Mourning the Death of a Dream

The recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, calls the attention of feminists around the globe and urges them to mourn. Bhutto was the first female prime minister of any Muslim nation and had huge plans for change. She urged moderation in a time of extremist views and was determined bring equality to women in Pakistan. She was, and still is, a role model for women everywhere. She gracefully balanced her political career with her other role, a wife and mother of three.

Bhutto showed the world that women are fit for the workplace as well as the home (and don't need to chose between one or the other), but her tragic assassination shows the opposition that women face. Benazir Bhutto represented the dream that many women have, and she was giving hope to millions by paving the way. We do not know all the facts as to what happened or who killed her, but we know one thing for sure; a great leader and great hope is gone. However, determination and desire for both democracy and equality in the world remains. Her 19-year-old son has taken her place as the head of her political party and is now running in the Pakistani elections, which should be held the 8th of January. Now it is time for the rest of the world to mourn the loss and finish what the amazing woman started.

Christmastime is here, Tony Blair!

And my present to you is a Catholicised controversy that doesn't involve little boys.

Apparently, former Brit prime-minister Tony Blair has converted to Catholicism. He's being welcomed with open arms by the pontiff himself, but other Catholics are challenging Blair's past voting record, a generally liberal stance punctuated with "Blair government’s support for stem cell research, gay adoptions and the legalization of gay civil unions, as well as [his] resistance to toughening Britain’s abortion laws." One Christian advocate says, “We need to hear a full repudiation from him. Without one, having Blair as a Catholic is like having a vegetarian in a meat-eating club. It simply does not make sense."

If Blair honestly wishes to repudiate his previous decisions, then that is a different matter. But if he choses to do such while still secretly holding pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights views, then that's going to take a lot of chutzpah.

I'll take "Stereotypes in the Media" for $200, Alex

I noticed, as I collapsed on the couch watching a TV marathon, that the Game Show Network (all game shows, all the time) was going to air a marathon celebrating male game show hosts: recognizable names like Bob Barker (The Price is Right) and Alex Trebek (Jeopardy!). I could list more male game show gurus, from the hosts of contemporary contests to obscure 80's programs, but, the fact is, my list would be enormous. So when it came time for me to think of notable female hosts to counter this list, I came up quite empty-handed, only thinking of Meredith Vieira, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire's second host, and Anne Robinson of The Weakest Link fame. (Vanna White does not count as a host, since her presence does not further the action of The Wheel of Fortune.) Why the short list? Survey says, "stereotypes!"

Game shows work so well because we find something likable or interesting about the host that we identify with. The more recent Don't Forget the Lyrics show appeals to the masses since the public sees comedian/host Wayne Brady as the trendy, hip, type who would know the lyrics to many popular songs. He's likable. Other male game show hosts, like Trebek, give the impression of having great intelligence, or like Barker, charm. Do women lack these qualities? Certainly not.

But the men who watch game shows don't want to be compromised by the wits or the appeal of a female host. Sure, they're happy when a female host is attractive, like Vieira, or in the case of Robinson, has a "bitchy" persona they can root against. Yet female hosts with the intelligent aurora of Trebek, the charm of Barker, and the hipness of Wayne Brady, although realistic and presumably already existing people, are intimidating and seen as emasculating.

When we watch the twenty-six beautiful ladies on Deal or No Deal strut down the steps, a woman in host Howie Mandel's place, sans sexed-up set, seems radical and new. In an industry where women have only been the seductive presenters of prizes, I fear TV viewers will shun a strong female host, but it's certainly time to take a gamble. Society, buy a vowel, open the case, and use your 50/50 lifeline- it's time to embrace change.

Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman

Britney Spears' kid sister and Nickelodeon's Zoey 101 star, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn, is pregnant. She told the press, "I definitely don't think [premarital sex]'s something you should do; it's better to wait...but I can't be judgmental because it's a position I put myself in." She's choosing to keep the baby; the child's father is 19 years old and may be charged with statutory rape, yet so far the media has not blatantly judged him like it has Spears.

It's awful the media is making such a hoo-hah about this, and it's terrible the internet is filled with angry folk planning to boycott her show because now they have to give their kids the sex talk. Big whoop. No denying that Jamie Lynn is a marketed, edited, product, but she is a person, not a TV character.

"Responsibility" is the key word thrown around like a bomb, but in my opinion, it's irrelevant. The fact is, Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant, it's her family's business, and throwing around blame and shame won't pay for an abortion, a plane flight to an adoptive family, or a college education. Society should be more concerned about the other pregnant girls, the girls without a lucrative television career to tend to the expenses that come with pregnancy/abortion/childbirth.

Saudi King Pardons Woman Who Shouldn't Have Been Convicted of Anything in the First Place

Saudi Arabian King Abdullah lifted the "punishment" of the young woman sentenced to 200 lashes after being raped.

A Shot at Change with Tila Tequila

With "A Shot at Love's" first season winding down and having just watched the all-day marathon, I was inspired to write a post.

This show has gotten a lot of flack for being yet another show that exhibits the slut culture that America loves, and for good reason. The girls wear shirts that display their Vaseline shined cleavage and the guys' lack of shirts displays their Vaseline shined abs of steel. There's a little bit of eye candy for all of us. But that's hardly the reason why I'm writing this post. "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila" is the first reality television show that puts a spotlight on lesbian/bisexual people. Watchers of the show couldn't care less about the guys! It's all about Tila Tequila and her lesbian harem trying to win her love. As the guys and girls compete for Tila's affections, the show tells MTV America a little bit about the struggles that lesbian and bisexual women endure.

The most prominent offense to the lesbians on the show is the confusion that many of the guys posses. They have been called "he-she's" and one guy described them as "technically men" even when they all identify as women! This is an EXTREMELY common error that average heterosexual or even gay people make. Regardless of whether or not a lesbian identifies as a "butch" or "femme," they are still women and should be regarded as such. Another thing the show manages to do is to show stereotypes of "butch" or "femme" while softening the stereotypes and making the girls human, with real emotions, and less like a parody. All of the women who are on the show are genuine and personable, with the exception of the whores who make their way onto any dating reality show.

