Danica Patrick's Skillz

Kudos to sportswriter Ian O'Connor for saying this:

"Danica Patrick will not change the world by winning the Indy 500. She will change it by becoming an agent of reform, by using her victory to convince men to start measuring a woman by her skill instead of her bra size."

Alright, so O'Connor's quote reflects a concept that many female athletes and their fans have been saying for years. But I'm glad the boys are finally picking up on it. For, if if this concept is to become a reality, it is a necessary step for male sportswriters like O'Connor to begin writing as though women are, in fact, legitimate athletes.

See, while O'Connor speaks the truth in the quote that follows, what is largely missing from his piece is an acknowledgment of the responsibility that the sports' media has in insisting that female athletes be measured by their skills rather than bra sizes:

"[I]f Patrick's first post-race move is to jump her barely dressed self into every magazine that hasn't already packaged and sold her killer bod, she will be sending an awful message to young girls and the young boys raised to equate their worth with their sex appeal."

Patrick does have a responsibility not to market her sex appeal if she's going to be seen as a legit athlete. While men have the luxury of marketing both their skills and their bodies while still being seen as legitimate athletes, women do not. Would the same numbers of men, for instance, read a Sports Illustrated article about Patrick that did not include photos of her in swimwear? I want to think so. But I don't know so.

Furthermore, while Patrick certainly bears much responsibility for the photo shoots in which she participates, agents, editors, photographers, and sportswriters have responsibilities as well. After all, someone who knows the average American male mind came up with the idea to package Patrick's "killer bod" and I'm betting it wasn't Patrick. And I'm certainly betting that it wasn't the idea of bikini-clad women to create the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. Those in the sports' media have a responsibility to demand more from their male readership. They have a responsibility to show that women are more than their sex appeal- that women too can be athletes.

The industry sees a beautiful and talented woman and they see dollar signs. But at the same time, O'Connor's right. Too many successful female athletes play right into this market. As these athletes are in a no-win situation, it's hard for me to fault them too much. If they refuse these shoots, will they still get the big bucks? Will they still get the ads, the articles, and the photo shoots that men have been getting for years?

It's hard to say. But it's time they start demanding more. It's also time that publishers start giving us more and that male readers started demanding more. It's time to start valuing women for their impressive accomplishments more than their beautiful bodies.

RightWing Roundup #6: Conservative Hate, Slippery Slopes, and Paranoia

1. Being Peaceful is, Like, So Immature

If you remember, my biggest qualm with Washington University in St. Louis' granting of an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly is not because she espouses anti-feminist views, but rather because she perpetuates an angry, divisive, us versus them, simplistic way of thinking that distorts feminism rather than informs. So, kudos to the students, faculty, and family members who peacefully and silently protested WUSTL's conferral of the degree. When a speech honoring Schlafly was read:

"about a third of the graduating students draped in the school’s green and black robes turned their backs to her, along with some faculty members sitting on the stage behind her. Many family members in the audience also took part.

Three faculty members made the extra point of walking off the stage and then turning their backs from the audience."

Unlike other protests where students have disrupted free speech, silent protest is a respectful way to demonstrate that you oppose a person or his/her views while still letting that person have a platform. Phyllis Schlafly, unsurprisingly, takes another view. Of her detractors, she said:

"I’m not sure they’re mature enough to graduate."

And the culture of hate lives on!


2. It's All a Slippery Slope, My Friend!

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in California, we can all take a deep breath and focus on our true ultimate goals of legalizing polygamy, man-on-goat marriage, and incest. Okay, seriously. After the California decision, we can pretty much cue a revival of these shrill slippery slope "arguments" from those opposed to gay rights. It's Only a Matter of Time (TM).

Legal Commentator Dale Carpenter gives a good rundown of arguments as to why same-sex marriage does not, contrary to the scare tactics and misunderstandings of others, automatically lead to polygamous nuptials. One of the strongest arguments, I believe, is that "there is nothing in principle that necessarily leads from the recognition of a new type of monogamous union (same-sex unions) to the recognition of polygamous unions."

A-der.


3. When Your Inaccuracy and Paranoia Automatically Discredit You

Speaking of the slippery slope, read what the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) says is the true goal of same-sex marriage advocates:

"Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as 'families.'"

The TVC is a Christian organization and, because it's un-Christian to lie, what the TVC says must be true.

