Is Gay Activity to Blame for the Earthquakes in Israel?

Shas MK Shlomo Benizri seems to believe it is... (no, seriously, i'm not even kidding here...)

Benizri thinks that the Israeli government should pass less legislation that "encourages homosexuality" rather than reinforce buildings as a preventative measure for earthquakes.

Benizri adds: "A cost-effective way of averting earthquake damage would be to stop passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the State of Israel, which anyways causes earthquakes."

A rep from Israeli's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Association responded with a bit of humor to Benizri's ridiculous statement: "On one hand, it is said that a religious MK doesn't believe that earthquakes are caused by God, on the other hand, it is flattering that he attributes supernatural powers to us."

Really Israel? I'm disappointed...

Via Haaretz.com

*Please don't take offense that i used the "humor" label on this, but seriously, i couldn't read this story in any other way because the notion that gay activity causes earthquakes is just plain ridiculous.

Privilege

I’m not sure if Peggy McIntosh is considered outdated in feminist and WS circles by now but when I started studying feminist theory, she was the first exposure I had to privilege. I couldn’t believe how privileged I was just because I am white and I was even more shocked to find just how privileged my white (especially straight) guy friends were for having the added bonus of being male.

Privilege isn’t something people normally think about because it’s easy to ignore something you take for granted day to day. I don’t think that privileged individuals walk around and intentionally use privilege to their betterment. I do think that people tend not to notice they are privileged because they have spent their lives living in a way they are comfortable with and not confronted by. Once privilege is brought to someone’s attention, s/he is challenged by the concept that s/he can work less hard than others for some of the things that others do not have.

Frankly, this is a concept that blew my mind because after I learned about it, I couldn’t believe how few people considered the theory at all. Since privileged people are generally (consciously or not) unaware, once challenged they have two choices:

1. Do nothing. Continue living their lives just how they are, privileged and all.
Or
2. Recognize their privilege and use it to help others.

Many people, even once challenged, live in denial of their privilege: “Why should I give up what I’ve earned?” or “No one helped ME get to where I am, why should I help others?” These common reactions are actually misconceptions. For one, you may have “earned” what you have with the help of being privileged (in whatever way privilege applies to you). And although no actual person or people may have helped you get to where you are, an institutionalized system of privilege, classism, and racism set up society to aid in your success.

Moving on to the good stuff. How are we actually privileged? Again, though outdated, Peggy McIntosh’s (1988) White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack provides great examples of white privilege that are often overlooked:

• I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
  
• When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
  
• Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
  
• I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.*
  
• I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.
  
• I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
  
• My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership
  
• I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

Although Ms. McIntosh enlightened me in college, since then I have admittedly given very little thought to privilege. Yes I try to live my life acknowledging and recognizing what I have and what others don’t (and how to equal out the world) but I haven’t thought about it in an academic way in quite some time. That is, until recently. One of my fav feminist blogs, A Feminist Response to Pop Culture posted about privilege based on Racialicious’s recent series of posts on whether class has trumped race. The items of privilege they discuss are mostly in terms of class which I think is very current and especially important. Class based privilege is all about access to resources. Education and access to education is a huge part of that.

Here is a list they posted, anything in bold makes me privileged:

If your father went to college
If your father finished college
If your mother went to college
If your mother finished college
If you have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
If you were the same or higher class than your high school teachers
If you had a computer at home
If you had your own computer at home
If you had more than 50 books at home (but they were mostly in Russian)
If you had more than 500 books at home
If were read children's books by a parent
If you ever had lessons of any kind (piano - free, & flute - $20/half hour)
If you had more than two kinds of lessons
If the people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
If you had a credit card with your name on it (once i got to college)
If you have less than $5000 in student loans
If you have no student loans
If you went to a private high school
If you went to summer camp (Jewish Community Center)
If you had a private tutor (For about 1 month, for math)
If you have been to Europe (Born in Russia, should that count?)
If your family vacations involved staying at hotels
If all of your clothing has been new and bought at the mall
If your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
If there was original art in your house
If you had a phone in your room
If you lived in a single family house (a condo...)
If your parents own their own house or apartment
If you had your own room
If you participated in an SAT/ACT prep course
If you had your own cell phone in High School (Only senior year)
If you had your own TV in your room in High School
If you opened a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College
If you have ever flown anywhere on a commercial airline
If you ever went on a cruise with your family
If your parents took you to museums and art galleries
If you were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family

Check out Racialicious’s terrific post (part 3 of her series) on acknowledging class privilege.

Also, feel free to comment on privilege or even post your own bolded list.

*I realize that since Peggy Mc compiled her list "flesh-colored" makeup has expanded to include all shades of flesh, but at the time, this was a relevant example.

Soccer Moms and Methadone

First a question to my fellow bloggers: When you're away for some time do you get the "nothing is good enough" feeling when you are ready to get back into writing? After blogging almost everyday for a few months I took a much needed break but when i was ready to get back into it, i couldn't seem to click "publish post" to anything i put up on the screen... what a weird phenomenon...

