Daily Archives: April 4, 2012

On Having a Baby

Feministe friend — and one of the best writers on the internets — Nicole Cliffe has a great piece in the Hairpin about baby-raising and feeling-having: Continue reading

Tagged | 62 Comments

Arizona HB 2036 is bad for women anyway.

A week ago, Arizona HB 2036 passed the state Senate and headed to the House. The bill centers around the belief that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks and thus bans abortion after 20 weeks of gestation (with an exception for the life of the mother). HB 2036 specifies gestational age “as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” leading many to believe that it actually bans abortion after 18 weeks of gestation.

This isn’t accurate. It’s still 20 weeks. But there is so, so much more to be angry about. Continue reading

Posted in Law, Medicine, Reproductive Rights | Tagged , | 25 Comments

Shorter Tucker Max: Wah wah wahhhh.

Ohhh Tucker Max. I don’t even want to respond to this blog post because the writing is bad enough to be nearly incomprehensible (editors!) and Tucker himself appears to have an IQ slightly above that of a medium-sized houseplant. Against my better judgment, though, here we go. Continue reading

Posted in Celebrity, Reproductive Rights | Tagged , , | 60 Comments

The Real People Behind Lawrence v. Texas

Dahlia Lithwick:

That’s the punch line: the case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex. In order to appeal to the conservative Justices on the high court, the story of a booze-soaked quarrel was repackaged as a love story. Nobody had to know that the gay-rights case of the century was actually about three or four men getting drunk in front of a television in a Harris County apartment decorated with bad James Dean erotica.

Continue reading

Posted in GLBTQ, Law | Tagged | 9 Comments

Women in Magazines

Weird how there appear to be no female columnists, reporters or essayists. Also weird how “General-Interest Magazines” include publications focused on men (GQ), but “Women’s Magazines” need their own category. Also weird how the Women’s Magazines group purports to include “health and fitness magazines and family-centric publications,” since health/fitness and family = lady-stuff. But even weirder that Men’s Health is then nominated under “Active- and Special-Interest Magazines.” So anything having to do with lady-stuff — lady’s health, lady’s fitness, lady’s families, lady’s popular culture, whatever has a woman on the cover who is not making a blowjob face? “Women’s Magazine.” Anything focused on dude culture? General interest, or gets its own damn category as “lifestyle” or “active” or “special interest.” And so dude magazines span every single category other than the “women’s” category. And dude mags get more awards and greater recognition and can further justify why they are more More Important and Mainstream than anything having to do with women. Continue reading

Posted in Gender, Media & Media Literacy | Tagged | 8 Comments