Less than 10 years until I should no longer wear a mini-skirt.

This is some bullshit. A recent survey – not an article, a survey – of 2,000 women ages 18-65 revealed widely-held beliefs regarding the ages women should retire certain articles of clothing, as to not look “inappropriate”:

Mini-skirts: 35
Two-piece swimsuits: 47
Tube tops: 33
Leather pants: 34
Belly-button piercings: 35
Sheer chiffon blouses: 40
Sneakers and tight tanks: 44
Leggings and UGGs: 45
Knee-high boots: 47
Stilettos: 51
Ponytails: 51
Long hair: 53
Swimsuits (in general): 61

So…….I shouldn’t be wearing sneakers after age 44…or just sneakers paired with “tight” tanks? Apparently, I have no business swimming in my 60s.

And here’s the kicker: half the women surveyed said women who are slim, healthy, and attractive in their 50s and 60s can "get away with anything." Translation: Cindy Crawford and Jerry Hall can wear what they want – YOU cannot, you old bat. (“Bat” can be interchanged with “crone,” “hag” or “fattie”)

In addition:

* 44% of women regularly worry they are too old to wear certain items of clothing.

* 1 in 10 women have bought something only to take it back to the shop, amid fears it was “too young” for them.
* 5% of those polled said a shop assistant had warned them an item wasn't right for their age.

Unfortunately, it’s clear that appearance snobbery is not limited to the halls of high school. Why all these self-imposed “rules” on women by women? Really, would the world turn into that much of a cesspool if women wear – gasp – what they want without fear of being judged? Aren't we all a little happier when we wear things that make us feel good?

Interestingly enough, the survey was commissioned by Diet Chef, a mail order frozen food service out of the UK…much like Nutrisystem. So I guess if you utilize Diet Chef’s services, you can be well on your way to wearing whatever the fuck you want.

In a lackluster attempt at making this survey seem less disturbing, Diet Chef nutritionist Caron Leckie says, "It's up to individuals to choose when they should stop wearing certain items. Some women may be comfortable in a bikini at the age of 65, whereas the more self-conscious may want to stop much earlier—it's very much personal choice."

Yes, that’s right – it is a personal choice, Ms. Leckie. Which is why I don’t particularly care for UGGs and tube tops. Now, what I want to know is why this ridiculous and semi-fucked up “survey” was even commissioned? How about we survey women about the federal debt crisis or the states’ war on family planning services? You know, shit that matters.

Ones

My friend and I were talking last night about Ones. You know, do you only get one One and that's it? If doesn't work out, are you destined to forever be without another One? Or, if it didn't work out, were they in fact the One? Cliche, perhaps, but an issue that has been mulled over in some great shows like Flight of the Conchords and Sex and the City.

I got to thinking about this question in the wee hours of the morning, and I came to an interesting conclusion: we all have Ones. For instance, let me pull from a bit of my history:

The One who turned me into an absolute crazy person.

See? There's one. How about another:

The One who was so freakish and weird, I nearly contemplated suicide in an attempt to avoid him.

That's a long title, and seemingly difficult to live up to. I assure you, he had no trouble.

I should also point out that Ones can be several Ones. I will demonstrate:

The One with the very, very small penis was also the One who cheated. (makes sense)

See? Ones do not have to be mutally exclusive.

In all fairness, there are good Ones as well as bad Ones. Like the One who took care of me when I was sick. Maybe you have a One who inspired you to be a better person, or One you could talk to for hours.

You see, we all have Ones. Perhaps they're not all "great loves" but I'm sure we all thought them to be at one point.

H.R. 3 is baaaack.

Back in January – a day after the Republican-led House of Reps (symbolically) voted in favor of repealing Health Care Reform – Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), introduced H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” Smith is chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus.

The House is scheduled to vote on this bill tomorrow.

What the bill would essentially do is make existing abortion restrictions permanent law; currently, those restrictions need to be renewed each year (via the Hyde Amendment). Smith said the bill is “designed to permanently end any U.S. government financial support for abortion, whether it be direct funding or by tax credits or any other subsidy."

H.R. 3 would also ban coverage of abortion in the new health-care exchange system and impose tax penalties on Americans with private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. Currently, 87% of private plans currently include abortion coverage.

Several amendments to the bill were introduced…and subsequently rejected by the House majority, such as an exemption for women with cancer who need life saving treatment incompatible with continuing the pregnancy.

Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to be connected to your Representative!

H.R. 3 takes away health care access from the uninsured and moves our country backward, not forward. Low-income women and women of color will be disproportionately affected if this bill becomes law.

Feminist Flashback: She-Ra

Thinking along the lines of previous posts such as Designing Me and Might Last A Day; Mine Is Forever, I was inspired to write about another piece of pop culture that shaped my childhood.

I fucking loved She-Ra. In kindergarten, I had the bright yellow lunchbox with her posse on front, several action figures, that pink-ass castle and even a talking toothbrush. For Christmas one year, my parents got me this “She-Ra set,” consisting of her bronzey plastic headdress (which left awful indentations on the sides of my face) and her sword. As a cape, I’d tie my Rainbow Brite beach towel around my neck, and proceed to repeatedly leap off the coffee table (oh, my poor mother).

At face value, She-Ra is a strong chick who kicks ass (He-Man’s sister, if you’re not familiar). Yay 80s for giving us such a cartoon heroine, especially for us girls who weren’t all that into My Little Pony.

A few years ago, I actually found (and bought) Season 1 of the series – but, when my friend and I sat down to watch it, we couldn’t get past the first episode. It was….kinda boring, with a lot of sci-fi mumbo jumbo. How did we ever follow this as children?? I kept telling myself that maybe the first season wasn’t the one I remember…it must get better…I have yet to seek out the second (and final) season. Maybe it’s because I’m not a big fan of all that is sci-fi. Seriously, read the Wikipedia page with She-Ra’s full bio. Leeetle crazy. Maybe some childhood loves should be left in childhood; to relive them is to destroy their magic.

Anyway, thinking about the series now – as an adult with a little more life experience than when I was, uh, 5 – I can see how maybe it wasn’t quite the feminist utopia I fondly remember.

One could argue that She-Ra was just a glorified Barbie. She was blonde, white, slender and wore one of those getups you couldn’t possibly fight in (how does her ample bosom stay in there?!). And riding a horse in a skirt? Please.

The Crystal Castle I had was a bright pink jewel resting atop some clouds – but it was really nothing more than a “dream house” without the modern efficiencies.

And come to think of it, everyone on that show was white. Contrary to popular belief: women with red, blue and purple hair do not count as “diversity.”