But thanks to The Smirking Cat I realized today, and this post, was as a good a time/post as any to get back into the blogasphere :) Thanks for wondering where i've been :)

What has feministgal been up to in the past two weeks? Well ya'll will be happy to know that she had a grad school interview! Very psyched for the experience, not so psyched for the actual clinical psych program... it was at best, mediocre... Maybe i'll love it if i get admitted (wink) but for now, this gal is not impressed...

On to today's post: Soccer Moms & Methadone...

Thanks Brandi for passing this along: News Channel 8 (local news in CT) recently did a story on "soccer moms" being perscribed mathadone. I work in a methadone clinic and after Anna Nicole Smith's death everyone became more nervous about drug interactions (and rightfully so although it shouldn't have taken the death of a celebrity to start thinking about contraindicated medication...) Although the newscast shed some light on the miss-use and effects of not regularly monitoring patients on methadone, it also perpetuated a few stereotypes that i'd like to address. First off, the segment made it seem as though drug users neatly fit into some social/racial/economic category that can be easily defined and identified. That is simply not the case. Drug abuse is a nondiscriminatory disease and the people walking through my door everyday differ in age, SES, race, education level, sexuality, etc.

The second vast stereotype that the news segment perpetuated is the term "soccer mom" that made Brandi and I both cringed. "Soccer mom" carries a materialistic, white, "Stepford wife" connotation of motherhood that i can't imagine many women actually identifying with. Most of the moms i know who drive their kids around to soccer games (and other sports, dance, girl/boy scouts, endless activities) are working mothers, trying to fit all their family and work activities into a not nearly long enough day. The outdated concept of a suburban, minivan driving, PTA going, dinner cooking, "soccer mom" is more of a dream than a reality for most of the mothers that i know... Most families can't afford to make it on a one person income and both parents are forced to work. Sometimes the "soccer mom" responsibilities still fall on the female parent of the family. Does that sound fair? Well no. But neither is this outdated concept of an over-prescribed Valium soccer mom.

But then again, one definition of third-wave feminism tells me that:

Third Wave feminism celebrates women’s multiple and sometimes contradictory identities in today’s world. Third Wave feminists are encouraged to build their own identities from the available buffet, and to not worry if the items on their plate are not served together traditionally. Women can unapologetically celebrate a plate full of entrée choices like soccer mom, career woman, lover, wife, lesbian, activist, consumer, girly girl, tomboy, sweetheart, bitch, good girl, princess, or sex symbol.

So maybe i'm over-reacting? ;)

Here's the news segment in case you're curious:

Poetry Slam Shazaam!

Last weekend D and I went to a poetry slam with some new friends. We had a really great time out. It was an awesome night for many reasons:

1.) Because making "adult friends" is tough enough, let alone finding people with similar interests

2.) Ever since we got Beans we've had absolutely no social life (it's hard only being out for under 6 hours at a time)

3.) Poetry slams are apparently very intense

4.) Jenna is a terrific judge, an honest and fair critic ;)

5.) The girl who wrote about gerbils creeped me out... but in a good way, and i really liked her poem

6.) The hours my college roommates and I spent honing our stalking skills came in handy when I really wanted to post my favorite poem of the night for ya'll here to enjoy:

Girdle
By Tracy Caldwell AKA Mind Evolution (2006)

In the 60's they were burning their bras
In the 06 im burning my girdle
Because a girl should not be tortured like this
I'm sorry if you can't handle the fact that i'm fat
But everyone can't be a size 4
And i'm not taking it no more
No longer will I wear undergarments
That squeeze my rools into other places
And there are more than a few woman in here
Tying to keep straight faces
Wile their panties are cutting of circulation
Tying to please a nation that can never be pleased
Cuz it's obesity if you're too big
And if you're too small
It's the skinny woman's disease
Anorexia or bulimia
But believe me when I tell ya
I love my food to much to be throwing it up
And damn it I earned this gut
By giving birth to 2 boys and 2 girls
And there is at least one man in this world
That can't resist these childbearing hips
And he knows he has to come equipped if he wants to be spending time with all of this
Big girls if you feel me let me see you raise your fist
Gentlemen that agree
Let me see you do the same
Cause its a shame
More than half the female population is a size 12 or up
But its always a skinny person
Telling you, you need to shape up

Have you been Super Tuesdayed enough?

I'm rootin' for Obama because he's damn sexy...

And for Clinton because I want to see Ann Coulter campaign for her come presidential elections :)

Either way, we can't lose... 2008 is going to kick ass, i'm so psyched!

Elect Environmental Change

To piggyback yesterday's post, here for info on which '08 candidates are "green."

Elect change during tomorrow's "Super Duper Tuesday" (who thought of that term? It sounds like a 5 year old that's excited about a making a poopy in the toilet...)

Most importantly, here to register to vote.

The Story of Stuff and why you should care.

Thanks to Jenna for sending me The Story of Stuff. This video is the best presentation that i've seen to date of America's massive consumer problem.

