Great

Increase in aid to Israel

We can give billions to Israel, but we can't afford to give health care to kids, or anyone, for that matter.

Washington is reportedly preparing a package of major arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states because of concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

Saudi Arabia, I heard a third of the insurgents in Iraq are from there, and come to think of it, weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers from there?

Where I state the obvious because it was on my mind

Characterizing "god" as a man is a way to "other" women. And by other, I don't just mean, "not like me", I mean "nothing like men, not even like the creator of the universe, just some thing that I can't understand because I don't want to listen and accept women as my equals." And its been that way since the advent of the monotheistic religion that was the precursor to the religion that has consumed a third of the world. I wish I could lament the advent of monotheism, especially this terrible strain, without being compared to genocidal meglomaniacs. I don't want to kill anyone, I just want people to think about things a little bit.

GROW UP, AMERICA

It took me a while before I could watch the "I have a crush on Obama" video with the Obama "girl". I wasn't sure about what I would see. I thought it was cute, but I wasn't sure about it. Then I saw Hot for Hill, and was sickened by the fact that this group had to have another lithe model sing to the female candidate. Embracing homosexuality, my ASS. Any idiot can tell that it is just another way to look at skinny, scantily clad young women prance around. Why not have a man with a crush on Hillary? Because having crushes are for submissive members of society, and men are not submissive, not even when in contact with famous people. Why have out female icons gotten smaller and smaller over the years as women in real life have gained more power? Sut Jhally (sp) claims that it is so men still feel superior to women in some way, and I agree. Furthermore, Hot for Hill embraces homosexuality in the same way that two straight girls, goaded into making out for Girls Gone Wild does. If this group really wanted to embrace homosexuality, they would have a guy singing for Obama.

So today, I had the utter misfortune of seeing the Obama "Girls" and the Giuliani "Girls" pillow fighting in Manhattan when I was at the gym. They looked clearly disinterested, but the MSNBC commentator decided to forgo any shred of journalistic integrity he might have had [but he worked for MSNBC, so that he had any is questionable] and "panted" after showing the clip. I wanted to vomit all over the elliptical machine.

Time to Blame Women Again

Working mom's are responsible for childhood obesity. They just couldn't say that homes with two parents that work outside the home are responsible - no, because women aren't devoting their entire lives to pandering to their child, obesity rates rise. It is all women's fault.

Actually, the notion that families with both adults working outsode the home, especially before a child enters school, being more likely to have obese or overweight children is more or less a no brainer. Less direct parental supervision may lead to over eating, and it might also lead to a feeling of abandonment that is quickly filled by food. But jesus christ, I thought we were past this "working moms ruining kids" bullshit, especially from the BBC.

Guys being defensive about feminism

Here is a conversational post from FinallyFeminism101 that explains how a man might fight getting defensive on a feminist blog

Here come the progressive politics

This blog post about one of the biggest roadblocks to Israeli-Palestinian peace, from AlterNet's blog feeds, was very, very interesting.

Ha ha ha ha ha. They come RIGHT OUT AND SAY IT! We can do it, but we don't want anyone doing it to us. Wow.

How Macho are You Now?

Long ago, doctors used to not treat prostate cancer right away because it was a slow growing cancer. In this environment, my grandpa got prostate cancer. But later, in about 1987, they reexamined the cancer and found that it had spread. It spread to his testicles. The doctors had to remove his prostate and his testicles. He lived for 12 more years after that, if you can call that living. I only learned this last November, when my dad told me, because he just learned. He had also just been diagnosed with prostate cancer and had his prostate removed in January. He talks about it all the time, and I'm really glad.

According to the BBC, men don't want to get checked for prostate cancer because they are worried that it isn't "macho." Just a bit of how our idiotic gender norms harm everyone.

In a related story, we are first led to believe that having daughters leads to prostate cancer, then told that the results are inconclusive, but not until the end of the story. The media just can't seem to help itself when it comes to the birth of girls and negative consequences. Then again, maybe I'm just sensitive. I wouldn't be if so many places in the world didn't see the birth of a girl as a disappointment.

