Numerous times in the past 24 hours, a post titled A Daddy’s Letter to His Little Girl (About Her Future Husband) has been shared by my Facebook friends, posted to Reddit, and tweeted out on Twitter (usually with a comment about moving the reader to tears), but can I be the seemingly sole dissenting female voice to find the content unpalatable?

Indeed, it’s apparent the intent behind A Daddy’s Letter to His Little Girl (About Her Future Husband) – written by Dr. Kelly Flanagan and published on what appears to be his own site, the Good Men Project and Huffington Post — is decent, and a response to what is undoubtedly negative pressure on females to keep their “man” interested. On that we agree, and Flanagan’s ire is not misplaced in as much as content targeted at women is certainly way too focused on meeting a beauty standard than inspiring females to be and do things in lieu of waxing and curling their way to success in life.

Flanagan deserves his due for calling out the yuckiness of those tropes in A Daddy’s Letter to His Little Girl (About Her Future Husband), but it seems that without awareness, he goes on to subtly reinforce the same ideals that lead a woman to that spot of self-doubt and transient value, and in doing so provides a good example of benevolent sexism.

Firstly, the post begins with a backstory as to what inspired it, and Flanagan (in the letter addressed to “Cutie-Pie”), begins by explaining that a Google search autocorrected to terms on how to keep a man interested:

“It startled me. I scanned several of the countless articles about how to be sexy and sexual, when to bring him a beer versus a sandwich, and the ways to make him feel smart and superior … And I got angry … Little One, it is not, has never been, and never will be your job to ‘keep him interested.’ ”

True, it is not and should not be the goal of any woman to specifically keep a male interested, and such feelings should be organic when they occur and not generally a major concern for women.

But if you look closely, already, the child has been addressed with docile pet names, ones that would seem amiss in a similar directive to a young boy. A tone is starting to set in, one of a “daddy” and a “princess,” one that pervades the culture of relationships in a way that is fairly inarguably disempowering to women.

One might suggest it is already suggesting a partner is a replacement father, filling the same paternalistic role and ideally, at least coming to the table with similar reverence.

The post continues:

“Little One, I want to tell you about the boy who doesn’t need to be kept interested, because he knows you are interesting … I don’t care if he puts his elbows on the dinner table—as long as he puts his eyes on the way your nose scrunches when you smile. And then can’t stop looking.”

Sweet, right? So what’s the problem?

The stated advice given — to reject fitting an ideal and find a “boy” who is interested naturally — still predicates a lot of the girl’s value on the issue of being coupled at all. None of the writing or thoughts addresses the likely times in a girl or woman’s life when she will be uncoupled, assuming the natural state of being for all worthy women is with a man who worships them no matter what. (The female’s behavior, for instance, is not mentioned as a barometer of her future relationship harmony, nor is a circumstance where she chooses not to partner or marry at all.)

While again, the thrust behind A Daddy’s Letter to His Little Girl (About Her Future Husband) is meant well, it unfortunately (to my eyes) seems to undermine its very own point and bolster the very idea it rails against — that above all else, a woman’s worth is dependent solely on a man’s interest in her. It simply arrives at that point via a different path.

What did you think of A Daddy’s Letter to His Little Girl (About Her Future Husband)?

Viral ‘Daddy’s Letter’ To ‘Little Girl’ On ‘Future Husband’ And Benevolent Sexism is a post from: The Inquisitr

In the same week that Tunisian activist “Amina” was threatened with stoning for showing her bare chest on Facebook, what are we to make of the latest claims from one Beyoncé Knowles that she is a feminist? To quote Queen Bey herself:

“I am a modern-day feminist. I do believe in equality. Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are? Why do you have to label yourself anything? I’m just a woman and I love being a woman. I do believe in equality and that we have a way to go and it’s something that’s pushed aside and something that we have been conditioned to accept.”

There’s a lot of things to admire in that statement: A sincere belief in equality, calling out gender labels for the completely tiresome bulls*** they are, a love and self-respect for your gender. But my problem is with the first five words. Beyoncé Knowles is many things. A decent Super Bowl performer? Yes. A brilliant businesswoman? No doubt. The owner of an enviable set of pipes? Obviously. But a feminist? No matter how loudly she says it – and boy, she likes saying it – I remain unconvinced.

I suspect I’m in the minority here, that many would feel comfortable describing Knowles as a feminist. I imagine their argument would run something like this: Here is a woman who is financially independent. She consistently pushes her belief in equality. She’s sung her share of songs about being “independent” and “strong.”

So why, from where I’m standing, does Beyoncé seem such a fraud? I mean, look, here’s another fist-shaking Knowles quote from just a few weeks back:

“[Men] define what’s sexy. And men define what’s feminine. It’s ridiculous.”

And she’s right, of course. The only problem? These stirring words were placed in the February 2013 issue of GQ. You know, right next to photos of Beyoncé writhing about in her undercrackers for the titillation of men. Falling in line with that male definition of sexiness. Woo, empowerment!

Most of us accept women are cast into certain roles by wider society and its various ideological tentacles: the sex siren, the mother (and the “glowing” mother-to-be), the spinster, and so forth. It’s positive if women are able to move beyond or even reclaim these labels, but by doing things like posing near-naked in mens’ mags, Beyoncé is neatly slotting herself into one of those cubbyholes neatly carved out for her by our penis-driven world.

Being “sexual” is fine and dandy. Sexuality can be fun, dark, even powerful. But Beyoncé does not seem powerful when posing in GQ. She is laid bare for the delight of GQ‘s one-handed readership, and she knows it. She might argue, “Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are?” Yet by seductively posing for a men’s magazine, she’s already pigeonholed herself. She’s chosen a type. Slow claps all round.

Or consider the time when unflattering photos of Beyoncé at the Super Bowl were “leaked”. Did womankind’s new leader defiantly turn around, snub her nose, and say, “I’m a human being, we all look butt in photos occasionally, and I intend to rise above this pathetic focus on my looks and concentrate on my art”?

Er, no. Instead, she got her publicist to try and zap the images from existence. As well as painting Knowles as a massive narcissist, it smacks of somebody who’s aware – too aware? – of how big a role body image plays in music industry success. Beyoncé was only too keen to ensure those photos that were out there matched the industry’s idealised notion of beauty. Any evidence that she may not conform to this notion of beauty 100% of the time MUST BE DESTROYED.

While a panicky Knowles orders her foot soldiers to erase evidence that (duh) everybody looks like crap in some photos, other self-described feminists like Amina and the women who form FEMEN are out on the streets. They’re being arrested. They’re getting in faces. They’re being threatened with death. And, most pertinently of all where Knowles is concerned, they’re not conforming to a male-engineered fantasy of female beauty.

But maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps the mistake is mine. After all, Beyoncé did describe herself as a “modern-day” feminist, a detail I have mischievously ignored until now. Because, hey, maybe posing in your lingerie while spouting about strength and equality is the modern-day feminism Knowles describes at the top of this article.

