Patriarchy comments on video!

The video we made just got a comment on Youtube. It says: "Abortion is not really health care."

I though about responding, then saw that whoever posted was named Patriarch. Obviously not worth the drama. It's moments like these that remind me it's easy to be a feminist.

Abortion Fight becomes the Central Focus

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34205801#34205801

Check out the link to this video that I posted above !

- It is my feeling that the debate regarding abortion presents many contradictions within the various policies and ideologies that are being presented within it. I think this topic is very sensitive in the way in which people have extreme opposite opinions, and a final decision on whether the government should intervene or not will be extremely difficult to decide. I am interested to see other peoples' opinions on if they feel as though the government should take part in controlling abortion. Is it even fair to not allow tax dollars to go towards the cause? I think that if tax dollars are not contributed that this it is going to make it really hard to not so well of individuals to receive abortions...

College Women React to Stupak

Surprise: Men Dominate Late-Night TV

Turn on your TV - right now.
Its 11:53 PM as I write this, and I can almost guarantee that you won't see any women when you turn that thing on. I've noticed this before - late night TV is owned by dudes.
Anyone on any "late show" (even the late late shows!) is a dude-- even our favorite satirical late night shows feature men - Colbert and Stewart.

OK, maybe things are changing. Slowly. I'm vaguely thinking of Katie Couric and the increase of women news anchors on evening news. That's cool, and that's important. And I'm thinking of Rachel Maddow, who is freaking awesome. But my thoughts about the View and the Ellen DeGeneres show cloud my brain. These shows are kinda great - they touch on a lot of good stuff and have gained respectability…yet they're relegated to daytime.

And then let's think about the recent news about Letterman's affairs with women who work for him. We don't know the details, but there's something going on in this late night world that needs some more attention. No, not that kind of attention.

The New York Times just ran a story about the lack of female writers on late-night TV.

There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” none on “Late Show with David Letterman,” none on “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien.”

How can this be? Are women not watching late night? Well, that's not it - the Times reports that more than half of viewership for each of those programs is made up of women.

Maybe women just aren't applying for these positions? Could be. In that Times article, one woman says that less than %5 of submissions from writers were from women. But the Herald (The Arkansas State University newspaper) puts it eloquently: How can little girls grow up and want to be something they don't even know exists? It can't just be that women don't want to be writers for late night - more likely that they don't even realize this is open to them. And well, that's because it kind of isn't.

I know lots of funny women. Really good, snarky, biting comedy coming out of women. We can think of a few mainstream ones - Sarah Silverman, Margaret Cho, and all my favorite women from SNL (for decades!), and women like Sarah Haskins, the coolest woman ever - but in general, comedy is man's territory. Just think of….everything.

But to lighten things up, here's a post on feministing about funny women - check the comments for everyone's recommendations
And here's a funny song about how feminists have no sense of humor (boo hoo hoo)

I'm not sure I've got it figured out though - why is "funny" just for the dudes? I'm not sure I see the connection. Comment with your hypothesis!

Why does it have to be one or the other?

On November 10, former Miss California Carrie Prejean shocked the world, yet again, when footage of her sex tape was leaked. For those who don't know, Prejean supposedly lost the crown after the controversy she created during the pageant when she stated that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Fast forward a few questionable photos and eventual dismissal--she was fired because she needed to support "marriage" (whatever that means). Her sex tape (apparently one of many)--were she masturbates for her boyfriend when she was 17 and all hell breaks loose. Again.

Now as a feminist, I do not support Prejean's believes on marriage. Not even a little bit. But it really bothers me the coverage that this sex tape is receiving. Yes, she was 17. Sure, she is supposedly a good Catholic girl who by definition shouldn't be having sex (did anyone even believe that after those first pictures came out?), but I don't think that this is the underlying issue.

Why is it that society is so scared of a woman's sexuality? Why couldn't she make a sex tape for her boyfriend, or for herself for that matter?

