we’re looking for writers and people to bounce ideas off of.

Responding to the suicide of a Missouri teenager who was teased over the Internet, state lawmakers Friday gave final approval to a bill making cyber-harassment illegal.

The measure updates state laws to keep pace with technology by removing the requirement that the communication be written or over the telephone. Supporters say the bill will cover harassment from computers, text messages and other electronic devices.

The measure now goes to Republican Gov. Matt Blunt for his signature. He issued a statement praising lawmakers:

“Social networking sites and technology have opened a new door for criminals and bullies to prey on their victims. These protections ensure that our laws now have the protections and penalties needed to safeguard Missourians from Internet harassment.”

Many of the bill’s provisions came from a gubernatorial task force that studied Internet harassment after reports last fall on details of Megan Meier’s suicide. Police say Megan, 13, hanged herself in 2006 after being deceived on MySpace.

This makes me much happier. While I was glad to see Lori Drew indicted, I think she should be indicted for what she did rather than the only charge someone could find to stick her with. I personally hope she rots in jail, either for cyber-harassment, or 3 counts of whatever it was they figured out could stick.

If Salwa Al-Jassar wins an election on May 17, she could become one of the first women to win a place in Kuwait’s 50-seat National Assembly.

But the 49-year-old Al-Jassar emphasizes that a woman’s right to run for office–legalized just three years ago–and her ability to do so are two different things.

A standard qualification for any politician in the heavily clannish process, she says, is membership in one of the country’s prominent families.

And for the 28 women running in this election–which will replace a government dissolved by the emir in March–that’s doubly true.

“My family’s support will take care of 70 percent of my campaign since I come from an elite but a traditional family of Kuwait that has the social power,” Al-Jassar said in a recent interview in her office in Hawally as she fixed her black headscarf on her Persian blue shalwar suit. “If a family does not support, then voters’ common argument is why should we support?”

You should definitely read the full story. One bit I found to be interesting was how they connected family support to our presidential election:

“I ask why Mr. Clinton stands beside Hillary Clinton during her speeches,” she says, referring to the presidential candidate. “It is because if you want to appear strong, you have to be strong from within; within your family.”

I think it’s interesting to see how family support plays a role in elections across the globe, and not just here in America where it’s about picture perfect political families.

I wish all 28 women the best of luck in the May 17th elections!

Sen. Obama:

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Sen. Clinton:

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

The only thing positive I found in Clinton’s quote was the bit where she claims that she will work for access to rights on the federal level for gay couples who can’t marry because their states are too conservative. Clinton and Obama’s statements are the reason I can’t consider them “liberal” candidates in this election. I’m disappointed in them both, but I had to get behind the lesser of two evils.

And, the most painful, Sen. McCain:

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

My favorite part is the bit where McCain says he doesn’t believe that judges should be making these decisions. But you know, something tells me that if this decision upheld the gay marriage ban, he wouldn’t have made that statement. If the California Supreme Court had ruled that abortion could not be performed in California (which would never happen), he would have issued a statement thanking the judges for making the “right” decision. I’m sorry, but, how is someone running for president when they don’t understand the function of the judicial branch of the government?

I am not a believer in policing internet activity, but I am a believer in preventing harassment, especially the kind that causes severe emotional distress. Lori Drew is a 49 year-old woman who had absolutely no business harassing a young girl on the internet, regardless of her motivation. I’m glad to see that she’s been indicted, and I hope this case becomes an example for future internet harassment cases.

When cases like the Meier suicide don’t get prosecuted, even when we know the identity of the assailant, it sends a message to victims of internet (and in-person) harassment that their pleas for help won’t get any attention when they come forward.

“This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out, not me.”

I like that the closer we get to the end of Bush’s reign from hell, the more outspoken and antagonistic our Senators are becoming. We need to see more of this!

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices rule that state marriage laws are unconstitutional.

SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

Finally, some decisive action on this!

Here’s a quote from our shitty, shitty Governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger, that makes me feel a little more secure in today’s ruling:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

The people of California (wrongfully, in my opinion) ousted Gov. Davis because of budget and energy problems back in 2003. Granted, it was a little more complicated than a budget crisis and energy shortage, but those were the main issues at the time. And now, shocker of all shockers, Gov. Schwarzenegger has failed to solve the budget crisis.

The Governor’s May revision was released yesterday and California is facing a $17.2 billion deficit, which is over $2 billion more than the original proposal. Instead of raising taxes to repair the budget problems – which, let’s face it, we knew he’d never do because he’s a Republican – Gov. Schwarzenegger has decided to target problems providing aid to children, the elderly, the disabled, low-income families, and immigrants. He has done this at a time when it has been projected that the need for state and government aid will increase during the next budget year. And, the biggest problem of all, his solution is only a temporary fix for the problem. The next person in office will be facing the same problems he is now, only they will be greater because of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s reluctance to raise taxes (except for the 1 cent increase he has proposed, which the GOP is adamantly against).

