Re-Defining Rape: A Bipartisan Goal

By now many of you may have heard about H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act". According to legislators, the purpose of this bill is only to make existing limits on abortion in federal code, such as the Hyde Amendment, permanent. However, the law goes further than permanently codifying these restrictions on women's privacy, and drastically limits the definition of both rape and incest.

The text of the bill lists that the only exceptions to the ban of federal funding for abortions include when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life and:

"[I]f the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest..."

Forcible rape? What does that even mean? One major reason for concern is that the term 'forcible rape' is not defined in the federal code, nor do many states have a definition. To me, the term 'forcible rape' sounds like the only time rape is really 'rape' is when your attacker has a gun or a knife to your head. It would be interesting to see how we decide whose rape qualifies and whose rape doesn't for a federally funded abortion.

The incest exception is also being drastically changed. Federally funded abortions would only be allowed if the victim of incest was under 18. Because that makes sense. (?!)

I was surprised to learn that this bill, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ4), has bipartisan support. Nine 0f the 173 cosponsors are Democrats, including Daniel Lipinski (D-IL3) and Nick Rahall (D-WV3).

But to be clear, I wasn't surprised that some Democrats would support pro-life legislation. Rather, I was surprised they would support legislation that would only really accomplish demeaning women, restricting their rights, and perpetuating harmful myths about rape.

Want to take action? Join the Twitter campaign. Stand up for survivors everywhere. #DearJohn

An American doctor in Paris (or why I want an apology from Jezebel)

I will not be visiting Jezebel until they apologize for publishing "Edward Pasteck's" ridiculous, rape-apologizing, harassment-defending garbage.  For those of you who aren't familiar with this steaming pile of rapey mansplaining dung masquerading as interesting content on a feminist website, it went a little something like this [TRIGGER WARNING--scroll to "end trigger"]:

Having just returned from living in Paris, I feel more convinced than ever that America gets many things wrong about sex. Right there near the top of the list is our attachment to the idea of consent.

In Paris, it seems as if the straight male attitude toward consent is that it doesn't exist. At clubs, bars, bistros, in the street or on the Metro, Parisian men lobby very aggressively for sex. At the clubs in the 8ème, off the Champs-Élysées, and all along Rue de Rivoli, it is fairly common to watch men literally grab and touch the girls who weave through the crowd. Men often draw a finger down an unknown girl's cheek or under her chin like a doting Uncle; they can be seen pinching girls' noses, throwing arms around shoulders and even stealing kisses. It's not for nothing that the French slang word for "kiss" or "make out" is choper, which literally means "to catch."

...One lesson from Paris is that sex shouldn't be an activity to which we need to consent if a decision will suffice.

A specific example from my time in France helps illustrate my point. I once fell madly in love with a woman named Madeleine. I thought she liked me too because she kept agreeing to see me and she once elegantly blew me a kiss as she descended into a Metro station. We were never intimate because the moment never seemed right to try to kiss her. Lovesick and unsure of what to do, I complained about Madeleine to a female French friend who said to me, "Have you tried getting her drunk?" Obviously my friend's recommendation was based on the assumption that after getting drunk Madeleine would be easier to seduce. This idea of plying a woman with alcohol (something that is applauded by American men in private) often enrages American women because they view it as an assault on their right to consent. Is this really a good thing?

That's right, Jezebel, you and I are over.  I will get my celebrity gossip from People, and my feminism from sites that have never defended sexual violence.  I originally wanted to use this space to talk about how I had personally been affected by the fragility of consent in American society.  To talk about walking the gauntlet in NYC bars with bile in the back of my throat as men exercised their assumed right to touch me however they pleased.  To talk about how, as a survivor of sexual abuse, I am terrified that society thinks "Well, it's not like she fought him off" is an admission of agreement.  I wanted to tear his ridiculous argument to shreds.  Then I had a different idea. [END TRIGGER]

Why not try to apply Pasteck's logic to another situation in which consent is required to avoid legal action?  Medicine.  The below follows the exact same structure and argumentation of Pastek's piece, with almost all taken verbatim (including the parts that make no sense and say nothing), although edited for length.  With apologies to the French, who did nothing to deserve this, here goes:

Jezebel publishes piece advocating rape (Or, OMFG Jezebel WTF)

For anyone who has read this article (Huge, massive, billboard-sized trigger warning), let me just say that I am so very sorry.  I am sorry that you, who may or may not be a victim of sexual assault, but if you're not has probably been on the other end of sexual violence or attempted sexual violence at some point in your life, had to read some scumbag's self-justifying rape apologism, all the time wondering whether this made YOU less safe in a world with these men, and those who publish them; whether this meant YOU should feel empowered by your sexual assault, even though you feel like ice inside instead; whether this meant that the world is really as hostile as this website where you used to feel at home.

