Evil Slutopia

SOPA Can Suck It

2012-01-18T16:11:00.001-05:00

If you're still unclear about what's happening on the internet today, check out these links and get on board the anti-SOPA/PIPA bandwagon.

Google: End Piracy, Not Liberty

Wikipedia's SOPA/PIPA Initiative

The Super PIPA/SOPA Action/Info Reference Guide

Mother Jones: The Story Behind the SOPA Blackout

Stop American Censorship

Mashable: Why SOPA Is Dangerous

Ladies of Liberty: Pre-Valentine Party

2012-01-16T10:51:00.000-05:00

As you may already know, we have been participating with an organization called Soldiers' Angels by sending letters and care packages to deployed servicemembers. We thought we'd give everyone a little update of how things are going and give you information on how you can get involved!

The Ladies of Liberty program focuses specifically on the needs of deployed female servicemembers and makes special efforts to support and encourage them. They assist with supplies for their unique health and hygiene needs and help them experience a few "pampering" moments to rejuvenate themselves, even in the environment of war. They collect items such as feminine hygiene materials, vitamins, body scrub, facial masks, shampoo, conditioner, brushes, books, magazines and DVDs.

We recently hosted a Cards for the Troops Pre-Valentine's Day party to collect and create valentine's cards for female servicemembers deployed overseas. (Yes, we know it's a little early for Valentine's Day, but it can take several weeks for mail to reach the troops sometimes.) The party was a huge success and we now have over 40 handmade cards!

There are a lot of ways to get involved with Soldiers' Angels. We hope you'll all consider signing up or helping out. Soldiers' Angels is a non-political group... so it doesn't matter how you feel about war to support the men and women risking their lives in it.

Happy very early Valentine's Day!

Get Your Santorum Sweater Vest Today!

2012-01-11T21:37:00.003-05:00

Those of you who have been torturing yourselves by following the race for the Republican presidential nomination might have noticed that Rick Santorum has been sporting some snazzy sweater vests on the campaign trail lately. Well, you'll be thrilled to learn that if you act fast, you can get your very own official Santorum sweater vest from his campaign's website. Check it out:

Before today I was not aware that the sweater vest was the perfect symbol of conservative solidarity. The more you know, huh? Aside from the fact that you can get sweater vests anywhere for a lot less than $100...and that Santorum's campaign will be long dead by the time you wait four to six weeks for delivery of your Santorumvest...oh yeah, and that Rick Santorum is a raging homophobe and an anti-choice misogynist douchebag, we think this is an awesome deal. Order yours today!

The AFA's Naughty or Nice List: Foot Locker

2011-12-23T16:30:00.000-05:00

Our debunking of the American Family Association's annual Naughty or Nice retailer list continues today with Foot Locker. (If you're not familiar with this list or why we write about it every year, see our intro post here.) The AFA has put Foot Locker on their red list this year, which means they consider them to be a company that is "against Christmas" and that "may use "Christmas" sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it". Let's investigate that.

Foot Locker uses the tagline "Celebrate Kicksmas" for their holiday advertising. Here's a screenshot from their website:

They also have a Kicksmas calendar that lists different deals and events and product introductions for the holiday season.

Kicksmas...hmmm, this seems to be a play on words of some kind. But which popular winter holiday could they possibly be referencing? Maybe that vaguely tree-shaped and star-topped object made of shoes in the image up above holds some kind of clue. Hey, you know what, you guys? I think they just might be talking about Christmas!

I understand that the AFA complains about stores saying "happy holidays" because they feel that the retailers are trying to make money from Christmas shoppers while refusing to specifically acknowledge the holiday that they're shopping for. (I don't agree with it, but I understand it.) But that's clearly not what's happening here. "Kicksmas" just seems like an attempt at a clever reference to their products, not to censor the word Christmas.

The AFA may feel like this isn't the best way to reference Christmas since Foot Locker is literally taking 'Christ' out by changing it to Kicksmas. But their red list is supposed to be for retailers that are against Christmas and refuse to acknowledge it, not stores who just happen to acknowledge it in a way that doesn't earn them an AFA gold star. We're rooting for Foot Locker to at least get bumped up to the yellow list by next year. Merry Kicksmas!

The AFA's Naughty or Nice List: 1-800-Flowers

2011-12-22T21:10:00.000-05:00

Our efforts to debunk that American Family Association's annual Naughty or Nice list of retailers continues today with 1-800-Flowers.com. (If you're not familiar with this list or why we write about it every year, see our intro post here.) The AFA has put 1-800-Flowers on the yellow list this year, which means that according to them it's a company that is "marginal on Christmas" and "refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium, but not in others".

We've been taking screenshots of 1-800-Flowers.com since Thanksgiving. Take a look and judge for yourself:

So we can all clearly see how much 1-800-Flowers marginalizes Christmas, right? Seriously, I'd love to hear an explanation from the AFA about why they ended up on the yellow list, because aside from changing their name to 1-800-Christmas.com, I don't know what more they could possibly do to show that they're a pro-Christmas company. It's just one more piece of evidence that the AFA's annual protest is stupid on every level.

When will poor Victoria's Secret get off the AFA Naughty List?

2011-12-20T11:39:00.000-05:00

Every year we have lots of fun writing about the American Family Association's "Naughty or Nice" list... and debunking all of their claims. It's become sort of a holiday tradition over here at Evil Slutopia.

Just to recap for those of you who don't already know about the AFA's list, every holiday season they organize a boycott of companies that don't use the word "Christmas" enough in their December advertising. They've compiled a list of national retailers and organized them into color-coded categories for easy boycotting.

Color Code:
GREEN: Company uses the term "Christmas" on a regular basis, we consider that company Christmas-friendly.
YELLOW: Company refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium, but not in others.
RED: Company may use "Christmas" sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it.

Every year they promise that they're going to "continually update the list" but it never really seems that they do any actual research to update it. Poor Victoria's Secret has repeatedly been on the red list of anti-Christmas companies even though they're not very anti-Christmas at all.

Obviously, we don't agree with the AFA's belief that "Christmas" must be recognized by retailers and non-religious companies. We much prefer the all-inclusive "holiday" to "Christmas". But if the AFA is going to take a stand, they should at least do the research to back up their claims. Now, we could understand the AFA not loving Victoria's Secret for other reasons, but they're off base on this one but every year they refuse to update the list. (Check out our coverage from 2010 and 2009.) So once again we will prove why...

Let's take a look at a few screenshots from their website, as well as a few photos from their current catalogs and you tell us if they're "anti-Christmas":

Clearly this is a company that hates Christmas, right? You can see how they refuse to recognize this very special holiday and avoid using the term 'Christmas' at all costs. Whatever, AFA. If you're going to take the step of calling for some of these companies to be boycotted, we don't think it's too much to ask that you at least get you research right before you do.

We suspect that Victoria's Secret is on the list for reasons that have very little to do with their Christmas advertising and much more to do with the fact that they sell sexy lingerie. Just look at how wrong they were about the company that owns Victoria's Secret, Limited Brands last year. This year they've moved them to the red list, but Bath and Body works is still in the yellow. Do they not realize that Limited Brands owns both companies and doesn't sell anything themselves, therefore doesn't have any individual advertising?

WTF, AFA?

The AFA's War on the War on Christmas Begins!

2011-12-13T16:55:00.000-05:00

It's the most wonderful time of the year! The American Family Association is again leading the charge in the War on Christmas by putting out their annual Naughty or Nice list of retailers. Blogging about this list is one of our favorite ESC holiday traditions, so we're excited to tackle this year's offering from the AFA.

If you're not familiar with the Naughty or Nice list, here's how the AFA describes it:

AFA's 2011 listing of top retailers and how they recognize Christmas

Color Code:
GREEN: Company uses the term "Christmas" on a regular basis, we consider that company Christmas-friendly.
YELLOW: Company refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium, but not in others.
RED: Company may use "Christmas" sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it.
Criteria - AFA reviewed up to four areas to determine if a company was "Christmas-friendly" in their advertising: print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website and/or personal visits to the store. If a company's ad has references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.), it was considered as an attempt to reach "Christmas" shoppers.

If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word "Christmas," then the company is considered as censoring "Christmas."

Note: AFA does not list local or regional companies. Only nationally-recognized companies will be listed. This list only reflects a company's "Christmas" advertising and does not take into account other corporate policies AFA may not agree with.

And if you're not familiar with our reasons for writing about this list every year, here's a summary:

-There's nothing wrong with stores using 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas', and the "war on Christmas" exists only in the minds of people like Bill O'Reilly and the AFA. Christmas is celebrated openly pretty much everywhere in this country, but there are many other holidays that are also celebrated at this time of year and there's nothing wrong with stores choosing to use an inclusive term like 'happy holidays'. It's really not a big deal, as we said when we first wrote about this back in 2009:

Yes, the fact that some stores choose to use a general holiday greeting that applies to everyone is a horrible nightmare. Sometimes when I'm out shopping for gifts and someone in a store wishes me "happy holidays", I find myself losing my moral and spiritual bearings and beginning to question who I am as a person and reevaluating the meaning of life, and then I have to get a lemonade from Auntie Anne's and sit on a bench outside of Socks Appeal until I feel better. It's a challenging experience.

-Buying stuff at a store really has nothing to do with the true meaning of Christmas anyway, so we don't see why Christian groups like the AFA spend so much time and effort every year on trying to force stores to be as "pro-Christmas" as possible. Someone attempted to raise this point on the facebook page of the One Million Moms (a division of the AFA), and this was the OMM's reply:

Teaching your family the real meaning of CHRISTmas is extremely important. Since the retail stores would like to profit from those who do buy Christmas gifts then they need to advertise what it is we are actually celebrating. Christmas, not Holiday. People do not buy Winter Solstice gifts, etc.

Ah, CHRISTmas, I see what you did there. It's pretty sad that they're so desperate to believe that there's a "war" on their holiday that they're reduced to obvious nonsense like claiming that only Christians buy and exchange gifts during the winter.

-The AFA uses this list as a way of trying to make money for themselves. Every year their action alerts on this topic are accompanied by sales pitches for their Christmas buttons and signs. This year they've also taken it a step further by listing the AFA Online Store as the first retailer on the green list.

-There are way more retailers on the green list than there are on the yellow and red lists combined, and it seems to grow more lopsided each year, which would make most rational people question just how big of a problem this really is. The green list has 54 retailers, the yellow list has 10, and the red list has 14. And, like last year, some of the entries on the yellow and red lists seem to be there just to make those lists look longer. For example, Limited Brands is listed on both the yellow and red lists for no apparent reason even though it shouldn't be listed at all because the retailers owned by Limited Brands are already listed separately. They also include stores like supermarkets and office supply stores that wouldn't exactly be at the top of most people's holiday shopping lists anyway. They also break their own rules about only listing "nationally recognized companies" by including regional stores like Belk and Meijer, smaller web or catalog-only retailers like Uncommon Goods, and stores I've never heard of in my life like Maurice's and Scheels Sporting Goods.

Finally, there's the fact that they're actually wrong about many of the stores that they put on their yellow and red lists being 'anti-Christmas'. So even if we were to overlook all of the reasons that a list like this is misguided and unnecessary and pretend that it's a totally legitimate idea, the execution totally sucks. If the AFA is going to encourage their followers to boycott these retailers during the holiday season, we feel that they should at least make some attempt to make a list that's accurate based on their own criteria. Every year they fail to do so, so every year we help them out by fact-checking their list. We like to think of it as our holiday gift to them.

Our posts about specific retailers on the 2011 Naughty or Nice list are coming very soon, but if you'd like to revisit the wars of Christmas past in the meantime, here are a few of our favorite posts from the last few years:

-Debunking the AFA's Christmas Boycott: Bass Pro Shops - Because stores that offer their customers free photos with Santa are totally out to marginalize Christmas. This post is from 2009 and they were moved to the green list in 2010, which we take full credit for. You're welcome, Bass Pro Shops.

-Debunking the AFA's Christmas Boycott and Our Long National Nightmare is Over: The AFA's Gap/Old Navy Boycott Ends - Gap and Old Navy are favorite targets of the AFA, but they really lost it when Old Navy ran an ad that mentioned Christmas along with other winter holidays including the Winter Solstice, which as everyone knows is a "pagan holiday...celebrated by Wiccans who practice witchcraft!" Oh, the horror. Of course, the AFA is just fine with all of the current Christmas traditions that were 'borrowed' from the pagans by early Christians.

-Debunking the AFA's Naughty or Nice List: Limited Brands - Our attempt to figure out how the AFA can be so fixated on Limited Brands and so wrong about them at the same time.

One Million Moms Protest Macy's For Firing Transphobic Employee

2011-12-09T17:05:00.001-05:00

In the latest action alert from the One Million Moms, they're taking a break from obsessing over the imaginary "war on Christmas" to protest Macy's for firing a Christian employee. Here's what happened, according to them:

Macy's fires Christian for protecting women's dressing rooms from cross-dresser

Macy's has fired a Christian woman for refusing to violate her religious beliefs. Her offense? She prevented a man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room.

According to Liberty Counsel, Natalie Johnson says she saw the young man walk out of the women's fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a "female." Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl's clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals.

The group argued with expletives that Macy's is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy's is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.

Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy's LGBT policy which allows "transgender" people to change in any dressing room they want.

The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.

Macy's has essentially opened women's dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.