And if so, it’s just depressing as hell.

Beyoncé A Feminist? Don’t Make Me Laugh is a post from: The Inquisitr

A Fox News article featuring a lesbian wedding kiss atop the Empire State Building amused web users this week — the pic, from one of the more high-profile first legal gay weddings in New York State, was used to illustrate a story extolling the superiority of heteronormative, male/female marriage.

In the Fox News piece with the lesbians kissing, author and unenlightened moron Suzanne Venker (who has previously trolled the masses with her allegation of a “war on men”) argues in the title “To be happy, we must admit women and men aren’t ‘equal.’ ”

Venker’s piece, in which she unwittingly used to show a lesbian kiss on the Fox News site, makes the common, flimsy and not overly well-supported argument that women and women alone are at fault for the still-in-flux effect of women’s lib, blaming the females of America for not taking “settling down” seriously enough and committing the grave sin of putting career, education, agency and self-fulfillment ahead of marriage and babies — always with the undercurrent of assumption that all women who do so are bitter cat ladies in waiting.

The Fox News lesbian pic piece read:

“It’s time to say what no one else will: Feminism didn’t result in equality between the sexes – it resulted in mass confusion. Today, men and women have no idea who’s supposed to do what … You see, the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe, and anyone who contradicts this dogma is branded sexist.”

Venker’s common and pervasive error is assuming she is arguing from a place of assured knowledge, when in actuality, she has no particular data set on which to base her broad range of assumptions.

It’s with arguments like these that the Fox News contributor reveals her inability to separate causation from correlation — and later in the piece, she does so again, blaming a lack of female CEOs and stay-at-home dads solely on gender-assumed impulse and not, oh, say, centuries of social stigma and outright roadblocks preventing women from attaining those spots and men from declining them to raise a family if they so choose:

“But the truth must be heard. Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings. Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean they want to. That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades.”

We imagine it was not long after Gawker pointed out Venker had used a lovely same-sex marriage image, one of two lesbians, in love and happy, to illustrate her pro-”tradition” screed, it was taken down and replaced. But one cannot help relishing the delicious irony that like in much of her writing, Venker’s lack of ability to accurately assess what was right before her eyes made for a very amusing misstep indeed.

Fox News ‘Lesbians’ Photo Accidentally Used To Illustrate ‘Traditional Marriage’ Piece is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | When I first noticed the announcement that the women in military combat ban had been lifted I was on MSN. What struck me as very odd was how this news was presented, with MSN editors choosing to display it like this: “Ban on women in combat removed, but fight for equal pay goes on.” Besides rushing to report the new on The Inquisitr, the other thought that entered my mind was “why choose to politicize this news any further with a mostly unrelated topic?”

MSN reported the news in this way, equating the debate over workplace pay inequality to women in combat:

“Reaction to the news on social media was mixed; some folks noted that although women can now have the privilege of getting shot on the front lines, they still have to fight for necessities like equal pay in the workplace.”

The military and unequal pay for women really do not have much to do with each other. Some of the arguments for not allowing women in combat are practical and have nothing to do with inherent sexism. Although, personally, I have no problem with women in combat roles as long as they can meet the same stringent standards. After all, during World War II Russia allowed women in combat and many served with distinction as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members, and in auxiliary roles like in today’s US Military.

A Tweet by LaVieDeCourtney reportedly said:

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, studies show that much of the gender salary gap is caused by women being much more likely to enter lower-paying career fields. But, when they compared men and women making the same career choices, they still find that a seven percent pay gap persists. Researchers claim that evidence suggests women approach salary negotiations differently from men. Labor survey data suggests that women are eight times less likely to engage in salary negotiations and in lab experiments were nine times less likely to ask for higher compensation compared to men. They believe that this willingness to initiate salary negotiations, or lack thereof, potentially explains a significant fraction of the observed gender differences in wages. Combined together, these two studies might explain the majority of the unequal pay that women have noticed.

Do you think that we should conflate the two issues of women in combat and equal pay in the workplace?

Women In Combat And Equal Pay In The Workplace [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Newtown, Connecticut school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School has sparked a “national conversation” about the myriad precipitates for such events, but one National Review writer penned a bit explaining a “feminized” school setting lacking a “male janitor” with a high-capacity bucket to fend off gunman Adam Lanza and his Bushmaster may be in part to blame for the large number of casualties at the school.

In a stunning display of woman-on-woman sexism, Charlotte Allen explains in what Slate called “The Stupidest Thing Anyone Has Written About Sandy Hook” in the conservative site’s piece that, had only a penis or two been present at the scene, the story’s end may not have been so tragic.

Allen claims “thinking” led to her conclusion that a lack of males on site the day 20 children and six educators were murdered by the heavily armed Lanza was a mitigating factor in the incomprehensibly awful scope of the killings. (The piece is not the first analysis the National Review has done on the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.)

Let us first get it out of the way that being female in and of itself has not been considered a bar to protection of self or others overall for some time — and to suggest as such is not only an insult but an irresponsible undermining of all the dedicated female police officers, firefighters, servicewomen, and security professionals serving this country.

Charlotte Allen, you should be ashamed.

In her writing, Allen begins:

“There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the ‘reading specialist’ — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees.”

Allen is correct. All these adult women were indeed allowed to be in charge of the school, unchaperoned, presumably inconveniencing their fathers or husbands in being driven to “work” each day. One only can imagine what would have occurred should a female janitor have attempted the bucket-heaving maneuver.

Janitors throwing buckets at the knees of Germans is also how we won WWII nationalreview.com/articles/33599…

— Dan Amira (@DanAmira) December 19, 2012

From here, the writer continues:

“Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely.”

To recap overall, Hochsprung has been hailed as a hero in the accounts (many patchy) pieced together from the still under-investigation attack. She and psychologist Mary Sherlach, both unarmed, are believed to have “lunged” at Lanza in an against-all-odds attempt to take him down before any others could be killed.

Both women likely knew the outcome would be, for them, fatal. And, it should not even have to be pointed out, gender was a zero percent factor in this decision and its result. Hochsprung and Sherlach were mortally wounded before getting to lay a finger on Lanza.

Again, it should be noted, neither cowered nor sought male help. Neither retreated to their offices to summon authorities or wait for help. They charged on a man with a small arsenal, leading to their own deaths, to protect the children with whom they were obligated to keep safe.

They died for their bravery and likely knew death was imminent. They did it anyway. To somehow suggest a male would have fared better is a horrible insult to their memories and the amazing selflessness of their act.

NRO: If only more people at Sandy Hook had had Man Cards. nationalreview.com/articles/33599…

— Simon Maloy (@SimonMaloy) December 19, 2012

Allen then concludes:

“But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.”

(Above, a helplessly passive female law enforcement officer passively escorts terrified children away from the active crime scene where it was believed a gunman may still have been lurking.)