You should absolutely watch the video, it's a great presentation of this enormous problem that needs a lot more attention. The video breaks up the process into 5 parts: extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. Here's my summary of why "stuff" is such a huge problem in our country:

Let's start with extraction. We use the planet's resources for everything that we need. Obviously some of the stuff made fulfills actual needs. We can't expect everyone to live like Thoreau, especially in contemporary America when having all the latest gadgets and designer "stuff" is crucial to survival (ok, a wee bit of sarcasm there but for real, we can't just expect people to give up consumer goods that they think make them happy). So what's the problem at the stage of extraction? 1. We're using too much stuff; 2. The way we're getting the stuff is damaging our planet; 3. America get's an F in kindergarten (aka: we're not sharing our stuff).

Next we move on to production. This is where we actually make the stuff that people think they need. Since this is all done in factories, with toxic chemicals, the problems at this stage are endless. For example, toxic chemicals = toxic products... what's that? toxic toys for your toddlers? Shit... that seems like an issue already. Not to mention the workers that are outsourced, underpaid, and treated unethically due to the harmful effects of these chemicals on humans and the environment. Oh and did i mention, the US realizes this is a health and environmental issue so we outsource this step to other countries. Yeay to globalization! We can bring out toxins into countries where we know there will be people willing to work for not enough money, in hazardous conditions, while we use up their natural resources... awesome.

That's too depressing. Let's talk about distribution, this is the part where we actually get our stuff. The goal here is to sell stuff quickly and cheaply. But at what expense? We pollute the environment by getting the stuff from these other countries to the US, use up natural resources faster than the planet can replenish them, and harm human beings. Basically, sure it's cool that the price tags on our stuff (think: WalMart) don't actually represent the cost of production (remember planet resources, people's health, our ozone), but is it all worth it? Personally, I don't think so. Sorry, i got ahead of myself...

I think that was along the lines of consumption. This whole cycle of trashing our planet to make cheap stuff doesn't seem very sustainable. That's because it's not. The crazy thing is (and I did not know this until watching "The Story of Stuff") that this whole cycle was engineered by a really smart man (I think named Victor Laboe, but if anyone can correct me on this i'd really like to know more about him) after WWII as a way to "ramp up the economy." He said the following:

President Eisenhower thought this was a great idea and that the US's main purpose should be to produce more goods... How is this possible? Well by making products that will be quickly discarded or replaced, this is called "planned obselensence." For example, my biggest pet peeve is the constant flow of coffee cups, water bottles, and plastic utensils that Americans go through daily. Is it really that difficult to bring in silverware to work and wash it after lunch? "Over 380 billion plastic bags, sacks, and wraps are used in the U.S. each year, and 1 trillion worldwide - over one million per minute! Billions of plastic bags end up as litter each year."

Still on consumption, there's also "perceived obsolescence." This is the idea that even your new or perfectly working stuff should be replaced. You know, to "keep up with the Joneses." IPods, laptops, cell-phones, TVs, even clothes are all examples. If you don't have the latest trend, everyone knows that you haven't contributed to the consumer market lately. Anyone watch The Real Housewives of Orange County? They're a perfect example. Is this still prevalent in politics now? Absolutely: After 9/11, Bush suggested for the American people to SHOP. I don't know about you but shopping doesn't seem like a healthy way to mourn. However, since "we have become a nation of consumers and it makes up our identity," this seemed to be Bush's main concern... well that and finding WMDs (but that's a different post altogether)...

Finally, disposal... First, an outrageous fact: "6 months after we (Americans) buy stuff, only 1% of it is still in use!" Another words, 99% is discarded. Talk about wasteful. Here's the problem, after extraction (using up natural resources to make the stuff we "need"), production (sending harmful chemicals and toxins into our atmosphere to make the stuff we "need), distribution (getting people the stuff they "need"), and consumption (people using up the stuff they "needed"), there's disposal. Disposal (well and extraction) is the part of this whole cycle that scares me most. Disposal is getting rid of all this stuff that people once "needed" and now used up... Where can we possibly put all this stuff that isn't necessarily recyclable? Do we bury it (thus filling up our earth with non-recyclable and possibly toxic stuff)? Do we burn it (thus sending even more chemicals - that are actually even more toxic than they were in the first place - into the air)? How do we dispose of all this stuff that we once "needed?"

Here in lies the problem - we, as a people, can't possibly recycle ALL the stuff that we consume and burying & burning our old stuff only creates more problems... the only solution is to use/purchase/own/want less stuff. Yes, regulating production so that it's cleaner and uses less natural resources is a great place to start. And yes, composting and recycling should be an expectation for everyone, but ultimately, this problem... of "stuff"... will remain a problem until people stop wanting, using, and "needing" so much.

Because, like always, it's all about activism, here is what YOU can do to change this cycle:

1. Watch The Story of Stuff

2. Host showings, talk about it, educate others - activism begins with education.

3. Change yourself and your "needs." Do you really need that new cell phone just because it has one upgrade or is your, perfectly working phone, sufficient?

4. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. It's really as easy as that.

5. Cloth shopping bags have been all the rage lately, jump on that bandwagon and i promise you'll find the cloth bags are not only earth saving but much more convenient (the strap is easier to carry and doesn't cut into your hand like plastic).