Apologies

On a grand scale, I don't understand why we have a society set up that is so mean to women. I guess I understand why it is, what I don't get is why it has to be that way. I've come to believe that men really hate, or at least, resent women - deep down, males have a jealousy developed before they were able to consciously understand the jealousy. Then, during adulthood, we begin to want to pass our genetic material on, and for women, it is easier to be sure we’re doing it. We can be 100% sure that our kids – the ones to which we give birth – have our genetic material. Men don’t have that luxury, and I’m terribly sorry about that, but I’m tired of being punished for it.

I’m so sorry that men will never get to give birth, I’m sorry that they feel like they don’t contribute to the reproductive process. What I don’t understand is why they can’t seem to get over it. Things developed in the unconscious mind and instinct to reproduce are hard to get over, I guess. But the extent to which men will go gets very ridiculous. When men finally realized their contribution in the form of sperm, some ignored the obvious similarities between offspring and their mothers and decided that ALL of the genetic material came from the men, and women were simply carriers. Freud even developed the idiotic concept of “penis envy”, ignoring the very obvious implications of society on gender roles.

Maybe this makes me a man-hater, but really, why shouldn’t I hate men? Give me a good reason to not hate the gender that has shown me nothing but their own insecurity, the needless oppression of my gender, and hatred for something I can’t help – my uterus. My hatred of one gender is based on how that gender treats me. Men’s hatred of women is precisely because of what our bodies can do. My response is this: get the fuck over yourselves. You’ll never be able to give birth or breastfeed. We don’t think less of you because of it. If we do think less of you, it is because you can't seem to get over it.

Please note that I hve decided not to use the term "sexist" and have instead decided to just use men. I don't yet have a big readership, and I highly doubt that I have any male readers, but I know that men tend to get defensive about this kind of thing. I don't see this post as anything other than some musings and statements of realities.

If, as a man, you feel the need to be defensive, remember that actions speak much louder than words. It is also a little pointless for you to feel defensive about something you can't help. I don't imagine that you can control your subconcious feelings of insecurity over the inability to be 100% sure that you've passed on your genetic material. I do expect you to be able to understand these feelings and control your behavior. This is called maturity.

Sub-concious Inferiority Complex

Here is another part of my "evolution of sexism" theory. This part is pretty hypothetical, and just the result of what I know about young childhoodand psychology.

Young boys develop a jealousy of their mothers, to some extent, and of girls. They do this before they can consciously understand the jealousy. Males claim that they wouldn’t want to give birth, but really, men’s contribution to life is hard to understand, especially at an early stage of life. Our own species didn't understand it until relatively recently.

I remember, as a young child, simulating birth with my mother, hiding under her shirt, then coming out. I cannot imagine that little boys didn’t do something similar, and I cannot imagine that it doesn’t have an effect on young male brains to know that they will never, ever be able to create life in the same way.

So the unconscious mind developed a slight jealousy, as it often does, and started postulating about how men were better than women in order to make up for what seemed like a disparity. As young men developed consciousness, they forgot the root of the presumptions, but still held on to them, and then projected them onto the women and girls around them.

It would be hard to convince me that this doesn't actually happen, since it makes sense and I'm not sure how one would create an experiement to disprove this hypothesis. I mean, we've had the experiment happening all around us for millenia, and this just seems to be the result. So maybe it isn't so much a hypothesis as an interpretation. But there are definitely other, perhaps stronger factors at play in sexism, the strongest of which being the insecurity with paternity.

Goodness, it has been a while

It has been 8 whole days since my last post - far too long. I have been in a bit of an emotional slump, and Rock is busy preparing for the bar. But as I feel someone alienated from my [now] old political forum. I would like to extend the scope of this blog to progressive politics in general, but still with a decidely feminist bent.

Speaking of feminism, I heard a sound bite on NPR this morning, that "dog fighting is no worse than legal abortion"

I assume that it is something about Michael Vick's dog fighting thing. First of all, what I think is more reprehensible than dog fighting were the cruel punishments of dogs that lost. One of which was to wet down a dog (which was needlessly identified as female, did that really need to be pointed out?) and electrocute it. Cruel, horrible, and UTTERLY POINTLESS.