What really got me was how very much like an assault it felt to read THAT piece on THAT blog.  To look at the headline "American guy in Paris freed from idea of consent" and think that Jezebel was going to tear him apart.  Then to click the link, and start reading a first person narrative of someone advocating unwanted touching and kissing of women in bars as "liberating" (for the m-fing women!) and getting a girl drunk as embracing life, and wondering when this clever satire was going to turn and reveal how wrong-headed this sleazeball logic was.  And then to get to the bottom and realize that none of it was a joke?  That one of my favorite websites had just actually given a platform to a rape apologist, without unpacking his argument, offering a counterpoint or at least warning its readership that the website had done a complete 180 on what kind of content to publish, and they should probably take their morning coffee and bagel elsewhere?

Read this comment thread for an incredibly sorry explanation for said behavior, and some very articulate explanations as to why said sorry explanation is complete and total b***sh**.  Read Sady's historical take on said b***sh** here.

Then please go check out one of the other excellent feminist websites that are out there.  Fighting the a**holes.  Instead of publishing them.

Male privilege alert: Men's inviolable right to violate women's bodies

Today Gawker has a post about the alleged sexual assault of a Google employee at a tech conference by a Twitter engineer.  Gawker's headline reads "Googler accuses Twitter engineer of sexual assault on her blog."  Right there, we're off to a bad start.  Because her blog post is not, really, at all about "accusing" someone of sexual assault, but rather stating the simple fact that she was assaulted (he put his hand down her pants after she turned down his advances), naming the person who did it, and saying rather eloquently that it's part of a broader problem of guys excusing their bad behavior based on the setting:

It’s not the first time something like this has happened to me, at all. It’s not the first time it’s happened to me at a tech conference. But it is the first time I’ve spoken out about it in this way, because I’m tired of the sense that some idiot can ruin my day and never have to answer for it. I’m tired of the fear. I’m tired of people who think I should wear something different. I’m tired of people who think I should avoid having a beer in case my vigilance lapses for a moment. I’m tired of people who say that guys can’t read me right and I have to read them, and avoid giving the wrong impression.
...It is not my job to avoid getting assaulted. It is everyone else’s job to avoid assaulting me. Dozens of guys succeeded at that job, across the week. In the pub, in the stairwell, on the MARTA, in my bedroom.
One guy failed, and it’s his fault.

The commenters make the bad start even worse, by (typically) questioning her behavior (which, in a move that makes me want to give her a medal, she bravely documented), attire, and decision to name her assaulter.  The author of the Gawker article feels compelled to pull out the "Innocent until proven guilty" refrain, and laments that the victim in the case couldn't vent her trauma without naming the perp.  But why should she?  "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply to the victim in the case since, to her, there's already pretty clear-cut evidence that the person at hand is guilty.  Remember, this happened to her.  It's the legal system that's meant to reserve judgment.  Moreover, if you think it was "tasteless" of her to name the guy, or some other BS the commenters are spewing, ask yourself whether you would not do the very same thing if a crime were committed against you: If your house was broken into by a neighbor, and you wanted to blog about it, wouldn't one of your purposes surely be to warn others that this neighbor isn't to be trusted?  This is not a case of kiss and tell--it's a case of a victim, simply and without malice, documenting her assault.

Jake Pavelka might be the worst person in the world

Seriously, this man makes me feel sympathy for Vienna Girardi.  On the very special taped confrontation episode of The Bachelorette last night, Vienna and Jake hashed out their competing stories of the death of their "love."  I didn't watch the show (but I do read the tabloids!), but my understanding was that everyone really did not like Vienna, and that she was the villain.  That might still very well be true, but if you watch the way Jake speaks to her on camera on last night's show, and then imagine what it would be like to live with him, I can't help taking her side. (Skip to 7:35 for full-on douche.)