6. If you forget your cloth bags at home, carry your items (either by hand or take the cart to your car and unload without bags) if that's not an option for you, ask for paper bags.

7. Use tupperware instead of aluminum, styrofoam, or plastic wrap.

8. Reuse discarded paper for scrap, or print on both sides of the document.

9. Take the "Billion Bag, Bottle, and Bulb Challenge"

10. Here to learn more about what you can do to take action and help stop this vicious cycle.

Please watch the video, and definitely leave feedback as well as other ways to stop this cycle. What do you do to live a more sustainable life? Leave tips for fellow readers! :)

Black History Month? Let's celebrate a whole YEAR this time...

I am posting January 31st because it's ridiculous that Black History Month is February (the shortest month of the year) and i'm posting 12 months of Black history because there aren't enough days in just one month to honors all the contributions that should be honored...

Via Dr. A. Hodari

Here for the PDF

Candidates with a sense of humor turn me on...

Birth control pill and ovarian cancer study

FYI: Birth control pill lowers ovarian cancer risk

British researchers found that:

Birth control pills can protect women against ovarian cancer for 30 years or longer after they stop taking them and have so far prevented 100,000 ovarian cancer deaths worldwide.

The longer women stay on the pill, the lower their risk of developing the disease, which is more common after age 50... For example, women who take the pill for 15 years cut their risk in half.

Also,

When you are 60 it matters whether you took it for five years or 10 years in your twenties, the longer you took it, the better off you are when the risk of ovarian cancer is high.

The study found that:

Taking the pill for 10 years cut the risk of ovarian cancer before the age of 75 from 12 per 1,000 women to 8 per 1,000. It also reduced the risk of dying from the disease from 7 per 1,000 women to 5 per 1,000 before the age of 75.

The study also showed ethnicity, education, family history and other factors do not seem to make much difference in reducing risk when it comes to using the pill.

Let the Internet decide!

Since i'm really struggling to make my decision of who to vote for in this upcoming election, i thought i'd let the Internet decide for me (just kidding, don't worry... but this was a fun quiz with interesting results)

87% Barack Obama
86% John Edwards
82% Hillary Clinton
82% Chris Dodd
80% Joe Biden
80% Bill Richardson
78% Mike Gravel
77% Dennis Kucinich
45% Rudy Giuliani
38% John McCain
33% Mitt Romney
29% Mike Huckabee
27% Tom Tancredo
23% Ron Paul
19% Fred Thompson

Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

See whose platform you match up with! Enjoy :)

Happy Birthday Roe v. Wade!!

Today is the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which gave women rights to terminate pregnancy. Meaning it's also Blog for Choice Day (check out other blogs that are writing about choice today.)

"That was forever ago, why should I still care about it now?" Well, I am so glad you ask! The legalisation that made abortions legal through Roe v. Wade is historically referred to as a "technicality." This means that since no Federal legislation has ever been passed to decriminalise abortion, it could take as little as a court decision to overturn the 1973 legislation. With the Supreme Court leaning more and more conservative these days, Roe v. Wade is constantly being threatened.

Another reason to care is because the Hyde Amendment forbids federal funding of abortions which means that low income women do not have equal access to reproductive health care.

Also, limiting access to abortions threatens women's lives. Making abortions illegal will not minimize the need for them but will create a nation where women have to look elsewhere to get their needs met. For wealthy women this will mean going to Canada, Mexico, or Europe... however, for women with less resources, this will mean back alley, unsafe, unregulated abortions that may kill them.

Not to mention the dozens of fucked up bills and laws passed minimizing women's rights to choice all over the country.

Why else should we care? Feministe says it much better than I ever could. Please check out their post.

Before I continue, I want to get one thing straight: I am pro-choice. It's really as simple as it sounds. I believe it is 100% a woman's right to choose when it comes to matters of her own body. With that said, I absolutely cannot stand the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy. It just doesn't compute. I think life is pretty fucking cool, doesn't that make me "pro-life?" What I am saying is that I don't understand why if a person believes in women's reproductive rights s/he suddenly becomes anti-life... Who doesn't like life? So, for your clarification, I call commonly known "pro-lifers" "anti-choicers" because that's what they are to me.

Not only that, they are so much more than anti-choice/pro-life. They are pro-forced pregnancy, pro-unwanted children, pro-government involvement in women's bodies, pro-limiting accurate and accessible sex education, pro-women's death. And those are all very much CONS in my book.

On the same note, just because I am pro-choice does not make me "pro-abortion." I think abortions and other reproductive rights (access to birth control, sex education, Plan B, etc.) should be widely accessible and without stigma but that doesn't mean that abortions are the right solution for every pregnant woman in the world. I think wanted babies are awesome and pretty darn cute to boot... However, I strongly believe that the only person able to make the decision whether or not to get an abortion should be the woman herself, well maybe with her doctor's help. Every woman should have a right to choose the best course of action for herself, her life, and her situation. Being pro-choice is much more than just being pro-abortion. It's being pro-women's lives, health, and rights.

