Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Oscar smear campaigns, just how pro-choice are we, three strikes, and more!

Jezebel and others are picking up the news of a "Hurt Locker backlash" now that the film has claimed front-runner status. What they point out, though, is that the strange timing of the attacks makes it likely that one of Hurt Locker's rivals for best picture are behind the attacks.  James Cameron is still friendly with Kathryn Bigelow, so he seems an unlikely candidate.  That leaves the team behind Inglorious Bastards, the same ones that managed to engineer a Shakespeare in Love victory over Saving Private Ryan.  Jezebel quotes S.T. VanAirsdale from Movieline:
I'm not about to second-guess anyone in Iraq. But I'll totally second-guess the editors who seem to have left the "Additional reporting by Harvey Weinstein in Baghdad" credit off the LA Times story.
Really?  An Oscar smear campaign?  Let Matt Damon explain it to you.

The LATimes has a piece on the "real women" at the Olympics.  Now, for most of us these women's bodies are still an unrealistic ideal, but it's certainly nice to see a different sort of unrealistic ideal.  And, the proportions that have appeared on our TV screens--5'2"/143lbs, 5'10"/165lbs, 5'8"/180lbs--certainly point out the ludicrous nature of using BMI as a metric for health.  Cough, cough, that means you, Whole Foods.
New blogger Midwest Feminist has filled out the "Just how pro-choice are you?" survey.  I find the survey to be an interesting idea, because it seems to me the issue of abortion is not black and white.  It's possible to be very pro-choice, for example, but still feel personally uncomfortable with the idea of abortion.  One problem that the pro-choice movement has faced is that they act as though admitting the moral ambiguity of abortion means ceding ground to the pro-life movement.  I'm not in this camp.  I rate pretty high on the "how pro-choice" scale, but I still think that abortion can be a morally difficult choice.  Just because things are morally difficult does not mean that they belong in the public domain, however.  For example, deciding whether or not to donate a kidney to your ailing father is a morally difficult decision, but no one is suggesting we let congress make up your mind for you.  As in organ donation, carrying a pregnancy to term requires the use of a woman's body, and therefore should remain a private choice, morally difficult or not.
Also, it turns out California's three-strikes law is insane.  Did anyone else know about this?  Apparently once you commit a string of crimes, you can then be jailed for years for a minor offense, such as stealing cheese.  What bothered me most is that they noted the defendant in this case is mentally ill, and probably needs treatment, not incarceration.  I understand there need to be consequences for escalating behavior--but de-escalating?  Shouldn't we try better probation infrastructures so that recently freed inmates don't need to steal cheese?
And finally, the Paterson scandal just keeps getting uglier and uglier.  Apparently he not only personally spoke to the victim (without making any attempt to first ascertain the facts in the case), but also ordered his staff to council her to present the attack as non-violent.  Should he resign?  Feministing thinks that unless he can prove his innocence, he has no choice.

1 comment:

  1. The three strikes law doesn't make so many levels. Civil rights aside, this kind of policy is why California's prisons are vastly overcrowded and represent a giant hole in the state's budget. The Hawaiian model of short but high probability sentencing sounds much less expensive and reasonable.


Commenting is now open, but we'd love it if you chose one username so other commenters can get to know you. To do this, select "Name/URL" in the "Comment as" drop down. Put the name you'd like others to see; the URL is optional.

Any profanity, bigotry, or synonyms for "[ ] sucks!" will be deleted. We welcome criticism as long as you're making a point!