Shortcomings aside, at least She-Ra did shit other than drive a 57 Chevy, eat ice cream and hang out with Skipper and Midge. I’m no guru of present-day kids’ shows, but in terms of kick-ass female heroine shows in the likeness of She-Ra, no names come easily to mind. She-Ra was a heroine I was (and still am) happy to have had in my formative years. I can only hope we will see a new heroine – one even more kick-ass, who knows the meaning of “justice,” who has a diverse posse, fighting issues that are the underlying cause of our world’s decline – inspire current and future generations of young girls everywhere. Maybe two heroines? Yes, two or three would be cool. Too much to ask?

Oh my holy crap, this brings back memories:

Being in control of your sexual health? Tacky!!

In a recent interview with Elle, Black-Eyed Pea will.i.am threw out this gem:

ELLE: If you walked into a woman’s house, what one item would convince you that you weren’t compatible?
W: If she had condoms in her house, that would just fuckin’ throw me off. That’s just tacky.

ELLE: Well, okay, I could see if she had a candy bowl full of them on the coffee table. But if she’s got a few in a drawer, wouldn’t that simply suggest she’s health-conscious?
W: I just think, like, if you’re into someone and you guys get to that level, then that’s something you should converse about together and say, “Hey, maybe we should get some.” Another pet peeve is wet sinks.

Oh, that’s RIGHT, will – totally forgot that it’s unbecoming for a chick to protect herself. We should all just leave the prophylactic purchasing up to you dudes – or else we’ll look like the sluts that we are! After all, you don't bring condom-carrying gals home to meet mama.

So ladies, Mr. i.am says we must rid our living spaces of unused condoms before having male visitors. I'm wondering: if women shouldn’t buy condoms unless they’re with (chaperoned by) their SigOt – what to do with leftover condoms after a breakup? Perhaps will’s next venture will be condom exchange programs…

...and what of the boys?

I’m morbidly curious about feminism backlash. The F word is still not considered very “cool” by mainstream standards – and if you should share your beliefs with others, more than likely they will tell you how “far women have come,” that women have just as many opportunities as men, and stop whining you dirty man-hating hippie.

While these are pretty apathetic and ignorant comments at best, there are far worse still floating around. Something that so many people claim to be “irrelevant” still conjures up a decent amount of defamatory statements.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve recently seen a rebirth of this classic anti-feminist argument: feminism hurts our men.

This is far from a new tactic, but puzzling how an idea so antiquated would rear its ugly head in 2011. Guess the right wing is out of new ideas....either that, or they’re too busy solving the problems of the economy – oh!

To summarize this school of thought: feminism is bad for [heterosexual] men because without traditional gender roles, men…..gosh darn it…..just….don’t know what to do! While women are advancing their education, in their professions, putting off marriage (or rejecting it altogether), and realizing they don’t need a man to ride in on his white horse and fix the toilet – this has somehow turned our men into immature, lost little boys. The Little Boy Syndrome then reinforces the desire for heterosexual women to not seek out a mate, since prospects swimming in the dating pool aren’t very appealing.

And, there goes the neighborhood. The traditional family is lost! Our morality is declining! The sanctity of marriage flushed down that toilet fixed by a female! Zomg.

The most recent and nauseating display of this anti-feminist backlash comes from Tea Party nutjob Allen West (R-FL). Here is what he told the attendees of a Women Impacting Nation (WIN) meeting last week:



Hmmm. Interesting. So, basically the proper role for women is seeing to it that we produce great men – whether it be through birthing them or sacrificing our Selves to make sure they have all they need to be great. If we women demand any type of self-respect or independence, we are in effect “castrating” our men.

And they wonder why we’re such angry types.

Seriously though, for the 6,746th time, feminism is not about “castrating” men, literally or figuratively (nice job at hijacking the message). It’s about mutual respect and having agency. In the words of bell hooks, “feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.”

Feminism is not detrimental to men – in fact, it’s just the opposite. Feminism supports dismantling repressive gender roles, putting an end to required “machismo” and the like. Both sexes are free to pursue interests that are not traditionally in line with their gender. Women and men share the responsibilities of providing for the household. Feminism intersects with issues like race and class and seeks to eradicate their respective -isms.

The fact that Rep. West’s argument paints a picture of men as so god damn incompetent should be just as insulting to them as it is to women. Feminism does not preach that men are inherently incompetent – however, if a man does feel incompetent due to the presence of strong women, that problem lies within the individual (coughAllenWestcough).

No, we liberal "Planned Parenthood Code Pink women" are not the problem – we are the solution.

And please read more bell hooks.

Today is Denim Day in L.A.

For the majority of us, jeans are a staple of our daily uniform (or, for the rest of us, something to look forward to on Casual Fridays). Today, April 27, jeans have a deeper meaning...

via Peace Over Violence:

Italy, 1990s: An 18-year old girl is picked up by her married 45-year old driving instructor for her very first lesson. He takes her to an isolated road, pulls her out of the car, wrestles her out of one leg of her jeans and forcefully rapes her. Threatened with death if she tells anyone, he makes her drive the car home. Later that night she tells her parents, and they help and support her to press charges. The perpetrator gets arrested and is prosecuted. He is convicted of rape and sentenced to jail.

He appeals the sentence. The case makes it all the way to the Italian Supreme Court. Within a matter of days the case against the driving instructor is overturned, dismissed, and the perpetrator released. In a statement by the Chief Judge, he argued, “because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them, and by removing the jeans, it was no longer rape but consensual sex.”

Enraged by the verdict, within a matter of hours the women in the Italian Parliament launched into immediate action and protested by wearing jeans to work. This call to action motivated and emboldened the California Senate and Assembly to do the same, which in turn spread to Patricia Giggans, Executive Director of Peace Over Violence, and Denim Day in LA was born. The first Denim Day in LA was in April 1999, and has continued every year since.

http://www.denimdayinla.org/

Louisiana Loonies, a Weakened Roe, and the Case for Reproductive Justice

A while back, I had asked readers how much time (in prison) a woman should do if she decides to end her pregnancy. Four years later, reproductive justice advocates are asking the same question – only, today’s societal climate feels much more threatening, ominous and just plain evil.

“[Louisiana] State Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metairie, has introduced a bill that would ban all abortions in his state—with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother—and charge women who seek abortions and the doctors who perform those abortions with ‘feticide.’" (Please refer to #7 of The Unsexy 17 in my previous post, “States Gone Wild”).

The Louisiana Code for feticide reads, “The killing of an unborn child when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm” and carries a prison sentence of 15 years plus hard labor. LaBruzzo claims the verbiage of prosecuting women on "feticide" charges for having abortions was a "mis-draft," and would make the bill too hard to pass. He says that provision will be removed from the bill before it goes to a committee vote.