We found another source that confirmed the basic details of this story, minus the OMM's transphobia. It also included some quotes from Natalie Johnson, like this gem:

Asked if she would handle the situation the same way if given another chance, Johnson said she would.

“There are no transgenders in the world. A guy can dress up as a woman all he wants. That’s still not going to make you a woman,” Johnson said. “If you’re a man going into the women’s fitting room, I will kindly escort you to the men’s fitting room.”

Obviously we side with Macy's on this one. Johnson is free to personally disagree with the dressing room policy if she wants to, but if she's going to continue to be rude to customers who are doing nothing wrong and refuse to comply with the policy even after her manager tells her to, then Macy's was right to fire her.

The OMM's claim that Johnson was "protecting" the dressing room is offensive and ridiculous. If I'm a woman trying on women's clothes in the women's dressing room, why would I need to be protected from another woman doing the exact same thing just because one of us happens to be a trans woman? (If anything, a trans woman would be more likely to run into trouble with bigoted shoppers if she was forced to use the men's dressing room by a bigoted employee like Johnson.) The implication that all trans people are potential predators, or that lots of men are going to start exploiting this policy and dressing up as women to get access to the women's dressing room, or that men who really are predators are currently being thwarted by dressing room policies in the first place...well, to use the OMM's word, the entire thing is absurd.

So far it seems that Macy's is standing by their policy and has no plans to rehire Johnson:

Macy’s senior vice president of corporate communications and external affairs Jim Sluzewski issued the following statement:

“Macy’s is very proud of our philosophy of diversity and inclusion, and we welcome all customers into our stores. This includes customers of all races, ethnicities, ages, genders, faith traditions, countries of origins and lifestyle preferences. We strive to ensure that each customer is able to shop in a discrimination-free environment.”

The OMM was nice enough to gather some contact info for Macy's, so if you'd like to counteract their transphobic protest by contacting Macy's and thanking them for having and enforcing an LGBT-friendly dressing room policy, here it is:

Email Macy's President Terry Lundgren ~~and urge him to immediately apologize to Natalie, reinstate her position with Macy's and put safeguards in place to protect women customers from men who would enter their dressing areas.~~

IMPORTANT! Personally call Macy's headquarters at 513-579-7000 ~~and express your outrage at this injustice to female employees and customers.~~

Other numbers to call:

Jim Sluzewski, Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications - 513-579-7764
Macy's Media Relations - Julie Strider, 646-429-5213

Terry J. Lundgren, President
Macy's
7 West Seventh Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Primary Phone: 513-579-7000
Secondary Phone: 513-579-7764
Fax: 513-579-7555
E-Mail: Terry J. Lundgren, Macy's

We also looked up the contact info for the store where this incident happened if anyone wants to contact the store management directly:

Macy's San Antonio Rivercenter
151 East Bowie Street
San Antonio, TX 78205
210-554-6850

Let's talk about Family Dollar opening on Christmas Day

2011-12-08T15:20:00.000-05:00

It's pretty much common knowledge that we here at Evil Slutopia have pretty strong opinions about a lot of stuff. So of course, it's always interesting when we have trouble taking an official stance on an issue. Especially when we have trouble completely agreeing with each other.

The current issue at hand is the most recent One Million Moms action alert about Family Dollar stores allegedly being open on Christmas day. We don't completely disagree with them this time (shocking!) but we don't fully agree with their reasoning on every point either. Rather than trying to come to an insincere conclusion, this time we decided to just share our thought process... and see where it goes.

First, some background on this "alert" from the OMM's website:

Family Dollar Stores - Christmas greed at its worst

This Christmas, Family Dollar Stores is breaking new ground by opening some of its stores on Christmas morning. All other major discount retailers (Fred's, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, etc.) are honoring families by remaining closed to allow employees to spend time with their children.

In an internal memo received by OneMillionMoms, Family Dollar shamelessly shows corporate greed is behind the decision: "Only 2 people working per store on Christmas day. Each store needs to do $1100 in sales in order to break even, this is why we only have 2 people working."

This means on Christmas morning, while Family Dollar executives are sitting around the Christmas tree with their families, their employees will be leaving their children at home, just to make a few paltry dollars for the company.

A great many of Family Dollar employees are mothers, many of them single parents. Shame on Family Dollar for breaking up families on Christmas morning!

And here's our take on it... Maybe this will show the OMM how to actually discuss an issue, rather than just jumping to the most inflammatory conclusion. We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below!

Lilith: I'm sort of halfway between agreeing and disagreeing. On the one hand, I don't think anyone should be forced to work on Christmas day. However, if a worker isn't Christian (or doesn't have Christmas plans) and doesn't mind working, then what's the big deal? I'm sure there are plenty of employees who would want to make some overtime pay. If there are only going to be two employees there that day, is anyone necessarily being "forced"? Why is Christmas sacred? Most stores are open on Chanukah and Diwali and almost every other holiday.

Jezebel: I have mixed feelings about it. I don't fully agree with the OMM's reasons for being upset, but I also don't agree with Family Dollar's reasons for being open (if they actually are). I'm sure the Moms feel like Christmas is more sacred than any other winter holiday and wouldn't give a shit about people of other religions having to work on their holidays. My feeling is more that nobody should have to work on their holidays, although I know that's not always totally realistic or practical. I'm sure Family Dollar has some employees who aren't Christian or aren't religious or don't celebrate for whatever reason who wouldn't mind working on Christmas, but are there enough of those people that they won't have to force people who do want to celebrate Christmas to work instead? And do they as a company actually care enough about their employees to make that distinction in the first place? There's also the fact that the majority of this country happens to be Christian, and Christmas is also a federal holiday. That doesn't mean the whole world has to stop, but I feel like if I was, say, traveling in a mostly Muslim country on a major Muslim holiday, I would understand if stores were closed.

Lilith: See, that's part of the issue for me. I don't even really think that Christmas should be a federal holiday when none of the other religions' holidays are. The majority of this country may be Christian (although that is slowly changing) but there isn't a federal religion.

Jezebel: I agree that it probably shouldn't be a federal holiday. I'm just saying that as it stands now it is. Someone did comment on the OMM facebook page "I'm Jewish and I am offended it's such a huge deal when someone works on Christmas but for the Jewish holidays its no big deal."

Lilith: I feel like in this economic climate, it's not that outrageous for stores to need to stay open (vs. choosing to stay open out of pure greed). Not saying that's the case with them, but it's a good argument for staying open for some smaller brands.

Jezebel: I'm not sure about a store like Family Dollar 'needing' to be open on Christmas, just based on numbers alone - when you add up the costs of opening the store and paying the employees extra to be there plus the fact that there's probably not going to be a lot of traffic in the store, are they really making that much profit? The memo (if it's real) mentions how much money they'd have to take in just to break even and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of locations didn't meet those numbers. So is it really worth it, and does it set a bad precedent that other stores might follow? I feel the same way about stores opening earlier and earlier on Thanksgiving every year. In fact, I was more bothered by stores being open on Thanksgiving just to start Black Friday early than I am by this. I'm pretty sure Kmart was open all day on Thanksgiving. I don't get why that's necessary.

Lilith: Yeah, I agree. I was more disgusted by the stores opening up at midnight on Thanksgiving, than I am about stores being open on Christmas. Mainly because that's not a religious holiday - it's much more universal. Almost all Americans celebrate it in some way. And the Black Friday craziness turns me off in general. But I feel like this is kind of different. It's not that I completely agree with it, but I don't agree with OMM's reasons either. I know plenty of Jewish people who probably wish they could run out and grab some groceries on Christmas or even some Christians who are like "Oh no! I forgot ______!" and need to run out to pick something up. We forget something important on every holiday and it sucks when there's nothing open.

Jezebel: But I think there's a difference between something like a supermarket or a drug store choosing to be open for a few hours for 'emergencies' and a dollar store being open in a lame attempt to squeeze a few extra dollars out of people. I think it's definitely worth considering why a store chooses to be open.

Lilith: Well, Family Dollar sells all kinds of stuff that people might need at the last minute on Christmas and I wouldn't mind having at least one store around my neighborhood that was actually open. Family Dollar sells food, drinks, toiletries, diapers, cold medicine, detergent, etc. All stuff you might realize you need on Christmas and desperately need to find a store for (whether you celebrate Christmas or not). It doesn't bother me that they're open on principle alone. It would bother me if they don't give their employees the choice to stay home on the holiday. I've had jobs where we were open on a lot of holidays, but we were always given the choice to work or not, based on whether or not we had holiday obligations. There are a lot of jobs that don't give people off for Christmas - police departments and hospitals for example. Now you can argue that those jobs are way more important than Family Dollar and you're right.. but my point is that just because it's Christmas doesn't mean ALL THINGS MUST STOP. Especially when you know that if a store closed for Ramadan or something, then people would boycott. The only objection I have is if workers are forced to work or intimidated into working.

Jezebel: I guess I just come down on the side of not trusting most companies to treat their employees well. Maybe this year it's just one or two companies choosing to be open and they're giving every employee the choice about whether to work or not, but if they make a profit is it going to be a slippery slope in future years where more stores are open for longer hours and employees have less choice about whether to work or not? And in this economy with so many people looking for jobs, what's to stop companies from just firing people if they don't want to work on Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.?

Lilith: I don't necessarily trust any corporate entity to always do the right thing. But that's different than the theoretical question of "is it okay to be open on Christmas?" There isn't any evidence (yet) that employees have been treated unfairly or that they've even been asked to work on the holiday. So I feel like this is one of those times that the OMM is getting outraged over the wrong point. It's "OMG think of the poor children being left alone on Christmas!" when we have no idea if any of the Family Dollar employees in question even have kids or even celebrate Christmas. How do they even know that the employees that will be working will be leaving their families? Not everyone has a family or has plans for Christmas. Or some people might actually welcome something to fill that time if they are alone over the holidays. My daughter splits her holidays between me and my ex every year... the years that she isn't with me, I don't really feel like celebrating at all. It just seems like a big jump to go from "some employees will work part of the day on Christmas" to "Mothers are going to be forced to leave their children home alone on Christmas!" THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Jezebel: I also agree that they went a little overboard with the 'think of the children' stuff (and this is probably the first time they ever acted like they care about single moms), but on the other hand, just because someone doesn't have kids that doesn't mean that they 'don't have a family' that they want to celebrate Christmas with. Or you could have no family at all but be very religious and want to spend Christmas going to church. But hey, on the plus side for the OMM, Family Dollar uses the word "Christmas"! So at least they can be on the AFA's green list while ruining the holiday for mothers and children everywhere.

Lilith: I was looking at the Family Dollar website and I've yet to find any evidence that it's actually true. I wouldn't put it past the OMM to make up an issue (or just outright misunderstand/over-exaggerate something). And then when the truth comes out they will turn around and claim "they listened to our demands!" even though it had nothing to do with them at all.

Jezebel: Well that is their style. I was reading comments on their page about the 'Naughty or Nice' retailer list that the AFA does and people were talking about some store that didn't have decorations out before but now they do. OMM responded and they were like 'they must have listened to our demands...or they were telling the truth about waiting until after Thanksgiving to decorate for Christmas'. Hmmm, which one could it be? They weren't saying "Merry Christmas" in October but they're saying it now that it's December...they've heard us loud and clear! So it would be no surprise if the OMM was off base about this issue too.

Okay wait, look at this from the Family Dollar Facebook page:

Oftentimes we are the only affordable store for customers in our neighborhoods. In response to customer requests, we decided to open stores to meet their needs:
• Our stores are open on a volunteer basis and less than half our store chain will be open
• Our stores will be open for a short day, only 10-3, allowing those who did volunteer to spend the morning and the afternoon with their families.
• Team Members are being paid double-time for their volunteering to work that day, which will provide extra money to those who may need it.

Lilith: Ah, see that makes it sound better. It's voluntary, it's not a full day, it's double-time pay, and it's based on the customer's requests. I think it's true that if you're really stuck on Christmas for last minute essentials, it's nice to have that option.

Jezebel: But read the comment below: "I did volunteer to work this Christmas, but I hear rumors next year it won't be optional and we will all be open. Let's hope that's not true." I understand their explanation but I also understand the concern that it will be mandatory next year.

Lilith: Yeah, I agree that's a concern. But I feel like, cross that bridge when you get to it maybe. Don't bash them for trying to do what the customers want because they might fuck it up.

Jezebel: Here's an update- The OMM shared an email that they got back from Family Dollar:

We appreciate your concern for our store team members working on Christmas day.
The decision to open some of our stores a limited number of hours (between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.) on Christmas day was not made lightly or in disregard for the sanctity of Christmas. We made the decision in response to the expressed needs of our customers, many of whom have no means of transportation to stores outside their immediate neighborhoods. If our stores are not open, they will have no place to go for food, health aides or other basic household supplies they may need even on Christmas day.

The Family Dollar Team Members who will work a half day on Christmas have volunteered to do so. They are very special folks, not only to us, but especially to the people they serve. We will open late in the morning so that they can enjoy Christmas morning with their families, and we will close early so they can have the rest of the day with their families. Team members who volunteer to work on Christmas will be paid double the wages they would normally receive for the hours worked. For many of our Team Members, this extra income is most welcome, especially during the holiday season.

Thank you for taking the time to make us aware of your concerns.

Howard Levine
Chairman and CEO
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Lilith: Cool. That's a good response.

Jezebel: I don't really have a problem with it based on that email. But at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into 'Oh sorry, nobody volunteered this time so you have to work' or 'we made so much money that now we're going to be open all day.'

