24 posts tagged “ridiculous”
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.
It occurred to me that I have been neglecting my poor little vox lately. So instead of swamping my neighborhood with all of my posts from the past few months, I have them all collectively linked here for your clicking pleasure. They are listed in reverse order, from oldest to newest.
I vote we just abolish the silly feminism thing right here and now
Published by Liz on February 20, 2008 12:26 am
under equality, feminist thought, ridiculous
Ultimately, I am a feminist because I believe in two things: equality
and choice. Equality for all people, regardless of what labels are
applied to them by themselves and society, and choice for all people,
so they are able to live their lives as close to their dream as
possible. I don’t expect everyone to be
feminists, but I do believe that feminism can benefit the world as a
whole.
Censorship at the Grammy Awards: Somehow I'm not surprised
Published by Liz on February 20, 2008 04:51 pm
under feminist thought, pop culture, sexuality, tv
By now I’m sure everyone knows about Amy Winehouse being asked by the Grammy Awards producers to cover up her tattoo’s nipples for her performance, but can we just pause a moment and reflect on how this is being reported to media outlets?
Reason #389 why I love Bill Clinton
Published by Liz on February 21, 2008 09:08 pm
under abortion, anti-choice, anti-contraception, clintons, reproductive health, tidbits
When verbally assaulted at a rally by anti-choicers, Bill responded,
and I have to say, I am impressed by his response… and not just because
he’s Bill, but because it’s an awesome response. Yes, he got angry, and
yes, he may have yelled more than a little… but he did get his point
across and (I hope) filled the anti-choicers present at this rally with
a more than a little embarrassment.
The usual bull shit: sexism in the media and Hillary Clinton
Published by Liz on February 28, 2008 04:53 pm
under 2008 election, clintons, dollymix.tv, feminist thought, gender, media, politics, pop culture, ridiculous
Sexism in media is kind of a big topic. A lot of people research it for
a living, and quite a few people have gone to painstaking efforts to
observe the sexism that is occurring in the Democratic presidential
election and all the publicity that surrounds it.
Rejoice! Pregnancy can give you a pass for the carpool lane!
Published by Liz on February 28, 2008 11:12 pm
under abortion, anti-choice, children, christian right, feminist thought, ignorance, politics, reproductive health, ridiculous
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, aka Reagan 2.0, has just recently endorsed an amendment to the Colorado constitution that would consider a fetus a person.
Aside from the whole ridiculousness surrounding when a fetus becomes a person, this is a dangerous line to cross.
Where in the world is Prince Harry fighting?
Published by Liz on February 29, 2008 04:59 pm
under media, opinion, politics
Yesterday I was browsing through CNN’s front page when I saw the
headline “Prince Harry sent to Afghanistan”. Now, how is that safe? How
is that ok?
Happy Sadie Hawkins Day! PROPOSE WHILE YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!
Published by Liz on February 29, 2008 05:31 pm
under dollymix.tv, feminist thought, gender, marriage, ridiculous
Not only is today Leap Year (and another lame excuse for things to be
one sale in stores), but today is also Sadie Hawkins Day. Which means,
for you ladies who are so inclined, today is the one day every four years where a woman can propose to a man and get away with it.
Female artist of the moment: Missy Higgins
Published by Liz on March 4, 2008 07:54 pm
under music, pop culture, the usual
I thought I would take a moment to step off my soap box and blog about Missy Higgins,
an awesome musician from Australia who has a lot to say about life,
love, and all the other miscellany things going on in her world.
Stick to what you're good at: housemaking, swooning, etc
Published by Liz on March 4, 2008 11:18 pm
under feminist thought, gender, ignorance, media, pop culture, rant, ridiculous
I think every single feminist blog I read has picked up on Charlotte Allen’s sexist “women are idiots” piece already, but it’s my turn now.