On top of wanting to use lottery money as a temporary fix to the budget, he has proposed that the $828 million from gas taxes be taken away from public transportation and redirected to help with the $17.2 billion deficit. Myself and many other commuters in the state of California rely on public transportation to get work in a safe, cost-efficient, convenient, and green way. By cutting funds from public transportation during a time when gas prices are only going to continue increasing, you are making it impossible for people, like myself, to get to their jobs everyday. When my bus is full and I have to choose between buying groceries or gas for two weeks, I ultimately have to decide between keeping my job or being unemployed.

Personally, I find it ironic that a Governor who uses taxpayer’s money to fly back and forth from southern California to Sacramento is impacting commuters by cutting public transportation.

I am extremely upset and I feel very betrayed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. I don’t think I can write about this anymore without resorting to name calling. Combine that with my lack of qualifications to talk about any of this with any real authority, I’ve pasted some quotes below from people who do know what they are talking about.

The Los Angeles Times has a complete list of the budget cuts and who they will/would impact.

From the Sacramento Bee:

The governor’s failure is more than just a numbers game. It reflects his – and the state’s – refusal to face reality. The public’s desire for spending on schools, health care, prisons, welfare, roads and other services is not matched by the voters’ willingness to raise taxes.

The result: budget deficits year after year. Those deficits and the borrowing to which they have led mean that we’re still paying now for services the state provided five years ago, leaving less money available for the things we need today. And years from now we and future Californians will still be paying – with interest – for the services we’re getting today.

The centerpiece of Schwarzenegger’s latest budget plan is a proposal to take an advance against future earnings from the sale of lottery tickets. The governor wants to overhaul the state-run gaming operation so that more people play, and more revenue flows to the state from the tickets they buy. Then he wants to get private investors to pay the state $15 billion in exchange for the rights to a portion of those higher proceeds over the next 30 years.

But even if the Legislature accepted Schwarzenegger’s lottery proposal, adopted every spending cut the governor proposed and embraced his budget reform plan, the state would still be facing a projected shortfall of about $5 billion in two years. In other words, when the lottery money runs out, the problem is still there.

From The San Francisco Chronicle:

His latest plan is not without severe cuts. While he has abandoned some of his earlier controversial ideas, such as early release of 22,000 prisoners and closing 48 state parks, the new budget still contains cuts totaling $11 billion.

Health and welfare programs were among the hardest hit. The governor has proposed cuts in health care for the poor, recent immigrants and disabled residents.

I sincerely hope that our next Governor is a Democrat not afraid of raising taxes, because this is just not going to work.

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.

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a move designed to help solidify support for the party’s likely presidential nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Edwards made a surprise appearance with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as the Illinois senator campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.

The endorsement came a day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in the West Virginia primary. The loss highlighted Obama’s challenge in winning over the “Hillary Democrats” — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in significant numbers before he exited the race in late January.

Edwards, who received a thunderous ovation when Obama introduced him to a crowd of several thousand, said, “brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats” to defeat McCain. “We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I.”

He said Obama “stands with me” in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years.

Edwards also praised Clinton, saying “we are a stronger party” because of her involvement, and “we’re going to have a stronger nominee in the fall because of her work.”

You can praise her all you want, but at the end of the day, you’re just hoping for the VP nod.

As the weather warms each spring, women — especially in cities with active sidewalk traffic — once again face catcalls from men. It’s a situation some find unnerving and an invasion of their space, while others ignore it or are even flattered by it.

“I call it street abuse,” said New York filmmaker Maggie Hadleigh-West, 49. “It’s unwanted attention and invasion of space.”

In her 1998 documentary “War Zone,” Hadleigh-West confronted catcallers and filmed their responses. Many of the men literally ran away to avoid talking to her about why they whistled or made a provocative comment. […]

“Being in a public space with a strange man who is being sexually aggressive is potentially dangerous,” Hadleigh-West added.

On the other hand, some women appreciate the attention in certain cases, like Jessica, a 31-year-old health-care educator in Los Angeles who declined to use her last name to protect her privacy.

“Yeah, it’s objectifying and all, but you know, if I walked down the street and didn’t have men looking me up and down and catcalling, I’d think, ‘Boy, I must really be getting old and dumpy,’ ” she said.

