Femonomics reads the internet: hot politicians, heart rate, fat camp, LiLo, and cartoon bears

Oh my goodness, there's a male politician who's hot!  Check out his abs!  And his turquoise belt!  Meet Illinois representative Aaron Schock.

Apparently the new show Huge on ABC Family is really amazing!  The main character, played by Nikki Blonsky, is a radical feminist who rails against body propaganda and plasters her walls with "fatspiration" at weight loss camp.



New research says the classic "maximum heartrate" formula, used to determine recommended exercise heartrates (e.g., 65-85% of maximum, calculated by 220 - age), don't work at all for women.  Oh man, how I hate the medical profession's continued jeopardization of women's lives by willy nilly applying research based on male subjects to female care.  Do you remember the renaissance painters who used to draw babies with muscles because all the bodies they could dissect were adult males?  Yeah, it's kinda like that.

To update you on the Wikileaks/Bradley Manning case, Manning has now been charged with mishandling classified information, and is now being held in Kuwait, awaiting an investigation that could lead to a court martial.  Also, there's a nerd war going on over whether Adrian Lamo acted honorably.

So, Lindsay Lohan was sentenced to 90 days in jail, of which she'll probably serve 23.  One writer, watching the feed for amusement, felt sorry for her when she broke down in tears.  I watched, and don't, because the reason she broke down is that it had never occurred to her she might go to jail for violating her probation.  She's totally shocked when it happens, and is sending incredulous tweets today.  Also, she says her F--- U manicure had "nothing to do with court".  Umm, then do you think maybe you should have had it removed before court?   Please go peacefully into obscurity like Paris Hilton.  I beg you.

I thought these two videos about the iPhone vs the HTC Evo were hilarious.  Maybe you are less nerdy than me, and you will not.  Very NSFW language.  Spoken by cartoon bears.

McChrystal, Obama, and the male ego

Now that this whole McChrystal thing has blown over a bit, we can take a step back and meditate on the situation.  And I think I speak for everyone when I say, "really?!"  Really you super awesome four-star general, director of covert ops, you didn't realize that things you said in front of a magazine journalist might be published, and that those same things might get you in trouble?  But that's not the only thing I'm incredulous about.  Read on for three very different angles on the Stan MacChrystal debacle: what does it say about McChrystal, what does it say about the administration, and what does it say about journalism?

For those of you just joining the news cycle, or outside the US, the general in charge of the Afghanistan war ran his mouth off about his distaste for everyone within the administration in front of a Rolling Stones journalist, and the subsequent article got him fired.

The Sexist Beatdown ladies have a pretty funny piece on just how ridiculous this Stan MacChrystal character is, and how his male machismo seems to have both advanced his career, and ended it:

SADY: Dear Lord. This McChrystal profile: I cannot get over it! Like, four pages in, it starts becoming more generous. Which is kind of startling, because on page one it kind of presents McChrystal as this overgrown eighteen-year-old drinking Bud Light Lime and playing World of (Actual) Warcraft (In Which People Die) with his buddies. Bud Light Lime. BUD LIGHT LIME! The reputation-killer! ...It seems to me that this whole article is profiling McChrystal as like this sad doomed exemplar of a certain kind of machismo. The kind that doesn’t overthink, doesn’t do things that are “fucking gay” like attend restaurants with candles or drink wine or respect the President, and is dead set on getting its way no matter what the consequences of getting your way when you’re resolutely opposed to thinking about stuff or opening your mind at all might actually be...
AMANDA: The lack of self-awareness is the main thing. I’m amazed that no one had their guard up around Hastings—or better, that this is what they look like with their guard up. I mean, looking at the hilarious photographs accompanying the story of Hastings in hipster jacket and beard and sunglasses hanging out with all these dudes in uniform, you have to wonder what they were thinking.