Recall the “helpless passivity” described above, where Hochsprung and Sherlach rushed a heavily armed male. Allen immediately has contradicted her own account with little awareness of that fact. And while not a hulking 12-year-old boy (one of which I have at home, and while clever, I can say that I do not believe he would instinctually rush a gunman), teacher Vicki Soto also bravely jumped to act and, in the process, lost her own life.

From what we know, Soto barricaded students, students later found huddled in bathroom or closet as she lay dead nearby. Vicki Soto died fighting — not because she was incapable or too female to use her body to defend her charges — she did — but because she managed, it seemed, to save more kids by outwitting the killer.

What would have happened had Soto charged the gunman rather than shield the children? We don’t know. What we ourselves can surmise is that a male teacher would have been just as impervious to the hail of bullets Lanza would unleash at anyone who approached him or crossed his path. We can know because of Soto’s opposite of “helpless passivity,” some of her students are alive today, and she is not.

Finally, the writer adds:

“You simply can’t give a non-working, non-school-enrolled 20-year-old man free range of your home, much less your cache of weapons. You have to set boundaries. You have to say, ‘You can’t live here anymore — you’re an adult, and it’s time for you to be a man. We’ll give you all the support you need, but we won’t be enablers.’ Unfortunately, the idea of being an ‘adult’ and a ‘man’ once one has reached physical maturity seems to have faded out of our coddling culture.”

Amazingly, Allen manages to add yet another bit of sexism to her heavily flawed Newtown massacre analysis. While our society, by her account, fails to urge men to take responsibility, man up and take charge, we not only do not ask this of women but fully and insultingly ignore their heroic actions when they occur.

Esquire said of Allen’s Newtown piece:

“American conservatism has been rendered a parody of a burlesque of a puppet show. And Charlotte Allen should be shunned by decent people. Hell, people who think like this should be shunned by bacteria.”

Since a man said it in a man magazine, hopefully I have the weight behind my opinion to agree. Charlotte Allen’s words would be terrible independent of the carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary, indicative of the Olympic-level conservative mental gymnastics invoked to blame everything but guns for the murders last week. In light of the sacrifice of the brave women who died, they are unconscionable.

Newtown Massacre Due To All-Female Staff, National Review Writer Opines is a post from: The Inquisitr

Researchers who looked at career fields found that the women pay gap might be caused by women themselves. Social scientists have theorized that some of the primary causes may be gender differences in human capital, workplace discrimination against women, and gender differences in competitiveness. But now researchers have laboratory and survey evidence suggesting the gender pay gap might partially be explained by women being far less willing to engage in salary negotiations.

In the career field, women earn approximately three-quarter’s the amount of men’s earnings and only 2.5 percent of the five highest-paid positions in US firms are occupied by women. According to USA Today,  full-time working women on average earn 82 percent of what their male peers earn, according to a study released by the American Association of University Women. They believe much of this gender salary gap is caused by women being much more likely to enter lower-paying career fields. But, when they compared men and women making the same career choices, they still find that a seven percent pay gap persists.

Andreas Leibbrandt and John A. List have released a paper to the National Bureau of Economic Research entitled Do Women Avoid Salary Negotiations? Evidence From A Large Scale Natural Field Experiment that attempts to explain why the gender pay gap persists. They conducted a “natural field experiment” where they observed the choices of both men and women without their knowledge of being observed.

They claim that evidence suggests that women approach salary negotiations differently from men. Labor survey data suggests that women are eight times less likely to engage in salary negotiations and in lab experiments were nine times less likely to ask for higher compensation compared to men. They believe that this willingness to initiate salary negotiations, or lack thereof, potentially explains a significant fraction of the observed gender differences in wages.

What is more interesting is why they think this occurs:

“We find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference disappears, and even tends to reverse. In terms of sorting, we find that men in contrast to women prefer job environments where the ‘rules of wage determination’ are ambiguous. This leads to the gender gap being much more pronounced in jobs that leave negotiation of wage ambiguous.

So even a one-word difference like adding the word “negotiable” to a job description can drastically affect how women approach negotiating their salary. They also find that men’s propensity to negotiate is less pronounced when negotiating is done impersonally, for example, over the internet versus face-to-face. They even found that women not only negotiate less for a higher wage, they even offer to work for a lower wage than advertised, something men rarely do.

Geographic location plays a large role, although that can probably be explained by differences in the localized society. Men were more likely to negotiate in Denver, Los Angeles, Portland, and Washington, D.C., whereas women were more likely to negotiate in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, San Diego, and San Francisco.

Do you think the women pay gap might largely be explained by salary negotiations or that another factor plays a bigger role?

Women Pay Gap: Salary Negotiations Causing Gender Disparity? is a post from: The Inquisitr

In the days and weeks since President Obama’s re-election, plenty of top Republicans (and Donald Trump) have talked of the need to reach out to more diverse demographic groups. Alas, it seems the memo has already been lost.

On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced who would chair all of the major House committees in the next Congress and — quelle surprise! — the entire roster is all white and all male. Furthermore, 12 of the 19 committee chairmen recommended so far by Republican leaders in the 113th Congress are returning congressmen. So much for binders full of women, eh Mitt?

Of the newcomers, Politico writes:

“New chairmen include Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas atop Financial Services, Ed Royce of California on Foreign Affairs, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia on Judiciary, Lamar Smith of Texas on the Science, Space and Technology Committee and Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania atop Transportation and Infrastructure.

“Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was the only lawmaker to obtain a waiver to bypass House GOP rules to remain as a chairman for a fourth term. He will lead the Budget Committee again.”

In a somewhat limp defense of the nominations to date, Republicans noted that the leaders of the Ethics and House Administration committees were yet to be decided, and Boehner may still back a woman for one of those slots. However, the line-up remains highly exclusive for a party that performed poorly with women voters in the 2012 US election.

The Democrats are leading in the inclusiveness stakes, but only just. House Dems are likely to give ranking positions to at least five women including New York’s Nita Lowey, Louise Slaughter, and Nydia Velazquez; Ohio’s Marcy Kaptur; California’s Maxine Waters; and Texas’ Vernice Johnson.

That said, even five women is a minority, and one that Jezebel‘s Erin Gloria Ryan felt should also be highlighted:

“House Democrats are doing slightly better than the Republicans at including women, but that’s sort of like saying that a person is doing a slightly better job than Chris Brown at reacting to Twitter trolling.”

Indeed. What do you think about the lack of XX chromosomes leading major House committees?

[Image via Rachel Maddow at MSNBC]

GOP’s House Committee To Be Chaired By All Men, Despite Binders Full Of Women is a post from: The Inquisitr

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s response last week to legacy NBC reporter Luke Russert’s suggestion she retire due to her “age” came off as hostile to many who reported it, but the politician says she was more “amused” than offended by the whippersnapper’s remarks.

Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to Russert’s remarks was refreshing to many women, as the double standard applied when you consider that politicians her age or older who happen to be male (Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid and John McCain spring to mind) are not queried in the same fashion seems fairly clear.

Pelosi herself quickly pointed this out to Russert when she quipped:

“Oh, you’ve always asked that question … Except to Mitch McConnell.”

Nancy Pelosi also then pointed out the challenges females face and historically have fielded when “catching up” to male counterparts in the workplace, suggesting a bit of male privilege in assessment of her fitness to serve due to her age as well.

Of her ascension through the ranks in politics, Pelosi explained:

“I knew that my male colleagues…had a jump on me because they didn’t have children to stay home [with] … You got to take off about 14 years from me because I was home raising a family.”

Sing it, sister! But Nancy Pelosi herself insists that, even despite the somewhat apparent prejudice revealed in the exchange, she wasn’t annoyed by Russert but rather found the controversy amusing.

Speaking to Martha Raddatz yesterday, the House Leader responded to Raddatz’s suggestion she took offense at the remarks, asserting:

“I do not agree with the characterization you just gave … I was amused. I was surprised at the response of my colleagues because they were just very offended.”

Raddatz asked again if Pelosi herself took offense to which she responded:

“Well, me? I laughed, because I thought, ‘Oh, they don’t know what questions I have to be subjected to all the time.’ For me, this is a matter of course.”

Nancy Pelosi then suggested that Russert should have saved his age-related line of questioning for another time.

Nancy Pelosi Was ‘Amused’ By Luke Russert’s ‘Age’ Jab is a post from: The Inquisitr

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi seemed annoyed today when a reporter suggested that maybe it was time for her to retire.

The California Democrat announced her intention to stay on as House minority leader at a press conference Wednesday, prompting NBC News reporter Luke Russert to ask Pelosi to consider her age.

“Your colleagues privately say that your decision to stay on prohibits the party from having a younger leadership,” Russert told Pelosi in a room packed with reporters. “What’s your response?”

The room turned into a circus, with nearby female lawmakers booing and heckling Russert (for an otherwise honest question) with one shouting “discrimination” at him several times. “Next!” Pelosi shouted.

“Oh, you’ve always asked that question,” 72-year-old Pelosi sarcastically said to Russert. “Except to Mitch McConnell.”

Pelosi is referencing Senate minority leader McConnell, a Republican, who is 70-years-old.

Answering the question more in-depth, Pelosi suggested that Russert’s question had nothing to do with her age, but her gender. “I knew that my male colleagues…had a jump on me because they didn’t have children to stay home [with],” she said. “You got to take off about 14 years from me because I was home raising a family.”

Pelosi called Russert’s question “offensive.”

She also said that she expects female politicians in the future to get a quicker start in their career than she did. “I want women to be here in greater numbers at an earlier age so that their seniority would start to count much sooner,” she said.

No one asked Sen. Reid if he’s too old (he’s 72) MT @daveweigelHere’s exchange that had every D woman booing reporter slate.me/W5XoAw

— Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) November 14, 2012

Actually, I’m sure there are plenty of Conservatives who would love Harry Reid to retire. Furthermore, I’d like to know whether Pelosi’s comments about “women here [in politics] in greater numbers at an earlier age” is an idea that she supports across party lines.

In any case, below is the video of Russert’s either ageist or sexist question (depending on your prejudices) and Pelosi’s response. What do you think? Is Nancy Pelosi too old for politics? Was Russert’s question fair? Sound off!

Nancy Pelosi Deflects Question About Her Age, Calls It ‘Offensive’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

From first viewing, you knew Lena Dunham’s Obama ad was going to simultaneously enrage, freak out, disgust, horrify and frighten the party of legitimate rape, and watching it as a liberal, it was almost like an imaginary split screen where you could vividly imagine conservatives cycling through all these emotions.

Lena Dunham’s Obama ad was certainly risky — using a virginity metaphor, the Girls creator endorses the President in a clip aimed at younger, female voters. Tattooed, short-haired and visibly divergent from the long-haired head-nodders in the opposition, Dunham addresses with candor and a casual tone the very aspects of female agency the GOP wishes to suppress, hates with the smallest fibers of their being, and ultimately fears will contaminate their females.

Oh, Lena Dunham. Obama’s endorsement by the young HBO star is certainly a mixed bag. I myself have written about my mixed feelings for Dunham, as a New Yorker a decade ahead of her in age — I think for women my age who came of age in “the city,” she kind of uncomfortably reminds us of a time in our lives before we mellowed out and at least attempted to become more universally palatable.

But overall, Dunham was right to confront Obama’s greatest foes head on, attacking them where they live and holding up the specter of what they threaten for all to see. Salon posted an excellent takedown of right-wing outrage over Lena Dunham’s Obama ad, including a link to a Red State diary in which the (female) author bleats in horror:

“First he asked for your wedding gifts, then your yard sales and now he has asked for your daughters.”

The commentary, of course, highlights the other side of the ad’s doublespeak, the concept GOP voters may not consider — that “daughters” possess the agency and even desire to make these decisions on their own, with clarity, and may decide (gasp!) to go on over to the black man willingly! Someone call Penny’s mom from Hairspray!

Salon said it best when writer Mary Elizabeth Williams jokes:

“The best part, however, is how she declared that Barack Obama, like droit du seigneur-rocking feudal lord or Kurdish chieftain, ’has asked for your daughters.’ Your innocent, probably white, virgin daughters, ravished by that hymen-lusting brute in the White House. “

Salon also links to Ben Shapiro over at (of course) Breitbart, who has pulled the alarm for Female Agency Threat Code Black, noting that President Obama’s own daughters should have been a disincentive for his campaign to run the spot. Shapiro shrilly assesses:

“In fact, he understands [women] so well that he exploits them for insane commercials comparing losing your virginity with voting. Obama has young daughters. But that didn’t stop him from releasing this commercial. Because this is what Obama thinks of your daughters. This is Obama’s official campaign ad. Paid for with his campaign money. Distributed by his campaign. If this ad were any more demeaning to women – who apparently care only about having sex, if you listen to Lena ‘You Want To Do It’ Dunham — it would be produced by Bill Maher and star Bill Clinton.”

Bless their hearts, Shapiro and the other writer only see women as entities that are incapable of contextualizing Lena Dunham’s tongue-in-cheek Obama ad, persons incapable of protecting themselves from a sexual metaphor, much less the consequences of actual sex. Which, contrasted with the regressive planks of this year’s GOP platform aren’t the least bit shocking.

When a party wants to force a woman who is undergoing an abortion to be penetrated against her will for an ultrasound, when the birth control prescriptions mandated their by their doctors are considered a majority-vote decision to include her employer, you expected what, exactly? Or when a woman who has the temerity to protest is loudly called a “slut” and a “prostitute” on the national stage for speaking out?

