The Beach Is Back

Femmes courant sur le plage...

Gentle readers, posting will be light for the next few days as the five of us again adjourn en masse—with dudes and dawgs in tow—to the Harpy Beach House.

Things we will be doing instead of posting:

* Grilling

* Reading

* Porch-sitting

* ‘Smores-making

* Beer-drinking

* Eating PhDork’s homemade pickles

* Swimming, boogie-boarding and lying on the beach.

We will return to our regularly scheduled boner-killing early next week.

Here Comes the Trash

I’m back from the big, busy, family-filled weekend that was Sister Dude’s Wedding. The Dude and I are both pretty tired, as is everyone else on the planning-and-hustling side of things, I’m sure.  But Sister and her Mister had a really good time, and given all that could go wrong (especially considering that the Dude’s grandparents are ailing, and not always cognizant or cooperative when you’d like them to be), it was pretty  close to “the perfect day” they wanted.

And I’m happy about that.  I’ve made no secret about my deep distaste for the grotesque, misogynist Wedding Industrial Complex, and while I did do quite a bit of hard swallowing as Sister and Mister gleefully engaged in a number of (but hardly all)  “traditions” aimed at erasing her identity as the smart, independent, grown-ass woman that she is, I kept my expressions of incredulity to myself.  As we say so often around these parts:  if it ain’t about you, it ain’t about you.  Besides, it was lovely to see all the family and many friends all together.  And the Dude looks pretty hot in a tux.

Newsflash: Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding Does Not Matter

Dear Media: please shut the fuck up about Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.

As US readers all know—unless you’ve been living under a rock—the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton is getting married this weekend, and even non-tabloid news outlets have been in a hot and sweaty lather about the prospect. How much do the flowers cost? Who made her gown? Is the Clintons’ security detail ruining some other bride’s Big Day? The media pile-on is especially ironic because Chelsea, the only child of two of the most recognizable and relentless over-achievers in American history, deliberately chose not to follow in her parents footsteps. She got an excellent education, built a solid career and seems to have created a happy, low-key life that’s not especially different from the lives of many other privileged young career women. So why the hell is America hyperventilating like her wedding is our new national reality show?

The Washington Post‘s Robin Givhan wrote:

Yes, her parents have talked about how excited they are about her impending nuptials. They have spoken about how emotional the day will be. Surely we are not so crass as to take parental pride as an invitation to snoop? Oh wait — we are.

This despite the fact that Chelsea Clinton has repeatedly refused to court the limelight herself, unlike, say, Jenna Bush, who managed to parlay a brief stint of do-gooding in Central America into a book deal and national publicity campaign. Or Bristol Palin, who turned the lemon of unplanned teen pregnancy into lucrative spokeswoman lemonade—thanks to pro-abstinence speaking gigs and a cable-drama guest spot—and then used the cover of US Weekly to tell her presidential wannabe mama that she was finally marrying her baby daddy. By contrast, Chelsea Clinton’s sole foray into the spotlight was to campaign with her mother in 2008, and even then, she was not exactly garrulous in public, preferring to introduce her mom, shake some hands and then fade into the background. I’m sure she could have used her family’s huge social capital to run for office or be a socialite/philanthropist—as Caroline Kennedy has done—but she didn’t. Chelsea Clinton went to school, got a job, kept her head down and worked her butt off. For that, I sincerely respect her.

Unfortunately, the media, perennially in the thrall of the Wedding Industrial Complex, simply cannot leave this discreet, hard-working woman alone.

Superheroes Fight A Real Evil

Disgusting hatemonger Fred Phelps and his sick fuckwits from Westboro Baptist Church set their sights on Comic-Con in San Diego this weekend, presumably because its fanboys and fangirls include liberals, gays and gay sympathizers. Armed with their usual “GOD HATES FAGS”, “THANK GOD FOR 9/11″ and “FAGS ARE BEASTS” signs, the picketers were met with an army of Comic-Con superheroes carrying signs of their own. As a result, the Westboro Baptist protesters packed up and left town early. And good riddance.

ComicAlliance described the scene:   Unbeknownst to the dastardly fanatics of the Westboro Baptist Church, the good folks of San Diego’s Comic-Con were prepared for their arrival with their own special brand of superhuman counter protesting chanting “WHAT DO WE WANT” “GAY SEX” “WHEN DO WE WANT IT” “NOW!” while brandishing ironic (and some sincere) signs. Simply stated: The eclectic assembly of nerdom’s finest stood and delivered.

More awesome photos here.

You may also enjoy this photo gallery from Buzzfeed featuring the best anti-Westboro picket signs. I know I did.

Girls Gone on a murderous rampage

A young woman went to a bar. A criminal offense was committed against her. Some people taped it and, without her consent, make lots of money on it to this day. The woman sued the people who made the video but because it was Girls Gone Wild, the jury ruled against her.