Kudos to "A Shot at Love" attempting to bring some awareness of Bisexual and Lesbian culture to the masses, but it might take another season or two to make the change stick.

To Infinity and Beyond!

In a recent JC Penny television ad [sorry, no vid.], a child goes to a garage scale, wobbles across the sidewalk with a wagon full of spare parts, and builds "North Pole Explorer". As the kid zooms up into the sky, the screen reads something along the lines of, "This is the time to believe." Normally, I wouldn't look twice, but this ad stood out among all the crafy-kid gimmicks because the child was a girl. Call me corny, but I thought the commercial was quite empowering, especially when, traditionally, TV boys make the cars, trucks, and log cabins, and the girls make breakfast at toy kitchens.
Just something to look out for.

You'd Better Put Out, I'm Tellin' You Why: Sexist Clothes are Comin' to Town!

'Twas a bit before Christmas, Wal-Mart heads got antsy,
So they decided to deshelve some sexist panties.


The underpants [which aren't even red and green] were pulled from shelves due to a deluge of complaints, yet still I am quite concerned for anyone who unwraps a pair of these Christmas morning. The vagina = money philosophy is incredibly chauvinistic [the part of the slogan written on the rum-pa-pa-rump reads "...when you've got Santa!", essentially referring to the sugar daddy stereotype in the most Christmas-y of ways]. News flash: Women are more than vaginas, and vaginas are more than banks. This underpants ideology belongs in the tenth circle of Hell once reserved for "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" Barbie. What really bothers me is that these undergarments aren't hidden in some sleaze shop where they might be more appropriate. They're a junior's item, which means little girls [because what junior actually shops in their dept.?] will be wearing them.

Besides, since when did Santa want a little extra sumthin'-sumthin' with his milk and cookies?

Dress to Impress (Your Values on Others)

Sherri Shepherd, conservative du jour on television's The View, may just be a little confused. Known for her Christ-o-centric claims that "the world is flat" and "nothing came before Jesus," she one-ups herself with her latest homophobic rants. Apparently, she doesn't want her son to wear dresses. To show her conviction in Biblical gender roles, she never wears pants. Especially not in this clip.



Thoughts?

The "What His Wife Could Have Been Story"

Those of you who are TV junkies such as myself may have seen a promotion for the "Billy Graham Story". The promo starts by showing some lovely pictures of a woman from the 40's saying, "She was destined to travel to Vietnam, serving the people of that country and making the world a better place," something along those lines. Then it goes on to say, "But then she met a man who won her heart. This is the story of Billy Graham and the woman who stayed by his side and supported him until the end."

Clearly, this commercial is appealing to the romantic within us all, but the feminist inside must be awakened! The "Billy Graham Story" is glorifying a woman giving up her dreams to be with her husband. It is idolizing the ultimate domesticated image! It is saying that it is the woman's duty to drop everything for her husband! It is saying that women will be rewarded more, not for their missionary work in foreign nations, but for their loyalty to their husband.

This is not a standard I plan on upholding, how about you?

Be Prepared (For Gross Misconduct and 19 Felony Charges!)

A California Boy Scout leader, who has campaigned to ban gays, atheists, and other assorted heathens from the organization, has been accused of sexually-assaulting some of the young men in his troop. Quoth The New York Times, "Mr. Evans’s [the troop master in question's] lawyer, Philip Schnayerson, said Thursday that “hundreds” of former scouts and friends had called to voice support." (That's kind of creepy. No, it's very creepy.)

The Boy Scouts [not to be confused with the Girl Scouts, who, as a whole, have generally made great strides in including and empowering girls of all backgrounds] have long declared that "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the traditional values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the values of the Oath and Law."

Maybe the BSA loves those little nonbelievers so much that they're just trying to protect them from their frequently frisky troop leaders. By now, I'm shocked that anyone, homosexual, non-theist, or not, wants to join the Boy Scouts at all.

Psychology Today, "Scientifically"-Condoned Patriarchal Domination Tomorrow

Now, I wouldn't consider myself a very politically correct or incorrect person, I'm pretty neutral. But I can call BS out when I see it, and this article from Psychology Today, "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature," clearly constitutes as such. The piece justifies the (largely false) claims "...women want to look like [blond, blue-eyed, busty, blonds]" and that "men sexually harass women because they are not sexist," using "human nature," which here means thinly-veiled misogyny and racism disguised as legitimate psychology.

Quoth the piece, "First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago." Which is why, you know, I have a burning desire to go make fire out of two sticks and draw on my bedroom wall with buffalo blood. 

The article goes on to say that "women's desire to look like Barbie—young with small waist, large breasts, long blond hair, and blue eyes—is a direct, realistic, and sensible response to the desire of men to mate with women who look like her." 

First off, why is this sensible? Far be it from such an honest publication to condone chauvinism! While I understand that many men do prefer said women, a good portion are fairly indifferent to a women's appearance at all. PT not only offends women by telling them they're bound to comply to these standards (and abnormal if they don't), it offends men calling them shallow and superficial. A double whammy!

The articles tenth and final "truth" infuriated me the most: "...men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women."

If that's the case, then why aren't men sexually-harassed and why aren't women getting the equal paychecks and cushy office chairs? Apparently, Psychology Today has replaced science with sexism.  

December 6th

Today is the bitter 18th anniversary of "the Montreal massacre", when Marc Lépine open-fired at a class of female engineering students at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. Lépine killed 14 of the students as he yelled out "I hate feminists!" among other spurts of anti-women banter.

December 6th is now Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, but that doesn't mean only Canadians can reflect. Today is as good of a day as any to reflect on the misogynistic violence that occurs in our everyday lives, and what we can do to stop it.

Would You Like Some Product Placement with that Sexism?

My good friend Sam has gotten into the feminist spirit! His guest post, "Two Cunts in A Kitchen," is well-written and intriguing, and I hope he writes more for us soon!

Two Cunts in a Kitchen:

The phrase mentioned above is advertising industry slang for the standard kitchenware commercial. We’ve all seen the premise. Two women of different races stand in a immaculate kitchen discussing the life-changing benefits of switching to Gladware. Same old stuff. 

