Blog Hoppers!

Image from Etsy

Happy Thursday everyone! I hope this week has treated you all well! I encourage you to take a look at the conversation happening at my post about how men cannot be feminists and join in, there's some really great stuff going on over there! Here are some of my favorite posts over the past couple days. Don't forget to leave what you have been writing and reading in the comments!!

The 5 Ways Glamour Undermines Its Size-12 Self-Acceptance Message [Glossed Over]
All of the uproar over Glamour's size 12 model didn't quite sit well with me and didn't really know why, but Wendy has explained my uneasiness about it very well.

Bros before Hos: A Post Ted Kennedy Story [Recursive Paradox]
After Sen. Ted Kennedy's death, everybody was quick to praise his contributions to women's rights. But Recursive Paradox pointed out a not very well-known story about Ted Kennedy that should also be remembered!

Will Kate Gosselin EVER get a date? [Salon Broadsheet]
How the media has been portraying Kate Gosselin as lonely.

The Feminist Lens: The Yellow Wallpaper [Small Strokes]
A look at how to teach a feminist text in a high school setting. And make sure you check out her Teaching Feminism in Schools series.

Campaigning for What, Exactly? [this ain't livin']
A critical look at Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty.

Are Animals and Humans the Same? [Womanist Musings]
PeTA's advertising techniques and how black people are often portrayed as animals.

Breast Implications #12: Political Breasts

The other day I found this post on Sociological Images about the use of breasts in political ads in Germany. The CDU party of Germany has been running this ad:

This ad features two women from the CDU party: Vera Lengsefeld (right) and Angela Merkel (left). Both women are wearing rather low cut tops/dresses. The text on the left, over the picture of Merkel, reads "We have more to offer."

By choosing pictures of these two women in low cut tops and using the phrase "We have more to offer" (and I'm sure it was purposeful), the ad is drawing attention to these women's breasts as their one feature to offer that is distinctive. They have more to offer because they have breasts.

It's really interesting to me that the CDU would use these women's breasts to an asset where as Hillary Clinton was criticized to no end for showing the slightest amoung of cleavage. Oh my god! Hillary Clinton has breasts! She is obviously not equipped to handle being president. It's not just that breasts unqualify a person for being president, but focusing on her cleavage in news reports is a way of silencing her intelligence and qualifications for the presidency.

How do the breasts of women in politics function differently in different societies. In Germany, they are obviously viewed as an asset and a good way of differentiating these candidates because they have "more to offer." But in the U.S., breasts are seen as a death sentence for anyone hoping for a career in politics. The U.S. does not want their leaders sexualized in any way. They are apparently just supposed to be asexual beings. Or they are supposed to be men, because it seems to be the problem is with breasts. But breasts will help the women of the CDU in Germany rise above the rest of the competition.

Are Clothes More Important Than Intellect?

Have you heard the news? Michelle Obama wore shorts! The world is coming to an end!

Apparently Michelle Obama wore shorts (of a modest length) while on vacation at the Grand Canyon. Why am I talking about this, you ask? Well, I'm talking about it because it seems to have been deemed newsworthy.

Is it really that big of a deal that Michelle Obama was wearing shorts? Especially considering they were on vacation...at the Grand Canyon...in 106 degree heat.

I'd like to say the reporting on this is a result of a slow news day. But even then, it's not really worth talking about. So why does the media think it is their responsibility to comment on Michelle Obama's inconsequential fashion decisions? I can kind of understand a commentary on a decision to wear shorts if it was to a political function or something, but on vacation...really?

The Huffington Post had a poll asking if Michelle Obama has "the right to bare legs" (via Jezebel). Most people in the poll said yes, but does this question even warrant a poll? And even the phrasing of the question: the right to bare legs. I'm pretty sure she has the right to wear whatever she wants.

It is pretty disrespectful to comment on Michelle Obama's fashion decisions (especially such inconsequential ones) instead of the intellectual weight that she adds to the White House and politics. By commenting on her fashion, the media is saying that she doesn't really have anything to add to the equation other than just looking pretty while standing next to her powerful husband. And do we hear anything about what Barack Obama was wearing? He was probably wearing shorts too, but apparently his legs aren't as important as his wife's.