SADY: Right. Like, that’s what’s kind of alarming. That not only are they being frat-house homophobic and hostile to diplomacy — although part of their job is supposedly understanding this culture that they’re trying to singlehandedly break down and reconstruct — but that they’re being quoted as talking smack about everybody in the administration. They’re all identified mostly by their positions, not names, but does being anonymous really help with the impression that this entire operation is just Out Of Control?
AMANDA: And insulting the administration in the laziest way possible. Biden? More like Bite Me! France: Gay! Beer: Good! ...

Women continue to close the gap in politics

Tuesday's primary elections did not bear out the predicted anti-incumbent fervor, but they produced another story: women won some important races, including the Republican primaries for governor and senator from California!

Over at CNN, however, Jennifer Lawless makes a point that I have made before: we are still nowhere near parity in political representation.

Referring to the victories of Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle and Blanche Lincoln, CNN.com ran the headline, "Women Win Big in Tuesday Primaries." MSNBC.com followed suit, flashing across its homepage, "It's Ladies Night at the Ballot Box." The Washington Post ran a story entitled, "Women Triumph in Races Across the Country." And the Daily Beast summarized last evening's events by concluding that "Women Rule Primary Night..."

These women, however, represent only a fraction of the total number of candidates seeking positions of political power. Yet their famous faces tend to obscure, at least in part, women's severe numeric under-representation in U.S. politics, as well as their prospects for major political gains in November.

Women and children imprisoned in Iraq without cause

This article from the CSMonitor cannot be ignored:

In some cases, the women were being interrogated as possible suspects, but in others they were being used to try to extract confessions from their husbands. Using threats against women to elicit confessions from male relatives is a practice well-documented by rights groups.

"Four days ago when one of the men wouldn't confess they said, 'Bring in his wife.' They put her in a separate room nearby and beat her so he could hear her screaming," says the witness. "They went back to the man and said, 'We will rape her if you don't confess.' "

Now, I really have no problem with women being held as prisoners if they're suspected of crimes. But this article describes a prison operated by the Iraqis (who run some joint operations with American troops) where family members of suspects are being arrested and held as leverage to get confessions. I shudder to think this is what we're leaving behind us as we exit the country.

Recent US Trends: Crime down but domestic terrorism up

The FBI recently released a preliminary version of their annual crime statistics for 2009, and both violent and property crime have decreased significantly in the last year, all this in spite of an ongoing recession.

Yet preliminary crime figures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 2009 show that the crime rate is falling across America, across all categories. Violent crime was down 5.5 percent and property crime down 4.9 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to FBI statistics released Monday.

In fact, crime in every category decreased, says FBI spokesman Bill Carter. Murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault all declined in 2009, he said. Robbery – which tends to boom in bust times – dropped 8.1 percent.

So, that's some great news reported by the CSMonitor, which also gives some potential explanations like an aging society and increased policing and incarceration. I find these explanations somewhat lacking, as I'm not sure how great of a change there was in these variables in the relevant time frame (2008 and 2009).

On the other hand, there has also been a lot of discussion over the past year about an increase in attempts and incidents of domestic terrorism. I cannot find any great sources to support such an increase, but certainly the topic has been more on the public's mind this year. There are basically two lines that this conversation has been following, which I never see overlap. One is a coverage of recent attacks perpetrated by homegrown jihadists, including the Fort Hood shooting and the sensationalized profiles of 'Jihad Jane.' The other side to domestic terrorism that we've heard a lot about is increases in rightwing extremism, under which could be classified the murder of abortion-provider Dr George Tiller and the intentional crashing of a plane into the IRS building in Austin. Homeland Security has increased efforts on domestic terrorism this year, and some polling indicates that Americans are more relatively more concerned about domestic terrorism than in 2002. Do any readers know of better sources for information on domestic terrorism?

Online excellence in journalism

In spite of the hysterical cries that new media is the death of journalism, I have found several sites that truly excel at news delivery and always improve understanding of the issues. My current favorite is the non-profit ProPublica. Even their "About Us" page is awesome:

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.

I am particularly addicted to their Eye on the Bailout coverage, where they give us an excellent illustration of how much has been repaid to government to date. ProPublica also links to investigative work done by other organizations, making it a great source for your daily outrage (guaranteed to have a story near you!)