Few women realize how radical this type of advertising is when compared to the old routine. Gone are the days of 50’s advertising where the fresh-from-work mate would complement his wife on how nutritious the Wonder Bread was. The women were in command now. They would proudly announce to their clumsy husband that the frozen pizza wasn’t delivery. This shift in advertising occurred at the same time that women began to leave the confines of the kitchen and venture into the workplace in droves. The new version of the American woman was instrumental in transforming the American viewpoint on what constitutes femininity. 

But alas, the changing portrayal of women did not have a universally positive effects. Men increasingly became portrayed as stupid, clumsy or ignorant. This image of manliness has persisted today. You only have to turn on shows such as The King of Queens to find this degrading image blown up for all of America to see. To counter this, women in television became increasingly neurotic: overbearing nags who pestered their husbands to take on "women's work" in addition to their other schedules. 

If history is any indication, there will soon be a new shift in advertising, dedicated once again to the submissive housewife of the 50’s. However, I desperately hope not. Only when “An Overbearing Cunt and a Lazy Bastard” is advertising jargon will "true" equality be achieved and we're all equally incompetent. 

December 1st is World AIDS Day

Today, December first, is World AIDS Day. Spreading awareness of the HIV/AIDS crisis and informing people of prevention methods, facts, and the dire immediacy of this pandemic is key if this international effort is to be a success.

As this year's theme is leadership, it is important to remember that AIDS is not only a threat to one cultural group, a solution will require a variety of leaders from different backgrounds and cultures. HIV/AIDS affects women, men, the rich, and the poor.

AIDS does not care how large your checking account is. AIDS doesn't know what college you went to. AIDS isn't racist or sexist. AIDS will not, and does not, discriminate.

AIDS is a global problem and requires a global solution. The first step is just wearing a ribbon and staying informed. Picking up a newspaper and putting on a pin never hurt anybody.

UPDATE: A Side of Personal Accomplishment

Be sure to glance at a copy of The Chicago Tribune tomorrow. A letter to the editor written by yours truly will be in the "Voice of the People" section! For those of you who might not know me personally, this will be my second editorial.
Admittedly, I deleted the file with my editorial on it, so I can't sneak you a peak and tell you what I said verbatim. I can tell you, however, that my piece was in response to a column which noted the lack of "nice" female political figures. In the editorial, I tell it like it is and share what I think makes a good president.
Tomorrow, the full text will be posted, as well as an analysis of my analysis.

"In "By ignoring slur, McCain said a lot," columnist Leonard Pitts suggests that niceness is an important trait in political candidates, a characteristic of which he claims all female politicians are devoid. Even if I were to ignore the blatant sexism and assume that Pitts is correct in his observation, one question still lingers: So what?

Our next president must be steadfast in opinion and articulate at the podium. America needs someone opinionated, firm and passionate to guide her through this time of international change and conflict. Of traits a leader needs to succeed, "nice" hardly makes the Top 20.

Will American voters elect a leader or a golfing buddy?"

(Click here to read my editorial on The Trib's page, and click here to read Pitts' original post.)

Will "niceness" be an important trait for you to consider when you vote in '08? Do you believe, that Pitts is being sexist, or just giving an honest opinion?

Stripping off Our Rights

You'd better put that sexy Mrs. Claus costume back in the closet because you better dress up in a burqa for your holiday office party unless you want your rights taken away.

I'm not a fan of Fox News, but in a recent interview Marc Rudov (anti-women swine extraordinaire) suggested that "between the EEOC rules and the Violence Against Women Act, the workplace has become a dangerous place for men." His opponent in the debate, Lis Wiehl, made a solid point in that the EEOC rules and Violence Against Women Act are there to ensure fairness in the workplace. Please watch the video before continuing.



The world that Rudov is proposing is one where the rights of women are stripped by the inch of skin that they reveal. It's a world where women are stripped of their rights to protect "Constitutional rights" (read: men). Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, the Constitution protected both sexes.

Columnist Marrin Hopes It's Reigning Men

Brit publication The Times is noted for it's frequently sexist articles on fashion, dating, and culture, but nothing takes the patriarchal self-serving cake like this little beauty, in which columnist Minette Marrin asks, "Are men really necessary?"

Marrin notes the "onslaught against masculinity," how women are becoming more in control of their financial, social, and emotional lives. Many women, Marrin writes with horror, are becoming, get this: independent! "It is hardly surprising," Marrin says, "that men increasingly feel dispensable."

Marrin goes on to say that single women and lesbians undermine a man's sense of his own masculinity, and produces a nice little rant about why we women need men: "Men have wonderful qualities which women often lack and need. Men are much more likely than women to be of exceptionally high – and exceptionally low – intelligence; they are on average stronger, funnier, and have a better three-dimensional sense and they are usually better at techy things."

The only quality a man has that women lack is a penis, and women only need that for purposes of procreation, which is purely optional and in no way a prerequisite for womanhood. (I ignore heterosexual intercourse, which I would only consider a nice perk, and only for some.)

And just in case our female readers thought their place was outside the kitchen or the bedroom, Marrin reminds us to keep churning out those babies. "Researchers warned that couples should beware of swapping traditional roles." (She does not cite this research.)

Marrin sums up her point by concluding, "What we need is the rehabilitation of real masculinity, because that is something most of us do need and like." She doesn't go on to describe "real masculinity," but if it's anything like her marginalized 50's-style real femininity, Marrin better leave the column-writing to the big boys and get back in the kitchen.

"Ho?" Oh no!

In Sydney, Australia, "Santas" are no longer permitted to say "Ho, ho, ho!" as this may "be offensive to women." Instead, they must replace the classic cry with "Ha, ha, ha!"

As silly as this seems, I'm not laughing.

I doubt any women worked to pass this restriction. This faux resolution claims to looks out for women, yet it's only purpose is to further the patriarchal stereotype of the frivolous women.

Movie Review: Enchanted

The story is that a sweet forest girl named Giselle (Amy Adams) meets her true love, Prince Edward (James Marsden), while he is taking down a giant. Edward's evil mother, in the form of an old hag, pushes Giselle down a well into "a place of no love and no happy endings." Once in New York City, Giselle is greeted by sarcasm and hate until Robert (Dr. McDreamy) allows her to stay in his house for a night. I'll end my summary here, so I don't spoil the predictable plot.