Single sex education versus gender based education
Published by Liz on March 5, 2008 06:19 pm
under children, feminist thought, gender, opinion
The doctor has become an advocate of single-sex education (not same-sex
education, because that would be GAY) because during his years as a
family practitioner (not a child therapist, not a
psychologist, not anything remotely related to early childhood
educational and mental development) he realized that boys and girls
“learn differently”. Now, in psychology, gender is one of those big
categories that they use to look for differences because it is
(usually) easy to identify. However, many studies have come to the same
conclusion: the differences within each gender are greater than those between genders.
LOL of the day: a resume full of "hopes and plans"
Published by Liz on March 5, 2008 07:53 pm
under 2008 election, lol of the day, media, politics, tidbits
All these years I’ve been creating accomplishments and
gathering experience to list on my resume. From now on, I’ll just list
my hopes and plans. All that work was so unnecessary.
Who cares about your career? Have a baby now!
Published by Liz on March 5, 2008 11:59 pm
under american traditions, children, feminist thought, life stuff, rant, reproductive health, ridiculous
“Want to have a baby? Now’s the time women eager to have children need to direct career drive toward mating.”
For an extremely short article, it is riddled with tons of sexist “facts” from various fields of research.
The top 10 things men lie about
Published by Liz on March 6, 2008 06:44 pm
under gender, ignorance, media, opinion, pop culture, ridiculous
If the NY Post can be completely sexist when it comes to lying,
then so can I. The piece was published over the weekend and it uses a
book written by a woman (whose credentials - or lack thereof - are
completely ignored) to claim that women are lies. Well, it’s my turn now. So I present you with the Top 10 Things Men Lie About.
Tid bits: Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics used "sexual experimentation"
Published by Liz on March 6, 2008 11:11 pm
under lgbtqi, media, pop culture, sexuality, tidbits, tv
I caught an article on the New York Times about Issue #12 and
Buffy’s lesbian “experimentation”. This isn’t the first time Joss
Whedon has included lesbianism in his series. For those not familiar with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television
series, Willow - a witch and Buffy’s best friend - develops a lesbian
relationship with a fellow witch, Tara, during college. After Tara’s
death, Willow begins dating a potential slayer.
Life Lesson #7: If you wear a skirt in public, it is 100% legal for people to take pictures of your naughty bits
Published by Liz on March 17, 2008 05:52 pm
under body image, gender, life lessons, politics, ridiculous, tidbits
A man in Oklahoma was found not guilty under a “Peeping Tom” statute for putting his camera up a 16 year old girl’s skirt (without her consent, obviously) and taking photos. Don’t go commando in Oklahoma!
Tid bits: Dolores Huerta's speech canceled at Catholic school due to her public pro-choice stance
Published by Liz on March 17, 2008 06:18 pm
under abortion, anti-choice, children, feminist thought, ignorance, opinion, reproductive health, ridiculous, tidbits
Ridiculous! I am not that shocked that a Catholic school would cancel
Dolores Huerta’s speaking engagement, but at the same time, I thought
they would have enough intelligence to understand that the talk was
about “her founding role in the United Farm Workers and the importance
of public service” and not abortion.
"Horton Hears A Who!" Not "Horton Hears An Anti-Choice Protest!"
Published by Liz on March 18, 2008 03:43 pm
under abortion, anti-choice, children, christian right, feminist thought, gender, ignorance, media, movies, opinion, pop culture, religion, reproductive health, ridiculous
STOP RUINING MY CHILDHOOD, ANTI-CHOICERS! And more importantly, stop ruining the childhoods of the millions of children going to see this movie. I understand that they are trying to make their point in as public a venue as possible, but it is a children’s movie: the primary audience is children (and families)… not exactly the kind of people that need to be converted to their cause.
Celebrity blow up dolls: there are no words
Published by Liz on March 18, 2008 08:05 pm under body image, gender, pop culture, rant, ridiculous, sexuality
Apparently, a company called Pipedream Products (google at your own risk) produces celebrity blow up sex dolls as part of their “Super Star Series”. They have dolls of: Eva Longoria: she’s your whore next door!