Pulitzer Prize winner PolitiFact is my other standby. These guys really keep our public officials honest, and manage to do so with a wry sense of humor. Their Truth-O-Meter ranks the veracity of politicians' statements, giving grades like True, Half True, Barely True, and Pants On Fire (for the egregious violations).

What's the problem with facebook?

Facebook now has over 400 million users world-wide.  And they are ruthlessly leveraging that popularity to turn pageviews into profit.  Meanwhile, it has become a de riguer communication device--so widely used, you're a no one if you're not on it ("You're not on facebook?!" has become the new "You don't have a cellphone?!").  With this increased popularity, and expanding scope of use, a worrying trend has emerged: facebooks users continuing to share private details, as facebook's creator and business managers gradually take away the privacy protections that once kept that information limited to your closest (400 or so) friends.

We've long been aware of facebook overshares via lamebook, but a new website, openbook, makes clear just how vulnerable your information is, by allowing you to search facebook statuses for questionable phrases like "cheated on test" and "I hate my boss."  You may have noticed the way facebook is trying to take your privacy control away from you when it required you to "connect" with your work info and interests in order to keep them listed on your profile.  "Connections," unlike the information listed in your extended profile, are public information.

You can see graphically just how much facebook has eroded your privacy over the years through this neat-o blooming flower of overexposure.  Some have had enough, and there's a growing wave of discontent, with many users deleting their profiles, or threatening to.  Internet entrepreneur Jason Calacanis is on a mission against facebook, after deciding in late 2009 that the company wasn't trustworthy due to its new privacy defaults.  But he's far from the only one.  Gizmodo has offered up ten reasons why you should quit facebook, including its leaders' demonstrated questionable ethics and "war on privacy," but also arguing that even if facebook wanted to protect your privacy, recent technical gaffes show they just aren't competent enough to.

Femonomics reads the internet: HIV treatment, smear campaigns, SWEDOW, and the female body

The NYTimes has a heartbreaking story this week about the number of HIV patients in need of treatment outnumbering the number of dollars available for drugs.  Bill Easterly, a longtime aid critic, has responded by noting he argued early on that HIV treatment was a losing battle, since the number of new patients will naturally exceed the capacity to treat without prevention efforts that work.  HIV treatment is one area where visiting a country at the heart of the HIV/AIDS fight profoundly impacted my viewpoint.  I formerly was more sympathetic to the simple logic that, although AIDS is a death sentence without treatment, there will always be limited funds, and it is much cheaper to save a life through malaria prevention and treatment than through years of ARVs.  However, seeing the profound impact of HIV/AIDS on communities (everyone I met had a family member who had died of AIDS.  Many other people were on treatment, and you would not even know they had the disease) right now, I realized that even though prevention is the long-term solution to the HIV crisis, treatment--expensive as it is--is not something the development community can afford to cut.  Without AIDS treatment, all of the newly infected people will die in 7-10 years.  I believe there can be profound changes in development, disease, and poverty in the next ten years, not the next fifty.  If that is to happen, we cannot afford to have a "lost" generation--the already infected, condemned to die.  Moreover, real prevention requires testing so that people can be aware of their status and protect others from infection; and without the possibility of treatment, there will be no testing (and, for that matter, those who are tested will be profoundly negatively affected, the opposite of the desired result).

Richard Goldstone was appointed to investigate war crimes in the Gaza war.  His report concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes.  Now, people who disagree with this ruling are engaging in a smear campaign of Goldstone's past, accusing him of being an apartheid-era hanging judge, and no better than a Nazi.  However, a South African friend explained to me that while Goldstone did accept a judgeship during the Aprtheid era in South Africa, and thus did have to enforce some questionable policies and sentence people for crimes within a broken legal system, he also took every opportunity he could to find loopholes, re-interpret statutes, and set precedents in a way that lessened the burden of Apartheid's oppressive laws.  In particular, Goldstone was responsible for issuing a ruling that people could not be compelled to leave an Apartheid zone if no suitable alternative accommodation was available, thus effectively ending the enforcement of the "Group Areas" provision.