Enchanted is cleverly written and beautifully animated. Obnoxious songs pepper the film, but since the premise is "Disney making fun of Disney," the soundtrack works. Amy Adams plays the role of a ditzy and naive princess-to-be flawlessly and James Marsden executes the part of a dumber than dirt prince without a hitch. Patrick Dempsey...well he's gorgeous as always. It's from the feminist standpoint that this movie begins to fail.

Disney has a long tradition of giving twisted ideals of women. All the Disney Princesses have a waist size of about 4 inches and a cup size of D, D for Disney, and most Princesses were either trapped in some situation and could only be freed by a prince, loved to clean, or sewed in their free time. Their newest movie is no exception since the women are either entirely clueless or evil and ugly, while the men are all hunk-a-licious and brave. While Disney puts in a few clever pro-women twists (like having Giselle attempt to save Robert at the end, or making the heroic Prince Edwards have an IQ of 80), overall, Enchanted fails the feminist test, making Enchanted just another notch in Disney's patronizing belt.


Movie Rating: ♀♀♀
Feminist Rating: ♀

Silly liberals, human rights are for whites!

George Bush likes to pretend he's our friendly neighborhood champion of human rights. "...it is the policy of the United States," he says, "To seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." And this, arguably like everything else Bush says, is a huge lie.

Recently, a 19-year-old Saudi woman was gang-raped. The seven men who raped her were sentenced to 1-5 years in prison each. For being with men she was not related to, the woman was punished as well, and her sentence was recently increased for speaking out against the injustice. As of now, her sentence is 200 lashes and six months in prison, a complete violation of her basic rights as a woman and as a human.

And yet, the Bush administration flat-out refuses to condemn the Saudi court's ruling. National sovereignty is a nonsense excuse to not intervene in this situation when human health, safety, and freedom are at stake.

When it comes to human rights, the Bush administration is clearly pick-and-chose. Only 423 more days of this madness, kiddies.

Living in a Material World, and I am a Feminist Girl

When we immerse ourselves in a mission, like ending sexism, we often forget that there other causes worth fighting for. Just look at PETA. Their valuable message is clouded by their sex-saturated ads and radical scare-tactics.

Anarchist values and feminism go hand in hand, even if we aren't passing out "Fight the Power!" buttons at Planned Parenthood rallies. Today in particular is the time to remember our roots.

As you probably know, today is Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving that promises mega-savings and mega-crowds at your local shopping mall. In protest, it's Adbuster's Buy Nothing Day, an informal day in which people are urged to shun consumerism and, in essence, buy nothing.

Even if you don't support the Adbuster's cause, and even if you did buy a sandwich today (I was hungry!), it's important to remember that as feminists, we have a certain responsibility. It's not enough to just fight sexism. That's only the first step. It is our duty to speak out against any atrocity, whether that be homophobia, genocide, or racism.

Just do what you feel is right, and protest what you feel is wrong. That's what feminism is all about.

Thanks-to-the-women-giving

Happy Thanksgiving, readers! No big post on a holiday, but I just wanted to make a point of telling you to be sure to thank your moms, grandmothers, sisters, and aunties today, because without them cooking all day... you'd probably be eating at the Cracker Barrel for your Thanksgiving dinner.

Heart of Glass

The glasses of John Lennon and Buddy Holly have become iconic style symbols. Drew Carrey rocks his frames even after receiving correctional eye treatment. But when it’s time for the young Stephanie Tanner to get her glasses, she, like many other little girls, balks at the proposition.

Woody Allen has often joked that his thick-rimmed glasses make him look like an intellectual. "Nerds" (I define the term as the smart and socially-awkward) in TV or film often sport glasses, creating a trademark look consisting of suspenders, braces, and said spectacles.

If glasses are associated with intelligence, then why do many young girls today avoid them? When society tells girls they look ugly in glasses, it also says that they, metaphorically speaking, look ugly in intelligence. When Diana Prince tears off her glasses, she becomes the sexy, strong Wonder Woman. Why can't she be just as hot when she wears the frames?

Girls are shunning necessary eyewear for the sake of beauty. This young generation needs to be reminded that not only is it “OK” to be smart, it’s fantastic, glasses or not.

And yes, I do wear glasses.

Anti-aBoration Nonsense

Comedian Sasha Baron Cohen uses his characters to challenge political and social injustice. You probably know him for his incredibly controversial film, Borat, but his other work is equally hilarious and just as politcally-charged. A recent post on Feministing reminded me of how much this old video cracks me up:



Very nice, Sasha.

Skirt Suits

There is something painfully ironic about a skirt suit being a symbol of power for a working woman. The idea is that it shows how women can be in the workplace, have a position of control, be in charge, yet still showing their femininity.

While at a debate tournament last weekend, a debater from Apple Valley, MN, made a comment on how it is virtually mandatory for all girls on the team to wear a skirt suit. "It's not really mandatory for girls, per se, but it is highly suggested. [The skirt suit] is more presentable, put-together looking, and more acceptable for girls to wear at a tournament," she said. When I asked her male debate friend from the same team about it, he said, "It's not sexist! It's just part of the tradition. Skirt suits are nicer looking! They are powerful!"

The irony is that skirts and dresses were clothing meant to maintain the delicacy of female beauty, while pants were power clothes. Just ask your grandmother! I'm willing to bet that no women wore pants anywhere until halfway through her life. A notion that skirt suits can bring together the best of both worlds is ridiculous. I find it appalling that we are still applying to standards of acceptability where a woman must wear a skirt to be presentable.

It's the 21st century! I think it is time to wake up and pull a pair of slacks on with your 4-inch Prada heels.

Aqua Don'ts and The Culture of Fear®

When I'm not writing amazing blog posts, I do my World History homework! This weekend's assignment was to connect a recent news story to American Culture, and I couldn't help but to inject a little bit of feminism into my analysis of the Aqua Dots scandal:

This article introduces an interesting dynamic into American Culture, the growing, impending, and sometimes terrifying Culture of Fear®. To put it simply, the American Culture of Fear® is the unique lifestyle of preventing bad experiences by avoiding good ones. This seems relatively modern, but it probably dates back to America’s Puritanical Christian founders who praised modesty and chastity while shunning hedonism. The American Culture of Fear® is why we don’t go out late at night, why we avoid hearty foods, why the terror alert level is broadcasted regularly in O’Hare airport, and why we built bomb shelters in the 60s. The American Culture of Fear® is also largely responsibly for the pomp and circumstance surrounding the Aqua Dots scandal (or as I like to call it, Aquagate).