When one of the Vice-Presidential candidate’s political besties accidentally reveals that the party thinks only a fraction of rapes are “legitimate rapes,” when party leaders even feel comfortable using the terms “legitimate rape” and “forcible rape,” again, what’s the natural extension? What about when party members float the ideas that “some girls rape easy?”

Or when while Todd Akin says it doesn’t happen out of one side of his mouth, while Richard Mourdock says that when a rape victim becomes pregnant, it’s God’s will, can anyone really deny that this particular political coalition so fears women making decisions that they can’t even get their stories straight as they attempt to pull the wool over our eyes about how little they think of our abilities to make our own decisions, from birth control to post-rape care to voting for a president?

While it may be tempting to say Lena Dunham’s Obama ad was too transgressive, too blunt or too ahead of its time for swing voters to swallow, it should be a reminder of everything at stake in the next election, and why even fence female voters need to take an honest assessment of the impact these policies will have on their lives; to get a grip and let go of these ideas that women’s issues are somehow made less important by a sucky economy or national security. They count, feasibly even more than the deficit when it comes to total life impact for many of us.

Below is Lena Dunham’s Obama ad, in case you missed it the first time around.

Lena Dunham’s Obama Ad Exposes GOP’s Fear Of Female Agency is a post from: The Inquisitr

Republican Gov. John Kasich is deeply in tune with the struggles of women, and he doesn’t want you to forget that while their husbands are out making speeches, shaking hands and kissing babies, political wives are doing the really important work — like laundry.

Kasich, of Ohio, was attempting to give props to the wives of many prominent Republicans in the game right now — but like many of the GOP’s efforts to appeal to women this election cycle, his attempt fell a bit flat in its execution and actually managed to offend some females who like to think that if they were involved in politics, it would be interfacing with the electorate and not laundering socks.

Not that laundry isn’t an important job, there’s just a bit of “get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich … why do you look so annoyed, are we out of bread or something?” male privilege inherent in Kasich’s remark about wives and laundry. The Ohio governor, in his attempt to big up the wives of politicos, said:

“You know, Jane Portman, Karen Kasich, and Janna Ryan, they operate an awful lot of the time in the shadows … It’s not easy to be a spouse of an elected official … You know, they’re at home, doing the laundry and doing so many things while we’re up here on the stage getting a little bit of applause, right? They don’t often share in it. And it is hard for the spouse to hear the criticism and to put up with the travel schedule and to have to be at home taking care of the kids. And where is the politician? Out on the road.”

Of course, there is always Hillary Clinton. And Elizabeth Warren. And Condoleeza Rice. And Susana Martinez. Imagine how hard it is for them to do all the laundry and still manage a high-powered political career.

Did you find Ohio Gov. Kasich’s remarks to be insulting to women?

Republican John Kasich Applauds Wives’ Role In Doing Politicians’ Laundry is a post from: The Inquisitr

Lana Del Rey posing for a GQ shoot after being declared ‘Woman of the Year’ by the British magazine has triggered a fresh debate about objectification.

Though magazine shelves are rammed with images of exposed flesh (mostly female), this is more about context: while Del Rey was snapped nude for her cover, GQ‘s ‘Men of the Year’ – including Mad Men actor John Slattery and Brit stars Tinie Tempah, Robbie Williams and James Corden – appear fully suited and booted. In short, the men were given actual clothes for their respective covers, whereas Lana was asked to pose naked.

Although Lana found something to wear for the shots inside the magazine, the cover image has attracted plenty of criticism from numerous writers.

Jezebel writer Lindy West weighed into the debate early, labeling GQ‘s choice of covers as “internalized sexism” (West writes: “That’s how accustomed I am to women just being naked by default. I’m so used to it, I don’t even notice anymore! Of course the woman is naked – the woman is always naked.”), while Hipster Runoff noted how “Lana Del Rey finally hits rock bottom, forced to pose naked.”

Adding fuel to the objectification debate is a shot inside the magazine which appears to show Del Rey being groped, with a male model gripping her neck as his other hand cups her right breast. You can view the full set of pictures here and make your own mind up (though it seems obvious why the five different covers, pictured above, have caused offense – the contrast is stark).

What do you make of the outcry over Lana Del Rey’s GQ shoot?

[Images via GQ]

Lana Del Rey GQ Shoot Criticized As Sexist is a post from: The Inquisitr

After paying the $15 entry fee at his neighborhood shooting range, gun enthusiast Derrick Hunter was shocked to learn that women get in for free. His bitterness over the company’s “Ladies Day” event has prompted the gentleman to file a lawsuit against Maryland Small Arms Range, according to ABC News.

“[The manager] told them they were free, so I asked him, ‘Why did I have to pay to use the range and they didn’t?,’” Hunter told WJLA. “He said, ‘Because they’re women, and you don’t fit the criteria.’”

In order fight back against what he considered to be an injustice, he took his case to the Human Relations Commission of Prince George’s County. After reviewing the situation, it was determined that Hunter actually had a case. Now he wants the shooting range to pony up $200,000 for gender discrimination.

“Any time you get any kind of discrimination it does hit home to a certain extent,” he explained to ABC News. “I have children. If don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything. Sooner or later you have to stand up for your rights.”

Carl Roy, the guy who operates the aforementioned shooting range, doesn’t feel he’s done anything wrong. “It’s a governmental micro-managing society,” he explained. “If you read the county ordinance, they are narrowly construing discrimination to mean if you give a discount to somebody, then you got to give it to everyone. But no one is saying anything about age discrimination. They’re not saying anything about occupational discrimination, or JC Penney giving free haircuts to children for the month of August.”

Jimmy A. Bell, Derrick Hunter’s attorney, said that men are often subjected to this sort of discrimination. “If someone said because you were Jewish you’d have to pay more money, what would you think about that?” Bell said. “People don’t look at it like that. People think a man should have to take it. And that’s now how the law works.”

Do you think the shooting range should have to pay $200,000 for reverse sexism?

Maryland Shooting Range Sued For Reverse Sexism is a post from: The Inquisitr

Forced pregnancy tests at the Delhi Charter School in Louisiana were the subject of a flurry of interest and activism from the American Civil Liberties Union this week, but, as soon as the policy became public knowledge, the school was banned from engaging in the illegal behavior.

The forced pregnancy tests under the Delhi Charter School’s “School Pregnancy Policy” caused an outcry on the internet, particularly for its draconian rules and treatment of girls who were merely suspected of being pregnant, not to mention the illegal barring of pregnant girls or girls who simply refused a pregnancy test from classes.

No provisions were made for the boys in school who caused a girl to be pregnant or were suspected of fathering a child.

The state acted quickly and struck down the policy, which was illegal under a few federal laws and protections. In a statement issued Tuesday evening, the Louisiana State Department of Education confirmed it will be “requiring an immediate change to the policy.”