Lilith: Yeah, I wonder what would happen in that case. Would they just not open? Or would someone be forced to work?

Jezebel: Maybe Family Dollar has some integrity and cares about their employees, etc. but what happens when some other dollar store that's a competitor of theirs decides they need to keep up, and they don't care?

Jezebel: The OMM added this note below the response from Howard Levine:

The internal memo that was not meant to get out was sent in by a manager that said it was open to volunteers (first), but if no one volunteered then the managers had to work in select stores. This is a trial to see how well it goes to possibly open more stores next year which may not be on a volunteer basis in the future. The extra pay makes families choose between money and time with family on Christmas. Their reply above is a lame excuse to be open. Most people make arrangements (transportation, etc.) before hand & for medical emergencies there are a few pharmacies that are open. Have not had a response from Family Dollar if they offer the extra pay for other holidays or over time in general if the employees are even allowed to work over 40 hours other weeks of the year.

Lilith: I don't even understand what that means. How do they know all this?

Jezebel: I guess OMM is claiming that someone who works there leaked it to them. Not that I really trust them to accurately explain what's going on.

Lilith: Yeah, I don't trust them at all. I'd sooner trust Family Dollar than the OMM.

Jezebel: Yeah, pretty much. Like we said, it's so like them to exaggerate a problem and then take credit for the 'solution'.

Lilith: There is so much wrong with that reply. First of all, they use ableist language ("lame" excuse to be open). And their argument that people make arrangements for transportation beforehand makes no sense. He just said that this is for the customers who have no means of transportation. What "arrangements" do they think these people are making? Hiring limousines so they can go to the grocery store? They obviously have no idea what it's like to be poor in this day and age. This is more of a class issue than a religious issue and the OMM is showing their fucking privilege.

Jezebel: Yeah, and are they trying to say that most people make arrangements beforehand for medical emergencies?

Lilith: Well apparently "a few pharmacies" are open. So if there's a medical emergency they can just travel across town. Maybe in their neighborhood there's an open pharmacy on every corner. And apparently they don't care about the employees who are "forced" to work on Christmas at these pharmacies. How much do you want to bet they protest those companies for staying open as well? But I really don't understand the extra-pay question. What different does it make if they offer extra pay for other holidays or other overtime? Would that be better or worse? Are they suggesting that only working on Christmas deserves overtime pay because it's so much more special and sacred than any other overtime work?

Jezebel: Yeah, the extra pay for other holidays question is kind of interesting. Can you imagine how the OMM would react if they were paying Muslim employees extra to work during Ramadan or something? But I'm not sure what they're actually getting at. Maybe they're suggesting that the extra pay is their way of getting people to volunteer? Like, they're leading good Christians astray by promising extra money or something. But whatever they're getting at, I think it's safe for us to say they're wrong about it.

Lilith: Well it's always safe for us to say that.

Jezebel: That really goes without saying.

Women for Herman Cain

2011-12-02T18:03:00.001-05:00

The universe has given us a gift and that gift is Women for Herman Cain.

Women for Herman Cain is a slapped together one page section of Cain's campaign website that is (poorly) designed to convince us that Herman Cain cares about women (in a respectful, non-adulterous and harassment-free sort of a way) and women care about Herman Cain. Of course, they describe it a bit differently:

"Women For Cain" is an online national fellowship of women dedicated to helping elect Herman Cain as the next President of the United States.

Ooh, an online fellowship. Sounds prestigious. In fact, I think we'll start one too. Let's call it The ESC Online Fellowship for Calling Out Blatant Pandering By Sexist Candidates. Contact us to join.

Mr. Cain has been a strong advocate for women throughout his lifetime, defending and promoting the issues of quality health care, family, education, equality in the workplace and many other concerns so important to American women.

Hopefully that short paragraph tells you all you wanted to know about Cain's positions on the issues that matter to women, because that's all you're going to get.

Gloria Cain is the National Chairperson for "Women for Cain" and is the very special woman who Mr. Cain devoted his life to many years ago. Mr. Cain and Gloria celebrated their 43rd wedding anniversary earlier this year. The couple has two children and three grandchildren and a legacy of family, friends, and community and church involvement.

"Women For Cain" was formed to inspire a national women's alliance in support of Herman Cain 2012 and Friends of Herman Cain. Please join our conversation to learn of volunteer opportunities and to be informed of issues and events surrounding the Herman Cain campaign.

Assuming that even one of the allegations of sexual harassment and/or adultery that has been made against Herman Cain is true, fuck him for naming her the "chairperson" of this nonsense.

So what else can be found on Women for Herman Cain? A lovely purple logo (at least it's not pink, I guess), a photo featuring a diverse group of female Herman Cain supporters that turned out to be a stock photo that has already been used on several other websites, and, of course, a big Donate Now button. The rest of the site is made up of testimonials that have been sent in by Cain's many many many female fans. Here's a sampling of the wisdom and insight to be found there:

Please don't let the opposition win, they are vile liars and will face God for what they've done to you. How can We the People choose who WE want (you!) if you allow them to run you off? Gingrich has DONE all the things they're accusing you of, and Romney is a RINO.. we call him Obama Lite. PLEASE don't give up. Speak up loud and clear that you are not giving up, and please let Gloria speak out again. I'll admit that when I heard that you sent $ to a woman w/out your wife knowing, it gave me pause.. I wouldn't appreciate my hubby sending $ to another woman w/out my approval... but then I thought about and discussed it with everyone I know. We came to the conclusion that you're a good man worth the benefit of the doubt. We figure that you're probably a very busy man who comes in contact w/ tons of people daily, and that you probably both have friends the other isn't friends with, and that you have helped other people, men and women, without discussing it, because that's just what you do, you're a softie (stop that now!) and got taken advantage of. That happens. I have NO doubts about you after thinking and praying about it. If Mrs. Cain is OK w/ what you did, I am. Please send her back to Greta again! That's between you two anyway. Lots of couples have separate money and do what they want with it. That is ok! Don't give up sir, please. Don't make me beg! Don't let the evil conspirators push you out of this race.

Okay, we'll give this woman half a point for the Gingrich comment, that was kinda funny.

I am a single mom of three children and two have autism. I like what Mr Cain has to say. He the only one that wants to talk about the REAL issues. Im tired of all the side tracking of unimportant accusations by people from years and years ago. Today is what Im interested in. And the tomorrow of our country is what I want to be talked about. Im voting for Hermain Cain.

Ah, the 'it allegedly happened a long time ago so who cares?' argument. Very solid.

Stay in the race. I am so turned off by these women who get their 5 minutes of fame - they set women back a century. They are an insult to sucessful working women. I have been successfully self employed in a male dominated industry, commercial real estate, and never once did I have a problem with any male counterpart. I was fortunate that I was mentored because I worked for it. So I can relate to you in your journey of success. You appear to be a very decent human being that genuinely will help anyone and you also appear to be a true gentleman. Its disgusting these women have taken advantage of you. They are the ones with questionable character, not you. It also appears that your wife is a true lady and has the character to see through all of these allegations to what they are - attempts to keep you from running because you are a threat to the status quo. If JFK was running today,my what a feeding frenzy that would be, yet he is an adored former president.

And the 'I've never experienced sexism myself so women who say they have must be liars' argument. We're on a roll now!

Mr. Cain, To me you are the embodiment of the prayers of every faithful believing slave who turned to ALMIGHTY GOD for deliverance from slavery and inequality. You are the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr. 'I have a dream' speech. You are the only hope I have for a future in America!Be strong and of good courage Mr. Cain, Our God Reigns!

Based on the picture that accompanied this comment, it appears to have been written by a white woman. I don't even know where to start.

I truly believe THEHermanCain is exactly what America needs now. I appreciate that he speaks from his heart, has a plan for success, and is NOT a slick TV personality or debater. I worry that if the media succeeds in their "assassination by innuendo" it could be the end of our Republic. Will it continue to be that easy for progressives to destroy their opponents? We The People are the ultimate losers if they succeed.

This is one of many comments that blamed all of the allegations against Cain on the media or a liberal conspiracy or some combination of the two, because apparently Cain's candidacy is a huge threat to us because...well...um...I'm sure there are some very good reasons, and Cain's supporters will get around to telling us what those reasons are very soon.

Mrs. Cain, I'm so very sorry for the pain you've had to suffer at the hands of these seriously troubled women and those behind them. Such an elegant lady as you should never have to deal with such scum. My prayers are with you and Mr. Cain. I have no doubt Herman Cain is the person we need to restore our country to its God-blessed glory!

There's nothing like a nice dose of compassionate conservative Christian victim-blaming.

I absolutely believe that you can beat Obama in 2012. Remember Clarence Thomas and hang in there.

Ah, yes. Remember Clarence Thomas? I sure do.

Mr Cain, I want to thank you for running for President. Your decision to do so was not a selfish one, but one of a desire to help the country you love. You have seen the failures of the current administration and felt confident that your skills and talents could change America in a GOOD way, and you were willing to step in and do that! But now because of scheming women that can be swayed by money, attention or whatever else the reason may be, your reputation is at stake - not theirs as it should be. I do not believe these women are victims...I believe you are. Because of what they have done to you, your family and to the American people who have placed their hope for our country in you and your abilities, you are faced with a dilemma of what your life choices from here should and will be. I feel certain because you are a man of integrity and character that your decision has been bathed in prayer by you and Ms Cain, and those close to your family that love you. Much of America is joining with you all in prayer & fasting too.

I accept the fact that Herman Cain has supporters. I accept the fact that his supporters choose not to believe any of the women who are accusing Cain of sexual harassment or adultery. I can even accept that some people believe that sexual harassment doesn't really exist and was invented by us angry humorless feminists. But I cannot and will not buy the idea that "much of America" is joining with Cain not just in prayer, but fasting as well. I have limits.

Mrs Cain, I just want to say that you are an amazing woman to have to survive this liberal lynching of your husband. I and many other woman are standing by your man because he shows integrity, faithfulness, and inspiration. But we are also standing by you. I am praying for you to get through this one day at a time. The enemy may set doubts, but the Lord will clear your path. God bless you Mrs. Cain, soon to be First Lady( and you certainly own that title).

Liberal lynching? Oh.

Mr. Cain (aka The Hermanator)--It's very upsetting to witness your campaign and personal life subjected to this American 'impact of reality television'. It's pathetic and shameful women are so desperate for their five minutes of fame that they would position themselves against the greatest potential president Americans could be blessed enough to have.

This woman may be onto something with the reality TV concept. If Mrs. Cain chooses not to stand by her man, we look forward to seeing For the Love of Herman or Cain Train of Love on Vh1 very soon.

I cannot believe you had time for an affair. If you are ill and fighting for your life,suffering through chemotherapy,how can you have time between hospital visits and family time? Wouldn't you be too sick to participate in a make-believe affair? You are a triple threat to the Left!! I believe these "women" are looking for money and attention and have been groomed by the "Demonacrats" to be a bunch of bad actress'. The Left is desperate and they are low enough to break the law and lie. My husband and I are strong supporters. Don't let the bad guys win. Don't give up!! 999!!! :)

He's a triple threat? What, like he can act, sing, and dance? And I was going to be annoyed by the fact that this comment paints Cain's accusers as money-grubbing attention whores, but then I saw that little smiley face at the end and I couldn't stay mad.

Dear Mr. Cain, I am a 66 year old female architect in the State of Texas, and want to simply say... as a REAL woman I do not believe for one second any of these "women" that have crawled out from under a rock somewhere to defame you and bring pain to you and your family. They are pitiful creatures at the very least, and evil at the most. Isn't it convenient that they have suddenly become offended by supposed advances by you now after all these years, my goodness, poor babies, how have they been able to bare up under the pain for all these oh so many years... LIARS, LIARS, LIARS...GO GET THEM HERMAN AND PLEASE DO NOT QUIT!!!!

I also hope you pursue a slander, libel, defamation of character suit against this moneygrubbing, lying woman.

Hello, Herman Cain, you need to focus about this America" and don't even listen to all this women ,that they don't have nothing good to say about you... they they are money hungry... and women like this, Don't care or don't have no "SHAME to go on TV...to use lies, for money...somebody has been paying this women. They make me sick to my stomach.....they need to start digging a hole on the ground n till they rich china' So, Mr,Cain put your 2 feet on the ground and do your duty....you are here to do, a job....that we in "America" need you......You can not give up.... your or the man....Like God said be for you were born he already knew what you were going to do,if not GOD himself, will remove you from earth....

I do not believe a single one of the "women" who have accused you. I believe you to be a God-fearing man who loves his wife and children. Don't let Satan and his demons win. Stay true to the Lord's will and stay in this race.

These testimonials are great because I'm really learning so much about why Herman Cain is a great candidate for women and why women support him. So much helpful insight.

We need a first lady to bring back grace and style back to the White house..We need you.

Cool, let's throw in a random slam on Michelle Obama cause why not?

I don't believe allegations that have been run thru the media and pray for you and your wife daily.

Okay, I get it, the media is horrible and liberal and evil. But how would this woman like to find out about allegations like this if they're not "run thru the media"? I guess Cain's accusers should have showed up at her house to tell her about it personally.

So what have we learned from Women for Herman Cain? We've learned that the allegations against Cain are nothing but a liberal/media conspiracy perpetuated by lying women (or "women" who aren't like REAL women) who only want money, attention, and/or fame and who may or may not be in league with Satan. We've also learned that the Cain campaign thought it was a good idea to post all of these testimonials instead of, say, some information about Cain's positions on the issues and plans for the future that might actually be helpful to women voters. And in a way I guess this teaches us everything we need to know.