(Skip to 1:08, 2:08, 3:40, and 4:20)

He literally says to her "Stop interrupting me!" with murder in his eyes.  Over the course of the interview, you can see him go from controlled sociopath to outright rage, and you get the feeling he's revealed a little more of his true personality than he meant to.  From EW's Michael Slezak:

Jake, for his part, seemed to be channeling Terry O’Quinn in The Stepfather, or Terry O’Quinn as Lost‘s Mr. Smokey. His mouth set in an unwavering line, his eyes boilingeth over with fury, he spoke like a man who had come to a streetfight armed with a half-dozen vague and pre-rehearsed anecdotes, and was shocked to discover his adversary was shooting arrows coated in the poison of “40% truth.” I half-expected the dude to announce to Vienna that “Any further criticism of Jake** will result in your immediate strangulation.” Indeed, other than that winning bon mot about Vienna being “like a tabloid,” Jake came off as relentlessly creepy: The way he addressed all his answers to Chris Harrison (not Vienna), the way he spoke about Vienna like a disappointed boss rather than a scorned lover (how about griping she’d participated in an “unauthorized interview”!?), and the way he chanted the words “undermines,” “emasculates,” and “disrespects” like he’d spent two sleep-deprived weeks in a new-age spa praying that his failed fake TV relationship wouldn’t cost him any awesome future gigs on Drop Dead Diva. By the time he shouted “Be quiet while I’m talking!,” I wondered if Vienna fled the scene in tears because of the harshness of his words, or the eeriness of what was going on behind his eyes.

I don't care how terrible she is--it really bothers me to see someone disrespect another human being the way he disrespects her.  Eeeeesh.

Oh, and in other progressive Bachelorette news, check out this quote from Ty (to Ali): ''I think it's awesome that you have ambitions and goals.... It tickles me to death that you have a plan, that you know what you want.''
From EW's Jennifer Armstrong: "Gee, thanks, Ty. Glad my adorable little ambitions amuse you so."

Also, Bachelor/Bachelorette whiteness update, it appears all the contestants on Ali's season are indeed white!

Watch out! Two women are running for some kind of elected office!

Hey guys, have you heard about Carly and Meg?  They're like totally the best of friends, and they both used to be tech CEOs, and sometimes they talk about hair.  It's like the girl-power, lady-explosion, sister-tech takeover in Washington!  Errr...California.  Anyway, it's BIG NEWS.  About girly stuff.

Ugh.  It's only June, and we're in for this until November.  As Mongoose just pointed out, there are plenty of reasons to be excited about the huge inroads women are making in politics during this primary season.  There's also one big reason not to be, and that's the gushing, cliched media coverage these women have received, especially in the case of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. 

The news media has officially confirmed to me that there is no way for them to cover women doing things that a lot of men do without falling over in a heap of trite phrases and girl-power cliches.  I am starting to resign myself that every article written about these two politicians will put them together, as though they're in some kind of "Women CEOs run for office" buddy comedy.  Wonkette points out that the media cannot resist comparing "Carly and Meg" to "Barbara and Diane," two women who also once ran for office.  I think we're in for a verrrry long electoral season of wardrobe dissection, dissection of the wardrobe dissection, inside scoops on how close the two candidates really are, interviews with family members about who cooks dinner, comparisons to Sarah Palin, and other things that make me wish California's political goings on could be covered as lightly by the US news media as they cover Britain and other foreign countries.

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.

Is the U.S. Going Crazy? New Laws Suggest Maybe...

There have been a lot of laws these days increasing the number of hurdles between a woman and her right to choose. As Recovering Economist noted there have been some especially concerning changes in Oklahoma.

The second law was the one that really concerned me. The law that protects doctors from being sued if they had withheld information of birth defects they knew the baby had during the pregnancy. It's one thing as a doctor to chose not to preform an abortion because you do not believe in it, but that does not give you the right to lie to a patient, and therefore, make decisions for them. I hope this law makes it to court.

But Oklahoma does not seem to be stopping there. As McKinley of the NYT reported, there are still some other bills on the move:

One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion; statistics based on the answers would then be posted online. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedures.

