Latent Sexism

http://jezebel.com/5045993/sexism-is-still-creeping-up-on-hillary-clinton-and-us

I love that the Jezebel writers all think so similarly to me.

Text from Jezebel article by writer Megan(emphasis mine):
The New York Times has an article today about how the Obama camp is going to "dispatch" Hillary Clinton and other female surrogates to counter the McCain-Palin efforts to reach out to women. It's your sort of run-of-the-mill story about campaign tactics until someone far more awake than me — specifically, Melissa McEwan of Shakesville — points out the subtle sexism of how the Times describes the Obama-Hillary relationship.

The Times says:

Senator Barack Obama will increasingly lean on prominent Democratic women to undercut Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain, dispatching Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Florida on Monday and bolstering his plan to deploy female surrogates to battleground states, Obama advisers said Thursday.

As Melissa points out, it's pretty hard to imagine anyone "dispatching" Hillary Clinton anywhere, let alone the imagery of Obama "deploying" legions of female foot soldiers out to do battle. She suggests the following phrasing:

Prominent Democratic women will be providing Senator Barack Obama with key support next week, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Florida and other notable female players will make appearances in battleground states to undercut Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain, Obama advisors said Thursday.

That's the difficulty with sexism most of the time — it's rarely the super-obvious kind. It always creeps in, leaving a few strands behind in a conversation or an article and slips away again, leaving you feeling slightly heavier without really knowing what's wrong. It's just so ingrained in our culture and in our way of looking at the world that it's hard to even tease out, let alone notice with any alacrity.

Using Celebrity

Do you ever notice how the least memorable cast members of The Real World, with the least-developed story lines, end up being the ones who tour the country giving talks about subjects we're not exactly sure why they're qualified to speak on?

For instance, Jose, from the Key West cast. Remember him? Yeah, me neither. He's coming to a local community college to speak about bipartisanship and the upcoming election. Now while I think its fantastic that community college students have the opportunity to hear and discuss this historic presidential race, why would the not-really-famous-and-who-is-he-again? Real Worlder Jose be the best person to be speaking about this?

I get that to attract a youthful audience, organizers want to present someone who comes from youth culture. But The Real World? Do today's college kids even watch that? If they brought in someone actually famous from that series, a loyal watcher from my generation would be more likely to jump at the chance to see them than today's Millennials.

On McCain's speech

I thought John McCain gave a fantastic speech last night. He has an extremely compelling and sympathetic personal story. He was tortured as a prisoner of war, and returned not bitter and even more willing to serve his country. These are part of what make him who he is, and he should be commended for those things. The video preceding his speech was very moving, as were his stories about his POW time. But having a great story, a sad story, does not a presidential candidate make.

I think John McCain made a lot of really good points last night, and was inspiring with all his talk of serving a cause greater than one's self, helping others, looking for alternative forms of energy, making real change, etc. I even think he really believes those things himself. He is a smart, experienced politician. I think we can all agree on that. The problem I have is that the majority of his Republican party do not also share the same thoughts that he expressed last night. Serve a cause greater than one self? That's a Democratic tenet!

The problem I have is that his followers, his voters, and those in Congress DO NOT adhere to the ideals he expressed last night. If they did, they'd be Democrats! Republicans are the ones not allowing gays and women equal rights, not helping out their fellow citizens in time of need. The ones who are not thinking about the global economy, that Americans are not the only country on the planet. The ones who act first and think about our international impact later.

I laud McCain for his speech, his ideas. He seems like he really does want to make a difference. I think he already has. His party does not follow all those beliefs though, and that's a problem. Call him a maverick--the term is getting a bit overused, but it's probably true. He does have crossover views--which I think is important. The right wing is just not going to do all those things, as they've shown throughout history that they do not.