This year's Blog for Choice Day asks us "why do you vote pro-choice?"

I vote pro-choice because:

No woman should be forced into an economical, emotional, physiological, and socio-cultural situation that she does not want to be in.

Because I trust women to make the best decisions for themselves and their bodies.

Because even though I may not agree with everyone's decision, I strongly believe in their right to have one.

Because legal abortions save women's lives and decrease abortion rates.

Because people like Mike Huckabee are running for president and write on their campaign website that they, "support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life... and believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned."

Because Bush's Global Gag Rule makes me want to gag.

Selfishly, I vote pro-choice because I want to decide whether or not to have children, and when. I don't want some white man in an ugly tie and over-priced suit making that decision for me.

Why do I vote pro-choice? Because there's too much at stake.

People searched WHAT and found me?!

Keyword analysis of Google searches that have recently landed people on my blog:

• getting pregnant man on heroin
• fingering and eating woman out
• jimmy's racism sprinkles
• fat woman fingering
• traditional marriage of mike huckabee's dreams
• jamie lynn spears and her puppy
• heavy lifting woman's uterus
• mrs. pacman women's rights
• pregnant 12 year old teenager baby kicking
• hillary cry onion
• videos jenny jones marriage proposals
• is it difficult to get pregnant on heroin?

I see...

Hopefully they got something useful out of their visit...

Cocaine and thinness

Does anyone read the Post Secret blog?

Many postcards they receive break my heart, this one though was especially saddening...

New Year's Goals...

Not resolutions, not resolutions!
(resolutions have no chance of sticking, at least i have a shot with "goals")

I realize i'm a bit late on this one seeing as it's mid-January but i wanted to jot a few things down in writing to hold myself accountable ;)

Goals for 2008:

1. Be more patient. Towards my partner, towards our puppy, towards others, towards myself. This includes not jumping down people's throats when i disagree with them, having more patience with my clients (recovery is a disease of relapse and i have to understand that,) and being more patient with myself, allowing myself time to achieve my goals.


2. Master the Bakasana (Crow Pose) and start working on the Vrischika-asana (Scorpion Pose)


3. Relinquish control regarding grad school. It will happen. And when it does, it will be the right place and time for me. And i will do research that works for the community, marginalized groups, and activism. It will be awesome.
   


4. Complete a triathlon. I chickened out on the swimming last year. I gotta get my butt in a bathing suit, in a pool, and start kicking...


5. Reconnect with friends. Being an adult is not conducive to maintaining relationships... It was so much easier in college when friends were constantly around and relationships didn't take much work. This all changed post graduation, when everyone scattered about the U.S. Now it's time for me to step up and hold on to the people that mean the world to me. I need to let those close to me know how much i value their friendship and invest more time and energy in maintaining the amazing group of friends I've developed.


6. More activism! Again, college makes it easy to protest, campaign, and generally be an activist. This year i hope to surround myself with others that are as passionate about social change as i am and start doing, not just talking.


7. Let go. There are still a few grudges I need to let go of. My goal is to find the balance of forgiveness and let go - for me, not for those who hurt me.


8. Paint more, and with brighter colors.


9. Find more time for family. With the possibility of a 6 year ph.d. program around the corner, i need to take advantage of the next few months to spend with family, while I'm close to home.


10. [insert #10 here] :)

What are some of your 2008 goals, and have you been successful so far?

"fat-fingering"

Sounds dirty doesn't it?

Unfortunately it's not. It's actually a term that was used today in a HIPAA refresher training i had to sit through. The presenter's recurring use of the term "fat-fingering" to imply typing passwords, email addresses, phone numbers, etc, incorrectly left me alarmed. Weightist attitudes are a huge problem in our society and weightist comments are much more socially accepted nowadays than racist, sexist, or homophobic ones even though they are just as discriminatory. The problem of weight bias is very real and can be just as oppressive as the other "isms" we fight against. Since the presenter is also the same guy who does the cultural diversity trainings for our company (HAHA!), i know that he didn't mean to be offensive by using "fat-fingering" and probably didn't even realize he was saying anything wrong. The problem that i see with it is that using the term with a negative connotation only further perpetuates weightist attitudes. Whoever said "fat is a feminist issue" hit the nail right one the head...

Weight bias can interfere with getting a job, obtaining fair health care, being promoted, and being treated equally in general. I don't mean to be the p.c. police here, and i swear that as a feminist i have learned to pick my battles. I realize that he was simply using a term that may have been thrown around (although i must admit i've never heard it before) but the truth is, a lot of discrimination is intrinsic and unintentional. I don't think that all people who say discriminatory things are terrible people, i think a lot of them don't realize the effect of their words and/or never took the time out to consider it.