A very similar thing happened during the 2008 presidential campaign. Many media outlets devoted a lot of attention to Hillary Clinton's pant suits and cleavage. Did these media outlets analyze the fashion decisions of Obama, McCain, or any of the other male candidates? Not really. So why is it so important to consider what Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama wears? It's just a way to draw attention away from the actual issues at hand and discredit the intellectual assets of the person at hand.

By focusing on the wardrobe of Michelle Obama (and this is not the first time that her outfits have been the subject of news), the media is saying that she has very little else to offer besides her looks and great fashion choices. Aren't we pass the point where First Ladies (and wives/girlfriends/partners in general) are only there to look pretty? First Ladies have always contributed to the politics of their presidential husbands and they have evolved into a political entity in and of themselves. It's about time that we stop look at how attractive they are, what they wear, etc. and spend more time focusing on the intellectual and politics of that person.

The focus on clothing instead of intellect is just another silencing technique used against women, particularly smart, powerful women. Like I said, focusing on clothing places the value of a person on their looks instead of their intellectual possibilities. The media is scared that women might actually have something worthy to say that they instead focus on inconsequential things about their appearance to take the attention away from what they might say.


Further Reading:
First lady's shorts draing long, hard, looks [Today Show]

Quick Hit: Sotomayor Receives Endorsement from Senate Committee

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to endorse Judge Sonia Sotomayor with a 13 to 6 vote! All that's left is a full Senate vote which is expected to take place by the end of next week.

Further reading:
Senate Judiciary Committee Endorses Sotomayor [Shakesville]
Senate panel endorses Sotomayor [Feministe]
Sotomayor Approved for Supreme Court by Senate Judiciary Committee [RH Reality Check]
Committee Approves Sotomayor Nomination [Jezebel]
Senate Judiciary Committee Votes for Sotomayor [Feministing]
Senate Panel OKs Sotomayor [Appetite for Equal Rights]

Weight = Expertise When It Comes to the Surgeon General

I debated about posting this video. While it is certainly newsworthy, it has been so widely reported on in the blogosphere. But, because I was completely outraged by it, I decided that I had a responsibility to myself spread it to even more people.



"Just because you eat a lot of dinner rolls doesn't make you a role model."

Who the hell is this guy and where does he get off claiming that Dr. Regina Benjamin is incapable of being surgeon general because she is (as he claims) obese? First of all, obese? Really? She looks perfectly fine to me. Second, being overweight does not necessarily correspond with "poor" exercise and eating habits. And since when does weight correspond with intelligence?

This is just another example of how women's bodies are fair game for discussion in the public forum. Would a story like this make it on the news if it were a male nominee? I don't think so. Men are judged by their intelligence where as women's only worth is in what they look like. Women's (plus-size) bodies are already under attack enough as it is with shows like Drop Dead Diva and More to Love. Do we really need to add into that mix attacking intelligent, qualified, strong women for the way they look?

P.S. A shirt that says "No Chubbies"?

Further reading:
Fatties Need Not Apply [Appetite for Equal Rights]
Is Regina Benjamin too fat to be surgeon general? [Salon: Broadsheet]
The Persuasive Fatty [Shakesville]
"No Chubbies" [Sociological Images]
Faux News: new Surgeon General nom 'too fat' to serve [Pam's House Blend]

White Men's Objectivity

Why is it that white men think that they are the only ones that can be objective?

I must be honest, I haven't been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but I have been doing my blog reading about them. From what I have been reading, it is obvious that these hearings are not being as "objective" and respectful as they claim to be.

But one of the things that really bothers me is how they are focusing on her often misquoted "wise Latina" speech (which can be read here). In this speech she talks about the importance of embracing cultural differences in reaching decisions on court cases. Women and people of color have different experiences than white men and these different experience influence their court decisions.

Many far right wing-ers think that this shows her lack of objectivity and inability to reach "fair" decisions. But I'm right there with Judge Sotomayor. Realizing how one's experiences influence their decisions is important. For some reason, many white men think that they are the only ones who can be objective because their life experiences don't effect them. But they do.

Everyone's experiences effect the way they think and the way they approach an issue. White men's privilege effects them, even if they don't recognize it. On Feministing, Samhita says...

Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

When women or people of color (and especially women of color, it seems) use their experiences as a basis for their decisions they are emotional and biased, whereas white men reach the "truth" through their experiences.