As for if it is no better or worse than abortion. The human body rejects certain fetuses, biologically. It can be traumatizing, not to mention frustrating, especially for those having trouble concieving in the first place. Call me cold and cruel all you want, but we need to remember that mistakes happen. MISTAKES HAPPEN, even in biology.

So how does this relate to abortion? Well, miscarriages are, basically, abortions by one's own body, and for very good reasons - maybe your body isn't ready for a baby yet, maybe it never will be, maybe it has passed that time [my mother had a miscarriage in her 40s]. Maybe the baby hasn't been formed right. For whatever reason, the body aborted the baby. Abortions are what happens when the unconcious human processes can't detect any problems, but the concious human process can. Maybe a woman is not financially stable to even reliably support herself, maybe she is not at a point in her life when she could give the best care to herself for 9 months of pregnancy. Why is this such a problem? Well, duh, women are the ones best able to know when the pregnancy isn't right, and men get uptight when women have control over anything. Well, not "men" (though traditionally, that has been the case), just sexists.

In the Namib Dessert, one of the most arrid deserts in the world, a culture of people evolved that could only support a certain number of dependents. If a woman got pregnant and gave birth to a kid it couldn't support, after birth, the mother would quickly and quietly kill the newborn infant. This was a normal and accepted practice. I'm not sure if the practice still happens, but as with much in Africa, it probably still does.

So many like to paint the decision to have an abortion as frivolous, but, damn, it couldn't be further from the truth. Just another smear tactic from sexists who are afraid when women make decisions on their own.

So is legal abortion like dog fighting? Is legal abortion like an activity to starve and abuse animals so as to make them angry? Is the decision to not bring a baby into the world that one cannot or will not support adequately (even during pregnancy) the same as getting enjoyment out of dogs brutally killing each other? The answer should be apparent.

Talking

Published retroactively

Today's Luann comic kind of irritated me, because it was about women talking more than men. The feminist blogs said it best - that society promotes that stereotype of women talking too much and being annoying to shame women into talking even less. I, frankly, don't know how we can really say that men talk less when it is they who are all over the media. Women, on an individual level, might talk more, but men write more, and their ideas are the ones that get out there. So maybe I want men to shut the hell up. Well, maybe it is only certain men. I think one factor in women talking more is that we know that sometimes, people aren't listening, and by people, I mean the men - the sexist men - that don't think women are people, and therefore don't listen. So those poor women in relationships with those sexists need to say more to be able to get through to those asshats.

In the Luann comic, the mom is just talking in stream-of-concouisness style, and she is talking about something she did. Whereas, during the same time, the dad probably sat on the couch watching golf or something. So, in reality, maybe it is just that women actually have things to say. And really, do men talk about important things? That sexist asshat at work only talked about music and movies, because that was all he knew. I remember a time in high school, my sophomore year, when I was sitting with some girls from my junior high. They were overhearing some guys talking about some technical thing - computers, video games, whatnot - and one said "jeez, don't they have lives they can talk about?" I felt very conflicted about this statement, because I didn't particularly like these women, and I didn't think the guys' conversation meant they were losers, but it was an interesting comment, that I obviously still remember.

Now, in the human society, generalizations do not work all of the time. You can't look at one woman and assume everything about her simply because she is a woman. Intelligent people understand this, but still use generalizations because they reflect basic trends. As I said in an earlier post, as women go through puberty, they begin to focus more on interpersonal relationships, but not all of us do this. I didn't, neither did my friend C, neither did Entomologista. But because women focus on relationships so much, and lose interest for abstractions, men seem to fill the void of women talking about those things. But interpersonal relationships change every day, and abstractions remain the same. After a while, maybe people run out of things to say about a video game, movie, or sporting event, whereas it is hard to run out of things to say about an ongoing relationship.

