(click to watch awesome video)
Friday, February 29, 2008
Charming right? Feministing alerted me to this sick excuse for "fashion" last night and I wrote an angry letter this morning.
If you want to write to them too, the address is:
Dear David & Goliath clothing company,
I had never heard of your company before, but I'll never forget the brand now. And I'll be sure never to buy so much as one hat from your company after I see you sell products like this.
What crack team thought a shirt saying, "No means No-- well, maybe if I'm drunk," would be a great slogan for a womens/juniors t-shirt? If you respond to this e-mail, I'd really like someone to tell me... What about rape makes it ripe for parody? What about a horrible, violent crime that leaves girls at risk for depression, eating disorders, cutting, and suicide is so HILARIOUS?
Raping an unconscious woman against her will is not funny. It's a sick and prevalent crime-- especially on college campuses. Congratulations, David and Goliath clothing company for taking a widespread, heinous crime and making it ambiguous, as if there's something "humorous" to be found in rape. I feel horrible for all the other people browsing your site who may stumble upon this thoughtless message which demeans their experience and re-victimizes them over again.
I will be sure to pass on your "error of judgment" to other online shoppers,
Just an hour or two ago, I decided I'd blog on this, and tried to click my link back to the page showing the shirt-- Well now if you click the link to see the t-shirt, you are instead redirected back to the main page of David & Goliath Clothing company. They have removed the shirt from the site!!! Most likely thanks to feministing.com and the many, many letters they helped generate!
We may have won this battle!!!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I actually consider myself a supporter of both Obama and Hillary. I feel they are both exciting, qualified candidates and would help turn our country around.
This was one of the toughest decisions for me, primary-wise. I was undecided even the morning of our state caucus. Ultimately I realized that I share more key points with Hillary and I feel she is more qualified with more years of experience. Whatever the outcome, our country will be so much better off than we are now. And I certainly won't cry and pull out my hair if Obama takes it over Clinton.
I mean, really, the two candidates are similar on so many key issues. I want to know who these crazy-ass people are who swear they'll vote McCain if their democratic candidate doesn't win the primary. Okay, you just shouldn't be allowed to vote if that's your solution... seriously! That's akin to saying you didn't get the right color Mercedes convertible so instead you're going to drive off a cliff.
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, my vote will happily go to Barack.
But here's the thing. He needs to stop pissing me off and saying sexist crap.
Dakota woman blog has a great post on an initial sexist comment from Obama:
"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters.
"When she's feeling down?" -- Holy crap, why not just say: "When she's having bitchy mood swings"?
Then today I read this gem on NBC.
I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama, but we have differences, and in the last several days, some of those differences in tactics and choices that Senator Obama’s campaign has made ... have been very disturbing to me,” she said at the outset of the debate.
Obama did not back down. He said that he had faced the same tactics from Clinton’s supporters but that “we haven’t whined about it because I understand that’s the nature of these campaigns.”
Yeah! You tell 'em Barack. Your campaign isn't a bunch of whiny GIRLS, is it?
And no. I'm not reading too much into this.
Barack. I love ya. You seem like a great guy. Please quit saying sexist stuff because it makes it harder for me to believe you when you talk about "change." Putting down women in Washington is nothing new and it's really making me doubt you.
That and this unfortunate incident. (I frickin' love Shakesville blog).
Monday, February 25, 2008
I realize I'm the last person in the world to comment on this phenomenon of the Barack vs. Hillary/Racism vs. Sexism debate. But I just hate it. I'm over all those pointless debates: "Is it harder to elect a black man or a white woman?" or "What's harder racism or sexism"? However, the more I think about this debate, the more I realize that maybe I have something to say...
As a white woman, I can never pretend to understand racial issues as a person of color would. But as a woman, I can certainly understand sexism as its been leveled at me on more than one occasion . And honestly I do think that our culture tolerates sexism more than racism (and yes, this is all the worse for women of color) .
Think about this: What's the worst name you can call a woman? Probably a cunt. And Hillary Clinton has certainly been labeled a "cunt" and worse. How about the worst name you could call a black person? How often have you seen THAT word on t-shirts sold at conservative rallies? Yes, white supremacists groups have used that despicable word against Obama, but the public at large acknowledges their evil, stupid, wing-nuttery. There's even a physical revulsion when people hear the n-word. But how many "mainstream" groups have called Hillary "cunt" with no shame at all?