I also have a problem with the utter lack of diversity in the audience at the RNC. I think the visual picture screams loud and clear who the party is really representing. A conservative friend of mine agreed and even joked "I know! It's like a Klan meeting." While I appreciate that he also sees the disparity, I'm not sure that joking about Klan meetings is really the way to show your understanding. I think it is just a shame that so many of those who identify as working class seem to think that this is the party for them.

It does seem as though McCain is getting painted as the guy with the good story. The hero. Full of character. These are good things, but I want policy, plans, details, issues. If voters only vote for who has the stronger character, what does that get us?

First they came...

I was reminded of the importance of this poem today and for every day we don't speak up for the wrongs done against others. For every day we take our own privilege for granted--whether that be the privilege of being white, educated, upper class, male, or American.

The version inscribed at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. reads:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

(poem source)

Definition of hypocrites

What the hell is Joe Lieberman doing speaking at the Republican National Convention? Yes, he's an Independent, but he was the VP pick in the 2000 Democratic presidential ticket, ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and he caucuses with Democrats. Someone explain this to me.

Also, I'm sure you've heard by now the talk about Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin's pregnant, teenage daughter. The Republicans are all upset that the "liberal" media is unfairly calling attention to it, attacking her, etc, etc. The line below from this Reuters article pointed out exactly for me why Repubs are so good at being hypocrites:

McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace criticized "hateful" slurs and innuendoes in the liberal blogosphere. "I think the private life of a 17-year-old child ... is something that was being used as a political weapon by liberal bloggers and advocates of Democratic and liberal causes," she said on Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.

Now you KNOW that if this had been Joe Biden's 17-year-old pregnant daughter, the right wingers would be all, TEH SIN, where are the PARENTS? HOW irresponsible! OMG, she is having TEH SEX. And would be calling him a bad parent for allowing his child to have sex. I cannot get over the fact that the Repubs are suddenly okay with a 17-year-old having the right to have sex in her private life and using the right to PRIVACY (reproductive rights argument, anyone?) as reason that the liberals are attacking unecessarily and should leave her and Palin alone.

If You Are Not Outraged, You Are Not Paying Attention

The title is one of my favorite bumper-sticker messages. It is so simple, yet so to the point. It also leads me to my post today, information that comes to me courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign. From their email:

Former Senator Jesse Helms, the notorious author of dozens of measures attacking GLBT and HIV-positive people during his years in the Senate, died on July 4. Unfortunately, the legacy of discrimination against HIV-positive people he helped to create lives on in a law that bars nearly every foreign person with HIV from entering the United States. That's right – with very few exceptions, an HIV positive individual cannot come to the United States for any reason, be it to visit, work, study or become a legal resident.

Because of stigma alone, HIV is the only medical condition codified in U.S. law as a basis for inadmissibility for short-term travel and immigration – the admissibility of persons with all other communicable diseases is at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

But you can do something about it. Click here to send an email to your senators asking them to support Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) in repealing this discriminatory law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, the Bush administration continues to chip away at issues that are important to all humans. They are about to release a rule that will make it possible for federal funding that is specifically designed to prevent unintended pregnancy and promote reproductive health to now be used for anything but that.

The rule would also require entities that receive family planning funding, like Planned Parenthood, to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control. Between deceptive "crisis pregnancy centers" delivering woefully incomplete care and legitimate health centers with extremely limited funding, hundreds of thousands of women are at enormous risk.

You can go here to add your input to a massive public outcry being organized by Planned Parenthood.

disheartening

I'm sorry I haven't posted in awhile. Truthfully, I've been burnt out on activism. I'm tired of saying the same thing and not getting heard or brushed off. An activist can only fight the good fight for so long without facing bouts of disillusionment. The political race has made me feel this way. Never before have I been so upset about certain things, but utterly unable to eloquently describe my position.

Politics is not always right v. wrong (not that anything is that simple, but usually there are big pros and cons to issues). Political races aren't always as obvious as glaring human rights violations. I don't have a passion for politics necessarily. I care much more about the issues than the process or the candidates. This unique and close-running presidential race has brought out fiery support on all sides, and good for it! But it makes me truly disheartened when I feel like I'm fighting my fellow Democrats.