LOL of the day: the 105-pound mystery
Published by Liz on March 19, 2008 03:18 pm
under lol of the day, tidbits
While I’d rather not discuss the whole Elliot Spitzer thing, I found this absolutely hilarious: Most of the focus was on “Kristen”, the prostitute he
met at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC and booked for $1,000 an
hour. She was described as, “American, petite, very pretty, brunette, 5
feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds”.
Oh, Catholicism, how you humor me
Published by Liz on March 19, 2008 04:11 pm
under american traditions, anti-choice, anti-contraception, christian right, religion, reproductive health
I guess today is the day for humor! As I’m sure everyone knows, the Vatican has just recently released new sins.
Yes, much like a summer blockbuster or a new fashion line, the Vatican
decided to get hip with the times and tell everyone that there are more things they need to not do in order to get into heaven.
Back Up Your Birth Control: EC Day of Action, March 25, 2008
Published by Liz on March 20, 2008 03:46 pm
under abortion, birth control, feminist thought, reproductive health, sexuality
As a woman who falls into the 18-24 and sexually active statistic, it
should come as no surprise that I have used emergency contraception at
least once in my life. I am lucky enough to live in a liberal town
where access to Plan B (and other emergency contraceptives) is readily
available without scrutiny.
How exactly is the blue dress relevant to this presidential election?
Published by Liz on March 20, 2008 08:02 pm
under 2008 election, clintons, feminist thought, media, opinion, politics, rant, ridiculous
I have to say that I am completely shocked that ABC would even consider this as news. This story was published to embarrass Senator Clinton, plain and simple. This is not news!
In now way, shape, or form is this news! I also like how they call her
“Hillary” in the header: almost as if it doesn’t matter that she’s a
Senator or a Democratic presidential candidate.
Senate hearing on rape as a weapon of war
Published by Liz on April 3, 2008 08:44 pm
under feminist thought, politics, rape, reproductive health
We’ve all heard the gruesome stories of female military personnel going
off to war and being raped, kidnapped, mutilated, and tortured, whether
by the enemy or by their fellow soldiers. The United States Senate has
finally caught up with the use of rape as a weapon of war and the
Senate Subcommittee on Human Rights and Law held a hearing in regards
to this monstrous tactic.
The beginning of the end of abstinence-only education programs
Published by Liz on April 3, 2008 09:00 pm
under anti-choice, anti-contraception, birth control, christian right, feminist thought, gw bush, ignorance, politics, religion, reproductive health, sexuality
Our lovely lawmakers have finally gotten up the nerve to tackle Bush’s
abstinence-only sex education funding. It’s no surprise that it took a
Democrat controlled House and Senate to allow this challenge to happen,
but the question is, why didn’t it happen sooner? Despite years of
outcry and criticism, it took our lawmakers seven years into Bush’s term as President to put any concentrated energy towards the removal of abstinence-only sex education in schools.
Tid bits: admitted rapist and murderer convicted to 5 years
Published by Liz on April 7, 2008 03:50 pm
under politics, rant, rape, tidbits
A man who admitted giving a woman a fatal dose of “date rape” drug
during his alleged drive to have sex with 100 women was sentenced
Friday to five years in prison during a hearing that exposed the stark
emotions of his victim’s family.
Virginia 1st state to mandate internet safety lessons
Published by Liz on April 8, 2008 03:43 pm
under internet, pop culture, social networking
All I have to say is GOOD, and maybe FINALLY. With so many kids using sites like MySpace, I’m sure that percentage of internet users 10-17 who have received unwanted sexual solicitations has gone up. Is it just me, or does this make you feel old? Do you remember back in the day when you would go into the Yahoo! Chat rooms and someone would send you a message asking what you’re wearing or if you were in the mood to get frisky? I know chat rooms aren’t the thing anymore - and good thing, too, because they were kind of creepy - but places like MySpace are just as bad, if not worse. Innocent unaware teens are posting pictures of themselves with their friends at the beach, school, or wherever else, and someone is using those pictures and the information in their profiles to stalk them.
