Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts

Friday, July 24, 2009

The Last Straw: I am so Sick of Tyra Banks that I Can't Even Think of a Witty Title



It's one thing to be a model and follow the strict idea of beauty-to be hyper critical of beauty. It's something entirely different to realize the effect this has on society and continue to do it anyways.

As most people know Tyra Banks is a well known super model, probably most famously for Victoria Secret. But that's neither here nor there, now she hosts her own talk show and is pretty much in charge of America's Next Top Model. Between her career as a super model and her new television thing, she managed to develop her own camp for young girl to encourage self-esteem, Tzone . What a crock of shit!

This would seem almost noble and her way of giving back to society. But while she boasts building self-esteem for young girls and talking about real problems on her talk show, she is on Next Top Model preaching the same standards of beauty as it always does. She realizes the effects ridiculous images in the media has on young girls-hence the reason for the camp, but then on her model show, she hold these girls to the same insane standards, criticizing their hair, height, and even gaps in teeth. Now, I get the whole I am going to pretend to be a good person even though I don't really give a shit attitude. However, Week 4 of Top Model was a little out of control.

The goal was to pose as a dead girl in the photo shoot. Really? That is so not cool. Of all the offensive themes of modeling, this is my far the most insulting to women. It dehumanizes women and says violence against women is sexy. Note the judges comments where the one girl doesn't look sexy enough, she just looks dead. WTF!

So, this is the last straw for Tyra and I. I really don't like her. Please don't say you're advocating for inner beauty or for self-esteem, because Tyra, you just helped to tell those girls they look best dead.

Friday, February 20, 2009

A Love Affair With Your Cleaning Supplies

"Oh, Mr. Mop, I love you but I can't do this, I know we've been together for so long, but we must part , for I have found a new cleaning supply love, Sir Swiffer."

Are you for real?


Cleaning supply commercials are always geared towards women. In all my years of TV watching I have never seen a man in a cleaning supply commercial--unless of course he is making the mess and wifey to the rescue to save the helpless cleaning-impared family. They manage to somehow glorify cleaning--super mom with super strong paper towels, super mom with magic sponges, and super mom with a super light vacuum. Wow, what more could super mom ask for? Since her family is just helpless without her and they life would become dirt-filled if she didn't have her "super" cleaning supplies.


Is this society's way of making women feel important? Super mom cleaning commericals makes cleaning a sacred womanly task and if any other being would try their hand at it, they'd somehow screw it up. Nevermind, it reinforces gender stereotypes, the stay at home mom making sure the house is in neat order OR the mom who does it all--work all day and needs her trusty cleaning supplies to do the job in half the time.


Just where is husband in all this?


He should certainly worry because apparently according to Swiffer, Mr. Mop is trying to make a move on super mom. Their commercials are never more rediculous than most commericals, usually they just showcase their cleaning power, but this, this displays that women and their mops have a secret love affair with eachother. Women love their sacred duty so much that they have relationships with their mops. Replacing their mop for something new is an emotional task that requires putting it all in a closet and burning it (kinda like putting love notes in a shoebox and burning it.). Then Mr. Mop is so lovestruck that he stalks her, sends her flowers, and a singing telegram. Yes, your cleaning supplies and you are a lot like Love.






Friday, January 30, 2009

When Your Actions Follow Your Words

Today President Obama's signed his first bill as president into law--The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.It is a great moment in history when a president's first law enacted ensures equality for women in the workplace.



The Bush Administration blocked the bill in the last session of Congress. But Obama strongly supported it — he talked often about Ledbetter during his campaign. But rarely does a president do what he has promised when he finally gets in office. And instead he makes it his priority.

Imagine that...women's rights a Presidential priority.

I feel it is safe to say there have been more advances in human rights, and more specifically in women's rights in the last two weeks than there have been in the last 8 years.

Monday, January 26, 2009

End of an Era

Barack Obama overturned the Global Gag Rule--I feel like crying.

The Global Gag Rule, which was reinstated by President Bush on his first day in office, prohibits any international organization that receives U.S. funds from counseling women on abortion as an option, providing referrals, or discussing the dangers of unsafe abortions - even if the organization uses its own money to do so. The impact of the mandate has been deadly for women worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe or illegal abortions - a number that could be significantly lowered by access to information and sexual health care.

Never an Easy Choice. Sometimes the Best Choice. Always a Woman's Choice.