This video below is just one example of what I've been trying to say. It is for everyone who keeps claiming that sexism doesn't exist, or isn't really a big deal. But you know what, the people who think that can't see it even when it's right there, because they don't want to see it. They're so blinded by their own entitlement and "that's just the way it is" that they just can't see it. So this isn't for them. It's for me, and others who notice this too, in the hopes that if we talk about it enough, perhaps some real change can be made. That's what anyone trying to make big change can hope for.

I'm also really tired of my thread on sexism being hijacked by people saying "but what about all the racism?" This particular post is not about racism. Certainly racism deserves discussion all on its own, but this is not a post about sexism v. racism. It isn't just one or the other. My bringing attention to the rampant, latent, sexism does not somehow detract from the obvious or latent racism. Precisely my point is that misogyny in this country and world are far more hidden and layered than racism and needs pointing out.

Food Rationing?

Apparently there is a Matzo shortage. You'll be happy to know that our friendly neighborhood Carytown Kroger has a table with the product prominently displayed near the checkouts. In related news, the radio this morning told me there is food rationing happening in the Northeast and the West for items like rice and flour and some others. I don't really understand this, and there were no details. I don't want to get all DOOM AND GLOOM RECESSION ZOMG, THE WORLD IS ENDING, but are we really getting to the point of food rationing? Gas prices at $4, we're running out of oil, food prices are up, the world hates us, etc. Have we really just had our heads up our asses all this time? Should we be surprised at some of these things? I know for many of my generation, the idea of food rationing is just inconceivable. We've never known a world when things weren't plentiful. Last night at the grocery store, there were slim pick-ins. The banana section was completely empty and there was some note about there being a problem somewhere. Should we be expecting this more and more? Or is this just a series of isolated incidents?

David vs Goliath

You go, Baristas
Starbucks Ordered to Pay Back Tips

I have been a barista since I was 13. I've worked at Starbucks and at independents. I have a lot of respect and love for Starbucks. When I worked there, Shift Supervisors were not allowed tips, and I assumed that was SBUX policy. Apparently, according to the article, it's also a state law in some states regarding supervisors and tips. Good for the front lines for fighting it and winning.

Starbucks is great because they give you health and dental insurance for cheap if you work 20 hours a week. There are only a handful of large companies who do that. That's why I worked there when my non profit jobs were part-time. Sadly, the wages ARE low, so every bit of the tips helps.

The Glorified Life of a Call Girl

I am so angry about this article. The more I read, the angrier I got. I'm not sure I can put into words how bad an idea this whole thing is. Every time a sex scandal involving "escorts" comes up in the news, the media goes on a whole run of glorifying and giving fame to the idea of prostitution as if it's commonplace, as if it's just another job, as if it's not extremely telling of how strong the patriarchy is that things like this still exist.

Did I mention I was angry? Women like this one are delusional. They are setting a terrible, law-breaking, unsafe, misogynistic, degrading example for women, girls, and everyone else.

The article is here.

This woman, who says that Pretty Woman is a the world's best fairy tale, who tells of a fellow sex class women who "lived happily ever after with a client". She's in the news, she's got a book deal. Somehow, she's more legit because she went to jail for a laughable 26 days (“Three more days than Paris Hilton!” she says, as if it's a thing of pride.)

When asked if the movie Pretty Woman is realistic, she replies:

It actually happens. There was a girl I knew who worked for the agency, who had a booking with a client, went on a date. They fell in love, and he whisked her off to London. They have a house in London, a house in Paris and a house in New York, and they’re getting married. Isn’t that great?

I'm sure this now-married woman is an equal partner in this sham of a marriage. What do you tell people who ask how you met? And if you have children? What kind of message are you sending? How many other women who are a part of the sex class get book deals and fame and get to rave about how this wonderful job of theirs allowed them to fall in love, buy Manolos, and travel the world?

