SLUT SHAME, VICTIM BLAME, and IOKIYAM

May I assume readers are familiar with the acronym, ‘IOKIYAR?’ Translation: ‘It’s okay if you are Republican,’ which means you can excuse any transgression if the transgressor happens to be one of your good ole boys. Does the same adage also apply to sexual assault? The answer is “yes” if you happen to be James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:

What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.) 

Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

Does the penis unzip the zipper and violate the woman all by itself with no intervention or accountability by its owner? If memory serves, there is no excuse for drunk driving in a court of law – but "it's okay if you are male" in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. There will never be drunk justice until the day a good ole boy becomes pregnant.

For decades, sexual predators have used every excuse in the book to beat a rape rap, often accusing their victims of provocative dress, flirtatious behavior, or a disreputable reputation.  In short, slut shame!

Here is James Taranto promoting 'victim blame' with another 'get-out-of-jail-free' card for the good ole boys. What next: Partisan spin to exonerate murder? This is outrageous!

Fox News Boosts Preposterone to the Max

By (O)CT(O)PUS

I don’t think Greta or Megyn will be fetching coffee for Erick and his sidekicks anytime soon. Here is the latest imbroglio from Fox News, a gender comedy in five acts:

Act 1.  Breadwinner Moms: Mothers Are the Sole or Primary Provider in Four-in-Ten Households with Children:

“These “breadwinner moms” are made up of two very different groups: 5.1 million (37%) are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, and 8.6 million (63%) are single mothers” (Pew Research Center).

Act 2.  Fox News: Rise In Female Breadwinners Is A Sign Of Society's Downfall:

“You're seeing the disintegration of marriage, you're seeing men who were hard hit by the economic recession in ways that women weren't. But you're seeing, I think, systemically, larger than the political stories that we follow every day, something going terribly wrong in American society …” (Juan Williams).

“When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role” (Erick Erickson).

Act 3.  Fox News Host Rips Sexist Male Colleagues:

“Have these men lost their minds? (and these are my colleagues??!! oh brother… maybe I need to have a little chat with them) (next thing they will have a segment to discuss eliminating women’s right to vote?) …” (Greta Van Susteren).

Act 4.  Some Women Believe They Can Have It All, And That's The Crux Of The Problem:

“ I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture … One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer” (Erick Erickson).

Act 5.  Fox News Host Demolishes Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs Over Sexist Comments:

"I didn't like what you wrote one bit. To me you sound like somebody who's judging and then wants to come out and say 'I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, and now let me judge judge judge, and by the way it's science it's science it's science it's fact fact fact fact. Well, I have a whole list of studies saying your science is wrong and your facts are wrong” (Megyn Kelly).

At Fox News, you can always count on the slogan "Fair and Balanced" to serve as a cover for "stupid."  Here is how other networks covered the Pew Research story:  Unlike Fox, CNN And MSNBC Turned to Female Panelists for Comments on "Breadwinner" Study.  Instead of R-2, E-2, and Lou-too, perhaps what Fox News really needs is a comment troll:

“Because who better than men to comment on women's issues? Sheesh, you libtards understand nothing. Obviously a noted mysoginst [sic] like Eric Ericson's [sic] opinion is far more germaine [sic] to the debate than some broad's. oh, and tell the dames to vote Republican, if they know what's good for them, rant, rant, foam, foam, blather, blather, my old man's a chipmunk, etc, etc... "  (remKuzucu).

CPAC: Crude, Rude and Unglued

I gave that bitch some rights - bitches love rights

Well, two days ago, a random douchenozzle put a comment on a post I wrote six months ago, about the internet's reaction to Rebecca Watson admitting that she felt uncomfortable in an elevator, and explaining why.

What he wrote, in part, was a fairly standard male-privilege response.

This whole blog is an equivocation fallacy... If we were to take that seriously, then I suppose I should never talk to a woman anywhere, because rape DOES happen anywhere.