A day prior, according to TODAY.com, Michael Higgins, director of law and policy in the Louisiana office of school choice, sent a letter to the Delhi Charter School to address treatment of young women and girls enrolled at the institution and ordering proof of change of policy by August 16. The site says:

“In the letter, released to TODAY.com Tuesday evening, the state asks for a policy that ‘does not discriminate against pregnant students or students perceived to be pregnant’ and says that ‘under no circumstances shall the school require any student to take a pregnancy test.’”

According to the ACLU, 70 percent of pregnant students eventually drop out of school, in large part due to discrimination they face due to their condition.

Forced Pregnancy Tests At Louisiana School Will Be Banned, State Intervenes is a post from: The Inquisitr

Forced pregnancy tests have been written into the official student rules at a Louisiana charter school, one that is public, and the American Civil Liberties Union has blasted the school in a letter for what they say is clearly illegal action under federal laws.

The sexist forced pregnancy tests included in the school’s policy seem like a privacy violation no matter how you look at the rule: Girls at the school (and girls only) are subject to the invasive action under the institution’s “School Pregnancy Policy.” But even, and perhaps unbelievably, it’s right there in black and white, despite being a clear and obvious violation of the decades-old Title IX act.

The Delhi Charter School, which is the one requiring the invasive and illegal testing of any female student they wish to determine whether or not she may be pregnant, has the guidelines published online in a PDF document. The “School Pregnancy Policy” reads:

“If an administrator or teacher suspects a student is pregnant, a parent conference will be held. The school reserves the right to require any female student to take a pregnancy test to confirm whether or not the suspected student is in fact pregnant. The school further reserves the right to refer the suspected student to a physician of its choice. If the test indicates that the student is pregnant, the student will not be permitted to attend classes on the campus of Delhi Charter School.”

The document continues, stating that a student who wishes to continue in school if they are discovered to be pregnant will be forced to do home study:

“If a student is determined to be pregnant and wishes to continue to attend Delhi Charter School, the student will be required to pursue a course of home study that will be provided by the school.”

According to the ACLU, the policy violates the portion of Title IX that protects female students from exclusion from school “including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student’s pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom.” The civil rights organization also says the Student Pregnancy Policy at the Delhi Charter School violates the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

Forced Pregnancy Tests Or Expulsion? ACLU Blasts Louisiana Charter School For Illegal Policy is a post from: The Inquisitr

Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas has made a great showing at the London Olympics, but it hasn’t stopped naysayers from focusing on her hairstyle rather than her performance at the events.

Gabby Douglas has performed very well in her events, but naysayers have inexplicably complained that while pulling off her flawless moves on the world stage, the young Olympiad’s hair was just… not all that impressive to them.

Gabby Douglas, however, did not realize you could medal in braids. And it is sad, as the Olympics occur again, that female athletes are marginalized and again, unlike their male counterparts, judged on appearance as well as a world-class performance — witness the hubbub sparked by women’s volleyball and whether or not the athletes wear bikinis as a testament to this particular sexist ugliness still being batted about.

But Gabby Douglas, even at 16, is not letting the haters harsh her Olympic mellow — on the subject of complaints about her hair, the Olympic champ says:

“I don’t know where this is coming from. What’s wrong with my hair? I’m like, ‘I just made history and people are focused on my hair?’ It can be bald or short, it doesn’t matter about hair.”

The focus on one’s appearance could throw a person off their game, and Gabby Douglas wouldn’t be blamed for finding the unnecessary criticism distracting. Still, the star gymnast has not taken the haters to heart, and she has a message for them:

“Nothing is going to change… I’m going to wear my hair like this during beam and bar finals. You might as well just stop talking about it.”

Do you think that Gabby Douglas’ hair is just fine the way it is?

Gabby Douglas Doesn’t Care If You Like Her Hair is a post from: The Inquisitr

Japan’s Women’s Soccer team may have won the World Cup last year, shutting out the USA and securing a major victory, but that doesn’t mean they get to ride up front in the fancy seats on the way to the Olympics with the menfolk.

Yes, even in this day and age, Japan’s Women’s Soccer team was placed back in “cattle class” with all the non-celebrities, while the men’s athletes were seated in business class befitting athletes important enough to represent the country in the Olympics.

Booking issues were not what placed the Japanese Women’s Soccer team in the back of the bus — both teams left together, on the same Japan Airlines flight. And player on the female team Homare Sawa says:

“I guess it should have been the other way around… Even just in terms of age, we are senior.”

It wasn’t just players in Japan who received seemingly preferential treatment seemingly based on the fact they had a penis — the Australian Olympic basketball teams similarly had an airline class differential between women’s and men’s teams. The male Boomers were placed in business class, while the females on the Opals team rode in economy.

A spokeswoman for the Olympic planning officials in Australia said that disparity was not due to favoritism or taking male sport more seriously than female, but rather the fact that male athletes are larger overall than their female counterparts:

“The leadership group of each team is consulted on how that budget is spent – including travel arrangements… First and foremost, we’re always conscious of the welfare of our players… Different factors are taken into account when organising travel arrangements for our national teams – height and size being a primary consideration.

“For example, the average height of our male basketball players is 200.2cm. The average height of our female basketball players is 183cm.”

However, as the Sydney Morning Herald points out, that doesn’t always track, as “Opals rising star Liz Cambage is 203 cm tall, while Boomers players Adam Gisbon and Patrick Mills stand 188 cm and 183cm respectively.”

Do you think the treatment of the Japanese and Australian women’s teams is indicative of overall lack of respect for female athletes?

Japanese Women’s Soccer Team Flew Coach to Olympics, Men Flew Business Class is a post from: The Inquisitr

Fox News host Gretchen Carlson stormed off the set Thursday following sexist remarks made by her co-host, but was her departure in good humor or the result of genuine offense?

Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade host Fox and Friends, and according to the Examiner, Kilmeade has quite a history of inappropriate jokes against women. The morning show hosts watched a segment on the U.S. Navy Sea Chanters presented by Steve Doocy, a the group was all-male until 1980, pointed out Doocy.

“Women are everywhere,” Kilmeade incredulously replied, “We’re letting them play golf and tennis now. It’s out of control.”

That was about all Gretchen Carlson was willing to listen to, as she then stood up and began walking off the set during a live broadcast. “You know what?” she called out as she left, “You know what? You read the headlines, since men are so great. Go ahead.”

“Finally!” Kilmeade shouted back, adding, “leaving an all-male crew.”

“In all your glory, go for it!” Carlson said as she left. Kilmeade shrugged, “eh, she needed a shower.”

Though Carlson was smiling as she walked off the set, and even remained in the wings, chiding Kilmeade as he read the headlines by himself, many in the media have viewed this as a sexist incident on the part of Fox News host Brian Kilmeade. Carlson later returned to the set and continued the “sexist” banter with Kilmeade, though it seemed, at this point, to be a joke.

So was it?

The next day, Carlson was back on the show saying that it was all just a joke and trying to play it off.

I don’t know. Here’s the video, what do you think? Was Gretchen Carlson genuinely offended? Did Brian Kilmeade cross the line?