[Insert laughter]

But seriously, what's most funny about this TVC "fact" sheet is that most of the "homosexual activist" quotes they provide don't even support TVC's conclusion that the gays are really out to legalize polygamy. For one, the quotes are largely taken out of context. And secondly, since when is one person the spokesperson for any minority group? Sure there are gay people who have no problem with the legalization of polygamy, just as there are heterosexuals who have no problem with it, but they don't speak on behalf of "the gay agenda." No single person or group does.

But, of course, any thinking person knows all of this already. Contrary to its stated goal of empowering "people of faith through knowledge," TVC woefully misinforms its members- many of whom are probably decent, trusting people. Unfortunately, I think many Americans swallow the lies hook, like, and sinker. For instance, in the past "Reverend" Sheldon of the TVC has stated,

"A dangerous Marxist/Leftist/Homosexual/Islamic coalition has formed – and we’d better be willing to fight it with everything in our power. These people are playing for keeps. Their hero, Mao Tse Tung is estimated to have murdered upwards of 60 million people during his reign of terror in China. Do we think we can escape such persecution if we refuse to fight for what is right?"

That quote is uncannily similar to the paranoid comments of our blogger friend "Fitz" (two-time winner of Fannie's Room's Red Scare Awards) who never fails to discuss this alleged Leftist/Marxist conspiracy in virtually any comment or article he writes. Here, for instance, he "informed" me that Critical Race Theory has Marxist roots (a-der), dismissed the theory on that sole basis rather than substantively addressing it, and as if reading a TVC script he repeated the "50 million people [who] were slaughtered and countless more held in bondage" bit. Continuing to show that he's eaten up the Commies Are Under Your Bed theory of what's wrong with America, Fitz is also responsible for inspiring the Leftist Gender Warrior Chronicles, as he believes "leftist gender warriors" are pretty much ruining everything.

I don't write this to pick on the fellow. Rather, he's the perfect example of a real person who lets these vague conspiracy theories do the thinking for him. Pretty much whenever I hear someone "warning" us about the commies, the only thing red I see is the warning light telling me that I'm not dealing with a rational thinking person.

In short, it's unfortunate that groups like the TVC are seen by some as legitimate and trustworthy sources of news and information. No news source is completely objective, but when one regularly lies and misrepresents, that has tangible consequences as it affects the thinking of real people.

Real Life Affirmative Action for Boys

Time magazine had an interesting editorial recently regarding the "gender gap" in college education. In it, the author discusses how as the numbers of women entering college has outpaced the numbers of men, colleges have begun admitting less qualified men over more qualified women.

How this situation gets spun in the media will be interesting to watch. Will those opposed to affirmative action (for minorities) support such affirmative action for men? Interestingly, I have a hunch that at least some of those who oppose affirmative action for women and minorities are in favor of affirmative action for men on theory that some alleged "war on boys" is occurring.

And similarly, will those in favor of affirmative action (for minorities) support affirmative action for boys?

Historically, affirmative action has been used to redress the effects of past discrimination. As the general class of males (as opposed to specific classes such as African-American males) has not been subject to past discrimination, the justification for admitting less-qualified men over more-qualified women must come from somewhere else. For instance, the Time article alludes that the justification for affirmative action for boys rests in the need for "gender balance" on college campuses. While I strongly believe that the purpose of anti-feminism is to justify affirmative-action-like ideas for men, here we have an acknowledged program that grants preferences to boys using some other justification that does not involve telling us how women are less "fit" for education than men are.

In light of this program granting preferences to less-qualified males, it's really very tempting to argue, riffing off of misogynist Vox Day's anti-Title IX tirade, that admitting unqualified boys to colleges in the interest of this fluffy thing called "gender balance" may very well lead to the total and utter destruction of our society!

But alas, such a claim would be a "bit" hyperbolic. All this affirmative action program for boys really means is that less-qualified boys will be given a step up while more-qualified girls will have to go to less prestigious schools or forego college altogether. Although that won't have dire consequences for society as a whole, I find this affirmative action program unsettling in light of the fact that men continue to dominate leadership roles in virtually every social institution and are, arguably, better paid for the same work. When it comes down to it, doesn't real life begin after college?

As Kim Gandy for the National Organization for Women puts it:

"It's true that more women than men are enrolled in four-year colleges, but they're still outnumbered at Ivy League schools. And because the average woman with a bachelor's degree makes about the same as a man with only a little college, the degree starts to look like an economic necessity for women."