Please tell me that someone besides me sees the utter bullshit in this presentation of how to sell your body to skeezy men and live the life of a fairy tale.

This woman even claims that she probably saved some marriages, since men who wanted to cheat would see her instead of sleeping with their secretary. Look at what she says:

A lot of the married guys, one of the things I used to believe at the time was that I was actually doing a service for these guys, because rather than having an affair with their secretary and potentially ruining their lives, they would come see me, satisfy their needs physically and some of the companionship they wanted — going on a date, having fun, relaxing — and being able to sustain their marriage. Apparently that’s what some people need.

What some people need is to cheat? To think so little of womankind and of the person they chose to marry to have sex with someone for money? That's calculated cheating. That's not a "whoops I drank too much and went home with that girl at the bar." That's a man who has learned that his position in a patriarchy allows him to have a woman on-call for sex and to patronizingly spend time with him and make him feel important as a result of his money and his gender.

I can believe that women who are in bad situations will justify a lot of things, and will make themselves believe whatever they need to believe to survive, but in this woman's case, I think she truly believes these things are true. That she wasn't selling her body and her dignity for the enjoyment of rich, despicable men.

Now before anyone jumps on me and says, "But what about the women? Have you no sympathy for them?" I do. These women, fame or not, are still prostitutes, and are not in a good place. I'd hope that this press would call attention to the fact that most of these women are exploited, and perhaps some change could come from it. Women do not choose to become prostitutes because they feel like they have options. It is not an ambition. It is for the lowest, poorest class of women, those who feel they have no other choice. My point has always been, until we have an equal society, there is nothing empowering about prostitution. It is not something we should be lauding. It is not a desirable part of society.

Oh Jezebel

I recently started reading a blog called Jezebel, and I love that they cover everything from politics to fashion to sex and more. A comment they made about an article they found on revirginization made me snicker. I enjoy Jezebel's honest, sarcastic, and conversational commentary.

The site they discuss is about "renewed virgins" who've "found" their virginity again and mentions that some women even have surgical "replacement" of their hymens (we'll talk about how that's problematic later). Jezebel notes how one woman gave her newly intact hymen to her husband as an anniversary gift.

Jezebel's response: Why is an intact vagina a present? Is sex only meaningful when dudes get all Star Trek and boldly go where no man has gone before? Does Jesus give a sh*t about your hymen?

Schools of thought (that might be a stretch) like the site they reference are why Americans, and especially women, have such screwed up notions of sexuality and self-worth.

Anyway, we both felt immediately guilty about it and cried and prayed for forgiveness. However, it lowered self-respect in both of us so that over the next year, it became easier for us to have sex because "we had already done it." It's not that we had sex all that often... but mostly when, 1. We didn't have a plan for the evening, and 2. No one was around.

And the sex wasn't even all that pleasurable at first... no one told me it would hurt or that it would be so much work! We felt pressure to try to "get it right," and I know it would frustrate him if I wasn't fulfilled... he felt like he wasn't good enough. We'd try so hard to feel the pleasure during sex, but we'd feel so guilty about it afterward. The strain between us started to grow. We really startedsecond-guessing each other and our entire relationship. Our relationship had originally began on the basis of the love of God... we had grown SO much together, spiritually and mentally. We used to challenge each other with our readings and have the best discussions.

That poor girl. See, no one ever taught her to love her body and that what the human body desires is natural and okay. Relationships are not based on mutual love of God. That's what churches are for. Relationships are more complicated than just one shared interest and include sexual attraction, and hey, sometimes relationships even fail, with or without sex. Sigh.

There's just so much to say about this that it makes me tired. I'm in support of saving yourself for the right person who you love/care about/like a lot/trust/is not a douche, but marriage does not automatically make those things true.