Fox News Host Walks Off Live Set After Co-Host’s Sexist Comments is a post from: The Inquisitr

An Arizona High School baseball team has reportedly forfeited their chance to play for the Arizona State Championship after refusing to play against an opposing team with a 15-year old girl on the roster.

The players and coaches of Our Lady of Sorrows Academy in Phoenix were due to face Mesa Preparatory Academy in the Arizona Charter Athletic Association State Championship, however after learning that 15-year-old Paige Sultzbach would be at second base for the game, Our Lady of Sorrows promptly withdrew from the game.

“They wouldn’t play the game as long as we had a girl on the team who was on the field. It violates their policy about boys playing against girls,” says Mesa Preparatory Academy headmaster Robert Wagner.

“It’s just unfortunate that our kids who are excited about playing don’t have the opportunity,” he added.

Various reports indicate that Our Lady Sorrows is a Catholic school run by traditionalist, conservative priests that do not agree with the interaction of girls and boys in that respect. They simply feel that it goes against their standards.

“It wasn’t that they were afraid they were going to hurt or injure her, it’s that (they believe) that a girl’s place is not on a field.” says the girls mother, Pamela Sultzbach.

According to Fox News, Our Lady of Sorrows Academy had this to say regarding the forfeiture of the game:

“Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls,” adding

“Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty”.

The Sultzbach family fully supports their daughter Paige, but are certainly saddened by the stance of the Catholic school.

“It’s unfortunate,” Sultzbach’s father, John says.

“We hadn’t anticipated coming across that. I think it’s sad.”

“She’s glad that they are the state champions, and she’s happy the way her school and her teammates stood behind her,” John Sultzbach continued. “But she wanted to play.”

Mesa Preparatory Academy finished their season undefeated at 11-0.

How does it make you feel to see that sexism still exists in High School sports?

HS Baseball Team Refuses To Play Against A Girl; Forfeits Championship Game is a post from: The Inquisitr

Steve Harvey is experiencing an unexpected boon right now, as his hit Think Like a Man has knocked the dominant Hunger Games off the top of the box-office charts.

Harvey’s book of nearly the same name “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man” precipitated the film, and it’s almost comical that something as quietly feminist as Hunger Games (in it, heroine Katniss Everdeen just happens to be a female, and just happens to be a bad ass, and neither issue is ever really congratulated or overly notable in the film’s universe) was followed by something as blatantly misogynist as Steve Harvey’s Act Like a Man.

I have to admit off the bat, I haven’t read the book, and find the premise (essentially that women must refashion themselves as secretly cunning yet outwardly passive to snag the marriage brass ring) to be offensive on its face. But Steve Harvey’s advice has been a bestseller in book form, and the film has gone on to dominate as well- at least for this week- demonstrating there’s no shortage of women that will buy into such offensive notions or at least allow themselves to be entertained by a rom-com based on the idea that being anything other than who you are is a good way to attract a mate.

One of the other, amusing aspects of the whole success of the book and then film thing is that Steve Harvey himself has been married three times. So… maybe he married women who didn’t act like ladies and think like men? Maybe they thought like ladies and every so often asked Harvey to get them a sandwich? Unacceptable.

Harvey concedes that he didn’t write the tome as a relationship expert, and explains what he believes he did wrong in previous relationships:

“People say, ‘He’s a relationship expert,’ but the expertise that I have is that I’m an expert on how men think. If I was an expert at relationships, I wouldn’t be in my third marriage! (laughs). But I got being a man down pat.”

Steve Harvey continues:

“I went about [marriage] the wrong way. I never sat down with my father and talked about who to pick, how to pick, how to hang in there when it gets tough. We didn’t have a lot of talks about it, so I kept trying. I got way off track a few times. I made a lot of mistakes, but those mistakes got me to this point.”

At the end of the Reuters interview, Steve Harvey does have some non-sexist advice for his fans based on his own experiences. When asked about his current success, the talk show host again hits on the perserverance theme, saying that after 11 sucky jobs, “when it came time to do uncomfortable things to be successful, I was pretty good at it.”

Steve Harvey Says He Is No Relationship Expert, Has Being a Man ‘Down Pat’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Political comedian Bill Maher has often joked that the political landscape of the US has changed with the left moving more to the right and the right moving to a mental hospital, but the joke seems more prescient in 2012 when one of the central issues that keeps cropping up is whether or not birth control should be restricted- and a tone deaf crack made by Rick Santorum Super PAC donor Foster Friess is a good example of how many right-wingers view this issue.

Women and progressives in general are kind of stymied by the steps backward- if fighting over abortion rights felt backwards, fighting over access to the pill itself feels downright antiquated. But there is a contingent in the US that is growing ever more vocal opposing these very basic reproductive issues- meaning, contraception- and it’s increasingly embarrassing that we are the only Western country in which this is even a debate.

The joke to which Friess referred is an old one, likely older than most of us- about using aspirin as a contraceptive by holding it between your knees. While it seems harmless enough, the implication behind it is- while not necessarily super-offensive- is that women who have a need for contraception really just need to keep their legs together. After making the crack on MSNBC, Friess apologized on his website- though mainly for the age of the joke:

“After listening to the segment tonight, I can understand how I confused people with the way I worded the joke and their taking offense is very understandable. To all those who took my joke as modern day approach I deeply apologize and seek your forgiveness. My wife constantly tells me I need new material- she understood the joke but didn’t like it anyway- so I will keep that old one in the past where it belongs.”

When asked about Friess’ comment, Santorum fell back on the “gotcha politics” clause and blamed the media.

Santorum Backer Foster Friess Apologizes For Crass Birth Control Joke is a post from: The Inquisitr

“This is your captain speaking… look to your right for an excellent view of an ass you can bounce a quarter off of.”

Well, it wasn’t exactly like that. But close enough. A pilot on Southwest has been suspended after a questionable series of remarks he made was accidentally broadcast over a live mic to the entire airspace of Texas, blocking other transmissions. Awkward. According to ABC, the pilot -on a flight from Houston to Atlanta- complained mainly about the physical attributes of flight attendants:

“There’s 12 flight attendants, individual, never the same flight attendant twice. Eleven (expletive) over the top (expletive), (expletive) homosexuals and a granny,” the pilot said. “Eleven. I mean, think of the odds of that. I thought I was in Chicago, which was party-land.”

“After that, it was just a continuous stream of gays and grannies and grandes…”

The ostensibly mortified co-pilot tried to redirect the conversation, but the pilot blathered on:

“Well I don’t give a (expletive). I hate 100 percent of their (expletive).”

He then turned to bashing Houston flight attendants.

“Now I’m back in Houston, which is easily one of the ugliest bases. I mean it’s all these (expletive) old dudes and grannies and there’s like maybe a handful of cute chicks,” he said.