Call me a skeptic, but I wouldn’t bank on the removal of the language – or that language making the bill “too difficult” to pass the state legislature. After all, this is Louisiana we’re talking about; the state is already fertile ground for the most extreme anti-abortion laws in the country. Yes, LA is also one of those states with “trigger laws,” criminalizing abortion immediately should Roe ever be overturned. Removing the provision would only shift the onus from the woman to the providers.

So, we shouldn’t at all be surprised that LaBruzzo is apparently working in cahoots with an “unnamed conservative religious group,” whose main goal is to invalidate Roe v. Wade.

Roe has overcome some serious opposition in the past – but times they are a-changin’. The last Supreme Court case to challenge Roe was Carhart v. Gonzalez in 2007, and ultimately restricted abortion access by upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

With Justice Anthony Kennedy as a swing vote in the abortion debate, increasing numbers of anti-choice governors, and the influx of socially conservative Tea Party nutjobs in Congress – the fight for Roe seems to be a train we’re not so quick to board this time around.

I am a woman who is fortunate to not know a world before Roe, and I sure as hell don’t want it any different. But look around today, and it’s almost as if the landmark Supreme Court case never existed. Take the recent story of J.M.S., the young woman in Utah who became pregnant at 17 by a convicted felon. J.M.S. paid a stranger $150 to beat her in order to induce a miscarriage. Not only does this show us what lengths women will go to end an unwanted pregnancy, but it shows why we don’t only need reproductive rights, but reproductive justice. You’ll see what I mean:

The convicted felon is “facing charges of using J.M.S. and another underage girl to make pornography. J.M.S. lived in a house without electricity or running water in a remote part of Utah. Even if she could have obtained the required parental consent and scraped together money for an abortion and a couple of nights in a hotel to comply with Utah’s twenty-four-hour waiting period, simply getting to the nearest clinic posed an enormous challenge. Salt Lake City is more than a three-hour drive from her town, twice that in bad weather, when snow makes the mountain passes treacherous. There is no public transportation, and she didn’t have a driver’s license.”

Reproductive justice is about access. We can have all the laws in our favor and more rights than we can shake a stick at – it doesn’t mean shit if there is no access. And by “access,” I mean access for ALL, not just those who are privileged enough to afford it. Waiting periods leave women in the dark who cannot afford travel/room and board. What about women who do not have their own source of transportation? And what if there is no public transportation? Childcare? Parental consent laws forget about young women who might not have living/present parents – or those who are pregnant because of a parent or relative. Repro justice shows how repro health intersects with many other issues such as poverty, education and the environment.

That being said, I wish this turned out to be a more positive post. Sadly, the majority of what we’re seeing on a daily basis is state legislators introducing bills that capitalize off our lack of justice – regardless of the contended law of the land.

States Gone Wild!

No, this is not a new DVD. Instead of being titillating, I would say it’s pretty damn infuriating. Riding the coattails of their GOP/Tea leaders in Congress, many state lawmakers have been spending their time pushing through anti-women’s health legislation. Because, really, that’s the answer to unemployment, poverty and rising healthcare costs. Duh!

According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, last November’s election gave us 8 more anti-choice governors, taking the final count from 21 to 29. The number of states with straight-up anti-choice governments (meaning both legislative houses and the governor are unfriendly) increased from 10 to 15.

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans support family planning services – including a woman’s right to choose – our state leadership is not reflecting this. Trying to find an organized, updated list or map of the nonsense cropping up across the nation is rather difficult; probably because things are happening Ludicrous Speed.

So, here are the fruits of my research (many thanks to National Women’s Partnership for their Daily Women’s Health Policy Reports). And, just like Apple products, by the time y’all read this, it will probably be outdated. After perusing this laundry list of legislation, I’m sure most of us would prefer to see a full-length feature of state legislators participating in inebriated spring break behavior…


The Unsexy 17:

1. Arizona: Passed HB 2442, making it a felony for health professionals to provide abortion care if they suspect a woman is seeking the procedure because of the race or gender of the fetus. It would not penalize the woman; only the physician. This is the first law of its kind in the U.S., and opponents maintain that there is no such evidence of racial/gendered abortions occurring in Arizona.

Gov. Jan Brewer also signed HB 2416/SB 1246, requiring every woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat, if audible.

2. Florida: Eighteen (yes, 18) anti-choice bills have been filed in the state legislature. Measures range from providing funds for crisis pregnancy centers to a complete abortion ban in the state – even in cases of rape and incest.

3. Idaho: Republican Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter (yes, “Butch”) signed into law SB 1148, making it a felony for a physician to provide abortion care after 20 weeks of pregnancy (except when the woman's life is in danger) based on the theory of fetal pain.

4. Indiana: Senate Health Committee approved SB 328 based on the supporters' claim that a fetus might feel pain at or before 20 weeks.

5. Iowa: House approved HF 657, banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, based again on fetal pain. The bill now moves to the Senate.

6. Kansas: Not one, not two, but three bills surfaced in the Sunflower State. First, Gov. Sam Brownbeck (R) signed two bills into law: HB 2218, prohibiting abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy with the exception of life endangerment. It also removes the current law’s exception for mental and emotional reasons. The second bill is HB 2035, requiring minors to obtain consent from both parents before receiving abortion services.

The third anti-abortion bill on deck is the House substitute for SB 36, which would require abortion clinics to comply with a series of medical standards and practices. In addition, the bill states that a “female observer” must be present during any abortion services or pelvic exams provided by a male doctor at an abortion facility; doctors providing abortion services must obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics; hospitals or surgical centers must register as abortion clinics if they provide more than five first-trimester abortions in a month; and any deaths linked to abortion complications must be reported to the state within one business day; reports of any injuries must be filed within 10 days. Democratic Rep. Judith Loganbill, questioned why these standards are being mandated for abortion clinics, but not for other surgical outpatient facilities. Another highly disputed provision of the bill requires a woman be in the presence of a physician when taking mifepristone, the medication used to induce abortion.


7. Louisiana: State Rep. John LaBruzzo (R) recently filed HB 587 that would prohibit "all abortions at any and all stages of the unborn child's development" and allow charges of "feticide" against abortion providers as well as women. LaBruzzo said he introduced the legislation at the urging of a conservative religious group (which he left unnamed) and the aim of the bill is to prompt a court case to challenge Roe v. Wade.

8. Minnesota: Senate Health and Human Services Committee approved SF 711, which prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation with no exceptions for rape, incest or mental health. The bill would allow abortion beyond 20 weeks to save a woman's life or to prevent irreversible physical harm to the woman.

The second measure approved is SF 264, barring state-funded health programs from funding abortion services.