For example, i've mentioned before that i work at a substance abuse clinic and see a diverse population of clients. A year and a half ago a client walked into my office for an appointment in a really bad mood. As we started talking through why she was pissed, she explained that, "the chink at the nail salon jewed me!" Holy Shit, WHAT?! Yea... You'd imagine i had an incredibly had time navigating between remaining unbias for my job to maintain the rapport i've established with her and wanting to shake the hell out of her based on my feminist values. What did i do? I calmly repeated back to her what she said and explained how offensive she was being to a number of different racial/ethnic groups. She said she knew "chink" was offensive but was really angry (and offending the Asian woman was a defensive mechanism) yet didn't realize "jewed" was a bad thing to say. I explained that "jewed" was based on the concept that jews are cheap, to which she said, "well aren't they?" I don't know ya'll, what then? It's not my job to teach her social politics, or even manners for that matter. Being a Jew, I had a hard time with that. I tried to explain the background to terms like "jewed" and "gyped" and relate them to race because she was a quick one to speak up when the counselors were being racist. I related the words she used to "jimmied" which seemed to do the trick and she quickly understood.

Tangents aside, words have power that people do not intend them to. A lot of the time this creates problems because people don't think before they speak. We are constantly bombarded with social messages that are nothing but discriminatory and perpetuate white/male/hetero/"good looking"/Christian/etc. norms. It takes a lot of effort to walk through life with a constant critical lens and those who do it seem to bitch, rant, and rave, a lot (i very much included). It's easier to ignore the status quo but like the pin i got from one of my favorite teachers, Marita, says, "if you want peace, work for justice."

Back to the original point (sorry, i'm pretty distracted tonight,) weightism is not ok. Not only is it not okay but it's one of those means of discrimination that is often overlooked and not acknowledged making it even less ok. Especially with the current push out there to get everyone "fit" (by whatever means necessary, i.e. The Biggest Loser). Now please don't get me wrong, "thin" doth not "fit" and "healthy" make. There's this overarching concept (read: misconception) out there that thin = beautiful = happy. This equation is faulty on many levels. Firstly, thin does not equal beautiful. Many a woman is absolutely gorgeous with curves (to link a few media crazed examples.) Next, even thin & "beautiful" does not equal happy. There are many "beautifully" miserable women out there as well (i simply couldn't resist). Now i'm all about being fit and healthy, hell, i'm the loudest proponent of women lifting weights, staying active, being strong, kicking ass out there... but not because media tells us what is "beautiful." Overweight women (more so than men) are constantly overlooked. How many plus-size female CEOs do you know? Now think, how many male CEOs that you know are plus-sized. Exactly. Once again we are whacked with the double standard stick.

As much as i hate the idea of "i lived for a minute in an oppressed person's shoes [or fat suit] so now i know their struggle," Tyra Banks did a show where she wore a "fat suit" for a day and, followed by her cameras, "experienced" the trials and tribulations of being discriminated against because of weight. Although a lot felt off about the whole thing, it did bring light to the issue of weightism in our society to an audience that may have not considered it prior, this i believe to be a success.

For what it's worth, the presenter that used the term, "fat-fingering" apologized and commented on how glad he was that i was comfortable enough bringing this directly to him (read: and not going over his head). But really folks, he must not know me... He said he never considered that it may be offensive and will find a different term for future trainings.

Many a time i've had people read my blog only to comment that i "read into shit too much" and i need to "calm down and not take things so seriously." I guess i'll get preemptively defensive on this one: if you think that weightism and fat-hate doesn't exist, please see here. Not only does it exist (as represented on the video) in mainstream America, but also within the feminist community (check out the comments that correspond with the post.)

(oh and p.s. it's De-Lurking Week so please leave a comment or just say "hey, sup?" :) I'd love to see who reads and especially what your thoughts are. Feel free to leave post ideas and comments with what you love/hate. Also, leave a link to your blog, if you have, for me to check it out! I'd enjoy reading what you have to say!)

Guantánamo Bay

Friday is the six-year anniversary of Guantánamo Bay. Why is this incredibly important? Because Guantánamo Bay is not only a blaring violation of human rights, but also undermines the constitution. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) unconstitutionally eliminated the right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This means that our government can hold prisoners of Guantanamo Bay for more than five years without charges.

Basically, the "justice system" set in place at Guantánamo Bay allows the president to decide who is an enemy combatants, who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, and define what is and what is not torture and abuse.

There are many human rights concerns. The legal system in place at Guantánamo Bay:

• Deprives defendants of independent judicial oversight by a civilian court.
  
• Restricts the defendant’s right to choose his lawyer.
  
• Prosecutes prisoners-of-war in a manner that violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
  
• Fails to guarantee that evidence obtained via torture or ill-treatment shall not be used.
  
• Allows wide latitude to close proceedings and impose a “gag order” on defense counsel.
  
• Provides lower due process standards for non-citizens than for U.S. citizens.
• Prejudges the detainees as “enemy combatants,” thereby keeping the tribunals from making determinations with full independence and impartiality.
  Place severe limits on detainees’ ability to make their claims, including denial of assistance of counsel.
  
• Erroneously adopts the U.S. government position that all enemy combatants at Guantanamo can still be held under the laws of war.
  
• Does not recognize any legal obligation on the part of the U.S. government to conduct reviews of their detention nor any legal right of the detainees to such a review process.
• Reflects the U.S. government’s assumption that all those detained at Guantanamo are “enemy combatants” and that none are entitled to prisoner-of-war status.
  