Rumors are swirling tonight that Herman Cain may drop out of the presidential race tomorrow. If that turns out to be true, I'll be so grateful that we got to enjoy Women for Herman Cain as a lovely parting gift. And I don't know about you, but I'm really looking forward to Women for Newt Gingrich.

How do you handle rape jokes on Twitter?

2011-11-15T21:27:00.002-05:00

We want to share an incident that happened to us on Twitter last night because we think it raises some important issues. Yes, we know, try to contain your shock that we would speak out about something and get ourselves into trouble, but in this case we felt it was something worth saying. To be clear, we're not trying to call this person out or shame them publicly or whatever by blogging about this, we're trying to get at the larger issues involved. (We thought about blurring out her name in our screenshots but we realized that it would be really easy to go to our Twitter and figure it out in about two seconds, so we didn't.) But we're not encouraging anyone to contact her or anything like that, we just want to talk about the situation.

Here's what happened. We were checking Twitter when we saw this tweet pop up in our stream:

It was late and I was a little tired, so I had to read this tweet over about five times just to confirm that yes, she was comparing paying $13 for parking to "getting raped". We decided to address it because we feel like rape jokes are never funny and making light of rape is really not okay, but we tried to be polite about it:

This was her reply to us:

We're not sure if this was just her way of saying 'I can say whatever I want' or if she was trying to somehow argue that it was okay for her to use the word rape because we use the word slut. We understand and respect that there are legitimate arguments against reclaiming words like slut, but we don't think that's really comparable to making inappropriate comments about rape. But no matter which way she meant it, we quickly realized that we weren't going to have any kind of productive conversation with her about it. (At the same time that this was happening, someone else also replied to her and jokingly said that they didn't see what "penetrative and oral sex" had to do with parking, and her reply was "$13 is outrageous at emergency".) We decided to just unfollow her and drop it, so we replied one more time to tell her that we were unfollowing and why.

As far as we were concerned it was over at that point. We were going to unfollow her and figured that she would probably unfollow us too. Well, it turns out that while we were writing that second (and last) reply to her, she not only unfollowed us but also blocked us. This seemed a little excessive to us considering that we had only tweeted at her once at that point. It's not like we had gone on some 50 tweet long 'angry feminist' rant or tried to give her a lecture on Rape Culture 101 and she had to block us to shut us up. In fact, it turned out that she was the one who wasn't done discussing it (read up from the bottom):

Ah, the good old "PC Police" argument. It seems a little weird in this context, though. It's not like we were talking to her about cultural appropriation or some other 'liberal cause'. We were asking her not to compare something as serious as rape to something as trivial as the price of parking. That doesn't seem like a massive stretch of the boundaries of political correctness.

She still wasn't done. In fact, the next tweet was so long that it needed help from TwitLonger:

Like we said above, we understand that some people are going to find our name offensive and that's fine. (Although again, we object to the idea that it's offensive in the same way that using the word rape can be offensive.) But it's kind of funny that it apparently didn't bother her when she followed us on Twitter in the first place, and is only a problem now because we called out something that she said. It's also a little problematic to tell someone who complained about a rape-related comment to "get fucked".

At this point the other guy who had commented on her original tweet made the mistake of trying to defend us a little bit and got a multi-tweet answer for his trouble:

It's interesting to us that she kept insisting that we were "policing" her or "forcing our ideas" on her because we tweeted at her once and politely asked that she not make light of rape. And that's exactly what she was doing even though she claims she wasn't - comparing rape to something as inconsequential as paying 13 bucks at a parking garage is pretty much the definition of making light of rape. We're also confused by her comment that "nobody minds" jokes about Jews - actually we do mind, and so do a lot of other people, and if we saw an anti-Semitic joke in our Twitter stream we would call that out too. It just seemed like a strange defense to us to say that other kinds of offensive jokes are tolerated by some people so rape jokes should be too.

She continued to reference the incident while talking to other people about totally unrelated topics, saying things like "just my humble uneducated opinion...in case anyone wanted to jump in and PC the convo" and "Rent is this city is ridiculous (don't compare it to any kind of sexual act though) #eyeroll". (Rape is NOT a "sexual act"!) We never tried to tweet at her again after our second tweet and we also didn't reference it on our twitter again in any way. To us her reaction seems like a case of protesting too much, but obviously we're biased.

We feel like what we said must have affected her since she kept talking and talking and talking about it. In fact, we might not have addressed this at all if she hadn't reacted so strongly and gone on at such length about her right to make rape jokes on Twitter. But we're curious about what other people think and if anyone else has experienced something like this. Was she right that we should have just quietly unfollowed her without saying anything? How do you handle it when you hear someone making rape jokes (or jokes that are racist, homophobic, etc.) or comments that make light of rape? We'd love to hear some feedback on this one.

Cosmo's Editor Kate White Doesn't Understand Consent

2011-11-08T18:55:00.003-05:00

Last month we wrote about a really problematic piece of advice printed in Cosmopolitan magazine (written by Cosmo's resident ~~douchebag~~ "guy guru" Ky Henderson). In the "Ask Him Anything" column, Henderson proved that he has no clue about what is or isn't consensual sex by giving some really terrible, harmful advice to a woman who complained that her boyfriend would initiate sex while she was asleep even if she had already said no. Henderson's response not only dismissed his behavior as evidence of something "good" ("he is a dude" and "he thinks your hot") but he actually went as far as to insist that she make sure not to act "as though he's doing something wrong". He also suggested that she initiate more spontaneous sex to keep him happy.

As we explained in our original blog, there is so much wrong with this advice - it is not only offensive, but dangerous - because it never properly addresses the issue of consent. Her boyfriend's behavior is wrong and inappropriate because 1) he is trying to initiate sexual activity with her when she is not in a position to consent because she is asleep and 2) she has already said no to any sexual activity in that situation and he is persisting anyway. This isn't happening because "he's a dude" but because 1) he's not respecting his girlfriend's boundaries and not listening when she says no and 2) he apparently doesn't understand how consent works anymore than Henderson does.

We tweeted many many times to Cosmo (and to Ky Henderson directly) about how dangerous this advice is and requested an apology and a correction. We received no response. Then we tweeted to Cosmo's editor Kate White directly, asking her to "correct & apologize for this harmful advice":

That was on October 19. Finally today (November 8 - how prompt) Kate White responded with possibly the least useful apology that we could have even imagined. She wrote "I’m sorry if the line was offensive. The author was being facetious."

What? What is she even talking about? Which line does she think we were offended by? (How about all of them!) And since when is "being facetious" an excuse for condoning non-consensual sexual activity. It isn't. There's nothing funny or "facetious" about it.

Apparently Cosmo's own editor doesn't understand consent either. (Or apologies for that matter. The "sorry you're offended" apologies are the most meaningless.) So maybe we need to teach her a lesson about it...

Contact Cosmo and tell them that non-consensual sex isn't funny, isn't okay and isn't good advice. Demand an apology (a real one - and a public one at that) and a correction.

To submit a comment to Cosmo:
http://Cosmopolitan.com/contribute/magazine/appear-in/this-months-issue

To contact Cosmo on Twitter:
@CosmoOnline
@KateMWhite

@KyHenderson

To comment on Cosmo's Facebook pages:
http://www.facebook.com/Cosmopolitan
http://www.facebook.com/KateWhiteAuthor
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=668330922 (Kate White's personal account)
http://facebook.com/kyhenderson

Obligation Sex: Is Trading Sex for Favors Okay?

2011-11-07T15:36:00.000-05:00

For some reason, why women have sex seems to be a hot-topic issue right now. Within only a few days, I came across two separate pieces that address the issue of women having sex for reasons other than enjoyment. (Can you imagine the media or the scientific community ever devoting time to why men have sex? It's pretty much a given that men have sex because they want to have sex and there's only really attention given to ways to make that easier for them, such as Viagra).

First, the other day I came across a tiny little survey piece in the October 2011 issue of Redbook, debating whether it was ever okay to trade sex for favors:

IS TRADING SEX FOR FAVORS EVER OKAY?

In a recent poll, 68 percent of REDBOOK readers said they've offered the goodies in return for a good deed from him. The rest of you said it's wrong. Both sides sound off:

WHY NOT?

"Sometimes I want sex and I want ice cream, and sex is a good incentive. Either way, we both win!" -- Danielle Blue, Kalamazoo, MI

"I once lifted up my shirt and said, 'Do you ever want to see them again?' so he would vacuum for me. He said he'd do anything I wanted!" -- Anne Travis, Manchester, TN

NO WAY

"That's off-limits for us. Otherwise, you can expect your husband to demand sex in return for doing nice things. No, thank you!" -- Diana Brown, Houston

"Sexual favors are a special treat - I don't want to change, and he should know that I'm doing something for him because I want to." -- Carolyn Canales, Arlington, TX

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I do agree that women should be having sex because they want to, not out of some obligation. But on the other hand, I support sex workers' rights and find nothing "morally" wrong with trading sex for money or favors. (Readers: I'd love to hear your opinions on the subject.)

Mostly, I feel like it isn't right for anyone else to tell you how to handle your own sexual activity.

Also, although they technically gave both "sides" of the debate, even the "Why Not?" side seemed to be strictly within the confines of a relationship - trading sex for ice cream and vacuuming isn't exactly as controversial as some of the other stuff women might trade sex for, so the whole thing came off kind of slut-shamey in a passive-aggressive roundabout way.

In a moment of synchronicity, I received a press releasae today from HealthyWomen.org titled "New Survey Reveals Women Having Sex for Obligation Not Enjoyment". It cited a recent WomenTALK survey done by the National Women's Health Group and EmpowerHER.

From the press release:

Naomi Greenblatt, MD, a board certified psychiatrist specializing in women’s health, said the WomenTALK data aligns with her clinical work in the field.

"There seems to be a growing trend in women having sex for obligation, not enjoyment purposes, "Dr. Greenblatt said. "Women say there are only 24 hours in the day, and they simply are not prioritizing sex."

However, upon reading the actual findings of the study, I didn't really come to the conclusion that women were having sex out of obligation. Among the findings:

51% of women believe engaging in sexual activity a few times a week is considered "sexually healthy" but only 30% actually engage in sexual activity at this level.
76% of women in committed relations are very happy with their relationships but only 33% of women are extremely or very satisfied with their sex life. (39% are "somewhat or not at all" satisfied.)
41% of women said they are engaging in sexual activity less often than they would like (citing reasons such as being too tired - 32%; not having a partner - 31%, being too stressed -23%; being insecure about their body - 22%; lack of desire - 20%).

I'm not sure how they came to the conclusion that this means women are having sex out of obligation. Most of the women surveyed seem to be having sex less often than they want. Women don't seem to be prioritizing sex and don't seem to be fully aware of all the health and relationship benefits sex can bring... but there's no reason to believe that they're having sex for the "wrong" reasons. If anything, they're not having sex for the wrong reasons. (Not that there are ever really any "wrong" reasons to make a personal choice about what to do with your own body, but you know what we mean.)

So readers, weigh in on the "sex for favors" debate in the comments but please refrain from slut-shaming if possible. (There's a difference between saying you would never do something and suggesting that it's wrong for someone else to do it.)

Hey AFA: You don't know shit about your own holiday

2011-11-07T11:10:00.001-05:00

Personally I think it's a little early to be talking about Christmas, but the American Family Association has already started sending out action alerts about the so-called "War on Christmas", naming companies that allegedly don't "recognize Christmas" on their websites and in their advertising. (Of course, this is extra of ridiculous because they started in October when most stores hadn't even started advertising their holiday sales in the first place.)

The AFA's favorite argument for why stores must mention Christmas (and only Christmas) is because it is such a special and important holiday and way better than any other holiday ever. Saying "happy holidays" or - gasp - acknowledging Christmas alongside "lesser" holidays like Chanukah, Kwanza or Yule/Solstice is blasphemous because it doesn't pay recognition to Jesus. And what better way to honor our savior than by shopping? (But only in stores that decorate in red and green and use the "C" word!)

Since the AFA won't stand for anything at Christmas time that isn't CHRISTMAS (and gets especially pissy if you dare acknowledge anything pagan-based), we thought we'd would just remind everyone what their so-called "Christmas" is really about. They're right - it's about Jesus Christ. Only it's not. But yet it is.

I don't know if these geniuses over at the AFA think that Santa and the reindeer and evergreen trees covered in lights were actually in the Bible, but the truth is, Christmas as we know it today has very little to do with the birth of Christ. Much of it was "borrowed" from pagan celebrations and some of it is just commercialized made-up stuff. So what's the big deal if a retailer doesn't go Christmas-crazy?

So we thought we'd remind the AFA exactly what they're complaining about by listing some of the "Christmas traditions" that likely came from earlier pagan traditions.

December 25

The date of Jesus's Nativity is never actually mentioned in the Bible. What did always take place during that time of the year was the Winter Solstice. There were a lot of ancient holidays associated with the Solstice that paid homage to various "sun" deities, including Sol Invictus and Saturnalia. Sol Invictus ("Invincible Sun") was the official sun god of the Roman empire and was the focus of a festival on December 25 to celebrate the "birthday" of the Sun. Saturnalia was a major holiday for the ancient Romans and paid homage to the god Saturn. Celebrations involved feasting, drinking, gift-giving and the lighting of candles. (December 25 was also the date of the birth of Mithras, the Iranian sun god. There are a lot of similarities between Mitras and Jesus.)