I think what these men are delusional of is that there is actually something called objectivity. I don't think objectivity exists. Maybe you can try your hardest to be objective, but your experiences will always influence you. Only people who have the privilege of not noticing their privilege (white men) would believe that their experiences don't effect them because they can reach the "truth".

(Note: I just want to make a comment that this is not all white men. There are many white men who work towards realizing their privilege and how their experiences effect them and the people around them. But it is usually white men who make these assumptions about objectivity and bias because these white men do not realize their privilege.)

In addition to the idea of objectivity within the hearings, the media is still attacking and misrepresenting Sotomayor. I just read a post at Shakesville about The Colbert Report last night. Normally I appreciate Colbert's sarcasm and satire, but last night he went too far. In discussing Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Colbert placed Sotomayor's head of the clip Sharon Stone from Basic Instinct where she flashes her "nethers" during an interrogation.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen's Sound Advice - How to Bork a Nominee
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

This unnecessarily sexualizes Sotomayor and further demeans her to the point that she is seen as in a lesser standing than men. Why can't Sotomayor just be valued for her professional qualifications rather than focusing on her gender and race as some sort of "disability" to making effective court decisions.

I hope that the confirmation hearings will change in tone after the first day, but I'm not so sure that they will. Conservatives will continue to focus on her experiences as a Latina as a "disability" to her ability to be a Supreme Court justice and the media will continue to make jokes about her qualifications or straight out support the conservatives treatment of her during the hearings.


Note on the cartoon:
I'm sure many of you (if not all) have seen the cartoon that I chose to include in this post. While it is straight out racist, there is some truth in it considering the first day of the hearings. Conservatives are attacking Sotomayor because she is Latina, which I assume this cartoon is trying to say. While it is racist, it does portray how conservatives and the media are treating Sotomayor. But I'm not saying that I agree with the message that the cartoon sends.

Maternal Health in the G8

From the Huffington Post comes an article about international women calling on the G8 to "make their mothers proud" and support maternal health. Their strategy to gain awareness the day before the G8: full page advertisements in the G8 countries picturing the G8 leaders and their mothers.

The women involved in this campaign are Naomi Campbell, Claudia Schiffer, Emma Thompson, Gweneth Paltrow, Yoko Ono, Wendi Murdoch, Christiane Amanpour, Annie Lennox, and JK Rowling. The Huffington Post article has some great quotes from these women about why maternal health is such an important cause.

Yoko Ono said:
"Families, communities, and whole societies, are built on the mother-child relationship. There are simple actions that G8 leaders can take to support this most vital human bond, with massive benefit across the world."

Gwyneth Paltrow said:
"It is one of the great scandals facing our generation. While we are worrying about rising taxes, there are women dying in childbirth for the lack of a sutre-stitching kit which costs a couple of pounds. It's simply no longer acceptable that we ignore this disgrace."

Maternal mortality has been ignored for too long by the world's leaders. Many countries and organizations pledge to make strides in decreasing maternal mortality, but little improvement is being seen.

In Japan in 2008 G8 leaders did pledge to fill the gap in funding for 4 million health workers. However mechanisms and funding to support this promise have not yet been developed, which has meant that since the last G8 536,000 mothers who could have lived, have died (according to WHO/UNFPA/UNICEF/World Bank)...
...Millennium Development Goal 5 is the goal to reduce maternal mortality by 75% by 2015. Yet it is the most neglected of all the MDGs, with no reduction in deaths for 20 years.

I think it is wonderful that these women are taking the initiative to urge the G8 to remedy this situation. The sad reality of the world today is that it sometimes takes a push from famous, powerful people for these kinds of issues to be addressed by governments and organizations. With the G8 Summit just around the corner, it is even more important to do whatever we can to show that maternal mortality is a big deal.

Sarah Palin's Leaving!

Well, not really.

She's stepping down as Alaska's governor. Palin announced today that she would be leaving the governorship at the end of this month.

Good news, right? Who wants Sarah Palin to be in control of anything? Well, it might not be as good as we might hope. What is she going to do with her free time now? She's going to campaign for others. A canada.com article quotes Palin saying,

"I'll work hard and campaign for those who are proud to be Americans and are inspired by our ideals and won't deride them,"

There's also talk that this is a strategic move on her part to position herself to run for president in 2012. I don't really know what is going through her head in this one. Does the amount of criticism she got while running for vice president tell her anything about how people feel about her in national office? The day Sarah Palin is president is the day that I would leave the country. I don't think I could handle that.