• Assumes, erroneously, that all those held at Guantanamo can be detained under the laws of war; an unknown number of detainees were taken into custody where the laws of arm conflict did not apply.
  
• Provides for only an annual review when the laws of war require reviews for security detainees at least every six months.
  
• Places the burden of proof on the detainee to demonstrate why s/he is no longer a threat to the United States.
  
• Limits the detainee’s access to relevant information.
  
• Requires family members to provide information through their governments even in cases where doing so would place the family at risk.

The image above is of detainees upon arrival in January 2002

On an international note, Guantánamo Bay is an abomination of American values and continues to shame our country. Detainees have been held for years without fundamental legal and human rights. Even former Secretary of State Colin Powell has spoken out against Guantánamo Bay, “we have shaken the belief the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantánamo open and creating things like the military commission.”

Because justice is almost entirely about activism, here are some things you can do:

• Sign the petition to close Guantánamo
• Wear orange Friday
• Learn more about Guantánamo Bay
• Download and administer the fact sheet to help educate and outrage others
• Download the "toolkit" here
• Find more stuff to do here or here

Breaking News: Hillary Clinton is a REAL PERSON with REAL EMOTIONS!

News media is in a frenzy after Clinton shows debatably genuine emotion in response to a question asked by an undecided voter earlier today. The woman asks, "How did you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?"

I'd cry too, but for different reasons. Seriously, who asks that bullshit? "how do you get ready...who does your hair?" Really?! You are an undecided voter and have a lead candidate in front of you and that's the question you ask... What would she ask if Obama or Edwards was there? Certainly something more politically relevant.

I am really impressed though with Clinton's ability to turn a ridiculous question into an opportunity to show emotion, passion, and intellect. Here was her teary-eyed response:

I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation. I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some difficult odds. We do it, each one of us, against difficult odds. We do it because we care about our country. Some of us are right, and some of us are not. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't thought that through. This is one of the most important elections we'll ever face. So as tired as I am and as difficult as it is to keep up what I try to do on the road, like occasionally exercise, trying to eat right—it's tough when the easiest thing is pizza. I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation. I'm going to do everything I can to make my case, and then the voters get to decide.

All joking aside, when i think about the current state our country is in, i want to cry also. After what the Bush administration has done, we desperately need a determined and focused leader in office. Is Clinton the right person for that job? I don't know... but she is the one i seem to be defending more and more lately...

The truth is, i'm fed up... with the media, with the general population, even with various friends and family when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The point is when she's strong and steadfast she is viewed as uptight, unapproachable, and too "masculine." Now when she shows vulnerability and emotion she is being too feminine and obviously not suited for the role of president. Spit it out people, what are you really saying? You're saying that women shouldn't be president because when push comes to shove, it's a (white, straight, Christian) man's job. And no matter how hard any "other" tries to fit the status quo, there's just no way to win.

I hope this election is different. It's time for a change in our country, and "change" seems to be the operative, buzz word nowadays which is a great thing in my mind.

Back to Clinton: was this whole teary-eyed, passionate, emotional response orchestrated by her campaign? Maybe... But this is politics people, and in 2008 it's a dirty race.

Below are some very well thought out and intelligent reactions to the article (read: sarcasm). I thought they would be fun to post here for your reference. Via Newsweek:

Comment: Do we really want a president who cries when the going gets tough?

Comment: Sure, I want a president that breaks and cries under pressure. NOT!!!!!!!Hillary can't even come close to being the statesman Muskie was, don't insult him by the comparison. Hilbillary admitted it. It is not about politics, it is "PERSONAL". Yes, her quest for power, and not politics.Don't let the crocodile tears fool you my democrat sheep friends.In short Hillary Clinton can't cut the mustard as President.

Comment: All I'd like to know is, how did she get that slice of onion into her handkerchief? If on the outside chance that it wasn't faked, then I'd say that the last thing this Nation needs is a crybaby with her finger on the nuclear trigger. "BooHoo.....you were mean to me!".....BOOM!

Comment: Thanks, Hillary. Thanks for setting women back oh-so-many decades. Appreciate it. Really I do.
(i don't get this one - how did she set women back?)

Oh and here's a doozy:
Comment: hahahahaha...what a cry baby. She needs to grow up before she gets her ticket to the white house. I'm surprised she hasn't ordered a death sentence on her opposition yet. I mean, we all know that's what she did to JFK Jr when he challenged her for the Senate seat in NY. Damn right we're more educated here on the West Coast. We know all about the Clinton Regime and their conniving schemes. It's too bad Hillary had her husband pull the trigger on John John. The country would have been better with that young honest Kennedy alive.

Even this, pseudo-positive comment left me cringing:
Comment: I find it funny that she is resorting to tears at this point. She's never shown a vulnerable side, a womanly side before. She's played hardball with the big dogs, and now, polls show she is down in N.H. and all the sudden the tears come out? I feel for her, this country needs a woman president, but not her.
(why is a "womanly side" parallel to a "vulnerable side"?)

Civil Unions in New Hampshire!

