Skip to content

Your daily dose of Election 2008 sexism, “Sweetie” edition

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.

Posted 15 May 2008 † Liz § 2008 election § gender § media § politics § ridiculous § tidbits ‡ Comments (1) °

Edwards endorses Obama

I officially hate today. Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama:

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.

Posted 15 May 2008 † Liz § 2008 election § politics ‡ Comments (0) °

Catcalling: creepy or a compliment?

I was more than a little shocked to see this article on the front page of CNN:

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.

Posted 14 May 2008 † Liz § body image § gender § pop culture § sexuality ‡ Comments (0) °

NARAL endorses Obama, but doesn’t explain why they didn’t endorse Clinton

If you’re going to make an endorsement because you’re trying to help a candidate win an election, that’s fine with me. But when you make an endorsement, make it clear why you’re selecting candidate A in favor of candidate B, don’t just simply state that you’re endorsing candidate A.

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.

Posted 14 May 2008 † Liz § 2008 election § abortion § opinion § politics § reproductive health § tidbits ‡ Comments (0) °

In a new book, ‘Broken Justice,’ Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin revisits the ’70s abortion and manslaughter trial that changed his life

If you read one thing on the entire internet today, make it this article (which I definitely stole the subtitle from, but I couldn’t have put it any better myself). And, if you’re going to buy one book this month/year/whatever, make it his. I haven’t read it, but I will. And soon.

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.

Posted 06 May 2008 † Liz § abortion § feminist thought § politics § religion § reproductive health ‡ Comments (0) °

Summer movie madness: where have all the women gone?

I’m a big believer in following The Rule: I usually don’t see a movie unless it meets three basic requirements:

  1. It has to have at least 2 women in it…
  2. who talk to each other…
  3. about something other than a man.

Which, considering the crap that Hollywood has been churning out these past few years, has been a difficult task indeed. I like movies with real 3D characters that face difficult life challenges and do it on their own - regardless of whether they succeed or not. I don’t like movies that skirt around important issues to improve their comedic value. While it is difficult to find movies to watch that have two women in it talking to each other about something other than men, it is a good starting point to begin any movie search.

I’m not the only one who has noticed movies have taken a pathetic downturn, especially in the female leads department. Almost none of the major movies slated for release this summer meet all of requirements of The Rule, let alone one or two:

The girls of summer are few in number, and real women are close to extinct. The teenage Emma Roberts plays a Malibu brat shipped off to boarding school in “Wild Child,” and little Abigail Breslin has gone blond for “Kit Kittredge,” the first big-screen spinoff from American Girl dolls. Meryl Streep stars in the adaptation of the jukebox musical “Mamma Mia!,” and the cast from “Sex and the City” hits the big screen, though as that HBO show’s fans know, its four bosomy buddies are really gay men in drag. Angelina Jolie flaunts big guns in “Wanted” amid a so-called fraternity of assassins. Cameron Diaz stars opposite Ashton Kutcher in the comedy “What Happens in Vegas,” in a role that shrieks Brittany Murphy five years ago.

And in August, Anna Faris stars in a comedy called “The House Bunny,” in which she plays a Playboy Bunny who is ejected from the Mansion because she’s too old. In a trailer for the movie Ms. Faris’s pretty-in-pink character responds to her firing with surprise. “I’m 27!” she yelps. “But that’s like 59 in Bunny years,” a male friend explains. In Hollywood years too, he might as well have added.

But the most gut wrenchingly true part of Dargis’s article is the following:

Last year only 3 of the 20 highest-grossing releases in America were female-driven, and involve a princess (“Enchanted”) or pregnancy (“Knocked Up” and “Juno”). Actresses had starring roles in about a quarter of the next 80 highest-grossing titles, mostly in dopey romantic comedies and dopier thrillers. A number of these were among the worst-reviewed movies of the year, including “Premonition” (Sandra Bullock) and “The Reaping” (Hilary Swank), the last of which was released by — ta-da! — Warner Brothers. The days of “Million Dollar Baby,” for which Ms. Swank won an Oscar, and “Speed,” which rocketed Ms. Bullock to stardom in the summer of 1994, feel long gone.

The last movie I saw in theaters was “Juno,” and before that, “Horton Hears A Who!” Prior to those two films, it had been over a year since I shelled out the $9.75 for a movie ticket, and I haven’t once been upset about my decision to abstain from theater going. If there were a movie worth seeing (that was available to me), I would have gone to see it. Granted, there were several films I wanted to see, but didn’t get a chance to, particularly 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days and Miss Pettigrew Lives for A Day (which doesn’t appear to hold up to The Rule, but it just might upon closer examination).

Regardless, it looks like it is going to be a slow movie summer for me.