In the 4th century CE, in an attempt to convert the pagan masses to Christianity, Christian leaders adopted many of the traditions of Saturnalia for Christmas and named the last day as Jesus's birthday. Yule was a Germanic pagan winter festival that was also equated with Christmas once the Christian calendar was adopted. Various scholars have suggested that Jesus' actual birth date may have been closer to September or April, but no one knows for sure. One thing we can be sure of, is that it likely wasn't December 25th at all.

Exchange of Gifts

The main focus of the AFA's campaign is about retailers honoring Christmas because gift-giving is what Christmas is all about. The claim is that it represents the gifts that the three wise men gave in honor of Jesus's birth but the truth is, exchanging gifts wasn't a tradition associated with Jesus until at least the 4th century. In pre-Christian Rome, it was a Saturnalia tradition to give gifts and it didn't become a Christmas tradition until Jesus's birthday was moved to December. The Catholic Church later associated this with the gift-giving of Saint Nicholas.

Candlelight Services

Candlelight services for Christmas Eve also originated from paganism. Pagans often lit candles to celebrate the holidays associated with the Winter Solstice (the shortest and darkest day of the year).

The Evergreen Tree

For a long time, many pagan cults worshiped trees and sometimes decorated them. Often clippings of evergreen trees were used to decorate the home during the Solstice in ancient Greece, Rome and Eastern Europe. (In Egypt palm trees were used.) Because the trees stayed green throughout the winter, they represented eternal life. These pagan cults were recruited to Christianity when the Church co-opted the tradition of decorating trees for Christmas.

Mistletoe and Holly

Years before Jesus was born, mistletoe was used by the Druids to decorate their homes in the Winter. They believed that it had special powers of healing and fertility. Scandinavians associated the plant with their goddess of love which may have inspired the tradition of kissing under the mistletoe. The early Christian church replaced mistletoe with holly, but it is still a custom today to kiss under the mistletoe.

Yule Log

This is one tradition that they didn't even bother renaming... It is obviously derived from Yule solstice celebrations. The Yule log was burned in the hearth as part of the traditional Yule celebrations in several European cultures.

Christmas Ham

The tradition of cooking a Christmas Ham was derived from the tradition of the Yule boar. The "sonargoltr" was a boar sacrificed as a tribute to the god associated with boars, harvest and fertility, as part of the Yule celebration in Germanic paganism. This eventually evolved into the tradition of eating a Yule ham or Christmas ham. Often the Catholic Church used the ham as a test of those who converted from Judaism. Authentic converts would enjoy the ham without issue, while non-truthful converts would decline to eat the non-kosher meal.

Caroling and Wassailing

The practice of singing Christmas carols from door to door was likely derived from Winter Solstice celebrations as well. The Anglo-Saxon tradition of "wassailing" predates the celebration of Christmas in old England and in ancient Rome there were groups of costume singers and dancers called Mummers who traveled from house to house entertaining the neighbors. These were likely the precurser to Christmas carols.

"X-mas"

The AFA really hate the abbreviation "X-mas" but it might actually be the only Christmas tradition that actually does have to do with Christ. Yep, that's right. All that "Keep the Christ in Christmas" complaining about X-mas is totally misguided.

It is a common misconception that "X-mas" is a modern attempt at taking away the religious aspect of Christmas, but the truth is that "X" stands for Christ. The Greek word for Christ is Χριστός (Xristos) meaning "savior". Legend has it that Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity because he had a vision of the Greek letters Chi (X) and Rho (P) intertwined - the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ - so the letters "XP" or just "X" was often used to stand in for "Christ". It became popular to use "X-mas" as shorthand back in the 16th century.

So there AFA! If you're going to tell other people how to celebrate Christmas, then maybe you should take a look at the way you celebrate first. Because you're basically celebrating a pagan holiday and pretending that it has anything to do with Jesus, even though it doesn't. (Note: We're not saying there's anything wrong with the way that people celebrate Christmas. Just that it's completely ridiculous for the AFA to boycott businesses for not acknowledging Christmas in the ways that they see fit without having any knowledge of where their holiday traditions actually came from.)

Keep Raising A Stink In November With Breast Cancer Action

2011-11-03T17:45:00.002-04:00

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is officially over now, which means that the pinkwashing is starting to die down, and we won't be seeing as many products plastered with pink ribbons on our store shelves.

But that doesn't mean the opportunity to take action is over. I actually think this is a good time to contact companies or organizations and give them feedback on their Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaigns. Something like this (just pick and choose whatever applies):

Dear Company/Organization,

I didn't buy your pink product/participate in your campaign this October because you didn't clearly explain where the money was going or what it would be used for/you were only donating two cents per item/your contribution is capped so I have no way of knowing if my purchase is actually adding to the donation/you were giving the money to an organization that spends more on cocktail parties and executive salaries than real activism/you weren't actually making a donation or doing anything but slapping a pink ribbon on your product to "raise awareness"/the Attorney General told me not to/your pink product contains ingredients that may actually cause cancer. Please do better next year.

This year, Breast Cancer Action's anti-pinkwashing campaign is called Raise A Stink, and the target is Susan G. Komen for the Cure's new perfume:

Pinkwashing has reached a new low this year with “Promise Me,” a perfume commissioned by the giant of the breast cancer movement, Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Promise Me contains chemicals not listed in the ingredients that: (a) are regulated as toxic and hazardous, (b) have not been adequately evaluated for human safety, and (c) have demonstrated negative health effects.

Two chemicals of primary concern in Promise Me include Galaxolide and Toluene:

* Galaxolide is a synthetic musk that works as a hormone disruptor and has been detected in blood, breast milk, and even newborns.
* Toluene is a potent neurotoxicant linked to a variety of demonstrated negative health effects and is widely known as one of the toxic trio. Toluene is banned by the International Fragrance Association (IFRA).

Breast Cancer Action has also done the math and determined that the manufacturer of the perfume is donating only $7.97 per $59 bottle to Komen, and they estimate that only about $1.50 per bottle will actually go towards research. They are asking people to join them in sending a message to Komen asking them to recall the perfume and stop engaging in pinkwashing.

Did you see any particularly ridiculous examples of pinkwashing this October? Let us know in the comments and, more importantly, let the companies know how you feel about it.

Geisha Girls and Indian Princesses

2011-11-01T15:50:00.001-04:00

Happy Halloween, Blessed Samhain, Happy All Saints Day and Happy All Souls Day! Hope everyone didn't OD on candy last night...

We saw a lot of questionable costumes this week, so we wanted to make a quick note about that. We already wrote about the whole "sexy _____" phenomenon, but we also wanted to quickly address some issues of race and culture. Earlier this month we had come across an online conversation about Halloween costumes and were surprised by some of the comments made. The question was whether or not costumes like 'geisha', 'senorita' or 'Indian princess' were inappropriate.We were surprised by the amount of people who not only didn't find these costumes to be inappropriate, but didn't even understand why others might potentially find them offensive. (What was not that surprising was that the majority of people commenting that there was nothing wrong with the costumes were white. Shocker.)

Here is just a sampling of our "favorite" comments:

I say go for it, "dress up" is about being something different than what you are. Weather that be a dream occupation, a different gender, or race.

I just think of them as a way to celebrate a heritage...not really any different than a cowboy costume.

What I am reading is making me a little upset. What I think I'm reading from some of you is that pretending to be someone you're not can be racist? What if you're pretending to be a Native American in a school play? Is that so different from Halloween?

I am offended by very few costumes. Every culture, genre, gender etc can have a silly side.

A costume is just a costume. It doesn't 'make' you behave or think any particular way. Witches or zombies included.

We were kind of shocked. We know that not everyone will automatically understand why costumes like these are potentially offensive, but the "it's just Halloween and therefore nothing can be offensive" people can be annoying, because they refuse to accept it, even when confronted with the reasons why.

So we thought maybe it was time to "remind" people one more time why certain costumes are at best - culturally insensitive and at worst - racist. The best way we can think to do that is to pass on these images from Ohio University's S.T.A.R.S. group ("Students Teaching About Racism in Society"). Yes, these have been reposted on a lot in the last few weeks, but we felt it was important to show them one more time because they are just that good.

Basically these kinds of costumes are offensive for two reasons: One, it's misappropriating a part of someone else's culture and two, it's representing a stereotype of that culture or race. People who benefit from white privilege may think it's okay to dress up as someone more "exotic" for your own holiday amusement, but costumes that poke fun at another race or culture, reinforce a stereotype about that race or culture, or perpetuate racism are not okay.

Hopefully most people can understand why "illegal Alien" and "Muslim terrorist" costumes are offensive (most people) but certain costume choices have been around for a long time and often go unchallenged, even by the most well-intentioned. Possibly two of the most widespread costumes that really irk me the most are the Indian Princess/Pocahottie and the Geisha/China Doll (and their countless variations). The reason why these particularly bother me is two-fold:

First off, they are not only based on stereotypes, but vast blanket stereotypes. "Native American" encompasses hundreds of different indigegnous tribes and "Asian" can refer to so many different, dissimilar countries and cultures... however as a costume they are somehow simplistically condensed into the same general looks. For the "Asian Princesses" and "Geisha Girls" it's all (fake) silk and floral prints; for the "Indian Princesses" and "Tribal Hottie" costumes it's (fake) suede with fringe and feathers. Both depictions are rather insulting and far from historically accurate.

Secondly, both costumes are almost always highly sexualized - which actually sexualizes entire groups of women.

A Native American woman is 2.5 times more likely to be raped and/or sexually assaulted than other women in the U.S. The fact that these women are stereotypically portrayed as sexy Indians is disturbing on many levels. The fact that Pocahontas specifically is singled out for sexy costumes just adds another layer of "wrongness"... The myth of Pocahontas did not go down the way the Disney movie implies. If the story actually happened at all, Pocahontas would have been 10 or 11 at the time that she alleged saved John Smith's life, so a sexualized Pocahontas is a costume that sexualizes a child. The real Pocahontas was later kidnapped by the English at the age of 17 and was only released when she "agreed" to marry an older widower. Yet another aspect of her story that makes her portrayal and a sexualized costume rub me the wrong way.

As for the "Asian" costumes... people will often make the argument that the sexualization of a geisha costume isn't wrong because the geisha were basically prostitutes. This is a misconception. The role of the geisha was far different than that of a courtesan; she was an entertainer. (Yes, it is possible that some geisha did engage in some acts of prostitution, but that wasn't what the geisha were. See the distinction?) Furthermore, the authentic geisha outfits rarely look anything like the way they are portrayed in Halloween costumes today.

Take a look at the way Yandy.com portrays both of these racist caricatures. (That's not to single them out. You can find the same costumes - or similar/equally offensive costumes - on almost any costume site. They're just usually our "go to" for this sort of thing because they have such a large selection of items.)

A random sampling under the category of geisha costumes:

Left: "Sexy Geisha", Right: "Geisha Beauty to Ninja Cutie"

(In the second one, they actually managed to fit two antiquated, inaccurate Japanese stereotypes into one costume.)

Left: "Japanese Doll", Right: "Tokyo-A-Go-Go".

Left: "China Doll", Right: "Beijing Babe"

(Neither of those is even remotely a geisha costume, seeing as geisha were Japanese and these are both "Chinese", sort of.)

Left: simply "Sexy Asian", Right: "Chinese Takeout".

(Words fail me on that last one. I just... I just can't.)

And now for a more authentic look at what a traditional geisha may have worn:

A random sampling under the category of Indian costumes:

Left: "Indian Diva", Right: "Pow Wow Princess".

Left: "Sexy Pocahontas", Right: "Igloo Cutie" .

Left: "Makin Reservations Indian", Right: "Burlesque With No Reservations".

(Oh those puns are just hilarious.)

Left: "Tribal Trouble", Right: "Tribal Vibe".

Left: ""Indian Huntress", Right: "Indian Warrior".

(I know that's exactly what I'd wear if I was a huntress or warrior. Totally practical.)

And now for some traditional Native American attire:

Left: Portrait of a Puebloan woman believed to be circa 1900,

Right: "Ghost Shirt" similar to that worn by the Lakota-Sioux for the Ghost Dance.

I could go on and on with various offensive costumes from many different cultures, but I'll stop with these two because I think (hope) you must understand what I'm getting at by now. It doesn't make you a bad person or inherently racist if you've worn a culturally insensitive costume in the past (even as far "past" as last night) but that doesn't mean it's totally fine to wear whatever you want because you may very well be hurting someone else. Or you might be perpetuating a stereotype that is not only false but damaging.

When someone (especially someone from the culture you're dressing up as) points out that your costume is offensive, don't tell them that they're wrong or oversensitive. Take it as a learning moment and do better next year. But for now, you can go buy some half-priced candy and eat til you're sick.

2nd Annual Sexy Halloween Costumes That Aren't

2011-10-29T14:42:00.000-04:00

Sexy Halloween costumes are nothing new, but if you've shopped for a costume in the last few years you might have noticed that the "sexy _____" costume trend has really gotten out of control. Last year we collected some pictures of the worst offenders. This year we found even more, so we decided to make this a holiday tradition. Some don't make any sense to us, and some are things that just shouldn't be made sexy.

(All of the costume pictures in this post are from Yandy.com, but they're certainly not the only offenders. You can find costumes like these on lots of different stores and sites.)