Oh yeah, and the whole, intact hymen thing. We are a species that just loves making absolutes out of imprecise terms, aren't we? (see: The Bible, race, sexuality, gender roles) Some women aren't even born with a hymen, and the absence of one is not the definitive definition of "de-virginized." I was pretty sure it was common knowledge from 6th grade health class (oh wait, many states don't allow those either) that a hymen could break from vigorous exercise or horseback riding.

Should college not be for everyone?

I have a friend who claims that not everyone should be going to college. His point is that students are shuffled, en masse, to University, even when they don't have the motivation, grades, ambition, or skills to be there, and that perhaps they'd be better suited to something occupational or technical.

I can't say I disagree with him completely, but as a proponent of higher education (hey, I work there!), it's hard for me not to think, "Yes, come children, come to college, the bastion of learning and experience that it is. There is room for all!"

I was a motivated student. I am a bit of a nerd. I like school. I'm good at school. Not everyone is, which I have trouble understanding sometimes. I'd hate to narrow opportunities for students, but my friend has a point in that we don't advertise the OT (occupational/technical) programs enough.

For instance, in Virginia, there is a huge shortage in people to fill the needed jobs in nearly all of the health fields (many of whom make a lot more money than I do, and I have a bachelors degree).

I also blame parents. Helicopter parents of this new generation of millenials-and-younger push students to go to the big 4-year school in the sky. Higher education was their ticket to a better life when they were growing up, and they want it for their children.

What do you all think? Are we pushing the wrong people into college? What do we do instead?

I couldn't have said it better myself

This is not a political blog. However, I find that politics and social justice are often intertwined. I have been finding it a painful challenge to explain exactly why I'm so fervent about my political candidate without having the words "polarizing," "divisive", or "bitchy" thrown at me to describe her.

So I was floored when both Gloria Steinhem (a woman I admire) and then Robin Morgan wrote articles in major press outlets summing up exactly what I was thinking.

Robin, wrote “Goodbye To All That”, her "(in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women." She felt so strongly about what was going on in the Presidential Race with Hillary that she was compelled to write a second essay. Here are highlights from it(emphasis mine):

Goodbye to the double standard . . .
—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.”

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
--This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were black or he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive.

Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.

Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.”
Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”

Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.

So listen to her voice:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words."--1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing

Not smarter than 5th graders or 2 year olds

Yipes, it's been a month since I posted.

I was just referred to this video from a design blog I read: 2 year old identifies the world. I don't normally post Youtube videos, but this was remarkable.

All the commenters to that video (and I) were so impressed that a 2 year old could identify so many countries, and many commenters noted that she knew more than they did. Statements like that make me wonder what is wrong with us, if as educated adults, we can't do things children do? Think about shows like "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" (Ironically hosted by You Might Be A Redneck If's Jeff Foxworthy). What does this mean about our country? Is this just a U.S. thing? Many of the commenters were from other countries too.

Isn't this about more than just geography? Shouldn't we be ashamed that our knowledge is so poor? While rote memorization is helpful, I know it isn't the marker of all knowledge.

I'm disturbed when the community college students I work with place into Arithmetic as their "college" math. ARITHMETIC? Often these students have taken high school algebra and much higher, yet they didn't retain the information. That is a problem to me.

Non Discrimination Act passes House!

From an email from the Human Rights Campaign:

Today, I witnessed something that just a year ago seemed nearly impossible. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We are one step closer to our ultimate goal of ensuring that all GLBT Americans no longer live in fear of losing their jobs.

The progress we've made today is historic - it is the first time either house of Congress has passed employment protections of this kind. It took over 30 years of lobbying and grassroots political work to get to this point, and while the bill that finally passed was not the fully inclusive version we sought, this represents a major advance - and the best way to move towards our long-term goal of protecting our entire community.

HRC first helped introduce ENDA 13 years ago, to prevent workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. This year, gender identity was added to the bill. Unfortunately, gender identity was not covered in the version that passed today, but this vote was a first and absolutely necessary step towards equality for GLBT people in the workplace. That's why HRC joined with a coalition of major civil rights groups who declared support for the bill before the final vote, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR includes more than 192 national civil rights organizations), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), and the National Education Association (NEA).