Jane Doe was 20 when she was filmed by a Girls Gone Wild video photographer in a bar in St. Louis, Missouri. Someone pulled the woman’s top down without her consent whilst the photographer was taping. The assault appears on “Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy.” Doe sued the company in 2008 after a friend of her husband’s reported seeing her in the video.

Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying “no” when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe’s top down. Evans said the company usually gets women to sign consent forms or give verbal consent with cameras rolling.

Patrick O’Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had de facto consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer.

“Through her actions, she gave implied consent,” O’Brien said. “She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing.”

Patrick O’Brien’s job title must be Rape Culture Spokesman. Jane Doe’s presence canceled out her “no.” Women still do not have exclusive rights to their own bodies.

Friday Fun Thread: Cheaping Out and Splashing Out

Last week’s discussion was about cultural phenomena that everyone loves but you (and some of our other readers–Seinfeld-haters, unite!), and in the comments, reader Endora mentioned her loathing of the ubiquitous cheap ballpoint pen. I agree. Crappy pens make me annnnnngrrrrrry. I love a nice gel-ink roller ball. I’m not going to drop mega-buxx on a fancy pen from Levenger, but I’m not going to buy ten-for-a-dollar Bics, either. A dork must have her standards. A number of mine can be found in my liquor cabinet. I’ve found there are significant differences in quality between “shelf” booze (esp. whiskey, tequila, and rum), and the stuff that’s a bit more expensive.

However, I am a thrifty, thrifty dinosaur, and I know that cost does not always equal quality. I have strong–mostly negative–opinions about “luxury” goods. For example, I refuse to believe that any pair of jeans needs to cost more than, say, 75 bucks, and I have repeatedly found that super-high thread count, Egyptian-cotton sheets are less comfortable, and far less durable than the low-end Martha Stewart Everyday set I bought in 1997 for $30. And dude, I LOVE bedclothes and sleeping and comfort. But I have been seriously disappointed with “fancy” sheets. And my disdain for Moleskines (why?) already came up.

So, for this week’s FFT, sound off on where you save your money (generic crisp rice cereal? off-brand sunblock?) and where you splurge (Face cream made from ground-up French unicorns? Good booze, like me?).

DUM dum da-dum…

DUM dum da-dum

I hope these frogs sprang (snerk) for an open bar.

DUM da da-DEE

La-da-dee da-DUM da-DUMMMMMMM.

I’m out, friends.  Sister Dude is gettin’ hitched this weekend, so it’s off to Illinois until Monday.

I shall endeavor to get the FFT posted, but I will sadly not be around much to participate in the funning.  Have a good ‘un.  I’ll be waving at everyone between JFK and ORD from above.

Hope on the HIV Front?

There are too many stories out there to cover them all, but some are just too important to ignore, even if we get to them a little later than we’d like.

Findings on a new anti-HIV gel were released on Monday, and more thoroughly presented yesterday.  Wife-and-husband team Quarraisha and Salim Abdool Karim lead the research, and their studies indicate that, when administered in a vaginal gel, the drug tenofovir decreases a woman’s risk of contracting the virus by 39% (keeping in mind that consistency of use in the test group was unknown).  While not a magic bullet, the idea of a woman-controlled and -administered anti-viral drug that can significantly decrease the risk of a disease that disproportionately affects women promises to be revolutionary.  Extra super special bonus?  The gel was even more effective against the herpes virus!

More testing in needed, and the concentration of tenofovir may need to be increased, but this news is nothing but good for those working to defeat HIV/AIDS.  …Or is it?  I’ve already seen some skepticism about these results.  Can some of our harpy scientists weigh in on methodology of these studies?

Shame on Them

Ever since Barack Obama took office became a serious contender for the United States presidency, the right-wing media has been on a crusade to spur racial animosity among whites. The saddest part is, they know the Democrats will fall to their knees any time they accuse them of doing anything wrong. In an effort to prove that the NAACP is more racist than the Tea Party, conservative media hack Andrew Breitbart recently targeted black USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, accusing her of discriminating against white farmers.

One of his websites, Big Government, posted a portion of her remarks in a March 2010 speech to a Georgia chapter of the NAACP, in which she told of how she got past her prejudices when she worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund 24 years ago. The selectively edited video shows Sherrod talking about her decision not to help a white farmer because she was “struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land.” That, according to Breitbart, is evidence that Sherrod keeps white farmers down and the NAACP and Obama administration are “racist” against whites. In fact, Sherrod ended up helping that farmer and he and his wife credit her with saving their farm. They consider her a friend to this day.

Sherrod told the story of overcoming prejudice and Breitbart cast her as a bigot. Keep in mind, this is the same outfit that destroyed ACORN last year with its deceptive videos. I think Breitbart and his ilk aim to do the same thing to the NAACP. Naturally, the non-story played on a continuous loop on Fox News. But no matter. Without waiting for context, or viewing the entire, unedited video, the administration took Breitbart’s word and pushed Shirley Sherrod out of her USDA job. The NAACP even condemned her before finally viewing and releasing the video in its entirety.