A third Senate bill SF 1017, would require parental consent before minors can obtain care related to contraceptives, pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and drug or alcohol abuse, unless the health condition is life-threatening. Fortunately, Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton (D) supports abortion rights, is not likely to sign any of these.


9. Mississippi: On June 6, the Mississippi Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a pre-emptive court challenge against Measure 26, a ballot question that would define a person as a “human being from the moment of fertilization.”

10. Missouri: House approved HB 213, a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy with an exception for the life of the mother. It would require providers to determine if the fetus could survive outside the womb before performing a termination. The bill now moves to the Senate.

11. Ohio: House Health and Aging Committee approved HB 125, a bill that would require physicians to deny women abortion procedures if a heartbeat can be detected from an ultrasound. Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder (R) has said he wants to consult with experts before moving the bill to the full House.

12. Oklahoma: Gov. Mary Fallin signed HB 1888, making it a felony for doctors to perform abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, based on the theory of fetal pain. The bill includes an exception for life/“major bodily function” endangerment, but does not include any exceptions for fetal abnormalities.

She also signed SB 547, a bill that prohibits health insurance plans sold in state exchanges from covering abortion services

13. Pennsylvania: The state House Health Committee voted 19-4 to pass a bill that would require clinics providing abortion services to meet the same safety standards as outpatient surgery centers. The American Civil Liberties Union said PA law already contains guidelines for abortion clinics regarding equipment, staff, emergency transfers to hospitals, counseling and reporting. The bill would require costly changes at the clinics, which could force many of them to close, impacting poor women and women who reside in rural areas.

14. South Carolina: House approves H 3406, a bill that would ban private coverage of abortion care in plans purchased in the new state insurance exchange. Women who want abortion coverage will have to purchase it separately. In addition, the bill would expand the state’s conscience clause to include euthanasia, cloning and stem cell research. Physicians would be allowed to opt out of providing such services (including abortion) if they conflict with their religious beliefs.

15. South Dakota: Passed HB 1217, mandating a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion procedure. The law will go into effect July 1 and impose the longest waiting period in the U.S. HB 1217 also requires a woman to receive counseling from a crisis pregnancy center (notoriously anti-choice) before she can obtain services. There are no exceptions for rape and incest – only “emergencies”. There are many talks of challenges to the law, including a possible injunction by Planned Parenthood of South Dakota. Nancy Northrup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, points out how requiring women to disclose medical information to third parties who are not physicians is a violation of medical privacy laws. The ACLU has also threatened to bring a lawsuit against the state.

16. Texas: State Senate Committee on State Affairs approved a compromise bill between a House and Senate version of a sonogram bill. The final bill requires a woman see the sonogram, have her listen to the fetal heartbeat and hear a description of the ultrasound in detail before her procedure. The compromise also includes exemptions in cases of rape, incest or instances where the fetus is not expected to survive. The measure also exempts women in rural areas from waiting 24 hours.

17. Virginia: Passed HB 1428, becoming the first state to require abortion clinics to comply with hospital standards. Currently, clinics are licensed by the state and are treated like physician offices, similar to those that provide plastic and corrective eye surgeries, colonoscopies and a range of other outpatient medical procedures. Virginia is the first state to adopt such a requirement, which could include making structural changes to the buildings, making certain equipment mandatory, or increasing training. Opponents of the bill say that it could force up to 17 of the state's 21 abortion clinics to close. Public comment will be heard before the rules are adopted on Sept. 15; the law takes effect Jan. 1, 2012.

In addition, Virginia is another state that will prohibit abortion from being covered under any health insurance plans offered in the state exchange. Governor Robert McDonnell added this amendment to a bill already passed by the General Assembly, establishing insurance exchanges as part of health care reform.

And, done.

Bloggin' and Schemin'

Good lord, it must really look like I was incredibly crushed over Sex and the City’s decline of epic proportions – almost one full year with no posts! Yes, I quickly got over my disappointment and now follow my amazing friend Holly’s blog Back On Carrie’s Stoop, reliving the good ol’days and examining the series with a different set of lenses: one that knows what’s coming.

So, for the past 10 months I’ve been dealing with life sans blog. Although I’m notorious for crowding my back burners, I always end up coming back to R4R because…really, nothing I could possibly do in my professional or personal life gives me as much satisfaction as being able to create something on my own terms. No board members, no stakeholders, no supervisors, no editors – just me. (Cue sinister laugh)

Truth be told, the thought of blogging again almost became a tad overwhelming. With all the wretched nonsense happening on the women’s health/reproductive justice front, I didn’t know where to start. As soon as I had an idea of where to start, more nonsense would fall from the sky and my head would explode once again (rightfully so).

Since I last logged into R4R, our U.S. House has been taken over by wackadoos who see fighting the culture wars as reeeaaally, reeeaaally important right now – despite the fact that our economy is in the shitter. Newly (and no so newly) elected wackadoos across the nation are masquerading their sexist/racist/classist/ableist agenda as – ahem – “fiscal responsibility”. Explain to me the logic, asshats, of how eliminating programs that help keep low-income folks afloat will be better for our economy…while letting those top 2% income earners sit on their fat assets??

Oooh, I’m getting angry! How I missed blogging! A few more thoughts:

* I find it incredibly ignorant – no, I mean stupid – that wackadoo legislators can stand on the SENATE FLOOR and give outright FALSE statistics about Planned Parenthood…and wake up the next morning with their jobs intact. If I came into work spewing lies and disseminating them on our listservs, I’d be gainfully employed no more. Just because PP is considered “controversial”, it’s ok to not pay attention to facts?! Who does your research?! (You do know what research is, don’t you?) Oh, and the fact that it’s considered “controversial” is only because of your verbal shit-tactics – not because of any truth.

* Recently, I found out from Glenn Beck that I’m a hooker. Apparently, so are ALL of my female friends…and a few of my male friends, as well. He also informed me that if birth control is too expensive, we should quit crying about it and just use condoms. While I am tickled that GB is advocating condom use, I will assume (with good reason) that if said condom were to break (with no backup method), I would no longer be considered a responsible woman, but a stupid “tough luck!” whore.

* If Donald Trump really wants to help America, he should write the U.S. Gov’t a check and go hide under a rock. I’ve seen and heard more from him in the past few weeks than I care to EVER. (And I thought I could avoid his “my-mother-breast-fed-me-with-a-lemon-face” by simply not watching The Apprentice. Joke’s on me!)

* What the hell is happening in the states?! Last I checked, we had this thing called Roe v. Wade…(more on this later…)

* Congressman Bob (Wackadoo) Latta of Ohio wants to ax funding for the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) under the guise of being “fiscally responsible”….but how dare we talk about cutting funding for abstinence-only education, which has PROVEN to be….um….not working and not based on any…….how do you call it?……evidence.