What some people seem to want is for a special exception to be made for women, because they view women as inferior. The people who feel this way are radical-feminists, pretending to be feminists.

This guy was undoubtedly just some random troll (his nickname was probably created seconds before he posted), but nonetheless, I responded to him.

Maybe I was a little rude (because I'm normally such a calm, generous, diplomatic person), but to be honest, my only regret is that I left off a question mark and used the phrase "you're an idiot" twice. Because I can do so much better than that.

My only excuse is that cheap boxed Merlot is a harsh mistress.

As far as I'm concerned, any male who uses the phrase "radical feminist" is almost automatically an inbred mouth-breather with limited capacity for reasonable thought. There are only two types of people: feminists, and morons.

(Quick disclaimer: sure, if you look hard enough, you can find a couple of lesbian separatists out there who want to live without ever seeing a man, or occasionally dominate men, reversing the status quo and sticking women on top of the bigotry heap. But they're a really tiny minority - the exception, not the rule - and it's rampant, overblown stupidity to equate the one with the other.)

You could argue that I'm setting up a strawman to make an argument, but this idiot male attitude is all too common. When you start with the two largest religions in the world openly stating that women are inferior to men, and somebody suggests that maybe the two should be equal, it leads you down a path where drug-abusing sociopaths make up words like "feminazi."

And you end up with men who think all women who don't fall into their stereotypes of "Madonna" or "Whore" must be ball-busting lesbian bitches.

And sometimes, you even end up with people trying to claim that the Costa Concordia disaster was made worse because of feminism.

Apparently, in their minds, there is only a limited supply of rights, and in order for somebody else to get any, they have to lose some. Sorry, guys, that's not how it works: we aren't about to reach "Peak Rights."

Anyone who has wives or daughters (I have one of each) and doesn't want to see them succeed is a subhuman asshat who never evolved past masturbating in public and flinging their own feces.

Because it's a basic fact of life - men do get all the breaks: society contains a built-in bias that allows men to succeed more easily than women. Hate to be the one to break it to you, children, but if you're too microcephalic to figure it out, I'm not going to help you at all. Instead, I'm going to give you math. Because I'm cruel.

Women make up roughly 50% of the US population, but only run about 1% of the Fortune 500 companies.

The average woman earns less than the average man (about 75%, give or take - admittedly, better than it was in the 60s).

"Ah," says the voice of Male Privilege, "could that be because men are smarter?"

No, sorry. About the same - although men tend to think that they are.

(Interesting side-note: because the concentration of money is in the hands of white males, white women earn, on average, 45% less than the salary of white men - a greater disparity than among any other race.)

And those numbers only get worse if you keep digging. According to the Department of Justice, one out of every six US women have been victims of a completed or attempted rape. The male stat? One in thirty-three. (And let's not even get into the concept of sexual slavery.)

But you aren't supposed to bring up these pesky little facts, and a young woman shouldn't talk about how she didn't appreciate getting hit on in an enclosed space. Because pinheaded morons start blathering on about "radical feminism."

Really? It's radical to think that women should be treated the same as men? And at the same time, it's radical to pay attention to the fact that some people feel uncomfortable in certain situations, and you should respect that?

Fuck you. Fuck every bloated, self-involved whiny little boy who uses the word "feminist" when deep down, they're screaming "cooties!"

The Pendulum Swings

I am currently teaching a course grounded in feminist critical theory. My students – both male and female – have been very responsive to the material we are studying. I look forward to going to class. These young people 25 years younger than me are willingly embracing the curriculum of the course – better than I had expected. The response of my male students has been particularly heartening. Across generational and gender lines we are learning from each other about gender in our world today – and with a sense of humor and grace. They have made a grumpy second-wave feminist such as myself feel positive about the future with respect to all things related to gender.