And then you have this:
Man yelling "Iron my shirt!" as Clinton tries to deliver her speech.
Has anyone yelled at Obama, "Work my fields?" And if they did, wouldn't that be FRONT PAGE /headline news? Wouldn't there be loads of outraged op-eds (as there should be)? But the "Iron-my-shirt" incident was barely a blip on the political radar.
I interpret the non-acknowledgement of this shit as our culture's ultimate victim blaming. We refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of these insults and it says to Hillary and to all women, "You invite this behavior on yourself. If you stayed out of the way, this wouldn't happen."
Women are expected to put up with sexism. Did mainstream media (or anyone) rush to her Hillary's defense when she was called a cunt, a bitch, a she-devil and weirdly enough, even called a pimp and her daughter was the whore?
Then the media jumped down her throat when her voice cracked ONCE on the campaign trail-- and it's not even when she's speaking of the unfair scrutiny she has received for simply being a woman who dared to dream of being the President--- NO-- it was when she spoke of her great love of this country.
What a whiny bitch, huh?
This invisible sexism extends beyond politics. Remeber when Imus called a group of female athletes "nappy headed?" We (rightly) fired him but we also conveniently overlooked him calling them "hos." A racial slur = bad but calling a group of women 'whores'---just par for the course. However, I'm willing to bet the women of Rutgers noticed both.
Well if I speak the truth, and sexism is more accepted in this culture--- you may ask yourself, "Fine Tobes, who do you blame for this supposed problem?"
I blame Men are from Mars Women are from Venus!
Seriously, click that link and read the whole blog post-- it wisely points out that a culture that relies on "men and women are so different" stereotypes isn't doing anyone any favors.
Today we teach our children that color is only skin deep but we still cling to the notion that men and women are fundamentally different and need to be treated as such. In the blog about MafMWafV, the blog author wisely states:
The whole concept of gender differences--particularly gender opposites--is so overblown in pop psych. I am officially sick of hearing statements in the form "Men go hoody hoo, but women go haddy ha!" Men are rational but women are irrational. Women are sensitive but men are insensitive. The idea that male and female personalities are opposites is dumb, condescending, and makes truly respectful relationships impossible.
And it makes it impossible for us to recognize that women are just as capable as men. We are not aliens sharing a planet, we're all a part of the human race. The fact that Hillary has a vagina does not make her any more or less capable that any male politician out there.
We look the other way so much when it comes to sexism that we don't even recognize a classic example of sexism when we see it!
James Wolcott of Vanity Fair illustrates this point beautifully in his op-ed "You can Call a Woman anything", talking not just about Hillary/woman-hate but also about women's inclusion in professional sports.
Wolcott writes briefly about Elaine Joyce, a champion amateur golfer. She and her father were looking forward to a weekend tournament at the public course on Cape Cod where they both had full memberships. But their names were not listed when officials posted tee times. Rather than call Elaine, the club's head pro called her father and told him the tournament was not open to women.
It did not matter that Joyce would play from the men’s tees. Or that she had won more than 20 club championships over the years. Or that she had captured the title in 2001 at an event for the state’s top female club champions.
Elaine Joyce filed a discrimination claim and after 18 (18!) months was allowed to play again. But she was punished.
Some members of the group were appalled and let her know it. One said he would play only if she played naked. Others walked off the course when paired with her. Some refused to speak to her during rounds.
If any club tried to deny a man of color entry-- would it not be news story #1? But a woman is denied entry and shunned and we shrug our shoulders and say its their business, their right?? I mean, why should they have to put up with the woman... the other?
I'm tired of the pissing contest of "what's harder" when it come to race/gender in this election. But I'm also a little miffed as to why this hasn't sparked more discussion.
I mean are there men of ANY COLOR who can't ref a sports game, can't expect medical care, would lose a job because of pre-marital sex, .... ugh.
But then there's the sports anchor (and a woman at that) who commented on "lynching Tiger Woods" and Bill O'Reilly talking about lynching Michelle Obama and plenty of other horrible racist shit....
There really is no point in havin the "what's worse" discussion because it's all horrible and it's all connected and it's all about keeping us down.