Life lesson #8: being raped is the same as being force-fed chocolate
Published by Liz on April 10, 2008 08:02 pm under dollymix.tv, feminist thought, gender, life lessons, politics, rape, reproductive health, ridiculous
I read this on DollyMix last week, and I thought I posted it already, but apparently not. The incident which state-side feminist blogs have only now just gotten wind of actually occurred early last week, but we’ll let them pretend they were the first to blog it even though they’re presenting the facts inaccurately.
A much needed reality check for the anti-Hillary camp
Published by Liz on April 23, 2008 04:26 pm
under 2008 election, clintons, media, opinion, politics
With Hillary winning last night’s primary in Pennsylvania, I think the
naysayers who told Hillary to leave the race should be feeling a little
more than stupid right now. While I’m sure their decision to ask her to
remove herself from the race was based on their opinion that Barack is
a better candidate, I feel it’s unfair (and immature) to ask someone to
remove themself from a Democratic process just because you don’t like
them. Maybe there is even a little fear in them asking Hillary to
remove herself - maybe, just maybe they’re afraid she might win and
that their golden boy will have lost.
Just another day int he media: using scandal to degrade victims
Published by Liz on April 23, 2008 04:42 pm
under feminist thought, media, pop culture, rant, rape, reproductive health, ridiculous
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.
How the Democratic party "front runner" managed to lose all the major states, I'll never know
Published by Liz on April 29, 2008 02:57 pm under 2008 election, clintons, opinion, politics
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.
I'll take a side of forced vaginal penetration with my abortion, thanks!
Published by Liz on May 1, 2008 08:07 pm
under abortion, anti-choice, christian right, feminist thought, ignorance, opinion, politics, rant, rape, reproductive health
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.
From Alternet/Huffington Post:
Obama, grave-faced and sympathetic in tone, opined that when Senator Clinton was ‘feeling down,’ she went on the attack to make herself feel better; that is, she committed an error in judgment because she was in a bad mood. That was the moment when I, and other women of a certain age, all over the country, winced.
The change candidate had embraced one of the oldest clichés in the book — that women are held hostage by emotion, that we can’t be trusted with the big decisions because, depending on our age, we’re either on the rag or having a hot flash. The overtly sexist position used to be that you didn’t want to entrust the red phone to a woman because women are unpredictable and irrational; a fit of hormonal pique and kaboom, we all glow in the radioactive dark. The ones who aren’t instantly vaporized, that is.
The kinder, gentler version? A soft-spoken observation about what a female candidate does when she’s “feeling down,” the implication being that Hillary’s distress over the delegate count had impaired her judgment, and that someone who loses her way like that is not strong enough to withstand the rigors of the presidency. If you think that I and the indignant gal friends I’ve polled are overreacting, try the acid test: Imagine any major candidate making that kind of subtle put-down about a man’s psychological fortitude. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton had to have shock treatment to get us to raise a national eyebrow about his mental health, ending his brief tenure as George McGovern’s running mate. Short of that, we tend to assume that the boys are steady enough to handle the job.
[…] If it wasn’t a spontaneous comment — if someone in Senator Obama’s camp thinks it’s wise to use code to address and exploit our primitive fears about whether women can cope — then whoever came up with it ought to be ashamed of himself, and the man who uttered it needs to rethink the strength of his opponent and her supporters. Beat her on better ideas, or oratory, beat her with passion and energy, but beat her fair and square, if you can. Don’t talk about change and then quote from a 1950s playbook on the battle between the sexes. (Emphasis mine)
Now I’m sure everyone has heard about this but now, but I couldn’t agree more. It was a ridiculous comment to make. While it is not my goal to analyze every single thing that comes out of someone’s mouth in regards to Clinton, this is pretty ridiculous. Relying on the accepted idea that women are out of control and can’t be trusted to make sane decisions, especially if they’re upset. Heaven forbid the leader of our country get emotional or have a menstrual cycle! Maybe, just maybe emotions are what our country needs to fix all of its ridiculous problems.