As for me, my talking is definitely learned from my father first and his mother second. My dad talks a lot, and my mother said that her father was a big talker as well. She said she thinks that is part of why she was attracted to my dad. When my family goes somewhere, it is usually Mom, my sister and I that want to leave first, and we have to often go get Dad out of a conversation with some person and tell him we're all leaving, NOW. He once got in trouble with a couple of farmers for telling one farmer a story about another farmer that he didn't realize was intended to be private. I often describe his mother as a woman who would talk to "anyone, anywhere, about anything, at any time", and really, my dad and I learned this exact trait.

Overall, humanity is a social species, and we like to share our experiences. Some of us talk more than others, and we all talk about different things. Some of those things might just be more interesting and may necessitate more talking than other things. And really, it is rediculous to assume that guys don't talk about relationships either. Some might not, and maybe it is because they don't necessarily have relationships (those guys back in high school didn't).

There was a recent study that said that when young girls talk about relationships, it hurts them, whereas the same is not true for young boys (and I mean junior high age). I crtainly hope someone thought to ask what else each group talked about. In every woman's experience, she knows that women are often not encouraged to talk about certain things, like abstractions. Even our toys from childhood are belittled. We recently had that Transformers movie, but could you imagine a movie about My Little Pony being recieved in the same way? And it isn't because girls' toys cannot be made "cool". I seem to remember a Rainbow Bright movie I used to watch that seemed very cool. Granted, my adult mind might not be nearly as impressed, but themes in the movie could be rewritten and made very interesting. But in our society, little boys are just young people, but little girls are still inferior and weak. Maybe that is why girls growing out of that stage don't talk about that kind of thing, and instead obsess over relationships to the point that is harmful. Just some thoughts.

Picking My Battles

Published retroactively

Generally, I avoid Alternet's comments. The commenters are, by and large, complete idiots - conservative, sexist, and hateful trolls. But, for some reason, I wanted to read the comments for Inside Fox's Latest Anti-Feminist Reality Show. The show is obviously a stupid ploy, a sexist, patronizing view of a completely made-up world. No one should watch it, and I hope that the participants feel much the same way the cast of Manos: The Hands of Fate did after its release.

But first, there were only three comments, all incredibly stupid. Then later, I checked and saw 11 comments. A couple were intelligent, pointing out that this reactionary television crap was a diatribe against Hillary Clinton, and one was the epitomy of idiocy. Some brainless twit argued that feminists think that men are sub-human and that we blame 99% of problems on men. Sigh - the first part doesn't even need commentary, as for the second part..... A. it is more "the patriarchy" and B. uh, who has been calling the shots for the past several milleniums? What a dumbass. I wish someone would reply to that comment to say, "you're a complete idiot". Why don't I?

Why don't I? Is it because I don't want to get caught in the idiocy of the Alternet comment trolls? Yes. Would it even matter? Inaction bothers me, but so does too much action in inappropriate places. I was tempted to take the t-shirt pricing post down because I didn't want to seem like I was putting so much importance on what is one small part of the battle. That is why I made a seperate post about apathy rather than just updating the t-shirt post. And what action is appropriate? I have no desire for any of the t-shirts on sale for that comic, yet, so writing a letter seems premature. I won't be linking to the comic, but since I've hidden my site from the robots, that won't make a large influence. I could link the comic and advise my (few) readers to not purchase shirts, but I think in the end, I'd rather write a letter and speak to the proprieter individually.

You're only young once

I'm so glad that my parents lived first before having kids. They were 30 and 31 when they got married, and my mother was 34 when I was born. I'm the older of two kids.

Approximately 750,000 American women between the ages of 15 and 19 get pregnant each year. Of course some of these young women come to adore and enjoy their roles as mothers, but they had the rest of their lives for that. The opportunity to be independent, focused on self-improvement and intellectual discovery, and career-driven without complications, has been lost.

It is inexcusable that television networks, one of the best public sites for widespread education about safer sex, is acting coy at the cost of these young women's fullest lives. Until all women understand their reproductive choices, none of us can be sure that we are benefiting from the full range of gifts -- intellectual, spiritual, and otherwise -- that one half of the population has to offer.

