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

Femonomics reads the internet: playing straight, Hasselbeck's hassle, Madonna, standing up for fat, and more!

Newsweek published an incredibly poorly argued column that basically amounted to the author saying "I can totally tell gay actors are gay when they play straight people."  I guess Newsweek thought this "Yuck, gay" argument was okay because it was written by a gay columnist?  Well, I can totally tell someone's words are homophobic, even when written by a gay writer.  The article singled out Sean Hayes, who plays a lovelorn straight man in Promises, Promises, a role once inhabited by Jerry Orbach.  Luckily, Hayes's costar, Kristin Chenoweth, had something to say about that:

As a longtime fan of Newsweek and as the actress currently starring opposite the incredibly talented (and sexy!) Sean Hayes, ...I was shocked on many levels to see Newsweek publishing Ramin Setoodeh’s horrendously homophobic “Straight Jacket,” which argues that gay actors are simply unfit to play straight.

...Audiences [don't give] a darn about who a person is sleeping with or his personal life. Give me a break! We’re actors first, whether we’re playing prostitutes, baseball players, or the Lion King. Audiences come to theater to go on a journey. It’s a character and it’s called acting, and I’d put Hayes and his brilliance up there with some of the greatest actors period.

Lastly, as someone who’s been proudly advocating for equal rights and supporting GLBT causes for as long as I can remember, I know how much it means to young people struggling with their sexuality to see out & proud actors like Sean Hayes, Jonathan Groff, Neil Patrick Harris and Cynthia Nixon succeeding in their work without having to keep their sexuality a secret. No one needs to see a bigoted, factually inaccurate article that tells people who deviate from heterosexual norms that they can’t be open about who they are and still achieve their dreams.

Three cheers for April Rhodes!

Sooo, last week on The View, Elisabeth Hasselbeck went all victim-blame-y and said something to the effect of, Erin Andrews shouldn't be showing all that skin on Dancing with the Stars after getting stalked.  Jennifer Armstrong showed EW's feminist side in a strong response, saying "I don’t want to make showing a little leg or midriff into the greatest of feminist acts, but I will say this: If a woman tones down and reins in any hint of her sexuality just because she was victimized, well, that means such crimes can be used to tame and control women."  Hasselbeck apologized:

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.

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]