Then I learned this week of an outrage perpetuated by a politically influential, radical right wing woman of my little corner of the country against the cause of women in our mutual corner of said country and I came crashing right back down with a loud thud to earth from the starry-eyed universe of hope that I’d allowed myself to believe in these past few weeks.

It’s been sobering. When I visit this blog or watch Rachel Maddow I learn of the utter idiocy of the increasingly powerful radical right in this country. Up ‘til now it’s only been hovering on the fringes of my personal world like a hazy fog. Now it has entered it like a thundercloud hurling lightning bolts. Now it’s personal. This is no longer a lunatic fringe but a lunatic presence.

Don’t ask for details – I can not give them. But suffice it to say – I am a down at heart Squid. I am pushing 50. I have been fighting this crap for so long. I get so tired of it. And maybe I’m just losing perspective – but I genuinely fear that sexism and misogyny are getting worse. That it is getting more shrill. Just as racism has lately been reasserting itself without shame – so has sexism and misogyny – perpetrated – oh so sadly – not only by men but also by women. This woman has the power to alter the paths of some of my students - that's not an exaggeration. How dare she. Yes – SHE!

There's nothing sadder than feeling dragged into battle by one of your own.

The Ethics of Words and Language

If you are Caucasian like me - Imagine, if you will, being so angry with an African American person that you hollered “NIGGER!” at them? Go on – imagine that? Can you? Does it make you cringe at the thought? Does it fill you with horror that you are uttering a word – angrily and hatefully and publicly used by many whites during and before the civil rights movement? Does it conjure up horrific images of lynching in your mind?

If you are like me – you never could and never would EVER so insult an African American person – no matter how angry you were. No matter how justified you felt in your anger. If we white folk were to all allow this word to begin to permeate our discourse again, how do you think it would make the African American community feel? That perhaps all of their efforts at striving for equality – in the face of many hurdles – were all for nothing? Were slipping away?

Yes – some African Americans use this term towards each other – I don’t understand this – but then again – I am not African American. But I do know and respect that they do NOT consider it acceptable for we white folk to do so.

Fair enough.

Well – now that we’ve imagined this horrific scenario – a society that started hatefully and angrily hurling the word NIGGER around again – imagine this – a society in which the word BITCH began to be used again widely and publicly in all circles of society.

Guess what – it’s not that hard to imagine because that is precisely the society within which we live.

Now to speak from my heart as a middle-agish woman who has been striving for respect and equality within a patriarchal world most of her life - whenever I hear a woman – ANY woman called a bitch I am saddened to the core of my being. I get angry. I feel PERSONALLY insulted. Any society that accepts the calling of one woman a BITCH is only one breath away from hurling the SLUR in my face. I begin to despair, to wonder what I have been struggling for. What have so many women struggled for? Why is BITCH gaining – again – in PUBLIC popularity but NIGGER is not – or any other racial/ethnic slur that we no longer dare publicly condone? Why are women not allowed the same amount of respect? Women of ANY race or ethnicity?

And when I hear a woman call another woman a bitch the pain in my soul is beyond expressible words. I think to myself – she just doesn’t get it. But why doesn’t she get it? Increasingly I hear my college students – young women – angrily call each other bitches. Where did they get the message that this is ok? The answer is – they never got the message that it ISN’T. I am increasingly appalled by the lack of knowledge of my students and even of women my own age about the history of women - of all racial and ethnic backgrounds - and their struggles. A history that deserves respect. A history that - if it were properly taught and appreciated - might make us more respectful of the use of language with respect to women. With respect to gender.

Last semester I had to explain to my class what the Women's Lib movement was and when it was - they hadn't a blessed clue.

One of the leading feminist journals for years has been BITCH MAGAZINE. I have never been terribly comfortable with the title but I do recognize what this literary champion of feminism is trying to do within ITS OWN community – to reclaim the word positively. To neutralize it. While I confess I think this to be a naïve venture, they absolutely do NOT advocate allowing the word to be used by men or women as part of everyday discourse, angry or otherwise. In fact – quite the opposite.

