The Washington Post used the occasion of Sigurðardóttir’s “milestone” marriage to run an interesting—although not deeply researched or particularly surprising—story about public acceptance of gay politicians around the world.  (For example: Scandinavia—cool with it. East Africa—not cool with it.)

But as [author Richard] Whitmire likes to point out, this is a future problem: Men not achieving in school means men not going to college means men with no job prospects means men rejected as suitable marriage prospects by smarty-pants girls.

Smarty-pants girls? How about intelligent, accomplished women? Why does Rosin resort to a tired old put-down that brands smart women uppity and unlikeable?* (To say nothing of her using the term “girls” to refer to adult women.) And why the hell are we still stuck on the retro, much-disproven stereotype that smart women don’t get married?

Never mind that gender inequality in education is a problem simply because, hey, it’s inequality. Or that it’s a problem because the educational system seems to heavily favor one set of cognitive skills over another, which is troubling even if you remove gender from the equation entirely. No, apparently the “future problem” here is that some day some women might not get married!

Nothing, gentle readers, is more alarming than that.

Of course, Whitmire believes the “future problem” is that women would be husbandless. It’s not that men would be wifeless—even though logically that’s what would happen, since Whitmire’s prediction means those less-educated men wouldn’t have enough less-educated women to marry once they were rejected by those of us with degrees.

More importantly, though, is this “future problem” a real problem? Only in a heteronormative, elitist world ruled by traditional gender roles. After all, not all women want to marry. Not all women want to marry men. Not all women need or expect to be supported by their husbands. Not all women believe a college degree is a measure of their partner’s worthiness. Not all men without a college degree are reduced to “no job prospects.”

Besides, the days of women choosing or rejecting partners based strictly on education or income are over. Those criteria made much more sense when marriage was the only way for women to gain financial security. Now that more women than men are in the workforce and universities—with a third of married women outearning their husbands—women are less likely to choose a partner based on his earning power. Future generations will only continue the trend.

Let me also point out the other hoary double standard at work here: in centuries past—hell, decades past—no one was hand-wringing over the fact that men married women with less education than them. No one felt that less education made women less desirable mates, since men out-achieving women was seen as the natural order of things.

But Whitmire seems to believe that’s still the natural order of things—that if women out-achieve men, there will be fewer marriages. His prediction of a “future problem” hinges on the idea that women will reject less-well-educated or lower-earning men because women still want men who will “wear the pants” in marriage. This also presumes that men are just as shallow and will reject woman who outearn or out-achieve them because they insist on being the one to “wear the pants.” Never mind that the data are already disproving this idea. As more women outearn their husbands, men have been much more accepting of it than our culture assumes. I think men are only more likely to accept—or even seek out—high-achieving wives a generation from now, when such relationships have become normalized.

The problem of boys’ educational equality deserves attention and action for many valid reasons. Paternalistic handwringing over whether it will leave a generation of women husbandless is not one of them.

* It may or may not shock you to know that this put-down was frequently lobbed at me as a kid.

Churchwell’s elegant rant begins:

A survey this week – misleadingly called a “study” by some reports – found that of 2,000 [British] women in their mid-20s, a majority of those polled felt that 26 was the ideal age for marriage, and hoped to have children a year later. The implication was clear to editors across the country: Bridget Jones is back! One paper explained that young women don’t want to end up “like author Helen Fielding’s fictional singleton”. But this isn’t the return of Bridget Jones so much as the dogged survival of an insistent stereotype: women need to get married young and have babies. And judging by this survey, young women are listening.

The editor of More magazine, which commissioned the poll, commented, “Young women today no longer want to be party girls throughout their 20s only to reach their early 30s and find they’ve loved and lost Mr Right. They don’t want to fall into the Bridget Jones syndrome and view their future through an empty wine glass.”

“Times are changing fast,” the report concluded. Changing times may sound like progress; sadly, this report represents anything but. Careers, evidently, have no place in women’s plans: girls just want to have fun, and then marry Mr Right, so they’d better not wait too long or he’ll slip through their fingers.

More, incidentally, bills itself as “A comprehensive resource and community for women over 40.” Part of their over-40 community spirit appears to be snarking on young women’s career and marriage choices. It’s the same chauvinist faux-concern women have been fed for years: we want you to be happy, but if you prioritize your own fulfillment you’ll wind up miserable and aloooooone. Congrats, More magazine—you win the gold-medal for Undermining.

Bridget Jones’s Diary—the novel based on Helen Fielding’s newspaper columns—was published in 1996, the year I gradated from college, moved to New York and began climbing the career ladder. Bridget was a decade older than me, but I identified with her in an aspirational way. Bridget was like the big sister whose strappy heels you might borrow for a night out; I tried on her dating-work-friendship stories as I started to create my own.

I was one of many. Churchwell points out:

Women who identified with Bridget Jones in the 90s didn’t view her story as a cautionary tale; she represented not what they feared, but how they felt. Which, by the way, wasn’t miserable, or desperate, although occasionally lonely.

Here’s a newsflash: men are occasionally lonely, too. Where are the surveys asking them what they think the ideal age is to marry and have babies? Personally, I’m waiting for the “study” that shows Ms Right is so busy pursuing her career that Mr Right needs stop playing his Wii and go find her.

Right on. I’ve harped on this plenty, but it bears repeating. Society treats women as though it’s our highest calling to make a man want to marry us—even if that requires giving up on education, career and financial security. It’s never his responsibility to drop everything to find the right woman, or to accept her for who she is. Nor does anyone expect him to be tormented by the possibility of winding up alooooone. The stereotype of the desperate singleton with the empty wine glass and cats and a pint of ice cream is reserved only for the despised single female.