We may call gamma hydroxy butyrate (GHB) the “date rape drug,” and, yes, rapists have used it, but not as much as you might think. Very few rapes involve drugging or any grand display of masculinity (more women will be struck by lighting then kidnapped from a mall parking lot), and the main users of GHB use it recreationally, like marijuana or ecstasy. However, exploiting the few GHB rapes provides the perfect story, that of the sneaky, intelligent, conniving man and the vulnerable, unknowing woman. The better can much better propagate American patriarchal values with this myth. It is also important to point out that the Aqua Dots do not actually have any GHB in them—they merely metabolize into the chemical when ingested.

Another important statistic to note when reviewing Aquagate is the ages of the children sickened. The article stated that the ill American child was two years old. A child of two years should not be playing with a toy that requires a high amount of gross motor skills and a more developed intellect. While it is certainly unfair to blame this accident on the parents of the child, American Culture of Fear® believes with confidence that a parent, as their child’s primary fear-injector, can commit no evils.

This article also exploits a recognizable symbol—toys. If China were accidentally shipping over poison teapots, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash. But toys are a different matter, as they represent the untarnished innocence of children, the same innocence that the aforementioned Puritans were so gung-ho about in the Mayflower days.

When harmful chemicals are found in toys, it's a problem, but it's not the end-all end-all of the world, like The American Culture of Overreacting® would like you to believe.

Doing laundry is a dream, dream, dream!, says PlaySkool's toy house.

I don't know about you, but my holiday season doesn't being until a major corporation tells me it does! With the annual advent of Starbucks releasing their iconic holiday red cups, I thought I’d share with you the ho-ho-horrible toy that has already hit our shelves: Rose Petal Cottage, where your little girl's imagination can run free as she does the laundry, cooks dinner, shines the floor, and irons clothes.



The subliminal conditioning of children to conform to gender roles is nothing new, just ask Barbie and GI Joe. There's nothing wrong with being a homemaker by one's own chosing. Homemaking is more than cutesy muffins and window-washing. It's a commitment. However, when women become homemakers because they feel it's there duty, because they feel it's their place in the kitchen, because they have no other options, because crappy toys tell them there's something wrong with them when they don't, there's a problem.

And it's not even Thanksgiving yet.

To Clarify an Injustice

The House is debating a critical gay civil rights bill that would prohibit discrimination of any homosexual in the workplace today. But there's something very wrong with the bill. Democrats have removed transgendered people from the protection of the bill because they are afraid the bill will fail if transgendered people are included. How can a gay civil rights bill NOT include the "T" from LGBT and still operate under the ruse of promoting and protecting gay rights? The answer: it can't.

Get this straight and clear up any confusion, because believe me, there's a lot of it, before making any judgements. Keep in mind that sex is the body and gender is the mind. A transvestite is a person of one sex who chooses to dress as the other sex while still upholding heterosexual tendencies, a transgendered person is someone who is of one sex while feels more like the opposite gender. The term "transgendered" also includes "transsexual," a person who changes from one sex to the other because they felt more like the other gender. A lot of people don't know the difference, or forget the difference, and end up being offensive.

This is exactly the kind of mistake that leads to infringements of rights. If we forget who they are, inside and out, how can we properly uphold their rights? In order to ensure fairness and equality, one of the supposedly "main principles" in America, people must know and understand the difference. We are failing to set appropriate standards of acceptance and equality if we neglect parts of our community! End the ignorance and realize that transgendered people aren't people who are pretending to be the other gender, but someone who is really stuck in the wrong sex.

Kick off your heels!

Anyone woman who has ever come home from a formal party with aching, swelling feet knows that high-heels hurt. Patriarchal society may scoff at ancient Chinese foot-binding traditions, saying that high-heels are a different ball game entirely and surely not oppressive to such an extreme degree. Back here in the real world, women are dying from restricting trends like these.

The stereotypical Carrie-Bradshaw-of-a-woman, the young urban professional, appears to be carefree and confident. Behind the closed doors of her apartment, she coats herself in cosmetics, heightens herself in heels, slims herself in Spanx, and douses her hair in dyes. Why does this naturally beautiful and successful woman hide behind a mask? She herself is not even sure.

To attract men? To please herself? To fit in?

She may never even come up with an explanation, but as she thinks, she’ll be mindlessly applying a layer of Chanel lipstick. Why? The answer is habit. She may or may not want to stop, but either way she cannot. The beauty industry is an addictive drug—women need their “fix” of shoes or purses. By the time women decide that it’s no longer “in vogue” to condone these limiting behaviors, it may be too late. The best way to stop being a slave to fashion is to never become one in the first place.

(Writer's Note: Happy Bonfire Day, everyone!)

Quoth the Clinton, "This Means War!"

Most of the time, I really do love Hillary Clinton, but not when she's talking like this:

"I don't think they're piling [critiques] on because I'm a woman, I think they're piling on because I'm winning.. I anticipate it's going to get even hotter. And if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and I'm very much at home in the kitchen."

Clinton's remark to reporters interviewing her in New Hampshire, where she visited to place her name officially on the ballet, was in very poor taste. She tries to project a more stereotypically feminine image to appeal to more traditional, conservative voters, and I cannot deny that Clinton's experiences as a mother and wife have shaped her.

However, by making this remark, I feel like Clinton is spitting in the face of female, feminist voters who are voting for her not only because they like her ideas, but because she is a strong woman who doesn't let the bastards grind her down. I wouldn't vote for a "strong" women if she treated gender roles like one big joke. While I do think this was merely a slip-up on Clinton's part, I think she should stop playing the gender card. I like her for her politics, not her pies!

You don't see Barack Obama talking about the slave trade, do you?

Comment Rules

Since comments have been a little iffy lately, I wanted to set up some guidelines. If your comment wasn't posted, now you know why.