Well, I guess we will see where Sarah Palin's road goes as she lays it out for us.

Further reading:
Palin stepping down this month [CNN]
Palin to resign as Alaska governor [MSNBC]
Alaska Gov. Palin, ex-VP nominee, resigning [USA Today]
Palin quits as Alaska governor [Fox News]

Anti-Abortion Violence Deserves It's Own Registry

I was looking through The Huffington Post today and came across this article about the need for a registry of people who have committed violence against abortion clinics or providers. I found the article really interesting and it definitely made me think.

The author, Jacob M. Appel, compares the anti-abortion violence registry to the sex offender registry.

Much as we do not permit convicted pedophiles to teach kindergarten or convicted hijackers to board airplanes, common sense dictates that individuals who have been imprisoned for plotting violence against abortion clinics should never again be permitted anywhere near such facilities.

While I was intrigued of the idea of this registry and could definitely see the benefit of it, I was a little weary while reading the first part of the article just because of the restrictions against free speech. But Appel later addresses this concern.

While shouting at female patients during their most vulnerable moments may be a Constitutionally protected right, doing so does not contribute to a robust marketplace of ideas. Nor does the legality of such demonstrations make them any less distasteful. Civil society would benefit greatly if anti-abortion activists took their protests to state capitals or to the steps of the United States Supreme Court instead.

I think that this idea merits serious consideration. It has benefits for both sides. One the pro-choice side, it helps promote the safety of clients and employees of abortion clinics. On the anti-choice/pro-life side, it further supports their nonviolence mission.

Doing so would lend convincing credence to the anti-abortion movement's claims to nonviolence and would prevent dangerous ex-felons from infiltrating its ranks.

Appel doesn't make any claims that this registry is going to solve the debate over abortion, because we all know it won't. But what it will do is ensure safe access to abortions for women who need them while also stopping violence within the "pro-life" movement.

This article spoke to me on a personal level as well. I recently started volunteering at my local Planned Parenthood. While this clinic does not provide abortion serives, there have still been protests there (because heaven forbid women get basic health care). As Appel asserts, people who committed crimes against abortion clinics in the 80s and 90s are just now starting to be released from jail and it is unlikely that they have shifted their political beliefs.

And this is the case at my local Planned Parenthood. A man was recently released from prison where he was serving time for crimes he committed against this clinic. When he was released, this office strengthened their security measures to prevent any future protests and/or crimes. While I still feel completely safe there, these security measures could turn off people going to the clinic. If this type of registry was in place and there were laws that legally kept this man away from the clinic, these measures would not have to be in place and it could potentially be a safer place for women to come to receive health care.

Have a Baby, Save the Economy

If you have an abortion, you are contributing to the demise of the American economy. Well, that's at least what this billboard (found on Sociological Images) wants you to believe.


Nations always have pro- or anti-natal policies to control their population. Basically, do it (or don't do it) for your country. But according to this billboard (and the policies, the billboard is just way more obvious), women have a duty to their country over their bodies and their reproductive choices.

Electing Women Can End Sex Scandals

Ever since the details of his affair came to light, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's indiscretions have been all over the news. I'm kind of sick of it. Yes, he had an affair. Yes, he used "state business" as an excuse to visit his mistress in Argentina (please explain to me how there can be South Carolina business in Argentina). But does it really grant so much press coverage?

But, when I came across this article in the National Review Online, it made me smile a little about the whole situation. Dana Perino argues that by electing more women, we will avoid the GOPs who are "hypocrites in their personal lives."

There's one common denominator, and it's not partisan. It's a chromosome named Y. Why? Could someone please explain?

While I am not able to explain, I do think I know the answer to all of this: Elect more women. No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one. They're too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.

While there are many reasons to elect women to public office, this is another great one to add to the list - no more sex scandals!

One More Step Towards Ending Violence Against Women

Today the White House announced the appointment of a new White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, Lynn Rosenthal.

In this new position, Ms. Rosenthal will serve as an advisor to the President and Vice President on domestic violence and sexual assault issues; be a liaison to the domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy community; coordinate with the Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) on implementation of Violence Against Women Act programs; coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services on implementation of Family Violence Prevention Act services (including the National Domestic Violence Hotline); coordinate with the State Department and USAID on global domestic violence initiatives; and drive the development new initiatives and policy aimed at combating domestic violence and sexual assault with advocacy groups and members of Congress.