Second, take a look around. Are we in danger of women taking over society? Only a handful of women are Fortune 500 CEOs. Of 535 members of Congress, just 84 are women. Women working full-time make only 77 cents to a man's dollar. When NOW was founded in 1966, it was 58 cents. Forty years later, we have closed the wage gap by less than half.

With odds like these, it's no wonder more women are earning degrees. After all, education is about building skills, developing knowledge and gaining credentials that allow you to compete in the working world — a world still dominated by men."

For those who are so concerned about this emerging "boy crisis" in higher education, I can only ask where is the "concern" about the concurrent "girl crisis" in equal pay and leadership positions? It is odd, but not surprising, to me that girls and women have been fighting for equal rights in education and the public sphere for hundreds of years and yet at the merest hint of a "boy crisis" in education steps are immediately taken to save the males.

Don't get me wrong. If there are structural reasons why boys fail to attend college in the same numbers as girls, those reasons should be addressed and rectified. But in light of the fact that most women need a college degree just to break even with the earnings of a man who has no college degree, affirmative action for boys is troubling. For, the end result of affirmative action programs for boys, whether based in genuine concern for boys or in some anti-feminist theory, is the same: Fewer women in higher education means fewer people that less-qualified men have to compete against once they get out in the real world.

Stuff Lesbians Like Alert

Not to brag but my latest addition to Stuff Lesbos Like is up.

And You Too Can Be a Useless Politician!

Walter Bayes, a 70-year-old "retired blue-collar worker" running for a seat in the Idaho House of Representatives, has odd priorities. For instance, in his campaign literature he wrote:

"It is absolutely wrong to force any student to share the same bathrooms and showers with homosexual teachers or students."

Oh look, another guy whose status as "blue-collar average joe" apparently qualifies him to spout ignorant "I'm-afraid-of-teh-gay-sex" ideas that pass as "traditional values" of "the people." Lest anyone be mistaken, having blue-collar roots myself, I'm not mocking his socioeconomic status. Rather, I'm mocking how his less-than-well-thought-out bright ideas for saving the world pretty much turn him into a flannel-wearing-twangy mountain-man caricature of a bigot.

Observe.

After stating how wrong it is to "force" homos and heteros to share bathrooms and showers, he continues:

"I don’t really have an answer for it."

Oh dear god, whatever shall we do! Bayes just told us about this ginormous problem, but he doesn't *gulp* have an answer. I hope those Idahoan schoolchildren will somehow muster up the courage to go on living. Don't worry, kiddies, Bayes is on top of it. He continues:

"But we’re going to have to do something if there’s going to be a considerable number of our people who are going to go that way (homosexual). We’re going to (need) some kind of separation."

Yes, we have to do something about this newfangled gayness. It's a big problem and I don't know what we should do, but we best do something!

Now, to be fair, maybe Bayes just brought up the gay wedge issue as a way to let his voting base (assuming he has one) know that he disapproves of teh gays. If so, he should re-think his strategy 'cuz nothing says "you too can be a useless politician" like telling us about a "problem," admitting you don't know how to solve it, and then offering no solutions for it.

Weirdly, Bayes also gives us an extra special glimpse into his worst nightmare by stating that it would have been "an absolute catastrophe" for him to have showered with girls when he was 18. Cool beans. My first question, of course, is in what universe does a heterosexual 18-year-old male not want to shower with "the girls"? But more to the point, how does his statement relate to having separate bathrooms for homos/heteros? Um, if gay people shower with straight people, then boys and girls will have to shower together? I dun't get it.


In related news, none of Bayes' Republican opponents agree with him about the dire need for hetero-only facilities. As another candidate, Jeff Justus, says:

"We have a lot more important issues than that."

Hmm, ya think?

Breakable Literal Bible Rule of the Week: Soothsaying

One time, I went to Provincetown for a vacation. Being from a small town in the Midwest, Provincetown was quite the change of scenery for me. For those of you not in the know, there are a great number of.... fortune-tellers in Provincetown.

Back when I went to this charming city by the sea, I was not as concerned with living a holy life as I have been in recent days. Had I known then what I know now, I would have never drunkenly ventured into that soothsayer's dimly lit cavern of sin. For, the Lord tells us in Leviticus (20:6) that

"Should anyone turn to mediums and fortune-tellers and follow their wanton ways, I will turn against such a one and cut him off from his people."

My first important question is whether this rule even applies to me as a woman. The Lord, as he does so frequently when declaring his rules, speaks as though only male humans must follow his rules. Does this mean that women are free to be wanton?

Hmmm.