Being pro-choice or pro-life is never an easy decision. I've struggled with whether or not to be pro-choice for awhile, and while in my Senior Seminar in Legal Foundations I found my belief.

I am pro-choice, I also feel being so does mean I am not pro-life. I am both. I am not pro-abortion. It is a difficult procedure, a life changing procedure, but ultimately, it is a woman's choice.

In my Seminar I had the opportunity to read feminist perspectives on jurisprudence. In not so many words, unwanted pregnancy could be seen as a parasite living in her body--it would be an unwanted living thing. Choosing whether or not to have an abortion or when life is a religious question and making laws dependent on them is entangling religion and the state.

Using privacy to keep abortion legal is a patriarchal guise. Pro-choice isn't about privacy, it's about a woman's body. Below is the President's view on a woman's right to choose;

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 22, 2009

Statement of President Obama on the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 22, 2009.



Monday, January 12, 2009

The Reason I am a Feminist Started When I was in High School...Maybe This Will Help You Understand Why

A Rise in Efforts to Spot Abuse in Youth Dating
By ELIZABETH OLSON
She was 17 when she met her boyfriend, and 20 when she died at his hands. In between, Heather Norris tried several times to leave the relationship, which was fraught with control and abuse, before she was killed — stabbed, dismembered and discarded in trash bags.
Her death in 2007 in Indianapolis is one of several stemming from abuse in teenage dating relationships that have spurred states and communities to search for new ways to impress on adolescents — and their parents and teachers — the warning signs of dangerous dating behavior and what actions are not acceptable or healthy.
Texas recently adopted a law that requires school districts to define dating violence in school safety codes, after the 2003 stabbing death of Ortralla Mosley, 15, in a hallway of her Austin high school and the shooting death of Jennifer Ann Crecente, 18, two years ago. Rhode Island in 2007 adopted the Lindsay Ann Burke Act — prompted by the murder of a young woman by a former boyfriend — requiring school districts to teach students in grades 7 through 12 about dating abuse.
New York recently expanded its domestic violence law to allow victims, including teenagers in dating relationships, to obtain a restraining order against an abuser in family court rather than having to seek help from the criminal justice system. Legislators were moved to act after a survey by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene showed that dating violence had risen by more than 40 percent since 1999, when the department began asking students about the problem.
Although there are no definitive national studies on the prevalence of abuse in adolescent relationships, public health research indicates that the rate of such abusive relationships has hovered around 10 percent. Experts say the abuse appears to be increasing as more harassment, name-calling and ridicule takes place among teenagers on the Internet and by cellphone.
“We are identifying teen dating abuse and violence more than ever,” said Dr. Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, who began doing research on abuse in teenage dating relationships nearly a decade ago.
Dr. Miller cited a survey last year of children ages 11 to 14 by Liz Claiborne Inc., a clothing retailer that finances teenage dating research, in which a quarter of the 1,000 respondents said they had been called names, harassed or ridiculed by their romantic partner by phone call or text message, often between midnight and 5 a.m., when their parents are sleeping.
Such behavior often falls under the radar of parents, teachers and counselors because adolescents are too embarrassed to admit they are being mistreated.
They can seek help from the National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline, where calls and hits to its Web site, loveisrespect.org, doubled in November over the previous month. Awareness of the help line has grown since it was started in early 2007.
Most of the calls come from girls, often in response to relentless texting or efforts by boys to dictate what they do or wear.
While texting that runs to 200 or 300 messages a day can be a prelude to abusive behavior, William S. Pollack, a Harvard University psychologist and the author of “Real Boys” (1998) and “Real Boys’ Voices” (2000) about boys and masculinity, said his research had found that “usually when adolescent boys get involved with girls, they fall into the societal model which we call ‘macho,’ where they need to show they are the ones in control.”