Sigh.

End of an Era: Confirmed

SPOILER ALERT!  Well, can it actually be a spoiler alert when I’m certain I was part of the last audience on Earth to see Sex and the City 2?  If you haven’t seen it, and don’t care to read anything about it until it quickly and quietly makes its way to DVD, then avert your eyes.  But let it be known that many have spoiled before me – I am not alone in my spoiling!

It was definitely cringe-worthy, just as I suspected.  But truth be told, I expected much worse.  Maybe it was because I had spoiled it for myself by previously reading about the horrid displays of Samantha, dry-humping the Abu Dhabi air in front of an angry mob of Muslim gentlemen; by already knowing that Carrie has never seen anything more hilarious than a woman in a burqa eating french fries. 

Let’s break this down into Lisa’s List of Pros and Cons.  You’ll notice some of these aspects appear on both lists…

ME LIKEY:

The Gay Wedding.  I enjoy when popular media can show a gay or lesbian couple get hitched like it ain’t no thang.  It’s like viewing the utopia our society could be, if only some lawmakers were to either a.) pull the sticks out of their asses, or b.) keel over and die. 

The Motherhood Talk.  Over drinks, Miranda and Charlotte admit all the not-so-happy parts of motherhood.  No, it’s not all goo-goo gaa-gaa Gerber; sometimes Charlotte is so frazzled, she wants to lock herself in a closet while her children scream and cry.  This is reality; this is the shit people forget about when they get all wrapped up in baby fever.  This is a job that lasts a lifetime. 

Just Us Two.  Carrie and Big have mutually decided to not have children (Thank god!  Remember when she lost Aidan’s dog??!).  Seriously though, as they tell others of their wishes to remain childless, they are bombarded with quizzical looks and outright avoidance.  So….just because a married couple doesn’t want to have kids, there’s something wrong with them?  (Well, maybe according to the Christian Coalition).  I say, poo on the naysayers!  Carrie and Big make their marriage (life together) work for them – not simply go though the motions that society expects them to. 

Also, we see Carrie and Big’s marriage hit “the terrible twos”: the span of time where the excitement of being newlyweds is over and forever begins to take shape.  “Mr. and Mrs. Preston, this is your life!”  Especially since kids are out of the picture, the life they have now will be it.  We see Big preferring to order take-out and fall asleep to The Discovery Channel, while Carrie is itching to dress up and have a night out on the town.  These “terrible twos” bring the fear of becoming…(ominous music)…an old boring married couple (OBMC).  This is one of those life experiences many people go through, yet not many talk about publicly (much like Miranda and Charlotte’s motherhood discussion).  I’m going to bet at least 90% of couples don’t want to seclude themselves in their split level suburban home or upper west side apartment as soon as they return from their honeymoon….yet, there’s this expectation floating around (and if I ever find out who started this ugly rumor, I will have them killed) that once you’re married, you’re supposed to do just that.  No more nights out with the girls or boys, no more having one too many cocktails (oops!), no more…fun.  This “expectation” also dictates that if you desire a night out with the girls or boys or otherwise away from your spouse, you must not be happy with your marriage.  Horseshit, I say!  Welcome to 2010, where there is more to a happy marriage than just the act of being married.  Two people with full lives make for a very non-boring partnership.  Try it, I dare you.  And while of course in Hollywood, Carrie and Big magically squash their OBMC fear in 2.5 hours, I’m at least glad SATC stayed a little true to its roots and attempted to shed light on an issue such as this.

 

NO ME GUSTA!

The Gay Wedding.  Although it was here and very, very queer, we were constantly reminded that it was a GAY wedding.  A wedding is a wedding – who cares?  Why do we need the adjective?  Also, I really could have done without hearing that fucking Single Ladies song again…uncomfortably done by Liza Minnelli.  And to see Samantha dancing around, singing, “If ya like it, than you shoulda put a ring on it” was quite weird and totally out of character.

The Motherhood Talk.  Sure, Miranda and Charlotte were addressing the less glamorous side of being a mom…but we’re watching two upper-class white women with NANNIES addressing this topic.  Then, they had to throw in, “How do the women without help do it?!”  On one hand, it’s a valid question that shows how hard motherhood is even with hired help – but one can’t argue the asinine element of that conversation.  Oh hello, white privilege, where have you been hiding?

Pointing at the Natives.  I mentioned Carrie making fun of the women in burqas and Samantha refusing to respect the conservative Muslim culture in any way.  It’s really quite horrifying.  Although (and this may be a good aspect), it reignites the debate of what qualifies as being an empowered woman.  Is wearing a sleeveless dress and being highly sexual mean you are any stronger of a female than a woman who wears a burqa?  It’s a drastically different way of life than what we westerners are used to…and of course, anything we deem as different from our way is the “wrong” way. 

What I found somewhat humorous – as well as appalling – was when the women of Abu Dhabi were behind closed doors, they reveal to Carrie ‘n’ friends that they wear the latest Dior fashions under their burqas.  So….deep down, they’re all really slaves to exorbitant western fashion??  Highly unlikely…and a little egocentric, no?   At the same time, it could have been Michael Patrick King’s demented way of showing that women around the world may have more in common than not.  Call me picky, but somehow I think it could have been done more meaningfully than simply wrapping them up in Dolce.

The Sickening Display of Affluence.  Ok, you gals have money.  We get it.  Sometimes we wonder how you manage to make the money you have, with all the lunch dates, late night cocktails, etc.  This international trip happened to be financed by a hotel mogul in exchange for Samantha’s PR expertise.  However, an hour into the movie, I was sick and tired of looking at that fucking $20,000 a night (no lie) hotel room.  Each woman had her own personal servant and car complete with driver.  Oh, and they ride in the middle of the desert on camels and stop for lunch in this oasis cabana their servants set up!  I, for one, was wondering where the hell they put all that stuff.  Some poor camel was probably stuck in the back of the caravan pathetically lugging their bullshit. 

Too much!  I guess what added to it was the ladies’ squealing at each amenity.  Got old real fast.  What set the tone for excess was Samantha’s comment of needing to “go somewhere rich” in this depressing economy.  NYC ain’t swank enough for you no more?

Sigh.  I could go on.  There’s Carrie’s servant, who shares that his wife lives in another country.  We learn that he only sees her once every three months because he needs this job serving rich white tourists in this $20,000 a night hotel.  That’s the end of any cultural or political questions – Carrie (given her tensions with Big) wants to know how they keep their marriage strong with such distance. 