Now lest anyone think this particular journal is responsible for the continual, pervasive, hateful use of this term – hardly – it is a little-read journal read almost exclusively by ardent feminists.

I am also appalled at the use of this word in liberal circles – the political faction most associated – rightly or wrongly – with human rights. The blind hypocrisy simply boggles the mind.

So – I am begging anyone - man, woman, white, black, purple or green - who reads this post – PLEASE! – if you ever feel compelled to hurl this foul word at a woman of any race, any ethnic background or any political or spiritual belief – stop & imagine calling an African American person that you were angry at nigger. To my ears – it’s the same thing. Just as nigger will be forever associated with racial hatred and injustice – so bitch continues to be heavy ladened with sexism, if not outright misogyny. Insults that target a person’s race, gender, ethnicity, religion – need to go the way of the dinosaurs if we are ever to live in a society of civil discourse that truly respects its members for both their differences & their similarities.

Language is and always has been part of human evolution – both in spoken and written form. How we express ourselves as individuals and as a society defines us to our very core. Language is an expression of personal values, societal values and concerns. Language matters and words – the essential component of language – matter.

Gloria Steinem, Susan B. Anthony, bell hooks - and all my living & dead foremothers deserve a better legacy. Please help me pass it on to our children. Because if we don’t – then CUNT – yes, CUNT – will be the next word to become part of our everyday vernacular. And yet another slur aimed at our daughters. Our mothers. Wives. Girl-friends.

Oh - But wait – it already IS.

Sexist Sex

Oh, for goodness sake.

A short while ago I checked my aol email account & was greeted on aol's home page by the trivial celebrity headline of the day. Apparently some female celebrity (never heard of her) is pregnant and - oh wait! - HERE'S THE JUICY PART! - she's unmarried! Wow!

Good grief, I thought. Who the heck cares? Now - part of my grumbling is due to a free-floating irritation with our celebrity saturated culture. But the other part of my grumbling has to do with the sexist, holier than thou gasping nature of the headline over the fact that she is unmarried.

This is a new concept? Single, unwed motherhood? Public figure unwed single motherhood? Remember the broohaha over the Murphy Brown pregnancy about which Dan Quayle so famously (stupidly) opined? At the time the issue was forced into open discussion as a public debate erupted over the definition of family, over the puritanical shaming of women "caught pregnant" out of wedlock, etc. That was over a decade ago but apparently we have not moved on from our gasping at such news - at least in the media driven, sensation generating headlines of pop culture.

And dare I ask the question? Where is the headline about the father of this soon to be born child? Just once I would like to see a headline gasping out the words - HOLLYWOOD CELEB JOHN SMITH IS GOING TO BE A FATHER BUT HE'S UNMARRIED! or better yet - HOLLYWOOD CELEB JOHN SMITH HAS IMPREGNATED HIS GIRLFRIEND!

If we are going to insist on puritanical, sensational headlines to fuel our pop culture appetite then we can at least stop being so sexist about it. Let's at least strive for an egalitarian approach to our puritanical shaming.

On a final note - I actually don't think that all that many people (the RIGHT excepted) care that much about the fact that this celebrity is unmarried & pregnant. What I do find fascinating, however, is that the media continually tries to play on old puritanical ideas of shaming to generate sensation about the story they are trying to sell. The extent to which we are suckers for this is debatable.