Ruben Diaz Sr: No to gay marriage, but it's nothing personal

This past week, Governor Paterson urged the NY state senate to finally vote on a gay marriage bill. On Tuesday, when I didn't get any news all day, I wasn't sure what had happened - but after a quick Google News search, I learned that the state senate had, once again, moved the vote to a later date. (Since Tuesday, Paterson says the bill will pass in upcoming weeks)

My Google search also brought me to this article, profiling Rubén Díaz Sr., a state senator representing New York's 32nd District which includes parts of the Bronx. It details how he is a Democrat who is adamantly against gay marriage, and says it's "nothing personal." His religion is what leads him to say he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and he makes it clear that he loves gay people and has lots of family and friends that are gay.

This New York Times article astutely (although in an unavoidably partisan way) points out the incongruities in Díaz's argument, and shows how radical he seems - in saying that the Gay Games would spread AIDS, and opposing the expansion of the Harvey Milk School. He also said that stem cell research is worse than Hitler making bars of soap out of the ashes of Jews - The NY Times obviously uses that to demonize and radicalize Diaz (rightfully so?).

I'm not sure I take issue with the way this story was reported - I understand that a newspaper can't necessarily take sides and say that gay marriage is good and ought to happen - and I understand that the reporter can't just come out and say "The personal IS political!" and throw his hands up. But this senator and his beliefs definitely need more attention and more scrutiny.

Díaz directly points to his acceptance of gay friends and says "So how could I be a homophobe?" As if to say "Look at me! I have gay friends so that means I don't think there's anything wrong with gay people!" But if this was indeed the case, and he didn't think there was anything wrong with gay people and the idea of gayness, there wouldn't be any reason not to support gay marriage. Being cordial and friendly to gay people isn't an excuse for actively lobbying to restrict their rights.

In 1994, when he spoke out against the Gay Games, Díaz said "the games could lead children 'to conclude that if there are so many gay and lesbian athletes then there is nothing wrong, nor any risks involved.'" If he actually had no problems with his gay friends, and loved them (not in that pitying, patronizing 'let me help you' way), this quote would've never been uttered.

I'm not sure it's enough to point out the conflict raised by Díaz excuse of "it's nothing personal" because obviously, it is. Restricting rights is always personal - He might think it's politics or religion, but this is people, people's rights, people's lives, people's love that we're saying is invalid. Of course it's personal.

Here's the article again, take a look - and then comment your opinion!

The endless cycle: Legalizing Gay Marriage

Although gay marriage has been an issue for quite some time now, yet another article was published by NY Times pushing or states to legalize gay marriage.

Gay marriage is defined by same sex couples; thus women are as much victims to this push for equality as men. I find it incredible that states such as New York, New Jersey, and our own capital, the District of Colombia, have "promise" to appeal/legalize gay marriage in the near future. It is absurd to me that our own capital, founded on the principles of the pursuit of happiness, and individual freedoms , still has not established the legality of same sex marriage. Am I the only one who see's something wrong with this...hypocritical America if you ask me. Who's going to be responsible for the change? We the people need to start using our power for the right reasons for once. In my mind, this is an essential reason.

Playboy - Celebrating Women Who Look Like Cartoons

Did you know Marge is gracing the cover of Playboy for the November issue?

In the spirit of Christie Hefner's buzz-inducing visit to Syracuse this Wednesday (7:3o at the Herg!), check out this fascinating article over at Feministing.com. Chloe dissects what it means to have a cartoon on the cover of Playboy - and how it isn't as new or shocking as you might think!

"For years, mainstream porn films and online porn have brought us a vision of women, and particularly of women's sexuality, that is little more than a caricature."

Legalizing gay marriage in Maine

Tomorrow, November 3rd 2009, the state of Maine will vote to decide whether to repeal a gay-marriage bill that would be implemented to law in may of 2010. This is a huge deal because if voters decide to essentially provide equality in regard to marriage, it will be the first time ever gay-activists in the U.S. will have defeated the ballot box.

*What are your predictions on how this will play out?

* Do you think gay couples in the U.S. will ever be seen as " equally normal" to heterosexual couples?

* If voters in Maine vote in favor of gay marriage could this potentially start a trend for even more states to do the same?