Actions like nonstop texting or phoning often are efforts “to gain control back,” said Dr. Pollack, who is the director of the Center for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass.
Reacting to the killings of Heather Norris and other girls by their romantic partners, Indianapolis recently started a program to train police officers in public schools to recognize the early signs of abuse in relationships. Last month, a group of Indianapolis organizations won a $1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help schools tackle the issue, part of $18 million in grants to 10 communities to help break patterns where children exposed to violence at home repeat it in their adult relationships.
The foundation, based in Princeton, N.J., decided to fund preventive efforts based on research, including from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. In the C.D.C.’s 2007 survey of 15,000 adolescents, 10 percent reported physical abuse like being hit or slapped by a romantic partner. Nearly 8 percent of teenagers in the survey said they were forced to have sexual intercourse.
Dating abuse victims, the center found, are more likely to engage in binge drinking, suicide attempts, physical fights and sexual activity. And the rates of drug, alcohol and tobacco use are more than twice as high in abused girls as in other girls the same age.
“Few adolescents understand what a healthy relationship looks like,” Dr. Miller said.
Adolescents often mistake the excessive attention of boys as an expression of love, she said.
Kayla Brown, 18, was among them. At first, her high school boyfriend made a great impression last year when he “called my mother to introduce himself,” said Ms. Brown, a senior at an Indianapolis charter school.
Then he began “calling me every hour to see where I was and what I was doing,” she said. Finally, during an argument he slammed a chair into a cafeteria table and raised his fist.
She confided in her mother, who has suffered domestic violence, and followed her advice to break off the relationship. But it was not easy. For months, she had friends accompany her in the school hallways, even to the bathroom, to make sure she was not alone with him.
Deborah Norris, Heather Norris’s mother, said her daughter’s relationship with Joshua Bean also began innocuously but rapidly became threatening.
“When he would call or text her, she had to answer right away or there was trouble,” Ms. Norris said. “She became quiet and withdrawn around him, and that wasn’t like her.”
“She hadn’t seen him in four months,” she added, “and was getting ready to go to court because she had filed battery charges against him.”
Mr. Bean was convicted in Heather’s killing last September.
Ms. Norris, an accident investigator for the police, said, “What happened to Heather really opened the eyes of police, the people I work with, who used to look at domestic violence differently,” seeing it as a family matter.
What happened to Heather before she was killed is common in abusive relationships, said Stephanie Berry, the manager of community health at Clarian Health, a network of Indiana hospitals, which is leading the program being financed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Many teenagers, Ms. Berry said, “see the jealousy and protectiveness as ‘Oh, he loves me so much.’ Girls make excuses for it and don’t realize it’s not about love, but it’s about controlling you as a possession.”
For Ms. Berry, 43, the issue is personal. Her high school boyfriend “wanted a commitment right away, which was very flattering,” she said. But she soon found herself “walking on eggshells,” she said.
Even after he went to college, she said, the relationship was so “addictive” that she kept returning — until it “turned violent and he beat me up when I was 21.”
A study, published last July in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, suggests that such behavior is not unusual. The study found that more than one-third of the 920 students questioned were victims of emotional and physical abuse by romantic partners before they started college.
The Indianapolis program will train older teenagers as mentors and teachers, coaches and parents as “influencers” who will talk to sixth, seventh and eighth graders about what is acceptable behavior in dating.
In her grief, Ms. Norris created heathersvoice.net to help girls learn when things are amiss in a relationship. “Heather always thought she could change people,” she said, “so I guess I’m trying to follow what she wanted.”