1. Please comment about the post, not about the poster or topics irrelevant to the topic presented.

2. Do not attack any person or group of people for reasons unrelated to the post. If the topic of the post is, say, current laws pertaining to reproductive rights, feel free to slam or praise the government. On the other hand, don't comment on that post saying all Americans from a certain area are stupid, and therefore are the problem. A comment like that is unproductive and will not be posted.

3. Also, do not attack something or someone's physical appearance.

4. If you disagree with the opinion presented, express your disagreement in a tactful manner.

5. Please try to use proper spelling and grammar. We try to write our posts eloquently, don't slap in our faces by using internet jargon.

Thanks for reading this, and happy commenting!

Clothes That Don't Make the Man

Hipster clothing store chain Urban Outfitters* is known for stocking provocative tees (The plain-colored controversies that read "Everybody Loves a (insert nationality/religion here) Girl" was all them.). However, their new crop of clothing for guys gets much worse.



Ew. Just ew. If I saw a man wearing this, I would slap him.

*In all honesty, I don't dislike the store, just this item of clothing. I shop at UO all the time, and I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

Ann Coulter's Ideas are Uglier than Her Body

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter may not be the beacon for female empowerment. The politically-involved woman who believes woman shouldn't be involved in politics, Coulter is rarely logical and always shocking. Saying Jews need to be perfected and calling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot” is one thing. Using Seinfeld (which, by the way, is by-in-large a Jewish comedy) to support her outlandish views on interracial couples? That’s just ludicrous. Ann Coulter may be an enigma, but we can’t simply ignore her and hope that one day she wakes up and realizes she’s wrong about pretty much everything.

This being said, criticizing Coulter’s physical appearance is not the answer. She may be suspiciously thin, but eating disorders are no joke. She may slightly resemble a man to some, but being transgender should not be a diss. When Ann Coulter says “liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole”, we merely reply, “You have ugly arms, Ann Coulter!”

As Coulter once said, “I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am.” Luckily, that is a very small portion of people, so Ann Coulter must not be getting any action. Let’s not stoop to Coulter's level and let's start laughing at her “ideas” and not her clothes.

A picture says a thousand words

The zenith of female empowerment, the age of feminism at its best, fashion in all its glory during the hippie age. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the best photo of womenkind I've ever seen.

Take a minute to study the placement of the models and the poses they are in. It really speaks for itself.

*photo from 1977 JCPenney ad

What's in a name?

Today's issue of The New York Times Magazine contained an article about gender neutral names and there specific connotations. The increasing popularity of these names, the article suggests, is that “it’s not a disgrace to be a girl anymore.”

Being a girl is a disgrace if children are being teased for having typically feminine names. As the text points out, it's usually the boys with gender-neutral names who get teased, not the girls. In other words, it's OK for "girls to be boys" (as long as their masculinity is canceled out by stereotypically female behavior), but not "boys to be girls,” because there’s something inherently wrong with femaleness or femininity.

What does this article say about gender roles? A name only has the connotation we give it. When a baby boy is born, he doesn’t think, “Ooh, my name’s Kelly, better start buying my tap shoes early!” Children are taught how to behave because of gender-based toys and clothing and adult role models, not a certain combo of letters that only means what we as society says it does.

If the name really does make the child, be sure to keep little Fidel away from the tinker toys.

Naomi Wolf's Beauty Myth

I first discovered Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth when my eighth grade science teacher handed me a copy to stick under a plank of wood for a project. At the time, I was mildly intrigued, and several weeks ago, I finally bought my own copy and began to read it.

The book is divided into chapters with general titles such as Sex or Violence, and with these chapters as her guide, Wolf carefully examines the major issues facing women today. These issues, according to Wolf, all lead back to the culture of beauty where women are forced into belonging.

The Beauty Myth (published in the 90's, but still relevant) is written rather dryly, with small tokens of wit and wisdom inserted. It's not meant to be a humorous book, but Wolf’s little jokes got my through the endless statistics. In addition, the book seemed only to focus on how these issues affect heterosexual whites. I would have liked to see how the “the beauty myth” affects other groups of people. Overall, however, the book was fascinating, dealing with many topics in a straightforward, immediate, way.

The Power of a Word

WARNING: EXPLICIT CONTENT AND OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE!

Dyke: –noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.

1. a female homosexual; lesbian.
2. Derogatory term used to refer to a lesbian; commonly towards a lesbian with more masculine physical characteristics/mannerism

Origin: 1940–45; earlier in form bulldike (with a variation of bulldagger); of obscure origin; claimed to be a shortening of morphodyke (variation of morphodite, a reshaping of hermaphrodite)

Allow me to recount a conversation that was directed at me. The context is that I had just stepped in for a male classmate of mine in playing a male role for a play I'm part of. Note that my original part is also a male part.
Dickhead1: Oh my god, Emily is more of a man than MaleClassmate!
Dickhead2: Dyke Alert!! Dyke Alert!! Dyke Alert!!

The very word "dyke" is so loaded with prejudice and degrading tone that the skin on my fingers is crawling as I type it. Just like how the word "nigger" was socially banned*, I think "dyke" should be the next word to be socially banned. *"Socially Banned" in this context means that the word in question is forbidden from polite speech for respect of a certain group of people.

The only time you hear the word "nigger" being used is when an African American is using it and only if they have identified as one, called themselves one, or called another African American one. If a white person DARED to use it in public, they would instantaneously be subjected to some form of punishment. Anything from being virtually shunned to getting gang-beaten in the alleyway could, more likely would, occur. "Nigger" is generally accepted as a horrible racial slur that is too offensive to be said in polite society. Why isn't "dyke" treated the same way? "Dyke" is another horrible homosexual slur and is almost ALWAYS taken offensively if the person using it hasn't identified as one or called themselves one.

I contend that "dyke" and "nigger" should be handled the same way in that they should not be spoken on account of their unique degree of offensive and derogatory tone.

The word "dyke" is so offensive because it was CREATED to offend. It was, as my sources claim, derived from a derogatory word for hermaphrodite. So not only is it attacking women who dress and act more like men, it is also attacking people with a medical deformity (for lack of a better word) who have no choice that they have similar attributes of both genders. This makes the degree of intensity twofold!