Fox and CBS Refuse To Air Condom Ads

Apathy is bad

At the end of Sicko, the words "Do Something" appeared on the screen. Many have accused our generation of apathy. It isn't exactly a fair accusation, however, because more than ever before, we're overworked and strapped with debt. But that doesn't give us a right to throw up our hands and say "oh well."

Margaret Mead once said,

Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

My mother says "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Back in March, Kaiser was going to charge me $140 for 3 months of birth control medication, but I complained to the doctor - rather, I demanded a different prescription, and he knocked $110 off the price. Lily Tomlin once said,

I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.

Things don't change overnight, nor do they happen by themselves. When you see sexism somewhere, say something, do something.

Pay Women Less, Charge Us More, Then Claim We Don't Contribute to the Economy

Why are women's sizes more expensive?

Now, I like White Ninja, I'm just getting back into that comic after a long time away. But I went to check out the merchandise and was appalled that women's sizes, which typically run smaller [less fabric], are more expensive than men's sizes. One could argue that the square cuts for men are cheaper, but this is the kind of crap that pisses me off. I have a hard time going to the dry cleaner because I'm afraid that I'll end up paying more and not be able to do anything about it. Dry cleaners used to claim that "women's smaller neck sizes" blah blah blah, bullshit, bulshit, bullshit.

Back in college, the Women's Center (or just a Feminist Org, I can't remember) decided to sell cookies, as a fundraiser, at 76 cents to women and $1 to men as a demonstration on inequal pay. Some sexists decided to argue with them about this. The thing was that the women didn't HAVE to sell the cookies, and the men didn't HAVE to buy them. Unlike, say, dry cleaning and clothing, haircuts and razors, and all kinds of other things that are priced higher for women.

A Clarification on Language

Language matters, and I do my best to choose my words carefully.

• When I need to refer to a generic person, I will opt for the female pronoun first, if I cannot use a device like s/he or wo/man.
• When making an accusation of sexism, I will use the term sexist as opposed to "men". Though one could claim that everyone in our society is sexist, to some degree, I define sexist as someone who willfully espouses the tenets of sexism without acknowledgment of the negative repercussions.
• I use anti-feminist when talking about sexists that actively attempt to dismantle the feminist movement
• Important Reading

  Stop using gendered language thoughtlessly. There is a politics to language, and it is not just being "PC." That term was invented by right-wingers to fight back against things like women's studies, African American studies, and other non-white, non-male, non-imperial challenges to a racist, Eurocentric, and patriarchal canon. When you use male nouns and pronouns to describe human, you are reinforcing the idea and practice that makes male the norm. Calling the species homo sapien "Man" is a problem. Calling land and ships and other things "she" and "her," that men are seen to control, is a problem... because it assigns the controlling role to males. Saying that "it is colder than a witch's tit" is a sexist turn of phrase. Using the term "balls" to describe courage, and making courage a male characteristic, is a problem. Calling people who lack courage or strength "pussies" is a devaluation, as well as objectification, of women.
  
  From The Weaponized Phallus...

  
  

  In 1986 Douglas Hofstadter, a philosopher, wrote a parody of sexist language by making an analogy with race. His article ("A Person Paper on Purity in Language") creates an imaginary world in which generics are based on race rather than gender. In that world, people would use "freshwhite," "chairwhite" and yes, "you whiteys." People of color would hear "all whites are created equal" -- and be expected to feel included. Substituting "white" for "man" makes it easy to see why using "man" for all human beings is wrong. Yet, women are expected to feel flattered by "freshman," "chairman" and "you guys."
  
  From Why Sexist Language Matters

• Finally, if you "just don't get it", try Finally Feminism 101

Queen Hatshepsut

Mummy Reveals Egyptian Queen Was Fat, Balding and Bearded

My favorite quote from this article was

"More startling, the descriptions of Hatshepsut suggest that women haven't changed all that much over the centuries."

It makes me wonder if women haven't been struggling against misogyny all this time, and only now have the free time to be effective? A friend just told me that Ancient Egyptian women may have been better off than many women of the past.