Monday, December 22, 2008

The Crusade Against Reproductive Rights: With a Concience and Gagging

Women's reproductive rights are always being challenged, especially in America. This blog is way over due, but you know what they say, better late than never. Over the past couple of years I have struggled with whether or not to be pro-choice, but this entry is about more than that, it's about receiving health care.

In a midnight regulation push, entitled Right of Conscience, Bush would allow anyone to refuse to participate in medical procedures they feel goes against their religious beliefs.

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable.--Washington Post

This would go farther then safeguarding pharmacists from selling the morning after pill, but to refusing AIDS treatment to unmarried or gay patients, refusing blood transfusions to patients, or treating mental illness with anything but prayer.

This sort of regulation leads to in Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.)--American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

What worries me the most is, where will this stop: will it go so far as to deny the selling of condoms if the person behind the counter has a problem with it. This regulation even further harms patients' rights--should medical providers really be the controller of moral issues? The reprocutions of such regulations are ridiculous, what it comes down to is: the President would rather see a rape victim denied treatment, or an AIDS patient denied drugs than have a pharmacist upset about something they sold.

Bush has always been against women's reproductive freedoms beginning with day one in office. On his first day he reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which restricts foreign non-governmental organizations that receive federal family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion.

It is called a “gag” rule because it stifles public debate on abortion-related issues, requiring private organizations overseas to choose between continuing their non-U.S. funded efforts to change public policy around abortion in their own countries, or receiving U.S. family planning funds. Restricting their freedom to engage in public policy debates undermines a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy—the promotion of democracy abroad—and its core principle of free and open debate.

Regardless of whether abortions are legal, women in desperate situations still seek them out. As a result, abortions performed under unsafe conditions remain a major public health concern. About 70,000 women die each year from septic and incomplete abortion, many of them leaving young children behind. Many more suffer serious illness or injury. Improving access to family planning can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce such tragedies.

Shortly after the reinstatement of the gag rule, shipments of U.S.-donated condoms and contraceptives completely ceased to 16 developing countries, primarily in Africa. Leading family planning agencies in another 16 countries—mostly in Africa—have lost access to much-needed U.S. condoms and contraceptives as a result of their refusal to accept the gag rule restrictions.
Cutbacks in family planning services are likely to contribute to an increase in abortions. Research from several countries reveals a lower reliance on abortion in areas where contraceptive use is higher, reflecting greater access to family planning services.

Panning providers have developed the expertise, services and information to counsel individuals about safer sex, help people avoid high-risk behaviors, and screen for and treat sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that increase susceptibility to HIV infection. Although it applies only to family planning funds, the gag rule prevents the United States from working with some of the most effective front-line partners serving two of the populations at greatest risk of STIs, including HIV/AIDS—women and youth.

Below is a video that highlights the issues with the Global Gag:



These violations of reproductive rights are bigger than just religious views, they seriously compromise women's health.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Thank God I Have No Family or I Wouldn't be Qualified to be Sec. of Homeland Security

My dear Gov. Ed Rendell recently commented on Barack Obama's pick for Sec. of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.



Sad to say, his comments leaves me feeling ill, and reminiscent of when Nancy Pelosi took office as Speaker of the House--She has a family, maybe she shouldn't do that. The flip side to this is Janet Napolitano "has no family" so she would be perfect for the job because she can devote 19-20 hours a day to it." So it doesn't matter that she was named by Time magazine one of the top 5 governors in 2005. Or other qualifications she may have, what matters is whether or not she has a family. On a side note, really 2o hours a day, when does she sleep?

This is also similiar to Sarah Palin. She has a bunch of kids, blah, blah, blah. Enough! We should have been focusing on her political philosophies and whether or not she can run a country, not the clothing she wears or the amount of kids she has.

So, kudos to Janet Napolitano--she has no family so she must not have a life, so she must be good to have a cabinet position...Did Tom Ridge have a family when he was Sec. of Homeland Security? But, I guess it doesn't matter because he's wasn't a woman.

But Why Can't You See Me? I am Stuffing My Face!

One of my biggest pet peeves occurs in a restaurant. Apparently, this is a common peeve with women who eat out with male companions. http://www.feministing.com/archives/012447.html#comments

"Is this together? What you're not taking care of your girlfriend?" But, but we're not together. We merely go out to eat... Awkwardness, comes next. The woman behind the counter does not realize the uncomfortableness she invoked. He is like: we're not together, but doesn't want to sound mean because we are in fact friends. And I'm just pissed because apparently women and men cannot go out to eat together unless of course they are indeed an item.

Oh, but it gets worse.

I received a gift certificate to a very nice restaurant and so my date and I decided to go. We sat at our table for a half hour before anyone came with menus and certainly there were no drinks--basically, in a high class restaurant we were getting shafted. Eventually, the owner made his way through the tables to ours and asked "how is everything." My date, being outspoken as he is responded, "actually, no one has waited on us yet." Very quickly a waiter came to our table and took our orders--but he asked my date what we would like. Then he explained to my date at the end of the dinner that the dessert was on them. Then he gave my date a new gift card, and the bill and told him that he hopes he comes back anytime.

BUT I'm the one paying I screamed in my head. Do I really get to be ignored? And why oh, oh why, did he get the gift card and the bill?


The most common answer I received is: well, he's the one who spoke up about your shitty service. This would have been believable until I realize this is a reoccurring theme.
The bill, whether or not my date is paying, always more times than not, goes to my date. It makes me feel bad because well, I often pay. It makes him feel bad because he's not paying. I feel like I should be helpless and he feels like he's inadequate. Then just awkwardness all around about the paying situation.

So, the question is, who should pay? Is it bad when I pay for the both of us? Is bad when we pay separately?

Sigh...