One of the main qualities that America is known for is its broad acceptance and equal treatment of its citizens. Clearly America is not abiding by its moral principals. It is IMMORAL for citizens of a country founded on such principals to treat a group of legal and law abiding citizens with contempt and hateful words. If American and its people are worth their salt at all, then they, WE, will band together to get this word socially banned. When Dickhead2 called me a "dyke," I felt so sick I thought I was going to cry. I wanted to kill him for using such derogatory and offensive words in my presence. I wanted to kill him for his clear lack of respect for the lesbian community. I wanted to kill him period.

Please help stop the pain and disrespect by placing "dyke" in the same category that "nigger" was placed in long ago.

A Form of Ugliness so Intolerable

Although the beauty standard du jour has only recently become blond hair, red lips, big breasts, small waist, shaven va-jay-jay, patriarchal society has long pressured women into giving up time, money, and sanity to conform to bizaire, unhealthy standards.

Corsets may seem like a glamorous undergarment of the Victorian era and cabarets, but the phenomenon of tight lacing, or lacing a corset very tightly as to achieve the smallest waistline possible, is hardly attractive to a modern audience when the internal organs start to squish together and realign.

Oscar Wilde (his feelings on fashion grace this post's title) may be our favorite elaborately dressed, “indecent,” quick-witted gay guy, but his half-sisters weren’t so lucky. After using copious amounts of crinoline to give them those 19th century Bootylicious behinds, their underskirts caught aflame, and their burned killed them, thus illustrating the importance of being burn-less… (I never said I was as witty or tactful as Oscar.).

The media portrays Queen Elizabeth as a strong willed woman with fiery red hair and shocking white skin. Her paleness, however, was far from natural. A sick child, the grown-up Virgin Queen coated her face in white powder to cover up the marks. Empress Josephine, the go-to-gal of Napoleon, was similarly self-conscious of her hands, and constantly wore opera gloves.

When entertainment is watching women endure harsh and unsafe beauty treatments (with glue on their heads, fun!) for the mere goal of contorting their way to fame, we need to be reminded that beauty, or at least beauty as defined by society, truly can lead to pain.

Of Takeout Chinese and Conservative Propaganda

Ah, 4Parents.gov, the delightful website that instructs parents on how to coerce their little ones into not making that two-backed beast until they strut their stuff down the aisle, get back to the suite, and stare at their crotches, perplexed.

4Parents features a timeline about the development of the fetal goop, more formally called the "unborn child" in anti-choice circles. The most informative part of this timeline was Week 28-32, when the developing baby may hiccup or cry and can taste sweet and sour.

The baby tastes sweet and sour? You get the rice, I'll get the chopsticks, and let's have us some sweet and sour fetus!

Boyz II Men, Girlz II Girlz

Friday in English class, my classmates and I were having a discussion on chapter 24 of Harper Lee's novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, in which the tomboy protagonist Scout must attend her aunt's tea party.
For the most part, the chapter is fairly dull. I commented that it was a highly significant chapter because it illustrates another kind of predjudice in the racially charged community--sexism.
My peer agreed. "A good foreshadowing quote for this chapter," she notes, "is a couple chapters before, when Atticus notes that girls can't serve on juries."

Atticus says no such thing. Girls can't serve on juries, of course, but neither can boys. Atticus actually says that women can't serve on juries, ("woman" generally being the appropriate word for a grown female.)

It is seemingly OK in our culture to refer to grown males as men, and yet refer to grown females as girls, the same term used for young, naive, innocent, etc, girls. It is implying that females forever stay cute and innocent, but men become MEN!, a prepackaged, patriarchal product demanding respect and power. This is not the case.

Boys and girls!
Ladies and gentlemen!

Must we go as far as a circus sideshow to receive respect?

Book Review: Female Chauvinist Pigs (Ariel Levy)

Sex sells, and the vast majority of female celebrities (the charming young generation who can't take a few cents out of their extensive paychecks to buy some undies) know; they follow this unwritten creed of the adverstising and beauty industry as a mantra. In a culture where females as young as ten twirl a stripper pole as a baton of empowerment, how thin is the line between women’s liberation and carefully-disguised exploitation? Ariel Levy explores this and other issues in her first book, Female Chauvinist Pigs. In Levy’s study to determine whether porn stars, strippers, and swingers really are unshackled from the binds of culture, or just creating a new, equally limiting, culture, she examines everything from lesbian sex parties to ‘Girls Gone Wild’ casting ploys. In her interviews with everyone from self-proclaimed liberated ‘bois’ to Christie Hefner herself, Levy quickly uncovers the destructive irony hidden in raunch culture, where women aren’t pushed around by men anymore, they’re pushing each other themselves. Female Chauvinist Pigs is as darkly humorous as it is terrifying, an essential read for any female (or any man) who dares to call herself empowered in this sex-saturated world.

Sexual "Education" part III

Since it's apparent that teens are having sex, they should know how to protect against those unwanted babies and diseases by some way other than abstinence. Write to your congressman, the head of your school district, principal, whoever and tell them how you feel! Request sexual education programs that focus of protection and contraceptions. Only by telling those with authority can things get changed.

Also, wear a condom.

Sexual "Education" part II

There are obvious and many flaws with abstinence only education.

The first one being that it doesn't work. Over 50% of high schoolers have had sexual activity by the time they graduate. 3 million teenagers contract STDs per year. These statistics clearly show that teenagers are still having sex and will continue to have sex regardless of how they are taught. The stats also show that teens are going to contract STDs if they aren't taught how to protect against them in a way other than abstinence. Abstinence only education isn't work and will never work because teens will always have sex since it is part of growing up and becoming healthy adults, so they might as well be taught how to do it safely.

The second problem is that most people don't want abstinence only education in our schools. 70% of people oppose funding earmarked solely for abstinence-only education. 84% of people believe that teenagers should be given information about how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. If such a vast amount of people do not want abstinence only education, it should be taken out of our schools.

The third is that no teenager is going to listen to their "old and uptight" health teacher telling them not to have sex because "they should wait until they're married" when their boy/girlfriend is asking them to have sex NOW. Peer pressure is part of the teenage world, it is not going to go away any time soon. Teenage boys especially are not going to want to wait until they get married to have sex when they want to get laid today. Teenage girls are not going to want to wait until they get married to have sex when they want to get laid now, either!

Sex is an important part of growing up, and quite frankly, some of us teens don't want to wait to get it!! And If teens are going to be having sex despite abstinence only education anyways, shouldn't there be a different type of education?

Sexual "Education" part I

"Sex is bad. You'll get pregnant. You might get an STD...but you'll definitely get pregnant." Who hasn't heard this mantra in every health class or sex ed lecture? Have you ever heard a teacher go in-depth about birth control or protection? Didn't think so.

"Sexual 'Education'" will be posted in three installments. One to talk about what the abstinence only education is, one to mention the obvious problems, and the final to talk about solutions.

In 1996, the federal government passed a welfare reform addition called Title V. This program gives funding to educational facilities using sexual education. Title V's extremly specific requirements include:

• Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
• Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children and that mutually faithful sex within a marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
• Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
• Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society.

A program called "Sex Respect" emphasizes abstinence, does not discuss issues such as masturbation or homosexuality, and rejects contraception as something that does not work. The program is designed to teach students self-respect and the advantages of discipline, and it extols the psychological and physical health benefits of sex within loving, committed marital relationships.

All the programs stress that sex should only be used in a "loving and monogamous" marriage. They all stress that the only way to protect against unwanted babies and unwanted diseases is to not have sex at all. This is a problem.

prəˈmiskyoōəs girl.

Emily's latest post got me thinking, as she describes a woman who wears sexy, revealing clothing as a "slut."

"Slut" is a negative term for a sexually promiscuous woman. In my virginal opinion, there's nothing wrong with having numerous partners as long as one takes the proper precautions against pregnancy and STDs, and accepts the consequences when she is responsible.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with wearing "sexy" clothes once the girl becomes a teenager. Why does the
"my body, my choice" reproductive rights mantra not apply to an Abercrombie denim miniskirt?

It's interesting how the word "slut" has morphed into such an ugly term. I think it's time for women, sluts or not, to reclaim these "bad" words and turn into positives.

SlutWear Brand Clothing Inc.

The American mall is any teenage guy's paradise. All he has to do is pick a spot to sit and he can see all the boobs, butts, and belly button rings he wants.

SlutWear is the latest fashion trend. Every American alive who has stepped into any well trafficked public place can recognize it. It is most well known for its wide necklines that swoop from the tip of the shoulder to the lowest point right between the breasts and low riding pants that show the top of their trademark thong. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the average girl's closet is over 60% purchased from SlutWear Brand Clothing Inc. Mine included. So what's the problem? So what if girls want to show off their budding features that they have so recently acquired? It's fashion! Fashion is about moving forward an leaving prudish and "old" ideas behind, right?

Well, the answer to that is yes and no. Fashion is about moving forward and leaving prudish ideas behind. If we didn't, American women would still be wearing prairie dresses and bonnets. Thanks to changes in fashion, women now have a wide array of choices and can make decisions for themselves about what they want to wear each day and for whatever purpose. ...Sort of. It's the part about "making decisions for themselves" that we start to get in trouble with this definition of fashion. Fashion is also about conforming to the widely accepted idea of what is "supposed" to be worn and why the average girl "needs" to dress that way. Common thinking that has been birthed from the loins of fashion is "I need to get that because if I don't wear THAT, what everyone else is wearing, then I'm not pretty or sexy." Do you see the skewed thinking in this? There's no real need to dress in such clothing or to apply to societies standards. One of the critical parts of feminism (in my mind anyway) is being who you are and thinking for yourself! The only need in regards to fashion is dressing the way that expresses your individuality and personal sexuality, not to express impersonal and overt sex like everyone else.

At this point in most commentaries about slutty clothing, you'd expect me to go on about how it's the media twisting the minds of women, how men are making us dress this way to satisfy their sex crazed minds, blah blah blah... But it is the WOMEN OF OUR OWN SOCIETY who are fueling this trend, WOMEN who are the CEOs of SlutWear Brand, WOMEN who are behind the counters selling SlutWear by the bags. So I ask: Women, why?

Good News! (And flavored water...)

The Aurora city council has officially decided to let Planned Parenthood open its doors! Huzzah!

In other news, I love it when my beverage of choice supports my feminist agendas.
(From the back of a bottle of the orange-flavored VitaminWater:)
"ah, orange juice commericals. funny stuff. mom cheerily prepares breakfast while the rest of her family sleeps. sure, this could happen. but every morning? please. maybe if mom were heavily medicated..."
Good stuff.

The Horror in Auror-er.

According to '08 Presidental candidate and senator (D-IL) Barack Obama, "[Aurora, Illinois] has seen an increase in the uninsured population, as well as an increase in sexually transmitted disease rates."
It's only logical that Planned Parenthood would want to open an Aurora Health Center, where residents can learn accurate information on sex and reproductive rights, receive birth control and breast exams, and if need be, abortions.
Religiose anti-choicers are at it again, and they are trying incessantly to prevent the clinic from opening it's doors. Extremists have photographed the cars of employees and pro-choice protesters, and are tracing the plate numbers back to their homes, intent on picketing.
We cannot let a few radicals speak for the residents of Aurora. Contact the Aurora city government, and please give them a piece of yo' mind.


Mayor Tom Weisner's office: (630) 844- 3612
Aurora City Council: (630) 844- 3619
Aurora City Hall: (630)264- 4636

Welcome to WomensWrites!

Welcome to the Blog! Marissa and I will be posting in random intervals to give you, the reader, our views and opinions on modern feminist issues that we think are important to talk about. Don't be surprised if we just rant a lot. Our objective is to inform the public (or how ever many people are too bored to read anything else) about these issues and why it is crucial to know of them. I will probably be doing some posts about GLBT issues occasionally because feminism and gay rights are often put together, even though they are very different subjects. Course, the main reason why I personally will be talking about GLBT issues is just because it is a main rant point for me. If you have any particular topics that you would like us to cover, just leave a comment and we'll get to it eventually. (Hopefully.)

This blog is not meant to offend, depreciate, or devalue certain viewpoints... we just think ours are better.

-Emily