Well, assuming that I, a mere woman, am also a human being and therefore subject to God's rules, I seek further clarification. Specifically, is the law telling us that we should not turn to fortune-tellers at all or that we can go to fortune-tellers but we cannot follow their bawdy ways? This is of vital concern to me. See, I merely had a single tarot card reading. Surely that is not rule-breaky enough to warrant God completely turning against me and cutting me of from God's people.

Right?

Perhaps most importantly, though, the Lord tells us in Leviticus 20:27 that the fortune-teller is a bigger sinner than is the one who seeks the services of a fortune-teller:

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortune-teller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."

Well, one thing is clear, unlike many rules this one clearly applies to both male and female human beings.

That being said, should I travel back to Provincetown and stone the fortune-teller myself or is it acceptable to have a friend who lives in Massachusetts do the deed for me? Or, perhaps the Lord envisioned the stoning to be done by local law enforcement officials. In which case, thus far, the Massachusetts law and order has neglected this duty. Once I receive the go-ahead from the Lord on this issue, I will definitely remind them. I am an attorney at law, after all, and it's my duty to uphold the law of the land.



Ugh, the Bible is so hard.

A Note on "Activist Judges" (TM)

One can pretty much guarantee that 90% of those blathering in the bigotsphere about the recent California marriage decision have not actually read in any great depth the actual opinion. In their heads, all they know, hear, or say is that because of "activist judges" who overturned "the will of the people," gay people won a culture battle in California.

But wondering whether bigots have actually read judicial opinions with which they so adamantly "disagree" is sort of tangential to my main point. See, I'm more interested in observing the phenomenon whereby pro-gay judicial opinions are hypocritically and/or ignorantly labeled as the actions of rogue "activist judges" overturning the "will of the people." For instance, those opposed to gay rights are particularly up in arms because the California opinion held that "Proposition 22," a referendum directly decided by voters, was unconstitutional. Ironically, and this is the important part, I'm pretty sure we heard the crickets chirping from these same opponents when the (activist?) Governator of California vetoed a democratic piece of legislation that also reflected "the will of the people." The only relevant difference was, of course, that this law was one that legalized same-sex marriage. Remember that?

Observe the hypocrisy in action.

First off, uber-bigot Jose Solano's latest rant against the decision predictably reminds us that the world gets a little bit more stupid whenever he writes a "blog post." After hysterically declaring that "Judicial Tyranny Runs Amok in California," he gets all ranty while displaying his usual ignorance of civics. Specifically, he "teaches" us how, and I quote, "certain courts have decided to ignore the US democratic principals of separation of powers and simply create whole cloth legislation out of thin air" and how the court has decided to "be an advocate for homosexualist interests." Oh wait, Solano doesn't actually teach us anything as he provides no arguments or legal reasoning to back up his bold conclusions. Superb "analysis." See, in Jose-land, one's conclusions can be stated as fact with no supporting evidence added. But aside from his ignorance and question-begging conclusions, let's observe the hypocrisy.

While he decries the California Court for overturning "the will of the people," this blogger who is so very "concerned" with upholding "democratic principles" is the same man who once said that he thinks it's a "problem" that all people in our nation are allowed to vote. Secondly, and most importantly, in this other priceless blog post, Solano urged the Governator of California to veto (again) the pro-same-sex marriage bill that was, via California's elected representatives, the will of the people. He says:

"Hang in there Arnold! Just give it the same old nay you gave it the first time"

Number of times the elected California legislature passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage: 2. Number of times the Governor of California overturned the will of the people by vetoing the bill: 2. The rancid smell of Jose's and other bigots' hypocrisy: priceless.

Perhaps the poor lad thinks that "democracy" means "people can only vote how I vote, legislators can only pass laws that I agree with, and judges can only make decisions I agree with." Sorry Jose, but that's not how it works.

Ed Brayton points out further hypocrisy by first duly noting that the Family Research Council is "outraged" over this California decision because it overturns "the will of the people." Then, remembering that when, in 2006 "the people of Oregon passed a law authorizing voluntary assisted suicide for the terminally ill" the Family Research Council filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down this law. Even though it was "the will of the people." Judicial activism, conveniently, is acceptable as long as the judge is making decisions with which one agrees.

This hypocritical attitude reflects how "the will of the people" argument is nothing but a rallying cry to get the masses on whatever side the speaker wants them to be. We Americans love our democracy, and so nothing upsets us more than to hear that "elite" and "tyrannical" judges are eroding it. Pretty much all one has to do to get the masses to dislike and oppose "the other side," is to label the other side some sort of enemy of American democracy.