Posted 05 May 2008 † Liz § feminist thought § gender § media § pop culture ‡ Comments (0) °

Happy Friday! (for me, anyways)

I knew today was going to be a good day this morning when I came to work and checked my feeds and discovered three “news” items that made me grin from ear to ear. They are the following:

  1. The Gallup poll that shows 71% of Americans don’t like Bush’s job performance. His rating is actually worse than Nixon’s 66% disapproval rating during the Watergate scandal. I think this warrants the purchasing of one of those “01.20.09″ bumper stickers.
  2. Not that I’m bragging, but a poll done by CNN shows that Obama is losing support. In my completely unprofessional (and100% personal) opinion, his loss of support might be attributed to his losing Pennsylvania. Clinton lost support when she went through her losing streak during the February primaries, and she came back out alright, so there is a chance that Obama could easily regain that support. Either way, this election feels like it will never end. I guess I’ll just have to keep waiting for the convention in August.
  3. A huge “lol of the day,” and probably the best thing I’ve seen in the past month (thanks, Anna):

From Popaganda artist Ron English, via Juxtapoz.

All in all, it’s looking like it’s going to be a great Friday.

Posted 02 May 2008 † Liz § 2008 election § advertising § gw bush § lol of the day § media § politics § pop culture ‡ Comments (0) °

I’ll take a side of forced vaginal penetration with my abortion, thanks!

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.

Posted 01 May 2008 † Liz § abortion § anti-choice § christian right § feminist thought § ignorance § opinion § politics § rant § rape § reproductive health ‡ Comments (0) °

How the Democratic party “front runner” managed to lose all the major states, I’ll never know.

I couldn’t have put it better myself:

If I had a time machine and could go back to 1968 or 1972 to chew over a thought experiment with one of those old pros, the conversation might go like this:

Violet: Okay, hypothetical situation. Let’s say we’ve got two strong candidates. Candidate A wins the Iowa caucus. Candidate B wins New Hampshire. Then Candidate A catches fire and in February wins a bunch of caucuses and small primaries in mostly Republican states. Racks up the lead in delegates. But then Candidate B comes roaring back and wins New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania. Who’s the front-runner?
Old Pro from 1968/72: Are you kidding me?
Violet: No, really — who’s the front runner?
Old Pro: Candidate B, of course. What’s the matter with you?
Violet: But Candidate A leads in pledged delegates!
Old Pro: Candidate A is the guy who had a good February? But then loses in all the big states?
Violet: Right.
Old Pro: You’re actually asking me this question?
Violet: But don’t the pledged delegates count?
Old Pro: You’re talking about nominating the guy who lost New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Florida? Jesus! You’re outta your mind!
Violet: But what about his delegates?
Old Pro: Fight it out at the convention if you have to. Geez. That’s what conventions are for. Look, you don’t get to be the nominee because you were popular in February in Utah. For chrissake, if you can’t win the Democratic primaries in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, you don’t get to be the Democratic nominee. Unless you’re Hubert Humphrey. Wait a minute, Humphrey isn’t still alive, is he?
Violet: No. But the party bosses really love Candidate A. They say Candidate B needs to drop out so Candidate A can be the nominee.
Old Pro: They want the winner of all the big states to drop out so the party favorite from February can be the nominee? Goddamnit, it is Humphrey, isn’t it? Christ, he must be like 100 now.
Violet: No, he’s dead. See, the two candidates we’ve got are both strong. They both have a lot of devoted supporters and they’re really close in pledged delegates and popular votes.
Old Pro: What do their numbers look like against the Republican?
Violet: Close, though when you look at the state-by-state polls and the exit data, Candidate B looks stronger in a match-up against the Republican than Candidate A.
Old Pro: And you’re still asking me who the party needs to nominate?
Violet: Well, the supporters of Candidate A say that if Candidate B will just drop out, then the party will be able to get behind Candidate A.
Old Pro: It is Humphrey!

Me, personally, I don’t understand why everyone is so eager to declare Obama as the Democratic party “front runner.” I don’t want the Democratic presidential candidate for 2008 to be weak in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania… need I go on? That just spells yet another recipe for disaster for the Democratic party, and success for McCain. You’d think the Democratic party would have learned from their mistakes over the past 8 years - but no, they haven’t. What I would absolutely love to see on this year’s ticket would be Clinton for President, and Edwards for Vice President - hell, I’d even go for Obama as VP, especially since that would for sure lock in the vote. Obama isn’t ready to be President, and I think the states he’s won show that he’s not as electable as the fervor surrounding him would like you to think he is.

What kills me the most is when people say “we’re so fucked if Hillary gets the nom.” But, wait, really, are we? She can carry the big states, and if she selects her Vice President carefully, she can get the vote - she already has - without tht much more effort. Barack hasn’t put up a strong showing in any of the states with the most electoral votes. What does that have to say about this strength as a candidate?

Of course, none of this matters to anyone reading this blog, because I’m sure most of you are already for Hillary.

Clinton 2008. Obama 2016. That’s my new platform.

Posted 29 April 2008 † Liz § 2008 election § clintons § opinion § politics ‡ Comments (0) °

Just another day in the media: using scandal to degrade victims

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.

Posted 23 April 2008 † Liz § feminist thought § media § pop culture § rant § rape § reproductive health § ridiculous ‡ Comments (0) °