The pilot has since returned to work, but the FAA released a statement about the incident:

“The incident occurred during a phase of flight in which personal conversations are permitted in the cockpit. Nevertheless, the FAA expects a higher level of professionalism from flight crews, regardless of the circumstances,” the FAA said in a statement.

Southwest Airlines’s Vice President Flight Operations Captain Chuck Magill apologized to Southwest employees for the “inexcusable” behavior.

Southwest Airlines Pilot Suspended After Crass Remarks Caught on Live Mic is a post from: The Inquisitr

A new online petition asking Wal-Mart not to sell Duke Nukem Forever has over 5,000 names on it. In its protest against the game’s sexist content, the petition seems especially irritated by Forever‘s “Capture the Babe” multiplayer mode.

In this game variant, players have to carry a squirming ‘babe’ over their shoulder and slap her on the backside to calm her down if she ‘freaks out’. Yeah …  I know. Petitioner Shelby Knox writes:

“To be clear, Duke Nukem Forever makes a game out of physical and sexual violence against women … the Capture the Babe mode of the Duke Nukem game, which will be played primarily by young people, sends the message that physical and sexual violence against women is normal, acceptable, and even funny. It’s not — and we have to say so.”

It’s not an entirely accurate claim (Duke Nukem Forever is rated ‘Mature’ so ‘young people’ shouldn’t be playing it), but it’s pretty obvious that Forever is going to be the most misogynistic mainstream game for some years. Its defenders say the game is ‘tongue-in-cheek’, and fair enough: I see that also.

In fact, I’m not really offended by Duke Nukem Forever. More than anything, I just see it as a sort of embarrassing relic that has bizarrely been revived for 2011. It’s tasteless, tacky, and not smart or witty in the slightest. However, I’m also unconvinced this will spawn a generation of men who beat women. It’s just too silly and deeply embedded in the realms of fantasy and satire to be taken seriously.

[Change.com, via Destructoid]

Petition wants Wal-Mart to boycott ‘sexist’ Duke Nukem is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a shocking turn of events, Howard Stern has said something sort of racist, undeniably misogynistic and totally dick.

Stern, not known for his charitable feelings toward the fairer sex, blasted the praise heaped upon breakout actress Gabourey Sidibe on his show yesterday. For lack of a better term, Stern seems to think that Sidibe is a bit of a one trick pony, and won’t work again due to being “the size of a planet” and, ostensibly, “black.” (Someone should tell this year’s fat black Oscar winner Mo’Nique that fat black women don’t have futures in entertainment because she’s probably under the opposite impression, having won an Academy Award and all.)

Stern railed:

“There’s the most enormous, fat black chick I’ve ever seen. She is enormous. Everyone’s pretending she’s a part of show business and she’s never going to be in another movie,” he said. “She should have gotten the Best Actress award because she’s never going to have another shot. What movie is she gonna be in?”

Well, Howard, considering there are women in our society who are fat, black or both, perhaps she could portray one on the stage or screen? Yes, Sidibe doesn’t have the marketability of say, Jessica Alba, but “never going to have another shot” is a bit dramatic, isn’t it? Howard wasn’t the only Sidibe detractor though- formerly fat, still black Robin Quivers seemed to agree with Stern:

“And Oprah’s lying and saying you’re going to have a brilliant career,” said Robin.

“Oprah’s another liar, a filthy liar,” said Stern. “She’s telling an enormous woman the size of a planet that she’s going to have a career.”

Indeed! Where would Oprah get the preposterous notion that a black woman of size could ever become successful? That’s like saying a fat black lady could become the richest woman in our society, wield enormous influence over American women and cause books to sell out like they have crack cocaine embedded in the pages. Silly Oprah. What redonkulous claim will she make next, that a fat black woman could get a job as a sidekick to a cranky, misogynistic, plastic obsessed radio host with a giant ego? People are so delusional.

Unemployable Gabby is set to appear in “Yelling to the Sky” and a new Showtime series, “The C Word.”

[HuffPo]

Howard Stern: ‘Enormous’ Sidibe will never work again is a post from: The Inquisitr

Vagina mints- why has no one thought of this before?

Because it’s a horrifying, off-putting and misogynist idea, that’s why. The new “novelty” feminine mints (feminine being a euphemism for the part of the female anatomy that dare not speak its name, see video below) called Linger and priced at $7.99 a tin are a whole bowl of wrong for so many reasons- here are the first four.

Reason #1: The backstory. A nameless woman, who I assume is supposed to be the entrepreneur behind the concept of vaginal mints, tells the soft-core story of the first man who slipped her some cootch candy:

On a first time trip into the heart of India, I fell instantly for a soft spoken, aristocratic man. He was tall, built, and well dressed.  His voice was deep and husky, his eyes dark and intense, his skin the color of caramel…

(Fade to black…)

I was caught off guard when he kissed me deeply tasting of sweet mint… delicious!  He looked into my eyes then and said softly, “Now, let me Linger!”  That was the beginning of a long-lasting love affair. When I returned to the States, I brought the tingly sweet tasting sex mint with me. It’s been shared with friends and (believe it or not) family. It’s been shown to and discussed with our physicians. Now, this Internal Feminine Flavoring has been recreated to be shared so your lover can Linger with you!

Sadly for womankind, the skipped over bit does not include the woman asking incredulously “did you just put a mint… in my vagina?!?” before beating the man unconscious with her shoe, caramel colored aristocrat or not. But wrong keeps coming.

Reason #2: The website, in general. Bad web design, “brought to you by GoDaddy!,” is off-putting enough when they’re not shilling “internal feminine flavoring.” I wouldn’t trust the entities behind this site to sell me… well, anything more innocuous than crotch mints. In addition to looking like it was strung together in Front Page circa early-2000, there are bonus points for charity-appropriateness fail:

Reason #3: Sweeteners + vagina= infection. If you’re worried about getting visitors down south, as it were, a yeast infection doesn’t add to your hospitality down there.

Reason #4: As MotherJones points out, they’re just regular trade show mints, repackaged and repriced for your filthy, unminty hoo-ha. Although the subtext of the site is clear (Linger is designed for slow release-extending the time your partner will want to spend tasting the new you- translation: your vagina is gross!) I would counsel any woman who considers minting her delicate bits to please a man to consider the alternative. Chances are, if you’re that hygiene conscious, you’re already not-disgusting enough to mate with. Remember, like a liberal coating of Axe Body Spray, a mint can only cover, not clean what’s there. And if your partner complains about foreplay anyway, you can always lock them out without their pants and get a vibrator. More expensive, sure, but worth it for the lack of minty vagina stinging.

[Via Consumerist]

Just say no to lady garden mints is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you can’t beat, them, join them?

[Via CollegeHumor]

Sexism and sandwiches is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s where a woman belongs.

Kitchens agree is a post from: The Inquisitr

Actual ad from the 60s: sooner or later your wife will drive home, one of the best reasons for owning a Volkswagen.

Wives and Beatles: never a good combination is a post from: The Inquisitr