Like we said last year, probably the most disturbing ones are the sexy versions of children's characters, like Sexy Big Bird and Sexy Cookie Monster. Can't we all agree to draw the line at sexy schoolgirl and not try to take it to the next level with sexed up Sesame Street and Disney characters? Here are a few more that we found this year...

"Adult Minnie Mouse" and "Flirty Mouse Club"

Sexy Jem, Princess Peach and "Wizard Hottie"

Sexy Marvin the Martian, Musketeer Puss In Boots and "The Cat Is Back"

The only way to make it even creepier is to sex-up a character that isn't just for kids but is actually a kid herself... Who is the disturbed individual who decided to create a sexy version of Little Orphan Annie?

Another odd theme we noticed this year was sexy food. We never thought they'd find a way to make that sexy, but they sure tried...

Sexy Banana, Sexy Watermelon and "Sequin Pineapple"

Sweet Cherry Pie, Fruit Cup and Heinz Mustard

Dirty Martini, BeerMug and "Tap That Keg"

Orange M&M, Sexy Bubble Gum and Gumball Machine!

Yes, that's a gumball machine costume. This year sexy inanimate objects seem to be very popular!

Pool Table Dress, Beer Pong Babe and Sexy Operation Game

Glam Rock Guitar, Platinum Credit Card and "She's Dynamite"

"Sketchy Sally", Arcade Cutie and Screaming Green Crayon

Of course there are always those costumes that demonstrate a heightened sense of cultural sensitivity.

"Tokyo-A-Go-Go" and "Sexy Beijing Babe"

"Tribal Vibe" and Deluxe Eskimo Costume

Sexy Gypsy, "Bolly Ho" and Russian Costume

How do you feel about inter-species relationships? There sure seem to be a lot of "sexy" animals...

"Stinkin' Cute Skunk", Shark and Sea Turtle

Sexy Panda, Deluxe Unicorn and Rudolph

(Sorry, but a Rudolph Halloween costume? Now they're just mixing holidays!)

There is also a lot of sexy gender-bending going on on the Yandy website. Not that we have anything against gender non-conformity, but some of these sexy female versions of famous male characters are just ridiculous. (And some are so ridiculous that they're almost kind of awesome. Almost.)

Miss Scissorhands, Sexy Freddie Krueger and Miss Leatherface

Deluxe Robin and "Robin Hottie"

Sexy Rambo, Sexy Indiana Jones and Sexy Green Lantern

And then there are those costumes that just make you ask 'why?!' because they're that random. We found a lot of these this year...

"The Sushi's On Me", "Slippery When Wet" and "Un-Rubber Ducky"

DJ Hamster and "Sexy Donatelo"

The real issue we have with this ninja turtle costume (aside from the fact that it is a male, non-human, children's character and is possibly the most low-budget costume we've ever seen for $25) is that it's not sexy at all. It's a T-shirt but the name is actually "Sexy Donatelo". But this one is even better... what's sexier than Chewbacca!?

"Sci-Fi Furry" and "Wood Chipper"

(That beaver one just really leaves us speechless.)

But possibly the best of the worst...

Sexy Hulkamania Costume

Sexy Hulkamania! Yes, it's a female sexy Hulk Hogan, complete with mustache. This costume is so random and ridiculous and bizarre and wrong that I think it turns a corner and becomes kind of amazing. It's so wrong that it's right. It might even top last year's Sexy George Washington (maybe).

The Sexy Hulkamania is here! And it will haunt your dreams... Happy Halloween!

The One Million Moms Target Target, Teen Nick, and The Trevor Project

2011-10-28T21:34:00.002-04:00

The One Million Moms have really outdone themselves with their latest action alert. The alert follows their typical formula - targeting an advertiser for daring to support a TV show that commits the horrible sin of featuring a gay character or other "inappropriate" storyline - but this time there's a twist. Check it out (emphasis mine, and there's a lot of emphasis because I have a lot of feelings):

TARGET is Our Next Target

MTV's channel "Teen Nick" has begun airing a promotional announcement for TheTrevorHelpline.org. The Trevor Helpline states it is "a free and confidential service that's open for gay and questioning youth. Be proud of who you are." The organization's website has a constant link called "Things to consider when coming out" and is currently promoting "LGBT History Month October 2011. 31 Days. 31 Icons." It goes on to list celebrities that are LGBT icons. LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and now adding Q which stands for Questioning Youth is referenced LGBTQ on this site.

The Trevor Helpline promotion aired during the "Beat It" episode of Teen Nick's Degrassi series when teen Riley, the openly gay football captain and starting quarterback, declined reparative therapy for his homosexuality. Not only is Teen Nick now featuring a show that encourages the nation's youth to embrace alternate lifestyles, but the family retail chain Target Corporation is helping through sponsorship.

Upon discovering that Target Corporation is one of the main advertisers during the shameful and inappropriate program Degrassi, OMM is disappointed and the retail chain needs to be held accountable. At least three Target advertisements appeared during each episode of Degrassi this past weekend.

They are openly recruiting teens and children to become 'gay' on a program that also promotes the transgender and homosexual lifestyle.

OMM wonders how the helpline helps a child or teenager who may be a bit confused about his or her sexuality, since it openly promotes that "if you call this helpline, you are not persuaded to walk away from the lifestyle. You are persuaded to be proud and embrace it." Target and Teen Nick are being extremely irresponsible.

I'm not surprised that the Moms are complaining about Degrassi in general, and Riley's storyline in particular. I'm not surprised that they're perpetuating the ridiculous notion that the LGBT community sets out to "recruit" young people to embrace the gay agenda. I'm also not surprised that they're fans of the dangerous and discredited concept of "reparative therapy". But they've really lowered the bar by targeting a suicide prevention hotline. If they want to believe that the Trevor Lifeline is misguided and that they should really be telling LGBTQ youth to 'pray the gay away' rather than giving them real support, that's fine. (I mean, it's not fine with me, but I can acknowledge that that's their fucked up belief.) But would they really rather see young people commit suicide than call a helpline?

Here's a couple of the comments about this issue from the OMM facebook page:

It is pitiful how twisted our world has become. People God made man and woman. There is plenty of ways to help people without sending them in a direction that separates them from their loving maker. How sad that people will choose to die and be forever in the lake of fire rather than accept how God created us to live. This gay and lesbian stuff is the same kind of stuff that was going on in Sodom and Gamora which got them crushed. Please turn to the God who LOVES YOU SO MUCH.

Just because we love everyone does not mean we support their lifestyle. Jesus never said "It's okay that you're a sinner." He said we are all sinners but he has come to set us free from that lifestyle. We are called to love like he loved which SO many Christians don't do, however we cannot support sin in any way either. If this hotline were a lifeline to help children understand why they were feeling that way and not push them to a lifestyle that is not what we are intended to have there would be an entirely different response. No one wants to see children bullied or judged but we also don't want someone pushing them to embrace a lifestyle of sin based on fleshly desires and many times dysfunctional relationships. There needs to be a balance here that has been ignored for too long. Secular society is pushing children toward sin and Christian society isn't doing any better. Instead of treating struggling people with disgust or judgement we need to be reaching out to them with love and with a loving truth.

These compassionate Christian mothers must be so proud of themselves.

As with all OMM action alerts, you can contact the companies that they're targeting and voice your point of view to counteract the flood of ignorant emails that they're getting from OMM supporters. To support The Trevor Project, you can check out TheTrevorProject.org for ways to help. (And if you need support yourself, call the Trevor Lifeline at 866-488-7386.) Or you can text TREVOR to 85944 to donate $5.00 to The Trevor Project. And as for us, we'll keep watching the Moms so you don't have to.

Slut-Shaming on VH1's Tough Love

2011-10-17T22:24:00.001-04:00

Before I write about this, I just wanted to make it clear that I don't really watch VH1's Tough Love. I don't. I have watched a few episodes over the years here and there, but I really disagree with the whole premise of the show.

However, sometimes shows like these can be a guilty pleasure so while I was flipping through channels the other night, I stopped on VH1 and caught a few minutes of Tough Love: Miami.

I didn't get any "pleasure" whatsoever (guilty or otherwise)... rather I got really pissed off. So pissed off that I ended up watching 3 episodes in a row so I could fully grasp (and report back to all of you!) how fucked up the show really is.

We write about slut-shaming a lot and therefore have become very attuned to finding it, even when it is presented in a subtle way. We always seem to find it everywhere, especially on shows like this... so I wasn't shocked that "matchmaker" Steve Ward (the creator and star/host of Tough Love) was dishing out plenty of it. What really surprised me was how blatant it was and how quickly Steve was able to convince the woman he was slut-shaming to "change her ways".

And it made me mad.

First, let me introduce the "slut" in question... This is Chasity (yes "Chasity", no "T").

The VH1 website describes her as a "contradiction":

This sweet Southern Belle also happens to be a go-go dancer in Las Vegas. And her biggest goal in life? To raise a family in the next couple of years. This dancer has babies on the brain and a ticking clock that would send any potential boyfriend running. With her racy occupation, most of the men she meets are only interested in getting her into the sack. If Chasity can’t figure out her priorities in life, she’ll never find love.

Hm. If Chasity can't figure out her priorities in life, she'll never find love? Once you actually watch the show, you can see that her priorities were already totally figured out. Steve Ward just didn't agree with them.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Steve:

Chasity is the youngest of the bunch, and clearly the most immature, she shows up with this baby fever and I don’t think she has the first clue what it would take to be a mother. So because of that she is in a point where she needs to start coming to grips with reality, basically I was pointing out the fact that, I don’t really understand how you expect to be a mother to a newborn child while being a go-go dancer. So let alone the toll that having a child is going to have on your body, and the fact that she has baby fever which is a turnoff to guys in and of itself, I was more concerned about how unrealistic she was, like she really expects to be a mom and have a stay at home lifestyle and be there for her child and yet she wanted to be a sexy go-go dancer.

So her priorities aren't in order because she wants to be a go-go dancer and find love. She wants to be a mother and still be able to feel, look and act sexy. I don't recall Chasity claiming that she was going to simultaneously go-go dance and care for a newborn child. Note to Steve Ward (who as far as we can tell is single and has no children): Children don't stay newborn forever. I don't think Chasity really thought she'd be go-go dancing with a big pregnant belly, take a few days off to give birth, and then get right back to dancing. It is downright condescending that Steve would even imply she thought that.

The truth is, what he's really getting at is that it's unrealistic for her to think she can ever become a mother as a sexy go-go dancer. Because it's unrealistic for her to ever find love as a sexy go-go dancer. It might sound like I'm making a pretty big leap here, but I'm not. He explicitly spells this out for her on the show.

Near the end of Episode 2 (where I first tuned in) Steve outright asks Chasity "Do you think it's possible to have a go-go dancing career and the healthy relationship that you want with the kind of man you want to have it with?" She answers, "I still wanna keep that same sexiness and find a man that's accepting of it, yeah." Well, it doesn't matter what she wants, because Steve quickly informs her that it isn't possible.

"I think there's something to be said about dancing for tips, okay, and getting men to pay you for attention. Okay, so... if I introduced you to a great guy today, in the situation that you're in, I think this is what would happen..." and then he cuts to a video of clip of her date Al giving feedback on the date:

Steve: What did you think when you first saw her?

Al: Well, I thought she was, you know, good looking.

Steve: Was there an initial attraction when you saw her?

Al: I was interested. You know, she told me what she did. She told me what the-- the go-go dancer thing, and that kinda threw-- you know that kinda threw me of a little bit.

Steve: Do you think it would be kinda hard to have a serious relationship with a go-go dancer?

Al: I think so definitely. I think so definitely. Because I mean, who wants, you know, your girl that you're with you know, dancing. Nobody really wants that. That really was like a deal breaker for me. I definitely would not, uh, be able to um, continue a relationship with that.

Steve asks Chasity how she feels now, after having seen the video. "I feel like absolute shit. I'm just... I'm confused over all of this. I didn't know he felt that way. He could've told me straight up and then I wouldn't have been waiting around here for him to walk through the door."

Steve: "This is what happens every day in the real world. That's how men really think. I'm just here to keep it real for you ladies. I personally think that, if you were really serious about it, you'd quit the dancing. As of now. Do you think you can make that decision today?"

Chasity declines, "Right now I don't think I can make that decision."

Steve is obviously unhappy with this answer. So he threatens her by saying "But until you do, each guy that I match you with is gonna know you're a go-go dancer... and we'll see how far it goes. Think about it." Yeah, don't let her tell the guy on her own, in her own way. He's going to out her - in probably the most judgmental way - to guys who he has hand-selected to judge her.

This really pisses me off. Despite being a total dick, Steve sometimes actually gives some good advice about how these women behave on dates/in relationships (not always, but he does occasionally produce a few words of wisdom amongst all the sexist rubbish). He tells one woman that she was being rude to her date (true). He warns another of moving too fast too soon (which in her case, seems to be decent advice). However, with Chasity he is making a judgment about her job, which has nothing to do with her dating life. It doesn't. Sure what she does outside of her love life does affect what happens within her relationships, but his criticism is about her chosen profession - not how she behaves on dates. I can't imagine he would tell any other woman in any other kind of profession that she has to QUIT HER JOB in order to find love.

This isn't advice. It's judgmental slut-shaming and it's wrong.