Supporting this version of the bill was a difficult and painful decision. But, without a doubt, the only path to achieving a bill protecting our whole community was by achieving the successful House vote today. A defeat of ENDA would have set back the possibility of an inclusive bill for many, many years. HRC remains 100% committed to doing the hard work necessary to pass legislation that protects our entire community, including transgender workers who remain especially vulnerable to workplace discrimination.

Today, we continue our determined march towards progress. And we recommit ourselves to educating our leaders and our neighbors, to speed the day when our community will be protected, as one. Your support has enabled HRC to lead the way in this struggle. We have formed strategic alliances in Congress, activated an unprecedented number of grassroots supporters, met with editorial boards, brought clergy to Washington to lobby their elected officials, and worked with the corporate community to expand GLBT workplace protections. We spent years defending ourselves from anti-GLBT attacks from the radical right. Now we are on the offense. But make no mistake: the extremists who work against us every day will be working overtime to hold back our progress.

Our fight will not be won overnight - it will be won one step at a time. This has been a grueling few weeks for our community, but we have never once given up on achieving our ultimate goal of workplace equality for GLBT Americans. Along this road, there will be challenges, but we must not allow them to divide us. We know we are working towards the same goal: equal rights for all.

We can get there, together, and we will.
Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
President

The adoption vs abortion myth

From the Los Angeles Times

Excerpts:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani prominently featured one such myth in his speech Oct. 20 to a group of social conservatives. The former New York City mayor stated that "we increased adoption by 133% over the eight years before I came into office. And we found that abortions went down by 18% during that period of time. I believe we can do that in the United States."But Giuliani's implied causality between these two statistics is unsupportable for this simple reason: The increases he cites were in the rate of adoptions of children out of New York City's foster care system, not in the rate at which women were continuing unwanted pregnancies and placing their infants for adoption rather than having abortions. Nothing in the data he cites indicates that there was any significant increase in the city's newborn relinquishment rate while he was mayor.

Meanwhile, we know that very few women actually place their infants for adoption. In the United States, fewer than 14,000 newborns were voluntarily relinquished in 2003 (the latest year for which an estimate is available), according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That proportion -- just under 1% of all the children born to never-married women -- has remained constant for almost two decades.

As a just-published Guttmacher Institute study shows, abortion rates are extremely high in many countries where contraceptives are not readily available and contraceptive use is not encouraged, even though abortion is highly restricted in those places by law. And the world's lowest rates of abortion by far are found in Western Europe, where very few legal restrictions are placed on abortion but contraceptive use and comprehensive sex education are widespread.

Behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. The sooner politicians accept that the only way to meaningfully achieve fewer abortions is to do better in helping women and their partners prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, the better.

The last 2 paragraphs really get at what I think is a very important point for people to remember in the reproductive rights debate.

Slutty is not a costume

Now the epidemic is catching on with children. At least Newsweek agrees with me.

Some popular childrens' costume names:
Shipwrecked Pirate, Wayward Witch, Child's Chamber Maid Costume and Miss-Behaved

A girl isn't an Army cadet, she's a "Major Flirt," and who knew female firefighters wore fishnet stockings? Even Little Bo Peep comes with a corset, short skirt and lacy petticoat.

Joe Kelly, founder of the advocacy group Dads and Daughters comments: He sees the trend as symptomatic of a deeper issue. "The hypersexualization of younger and younger girls only serves to reinforce gender roles. When an 8-year-old girl can't find a doctor costume because all they have are nurse outfits, that's a problem."
The article points out that most websites selling costumes have more options for boys than girls.

Not that there's anything patently wrong with young girls wanting to look pretty. Child psychologists agree that embracing and understanding their attractiveness is a key part of early-adolescent development for girls. But when sexiness and body image become the sole criteria by which they judge themselves and each other, "That's when we start to see problems," says Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who last year chaired the American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Their report, issued in February, declared that, "Throughout U.S. culture, and particularly in mainstream media, women and girls are depicted in a sexualized manner."