It was one of those movies I had to see, as opposed to want to see.  My, how we have strayed from the series!  If you can accept that this is not Carrie ‘n’ friends circa 1999, and can get past the awfully cliché zingers, Godspeed.  

Designing Me

I had an epiphany last week. Still not sure if that’s the correct word to describe it. It was a feeling that only comes when you’ve lived a certain number of years, long enough to have the ability to see the girl you were 17 years ago; to understand her and know what made her the person she is today; to witness firsthand how what we’re exposed to in our formative years impacts our beliefs, worldviews, who we are in a not-so-perfect nutshell. Epiphanies are much cheaper than therapy; too bad you can’t schedule them like sessions.

For the longest time, I was super-excited to find that the seasons of Designing Women were being released on DVD. I can remember watching episode after episode of that show when I was a wee little thing attending elementary school at St. Catherine of Sienna. My viewing pleasure continued into junior high as I entered the public school system, and began to learn that kids aren’t so nice. At age 12, I guess I seemed pretty weird – enjoying movies made before 1960 and watching TV shows that centered around women in their 30s and 40s. My great-aunt would say I was “of a different era.” That sounded nice, but really didn’t solve my problem of being a weirdo to my fellow classmates.

So, the other day I treated myself and bought Season 2. I couldn’t wait to get home, fight with the NASA-sealed packaging, and re-live those episodes to which I can still recite some dialogue.

For those of you who missed out on watching Lifetime reruns in your youth, Designing Women ran from 1986-1993 and followed the comedic lives of four southern women working for Sugarbaker Interior Design. Julia Sugarbaker (that’s right, she owns her own damn business!) is a classy, strong, sophisticated, well-read, widowed woman of the “old south” – and a self-proclaimed “big-mouthed broad.” Her monologues are things of beauty that I really can’t describe with any justice. Just watch people try to cross her, or make an ignorant comment…they leave the scene with their tail between their legs.

Suzanne Sugarbaker, Julia’s sister, is her polar opposite. Former Miss Georgia World, her glass case of tiaras is enough to make Tiffany’s look like Claire’s. The only collection to rival her pageant crowns is her collection of ex-husbands. Very “Elizabeth Taylor.”  Suzanne is selfish, self-centered, and spends more time looking in the mirror than…anything, really. We’re never quite sure what she even does for Sugarbaker’s – she’s usually seen lounging on the sofa. Despite her fluffy lifestyle and vanity, Suzanne is depicted in such a way that makes her loveable. Her selfishness comes from her own ignorance, not from any malicious intent.  

Mary Jo Shively is a divorced mother of two, dealing with her surgeon ex-husband’s revolving door of girlfriends and spoiling their children with his M.D. income. She’s witty and sarcastic. Strong in her convictions, yet terrified of being in the spotlight. Her struggle with being assertive, yet feeling so vulnerable is all too real (and a welcomed character for those of us who can relate all too well).

Charlene Fraizer has a heart bigger than the state of Georgia. She’s originally from a dinky town in Missouri, which she continuously references in a multitude of irrelevant stories (think Rose Nylund and St. Olaf). She loves Elvis, her Baptist roots, daytime talk shows, psychics and the National Enquirer. She’s fun, bubbly, a little naïve, and her aimless rants can sometimes prove to be a bit annoying to her friends (I believe she was described in one episode as a “big ol’ donkey girl scout”).  

Considering other female foursome shows out there, Designing Women is nothing new. Very similar comparisons can be made to…oh, say, Sex and the City (as if this dead horse hasn’t been beaten enough). Now, I discovered SATC at a later age, and it too has affected my views on what it means to be an independent woman. But (sigh) I must say, after reliving my first female foursome love affair in just one season, I’m going to say DW does it just a little better.

The characters are all there: Julia=Miranda, Mary Jo=Carrie, Suzanne=Samantha, Charlene=Charlotte. Maybe not the same backstories, but their personalities and idiosyncrasies all match up. The differences that do it for me? As opposed to setting the series in glamified Manhattan (I still love you, NY), we’re set in Atlanta, which really doesn’t play as large a character as NYC. As opposed to the SATC cast professing their love for their borough, we find the DW ladies having to defend their south against the elitist north, who still believes all southerners are backward hicks named Bubba. We know our SATC characters have careers (sometimes we wonder, in that they seem to have endless time for long lunches, late night cocktail parties and carefree saunters down 8th Avenue). Many critics have pointed out the ludicrous nature of the fact that Carrie can afford an uptown Brownstone, Manolo Blahniks, daily cab fares, and New York-priced cosmopolitans on a columnist’s salary (you can be a salaried columnist??). What kind of rent-control did I miss out on?  

What I’m attempting to illustrate is that DW’s women are operating in a more believeable reality. The only character living lavishly frivolous is Suzanne – for which she is the butt of many jokes and clearly depicted as not the norm. While all eight women’s struggles may be the same – raising children (or not), being successful in work, making friends, maneuvering the dating world, taking a stand, dealing with illness and sometimes loss – DW is just more relatable (this coming from a Yankee, herself – can you believe it?).  

I don’t think it’s the glitzy NYC lifestyle traded in for a low-key Atlanta (could almost be an Anytown, USA) that makes the total difference. But, as I revisited Season 2, I was astonished to see…well, me. At 10, 11, 12 years old, I was watching stories about a young gay man with AIDS and that no, it’s most certainly NOT a ridiculous punishment from god for what people might refer to as “immorality.” I watched Mary Jo nervously convince the PTA to approve condoms and sex-ed in her children’s school. I saw Charlene stand up to her minister when he voted against women being able to hold his position in the church. I watched Julia – with both barrels loaded – tell off racists, classists, and sexists with her sharp wit and sharper tongue.  

These are the stories I watched as a girl. These are the women I saw in my media. And seeing them reflected in the woman I am today – well, I couldn’t be more thankful for them.  

I leave you with some amazingly awesome quotes from my newly-purchased-and-already-exhausted Season 2:

Mary Jo:  “We’re not just preventing births anymore, we’re preventing deaths…More important than what any civic leader or PTA or Board of Education thinks about teenagers having sex – or any immoral act that my daughter or your son might engage in – is the bottom line that I don’t think they should have to die for it.”

Bernice:  “Just remember, after Christ was crucified on the cross, and all his men had gone home, it was women who stayed until the bitter end. And it was women who first heralded the news of his resurrection. So just put that in your pulpit and smoke it.”

Julia:   “History has shown that in general, it has been the men who have done the raping and the robbing and the killing and the WAR-MONGERING for the last two-thousand years! It has been the men who have done the pillaging and the beheading and the subjugating of WHOLE RACES into slavery! It has been the men who have done the law-making and the money-making AND MOST OF the mischief-making – so, if the world isn’t quite what you had in mind, you have only yourselves to thank!”