If he is such a good matchmaker, he should be looking for guys to pair her up with that aren't as judgmental and closedminded as he is. He should be looking for guys that appreciate a sexy woman, that respect a woman's right to make choices about her own life, and are secure enough in their own selves not to feel threatened by their girlfriend being a go-go dancer. Of course, in Steve's mind these men do not exist... but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would beg to differ. Anyone from Momentum could probably testify to this - there are men who aren't insecure, aren't uptight and don't feel the need to control their significant others. (Except maybe in a totally consensual BDSM kind of way.)

But since Steve doesn't think that a go-go dancer is good enough to get a decent man, he won't help her. The only lesson is quit your job or you'll never find love.

In case Chasity didn't get the slut-shaming message fully... it continues in Episode 3. Steve and his mom Joann go through all of the girls' stuff and pull out a pair of Chasity's shoes and call them "stripper shoes". Later when she is questioned about them, Joann asks "Where are you going to wear these? To a strip club?" Chasity answers "Maybe" and Joanna is clearly disgusted by that answer. "Okay, if that's the kinda man you wanna attract."

In Episode 4 (the "Flirting" episode) Steve really sends the message home. Chasity mentions that flirting is easy for her because she does it at her job, in order to get tips and Steve says "It's funny. Every day I find another reason for you to quit this job." When Chasity admits that the only man she felt attracted to so far was Al from Episode 2, Steve takes this as another opportunity to shame her into quitting.

Look, it is only Episode four. She's had only a handful of dates so far. It's not as though she's met 50 men and Al was the one shining star. Of those few dates... they weren't great picks. Is this because Al is so amazing or because Steve just set her up with a few crappy guys? I wouldn't put it past this show to have purposely matched her with duds to make Al look better, just to prove Steve's point that a good man - the kind of man Chasity wants - wouldn't date a go-go dancer. But come on, this guy is not god's gift to women. He's just a guy. A semi-judgmental, not-very-articulate regular guy.

Also she's only had one date with this guy. So she was attracted to him, but is he really great enough to quit her job and change her life for AFTER ONE DATE? Steve seems to think so. So much so, that he basically brow beats Chasity to quit her job.

Steve: What would you say to him, given the knowledge... given what you know about his views and his impressions? But you also know that he liked you and he was attracted to you.

Chasity: I guess I would just tell him that I don't plan to make this my career. I don't plan on doing it too much longer. So he can take it or leave it pretty much.

Steve: That's your approach? That's how you're gonna approach it.

Chasity: How do you know that I'm not just gonna lie to you and say that I'm gonna quit, just so I can meet him again.

Steve: You would lie to him?

Chasity: I might.

Steve: What the ****? You can sit there and honestly say that with conviction?

Chasity: Yeah. I don't see anything wrong with what I'm doing right now.

Steve: How is it helpful towards the things that you want to accomplish? How does it help you in any way at all?

Chasity: I'm probably not gonna quit right now. I'm just being honest.

Steve: Are you done with the boot camp?

Chasity: No, I'm here for help.

Steve: Here's your chance for you to help yourself. Okay? You want to continue seeing a guy that you have a connection with. But you want to continue doing what you're doing. I'm telling you that if you want to continue seeing that guy, that's the first thing that you need to discuss. Are you ready to do that?

Chasity: I'm gonna have to think about what I want to say, but yeah.

Steve: Okay, well you know what - sometimes you don't have much time to think. Al come on in.

Apparently Steve magically knew that Chasity was going to say that she was only attracted to Al so far... because Al is waiting backstage! (I know that reality TV is rarely "real" but at least it gives the semblances of reality. But I totally have to question the validity of all of this whole scenario.)

Steve: Chasity has something that she wants to tell you.

Chasity: Okay, first I just want to know why it bothers you so bad that I'm go-go dancing. I'm covered up completely. So I just wanna know why it bothers you.

Steve: Like I told you before, I wouldn't wanna get serious with someone who's doing that. Introducing you to family members that you're doing go-go dancing is something that I don't, you know, wanna get serious with. I really like you, but that's the main thing what's the problem for me.

Chasity: No guy's ever turned me down for being a go-go dancer or even came close. So nobody's ever really cared that much. Hearing it from him is a whole different ball game.

Steve: What's it gonna be Chasity. Guys like this, they don't just fall out of the sky everyday.

Chasity: I'm done go-go dancing. I swear to God, Steve. I'm done.

Steve: You're not just blowing smoke here right?

Chasity: I'm done. I'm seriously done, pinky swear.

Steve: Al, would you like to see Chasity again.

Al: I sure would.

Steve: I have high hopes for you now.

What. The. Fuck!?

So now that Al sees how easily he and Steve can manipulate Chasity to give up something she enjoys and doesn't see anything wrong with just for the fucking privilege of dating him, I wonder what he's going to demand she change about herself next. Sounds like the beginning to a wonderful, healthy relationship.

Thanks Steve!

Crossposted at ESCTVblog.com

Cosmo's Guy Guru Doesn't Understand Consent

2011-10-17T19:24:00.003-04:00

There's a regular column in Cosmo called Ask Him Anything that features sex and relationship advice from "guy guru" Ky Henderson. We're generally not fans of Mr. Henderson's advice (or 99% of the other advice that appears in Cosmo), but one answer that he gave in the November issue really set us off.

Q: My boyfriend wants to have sex all the time. Even if I tell him no, I end up waking up to him humping my leg. How do I let him know what a turn-off that is?

A: I'm not a scientist, but I think there are two reasons why he constantly wants to have sex with you: One, he is a dude. Two, he thinks you're hot. These are both good things, so the challenge is to come to a compromise without acting as though he's doing something wrong.

In the middle of the night, a subtle knee jerk to push him off you will do the trick. But you also have to discuss it in the a.m., because if you repeatedly reject him in the hopes that he'll eventually get the message, you'll both end up frustrated. Say something like, "I love having sex with you, but when I'm sleepy, I don't feel sexy."

And since he's clearly into spur-of-the-moment sex, try initiating the occasional spontaneous hookup - when you're actually, you know, conscious. Once in a while, attack him as soon as he comes through the door or pull him into a dark corner of a bar and make out. He'll be psyched...and you won't lose any more sleep.

Let's just jump right in, shall we? First of all, I call bullshit on Ky's brilliant diagnosis of 'he's a dude so he can't control his manly sex urges, and it's your fault anyway because you're totally hot and stuff'. (I'm so glad that he clarified that he's not a scientist before he produced this gem of an answer, because I totally would have thought this was some serious professional advice otherwise.) I wouldn't buy a "boys will be boys" excuse if we were talking about an actual teenage boy here, so I'm certainly not going to accept it as a defense for a grown man who has already been told by his girlfriend that she isn't into it.

Henderson then loses me completely by declaring that the solution here is for the woman to come up with a compromise, except that apparently she's the only one in the relationship who has to do any actual compromising since she also has to make sure that she doesn't act like he's "doing something wrong". He fails to explain why she should have to act that way, since her boyfriend absolutely is doing something wrong, but I'm sure some very scientific theories about the fragile male ego are involved.

This advice is a complete failure and potentially sends some dangerous messages to Cosmo readers because Henderson never properly addresses the issue of consent. He barely allows for the fact that this woman's concerns and feelings may be legitimate, and the answer fully revolves around making sure that her boyfriend isn't left feeling "frustrated" or unsatisfied or, god forbid, as if he's done something wrong.

So, we're here to help. We'll even use Henderson's own scientific formula to help him understand. The letter states that this woman's boyfriend wants to have sex more often than she does, to the point that she will wake up to find him 'humping her leg', even after she has told him no. This means that her boyfriend's behavior is wrong and inappropriate because 1) he is trying to initiate sexual activity with her when she is not in a position to consent because she is asleep, and 2) she has already said no to any sexual activity in that situation and he is persisting anyway. And Ky, this isn't happening 'because he's a dude', but because 1) he's not respecting his girlfriend's boundaries and not listening when she says no, and 2) he apparently doesn't understand how consent works any more than you do.

I had a brief moment of hope that this advice was about to improve when I got to the part about discussing things in the morning. Silly me, I thought Henderson was going to suggest a discussion along the lines of "if I say no to sex while I'm awake, it's not okay for you to try to go ahead with it anyway after I fall asleep". But no, it's actually about making sure that he doesn't get frustrated by her 'rejections' of his inappropriate behavior. Of course this can be accomplished by the tried and true Cosmo method of never having an honest conversation about how you really feel. In lieu of any actual communication, Ky says this woman should tell her boyfriend that the problem isn't his bad behavior, but her not being able to "feel sexy" when he makes his unwanted late night advances. The rest of the advice is all about making sure that his desire for "spur-of-the-moment sex" is fully satisfied at all times, because that is what's really important here.

Hey Cosmo, you know what's sexy? Consent is sexy. Please teach this lesson to your Guy Guru before he gives any more bad advice.

Ladies of Liberty

2011-10-11T10:49:00.001-04:00

We wanted to let everyone know about a program we have recently gotten involved in...

The organization is called Soldiers' Angels and is a volunteer-led, non profit organization that provides aid and comfort to the men and women of the U.S. Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, as well as veterans and their families. Lil' Lilith has adopted a soldier as part of her school community service requirement. We couldn't let the littlest member of the ESC out do us, so we decided to get involved as well.

Within Soldiers' Angels there is a "team" called Ladies of Liberty. The Ladies of Liberty team focuses specifically on the needs of deployed female servicemembers and makes special efforts to support and encourage them. They assist with supplies for their unique health and hygiene needs and help them experience a few "pampering" moments to rejuvenate themselves, even in the environment of war. They collect items such as feminine hygiene materials, vitamins, body scrub, facial masks, shampoo, conditioner, brushes, books, magazines and DVDs.

The Ladies of Liberty program originated in 2006 in a University of North Dakota Women's Studies class taught by Shelle Michaels. The students adopted 24 women from the North Dakota Army National Guard.

We have just received our first "Lady of Liberty" name and address and are preparing our first care package. (We are not permitted to disclose her name or location, obviously, but we can say that she is a member of the U.S. Army stationed overseas.)

Here's a little preview of our first care package:

Herman Cain Invents Occupy Wall Street Conspiracy

2011-10-07T19:08:00.001-04:00

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably heard about the Occupy Wall Street protests that are going on right now. Well, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain has heard of them too, and he's not too happy about them. After a thorough investigation (only not really), he's gotten to the bottom of what the protesters are actually up to:

I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself! [...] It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed. [ThinkProgress. Emphasis mine.]

Honestly, I don't really care that much about these predictably stupid comments, but I'm kinda loving the profound truth in his opener. "I don't have facts to back this up, but..." is basically the theme not just of Cain's campaign, but the entire Republican field of candidates. Michele Bachmann on birth control? Rick Perry on the economy? Rick Santorum on homosexuality? Newt Gingrich about his popularity on Twitter? It works every time. I give Cain a tiny slice of credit in this situation because at least he owned the fact that his little theory was pure fiction with no basis in reality. 'I don't have facts to back this up, but I wish it was true so I'm going to say it anyway'.

You know that game that people play with fortune cookies where they add "...in bed" to the end of whatever their fortune says? I find this to be just as fun. Every time one of these GOP candidates starts to spout off about something, I just add "I don't have facts to back this up, but..." to the front of it. Great stress relief, I recommend it. Try it at home!

The ESC Does SlutWalk NYC

2011-10-05T09:49:00.000-04:00

SlutWalk NYC was this past weekend, and you all know we would never miss that, so we got on the train with our giant protest sign and off we went. We thought it was a great event - great crowd, great energy, great signs - and we're really glad we went. We also have to give a shoutout to the organizers for the job they did putting the event together. From what we could see, everything went as smoothly as an event called SlutWalk being held in New York City could possibly go. (The info pamphlet they were giving out had everything from a list of nearby bathrooms to a page with suggested protest chants in English and Spanish.) We were impressed.

It was really great to see how many people came out to support this cause. It was very powerful to march through the streets with everyone as people on the sidewalk watched (some with bewildered and confused faces) and took photos.

We took a ton of pictures, and here are some of our favorites. First up is the sign that we made, which had a serious message on the front and a slightly-less-serious message on the back:

As far as we're concerned, no protest is complete without a "Donna Martin Graduates!" sign, although it did make us feel old when a few precious young things approached us to ask who Donna Martin was.

There's an "interesting" story to go with this photo (and by "interesting" we mean puzzling and annoying). At one point, we were walking just in front of the pole dancing mobile and a woman on the sidewalk who had been watching the march yelled out to us: "Why would you end your march with a pole dancer!?" We were a little caught off guard so we weren't sure how to answer. We told her, "well... we didn't hire her." Did we look like we organized this whole thing? Was she really expecting us to speak for the entire march?

She continued, "Why would you have a pole dancer at a march that's against sexualizing women." That was when we got annoyed and we did know how to answer. "It's not against sexualizing women, it's against abusing women. Even if she's a pole dancer, it's still not okay to rape her! That is the point."

Then a nice police officer reminded us to "keep up", so we continued on. We have to say, the members of the NYPD who were present at the march were great. It was nice to see that, especially after some of the "questionable" behavior that has been going on with the NYPD lately (including the officers who were going around Brooklyn warning women not to wear short skirts). They were also good sports about some of the chants going on that mentioned the NYPD specifically. It's just a reminder that there are some bad cops, there are some good cops, and then there are some cops who are just desperately in need of sensitivity training.

Our friend Jenn Pozner holding a sign that reads "NYPD: We need anti-violence education, not fashion tips".

"U Say Slut, I Say Sister"

"If I Was Asking For It, I Would Ask For It"

[We're pretty sure that we got permission from everyone in these photos - because consent is sexy! - but if you see yourself in one of them and you'd rather not be included, please just contact us and we'll edit the post.]