I don’t feel that this is a personal attack on Barack - although more than one person has told me that my past posts are “personal attacks” rather than legitimate questions regarding his politics and abilities. He said something, he made a mistake, and he’s being scrutinized for it. The same thing has happened time and time again with Hillary - the key difference being her getting “emotional” is suddenly described as a tear-fest and Barack’s words and actions being taken as they are and for what they mean.
How amazing would it be if I could yell at someone and not get the response “geeze, are you PMS-ing” or “it must be that time of the month”?! How delightfully wonderful would it be if I could cry, be in an irritable mood, or just be downright irritated and not have to answer questions regarding my menstrual cycle? I think it would be downright wonderful. But, apparently, Obama does not.
I can’t believe to express my words of anger, frustration, and downright disbelief about this.
CLARKSBURG, West Virginia (CNN) — The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people’s physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.
But it’s an issue that raises major privacy concerns — what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.
The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information — from palm prints to eye scans.
Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI’s Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is “important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in.”
But it’s unnerving to privacy experts.
“It’s the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Technology and Liberty Project.
So, let me get this straight: it’s important to record every defining physical characteristic of every person living legally in the United States in order to better identify criminals? I’m sorry, but if people can remove their fingerprints and not leave their DNA behind, I’m sure they can cover up their tattoos and disguise their eye color.
This is such an invasion of privacy - I can’t believe this is even being considered. I do not feel safe because they have decided to create this database. I feel more at risk because criminals are going to find different, more discrete, and possibly more violent, ways to commit their crimes. An identification database is not going to prevent criminals from committing crimes. Fingerprint and DNA databases haven’t done that, so what makes the FBI think this will?
The Kentucky Senate has passed a bill that, if passed in the House, will ban universities and state agencies from offering benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.
Even worse than the actual decision is the way the Courier Journal describes those who voted against it. One was labeled a “homosexual” after his only quote in the article. The entire article is riddled with quotes about why people felt this ban should be passed. Of course, the big shocker, religious values played a huge part. Vernie McGaha, R-Russell Springs, the bill’s sponsor, said:
“I do not recognize domestic partnerships as being a correct thing. My Bible teaches against it.”
Of course, the ridiculous thing behind it all, is that it hurts the Universities in the area. It also hurts the students, who may not get a top quality education in Kentucky because the University couldn’t recruit one expert due to their sexuality and lack of available partner benefits.
University presidents have opposed the bill, saying it hurts their ability to recruit researchers and professors.
University of Louisville trustees voted in 2006 to become the state’s first public university to extend health-insurance benefits to unmarried domestic partners, including homosexuals. the University of Kentucky followed suit, and Eastern Kentucky University is looking at the issue.
Nearly 300 universities and colleges across the country, and more than half of the Fortune 500 companies, provide such benefits, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group based in Washington.
“Our position is and remains that we are hopeful the legislature will allow the universities to have the flexibility to make health-care decisions for their employees and their families,” UK spokesman Jay Blanton said.
U of L spokesman John Drees said the bill would make it difficult to work toward its goal of becoming a top metropolitan research university — a goal the General Assembly set in 1997.
“If you want to compete with the best universities and the best corporations, you need to be able to offer the same types of benefits they offer,” he said.
This just SCREAMS DISCRIMINATION! I never understood why sexuality was such a difficult thing for people to comprehend discrimination of. Religions are constantly fighting for their right not to be discriminated against, and yet, that is a chosen identity. Identities that you are born with, such as gender (unless you change it), race, etc have been protected from discrimination for quite awhile… but sexuality has not. And that’s because the church has people believing that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore a sin:
They also see a homosexual orientation as being a choice. Because they see this “behavior” as wrong (at one point, it was criminal) and preventable, they view the LGBT community as asking for special rights that allow them access to the insitutions that privilege heterosexuals. The process goes something like this: if sin as a choice, and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality must be a chosen path. This argument is, essentially, flawed because it is based on the idea that being LGBT is a choice. (For the sake of time and length, I am not going to go into LGBT as being inborn v. chosen v. environmental debate. My reasons for this are because the Christian Right does not, so I do not need to do so to deconstruct their argument.)