Egyptian women owned property, were equal to men under the law (could file divorce, sue, appear in court. etc.), could become literate and professional (there were female doctors and office workers), seem to have been sexually empowered, and had the right to rule (right of rule was matriarchal, but the queen usually transferred power to her husband--a Hatshepsut and other ruling queens refused to transfer power or refused to marry).

And that is why the fight for women's rights will never end - women had rights then, but we lost it.

But this article is more about the Queen's physical features. You'd have to be an idiot or complete misogynist to actually be surprised that human women have not changed in such a short span of time. But if you can't make women feel bad that they aren't as great as they used to be, and you reveal that obesity and hair loss are normal, then suddenly, women might stop starving themselves. No one wants that.

Wikipedia's article on Malnutrition has this to say:

An array of afflictions ranging from stunted growth, reduced intelligence and various cognitive abilities, reduced sociability, reduced leadership and assertiveness, reduced activity and energy, reduced muscle growth and strength, and poorer health overall are directly implicated to nutrient deficiencies.

Women are accused of not being good leaders, they are traditionally shorter and have less muscle mass than men. They did not participate in sports, and our capacity for rational thought is put into question all the time.

Women and men may not be that different physically after all. I read, in my second Women's Studies class, that our society has systematically malnourished women (and here, when I say society, I mean world society) - first due to lack of resources, and now as a way to keep women buth "fuckable" (want to be a size 0?) and suffering the effects of hunger.

Note the attempts to erase this woman from the history.

Weddings, whats the point?

One of my favorite people, a former employee, explained the significance of this day. She told me that 7 is God's number, because he rested on the seventh day after working for 6 days to create the earth. Consequently, three times as many people are getting married today than on any other day. Source

To me, marriage is the creation of legal kin, as opposed to directly biologically related kin. We seem to understand that a child has the right to see her dying mother or father, but not every kid gets to come into the hospital room. Marriage takes two biological strangers from the human species and gives them the rights we allow biological kinfolk.

Women know that their kids are their own, and that by getting pregnant, they will pass on their genetic material. Men do not have this luxury, which is just one part of my "evolution of sexism" theory, and they know it. The ultimate goal of life is to sustain life, and pass on genetic material. Women have more control over this than men, and men have been punishing us for it for a long time.

But marriage, itself, is not necessarily a punishment, especially not if the man in question can provide the woman with viable pregnancies and help her effectively raise the new people. No, the punishment comes in the form of "women don't have the minds for math" and "don't be such a girl" - not to mention rape and murder¹ after the wedding and damn, everything else I talk about.

I don't know how much more explanation I need to give before I can get to my point, but I'm satisfied with what I've already written. Many cultures have realized that the joining of two adults needs to be recognized to be official. Hence, the wedding. Some weddings are short, sweet, and to the point. Some weddings last a week. Some weddings include the slaughter of a whole cow and a town feast. Some weddings include a million dollar dress and 5,000 famous people. My parents wedding was in a small local Catholic church. The bride wore a knee length brown-green dress, the groom wore a tan couderoy suit [hey, it was the 70's]. The reception was a dinner in the church basement, and their "honeymoon" was an afternoon outing to a local lake.

But so many women put their entire lives into their wedding. I admit, as I child, I liked to play wedding, if only for the pomp. But I also liked to play queen and royal palace for the same reason, often with the chess set. I went to wedddings as a child. The dresses were beautiful, yes, but the couple often made it to the reception so much later because of the photographer. The speeches ran long, when all I wanted to do was eat and dance.

And now, we all love to hear about bridezillas and elaborate weddings - well, all except me. Despite what I believe about the true purpose of weddings, I can't get past the blatent sexism and patrimony of the ceremony. In the past, both the man and the woman were leaving their respective parents' house, but the man stands at the head of the church, with his buddies, while the women put on an elaborate parade. In the end, the grand marshall, the man who paid for the whole thing, escorts his property down the aisle to give her to this other man, for his use.

Weddings are called "her day" because in the traditional, sexist reality, weddings were her last opportunity to be beautiful and show off, and she was now a wife, destined to begin a life of servitude to this handsome man. He doesn't worry about the wedding because he knows that his life will continue as normal, but better than normal because now he has someone to take care of him - just like his mother once did.