Now Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are scrambling to save face and are reconsidering the decision to oust Sherrod. The woman deserves her job and an apology. But, Sherrod says she’s wary. “I’m just not sure how I would be treated,” she explained. And who can blame her? The NAACP, the USDA, and the White House threw her under the bus to comfort and reassure insecure white people. What a bunch of cowards.

Latinas and Suicide

Over on Barbara, Guanabee’s ladyblog, there was a brief but thought-provoking interview with Professor Luis Zayas, director of the Center for Latino Family Research at Washington University in St. Louis. Zayas has been studying the unusually high rate of suicide attempts among teenage Latinas, estimated at about 15%, which is double that of their white and African-American counterparts. Results of his study seem to be typical of all Hispanic groups in the United States — Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, etc. — but doesn’t hold true for these groups within their home countries, meaning suicide rates for all these groups are higher in the U.S. Professor Zayas attributes this to multiple intersectionalities: immigration, poverty, low access to health care, language barriers, and a lack of extended family as well as the rigid gender roles typical of Latino culture.

Barbara: How does the typically low cultural status of young Latinas play into these suicide attempts?

Zayas: It’s a [low] status that they have and the expectations that are put on them for the sense of obligation to the family, but also the sense of what the boys can do that the girls can’t do. The kind of emphasis that is given on them for chastity and things like that and decorum that are not expected of the boys. There’s a lot there that they must take care of — the younger siblings and so on.

Read the entire interview here.

More Things You’re Doing Wrong

Dudes are also way more likely to hang onto the podium or lectern like a lifevest.

I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that I regularly teach public speaking to college students.  I’ve been significantly revising my syllabus in anticipation of this fall’s classes, so this article from Forbes, in addition to pinging my feminist radar, also has relevance for what I jokingly refer to as “my career.”*   I like to use current events and articles to prompt discussion, rather than a text book that I know my students won’t read, but I don’t think this one is going to make the cut.

The piece, “Ten Body Language Mistakes Women Leaders Make,” in addition to being poorly titled (they’re not all body language mistakes) is basically a series of bullet points with the words “act like a well-socialized Western woman” behind them.  Are you a female in the business world?  Whoops.  You’re gonna have to fix that.

I do agree with a couple of the author’s points:  particularly up-talking?   That thing?  That particularly young women do?  Where they break up their sentences?  And inflect each of the phrases as if it were a question?  BLOODY CHEEZITS IN A BEAR TRAP, CUT THAT SHIT OUT RIGHT NOW.  And nobody likes a limp handshake.  (Or a knuckle-crusher.) And I know from recent experience that dead fish hands are hardly a feminine specialty.

Other offenses, according to Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D.:  Acting “girlish” (twirling hair, biting fingers), “excessive” smiling and nodding–but no real word on what qualifies as excessive–flirting (do “women leaders” do this?),  being “overly expressive.” (I suppose “bloody cheezits in a bear trap, cut that shit out right now” would be a problem.)  I have to ride my students, who are largely mortified to speak in public, to get beyond a mumbled monotone.  That seems like a non-problem to me, but the inclusion of this description

While a certain amount of movement and animation adds passion and meaning to a message, women who express the entire spectrum of emotions often overwhelm their audience (especially if the audience is comprised primarily of males).

makes clear that the real problem isn’t tilting your head in acquiescence, but simply Working While Female. 

Commenters Suck (Except Y’all, Of Course)

We love our commentariat, and, of course, the Harpies all met—first on-line and then IRL—because we were commenters on Jezebel. But the truth is, as Michelle pointed out in her post earlier this month on the Awl: “Internet commenters (and I’ve been one! Still am!) are assholes; on this I think we can all agree.”

More and more sites—especially news sites—are figuring this out, which prompted a story today on CNN whose headline read: “News sites reining in nasty user comments:”

User comments on news sites, while vital to interactive storytelling in the digital age, often read like scribblings on a bathroom stall: anonymous, offensive and full of hate.

Rants…prompted a Buffalo, New York, newspaper to discontinue anonymous user comments on its website as of August 2. Commenters will be required to register with their name, city of residence and phone number — more information than most news sites require — and staffers will attempt to verify their identities.

PhDork once described the comments section of both the (liberal) New York Daily News and the (not-liberal) New York Post as being the intellectual equivalent of “monkeys flinging their poo at the wall.” Even in a large city like New York, the vitriol—racist, misogynist, neighbor-on-neighbor hateration—in the comments on local news stories can be astonishing. In smaller cities, it’s even more likely that you know the person flaming you anonymously, or snarking on you, your family, your church, your home, etc. Things can spin out of control pretty quickly. So if a news site—or any site—is interested in maintaining some reasonable level of civil discourse, what are they to do?