Here's some of the post-SlutWalk coverage that we've been reading this week. Feel free to add more in the comments.

-SlutWalk NYC: Real Empowerment, Corsets and All [In These Times]

-Slutwalk NYC 2011 Takes Over Union Square To Protest Slut-Shaming, Victim-Blaming [Huffington Post]

-SlutWalk NYC: Thousands March To End Sexual Violence, Shaming Of Victims [Gothamist]

More Photos From Yesterday's Emotional SlutWalk Rally [Gothamist]

SlutWalk NYC Organizers Consider Dropping "Slut" From Name [Gothamist]

-SlutWalkNYC: A Video Diary [How to Lose Your Virginity]

-Protesters Rally Against NYPD Telling Women What to Wear [NBC New York]

-Why This Slut Walked [Persephone Magazine]

-'Hey Rapists, Go Fuck Yourselves': SlutWalk Arrives in NYC [AlterNet]

The One Million Moms Protest "Pornographic" Lane Bryant Ad

2011-09-22T18:53:00.002-04:00

The One Million Moms had been a little boring for awhile there, but they've stepped up their game recently and are now outraged about everything from ice cream to vibrators. They're also very mad about the cover of the new Lane Bryant catalog, which was very inappropriate if their action alert is to be believed:

Lane Bryant Models Go Topless to Sell Clothes

It is nothing new for retailers to use skin in ads to promote their clothing line, but this is a first for Lane Bryant. Their new catalog features five topless models on the cover wearing only jeans. They have barely covered themselves with their hands or each others hands and arms to prevent this from being pornographic, but it could easily be categorized as soft porn. The models are intimately posed as well.

Lane Bryant chose this image for their cover, but the rest of the catalog is designed like most clothing catalogs with the models wearing the clothing line they sell. There is a small section promoting their Cacique Intimates line which would resemble a Victoria's Secret catalog.

These catalogs are coming through the mail to customers who signed up for them and reportedly to some who didn’t. This topless ad is also being used in their store front windows in malls and shopping centers. The catalog is available to view on their website as well. It is displayed at the bottom of their home page.

It's kind of entertaining that the Moms proclaim to be so offended by this ad, and at the same time they're very thorough in explaining every single possible way for everyone to get a good look at it. It's kind of like their action alerts about TV shows that mention every minor irrelevant detail about the show so that you know they're watching this offensive and inappropriate material very carefully.

Lane Bryant, owned by Charming Direct, Inc., is affiliated with Cacique Intimates, Catherines, Fashion Bug, Sonsi, and Loop 18. The ad is offensive, completely inappropriate, and should be removed from their store fronts and website immediately. Lane Bryant needs to abstain from using nudity or partial nudity in future ad campaigns if they value their customer's opinion and business.

So what does Lane Bryant do if they also value the opinions and business of the people who aren't offended? Oh wait, I forgot, the OMM and their precious and delicate special snowflake children are the only ones in the world who matter.

TAKE ACTION

Please send an email letter to Lane Bryant (Charming) and request the removal of this topless ad campaign from their stores and website. Also, urge them to refrain from using this type of advertising in the future. An apology statement from the company for sending the soft porn catalog to people's homes would be appropriate and appreciated by customers and families as well.

As you might imagine, by this point we were dying to see this "soft porn" catalog cover for ourselves, and since the Moms were helpful enough to tell us that the image was available on Lane Bryant's website, we went and checked it out. Please make sure to brace yourself, clutch your pearls, and get any impressionable children out of the room before you scroll down to view this very explicit, highly offensive image.

Shocking, isn't it? The way you can see their entire...arms. All of those exposed elbows! What a bunch of whores.

First of all, and this probably shouldn't be first because it's kind of a sidebar to the main issues here, but it was my first thought because that's just how I roll, so here goes. The Moms must be watching some seriously boring softcore porn if they're putting this cover photo into that category. Actually, now that I think about it...is there not boring softcore porn? The phrase just makes me think of 14 year olds staying up late to secretly watch Cinemax, but even then I've got to believe that they're seeing a little bit more than women who are fully clothed from the waist down touching each other's upper arms. But I digress, and I blame the Moms for even making me think about this for so long.

I don't find this ad to be at all shocking or offensive, but at the same time I can say that it's obviously worthwhile to address the fact that there are plenty of ads out there that feature naked women for no good reason. I just don't think that this is the best example of that. In this case, you can even make the argument that the ad is selling the idea that "plus sized" women are beautiful and sexy and should feel comfortable showing off their bodies if they choose to. And yes, of course Lane Bryant is selling that message so that they can sell some jeans, and I'm not saying that there can be no valid critiques of this image. I just don't think that 'this catalog is porn and Lane Bryant should apologize for sending it to people's homes' qualifies.

I get that the Moms are allegedly all about protecting the children, but this is a catalog for women. Is it really that big of a parenting challenge to keep your kids from seeing it, or if they do see it, to tell them that it's not for kids? I just have a hard time believing that kids are going to be dying to get their hands on this "pornographic" catalog, or that they'll be horribly traumatized if they do happen to catch a glimpse of this photo.

The other thing that bothered me about this action alert was an issue that the Moms were surprisingly understated about for once. There's only one reference to the models being "intimately posed", but I suspected that they weren't just bothered by the fact that the models were topless, but also interpreted their poses as, like, totally gay. A quick skim of the comments on the OMM's facebook page confirmed that yes, the "lesbian touching" was a big part of the problem for many of the offended Moms. (There was also a fair amount of fat-shaming coming from some of the pious Christian mothers who commented.) I'm sure some of you might have to take a minute to come to grips with the fact that if you have ever touched another woman's bare hand or shoulder or elbow, you might be a lesbian. Please remember to think of the children and refrain from such inappropriate behavior in the future.

Once again the One Million Moms have cooked up a totally overblown panic over basically nothing, while ignoring so many other things going on in the media right now that might actually be harmful to children. I know better than to hope that they'll ever wake up and get it right, so I guess I should just be glad that wrapping brown paper around Lane Bryant catalogs and pints of Schweddy Balls ice cream keeps them occupied.

Scholastic's Girl Stuff

2011-09-20T16:02:00.004-04:00

So it's Book Fair time again in Lil' Lilith's school district. For those of you who are not parents (or who do not vividly remember their childhood or who had a sad, deprived childhood)... twice a year at every school in our district, the PTA hosts a "Book Fair" for the students where they can purchase books. Scholastic gives the PTA a small percentage of the money earned, so it serves as both a school fundraiser and an opportunity to encourage reading.

I have always been a big supporter of the Book Fair. I can't even think about how much money I have shelled out over the years and when Lil' Lilith was younger (before having your mom come to school was an embarrassment) I used to volunteer, working the register or helping kids select books. This year, I flipped open the Scholastic "sneak peek" flier, excited to see what great new reads Lil' Lilith could bring home... and I saw something that really bothered me.

There was an entire section called "Girl Stuff". Girl stuff? What!? What exactly is girl stuff Scholastic?

The books listed under "Girl Stuff" include the following titles:

13 Gifts - When Tara steals the school mascot in order to make friends with the popular crowd, she gets herself into a heap of trouble! [Teen Fiction]
Faith, Hope, and Ivy June - When push comes to shove, two Kentucky girls find strength in each other. [Teen Fiction]
Stir It Up - More than anything, Anjali wants to become a celebrity chef. Will her dream of a cooking reality TV show come true? [Teen Fiction]
Dork Diaries: Tales from a Not-So-Popular Party Girl - Recipe for disaster: 4 parties. Add 2 friends and 1 crush. Divide by 1 mean girl out to ruin Nikki. Mix well and cringe! [Favorite Series]
Tomorrow Girls 2-Book Special Value Pack (Behind the Gates and Run For Cover) - In a terrifying future world, four girls must depend on each other if they want to survive. [Adventure]
The Vampire Stalker - What if the characters in your favorite vampire novel left their world -- and came into yours? [Teen Fiction]
In a Heartbeat - Amelia must face a heart transplant in order to live. Eagan's sudden death prevents reconciliation with her mom. This powerful story brings together two girls through one heart. [Teen Fiction]

Note that there was no "Boy Stuff" category. The other categories in the flier include "Thrills and Chills", "Super-Hot Series", "Great Reads" and "Popular Picks".

As far as I can tell, the only common factor that ties these books together is the fact that they all seemingly have a female protagonist. That's it. That alone makes them "girl stuff" according to Scholastic.

Are boys incapable of reading a book with a female protagonist? For years, girls have been expected to read books with mostly male leads, relate to those characters and enjoy the content.

Earlier this year a study published in Gender & Society confirmed what we all already knew: there is in fact a gender bias in children's literature. Of course, we've known this for years. I knew this when I was a new parent, book-shopping for Lil' Lilith (back when she was actually "little"). I knew this when I was writing my undergraduate thesis on feminist issues in children's literature. I knew this when I myself was a child and an avid reader. But finally after an entire century of inequality, this fact has been touted across the Internet as if it's actually "new" information.

The study, based on nearly 6,000 books published from 1900 to 2000, found that males are central characters in 57% of children's books published per year (compared to only 31% having female central characters); male animals are central characters in more than 23% of books per year (compared to 7.5% female); on average 36.5% of books each year include a male in the title (compared to 17.5% female) [via ScienceDaily.com].

With so many books for kids and teens already focusing on males, why would Scholastic feel the need to categorize the few that do not as "Girl Stuff"? It is important to have an equal number of male and female characters in books - and particularly those who demonstrate non-stereotypical gender behavior - but this does not mean that these books are therefore books for boys or books for girls. They're just books.

Neither the "Great Reads" and "Popular Picks" are sorted by gender. So why these books? Is it because books that focus on female characters or stereotypically female-centric topics are somehow lesser than the "Great Reads"? "Women's Fiction" has never been fully accepted or respected as a valid part of the literary tradition. Nathaniel Hawthorne once even referred to female writers as a "damned mob of scribbling women", dismissing their writing as trivial. It's really a shame to see fiction for young women and girls being treated the same way.

Labeling these books - or any books - as "Girl Stuff" is problematic for two reasons:

1. It's bad for girls. Not only is it sexist, but it is also limiting to female readers. If these books are for girls, who are the rest of the other books for? Just for boys? Are girls going to learn the lesson that books are not intended for them unless they are about them? If girls are not interested in these "Girl Stuff" books and would rather read about history, politics, war, natural disasters, ghosts or mystery (all books listed elsewhere in the flier, but not as "Girl Stuff") how are they supposed to feel about that?

2. It's bad for boys. This categorization also limits male readers. In our society, still the worst thing you can say about a boy or man is that he's too girly or otherwise "female-ish". Most of the worst insults you can throw at a male are those that compare him to females or question his maleness (and his hetero-maleness at that) -- bitch, sissy, pussy, faggot. So if there is a boy that would rather read, say, a book about a female teen who wants to be a celebrity chef instead of a book about male soldiers in the Vietnam War what does this label of "Girl Stuff" do to him? He'll most likely be afraid to buy it lest he risk mocking and bullying. So he buys a less-interesting, less "girly" book or perhaps he will just forgo reading altogether. It is true that in the U.S., statistically, boys are falling behind girls in literary achievement - so why would we want to make it even harder for them to read what interests them, furthering widening this gap and reinforcing the stereotype that boys are reluctant readers?

Charles London (a.k.a. C. Alexander London), author of the Accidental Adventure series, recently wrote on the subject of "boy books" for the Huffington Post and makes the same point that I am trying to make here about "girl books". I'm going to quote him at length, because so much of what he wrote was just that good...

When we label certain kinds of books "boy books" we are not only reinforcing a certain idea of manliness that doesn't include all boys, we are also cutting boys and girls off from a lot of books they might actually like. Sure, many of them won't, but the reading experience of each individual needs to be considered. It is not about gender, but about why each person reads and how. Reading choices do not exist in a vacuum.[...]

There are going to be boys who are habitual readers and boys who are not, boys who crave adventure, excitement and fart jokes and girls who do too.

Putting my books, or Captain Underpants or Shark Wars or the like into a gender ghetto as "boy books," reinforces gender stereotypes that leave no room for a boy who likes poetry or a girl who marks Shark Week on her calendar as if it were a national holiday. Boys and girls alike want a well-told story; boys and girls alike want characters they can feel connected to; boys and girls alike are as varied in their tastes as adults. Gender generalizations, while seductive, don't serve the goal they're usually intended for -- getting young people to read well and to read widely.

While categorizing books by gender does seem to make steering kids to books easier, this is not something that should be easy. Matching mood, ability and expectation with a creative work that might also inspire, entertain, educate or enlighten a budding reader demands a broad knowledge of the material that's out there, a sensitive ear to the wants and needs of the child, and an understanding of the values of parents or the community. [emphasis mine]

Seeing as almost all of the titles listed as "Girl Stuff" are also labeled as "Teen Fiction", I think that would have been a more appropriate category. Then any teen (or tween) who happens to find these books interesting can feel free to check them out, without feeling that these books aren't really for them.

Boys and girls both need to be exposed to books that feature positive, strong protagonists of both genders. But in the end, if we want our children to read, we need to be less restrictive in what is "appropriate" reading material for their gender. Let boys read about romance and fairies and magic... let girls read about sports and action and fart jokes... let your children be who they are without putting them into boxes that say "BOY" and "GIRL" which limit them from the full experience they could be getting from the world.