Religious identity is a choice. And according to the Christian Right, being “a homosexual” is also a choice. If religious identity wasn’t a choice, it would be assigned in the ways that gender and race are. Religion is, however, a chosen identity.
Religion is, also, protected by the Consitution. Sexuality is not. This is special rights. The Christian Right’s response to this accusation is that they are not special rights because the designers of the Consitution put them in there, so they shouldn’t be removed. While it is true that religion was added into the Consitution and is protected by law, this response to the argument that religious identity does not dodge the issue of special rights. This still doesn’t answer the question of why religion gets protection but sexuality does not.
Chosen identity or not, there is simply not reason whatsoever that a person’s “choice” to be gay (or straight!) should lead to discrimination in every aspect of their life. The right to marry, secure health care from a partner, safe work environments and protection from employment discrimination, adoption, child custody, and more, are all rights that are not granted to LGBT individuals at the federal level. Instead, they are granted on a case-by-case basis.
My advice? Move to California. It’s nice.
When talking about doctors giving women abortions and holding the doctors - but not the women - accountable when (not if) he makes abortion illegal and shoves women back into their barefoot and pregnant lifestyles, my least favorite person said the following of the woman seeking an abortion:
I consider her a victim, not a criminal.
A WOMAN IS NOT A VICTIM OF HER OWN CHOICES. A woman is not a victim when she gets up in the morning, puts on jeans and a sweatshirt, and walks past a man who has an urge to kidnap and murder a woman wearing jeans and a sweatshirt. A 12 year-old girl is not a victim when she decides to walk home from school instead of taking the bus and gets raped by a scary old man who likes to eat girls and bury their bones in his basement.
However, Huckabee’s stance is the only “easy” way to get around the question without hurting your poor, teeny, tiny Republican brain to to blame the doctor, not the woman. Who went to the doctor’s office. Specifically to get an abortion. And got one. Because that makes sense…
If you criminalize abortion, you have to punish the woman who gets it, or not make it illegal in the first place. Apparently, the Republicans don’t understand this concept.
Let’s try an analogy for those who cannot wrap their brains around it: let’s pretend buying cars is illegal. A lovely Mormon wife (gag) with her 8 full clothed and perfectly behaved children goes to purchase a minivan to haul around said children. She pays a fair price for the minivan, is satisfied, and drives away happily, knowing her quality of life is now much better, even though she has risked great harm to herself, her family, and her children by engaging in this grave illegal act of purchasing a car. The police discover her terrible crime, they pat her on the head “You silly woman!” they say, “You know buying cars is illegal!” and they run off and arrest the person she purchased the car from.
It would, of course, just make more sense for abortion to stay SAFE, LEGAL, and ACCESSIBLE to women of all ages, races, socio-economic status, and location.
(Also, please, laugh with me as you realize Huckabee believes the “her” in victim is always a woman, but that the abortion provider is always, without a doubt, a man. Probably an atheist Democrat trying to steal the aborted fetus for stem cell research.)
Having a semi-scientific background and understanding the ways in which scientific studies work, I have to say I was more than a little miffed to read this article about a study done linking adolescent girls’ weight to their perception of their own popularity. They claimed that girls who viewed themselves as unpopular gained more weight over a two year period than girls who viewed themselves as popular. What was the weight difference, you ask? Popular girls only gained 6.5 pounds over two years, while unpopular girls gained 11.
While how a woman feels about herself can be important when looking at her weight gain and loss, it isn’t always the source of their “fat”. I have met fat, popular high school girls and I have also met skinny unpopular high school girls - all whose happiness did not hinge on their weight. But then again, what one person knows isn’t true for the entire world of American high schoolers. Unless, of course, I’m completely off base here and everyone is walking around high school in mini skirts and stilettos like the ladies of Mean Girls.