To lighten the mood, Talking Points Memo has a great roundup of some other crazy laws being passed in America these days.

Cindy Adams says sexual harrassment victims should "Just deal with it"

Has everyone gone insane?  First Arizona, then Oklahoma, and now Page Six?! Is there no humanity?  I kid, but Cindy Adams's irresponsible victim-blaming is no laughing matter.  Her new column reads, in part:

We've each endured some too tight hug or some slob whose hand wandered where it shouldn't. Deal with it. That's what we did in our younger, prettier days. Dealt with it. In some cases, sticking a pen in the guy's lower belly and whispering politely, "Try that again, pal, and you'll have to go to Emergency to pee," worked just fine. 

She's talking about what colossal, litigious whiners women are for taking civil action in the face of sexual harassment.  I'm happy for Ms. Adams that she's apparently always had the kind of jobs where rejecting the boss or a coworker's sexual advances did not threaten one's advancement.  She also probably had the economic security to recover if she was fired or denied a promotion.  I'm also happy for her that she also does not appear to have perceived that this harassment made her workplace inherently unequal, and probably made it impossible for many talented women to remain employed and advance.  But does it seriously not occur to her that others' experiences may be different?  That there are real consequences to sexual harassment, like the ones I just mentioned?

Oh, but when it comes to victim blaming, she's just getting started:

I was maybe 10. In a highly respected elderly doctor's Upper East Side examination room. My mom had left for one second. His hands began examining what wasn't there for examining. I pushed him away and never mentioned it to a soul. Not anybody. Until now. And I still remember his name.
I was maybe 16. The office of a theatrical agent who had a Tiffany reputation. He took me into a private room to test my voice. And what he looked to test was not my voice. I pushed him off and never mentioned it to anyone. Until now. And I still remember his name.

I'm sorry, I just had to suppress my gag reflex. Does Ms. Adams think that just because she was self possessed enough to rebuff these attacks (and was in a situation where this didn't jeopardize her safety or well-being) that they weren't crimes? Does she honestly think it should be the job of children to "just deal with" sexual abuse, instead of parents to protect them, and the court system to put the perps in jail? Those of us who are victims of sexual abuse or acquaintance rape think, at our most despondent moments, that this is what the world thinks of us: that we were stupid for not doing enough to protect ourselves, to say no, to "deal with it." But before Cindy Adams' column, I never had any confirmation it was true.

[via Media Fail]

You have got to be kidding me: Rape video game goes viral

CNN has an uber-disturbing story about a Japanese rape-themed video game that was pulled from store shelves, only to go viral online.  The game puts users in the crime driver seat, similar to Grand Theft Auto, only this time the crime is stalking, assaulting, and raping women--including teens.  From CNN:

It is little wonder that the game, titled RapeLay, sparked international outrage from women's groups. Taina Bien-Aime helped yank the game off store shelves worldwide.
"This was a game that had absolutely no place on the market," said Taina Bien-Aime of women's rights organization Equality Now which has campaigned for the game to be taken off the shelves.

Unfortunately, the game is now available on the internet, with a wider audience than ever before.  Some are calling for the government of Japan to take further action to ban the game, but I'm not sure to what extent I agree with that.  I think you could go after the game online if you think it's actively promoting either child pornography or could directly lead to criminal conduct, but otherwise, the right answer to this seems to be OMG-education-please this is crazy!  I'm sorry, I need to take a deep breath; I still cannot believe there is a rape video game.

I understand that rape fantasies might play a real role in both men's and women's sexual enjoyment, and while I recognize their existence is fraught with gender issues, I don't find anything essentially un-feminist about them or the people who have them.  However, playing out fantasies of domination and submission in a mutually consensual, controlled, and reciprocally pleasurable environment is very different from a one-sided video game where the player gets to actually harm unwilling women-cum-objects for his enjoyment alone.  I would have felt very differently about the game if it was an S&M fantasy world, where you first meet your willing counterpart outside of the fantasy setting, and then agree on a role to act out for both of your enjoyment. 

The harm as entertainment aspect reminds me unsettlingly of the torture tourism depicted in Hostel and its sequel.  The premise of that movie (which I have not seen, nor will I) seems to be that it is many people's deepest desire to harm others, if only no one would know.  The premise of the video game is less sinister: it's the idea that people would like to experience harming others, both without anyone knowing and without anyone getting hurt.  Unfortunately, I can't quite get on board with that, either.  Why?  Because it's impossible to hurt someone without them being hurt, and games like RapeLay allow that essential connection to be broken, for a single, pixelated moment.

So, what do we do now?  These products, and moreso, the desires that generate demand for them, are out there, and it might be impossible to stamp them all out in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.  So how do we both mitigate their harm while working to change the culture that created them?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: anti-gay high school policies and jail time for your miscarriage

How do you remember your high school prom? Was it the most magical night of your teen years or was it a night full of drama? A school in Mississippi has decided that Constance McMillen (and consequently her entire class) isn’t going to get to have one. When she found out that she was not allowed to bring her girlfriend to prom, the ACLU got involved and reminded the school that it was a violation of her rights. So in response the school outright canceled the evening.

As Coca Colo reported late February, Utah legislators passed a bill to charge women who engage in ‘reckless’ acts to terminate a pregnancy with criminal homicide. I can’t even begin to imagine what a 17 year-old girl would have to be going through to pay a stranger to beat her in an attempt to miscarry. The bill has now been signed by the governor, but with slightly revised language. They dropped the word ‘reckless.’ A major concern is the potential to make every miscarriage fair game for investigation.

NPR uncovers the failure universities to offer rape victims justice and protection

As I drove home Friday, NPR reported on the horrific inability of American universities to deal with sexual assaults on campus.

Margaux's story is fairly typical for the many women who are sexually assaulted on college campuses. And what's also common is the failure of even the best-intentioned colleges and universities to investigate a criminal matter like rape — and then punish it.

NPR's investigative team collaborated with journalists at the Center for Public Integrity to examine why colleges and universities fail to protect women from assault. The investigation found that even when a man has been found responsible for a sexual assault, he's rarely expelled. And women haven't been able to count on help from the government oversight agency, either.

Even worse, in Margaux's case there seems to be plenty of evidence (the rapist confessed in a school hearing!) but the police refuse to prosecute. This had me literally shouting at my radio. Why is there a special campus process for dealing with students raping students? Surely this is not the case for homicide or grand larceny? The punishment for a rapist shouldn't be expulsion, as this story suggests, but jail.

Femangry! Utah considers bill that could charge woman with homicide if she miscarries

Jezebel is reporting that the Utah legislature has passed a bill allowing women to be charged with homicide if they engage in an "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a the illegal termination of a pregnancy.  As the Salt Lake Tribune reports, the bill was intended to allow prosecution of mothers who seek out an illegal abortion, for example by having someone beat them to produce a miscarriage, as one woman allegedly did.  But it opens up a whole host of potentially troubling legal implications for women who, for example, fail to hold the hand rail while walking down the stairs and slip, decide to ride a motorcycle while pregnant, go jogging, don't wear a seatbelt, take contraindicated medications--the list goes on.  The point is that a woman's body needs to remain her own, to use as she wishes, whether pregnant or not.  If it isn't, women are vessels, not citizens.  And equality will never be possible.

Women and politics: Still the old boys club

This week being Presidents' Day, I have been reflecting on women in high places (in the US). Let's run the numbers:

President:

Current - 0/1 Historical - 0/43

Vice-president:

Current - o/1 Historical - 0/46

Supreme court justices:

Current - 2/9 Historical - 3/111

Senators:

Current - 17/100 Historical - 38/>2000

Congressmen:

Current - 75/435 Historical - 229/(who knows?)

Governors:

Current - 6/50 Historical - 32/(?)

You've come a long way baby? There's still quite a ways to go.

Source for numbers: Wikipedia, Google, Observational data

Sex-Offenders Can Now Access Victims' Medical Records?

This should have been just another story of girl sues boy for sexual assault.

Multimillionaire Jeffery Epstein is being sued by women alleging he paid them to give him massages (while nude) when they were as young as 14. Some of the women also reported being sexually assaulted by Epstein.

To defend his client's irreparable emotional damage to these ladies, Epstein's lawyer is digging through their painful memories and (better yet) their medical records. The judge on the case, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald Hafele, decided this was totally OK. He agreed that the lawyers could subpoena the women's abortion records... as long as the women had priorly been questioned about their abortion history.

This precedent could mean you have to wave goodbye to your right to privacy. Also, these lawyers are trying to win this case by arguing that if you have had a traumatic life event, you can't suffer further psychological damage from being sexually assaulted by an adult when you are 14. I have just one question: Why are the victims on trial here?

For clarity, this is the civil suit following his criminal conviction and incarceration.

Hat tip to V.M. for sending me this link.

Whole Foods announces BMI-based employee discount program. Seriously?!

This is NOT ok.  Whole Foods CEO John Mackey has announced in a letter to all store employees that they can increase their employee discount from 20% to 30% by meeting certain health measure criteria.   Those health criteria include not smoking, having certain cholersterol levels, and having below a certain BMI.

Jezebel points out that these health indicators are necessarily under the employee's control, and therefore an inappropriate basis for an incentive package.  Moreover, they may violate discrimination laws.  Moreover moreover, they're based on medical information that should be confidential, lest an employer decide to drop you because you're too expensive to insure!

Just how bad is it?  Let's look at the completely inappropriate standards:

That's right, to be in the platinum rankings, you have to have less than a 24 BMI.  Now, I consider myself a healthy individual, but I do not have less than a 24 BMI.  Neither do most of my friends.  Who does have that low of a BMI?  People who have naturally slim builds, diet a lot, or work as a fashion model.  Is there an extra prize for being anorexic?  Just asking.

More of my ranting, and the full John Mackey letter and promotion poster after the jump.

Scott Brown Pimps His Daughters and Makes Me Femangry

Photo via Robert F. Bukaty/AP

In case you missed it, here is a gem of a clip from Scott Brown's acceptance speech. Did the Senator-elect show his possible sexist side by offering his daughters up as objects to the entire nation? Or was it just a super creepy mistake? Typically, being the child of a politician gives the masses all the permission they need to critique and objectify freely, so all Brown did was speed the process along.

Unsurprisingly, the comment boards lit up in response with disgusting posts from anonymous creeps letting the world know what they would want to do and to which of the daughters.

Here is my challenge:

Commenters, man up and use your real name when you tell us which condiments you want to see us slathered in.

I strongly believe that if anonymity were banned, over 98% of the crap posted would go away out of shame. But as long as this trash floats freely on the internet it just perpetuates the impression that misogyny is a accepted pillar of our society. If you don't believe in your words enough to go on record with them... why are you still typing?

CLARIFICATION: I was challenging Gawker, etc.'s readers, not you. While we're flattered you want to slather us in condiments, we were hoping to get somewhat away from the whole objectification thing.

you have got to be joking...but apparently not

I do try to read the news--both online and in print--but rarely have I found an article that enrages me so immediately as did this one, found at CNN.com.

The article is about called a website called BeautifulPeople, and the premise (according to the website itself) is that it's an "elite online club, where every member works the door." What does this mean? That if you post a picture and enough people of the opposite sex don't find it "beautiful," you're not allowed to use the dating site (and apparently about 80% "fail"). While this statement strikes me as wrong on so many levels, the website itself is even more egregious.

One of the worst quotes on the entire website is on the introductory page is at the bottom with a huge font (complete with an animated sliding scale), "Too ugly to sign up? Click here to browse BeautifulPeople as [sic] guest." For what reason, I ask you? To know what you "can't have"? To make you angry? To convince yourself you're much prettier than the other people and will "qualify" for the site (a dubious honor at best, IMHO) with no problem? To provide work-safe images for bored office drones who can't get to porn through the office internet filter?

Femangry!

A good friend of mine and fellow feminist introduced me to the wonderful word "Femangry!"  Yes, it comes with the exclamation point.  Femangry! is the word for something that really pisses you off in that special feminist way.  You know the feeling.  (If you don't, an alternate definition is the feeling generated by the Stupak amendment.  Wait, so I can have healthcare or women's rights but not both?  Femangry!)  Expect to see the "femangry" tag on future posts about dolts who forget about the ladies, or remember them in all the wrong ways.
Wishing you a femanger-free New Year!