THE NEW LEPER COLONY: FOR WOMEN ONLY

(O)CT(O)PUS is not done inking the aquarium this week.  I did a post-mortem follow-up and found this comment posted by the same author who inspired my last ink-the-aquarium tirade:

[Were] pregnant teenagers allowed in school when you were a student?  I know they were not.  I don't believe in that, because it tells other girls that it's okay to get pregnant. I don't know how you feel about that, but I disagree with it. It's not okay for teenage girls to get pregnant, and I feel fortunate that I was able to teach my girls the difference between right and wrong.  Unfortunately there are far too many parents who don't realize what's going on in our public school system, and there are many others who simply don't care.  As to teenage girls who get pregnant, I believe they should homeschool [sic]. Gayle | Homepage | 01.03.09 - 11:18 am

A few questions: Why should pregnant teenaged girls be banned from public schools but not the little dicks who caused their pregnancies?  Why should young women always bear the brunt of ridicule and social ostracism for the crime of two-to-tango but not their co-conspirators in passion?  Will parents of pregnant teenaged girls get a school tax rebate after their daughters are banned from public school?  After all, those parents will no longer receive value for money.

In other news, I congratulate the Palin family on the birth of their new grandson, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, 7 pounds 4 ounces, born on December 28, 2009.  Dragon Lady has decreed: Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, may now return to school.

In other news, I found these stories:

Taleban threaten to blow up girls’ schools if they refuse to close
The Taleban have ordered the closure of all girls’ schools in the war-ravaged Swat district and warned parents and teachers of dire consequences if the ban is flouted.
In an announcement made in mosques and broadcast on radio, the militant group set a deadline of January 15 for its order to be obeyed or it would blow up school buildings and attack schoolgirls. It also told women not to set foot outside their homes without being fully covered.

“Female education is against Islamic teachings and spreads vulgarity in society,” Shah Dauran, leader of a group that has established control over a large part of Swat district in the North West Frontier Province, declared this week.

Disembowelled, then torn apart: The price of daring to teach girls
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.  The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely.  But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.

Two posts on gay marriage

As both are really, really long -- I don't know what it is that compels me, sometimes -- I'll just leave the links, rather than hogging the whole front page.

Wingnuts & Moonbats: My thoughts on Homosexual Marriage

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?


Sorry I've been remiss in not posting, here. Nothin' lately seemed worthy...

Sexism - Will It Never Cease!?

DEAR JOHN MCCAIN & FEEBLE-MINDED MEDIA:

I am a WOMAN. A SINGLE woman. And I am NOT referring to my lack of marital status. I am referring to the fact that I am an INDIVIDUAL woman. I am UNIQUE. I do NOT necessarily think like other women I may encounter in the course of a day. And they do NOT necessarily think like me.

I am SICK TO DEATH of us all being lumped together into some sort of collective. It is insulting. It is condescending.

None of you would ever DREAM of saying things like - "Joe Biden is a role model for men." You would be hooted at if you did. You would NEVER do news stories with opening lines such as "American men say they are still not hearing what they need to from the presidential candidates."

You wouldn't - would you?

Well then STOP doing it to us women!!! We are not mindless sheep all bleating in the same direction. I personally have heard what I need to hear from the candidates & made my mind up long ago so, what your idiotic, derivative news story was REALLY about was that SOME women had not made their minds up yet! SOME! not ALL! You are continuing the nonsense you began months ago with your mindless news stories about Hilary's women voters being so mad that they were refusing to vote for Obama. Maybe that was true of SOME, but not ALL of us reacted that way. Do your jobs! Tell the whole story. Dig deeper. And you, Campbell Brown - now known for calling the McCain campaign on its sexism towards SP - are guilty of perpetuating this sexist drivel just like the rest of the media. The "American women are still not hearing what they want" story was on YOUR program!

And as for you, Mr. McCain - how dare you imply that your running mate is a role model to women! The fact that a woman is on a presidential ticket - in & of itself - is a positive for women. Yes. HOWEVER - the actual woman herself is NOT a role model to women - at least I -an individual woman with an individual brain - do not think so.

SEE! I have an INDIVIDUAL opinion! Just like all of the INDIVIDUAL opinions that you all readily assume men to have.

Get with it folks! Your sexism is shamelessly on display!