Femonomics reads the internet: Environmental Health and New Lows for Victimization of Victims

I've been pretty impressed with a series of articles being published by TIME. One issue I have consistently written about (i.e. here and here and here), are chemicals in plastics and our health. Early April, Bryan Walsh published a solid article called the Perils of Plastic, which hit all of the key points. Just this Thursday, Tiffany O'Callaghan recapped a report from the President's Cancer Panel determining that environmental chemicals are a larger factor in the rising burden of cancer than they previously thought.

In Australia, the successful use of the 'Skinny Jeans Defense' in a rape case has terrifying implications. Recap: A man (Nicholas Gonzales) was acquitted of rape in Australia using the argument that the tight fit of the jeans would make them "difficult... to be taken off by someone else unless the wearer's assisting, collaborating, consenting." But believe it or not, this is not a new defense. In 1992, the same argument was used successfully to overturn a guilty verdict in an Italian rape case. That case served as an inspiration for an annual event called Denim Day that is held in April every year and asks people to "wear jeans as a visible means of protest against misconceptions that surround sexual assault." I'm going to stop there before I start to rant and rave and redirect you to a round-up of posts and articles by Alex Eichler at the AtlanticWire on just how wrong this defense is.

The High Cost of Black Gold

Image Credit: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

On April 20, 2010 there was an explosion on a BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. When the accident first happened, the main news story was about the potential victims. Reporters monitored the search for 11 people who were missing after the explosion.

Search crews have since given up hope to find those missing 11. But the tragedy continues to unfold. The oil continues to leak at an incredible rate, creating a massive oil slick approaching the U.S. coast. The barriers being used in an attempt to hold the oil are not doing their job, and the Coast Guard has resorted to using controlled burns to contain the oil.

According to BP, the worst-case scenario is that the leak could take 2 to 3 months to correct. However, the amount of oil that would be spilled at that point is estimated to surpass the Exxon Valdez, the current worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The vast resources consumed by a clean up of this scale are staggering, but they will never completely contain the damage. Oil is a poison, and countless birds and marine wildlife are going to die from this oil spill. A commercial fishing ban has already been put in place to protect Americans, but there are so many other ways the oil can impact our health, through contaminating water and land.

Is there a silver lining? The only positive I can see is that this could serve as a wake-up call for all stakeholders supporting continued U.S. dependence on oil. What can you do? Contact your Senators and Representatives and demand they support energy independence initiatives that also protect U.S. health, such as wind and solar power.

Arizona, Immigration, Racism, and Federal Inaction

As I'm sure you've heard by now, a new Arizona law requires all immigrants in the state to carry their documentation on them at all times and present it upon a suspicious police officer's demand. For your roundup of news and background on this new immigration rule, check out Feministe, with a truly comprehensive link list. I can't imagine this law will last long, as it is straight up unconstitutional and enforcement promises to be a real nightmare. Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva has asked that organizations boycott the state in the face of a bill that he maintains is essentially codified racism.

Is this law primarily motivated by racism? This seems to be the consensus, and Latoya over at Racialicious even documents refried bean swastikas plastered on state buildings in protest (vandalism which reporters awkwardly mischaracterize as a hate crime). Our own Just A State School Girl picked apart the risk of racial profiling the bill presents earlier this week. NMDan of Daily Kos agrees with this take, and argues that such blatantly racist moves will motivate the electorate and ensure the swift downfall of the GOP. The vote did fall along party lines, but I am hesitant to characterize the Republican party as purely racist while Democrats are stalwart defenders of freedom. There is plenty of room for skepticism that anyone in DC is really dedicated to tackling immigration policy, Democrat or Republican.

BPA Update: EPA to Investigate Environmental Impact of BPA

Image credit: ToastyKen

In January, I wrote about the FDA’s reversal on their safety ruling for bisphenol A (BPA) which is used in the production of plastic water bottles and the lining of aluminum cans.