I'm just tired of a media society that will ignore Hillary bashing (or participate in it) and at the same time, bat their eyes in a, "What's sexism?" sort of ignorance. Seriously. You KNOW what you're doing... now STOP IT!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
It's no secret that police brutality has long been a weapon used against minorities. After the Rodney King incident and subsequent trial, it was on everybody's radar. But we've come a long way since Rodney King and the days where cops looked the other way or God forbid, even helped lynch mobs do their dirty work.
Cops have always walk a fine line in our culture's history-- sometimes they're respected and beloved, other times they're "pigs."
I've had some great experiences with police officers. I've worked in emergency rooms as a rape victim advocate and met with some kind, caring and well educated cops. I've done trainings side by side with officers. But I'm no fool. There's bad eggs out there, just like any job. The only difference being --- that a bad egg police officer still has a gun, maybe even a taser, and the ability to order me around.
In the aftermath of September 11th, we were quick to put all servicemen and women on a pedestal. Police officers were heroes and anyone who said differently was unpatriotic. I get that. I was in NYC in 2005 at the St. Patrick's Day Parade. Even years after 9/11, I got teary seeing the officers march to bagpipes. Still, it's dangerous to hero-worship to the point of ignorance.
The same shit happens with the troops. I will forever have pride in my heart for our men and women in uniform. Many of my family members have been overseas or are there now. However, soldier worship can become dangerous. When we refuse to see flaws in our military and SOME of its troops, we are tentative to report on their misconduct. Like this, and this, and some other horrible stories that our media doesn't want to talk about because it gets in the way of our proud flag waving.
And it does suck. Every time one police officer or soldier fucks up it reflects on the whole group, it diminishes the good work they do and draws attention to the negative. It makes the lines between good guy/bad guy blurry and it makes us all uncomfortable.
But I'm getting way off topic... my original point is we need to start taking more notice of police brutality. I mean, I know "don't tase me bro" was an internet sensation, but I don't find that shit funny. There have been some pretty clear cut cases of police officers using tasers negligently or too frequently-- there's actually a whole website dedicated to this taser-frenzied police force we've created.
Then there was the story of the female VICTIM who called police for help. When an officer arrived, he asked for her ID and she mistakenly gave him her sister's drivers license (a keepsake, her sister was deceased). He refused to give it back to her, at one point saying "Shut up about your dead sister." When she persisted, he arrested her and later under questioning, the woman was attacked and violently strip searched (be careful, link takes you to some triggering video). She was strip searched and left naked for 6 hours. Several male officers held her down during the process.
Today on You tube I see this video:
Side note: I'd like to know... if this woman "fell" while trying to exit the door again, how did she end up in the middle of the room in a pool of blood?
Raw video here.
Seriously. I'm starting to feel like these aren't isolated incidents. I'm starting to feel like I'm not going to be safe if I ever need police help.
So how do we strike that balance? Where we acknowledge and thank the honest, brave men and women who defend us at home and overseas while not giving an inch when it comes to assholes in uniform who need to be called out?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Okay-- what in the hell is up with this video? I don't know what to make of it.
At 1:30 into the video we find that the woman in lingerie is keeping a bound and gagged Kayne West in the trunk. She's sensually touches him and then proceeds to murder him with a shovel.
I don't get it. Kayne's the star here so I assume he had a say if not the say in the concept for this video. So why did he go at it from this angle? Is this supposed to be sexy? Does this have anything to do with the song? Are 'murderous bitches in black garter belts' the new "in" thing?
All I know is that this video profoundly disturbs me. If the situation were reversed and Kayne opened the trunk and murdered a helpless woman, WAY more negative attention would be paid (probably because in the real world, that's more than likely how the crime would go down).
However, this type of sexualized domestic violence is just as disturbing to me when it's female to male... plus it's just WEIRD. Seriously, I want to call the producer and be like, "Sooooo.... why?"
by Guest Blogger Adrienne
Reader beware: I am not the kind of writer who uses a lot of statistics to jazz up my articles. Partially because statistics can be skewed any way you need them to be, but mainly because when you're talking about something as emotional and personal as abortion, I don't want to sit down and look at a page of numbers to tell you what my gut says. When you go searching for statistics, I'd wager that you are really just looking for the ones that will support the claim that you all ready know is 'right'.
Recently, someone very close to me found out she was pregnant. I was shocked when she told me, and after the preliminary congratulations, I asked her how it happened. Obviously I know how babies are made, but it turns out that she was just as shocked as me. She quoted a Friends episode and said, "Sometimes everyone can wear everything that they're supposed to, and it still just happens."
The other day I was watching True Life on MTV, and a 17 year old girl was saying that her boyfriend told her that because he smoked marijuana he had a low sperm count and couldn't get her pregnant. As she was talking, she rested her long fingers on her round belly, a crib in the background. "I don't understand it," She said. "We had been having sex for like, a year and half, and I didn't get pregnant. Why this time?"
I was educated in America (like both of those women and their lovers). One day in ninth grade we were told to read Chapter 11 in our Health book and that there would be a quiz later. The chapter was about ten pages long, briefly discussed the parts of the male and female genitalia and how they are used in baby-making (because that's all sex really is, right?) and then went on to discuss what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy and how birth happens. There was no quiz, there was no class discussion, no question and answer period, no note-taking, etc.
I still remember when I was a sophomore in high school one of my friends (who was a college freshman) asked me if you could get pregnant if he ejaculated on her stomach. Another guy friend who was my age asked me once if he could get a girl pregnant from 69. I remember reading an article once that said that a girl got pregnant from swimming in a pond where a boy had masturbated.
And of course, I went through the discussion that every girl in her adolescence has with at least one of her friends: you know, the 'did we, or didn't we?' talk, the 'am I still a virgin?' talk, the 'just the tip, just for a second' talk. It's pretty clear, to me at least, that abstinence only, or the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on sex education is not working.
What does that have to do with abortion? Oh, only everything. If these kids aren't clear on how they can get pregnant, and aren't clear on what ACTUAL ways they can avoid pregnancy if they are being sexually active (or if they will become sexually active), then how could that be deemed 'CHOICE'?
When children (you know, like Jaime Lynn Spears) are bombarded with sexual messages on every commercial, billboard, tv show, etc, are pressured by their friends, are not given guidance from their parents except 'don't do it,' aren't receiving any education from their schools, and are trying to control their own raging hormones and curiosity, how can that be deemed 'CHOICE'?
To be pro-life and to rally for making contraceptives even more difficult to obtain is a conflict of interest. The sad truth is that young people are having sex at alarming rates—it's true. A hundred years ago, we would have all been married by age 16 anyway, so its no surprise that puberty is when most children get curious about sex—and that was before we had sex being sold to us at every turn.
Adoption is a beautiful option. I wish that every woman who was experiencing an unplanned pregnancy felt that adoption was the right choice—but it just isn't so. There are MILLIONS of women who for very practical reasons can't see how adoption would work for them. Women that have AIDS, women that have cancer, women that have MS or some other debilitating disease; women in abusive relationships, women with Down's syndrome, women who are victims of incest or spousal rape, women who are eleven, just to name a few.
And okay, fine, yes. There are probably a handful of women that have abortions because they had sex, they got pregnant, they don't want a baby. Some of them may not use contraceptive for no other reason than that they are careless. Some of them may have had three, or fourteen, abortions (although I don't think that is likely). And keeping abortion legal means enabling these women to continue to have abortions, whether or not the American public think that it is right. There are always going to be people who take advantage. And the BEST thing we can do to combat that is to empower them with the education on how to NOT get pregnant, and empower them with knowledge on why they are getting pregnant in the first place (for example: are they looking for love in all the wrong places? Do they have a sex addiction? Etc)
And guess what? If all you pro-lifers are right and these women are going to burn in hell for what they've done, that's going to happen whether or not you tell them so, isn't it? Telling doctors to stop playing God by performing abortions is hypocritical—YOU should stop playing God by judging people. Just be smug, smile, and rest confidently on your knowledge that they are going to be worm food someday and you will be a harpist (and let God judge you by what you're thinking, rather than letting people like me judge you for what you are saying).
Of all the pro-choicers I know, I have never met a single one who wants abortion to increase. In all our pro-choice discussions (you know, after we get done burning our bras and drinking bat blood), no one has ever said to me, "Did you hear abortion rates are up in South Carolina! Whoo hoo! Pass me the placenta chips!"
Likewise, the general consensus of every discussion I've had with a pro-lifer is that they want abortion rates to go down, or stop all together. And, USUALLY, they don't REALLY want the pregnant women to be stoned to death. (I have heard the 'she should take responsibility for her actions and deal with the consequences' rhetoric, to which I always wonder how a baby that is born as a 'consequence' will fare down the road, but that's neither here nor there).
I think, at the core of the issue, most people on either side just want abortion to stop (or to be a LAST LAST LAST case resort). So then why isn't there more outreach from both camps to figure out some kind of happy medium that can accomplish that goal? Why isn't there legislation trying to give everyone a little of what they want—requiring that pharmacists must fill birth control prescriptions and requiring that abortions have a longer waiting period? Or something? Why has no one from either side of the issue tried to extend an olive branch to find some way to meet in the middle?
Abortion, like the death penalty, war, and religion, is a polarizing issue. It's true. It is one of those things that almost everyone has a dead-set opinion on that they just can't budge on; which, by the way, is the definition of narrow-mindedness (shame on us all).
As a pro-choicer, I don't like the idea of a girl in high school or junior high needing parental permission to get contraceptives. I know that at that age I would have NEVER gone to my parents to ask for contraceptive. But it's a bargaining chip I am willing to toss up if it means that we can have REAL sex education classes in our schools (which, btw, might lessen the need for these young girls to have contraceptives in the first place AND make them more likely to talk to their parents about it). I don't want to see legislation that mandates there to be a 48 hour waiting period before any abortion, but I'm willing to trade that for legalized abortions in every state, for all women, in all circumstances.
I believe, fully, that this world and this nation NEED extremists. We need the people all the way on the left that are anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and we need the people all the way on the right that are pro-life, pro-tax cuts, pro-war, pro-religion in our schools. We need those people because without them, the people in the middle would just look at each other and shrug.
But what we ALSO need is for those people in the middle to start stepping up and saying what THEY want to see happen. The vast majority of this country agrees on so many issues— none of us want to see religious extremists becoming suicide bombers. No one wants to see senior citizens going without their prescriptions. No one wants to see more soldiers dying in Iraq, or anywhere else. NO ONE wants to see abortion numbers sky rocket. No one, no matter what their voter registration card says, or what terms they use to describe themselves, really wants to see their neighbors suffer.
So stop putting comments under our pro-choice articles that call us selfish and disgusting. Stop calling me a slut. Stop hiding behind Biblical rhetoric (being an atheist is not illegal), and stop telling us to keep our legs crossed and our heads down. In return, we'll stop calling you outdated and bigoted. We'll stop telling you to get bent and that we can't believe you have sex at all. You can't fight fire with fire.
Throw yourself a pity party tonight, eat some ice cream, call us all sluts and cunts one more time, and when you wake up tomorrow morning, be ready to come to work. Actually THINK about what you want to see happen, and think about what you're willing to do to get it. ASK a pro-choicer what they want, too. Build bridges. Find the road that separates you and walk down it together.
You can still call me a hippie. That's allowed.
Monday, February 18, 2008
I noticed this in my local shopping mall. The men's ad was the same but the women's said "longer, leaner, leggier" --- Why is it that men can look, casual, comfortable and cool and women must appear thin, tall, sexy? No comfort for them I guess. Anyone else care to help pinpoint why this ad annoys me so much?
Plus these women just look pissed.
What I don't get is that according to the Express website, men's shirts will go up to XXL (women's tops only come in XS-Large!). Women's pants only up to size 12 but men's up to 36 (in some stores 38).
How can you make a XXL for men but only go to a Large in women's sizes? I guess if Express ran the world any woman deemed "extra large" wouldn't get to buy clothes. And besides, have you ever held up a "large" women's size shirt from Express? Large by what definition of the word? Large for an 4 year old?
Personal rant: I'm a plus size gal myself but can often buy a Large or XL at mainstreem stores like The Limited, Old Navy, Gap etc but NEVER at Express.
Also- as I began to surf more around their website, I just noticed more irony.
I guess color variation is fabulous, except when it comes to the range of models you use. The real ad copy should read:
"Blonde. Brunette. But always caucasian."
There's an online video of their models and there is exactly one black female model and in a very "blink and you'll miss her" capacity.
It all started when a friend of mine wrote an article commemorating the Roe v Wade anniversary. Then a guy named Chad decided to comment that "Abortion is the ultimate disgustingly selfish decision a person can make. Taking a life to make it easier on yours." He also claimed that "birth control is like $2 a month the last time I checked with my girlfriend."
When was the last time Chad had sex with his girlfriend?!?! TWO DOLLARS? Are you freakin' kidding me?
I've enjoyed being part of the discussion over there and am pleased to see that other commenters are pointing out how complicated access to contraception is--- for an example--- and beause I'm lazy, I'll just copy and paste one of my responses:
"Anon" suggested a compromise that pro-life people work with pro-choice people to "give women and girls easy and cheap access to birth control."
Absolutely brilliant idea! This is something pro-choice people have been asking of the "pro-life" community for years. But we never get anywhere on this issue because pro-lifers have no interest in life (example? – how about co-opting AIDS relief by demanding America not send condoms to Africa....)
There lack of interest in decreasing abortions was proved AGAIN- most recently in the South Dakota legislature on Friday February 8th.
South Dakota Senate Bill 164 read:
"It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities..." ...
The bill would have prevented pharmacists from refusing to dispense birth control. Planned Parenthood in S.D. has several documented instances where pharmacists have refused to do their job and fill prescription birth control for women.
This bill was voted down by the "pro-life" people who claim that they want abortion to end!??!?
So now we know--- pro-life is a misnomer. These people are the sex police. They have no interest in helping women avoid unwanted pregnancy. They want to tell people how to live their lives. No condoms, no pill, no abortion.
And then when you're an unwed teenage mother, they'll call you a SLUT. No really.
Colorado Spring Republican Rep. Larry Liston said (during a recent GOP legislative caucus meeting in Denver):
"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, and they were called what they are. There was at least a sense of shame. There's no sense of shame today, society condones it. ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."
Yes because we know how often MEN were sent away in shame for pregnancy. And we know how often MEN are called sluts with any derogatory meaning behind it.
Time to face facts, folks. "Pro-life" people have no intention of reducing the need for abortion. Their gripe is that women can't be shamed and called out for their "slutty ways" anymore. There is no interest in making it easier on single mothers.
-- If you want women to have options
-- If you think people need real sex education
-- If people need access to contraception
-- IF you want abortions to decrease
...then you would best serve your purpose on the pro-choice side.
So yeah, that was fun.
It just makes me absolutely nuts when "pro-life" people come out and claim to care about the welfare of children (in fetus form only of course). They want women to continue every single pregnancy possible... no matter what. Cause it's so "easy" to do?
There was a great article on MSNBC that talked about the child care crisis and how day care costs have outpaced what the average family spends on food. The majority of families rely on two-income households to keep going and that means the kiddies have to go somewhere. But when daycare costs more than food--- how are people supposed to stay on top of it?
According to the article:
Child-care costs are rising at twice the rate of inflation. After paying the mortgage, health insurance premiums, transportation costs and child-care fees, today's two-income families have less money left over than the one-income family did a generation ago.
"In order to go back to one income, families would have to make significant changes, possibly losing health insurance and their home."
So even the good old fashioned nuclear family might have some serious concerns about an unplanned pregnancy. But surprise surprise it was the democratic, pro-choice canidate, John Edwards who talked about more significant tax breaks for people with children in day care.... not the anti-choiceres... seems to me they don't give one lick about making it easier to afford and adequately care for children.
And as for $2 birth control... PULEAZE
Thursday, February 14, 2008
And all that looks like NOTHING when compared to what's going on in developing countries.
Rape at epedmic levels in Africa: Women are being gang raped as a tactic of war.
A man in Afghanistan is to be executed for simply reading about women's rights.
And now today I log on to this headline: Saudis to execute woman for witchcraft.
This is what happens when women are demonized through society and religion as "other." I'm so sick of it. It seems to be that this society is terrified of women. This is a country where women cannot drive, rape victims are sentenced to 200+ public lashings, and a woman can't even be seen at Starbucks with a male co-worker for fear of being arrested.
But yes, fear the women, they give you impotence.
Witchcraft is considered an offense against Islam in the conservative kingdom.
In Falih's case, the judges relied on a coerced confession and on the statements of witnesses who said she had "bewitched" them to convict her in April 2006, according to the group.
Falih later retracted her confession in court, claiming it was extracted under duress, and said that as an illiterate woman, she did not understand the document she was forced to fingerprint.
The Saudi court cited an instance in which a man allegedly became impotent after being bewitched by Falih, the rights group said.
An appeals court ruled in September 2006 that Falih could not be sentenced to death for witchcraft because she had retracted her confession. But a lower court subsequently reissued the death sentence for the benefit of "public interest" and to "protect the creed, souls and property of this country," the group's statement said.
Is it just me or is the WOMEN who need protection???