A sincerely ANGRY,
Squid

The Question of First Spouses

In the midst of the headlines attached to articles about the findings against S. Palin in "trooper-gate" are increasing revelations about the role of Palin's husband in his wife's governorship of Alaska. Every article I have read presents him as perhaps more than a "just being supportive" spouse. There are allegations of his being present at closed-cabinet meetings, copied on official state e-mails, meeting separately with state official on his wife's behalf, etc.

All of this explores the question of spousehood. What are the boundaries of influence when it comes to spouses and our professional work? If we accept as a given that all spouses naturally talk to each other then it is only natural that spouses are going to occasionally opine about each others' work issues. For the most part - we are ok with this? Yes?

Or no? The questions swirling & twirling around Scott Palin raise 2 questions - does it make a difference when the one spouse is an elected official? And - does it make a difference whether the other spouse is a wife or a husband?

Remember Nancy Reagan? And the snide remarks about her propping up of her husband in his final term? Remember Hilary Clinton as Fiirst Lady? And the snide remarks about her involvement in her husband's administration? HC upped the stakes by not just trying to be a supportive spouse but by actually trying to be a useful First Lady who does more than play hostess to the world. She dared to try to change her job description. And oh how the country breathed a sigh of relief when Laura was elected, but I digress.....

And then there was that woman who challenged Obama for the nomination. We were faced with the prospect of out first FIRST Gentleman. What would he do? Play host to the world? HE was a particular problem because he had actually once had a career of his own & might not want to quietly sit back & play host. Mmmm kinda like Hilary Clinton the lawyer when she was First Lady being asked to play hostess.

Life was a lot easier when FIRST spouses (wives) had no careers of their own.

And now we have Scott Palin participating in his wife's governorship. Appropriate? Is he just trying, like Hilary Clinton in Washington, to redefine his FIRST spousal role? Or is he really just being, well, inappropriate?

I raise these questions because of my own arguably sexist & politically biased reaction to the stories I read today. I can't stand Sarah so I found myself disinclined to like Scott or to be the least bit sympathetic towards him. Then I thought - wait a minute, Squid - don't be unfair. Don't be sexist. Don't apply a different standard to him than you applied when you were sympathetic to Hilary as First Lady. Or the standard you apply when you feel sympathetic about the struggles ahead for Michelle O.

I do actually think, based on the evidence, that Scott P. over-stepped certain boundaries - though given the arrogance of his wife it could be that they just didn't handle the situation as well as they could have if they had been more up-front about the situation. However - I will be interested to see how this continues to be discussed in the media - whether Scott will be discussed in a sexist fashion as were Nancy & Hilary or whether he will be treated more "fairly" as a "just trying to be supportive" spouse.

Sex For Money / Money For Sex

[A non-campaign related post - forgive me]

QUESTION: If a woman, say a teacher or a computer programmer or a nurse, decides to moonlight on the side in order to supplement her income – is this wrong? Don’t lots of people hold down second jobs or supplementary part-time jobs? Nothing wrong in that, right? In this economy it is also entirely plausible to think that such a woman might need the extra money, times being what they are.

OK – so here’s wrinkle – if the moonlighting, supplemental income job involves selling sex, is it suddenly wrong? And, if so, why?

Within this given scenario the woman doesn’t seem like your “ordinary” prostitute, does she? She’s not walking the streets. She’s not strung out on drugs. She’s not caught up in a cycle of abuse with a pimp. She’s not bringing loser Johns back to her apartment which she shares with her destitute kids.

So…… then what’s the problem with such moonlighting?

I read a news story recently about a sting operation by cops against on-line prostitution. The story recounted how the cops were surprised by the “otherwise respectability” of the women they arrested. This caused me to raise an eyebrow. On-line pornography implies that the “prostitutes” own computers or at least have easy access to them and know how to use them. Street-walking prostitutes most likely don’t. Everything about the operation described in the news story clearly seemed to point to the fact that the cops knew, or should have known, that they were dealing with a different “class” of women.