Yet, at its heart, the "tyranny" cry is simply erroneous and extremely problematic.

For, if the judicial branch is not "allowed" to protect minority rights and if the legislative branch is not "allowed" to protect minority rights, then who will? Surely not the people, as many of "the people" regularly show that they don't care about trivialities like equal rights. Are equal rights and minority protections something that we, as a society, value? All of this, of course, leads me to ask: Why have a judicial or legislative branch if their purposes are merely to rubber stamp the mentality of the mob?

Do we really want our nation to be ruled by the popular biases of the day? That always works swell in nations brimming with diversity. Shall we rid ourselves of the pesky concept of separation of powers and instead put every issue facing our nation up for a popular vote? (Or are only issues about gay people and "morality" up for popular vote?)

It is here that I'd like to note a few things about "judicial activism." One, these days the phrase is mostly used by those obsessively opposed to gay rights to describe, denounce, and discredit any judicial opinion with which they disagree. Two, when those opposed to gay rights invariably cite the fact that "thousands" of people voted for the law that the "activist judge" overturned, all that really tells me is: Neat-o. Thousands of people, likely misled by hateful propaganda, voted for a bad law. That point, of course, leads me to point three. In light of the fact that so many are led by propaganda ("gay people are worse than terrorists," really?), it is the duty of the court to ensure that the rights of minorities are upheld. Also, in light of the fact that various studies reveal how ignorant voters really are, that my rights, or anyone else's, rest on such ignorance is a scary thought.

There are pretty good example of this backlash all over the bigotsphere. Yet, I believe that much of the backlash comes from serious misunderstandings and/or a lack of wanting to understand the other side. A lot of anti-gay propaganda and misinformation is out there and, coupled with prevalent homophobia that exists in many communities and faiths, it is easy for people who are generally decent human beings to become ignorant at best and bigots at worst.

For instance, one young student in a ministry school (nonetheless!), after implying that the California judges are "tyrants," states:

"I am firmly convinced that this fight is more about people attempting to stick their thumb in God’s eye and not about their rights....If you already have all the rights and priveledges [sic], why on earth would you still need to get the state to recognize it as a “marriage”? "

First, note how it is necessary to this young man's position to "other-ize" gay people by turning them into immoral heathens who are just out to anger god. Sadly, his writing indicates that he believes gay people care more about smiting god than they do about the human dignity that comes with being recognized as a legitimate family.

Heterosexuals, good. Gays, bad. What a simple world we live in.

Secondly, and most importantly, he doesn't even try to understand where gay people are coming from. Nor has he, I'd bet, even read the opinion he so eagerly denounces. So here's a hint for the young lad: Get out of the echo chamber which you inhabit and figure out "why on earth" same-sex couples seek "marriage." Actively search out positions contrary to your own. Even if you find that you don't agree with other opinions, you will at least have a better understanding of where other human beings are coming from and then you can at least make an argument that does more than reveal your laziness, ignorance, and possible bigotry.

You could start by reading page 11 of the California marriage decision that explains "why on earth" same-sex couples want their unions to be called marriage. It will explain how referring to same-sex unions as inferior-to-marriage "domestic partnerships" imposes harm on same-sex couples and their children by sanctioning the view that same-sex unions are of lesser stature than marriage. It creates a situation where same-sex persons and their families are second-class citizens. I am confident that even if you, in fact, believe that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual ones, you can at least understand that such a characteristic is damaging to same-sex couples.

I don't have much sympathy for those who "fail to understand" the key motivations of the other side when the other side's positions are out there begging to be discovered. Because really, those who declare that gay people seek equality out of some desire to smite god and who simultaneously admit ignorance as to the motivation of gay people doesn't particularly show that one is acting with good faith. In fact, those who act in such a way succeed only in telling the world that they're perfectly fine being ignorant.

And why should ignorant voters tell me what my rights are, again?

See, this "gay marriage" culture war demonstrates precisely that our US brand of separation of powers/checks and balances is working as it should be. The judicial branch just declared that a law was unconstitutional. If "the people" don't like it, they will utilize other tools in our democracy to overturn this decision. For instance, they may or may not choose to amend the constitution to make laws banning same-sex marriage constitutional. Whatever "the people" choose to do, these so-called "tyrant" and "activist" judges do not automatically have the last say on the issue.