The End of an Era

Embarrassingly, I have yet to see the latest installment of Sex and the City. Embarrassed because I am one of many hardcore fans that has followed Carrie through each and every experience documented in that furry, magenta DVD collection. Also, because it has seemed to seriously let down my fellow feminists, and I am – per usual – late with any witty, cynical, analytical critique.

I’m happy to say, my nearest and dearest have not been sitting on the sidelines. First, continuing to inspire me in my writing (as well as in life) is my good friend and feminist conspirator, Holly Kent. The SATC 2 train wreck has moved her to such extent that she’s started Back On Carrie’s Stoop – a journaling, if you will, of her experience as she examines the entire series start to finish, knowing where the end has brought us. Think of it as dusting off old yearbooks and remembering the good old days….but a hell of a lot more fun.

Another good friend – riot grrl, roller grrl, all-around ass-kicker – Cindy Rodriguez has written an amazing piece for Lesbiatopia, examining how a woman can love SATC and still be a – GASP – lesbian…?? Good stuff.

I will be frequenting the literary works of my friends and other feminist lens-wearers until I can be fully prepared to dish out a week’s worth of rent to purchase a nauseatingly overpriced L.A. movie ticket to what Ms. Kent refers to as, “…a film which I knew, with a certainty as sure as death and taxes, that I would whole-heartedly despise.”

Bring on the tartinis.

Trust is a Must

Thirty-seven years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court trusted women. They trusted that they could make the decision (along with their doctors) of bringing another life into the world.

In 2010, despite the vast changes in social norms and society in general, women are NOT being trusted.

NOT being trusted in their decision-making skills.
NOT being trusted in their ability to weigh pros and cons.
NOT being trusted in their understanding of how being a parent is a monumental task.
NOT being trusted to understand their bodies.
NOT being trusted with their life goals, dreams and aspirations.
NOT being trusted with their personal reproductive health.

Perhaps these "non-trusters" think they are doing us a favor...by making the decision FOR us. By stigmatizing the women who choose to not parent. By mandating waiting periods, because you probably haven't thought about your decision "enough". By making minors jump the highest fences to have access to a legal medical procedure, when they may be in an abusive environment. By forcing women to bear the product of rape - which, just so we're clear, is not a justifiable consequence of being "irresponsible" and is NEVER OUR fault.

Don't treat us like we don't know our bodies or ourselves. We do. And our choices are OUR business. Stay out of our lives, because we gladly stay out of yours.

The Value of Trig

Nope, this is not a post about math. I’m referring, of course, to Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome son – the “symbol” of her pro-life sentiment, making her the mascot for the anti-abortion movement. Hey, if Sun-Maid is updating their look, the crazies might as well do the same.

I find the Right’s take on this mother-son relationship fascinating. Palin happily parades Trig around like a prop, while at the same time throwing around tough Alaskan talk about the press invading her family’s privacy (a la Bristol and Levi). Yet, her supporters applaud this use of her disabled child. Trig was pretty much fresh from the womb when Palin began her campaign for VP - I don’t remember hearing any remarks from conservatives about the fact that she wasn’t at home being a “good little mother/wife/woman” and breastfeeding all day. Because, after all, that’s what women who love the babies do. Why, only selfish, liberal elite women keep their careers while they nurse! Nope, jet-setting around the country for her political career with newborn in tow was A-OK.

The fact that Trig is special-needs is also a great defense for any unfavorable comments that come Palin’s way. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List (an org that supports anti-abortion candidates), explains the “real” reason the pro-choice community ain’t too cool with the former governor:

“She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.”

Christian conservatives Gary Bauer and Dan Allot add to this nonsense on politico.com:

“Mother and son have become objects of the left’s unrelenting scorn” and of hatred reflecting “a broader societal bias against disability.”

WTF?! So, let me get this straight: not only does the pro-choice community hate babies, but we also hate people with disabilities??? What a crock of shit. When I read these quotes, I can’t get over how ridiculous they are – more so, how ridiculous the people are who actually believe them.

Now, for the truth: it doesn’t bother us whatsoever that Sarah Palin decided to carry her special-needs child to term. More power to her. She had a choice and she chose motherhood. She was fortunate enough to HAVE a god damn choice. That’s what the pro-choice movement is about. Not about killing babies, not about ridding the world of the disabled. What we DO NOT appreciate are those who poo-poo others for making different choices. Bearing children is extremely personal and people’s situations affect it greatly. I mean, really – Sarah Palin will never meet me. I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume she doesn’t lie awake at night thinking about me, my interests, what I do for fun, what I want for my future, what kind of underwear I buy, how often I change my tampon, etc. Why the hell should she and her cronies care about the choices I make for my own body? It all comes down to the old bumper sticker that will always ring true: “Don’t Like Abortion? Don’t Have One.”

Squabble in the Sisterhood

I’ve been a loyal fan of BUST Magazine ever since I discovered it in my college women’s center. It was love at first sight, and I never looked back (only back issues).

I’ve also been a fan of Jessica Valenti and her contributions to feminist culture. I own two of her books, read her rants on feministing religiously and wish I could be her every day of my fucking mediocre life.

But on this November Friday, I opened my BUSTLine Weekly e-mail to find – say it isn’t so! – Ms. Valenti has, for lack of a better term, poo-pooed BUST as a feminist publication!

In her [condensed and edited] interview for the New York Times, Deborah Solomon asks Valenti about other feminist publications, to which she responds:

“Bust used to be a feminist magazine, but now it’s more crafty and about making things out of yarn. I’m not a D.I.Y. feminist. I once tried knitting a scarf but threw it away after 15 minutes.”

Note to self: yarn = not feminist. Wow. I wonder if Jessica knew that many of her fans and readers are also BUSTies. Sure, BUST offers a lot of D.I.Y. projects, but how does that make it any less feminist? Let’s not forget that the D.I.Y. movement was (and still is) strong because of empowered women. What could be more empowering than creating your own shit, I ask you? Perhaps I’m biased because I’m crafty. Although, I will admit, I also tried knitting a few years ago, but quickly lost interest.

I still adore BUST.

Valenti posted an apology in the comments of the BUST article. A student of journalism, I understand how interviews can get nipped and tucked until they hardly resemble the conversation you had – but still, there’s no denying that quote and the feelings it elicits in the BUSTies who read it. Why is it that we as feminists can never seem to move past this “I’m-more-feminist-than-thou” attitude? I’m really sick of people propagating their narrow-minded views of what’s feminist and what’s “not”. I understand that women, as a whole, are extremely different. We come from different regions of the country/planet, different religions/spiritualities; race and class still play a role in each of our worldviews. What makes feminism so amazing is that it has so many different facets – yet, that very fact can also be a curse when we don’t respect other women’s interpretations. We lose sight of the focus and the big picture of the movement; why we’re uniting in the first place. Instead, people want to call attention to irrelevant crap.