This is absolutely disgusting. Is that how you feel better about yourself? BY being verbally assaulted by men? I think it’s a little sad that the state of the world makes women feel flattered when they are being yelled at by strange men simply for existing. Where is your self esteem? Do you really need that much attention to feel good about yourself? I know I’m being a little more than harsh here, but I absolutely hate women like this. Especially when cat calling isn’t as innocent as a man being a jerk and asserting himself on a woman:

“There seems to be some evidence that it increases self-objectification,” said Fairchild, who surveyed 550 women both online and at Rutgers University in 2006 and 2007. The women — who ranged in age from 15 to 64 in the international online component and from 18 to 24 in the Rutgers survey of women from central New Jersey — were asked about their experiences with street harassment.

Catcalling “encourages women to look at themselves as body parts instead of as full, whole, intelligent human beings” and can cause women to fear for their safety, Fairchild says.

“When a man catcalls you, you don’t know if it will end at that point or if it could escalate to assault,” she added.

I’m glad that there is research being done on this - but I’m sad that it’s getting attention only after the article’s author finds some random woman who just lives for the attention cat calling provides her with.

You know, I was totally fine with this article, even the bits including the attention-seeking woman, until I reached the end:

“A lot of men have no idea that women don’t like being talked to in this way,” she said. “It never crosses their mind, and yelling doesn’t educate them. If you yell, they often don’t understand why you are upset and so they take it personally.”

Often, Kearl says, an assertive, clear response can illicit a kinder reaction than one expects.

“A lot of the time, I find guys will just say, ‘Oh, OK, I didn’t realize it made you feel that way. Thanks.’ “

Ok, now, really, as a woman who experiences cat calling because she has to dress up for work, I can honestly say that no matter how you respond to a man making sexual comments about you, they will still take it personally and be even bigger of an asshole about it. I have asked cat callers more than once if they think whistling and making sexual remarks at women is really the way to get their attention, and I’ve either been called a bitch, stupid, or a lesbian because of my return comment.

What is a man’s expectation when he says these things to a woman he doesn’t even know? Does he expect her to fawn over him in appreciation? Does he expect his comments to be appreciated, or does he know they are offensive?

I’m doing my part as a woman to make it clear that we don’t appreciate these comments, but I’m only one woman living in one small city - I can only do so much.

My favorite part of the endorsement had to be when Nancy Keenan said the following two sentences in the same paragraph:

Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.

Sen. Obama will be our next president.

It’s nice to know that you aren’t letting your personal beliefs cloud your judgment and make endorsements on behalf of an entire agency. Why didn’t she just say “I like Obama better than Clinton, ne-ner-ne-ner-neeee-ner!” - because that’s what it sounds like.

You’d never guess that Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin played a leading role in one of the most tumultuous episodes in recent Boston history, that he was at the center of an abortion case that propelled him into the national debate over Roe v. Wade - a debate that rages to this day.

And so, in his quiet way, does Kenneth Edelin, at least when he thinks about his 1975 manslaughter conviction - eventually overturned - and the way his life was turned upside down for what he sees as political and religious reasons.

Edelin has written a searingly angry account of his trial and conviction titled “Broken Justice: A True Story of Race, Sex and Revenge in a Boston Courtroom.” Tonight from 7 to 9, Edelin will be at Barnes & Noble at Boston University to read from his book, in which he argues that he was targeted by antiabortion forces determined to make an example of him.

“I had to get this book done,” says Edelin, 68. “I’ve been trying to do it for 30 years. It was burning to get out.”

Prior to reading this article, I had no idea who Edelin was. Kenneth Edelin was an African American doctor who was convicted for manslaughter after performing a legal abortion in Massachusetts.

In 1973, Edelin worked as the chief resident in obstetrics at Boston City Hosptial. Performing abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision, Edelin was indicted for manslaughter in 1974 when he surgically terminated a pregnancy. Convicted on February 15, 1975 and sentenced to a one-year probation, Edelin’s case drew national attention. Edelin appealed the decision and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned the conviction on December 17, 1976.

There’s nothing more powerful than a story like Dr. Edelin’s, especially considering the current political climate and the fervor of the anti-choice movement. Stories like Dr. Edelin’s may remind us of the past, but they are also a glimpse into our future if McCain takes the White House in this presidential election. Doctors will be prosecuted for doing their jobs as medical professionals: they will be sent to prison for performing a medical procedure with the patient’s consent.

In the world we live in now, I think it is worth remembering the heroes like Dr. Edelin because if we don’t, it can only happen again. There is no doubt in my mind that he wasn’t targeted simply because he performed an abortion, but because he was a black doctor. This is definitely a book I’ll be picking up on the way home. Hearing about this man’s life, his story, and what happened after the trial are all equally interesting to me, especially since the book was written later after he’s had time to reflect on it.

If you’re in Boston, you should definitely go and see him read. Don’t miss the chance!

Via Pesky Apostrophe. More about Dr. Edelin here and here.