This is a disturbing trend. The article asks Are we prudes or is this practically kiddie porn? I don't care if I am considered a prude, this is not appropriate. I can't even imagine what I'd say if I had a daughter who wanted to be one of these costumes, especially when peer pressure is a strong influence. How do you get a 9 or 10 year old to understand that slutty is not appropriate? I know some people don't like the use of the word appropriate but that's really the most appropriate (ha) word. I think it is up to the parents to decide what they allow to be appropriate (after all, I suppose anyone could say that wearing a mohawk isn't appropriate, or being gay, and I see the possible implications here). I'm of the school of thought (and I say this without having had any children) that you should let your kids wear what they want as far as personal expression goes (i.e., they don't have to match every day, they can dye their hair pink if they want) as long as it doesn't harm them or others.

Where I do have an issue is what the article said, that it's not the best message to be sending to a young girl that her idea of herself is that of "Major Flirt" instead of Army Cadet.

More Domestic Violence Events

Who: Anti-Violence Project of the Equality Virginia Education Fund and The Gay Community Center of Richmond

What: My Girlfriend Did It, a documentary about lesbian battering. The film includes several women sharing their stories as well as organizers and anti-violence advocates discussing resources and barriers from a community perspective. Following the film will be an open forum discussion where the community can come together to explore the anti-violence movement and the unique needs of the LGBTQ/HIV-affected communities.

When: Wednesday, October 24th, 7-9p.m.

Where: The Gay Community Center of Richmond at 1407 Sherwood Ave Richmond, VA 23220. It is accessible to persons using wheelchairs. Childcare available upon request. Light refreshments will be available.

For more information please call 804.643.4816 and ask for Quillin or email avp@equalityvirginia.org

Oh Style Weekly, how I love your spot-on snark

From The Score: A weekly rating of the city zeitgeist.

Chesterfield Edition: Written Entirely in English

+8 Official Language: English. Kelly Miller, chairman of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, has reminded all of us how many problems could be solved by simply making English the official language of the county. ¡Gracias, Kelly! Language to be enforced by Media Watchdog Greg Pearson of the Chesterfield Observer, a fine, fine newspaper written in English.

+3 Official Hot Drink: Tea with lemon. To shake off any unfair backwoods stereotypes and help show off our class. Plus, it will underscore our heritage with Philip Stanhope, the late British secretary of state and Fourth Earl of Chesterfield, for whom the county is named. The lemon reminds us all how good we are at puckering.

+4 Official Road: Route 288. It allows us to bypass everybody.

+7 Official Currency: Smart Tag. Everyone has one, and what better way to painlessly extract the money we need from residents to cover the increasing costs of illegal aliens? Plus, we can use the Smart Tag to track the whereabouts of illegal aliens. And Ed Barber.

+6 Official Church:The Richmond Christian Center. Present it a plaque during Black History Month, which we already support. Doing so will divert attention from the way we successfully blocked the church from buying Cloverleaf when no one else was interested. Then let the media try to call us bullies. Extra points for racial tolerance to offset the county’s official Confederate History Month.

+7 Official NASCAR Driver: Denny Hamlin. OK, this sends mixed signals, we know. But it is his hometown.

Well done, Dear Abby

Dear Abby is a vocal straight ally. From MSN.

Jeanne Phillips, who formally took over the column when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease five years ago, has continued plugging the group, as well as its affiliate for parents with children who identify as transgender, and a suicide hot line aimed at gay teenagers.

“I’m trying to tell kids if they are gay, it’s OK to be gay. I’ve tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have,” she said Friday.
PFLAG director Jody Huckaby said Abby is the perfect choice for the first “Straight for Equality” award, part of the group’s new campaign to engage more heterosexuals as allies.