Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[betenoire]

This made me really unhappy:

Apparently now letting your daughters aged 12 and under get stuff waxed is "the new normal"

Just fan fucking tastic. I am especially upset by the mention of getting girls waxed before they even develop pubic hair because apparently that will keep them from -ever- getting it. It's abusive and exploitative.

What the hell is so wrong with body hair, anyway?

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by betenoire

This made me really unhappy:

Apparently now letting your daughters aged 12 and under get stuff waxed is "the new normal"

Just fan fucking tastic. I am especially upset by the mention of getting girls waxed before they even develop pubic hair because apparently that will keep them from -ever- getting it. It's abusive and exploitative.

What the hell is so wrong with body hair, anyway?

That is really disgusting to sexualize a minor in that way. What mom in her right mind would do such a thing?

[Soon]

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That would seem to include protection against exactly the kind of discrimination to which Scalia referred.

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.

"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."

Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.

"In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."

In 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by betenoire

This made me really unhappy:

Apparently now letting your daughters aged 12 and under get stuff waxed is "the new normal"

Just fan fucking tastic. I am especially upset by the mention of getting girls waxed before they even develop pubic hair because apparently that will keep them from -ever- getting it. It's abusive and exploitative.

What the hell is so wrong with body hair, anyway?

This is really, really disturbing to me. Bikini waxes on children? There should be a freaking law about that. To me, that is sexualizing a child.

[Soon]

Bed 18
by J. Malcolm Garcia, January 2011

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Nat

Who knew?


Leaping Lesbian Lizards!

Officially named Cnemidophorus uniparens, these American desert lizards reproduce despite the fact that they’re all female. Interestingly, some of them simulate sexual acts (above, left) with each other just like male and female lizards, and it’s been discovered that when they do they reproduce more successfully than their abstemious sisters.

I posted this a while ago in a different thread, and I recently shared it with my partner. She found the below article, which irked me enough to come post it here:

It's from Time

Lesbian reptiles act like males

Readers of science journals know a good deal about bisexual aphids, "homosexual" gulls, and "transvestite" fish, species in which the male adopts the coloration and movements of the female to trick other males. Some researchers argue that every expression of human sexuality has some sort of analogue in the animal world. But even jaded followers of animal sex studies will have to admit that a Harvard team has now discovered something really new: "lesbian" lizards that copulate like males.

So far biologists have identified 27 kinds of parthenogenetic lizards—all-female species that lay eggs to produce exact genetic copies of the mother. On field trips in Arizona and Colorado, a team of researchers headed by Psychobiologist David Crews found that four of these species engage in mock male-female sex.

An active female mounts a passive one, curves the tail under the other's body, strokes the partner's back and neck, joins genital regions, and rides on top for one to five minutes. The active female lizard always has small undeveloped eggs, while the passive female has large pre-ovulatory eggs. But there are cyclic variations in behavior and egg size in these reptiles, and roles reverse; the passive female of one encounter can be the active partner of the next. Says Crews: "We are now trying to determine whether this malelike behavior facilitates reproductive function." Translation: the psychobiologist does not yet know why the females mock the male-female behavior of related two-sex species. The eggs hatch with or without the lesbian courtship.

Crews thinks the discovery has important implications. "What we have found here," he says, "is the first evidence of animals where sex and sexuality are independent of each other." Still, it is too early to announce that sex for its own sake was first discovered by lizards. The mounting behavior may serve to synchronize the egg laying, or increase the number of eggs. Or it may be, according to Crews, that the malelike behavior among the female lizards is a kind of "compensation" for life without males. Or it might be an evolutionary hangover from the good old male-female days. Since stories about animal sexuality are inevitably drawn into human sexual politics these days, Crews may be called to task by radical lesbians for his hetero chauvinism. If so, he will have to plead guilty: his team is currently treating eggs with hormones in hopes of producing the species' first males.

[Nat]

Okay so this isn't news but I saw this commercial earlier and found it to be a really beautiful illustration of the differences that are so common between the way women and men are portrayed in the media. In this case, that's achieved by posing men the way women are often posed.

I assume they are just trying to be funny, but I thought it was well done in that it showed the ridiculousness of how women and women's beauty are marketed.

[Soon]

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape



Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

[Toughy]

I knew nothing about this.....not anything at all....the date of the op ed is August 26, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/op...%20rise&st=cse