This new office is just one more step towards ending violence against women. While the battle is still far from over, by giving the issue the importance that this office does, more people will become aware of the seriousness of this issue.

Do We Still Need Women's Clubs?

To me, this question is just about the same as: do we still need feminism? The answer is yes. The other day, Veronica Arreola of Viva la Feminista wrote an op-ed for NPR, "Girls Just Wanna Have...Networking?". This op-ed is about U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor's decision to leave the women's networking club, Belizean Grove.

Republican senators were disconcerted by Sotomayor's membership in this club which influenced her decision to leave. But what about this thing called the "old boys club." The old boys club has been around for as long as anyone can remember helping white men climb even higher on the social totempole. The old boys club is still around, so why can't there be women's clubs?

For centuries, the old boys' club supported men in powerful positions and made it difficult for women to rise up through the ranks. Now that some of those top spots are opening up to women, too, all-female clubs are providing women with valuable networks and training in networking — things the old boys' club provided men for centuries, and still provide. Lest we forget, men's clubs are not a thing of the past.

Obviously, there is still discrimination against women getting to higher offices. Only one example of this discrimination is the aversion to women's club while the old boys club sitll remains intact.

Arreola hopes that,

women's clubs will die out because men's clubs have died out, too. I hope both are replaced with professional clubs, plain and simple. But right now, we need women's clubs to support women professionals and help right the gender discrimination of the past.

I whole-heartedly agree with Arreola. We need women's clubs just like we need feminism. Working towards the end of gender discrimination is an ongoing process that needs to be worked against in all aspects of life.

Nixon Excuses Interracial Abortions

On June 23, the New York Times published an article titled "On Nixon Tapes, Ambivalence Over Abortion, Not Watergate." While many of the issues discussed in the article, from Watergate to Vietnam, are very interesting and important to foreign and domestic policy, the one thing that I was struck by in the article were the three short paragraphs at the beginning of the article where Nixon discussed Roe v. Wade and abortion.

Not only did Nixon think that abortion encouraged "permisiveness" and that "it breaks the family," but he also had some interesting views for cases that would permit abortions. Nixon said, "There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," only later adding, "Or a rape." Apparently interracial pregnancies are just as bad as pregnancies caused by rape, according to Nixon, if not worse, because the case of rape was only added on later.

Support Healthy Families

Girl With Pen wrote a post today on the need for paid sick leave for both American workers and employers. The Center for Economic and Policy Research recently published a report titled "Contagion Nation: A Comparison of Paid Sick Day Policies in 22 Countries." This report found that the U.S. is the only one of these 22 countries that does not require paid sick days or leave for employees. As a result,

each year millions of American workers go to work sick, lowering productivity and potentially spreading illness to their coworkers and customers.

The CEPR then published a follow-up report titled "Paid Sicks Days Don't Cause Unemployment." As you can tell from the title, requiring employers to provide paid sick days does not cause an increase in unemployment. In "Contagion Nation," the authors state,

A substantial body of research has shown that in addition to the obvious health and economic costs imposed on employees by the lack of paid sick days or leave, significant costs result as well for employers. Workers who go to work while sick stay sick longer, lower their productivity as well as that of their coworkers, and can spread their illnesses to coworkers and customers.

As you can see from this research, there is a need for paid sick days and not a whole lot of threat of unemployment.

The Healthy Families Act, which is currently in the House of Representatives, would require companies with more than 15 employees to provide seven paid sick days. I think that this is an important piece of legislation because it will not only help American workers, but it will have a great impact on the lives of working women. This act allows paid sick leave if you are sick, to care for an ill family member, or to seek domestic violence services. Women are usually the ones who are burdened with caring for ill family members and to be affected by domestic violence.

I recently wrote my representative, Hon. Vern Ehlers (cough...Republican...cough), to urge him to work towards passing this act, for the reasons I've mentioned above. His response: "I recognize the value of paid sick leave, but am concerned about the potential impact of this legislation of small businesses." After reading this post from Girl With Pen and learning about the reports from the CEPR, I am considering writing to him again with more evidence to my point. I urge you to write your representatives. NOW has some more information on the act and a sample letter to send to your representative.