Now, maybe it’s just me being “old” and “uncool” (ok, I’m 22, I’m not that old and uncool)… but have things really changed so much since I was in high school? Sure, girls were dieting and drinking Slim Fast for lunch - or skipping lunch altogether - but they were not nearly as concerned with their weight as high school girls are today. The last time I sat in a room surrounded by 15 year old girls was only a few months ago and all they seemed to care about what their weight, their appearance, and how this would attract boys. They spent eons criticizing other girls out of the yearbook or on their MySpace pages and almost as long looking at themselves in a mirror. Maybe it’s because I went to high school in a smaller and less urban town, but there is something wrong with this picture. Are young girls really connecting thinness with popularity?
Of course, we can always blame the celebrities, models, and other worthlessly famous individuals for this sudden “thin is in” craze. We can even blame Apple, Inc. for their last iMac commercial - “Thin is Powerful.” But really, can we blame anybody? Thin has been in for quite awhile. We can’t blame Lindsay Lohan or Nicole Richie for a trend that has been raging for years - more years than I think most of us have been alive.
While I’m sure being rail thin, but supple in all the right places, has helped many actresses and talentless famous people further their “careers”, is it really helping people in the real world? Other than the occasional “scientific study” claiming pretty people get hired more frequently and those of us blessed with an hourglass body make more money, there isn’t really much of a claim to be had by being thin.
One minor reflection on the previously mentioned study: they compared girls using their self-reports of popularity. While they are claiming to link a girls “self-image” of her popularity with her weight, how do we know this wasn’t impacted by a psychological illness such as depression, or even more serious life events such as sexual assault, family problems, or trouble with classes? Or, even more minor in a researcher’s eye, a recent break-up with a boy who told a girl she was disgusting and nobody would ever love her? In addition to this, they compared 4,264 self-reported popular girls with only 182 self-reported unpopular girls, leaving quite a few questions unanswered as far as I’m concerned.
This study is trying to link a poor self-image of popularity with unhappiness by preying on our deeply ingrained stereotypes that nobody likes a fat girl.
While the data for this study was taken in 1999, they are interpreting the it with today’s societal perceptions of body image and weight, which have become more and more in favor of increasingly thinner bodies. I was a high school freshman just turning 15 in 1999 and I knew I was dreadfully unpopular. Hell, I was even harassed on a daily basis for being rail thin and flat as a board and I still didn’t gain the weight this study is claiming the girls they took data on did. I didn’t even weigh 100 pounds, and didn’t hit anything above 110 until after I was in college for two years. While my weight is mostly due to genetics, my self-image didn’t have much of an impact on whether or not I gained weight.
But then again, I like to think of myself as a fairly logical and level-headed person: I don’t connect two variables together that are entirely unrelated and try to draw conclusions to support society’s stereotypes.
Courtesy of “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”:
The quintessential liberal fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade-school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
You can tell Goldberg was dying to say “black female grade-school teacher”, but couldn’t quite find an excuse to. And possibly, the second best thing: Goldberg stole his cover graphic from Prussian Blue.
Even better: Nazis were animal rights activists, and therefore, Nazis weren’t bad people.
Apparently the goal of his book was to link everything liberals do (have done, or will do) with Hitler and other fascists in order to point out how awesome conservatives are. Genius, really!
[via Sadly, No]
Maybe if Jamie Lynn Spears had received an education other than one that was focused on abstinence, she wouldn't be three months pregnant right now. She would have learned how to use a condom properly or she would have been on birth control. Technically, legally, she shouldn’t have been having sex anyways: the age of consent in Louisiana is 17. I didn’t initially plan on vocalizing my opinion about the Spears pregnancy disaster, but I just couldn’t hold my tongue any longer.
This is so infuriating! If a woman says “no”, she says “no”! It doesn’t matter who she is saying “no” to. Apparently, in the UK, a top Tory senior adviser says that “suggested rape accusations made by women against their partners should be treated as “disagreements” between lovers.”
Well of course it’s a disagreement. One person says wants to have sex, the other doesn’t, and the one who wants to doesn’t give a shit what their partner wants and rapes them. That is, very obviously, a disagreement. His justification is ridiculous: