And suddenly I like Meghan McCain

And more than ever, loathe Laura Ingraham.

Meghan McCain may not share my political point of view but I respect the hard work she did for her father's campaign (and she blogged while doing it!) And I respect any young woman who boldly steps into the world of politics today because, well... this happens...

Some back story: Meghan McCain has been writing on a blog called "The Daily Beast" and recently suggested that republicans and Dems should play nice. Conservative talk show host, Laura Ingraham took issue with this and spoke about Meghan on her show, not about her opinions (silly!), but about her body (of course).

She called McCain "a valley girl gone awry" and a "plus-sized model." Read the full transcript of Ingraham's assholery here.

***ASIDE-- Using "plus sized model" as an insult is just a total cluster of stupid-- #1 A plus size model is probably between a size 8 and 10 -- #2 Meghan McCain is beautiful and #3 Who the F**K cares even if Meghan McCain had to be wheeled around like jabba the freaking hutt?? Also, I seem to recall Laura Ingraham being one of the republican commentators that was SO UPSET about the unfair, sexist treatment Sarah Palin received. I guess republican women are only defended from sexism if they're towing the party line. Shocker!

BACK ON TASK-- The feminist community and women's online community are well aware that speaking your mind while female more often brings up comments about appearance or worse (threats of violence) than actual political discourse.

Ingraham's comment is just one more in a sea of public commentary -- political or otherwise-- that silences, mocks and demeans women for appearance. I can think of no similar situation with a male blogger or politico of any age being treated to this type of scrutiny on weight or appearance. But for women -- it's so common -- so INSANELY common that I doubt we'll hear much more on this story. Ingraham's schoolyard harassment tactics will be labeled 'no big deal,' and we'll be expected to move on.

Thank God McCain isn't taking it lying down.



Big shocker: When commenting on McCain's response, Ingraham said, “Can I say ‘lighten up,’ or is that offensive too?” She also pulled out time-honored asshole statement -- telling McCain that she needs to learn to deal with satire and “teasing.”

Word to Ingraham-- satire should be funny. Teasing should be good natured... and oh yeah, you suck! But that has nothing to do with your looks.... just your "personality."

Woman bruttaly attacked -- media sells it for entertainment

*Trigger warning

It was Melissa McEwan of Shakesville who first pointed out the HIGHLY disturbing trend of reporting stories of violence against women in “odd news” section fronts. As if the murder and terrorizing of women is something novel or interesting and not a sad commentary on a violent, patriarchal society.

Today a lump caught in my throat at seeing this.


The attacker, 28-year-old Thomas Lee Rowley was described in the article as a “spurned lover” as if this was merely a spat between boyfriend and girlfriend and not a vicious attack. In fact, I’d go so far as to classify this as a sexual assault.

This man was convinced he had ownership of this woman’s breasts (which he undoubtedly associated with sex). I don’t care if he paid for 100 breast agumentations for this woman. He never OWNED part of her body.

Thankfully she survived 6 stab wounds and the punctured implants were repaired. Sadly, the story was filed here.



Thanks MSNBC

PS: Rowley is on trial in Superior Court in Victorville for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, stalking, burglary, and false imprisonment.

HOW WEIRD!

I suck lately

I have not been blogging here and it's totally lame.

But I did blog here.

It's about men who work as clinic escorts.

So there's that

*I know, it's still uncool*

Seriously news media???

I have had it with the coverage of the "Santa killer"/"Christmas nightmare" story.

They keep running these stupid, misleading headlines and it's making me crazy! From a description like that you may think a mall Santa went nuts and starting firing on shoppers or something. It's a cheap attention grabber but it's not the real story.

Bruce Jeffrey Pardo should not be remembered as the "Santa killer" --- he should be remembered as another statistic of domestic violence.

Ironically I haven't read that phrase in any articles but I HAVE seen "marital troubles" -- as if marital troubles is in ANY WAY adequate to describe, disguising yourself to gain entry to a home full of people, including your ex wife and her friends and relatives-- shooting everyone you can and setting fire to the home.

How in the sam HELL does that equate with marital problems? Marital problems are a dying sex life or too many bills. Not an ex who stalks, terrorizes and murders you and your family.

FUCKING NEWS MEDIA.

A story like this should have "domestic violence" in the TITLE. It should be noted that women are most vulnerable when they leave their abuser. And make no mistake, this man was an abuser. I'd bet my life on it. You don't pull stunts like this without having serious issues with control, entitlement, and violence.

If you hate your ex wife, you talk shit to your friends and hire a good lawyer, you don't gun down her family -- unless you are a violent, horrible person.

Some might say, 'Perhaps he was suffering from a serious mental illness and snapped.'

Far less likely.

This man planned carefully. He had $17,000 on him and an airline ticket to Canada. And the Santa suit was not only a sick, sadistic choice... it was also a tactical one. Apparently the house he invaded used to have neighbor show up dressed as Santa. So Mr. Pardo new the suit would gain him entry. He had the gun, the bullets and the gasoline ready to go. This was not a man who snapped, this was an execution. Retribution for a woman who had left him... who had gotten away... who had escaped his control. He was going to punish her.

This is merely the hundredth or so case (this year) of a woman being murdered by her intimate partner. Domestic violence against women is an epidemic. But we don't care. Even when the horror of it smacks us in the face, we ignore it. We want to sensationalize the freak-show, carnival nature. We want to talk about SANTA committing a holiday massacre.

And we want to forget that women in this country, while less likely to be violently murdered than men, are FAR MORE LIKELY to be murdered by those they call husband, lover, boyfriend.

And THAT is way more messed up than a man in a Santa suit wielding a weapon.

/end rant

Friday Giggle

Do I know why?

No....

It just makes me giggle.

A movie review and more

Hello!!!

...

(hears an echo)

...

Okay!! Okay! I'm sorry. I got engaged and disappeared. I didn't even blog on the presidential election-- the freakin' presidential election!

But right around the time Melissa McEwan took a step back from blogging at Shakesville, I realized I too needed a break.

Feminism is a passion of mine but let's face it, it's not a relaxing hobby. After the election, I cut back on reading blogs (although I couldn't stay away entirely) and I stopped commenting. I read frivolous books, planned my wedding and visited family.

Everyone needs to carve out time to be happy. I can start crying over a letter from OxFam!! There's a lot of suffering in this world and while I don't advocate ignoring it -- (we should always keep up with our teaspoons) it's also important to keep a healthy balance. You can't do any good if you're miserable.

So I took a break. But I'm ready to dip my toes back in again... so I figure... let's start with some fluff.

How about a review of a movie?

STOP NOW If you don't want spoilers---



So Will Smith is Hancock, the unhappy superhero who spends most of his day drunk, laying on park benches. He flies in to "save the day" but in the process wreaks havoc (think millions of dollars in destroyed property). Citizens of LA are unamused and boo him on sight. Nancy Grace even calls for his incarceration!

In steps the public relations man, Ray, played by Jason Bateman... Hancock saves him from a train and Ray repays him by offering to revamp his image. It's decided that the city needs to "miss Hancock." So they let Hancock go to prison to make amends.

While in prison, Hancock gets in a fight with two large cons (who apparently are the dumbest people ever -- who picks a fight with an immortal superhero?) and it ends with --- brace yourself --- Hancock putting one man's head up the other man's ass. Really..... Yes you see it... I guess it was supposed to be a funny but I was disgusted. Is there not some other sophomoric violent stunt he could have pulled without evoking imagery of unconsenting anal penetration????

Ray's wife, Mary (played by Charlize Theron) dislikes Hancock more than your average person and the audience is meant to deduce there is history there.

You learn that Hancock is drunk and miserable for a reason. He woke up 80 years ago (he's immortal and doesn't age) in a hospital in Miami with no memory whatsoever and no one to claim him. He's been lonely and grasping for his past and memories all these years.

SO-- major spoiler time...

We come to find (through some very lame and hole-filled storytelling) that Mary is actually an immortal hero as well and since the dawn of time she and Hancock were lovers/partners/some variation thereof. But they were star crossed and doomed to grow weaker and vulnerable when they were together. When Hancock lost his memory all those years ago, she fled hoping to save him and herself once and for all.

So Hancock became a drunken superhero and she became... a housewife.

Nothing against housewives, but this woman can do anything. She is actually STRONGER than Hancock. She is indestructible, she can fly and she can apparently control the weather and start tornadoes. I guess we're meant to believe that after all this time she wanted to lay low. But the motivation for hiding her gift is unclear -- other than to regulate her character to helpless woman role (yes Hancock has to SAVE HER at some point). During one scene she actually hands her husband a jar to open- when he does she sighs, "Oh honey you're so strong."

And later when she is giving Hancock the 'motivation speech,' she says something like, "You were built to save humanity, to be the God's insurance policy here on Earth!"

There's no trace of irony that she too is clearly built special-- endowed with God-like powers. But no, it's only Hancock with the magnificent, heroic destiny. When he flies off to leave her (as he must for their own good), the story jumps months into the future to show that Hancock has literally flown to the moon and back and yet Mary is still walking next to her husband and son, eating ice cream like any other domestic Plain Jane.

Fine. They can't be together. It destroys their powers. But you're telling me they couldn't fight crime and do battle in separate hemispheres? And the stupidest part, Mary's husband is Hancock's PR man. He was the biggest advocate of, "Your powers give you a special role to play-- use them well." Yet, he doesn't care when his wife hides her ability and stays home to cook meatballs when the world needs saving???

Charlize Theron is an amazing actress and it's a waste to give her this cardboard role. Basically she was a plot device -- only there to connect the two male leads and occasionally wear cleavage-baring, dominatrix/superhero get-up.

And it's a bummer because as far as superhero stories go, it had originality and potential but it fell so, so flat.

Guest blogger time!

From Adrienne

Sometimes, I'm not sure what to think about the society that I live in.

My state, Nebraska, has recently come into nationwide focus because of a law that came into effect in September-- The Safe Haven Law. This law states that people can bring their child and leave them at a hospital or with an on duty firefighter and not be prosecuted by law.

Nebraska is, obviously, a very conservative state. Currently, we have what is legally referred to as an 'unenforceable' abortion ban. Every Saturday I drive by a HUGE protest in front of the Planned Parenthood in my town. My sister and I used to entertain ourselves by flipping them off while we drove by, and once I escorted a terrified woman (who was not even there for an abortion or to ask about one) across the picket line so that she could get an exam done. When we passed the safe haven law, I was so proud of the state. I thought, finally, someone wants to provide an answer for women who want an abortion and cannot obtain one.

What is controversial about the law is that there is no age limit. While lawmakers have stated that it is intended for infants, to prevent babies being born in dumpsters, they left no age limit on the law so that any parent could leave their child here.

If you've been following the stories on the news, you can see what a predicament my state is now in. Over thirty children have been left here since the law came into effect in September, some from out of state. One father dropped off nine children (after his wife died and he was laid off from his job).

As an early childhood professional, it makes me sick to my stomach to think about children being abandoned by their parents. As a citizen, even as a liberal, I have to admit that it is upsetting that parents are using the safe haven act, even more so that so many have utilized the law-- and even MORE so that parents from out of the state have used the law.

However, the law was created for a reason. The law was created so that parents could leave their children rather than harming them-- and now we are upset because the law is doing exactly what it was intended for.

Yesterday I was reading an article about a woman who became the guardian to a 16 month old when his homeless mother literally put the child in her arms and then walked away. Now he is five, and suffering from an emotional disorder so severe that his guardians literally fear for their lives. She has sought help through the proper channels, got therapy, put him on medication, and, finally, looked for full-time care with an institution. But the wait list for a quality institution was 6 months at the least. So, she bought plane tickets and brought him to Nebraska, where she dropped him off at a hospital. In the article, she says that she just wanted him to get help, and this was the only way she could think of to get him help right NOW. "If it works out," She says, "I'd like to have him back."

THAT is the real travesty. The fact that it takes more than six months for a CHILD to receive necessary mental health care is morally reprehensible in this society. THAT is what we should be focusing on, NOT on repealing a law that has brought into light so many of the holes in our social services system.

It breaks my heart that children are being abandoned. I work for a child care center that exists through a grant that provides day care and living expenses for single moms. The majority of the children I interact with every day are children who were born to teenage mothers. Every single day I see parents whose lives would have been SO much easier had they had an abortion or found some way to abandon their child-- and yet they keep them, they struggle, and they make it through. Sometimes with public assistance, sometimes without. So when the public in my ridiculously conservative state says that people should understand the choice inherent behind creating a child, and the responsibility that comes with having one, I get it. I absolutely GET it. These women chose a hard road for themselves AND for their children, and I admire every single one of them for it. The goal of social services is to keep families together, and as functional as possible (if any of you grew up in a functional family, let me know).

I was so proud of my state for passing this law. Passing this law, to me, meant that Nebraska was tired of being heartbroken every time they read about a baby left in a dumpster, or a child locked in a closet, or starved to death. To me, it meant that while we are, as a whole, an anti-abortion state, we were willing to provide a choice to women that does not include a dark alley/rusty hanger, or forced motherhood.

I was so proud of the state for saying that we would be the brave light shining in the darkness for these children-- NOT for the parents-- who have so few choices, so little help, and-- obviously-- no one they can count on.

But now the public cries out that these children are not our responsibility-- that it isn't fair for us to shoulder the cost of these children. Some parents have said they abandon their children because of severe behavioral issues, and others, I'm sure, just because they didn't want to have their kids anymore. That was bound to happen. In any case-- I thank God that these children are no longer in their parent/guardians hands, even if just for a brief reprieve to get the help that they need in order to make their families functional. I pray for the lawmakers who face the decision to repeal a law that we-- obviously-- so desperately need. What would have become of these thirty-odd children without the safe haven law? Would we rather open the World Herald and read that 34 children had been starved, neglected, abused, since September?

Luke 9:48: "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me, because the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest."