My "G" Spot

What do think about the opening of a Bio terror lab in your city?

“Demonstrators against Bio Terror Lab May 2007”

For bio terror lab, a long road seen

In today’s Boston Globe Newspaper an excellant article by Staff Reporter Stephen Smith mentions that the proposed infectious disease bio lab that was designed to combat infectious diseases (Bio-Lab Level 4) won’t open anytime soon. ^yea!

”...The director of the National Institutes of Health offered yesterday the clearest sign so far that a controversial laboratory being built by Boston University won’t open anytime soon…”

”...Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, the NIH chief, told a panel of scientists convened to review the project that he has no expectation they will rubber-stamp his agency’s earlier finding that the lab does not pose a safety or environmental threat to the surrounding South End neighborhood. The centerpiece of the nearly $200 million project is a Bio safety Level-4 lab intended to allow scientists to work with the world’s deadliest germs, including Ebola, plague, and anthrax…”

”...We are not here because we want you to rubber-stamp what we have done,” Zerhouni told the scientists at the start of a six-hour public session at NIH headquarters in Bethesda, MD. “We need to do this right, even if it takes a long time…”

”...The BU project, known as the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, is one of the cornerstones of the Bush administration’s campaign to prepare for potential acts of bio terrorism. The federal government is underwriting most of the cost of building the Albany Street facility, which is 77 percent complete. BU had originally intended to open the lab by this fall…”

”...Residents from the South End and Roxbury took to the streets and the courts in an attempt to stymie the project, winning partial victories before state and federal judges. While those courts allowed construction to proceed, they also mandated further environmental reviews…”

”...In November, an independent agency issued a sharply critical analysis of NIH’s latest environmental review, branding it “not sound and credible…”

”...The panel is charged with addressing safety concerns about the project, a process certain to delay the opening of the facility until at least 2009 or longer…” ^{another yea!}

Stephen Smith Boston Globe

See more progress on: post random questions daily and see if anyone plays with me and answers them :)

What's your opinion?

Last week “Vagina Monolugues’ Superstar Jane Fonda on the Today show, ^{while being interviewed live} with V-Day creator Eve Ensler, utered the C word, “Cunt” ^{which I will proudly write without using a _ from this day forward} In a recent commentary from Bill O’ Reilly who went ballistic in a telephone interview videotape segment

and the comment even made David Letterman’s Top Ten List

Cunt

First off the Eve Ensler play the “Vagina Monolugues” is produced as a world wide event during Valentine’s Day week ^{and now has spread to March} to empower women who have been sexaully abused, rape or beaten. Even Ensler herself was a rape victim and created “V-day” for that very reason.

V to the 10th

What is really amazing is that Jane Fonda was discussing why she originally refused the part in the “Vagina Monologues” becase it contained the word “Cunt” on the script and she found it offensive.

Salon.com

I am really surprised at how little people know about the word Cunt and there is even a book written by Inga Muscio, “Cunt” read by thousands of feminist women and women’s studies professionals. Jane Fonda has done more for marketing the play, “Vagina Monologues” and I believe was fined by the FCC for saying the word “cunt” on national TV.

So, what do you think? Is the word “cunt” really offensive? Should Jane have been fined? Is Bill O’Reilly really an idiot. I eve heard Hillary Clinton wrote to complain about the word “Cunt” and MSNBC abd the FCC, but not sure.

See more progress on: post random questions daily and see if anyone plays with me and answers them :)

Target ad goes too far...

I remember an old skit on the Carson show that featured Ed Ames, the actor who played Tonto, and how he demonstrated on national TV how he could throw a hachet across the room and hit a target. Ames threw the hachet at a cowboy target right in the middle of the crotch. As he went to retrieve the hachet, Carson stopped him and quickly said, “I didn’t even knew you were Jewish ^{which Ed Ames was} and Johnny closed with “welcome to Cowboy briss.” The skit and how the target was hit was an accident and generated many laughs and one of Carson’s greatest moments.

Now, we have another target against women, there’s an offensive ad that shows women in a bad light like this one shown, some might just say, “aww, you making too much of all of this, aren’t you?” However, if just one person finds it offensive doesn’t that defeat and purpose of the marketing campaign? Why did they have to shoot the camera angle so that the youing lady appears right in the center of the circle, legs wide open? Many feminists, like myself, are going to complain to Target, and ask for an apology why did they do this? It’s going to hurt their business and some may boycott shopping there.

I don’t think Target was trying to get laughs like the Carson axe throw skit was, and if they didn’t want to “target” women, why didn’t their ad execs screen the ad before they placed it on a Hugh billboard for everyone to see in NYC Times Square?

See more progress on: become a feminist superhero

I saw this ad and

copied the picture here. Do people think this ad sends the right message of what we are trying to do in stopping female genital multitation (FGM)?

Have you signed the petition yet?

Why not?

See more progress on: inform people about female genital mutilation (FGM) and get people to sign the petition against it

Why are Women's Jeans so Expensive?

The Sisterhood of Trying on Pants

By Courtney Hollands, Globe Staff, article in Boston Globe.com

”...For most women, wriggling into a pair of jeans in front of a full-length mirror and laughter are rarely associated. Sobs, maybe. But giggles? Not so much. But this wasn’t just any shopping expedition. The Globe Style section enlisted three women,...AJWilliams of Creative Events, Inc.; Heather Walker
Director of Public Relations to the Boston Celtics and Tamara Freed-Lord
Founder and Designer of Tamara Handbags; to help sort through the myriad denim looks touted this season as the next hot thing: High-waisted, wide legs, straight legs, a variety of colors and washes. They gathered at clothing boutique In-jean-ius in pursuit of denim perfection…”

”...Some simply didn’t fit: “These are way too tight.” Others just missed the mark: “The high waist on this pair makes me feel so 1970s.” And then, every so often, a winner: “Oooh, I love these…”

”...At first, this fall’s selection can seem daunting. But more styles also mean a better chance of finding a fit that’s both comfortable and fashion forward…Skinny and straight legs are still very chic, tucked into boots or nestled under a chunky knit. But wide legs and trousers are sophisticated alternatives to the super-slim look…”

...Leah Eckelberger owner of Jean Therapy in Kenmore Square, agrees. “Denim has come so far. You can wear skinny jeans or baggy and loose trousers and look polished and cool either way…”

”...But she cautions women to stay true to their body types when trying on this season’s newest looks. If you’re short, for example, a higher waist can actually make your leg look shorter, she said. And if you’re curvy and try to hide it with loose, wide-leg jeans, you might end up looking boxy…”

These are a sample of the jeans the three women tried on.

JBrand “Mailk” jeans $218 wide leg 5.5”
JBrand “Cigarette” jeans $188
Victroia Beckham (isn’t she marreid to Soccer Superstar David Beckham?)jeans boot cut $254 winner for AJ Williams
Citizens of Humanity “Hutton” jeans $174
Odyn “Crown Royal” 14” wide legs jeans $168
Denim for Immortality “venus” jeans #194
Kasil “Gwen” boot cut jeans $204 winner for Heather Wiliams
Kasil “Democracy” jeans $214
Taverniti “Janice Twist” jeans $198 winner for Tamara Freedman-Lord

My question would you pay up to $200 or even more for a pair of designer jeans and why? Also, what are your favorite jeans you presently wear and what did you pay for them, if you don’t mind me asking?

See more progress on: post random questions daily and see if anyone plays with me and answers them :)

Heineken's Objectification

I don't know why I continue to let myself get shocked by these things.  The first time I saw this commercial, I sat on the couch stunned, my jaw resting contemplatively on the floor.  I know I should expect such objectification from advertisements, especially beer companies, but it never ceases to amaze me.  As I watch a green sexy robot who eerily resembles a futuristic Stepford wife dance around, spout extra arms, slap her own ass, pour a glass of beer, and then open up to reveal two more, different-colored, but equally sexy robot-women, I begin to realize it's no wonder we live in a rape culture.  It's no wonder men think it's OK to treat women as less than human.  Look at what they're being told!

And the worst part?  As the horror of the commercial finally ends, I turn my aghast face upon my mother's only to find she is completely unaware of the blatant objectification, sexism, oppression, I could go on and on, screaming out from the TV screen!  And this is in no way a comment against my mother.  Instead, it is a lament to the fact that beer companies (along with many others) are showing ads such as these, and not only the men are buying into them.  This form of objectification is becoming so mainstream and normal in our culture that we're  completely desensitized to it and don't even notice when we're being objectified right in front of our faces.

How are we supposed to fight and change our rape culture when men are constantly being told women are objects (i.e. robots), and women don't even see the problem with this??

How do you plan to celebrete Sunday August 26, "Women's Equality Day?""

Women’s Equality Day

VA proudly joins the Nation in celebrating Women’s Equality Day each year on August 26. Congress designated this date in 1971 to honor women’s continuing efforts toward full equality. Spearheading the effort was U.S. Representative Bella Abzug (D-NY).

The 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote was certified as part of the U.S. Constitution on August 26, 1920. It was the culmination of a 72-year-long civil rights movement that originated at the world’s first women’s rights convention held in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Several generations of women’s suffrage supporters wrote, lectured, marched, and lobbied to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change to the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see victory in 1920.

For more information on VA’s Federal Women’s Program, contact Wanda Jones at (202) 461-4039 or e-mail her at [email protected]

WHY CELEBRATE WOMEN’S EQUALITY DAY?

We celebrate Women’s Equality Day to commemorate the tremendous positive change brought on by the Women’s Movement. Due to the countless millions of women who planned, organized, lectured, wrote, petitioned, lobbied, paraded, and broke new ground in every field imaginable, our world is irrevocably changed. Women and men of our generation, and the ones to follow us, are living the legacy of the women’s rights won against staggering odds in a revolution achieved without violence. Women can be proud of the legacy of the Women’s Rights Movement. Today’s activists remind us all to celebrate and cherish past and present accomplishments of the Women’s Movement before they are lost to history.

More Resources:

NWHP

About.Com Women’s History

NHWM

Send Free E Cards for Women’s Equality Day

See more progress on: post random questions daily and see if anyone plays with me and answers them :)

News Flash: Hillary Clinton Has Breasts

I posted this at my blog...but here it is for y'all to read: Robin Givhan of the Washington Post expressed her shock at discovering Hillary Clinton is in fact a woman (and not some sort of androgynous mystery?) after witnessing her "undeniable" cleavage Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

Because we all know how relevant her fashion decisions are to her political stance. Funny how she failed to mention the flattering cut of Rudy Guiliani's black pant suit and his more free-flowing hair style that night. Oh wait, no one gives a shit how the guys look. Respect for them is not earned by the way they dress, style their hair, or show off their cleavage. Respect for them is earned by the way they vote, speak, and act. Hmm...that's a concept. Givhan proceeds to discuss the difference between when women weren't even allowed to wear pants in the Congree to now...when cleavage is apparently allowed to run rampant. She points out Clinton's always-conservative Oscar De La Renta and Donna Karan gowns as the first lady. It seems as if every one of Clinton's fashion decisions while in the public eye are going under direct scrutiny just because she dared show a millimeter of cleavage.

With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed. To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d'oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever.

Brilliant. She brings up such good points! Of course, Clinton displayed cleavage because she wanted to suggest a more sexual image to her fellow members of Congress. Why else would she wear a V-neck? Hmmm...maybe because she's a woman and V-necks are a part of women's fashion? No...it has to be a cry for sexual attention. She's just not stylish enough to be comfortable in her own body. When will we stop analyzing what Clinton wears and how she styles her hair and actually give her the same respect we give the men? Or at least judge her under the same kind of scrutiny. You don't see anyone blogging about Obama's latest fashion choice. Analyzing Clinton's fashion choices just keeps her at a lower respect level. It indicates that she is only deserving of our intellectual respect if she is dressed perfectly. The problem is, no matter what she wears, we will comment on it simply because she is a woman. As soon as a woman is in the public eye for political reasons, she is under scrutiny first as a woman and then as a politician. If this isn't a sign of a lack of equality, I don't know what is.

Pornificating Anything

Aimee Mullins was featured in Sports Illustrated in a bra and thong, doggy-style/preparing for a sprint.  Apparently she's used to posing in pornificated pictures of her and her prosthetic legs (see above picture).

Somewhere between the underwear and the wind-blown hair, I've started to question the actual intent of this pose.  Yes, she's beautiful.  Yes, she has a "hot body."  Yes, she has overcome amazing odds.  So all the more reason to turn her into an objectified sex model in Sport's Illustrated?  Is that really her reward for all her accomplishments?  All these pictures say to me is, "Look, she's awesome and sexy enough to be a swimsuit model for guys to ogle over:  everything a woman could ever aspire to be!"

Twisty blogged about this, and as I was reading some of the comments, one person asked if everyone was attacking Mullins or Sport's Illustrated.  I think that's a really good question.  Who are we attacking?  Who is at fault here?  Where exactly is the problem?  Obviously there's a problem with the objectification of this girl, but who's choice was it?  What are the implications?  And what is the underlying problem here?

My mind is reeling.

Have you seen the movie trailer ads for "Captivity" yet?

Note: If anyone objects to the picture of this movie ad, I will glady take it down, it’s there to make a statement that this movie poster is nothing but degrading to all women.

Okay, there is a new movie out and shows disgusting torture of a young woman model. They are hundreds of organizations trying to ban the movie or the rating. The trailer is horrifying in that it creates an environment that degrades all women. The real contraversary came when movie posters like these went up and were eventually banned and taken down, noit in two days as promised, but six days later. banned ads

Be warned the horrific movie trailer is only a small taste of what the movie is all about. Torture, Capture, Confinement, Burial. I wrote the MPAA an email about removal of the ratings for this film. Some would say freedom of speech but this movie goes too far. I remember on this goal, one question was asked scariest film, this would probably win just by the trailer alone. What is your opinion of this kind of film? Do you think it goes beyond degrading women and encourages uncaring men to rape and torture women when they plan to see this movie and ultimately copy the scenes?

Movie Trailer (Not kid safe)

Lights out for After Dark Films

Remove the Rating

See more progress on: post random questions daily and see if anyone plays with me and answers them :)