I'm a bit late on this one but due to its importance, i wanted to share:

Via the NY Times...

New Hampshire's civil unions law - enacted by the Democrat-dominated Legislature early last year and signed by Democratic Gov. John Lynch in May, gives same sex couples the same rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage without calling the union a marriage. New Hampshire is the fourth state in the nation to allow civil unions.

So far, civil unions are legal in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and now New Hampshire. Massachusetts is still the only state that allows same sex marriage.

Hopefully more states will follow suite, although my hope is they follow Massachusetts' same sex marriage laws... Oh and don't forget about all the same sex marriage bans we have to still overturn...

To leave off on a positive note:

Dozens of gay and lesbian couples entered into civil unions in New Hampshire in the early moments of New Year's Day as a new state law legalized the partnerships after midnight.

Happy Day After the Iowa Caucus!

Sorry i've been a little MIA. I'm actually spending the week on vacation in North Carolina visiting friends :)

However, i couldn't pass up a chance to write about the Iowa caucus:

Obama and Fuckabee: Any thoughts?

Here are mine:

First i'd like to ask the general population, along with political analysts, the media, and government officials to start focusing on Clinton's politics rather than the fact that she is a woman. On a personal note, as of right now i'm not voting for Clinton come February 5th. There are actually tons of reasons to critique Clinton based on her politics and I agree with many of those who do so. However, no one really ever seems to. Instead people focus on the fact that she has a vagina. Clinton is female. And she's a forerunner for president! Get the fuck over it and move on to her politics. Then we can have some real political conversations. Here's a very pertinent example of something you can do to change the dynamics of how Clinton is seen: If/when referring to her with one name, call her Clinton rather than Hillary! Listening to political analysts and reporters last night i couldn't get over the fact that we had three candidates neck in neck: Obama, Edwards, and "Hillary"... seriously? I can't think of a better way to show someone that you don't take them seriously and that they don't have your respect than to call them by their first name while everyone else is addressed by their last name.

Truth be told, I'd prefer Obama, Edwards, and even Kucinich (although he's a space cadet) to Clinton. I don't agree with some of her key policies but find myself more defensive of her than any other candidate because of all the misogyny thrown her way.

Moving on...

On one hand, the thought of Huckabee gaining GOP support terrifies me. On the other, i'd much prefer him to take the republican nomination and lose by a long shot... I predict that he will alienate the moderates and either lose in later primaries or (definitely) in the general election.

I suppose i'd be more nervous if someone like McCain got elected, he'd actually have a chance at beating the dem nominee.

My only real fear for Fuckabee is that he's really smooth. The media loves to talk up his musician side, which makes him more relatable and he definitely has charisma. He has a sense of humor and charm, those are two scary characteristics in someone so extreme and so into what he's selling. What's even more scary is that he seems to genuinely believe all the radical politics he's endorsing... his beliefs paired with his personality are a scary combination (especially since now it's obvious he's gaining support). My fear is that a lot of the American population doesn't do their research and doesn't really get to know the candidates. Instead, they would vote on first impressions and Huckabee gives off a hell of a first impression.

However, the Iowa exit polls showed 60% of the GOP voters were Evangelical Christians. Also, polls showed that immigration was the top issue for those who voted. I don't believe either of these demographics are representative of the population, even within the GOP.

Whoever wins the republican nomination will have an extremely difficult time gaining widespread republican support, especially since candidates' religion seems to be such an important characteristic this term.

The other interesting thing i heard from NPR is that the gender gap, at least on the democratic side, was very wide. Among women, Clinton did as well as Obama but received only 23% of the vote among men. This tells us one of three things: 1. men are still reluctant to elect a female president on the sole reason of her being a woman; 2. women are voting for Clinton solely because she is a women; 3. one group (male or female voters) are more invested in the candidates politics and vote solely based on policy and not sex of candidate.

Some interesting demographics from last night:

• Six in 10 GOP voters said they were born again or evangelical Christians, and by far the largest share (almost half) supported Huckabee.
• Romney led among non-evangelical voters, getting about a third of their support.
• More than a third of Republicans said having the same religious beliefs as their candidate was very important, and of that group just over half favored Huckabee.
• More than half of voters younger than age 30 were supporting Obama, and he even had a roughly 2-to-1 lead over her among those age 30 to 44. Clinton had a decisive lead among the oldest voters.
• As in past Iowa caucuses and other presidential nomination contests, the Democratic turnout was predominantly female, while a majority of Republicans were male.
• Early Democratic caucus-goers were a little younger on average than their Republican counterparts.

Oh are there actual issues to consider? Looking past religion and demographics:

Given three choices, just over a third of Democrats said Iraq was the chief issue facing the country, with about the same number naming the economy. Healthcare was close behind. Obama had the most support among those naming Iraq and the economy, while the three candidates were close among those citing healthcare.

What are ya'll thoughts? Who do you predict will win the primaries, and just as importantly, who do you predict will be appointed as a running mate to the nominee?

In the words of Jon Stewart, i can't wait to see what happens in this "clusterfuck to the whitehouse!"