But so many non-famous women still want the huge wedding. They want all the pomp, all the gradeur, and all the tradition. The song must be just right, the dress must be perfect, the vows must be beautiful, the flowers must be breathtaking. And in the end, who gives a crap? It is one day, one dress, and a bunch of meaningless words. The real wedding is in the signing of the document, not in "I do". The point of a wedding is to tell everyone that you are now legally related to someone else, nothing more, nothing less.

My parents walked down the aisle together. They gave themselves to each other. My mother might have worn that dress again. My parents married as adults, and they did it without fuss, or without going into tons of debt.

Gloria Steinem at it again

I propose, as the opposite of "chick flick," films called "prick flicks."

I, for one, don't like most prick flicks. For instance, I have no desire to see any of the Die Hard films.

Again, how can love exist here?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/damon.india.widows/index.html

Do young Hindu children look at their mother, preparing to abandon her the moment their father dies?

At the same time that I am glad that my culture does not believe that a woman's worth is entirely based on another person, I know how easy it would be for culture to revert.

Then again, why do we feel so much pity for the 22 year-old war widow? I'm 26, and I can see my life spread out before me like a great valley of milk and honey. When bad things happen, I just close that chapter and move on. Sure, it hurts to lose a loved one, especially when it is so unexpected, but how many ex-boyfriends do we never ever want to see again? Admittedly, thats a little harsh, but the point is that the 22 year-old war widow has probably 75% of her life yet to live.

I have a post in mind - an unfinished post - about why sexists hate when women are famous. The long and short is that men feel that they are the important ones - all based on the reaction the hunting party would get when they returned to camp with the big kill. The camp was celebrating the arrival of meat, protein, and the hunting party thought that made them special. So men assumed that they deserved all the celebration.

This doesn't even get into the innate and unconcious jealousy men have of women. Women know that their kids are their own, and that by getting pregnant, they will pass on their genetic material. Men do not have this luxury, which is just one part of my "evolution of sexism" theory, and they know it. The ultimate goal of life is to sustain life, and pass on genetic material. Women have more control over this than men, and men have been punishing us for it for a long time.

In the tradition detailed above, the punishment is the devaluing women so much that their entire worth is based on their association with a single living man. Conversely, he is so important that his death is more than one death, it must be two. So I ask, how can a whole society be so horrible? How does a woman enter a marriage knowing that she will end her own life cast out of her family? How can a mother love a child she knows will only love her as long as her husband lives? Thank goodness there are those, within the society, who won't stand for it.

Happy Birthday, America. Get Well Soon

I did something decidedly unpatriotic today. I went to see Sicko, a movie that helped to lay bare the horrible reality of America. I wanted to post today about how glad I am to live in the US, and sure, it is better than other places. It isn't the worst place in the world, yet.

I thought of the saying in the title before seeing the movie, and I don't want to create another patronizing post about the problems in this country. We've got commercials for cars that only a few people can actually afford. We have kids in the south dying from toohaches. We have a woman who bled to death in a hospital waiting room.

But no, my post isn't going to be about that movie - at least not here. I'll save my pontifications for other blogs. No, my post here is about the previews I saw before the movie.

The first was for a movie about love, and I was interested because the first romance was between two women. However, as the preview went on, I quickly became aware that the movie was about an old man and a young man talking about and coping with love - sometimes theirs, sometimes that of other people. It was a movie from the male perspective. Then there was a movie about one young man's adventure into the wilderness, he even burned his social security card. My favorite was the western that had one - ONE woman in the ENTIRE PREVIEW. Finally, even Leonardo DiCaprio couldn't seem to find a SINGLE WOMAN that cared about global warming to put in the preview for his movie.

Thank you, Hollywood, for reminding me that my perspective isn't important. Thank you for reminding me that only men are entertaining. Thank you. See if I spend my disposable income on you in the future.