Late March, the EPA announced it will be beginning an investigation to determine if BPA should be added to the list of chemicals of concern.

Why Is the EPA Investigating?

Moscow bombed, CNN blames "women"

A terrorist attack in the Moscow subway system was perpetrated by two reportedly female suicide bombers.  CNN found it appropriate to communicate the relevant facts with "Women blamed in Moscow suicide blasts."  To see how backwards this headline is, imagine the consummately uninformative "Men blamed for 9/11."  I understand it's novel that the suicide bombers were female, but their womanhood was not responsible for their extremist views and actions, and is therefore not the salient point for inclusion in a headline, certainly not at the cost of including information on their political affiliation.  CNN and MSNBC are both notorious for bad online headlines.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen them describe a rape or sexual abuse case as a "sex scandal" (rape is no more a sex scandal than a robbery is a payola scheme), or drastically misrepresent the findings of scientific research.  To them I say: hire somebody better.  And to those victimized by the Moscow subway bombs (many of whom were also women), I say: I am so sorry, and you'll be in our thoughts.  I so wish we could learn to work out our differences without involving innocent civilians.  Next century, perhaps.

Healthcare: a skeptic's guide

Since Sunday night's healthcare vote, we've put up two pro-healthcare reform pieces on this site (by Mad Dr and Pearls N the Hood).  This isn't because our site has any specific stance, it's because we have two writers who happen to feel passionately on the subject, and happen to be pro-reform.  But if you look around the feminist blogosphere, most feminist bloggers and tweeters seem to be taking a "pro" stand (with the exception of arguing reproductive rights shouldn't have been thrown under the bus for us to get there).  On twitter Sunday night into Monday, there was tons of breath-holding (as the final votes were counted) and cheering (once the bill tipped over the threshold) going on among the feminist groups we follow.  Reading all this, you might start to feel that feminism comes as a package deal, complete with liberal political beliefs.  I'm writing this because I don't believe that to be the case, and I don't want our readers who don't share this "belief package" to feel alienated if they don't, either.

There are many reasons one might feel skeptical, or at least less-than euphoric, about the recent healthcare legislation, and none of them make you any less of a feminist.  Let me lay out the spectrum of healthcare skepticism, both for us skeptics and for those who don't get where we're coming from.  You might be skeptical of the healthcare legislation because:

Tiger Pays (another insincere apology) to Play.

Can this be over already? I'll admit that I have, like many others, become overly interested in the Tiger Woods scandal. While I can appreciate that the man is a skilled golfer, I tend to root for the underdog. So, I usually end up rooting against Tiger on the course. Despite my indifference towards the man as a golfer, I can't shake my curiosity about Tiger the man, the son, the husband, the father—mainly because it has been thrown in my face by the media everyday for the past several months. In my opinion, Tiger Woods is the ultimate "Two Face". Seriously, once again on Sunday night, Tiger Woods stood before a camera and recited, basically the exact same speech he gave us last month when he took just enough time out of sex addiction rehab to stand before the media and chastise it for being in his and his family's business. Now, that he's decided to play in the Masters in April, I guess he just wanted to remind us in that robotic, stoic, and unconvincing way that he performs so well that he is sorry he let us down.

Health Care Reform Passed the House of Representatives (again)… Now what?

Image Credit: ThomasThomas

Last night, the House Democrats voted to pass the Senate’s comprehensive health care reform bill. In the end the vote was 219-212. The vote, as expected, was pretty much along party lines. The Republicans all voted Nay and all Yea votes were from Democrats. However, 34 Democrats went against their party and voted Nay. Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo put together a spreadsheet looking at how their districts and political ambitions may have affected their vote. The chart showed that 26 of the Representatives came from districts that voted for McCain in 2008.

The House then voted by a similar margin, 220-211, to pass a companion bill making several changes to Senate bill that were needed to gain enough support from the Democrats.

What Is Next?

