Why is this a problem for the media, or society in general? As long as these parents are raising a healthy and happy child, why should ANYONE care what the sex of the baby is? Would that make us love it more/less? Why do we need to form an opinion of someone before that someone is even old enough to form an opinion of itself? Furthermore, why do we need to categorize people in order to understand them? Stereotypes are the first rung in the ladder to prejudice, and prejudice is at the heart of the struggle for women's equality. Perhaps this mother is trying to do her child a service by letting them choose, the way civilized humans are SUPPOSED to behave?
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Baby+Storm+mother+speaks+gender+parenting+media/4857577/story.html
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Show your support for rape survivors by protesting the NYPD verdict
| Having trouble viewing this email? Click here |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Paul Ryan Budget Proposal Voted Down By Senate
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats wasted no time capitalizing on Tuesday's Medicare-fueled upset in a New York special election, holding a vote on the GOP budget plan Wednesday designed to put Republicans on record backing the controversial House budget plan.
The measure failed, 57 to 40, with five Republicans breaking ranks: Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky....
Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/paul-ryan-budget-medicare-senate-vote_n_867126.html
Tell Psychology Today: Apologize for "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive?” article
A week ago, the magazine Psychology Today published an article titled "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” on its website. Within hours, following widespread outrage and criticism, the post disappeared.
Colleagues and peers of Satoshi Kanazawa, the article's author, have since analyzed his same data and unanimously (and unsurprisingly) found his conclusions in error.
Yet Psychology Today has remained silent. They have refused to apologize or even explain why they published the article.
Articles like Kanazawa's are more than offensive or spurious—they're deeply harmful because they promote racist and sexist stereotypes as science.
That’s why documentary filmmaker Aishah Simmons and academic Alisa Bierria are leading a petition on Change.org to call on Psychology Today to apologize and take transparent steps to prevent the publication of racist and sexist material in the future. Click here to sign Aishah and Alisa's petition.
Kanazawa's article never would have survived a thorough and responsible editorial process. In fact, the author himself doesn't stand up to review.
Kanazawa has a history of pushing discredited research and is particularly notorious for making meritless claims about race and gender. (He is also known as the mind behind the much-mocked book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.)
In an attempt to defend previous publications, Kanazawa wrote, “If what I say is wrong (because it is illogical or lacks credible scientific evidence), then it is my problem. If what I say offends you, it is your problem.”
Well, as Khadijah Britton of Scientific American put it, “Satoshi Kanazawa has a problem.” So does Psychology Today.
Prominent women’s rights advocates, including Gloria Steinem and Beverly Guy Sheftall, former President of the National Women's Studies Association, have already declared their support for the campaign.
Please click here to add your name to theirs:
http://www.change.org/petitions/psychology-today-stop-publishing-racist-sexist-articles
Thanks for taking action,
Shelby and the Change.org team
Colleagues and peers of Satoshi Kanazawa, the article's author, have since analyzed his same data and unanimously (and unsurprisingly) found his conclusions in error.
Yet Psychology Today has remained silent. They have refused to apologize or even explain why they published the article.
Articles like Kanazawa's are more than offensive or spurious—they're deeply harmful because they promote racist and sexist stereotypes as science.
That’s why documentary filmmaker Aishah Simmons and academic Alisa Bierria are leading a petition on Change.org to call on Psychology Today to apologize and take transparent steps to prevent the publication of racist and sexist material in the future. Click here to sign Aishah and Alisa's petition.
Kanazawa's article never would have survived a thorough and responsible editorial process. In fact, the author himself doesn't stand up to review.
Kanazawa has a history of pushing discredited research and is particularly notorious for making meritless claims about race and gender. (He is also known as the mind behind the much-mocked book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.)
In an attempt to defend previous publications, Kanazawa wrote, “If what I say is wrong (because it is illogical or lacks credible scientific evidence), then it is my problem. If what I say offends you, it is your problem.”
Well, as Khadijah Britton of Scientific American put it, “Satoshi Kanazawa has a problem.” So does Psychology Today.
Prominent women’s rights advocates, including Gloria Steinem and Beverly Guy Sheftall, former President of the National Women's Studies Association, have already declared their support for the campaign.
Please click here to add your name to theirs:
http://www.change.org/petitions/psychology-today-stop-publishing-racist-sexist-articles
Thanks for taking action,
Shelby and the Change.org team
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Batterd or deported?
When an L.A. woman named Isaura Garcia finally worked up the nerve to call 911 -- after two years of brutal beatings by her husband -- her fingerprints were sent to a federal database for immigration checks. Even though Isaura called the police to protect herself from abuse, she was quickly targeted for deportation under a controversial program known as “Secure Communities,” or S-Comm.
Isaura is just one of the tens of thousands of immigrant men and women in the United States who rely on police for protection. They are put at serious risk by S-Comm, a federal deportation program that requires collaboration between local police and federal immigration agents.
Just two weeks ago, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn announced that his state would quit the S-Comm program after a months-long investigation, which revealed deep concerns over the way that victims were being targeted and families split apart. Now, New York state legislators and advocates are pressuring Gov. Cuomo to immediately do the same.
A coalition of grassroots organizations have already gathered 1,400 signatures on the petition they started at Change.org, asking Governor Cuomo to withdraw from the so-called “Secure Communities” program. Will you add your name now?
Luckily for Isaura, a host of great organizations went public with her case, and she no longer faces deportation. Still, Isaura worries – and rightly so -- that many other women stuck in violent situations like hers will be forced to simply bear the abuse, rather than run the risk of being banished from their families in the U.S. Not only is this unjust, but it makes entire communities less safe when residents are afraid to turn in criminals and work with the police to solve violent crimes.
Concerned New Yorkers will be rallying in front of the governor’s office this Wednesday, May 18th, at noon. Will you join them by raising your voice now?
Stand with domestic violence survivor Isaura Garcia and the New York Working Group Against Deportation -- sign the petition on Change.org asking Governor Cuomo to stop S-Comm in New York State:
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-s-comm-the-so-called-secure-communities-program-in-new-york
Thanks for taking action,
- Jackie and the Change.org Team
Monday, May 16, 2011
Uh, exactly why is this a dilemma?
Exactly why is this a dilemma? And why on earth would it have "nothing to do with women's rights?" A woman's choice to change her surname is deeply ingrained into our culture, and carries a stigma regardless of whether or not you do our do not do so. A better question would be--why are so many women changing their names legally and using a "stage name" professionally? Why would women put themselves through so much confusion on a daily basis, when simply keeping one's name and hyphenating the kid's names will solve the problem? The answer is simple--because many modern women do not want to be associated with the heavily-vilified term "feminist". Their image of themselves and their lives does not fit with the stereotypes of feminism they have learned. Concern for the "last names of the children" are usually an easy answer--I've yet to see a man struggle over whether or not to change his name for the "sake of the children" or whether or not to hyphenate it because of his career.
The Name Change Dilemma
by Sue Shellenbarger
Friday, May 13, 2011provided by
More women are taking their new husbands' names after marriage, research shows. But the decision continues to spark debate and confusion.
The trend toward women keeping their maiden names after marriage peaked in the 1990s, when about 23% of women did so, then eased gradually to about 18% in the 2000s, says a 35-year-study published in 2009 in the journal Social Behavior and Personality. And increasingly, studies show women's decisions on the issue are guided by factors other than political or religious ideas about women's rights or marital roles, as often believed....
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112736/name-change-dilemma-women-marriage-wsj?mod=family-love_money
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Et tu, HBO? HBO's Treme joins assault against women and throws us under a bus
It's the same old song and dance--media outlets trying to appease the religious right by removing images of a woman choosing to end her pregnancy on TV, opting instead for the more "dramatic" idea of keeping the baby. This time, however, they have gone TOO FAR by implying that Plan B distributed to rape victims is the equivalent of an abortifacent.
I'm speaking about episode 203, "On your way down". One of the main characters, LaDonna Batiste-Williams, confronts two assailants, and the scene then quickly cuts away. We later see her being carried in, submitting to a rape kit, and being given all the necessary drugs to prevent STIs and HIV. When the nurse begins to distribute Plan B, however, she begins a speech about how it is LaDonna "choice as to whether or not she wants to take it." The nurse then gets interrupted before LaDonna can make her decision. This is where I take serious issue.
Let me say this as loud as I can: PLAN B IS NOT AN ABORTIFACENT! It is emergency contraception, and contraception PREVENTS fertilization, therefore preventing a pregnancy. I find it abhorrent that HBO would imply otherwise, or be a proponent of this FALSE information to the public. Furthermore, why would you present a woman with the choice keep an attackers' baby--particularly when the contracepttion would prevent the pregnancy, not abort it? It underscores the neo-conservative and Christian Right views of women as nothing more than mere vessels for the reception of sperm--with no control over her own well-being. While there might very well be many hospitals giving out this misinformation, why would HBO promote it, and worse, why would this strong female character just accept this misinformation?
Please help me send HBO a message. (information posted below). I'm hoping we can get NOW NYC, NOW NYS, and NOW National to chime in, as well as get a petition going for a formal apology. Can anyone help me do this?
Send HBO email
http://www.hbo.com/#/about/contact-us.html
http://www.hbo.com/#/global/talk.html
Make some noise on the HBO blog for Treme
http://www.hbo.com/#/treme/talk/forums/item.html/eNrjcmbOYC5kzlfPz0lxzEvMqSzJTA5ITE-1S8xN1SzLTEnNh4k65+eVpFaUsCWWZqbYmpikGZglWaSqGrmYm5ukASlDw1QDIJWUkmwMpAwMjIwMLc1SLIxSUzkZGdmAEAAgth6H
HEADQUARTERS
PRESS CONTACTS Keith Cocozza
Vice President
Corporate Communications
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019-8016
I'm speaking about episode 203, "On your way down". One of the main characters, LaDonna Batiste-Williams, confronts two assailants, and the scene then quickly cuts away. We later see her being carried in, submitting to a rape kit, and being given all the necessary drugs to prevent STIs and HIV. When the nurse begins to distribute Plan B, however, she begins a speech about how it is LaDonna "choice as to whether or not she wants to take it." The nurse then gets interrupted before LaDonna can make her decision. This is where I take serious issue.
Let me say this as loud as I can: PLAN B IS NOT AN ABORTIFACENT! It is emergency contraception, and contraception PREVENTS fertilization, therefore preventing a pregnancy. I find it abhorrent that HBO would imply otherwise, or be a proponent of this FALSE information to the public. Furthermore, why would you present a woman with the choice keep an attackers' baby--particularly when the contracepttion would prevent the pregnancy, not abort it? It underscores the neo-conservative and Christian Right views of women as nothing more than mere vessels for the reception of sperm--with no control over her own well-being. While there might very well be many hospitals giving out this misinformation, why would HBO promote it, and worse, why would this strong female character just accept this misinformation?
Please help me send HBO a message. (information posted below). I'm hoping we can get NOW NYC, NOW NYS, and NOW National to chime in, as well as get a petition going for a formal apology. Can anyone help me do this?
Send HBO email
http://www.hbo.com/#/about/contact-us.html
http://www.hbo.com/#/global/talk.html
Make some noise on the HBO blog for Treme
http://www.hbo.com/#/treme/talk/forums/item.html/eNrjcmbOYC5kzlfPz0lxzEvMqSzJTA5ITE-1S8xN1SzLTEnNh4k65+eVpFaUsCWWZqbYmpikGZglWaSqGrmYm5ukASlDw1QDIJWUkmwMpAwMjIwMLc1SLIxSUzkZGdmAEAAgth6H
HEADQUARTERS
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019-8016
212.484.8000
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019-8016
212.484.8000
PRESS CONTACTS Keith Cocozza
Vice President
Corporate Communications
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019-8016
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
ExxonMobil's foot in the door
ExxonMobil wants to start drilling fracking wells all over New York, including near the Delaware River Basin, which provides clean drinking water for over 15 million people.
The current New York moratorium on fracking keeps them from doing this, but XTO Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, is trying to get ahead of the moratorium on fracking, by preparing to start drilling the second it's lifted.
They recently bought up tracts of land near the Delaware River, and have asked the Delaware River Basin Commission (or DRBC) for permission to remove over 250,000 gallons of water a day from a tributary of the Delaware River and pump it to a nearby fracking drill site.
The current New York moratorium on fracking keeps them from doing this, but XTO Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, is trying to get ahead of the moratorium on fracking, by preparing to start drilling the second it's lifted.
They recently bought up tracts of land near the Delaware River, and have asked the Delaware River Basin Commission (or DRBC) for permission to remove over 250,000 gallons of water a day from a tributary of the Delaware River and pump it to a nearby fracking drill site.
The DRBC is the only regulatory body that can stop XTO Energy and they will be holding a vote on XTO's water request tomorrow, May 11th.
Governor Cuomo sits on the commission and will be one of those votes. Call Gov. Cuomo right now at (518) 474-8390 and tell him to vote no!
Click here for a sample script and to let us know the results of your call.
Fracking, the natural gas drilling method that is poisoning America's drinking supply, requires millions of gallons of water in order to pump toxic chemicals and radioactive materials into the ground to break up the rock that holds the natural gas.
XTO's request to remove a quarter of a million gallons of water a day from a tributary of the Delaware River is all part of the oil industry's larger plan to get around the moratorium and be prepared to invade the region with fracking drills if the moratorium ends. Don't let them have that chance.
Tell Gov. Cuomo to stop XTO's plan with a no vote this Wednesday - call him right now.
Thank you for being a part of this campaign.
Let's win.
-Gregg
Gregg Ross, Political Campaign Manager
Democracy for America
Monday, May 9, 2011
Hasidic Jewish Newspaper Photoshops Hillary Clinton from Situation Room Photo
By: Christy Choi (2 hours ago)
There's a lot of odd Photoshopping going on with the now-iconic photo of U.S. officials being updated on the bin Laden raid. But this one by Di Tzeitung, the ultra Orthodox Hasidic Jewish newspaper, might just take the prize.
Yep, those are big dark smudges where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Counterterrorism Director Audrey Tomason should be. The officials were wiped from the picture in line with the newspaper's editorial policy of never publishing pictures of women, because they could be considered sexually suggestive.
(More on TIME.com: See home videos of Osama bin Laden)
The paper could potentially get in trouble, because the official photo was made available for reprinting under the condition that "the photograph may not be manipulated in any way." Here's the original, for those who have been living under a rock for the past week.
Read Other Related Stories About This:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)