So why arrest them & slap them with a criminal record that will haunt their lives forever? Not to be classist – but the usual, moralistic arguments against street-walking prostitutes are generally laced with supposed concerns about drug dealing, physical abuse & children at risk. Such moral high-grounding cloaks the tricky, socially constructed morality of the issue with the impression of more urgent concerns. It prevents us from noticing that – even though sex takes at least two – it is usually the woman arrested (punished), NOT the man. Johns are occasionally arrested, but in puny numbers compared to the women.

This gender inequality was repeated with this on-line sting operation. The “Johns” were the cops so only women were arrested. Hint to the legal authorities - Supply & demand. Arresting prostitutes does not stop men from seeking to buy sex.

I do not know all of the particulars of this recent event. Perhaps there were abusive pimps involved – something that arguably these prostitutes needed to be “saved” from. All I know is that when I read the story it bugged me somehow. Made me twitch. Mostly women getting arrested. Again. For a crime that involves male perpetrators. AND - without the usual moral-high-grounding scenario giving us the excuse that these “poor” women need to be saved from evil, preying forces beyond their control. And – that – I think – is the biggest red flag here. If the sex is consensual (no pimps or coercion) - between two adults – how does the private exchanging of money suddenly make it our public problem? Why do we suddenly have the right to invade life-style choices? And, besides, the truth is that the arresting of prostitutes is really about punishing prostitutes (WOMEN), NOT saving them. What did these “otherwise respectable” women need to be saved from really?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not personally contemplating a career change in the direction of prostitution nor am I declaring that I think it’s a great idea. It’s not. In most instances I do think it exploits women badly – very badly. However – I also think that the way our country legally handles the situation also exploits women by not fairly going after Johns – the exploiters - as aggressively as the prostitutes. Also – wouldn’t it be nice if societal attitudes towards women & sex changed so that men would no longer be preying on the prostitutes who truly are down & out & desperate in the first place?! In other words – if we as a society truly believe that prostitution is a practice that needs to be shut down, can we at least PLEASE stop punishing only half of the problem?

Gender Biased, Morality Policing always makes me twitch.

CNN's Brown Misses The Sexist Mark

I just sat on my couch, in front of my tv, & watched in amazement as Campbell Brown of CNN delivered an op ed sort of commentary that she called a "rant" on behalf of all women who are "sick of the sexist treatment of S. Palin."

Now the first amazing thing was the C. Brown expressed a personal opinion so forcefully - I've never seen her do so before. Then - that she claimed to be speaking for women - not just herself - wow! I held my breath, thinking, "yeeaahhhhh....be careful of what you say on MY behalf!"

So here's the gist of her plea - to the McCain campaign itself!! She complained that Palin's own campaign was treating her like a "delicate flower" who needed to be cloistered away from the press - not allowed to show "her stuff." Brown said, "She's from Alaska, she's tough . . . let her be treated like a bonafide candidate like the others." Brown was referring to the press being denied access to Palin today - as Fogg has already noted in a previous post.

OK - this is tricky - I AGREE with Brown, yes, to a point. To not allow Palin to speak her mind would be sexist if that was what was actually happening. I suspect that Palin, however, wants to shield herself from the press until she can acquire enough knowledge to be able to sound like a viable candidate and THIS is the point Brown was plainly missing (no doubt on purpose in an effort to NOT seem biased) that Palin is being shielded from the press by the McCain campaign NOT because of sexism BUT because if she starts having to field tough questions she will fall apart. Crumble even. Then the REAL & TRUE sexism of the McCain campaign would shine through - picking a candidate who is unqualified in order to entice female voters as if to say - "all they want is a woman so any woman will do, even one who is unqualified."

Oh the irony - that such a candidate has been nominated by the party that is notorious for complaining about Affirmative Action because it puts unqualified people in positions ahead of those more qualified all due to tokenism!!!