What upsets me is the hypocrisy behind the quote. Valenti, feministing, as well as all this other 3rd/4th-wave-feminist-new-media-lit have been criticized as “not feminist enough,” “too girlie” or “too fun” by staunch 2nd wavers. Valenti pretty much made a name for herself by preaching that feminism doesn’t have to come out of a can. Now, the tables are turned, and Valenti is trivializing a magazine that has introduced many to the cause, and kept us here.

Skirting the issue

People never cease to amaze me with asinine comments.

I heard a real gem yesterday. Being Halloween and all, of course the topic of scantily-costumed women was brought up, and how this leads to sexual harassment. Out of the mouth of one of my fellow females came this:

“If they would put some pants on, then they wouldn’t get harassed."

Ah yes, of course! Why didn’t I think of that?! If we just covered our legs and vaginas in a layer of denim, we could, like, tewtally eliminate rape and sexual harassment! What a novel idea!

My head could not take the pressure caused by the utter shock, confusion and anger that was mixing around like beer before liquor. This is why I carry a knife, so I can stab at my temple repeatedly when I hear things like this.

Seriously though, not only was this the DUMBEST thing I’ve heard since George W. Bush last spoke publicly, but it was highly insulting and a real slap in the face to any woman who has been through sexual harassment or assault.

Brush it off, honey, you asked for it.

Clothing – or lack thereof – is in no way a justification for harassment, assault or rape. Period. End of fucking story. It’s just another sneaky way of putting the blame on women. What about the perpetrators?? We’re taught that men’s “urges” are “inevitable,” “unstoppable” – one look at a naked kneecap, and they’re ready to roll. No turning back. Ya shouldn’t have worn XYZ if ya didn’t want to do me. But, anyone who’s not completely dense knows this is a crock of shit. Why? Because if all men’s libidos were uncontrollable, then all men would be rapists – and they’re not. And rape has little to do with being horny and a lot to do with power. So, why aren’t men more insulted by being categorized as savage beasts void of self-control and humanity? Those who are (and I do know they’re out there) need to stand up and say so, if they aren’t already.

So, no – it’s really NOT all about the pants. I know this for a fact because one night a few years ago, I was walking from my car to my apartment sporting jeans, sneakers, a hoodie, sans makeup – and I was STILL greeted by men in a passing car screaming some mumbo jumbo about my “pussy.”

Classy.

Ralph Lauren takes a poo on proportions

What the hell?!

This just ain't right.

Might Last A Day; Mine Is Forever

As I was itching for some riot grrrl tunes the other day, I rediscovered my extensive Hole collection (oh yeah – even My Body The Hand Grenade, a collection of demos, b-sides and live tracks). It brought me back to those days in junior high/high school – being a relatively “good girl,” but deep down, harboring a wild/curious streak just deep enough to make complete conformity seem like a death sentence. I had friends, but never felt like I fit in anywhere. I got good grades, but wasn’t booky enough to be a nerd. I liked heavier music, but wasn’t hard enough to be a punk. Wasn’t athletic by any stretch of the imagination, so that left out sports. And I loathed the cheerleaders.

I was just me. I didn’t have a label, although I secretly wished I did. I thought it would somehow make understanding and describing myself easier.

I developed a hardcore girl crush on Courtney Love as I wore out my cassette of Live Through This. I loaned it to my friend Jenna on the bus and she was instantly a convert. I remember her going on some philosophical discourse about how Courtney’s problems are so much bigger than ours. As hip as my mother was, she couldn’t understand my fascination. When she saw Courtney, she saw some white trash hellion dressed like a two-bit whore who was never taught how to cross her legs. She wondered where she went wrong with her parenting that her 13 year-old daughter would gravitate toward this kind of lunatic.

I was too young to know how to explain it at the time, but to me, Courtney was the poster girl for angry young women who were fed up and wanted more. To me, she was the goddess who threw up her finger at what females were “supposed” to be. She wasn’t the perfect, cookie-cutter poptart that most little girls grow up idolizing. Her hair was a mess. Her makeup was smeared. Her clothes resembled gems from the local Salvation Army and didn’t always fit in the right places. She was crass, full of rage, and obscene. She battled inner demons, addictions and roller coaster relationships. Oh, and on top of all that, she could shred guitar with the best of the boys – and probably scare the hell out of them.

After the circus that was Kurt’s death, it wasn’t very cool to be a Courtney fan. Of course, being a loudmouth bitch made her an easy target for blame. But over a decade later, I’ve still stayed true. Approaching age 27, I can still put on some Hole and I’m instantly connected to my inner hellion. The relatively “good girl” who plays by the rules, but still has that wild streak deep enough to make conventional adult life look like a death sentence. The girl who’s still fed up with the status quo and is still butting heads with what she’s “supposed to be” in this world that doesn’t always feel like hers. She’s ready to throw up her fingers.

*In no way am I ignoring the other riot grrrl goddesses that made angsty chicks like me feel like we had a voice – Joan Jett, Kathleen Hanna, Donita Sparks, Allison Wolfe, to name a few. Their contributions to feminism and music can never be replicated.*

Overall, I admired Courtney because she just didn’t give a fuck. She did and said everything I was too scared to. While I’m not as shy as I used to be, I definitely haven’t reached a level of outspokenness yet. But when I finally do – look the fuck out, world.

Beach Blanket Burger Bingo Bullshit.

First there was Paris. Then there was Padma. Now, it's Audrina - and I've officially had enough.

I'm referring of course to the ads for Carl's Jr. – sexifying gargantuan, artery-clogging hamburgers that in no way, shape or form have anything to do with scantily clad women.



Who are you trying to fool? Like ANYone believes that:

a) Eating this shit will turn one's body into the white, privileged, American ideal of "beauty"
b) These over-paid celebs actually eat said shit

The most insulting part? CJ's catchphrase: "More Than Just A Piece Of Meat."

Um, yeah....there's truth in that, but CJ's has it ass-backwards. Apparently, the burgers get more respect than women.

On the flipside, one can argue that everyone has their price. We can safely assume none of these women were forced at economic gunpoint to whore themselves out to a fast food chain. Sexism survives if we let it. As long as degrading advertisements like this one rake in the big $$$, corporations will continue utilizing the T&A to ensure you keep exposing your wallet.

Check out another angle on this ad from Amoral Fixation.