My friend from school shared these pictures with me. They are her younger brothers toys. Check out the rack and ass on these figurines!!! It's good to know we are teaching boys objectification at such an early age, not to mention perpetuating unrealistic body imaging. I understand that advertisers have discovered that pervy adults need hyper-sexualized content to attract their attention, but why kids? How would a parent react if they found a Maxim magazine stuffed under the mattress of their 8 year old son? Well.....what about a cat woman figurine?
While Flavorwire is obviously having fun with the idea of revisiting literary classics and making them gender neutral, they raise an interesting point: we are sacrificing critical historical elements in an attempt to be politically correct. The same argument can be made by the black community in the recent change of the word "nigger" to "slave" in Huckleberry Finn. Changing the Bible's language so that "human kind" is more clearly understood where the word "men" is used doesn't make the Bible any less offensive in its patriarchal oppression of women. But hey, that's history. These inequalities existed and still exist today. Changing terms doesn't change the past.
Capitalism is crashing, Obama is sending secret letters to Russia, and the east coast is buried in snow. It may seem like a pretty dismal day, but alas, a bright beacon on the near horizon. Today Neko Case's new album, "Middle Cyclone" is being released. I am going to do something I rarely do, and actually buy an album. After years of consistently listening to "Blacklisted" and "The Fox Confessor Brings the Flood" I am 100% positive that I will not be disappointed. Her powerful, commanding voice has lead her to be one of the best female singers of our time. Do yourself a favor and buy this album. Sit down with some treats and hot chocolate and listen to the entire thing....including the 30 minutes of cricket sounds at the end, and maybe just for a bit, you will be able to forget just how bad things suck right now. Exclusive First Listen on NPR NY Times on Neko
Everyone is pleasantly surprised because after years of the First Lady doing "jack" we finally have a woman who can talk policy. Don't worry Hilary, we haven't forgotten all that you did as First Lady, it's just that Michelle is, well, cooler.
A member, supporter and extremely intelligent young gal, Tara posted an eloquent response to "The Morning After" post. I'm sorry Tara, but this "comment" is too good to be left at the bottom: "Nobody puts baby in the corner." Without further ado, if you didn't already know what was terribly discriminatory about Prop 8, now you know. Thanks Tara :)
After multiple debates with conservative colleagues, I feel compelled to comment on Proposition 8. I, for one, am completely devastated by the passage of this discriminatory proposition.
I think most people who read this understand this point already, but in case you do not: it is fundamentally prejudiced to deny a right to some people that the rest of society enjoys (unless, of course, there's some outstanding factor like prior criminal history, which of course homosexuals as a group do not violate). Period.
Secondly, the role of our government is NOT to step in and define people's personal lives in that way. While there is a religious aspect to marriage (or rather, some marriages), we do not live in a theocracy, so our government should not have a say in this regard.
I have heard the argument be made that passing the right for gay marriage is akin to allowing polygamists to marry. However, the difference between gay marriage and polygamy is not what polygamy does to the institution of marriage, but rather that it advances misogyny. Indeed, the very reason I oppose polygamy is the same reason I support gay marriage - all people deserve to be treated equally, and our governmental institutions should reflect that. A more apt comparison would be if a law were passed declaring that all people who partook in some marginalized religion (Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, maybe even Mormonism) could not marry because mainstream religions could not identify with this religion, and thus felt that people marrying within these religions undermined the sanctity of marriage. Or perhaps another analogy would be to say that anyone who did not engage in any religion at all should not be able to marry because it denigrates marriage to be an un-sacred institution.
Ultimately, marriage has already moved away from a necessarily religious ritual that involves a priest and Bible (or a rabbi and Torah, etc.), and has moved toward a symbolic, cultural (and cross-cultural) construct that signifies the committed union between two people. I would think it unfair for a particular religion to forbid marriage between two people of the same sex, but I do believe that that is where those rules can be placed (i.e. within a religion). It goes beyond the call of a government to enforce a rule that religion advances for the sole reason that religion advances it.
Where my argument fails is if one believes that homosexuality is wrong, like murder, rape, and child abuse are wrong. The government should step in to prohibit things that are fundamentally wrong. However, to me, I cannot believe that being a homosexual is wrong, just as I cannot believe that being black is wrong. Furthermore, the government has already taken the stance that homosexuality is not one of these fundamental, moral violations by not making homosexuality illegal; denying participation in a cultural event for homosexuals makes the government at best inconsistent and at worse discriminatory.
I am incredibly disappointed in Californians for letting this proposition pass. I think (hope) that this is one of those issues that we can look back on in fifty years with lenses unmarred by homophobia. It is just so sad to me that Californians were able to celebrate a huge civil rights achievement by overwhelmingly voting for our first black president while simultaneously perpetuating discrimination against another marginalized group.
It is so nice to wake up the day after election and realize the promising changes that occurred on Tuesday. We put Obama in office and Colorado said no to Prop. 48. Concurrently, we discovered some upsetting news: California, one of the nation's most progressive states said yes to Prop. 8 which will ban gay marriage. For many, Tuesday was bittersweet. Undoubtedly, America will be a better place with Obama as President, but nonetheless people obviously still harbor bigotry for those who chose an alternate life-style. California usually lays the ground work for progressive initiatives and I was surprised to hear they didn't step up to the plate this time. While it is promising that as a nation we took two steps forward on Tuesday, it is important to realize that we also took one step back.
Man am I glad that I don't have to change the name of this blog to "The I Hate Sarah Palin and McCain blog." Obama took it. We can expect equal pay, to continue to hold onto our right to chose, better healthcare, and so much more. Things are looking up.