Healthcare Reform? Yes, we can!

The pundits said health care was dead. I almost believed them, but at zero-hour President Obama stepped in and took the reins, making it possible for our representatives to pass historic legislation that will start to reform the way health care is accessed and delivered in the US over the next few years. The health care reform bill passed with 219 Democratic votes and not a single Republican vote. This legislation is the most revolutionary health care legislation to pass since Medicare started, and the Republicans didn't want any part of it. Even after we were forced to suffer 6+ hrs of political theater dubbed a "health care summit" last month, where President Obama begged GOP leaders to give him any response other than "No.", they still wanted nothing to do with it. To be completely fair, neither did 39 conservative Democrats. But, despite the naysayers, I believe in this bill and I hope you do too. I don't believe in this bill because I think it is perfect. It is far from it. My ideal health care reform is a single payer system—perhaps, Medicare for all. This bill still leaves some 10-15 million folks who may want/need health insurance out. I don't believe in this bill because it is in accordance with my particular moral values. In my opinion, abortion is a private and individual issue. I won't pretend to understand what someone considering abortion for any reason is going through and I won't judge their values. I don't believe in this bill because it's comprehensive, because really, it's mostly a health insurance reform bill, and there are many other facets to the US health care delivery system untouched by this bill. However, it is crucial that we take steps towards fixing our expensive, broken, and unjust system. It is undeniable that skyrocketing health care costs are unsustainable. I believe in this bill because each and every step we can take to ensure and insure the health and wealth of our country, the better off society will be. And the provisions in this bill, which is now set to become law, are a big leap toward making that possible. I believe in this bill because, as Speaker Pelosi said, "all politics is personal." And health care is deeply personal. And this bill reaches Americans on a personal level. This bill does what is right for the American people. Here are some highlights, (see chart below for more details):

Are suicides a crime of opportunity? Cornell's sixth suicide this academic year raises troubling questions

A Cornell student jumped to his death on Friday, immediately following a similar jumping death on Thursday, marking Cornell's fifth and sixth suicides this academic year. Gawker asks if Cornell's unusual terrain is playing a role in the tragedy: the college's campus is sliced through by scenic gorges filled with rushing water and craggy rocks, bridges hanging overhead.  Although prior to this particularly bad year, there had not been a suicide at Cornell since 2005, some wonder whether the opportunity provided by the treacherous gorges and accompanying bridges make Cornell students more likely to complete an act of suicide, whereas a less...rugged...campus might provide a student enough thinking time to seek help.

Rielle Hunter breaks her silence in GQ interview. I don't even know where to start

This interview with Rielle Hunter is every bit as ridiculous as you never could have even imagined (and the photos!  Whose idea were the photos?!).  The thing is, though, she actually comes off as kind-of nice.  Completely out of touch, utterly delusional, and distinctly last century in her attitude toward gender roles, but nice nonetheless.  I certainly believe her (completely f-ing crazy) version of events more than Andrew Young, who has had a knack for making this entire thing about him.  Who the interview does not make me feel any sympathy for whatsoever is John Edwards (who you already know I think there's a special circle of hell for)--he comes off sounding exactly like the self-impressed, overly-coddled man-child I always imagined him to be.  He couldn't be truthful with Elizabeth because she might yell at him, whereas Rielle always supported him unconditionally.  No, really.  Read Jezebel's take for more quotes that reflect Ms. Hunter's unique perspective on relationships.  Then, for the love of all that is holy, please remember to always do the exact opposite in your own life.  And, if you're in the mood to vomit today, be sure to check out the Daily Beast's yucky summary of the John Edwards sex tape.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

15 Years Since Beijing: Is It Still the Same Men's Club?

Fifteen years ago, the U.N. held the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Representatives from 189 countries adopted the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action unanimously which identified what they viewed as major obstacles to gender equality.

This year the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women held a two-week meeting to review what countries had done to implement this landmark declaration. At the end of the meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered remarks reminding us that, while we have made real progress over the last 15 years, our work is not yet finished.