Women Friendly Porn

Before my parents got the internet, I heard that there was a lot of porn on there. Then, when I was 16, my parents signed up for a connection through the local phone company I went to look for porn right away. Ok, it took a little while, and I had to wait until I was home alone. I never got that notion that women weren't into porn - how can one not be titilated by sights and sounds?

In the last decade, I've been looking for good porn on the internet. But because porn is not made for my side of sex, I have trouble. The other day, I finally realized exactly what I need to see in porn.

As a hetero woman, I get a thrill out of my partner's reaction to sex AND imagining what those sensations must feel like. Most hetero porn shows the entire woman, but the man from, at best, the neck down. Real woman friendly porn isn't that much different from regular porn, because we all come from the same society. No, real women friendly porn recognizes that women are watching too, and they do want to see the male reaction. We also want to see some female orgasms.

So now women are half of the internet population, and a third of the porn watchers. Eventually, we'll be half of the porn watchers, and its time we started making demands, as consumers, of the industry. First things first - back the camera up a little, and show me the guys too.

Women in Poverty

I remember some anti-feminist article that dared to actually say that feminists in America don't care about women's rights in the Middle East [and central Asia]. The article called us "vagina warriors". Well, this vagina warrior has known about the Taliban since early 2001, when she was 19. She learned from the then more educated vagina warriors at the Women's Center of her college (the local "Vagina Fortress"). I'll probably get into the terrible state of women's [and human] rights in Iraq since the 2003 invasion some time later.

But this post is about women in poverty in the richest state in the richest country in the world. I must admit that I'm still reeling from the reality of my former employee right now and his idiotic notion that women don't act rationally. The women in this post are stronger and better than he will ever be. But I digress.

Here is an excerpt from a blog post from one of the managing editors of Alternet. The majority of people in poverty in the world are women and children, and our society, in part based on underpaying women for their work, will begin - perhaps already is beginning - to see the disasterous effects of neglecting our own future.

Here's a story from Vivian Hain who is part of POOR Magazine, welfareQUEENS, Low Income Families Empowerment through Education, and hunger advocacy for Alameda County Food Bank.

Vivian Hain: I have not seen a cost of living adjustment since 2004. Before there was a freeze for two years. It was $679 for a family of four. In 2004 I fought for adjustments to go up to $723/month. Now in 2007 that is what I get to live on in Berkeley with my three kids.

I have not bought my kids news shoes or jackets or anything this year. They are four, six, and 13. I can't even walk into the kid's aisle in stores because I don't want to look at what I can't afford for them. It is demeaning to keep giving hand-me-down clothes and stale shoes -- especially to the youngest who has never had anything new. No parent should have to make that decision.

I used to shop lift when i had two in diapers ... I would fill up the diaper bag full of diapers. And I'd get that hot feeling of what if you got caught stealing and would they take your kids. You shouldn't to decide if your kid is going to have a wet diaper all night or you are going to go to jail.

I'd always try to make the used clothes I got for them look the best they could, though. I am in college. I am going to get my BA in December and might go one more year to get my Masters. I do what I can to support my family. My kids don't know how to play video games or know about newest music. But my daughter, she looks me in the eye and say she understands, she doesn't need that stuff.

It is unacceptable what he [Gov. Schwartzenegger] is doing. He is trying to balance the budge on the backs of poor children ...

It is like they say -- we have no choice but to survive -- we are women. The choices that we have to make because of the situations they put us in is unimaginable. Lower than you can conceptualize. Those in the legislature are making decisions about laws and policy affecting children and they have no idea what it is like.

These children's lives are affected because a parent is being criminizlied for trying to survive with miniscule resources. When they are cutting our money they are telling us we are not worthy of investing it. They are targeting children in CA.

POOR Magazine and the Poor News Network is dedicated to reframing the news, issues and solutions from low and no income communities, as well as providing society with a perspective usually not heard or seen within the mainstream media.

welfareQUEENS is a groups of mother struggling with poverty, welfare, racism, and disability, who are dedicated to creating art with the goal of resisting and reclaiming the racist and classist mythologies that are used to criminalize the poor.

Fromhttp://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/55687/