Churchwell notes:

The problem, again, is stereotyping. Asking “What do women want?” presumes that all women want the same thing – and the answer assumed by those who are not women continues to revolve around marriage, the home and children.

Sadly, due to the inevitable creep of stereotyping, the answer isn’t just “assumed by those who are not women.” It’s assumed by women too. Stereotyping single women is a misogynist pile-on that women also participate in, including Bridget’s creator, Helen Fielding.

Unfortunately, the evolution of Bridget Jones’s story has been all too representative of the way “times are changing”. In the first novel and film, Bridget was insecure, yes, but surrounded by loving friends, enjoying her work, and learning self-respect; her gentle embarrassments were endearing.

By the second [Bridget Jones] film, in keeping with the dismal, downward spiral of recent “chick flicks”…Bridget’s character was forced into increasingly degrading situations, in which her behaviour is borderline deranged. She has far less investment in her career, and is so desperate to preserve her relationship that she constantly humiliates herself. By 2005, creator Helen Fielding was writing columns in which 40-something Bridget was now desperate for a baby; persistent rumours of a third Bridget Jones film presume that her biological clock will drive the plot – and doubtless she’ll be interpreted as an object lesson once more.

This dismal downward spiral–and the fact that I find Renee Zellweger incredibly irritating–is why I gave up on Bridget long ago. Helen Fielding’s vision of Bridget’s life went from a knowing, funny narration of an urban professional’s highs and lows to nothing but the lows, as her heroine became increasingly pathetic, neurotic and baby-hungry. Fielding went from inviting her women readers to identify with Bridget to inviting them to mock Bridget and to fear turning out like her. It’s as though Fielding—and Hollywood—simply couldn’t imagine a different future for Bridget: if she was single and working by her mid-thirties, she was doomed to be a joke, a fool, a lonely, regret-filled cautionary tale. It’s no wonder that the later adventures of Bridget Jones failed to sell the way the original did.

Of course, if you choose not to be like Bridget, you’re no more assured of happiness or societal approval. Fictional women with successful careers who deliberately choose not marry may not be presented as pathetic and pitiable, but they are inevitably scorned in other ways:

Meanwhile recent films such as The Devil Wears Prada, The Ugly Truth and The Proposal vilify career women as frigid and uptight, and anywhere from controlling to malevolent.

This is why Harpy trips to the movies often result in muttered obscenities during the previews for rom-coms. It’s nearly impossible to find a comedy with female characters that’s not based on one of two premises: desperate single gal must cutely entrap a willing male or cold-hearted career bitch must reform herself in order to find love. PhDork has gotten to the point where she can express her utter disdain for such movies simply by frowning and flaring her nostrils. Pilgrim Soul and I still resort to outright cussing. I also bounce up and down in my seat a little. You may not want to sit next to us at your local multiplex.

But:

Does it matter? The standard defence is that these stories are merely stories, not a treatise on contemporary womanhood. But in aggregate, that’s just what they are. It’s no coincidence that a film such as last year’s He’s Just Not That Into You began life as a self-help book: these stories are advice manuals, and women – and men – are listening. Just ask the young women who’ve decided to get married 10 years younger than they might have done a decade ago.

Well…I’m not as convinced as Churchwell that stereotypes can abolish the advances women have made. The constant toxic drip-drip of stereotypes and double standards often gnaws away at the pleasure we should be taking in our achievements.That can leave women feeling angry, confused and resentful–and rightly so. But in practical terms, are the survey’s young women who want to be married by 26 actually doing that en masse?

The data for the United States, at least, says that the “play dumb and marry young lest you wind up alooooone” message is not gaining much traction. Education and work are more a priority for women than ever before, and more women now graduate from college than men. An increasing number of women are out-earning their husbands, who fail to shun them for such temerity. And professional, educated women—far from being discarded for their frigid, career-bitch ways—are getting and staying married in greater numbers than their less-educated counterparts, even as they are marrying significantly later than their foremothers did. The tired notion that a woman will wind up alone if she doesn’t mate before her mid-20s certainly exists, but the data would indicate it’s more a platitude than a reality.

Despite this, stereotypes derive staying power from their familiarity. Stereotypes are hard to uproot, and they grow lots of low-hanging fruit for the entertainment industry. It’s easier to create entertainment—be it novels, TV shows or movies–that play into existing stereotypes than it is to come up with an alternative. With few exceptions, Hollywood–and publishers, to a lesser extent–are so lazy and risk-averse that they keep recycling the same threadbare plots and stock characters. That invariably leads to a shucking, jiving gallery of bros, hos, ditzes and bitches, with maybe just a smidge of empowerfulment in the form of cocktails and casual sex.

Sarah Churchwell takes a very dim view of what results:

Social psychologists – in actual studies in the US and Europe – have identified a process called “stereotype activation”, in which people characterised by a demeaning stereotype (whether sexist, racist, or any other) unconsciously fulfil it. Many experiments have shown that when a group of women and men taking a maths test are told that they will perform equally well, they do. But when women are reminded of the gender stereotypes around maths, they significantly underperform. This is the power of suggestion – and, crucially, the women weren’t verbally abused, they were just patronised. What they were basically told is: “I’m sure you girls will do just fine.” And you know what? They didn’t.

I’m not sure the data supports rock-bottom pessimism. There’s no doubt that women are constantly receiving and absorbing harmful or unhelpful messages, including the pernicious “you’ll be aloooooone” one. The truth is, women have always been assailed by such negativity; there’s been no time in the history of womankind that we have not been the target of manipulative messages and pernicious stereotypes.

The radical achievements we’ve made, especially over the last 100 years, put paid to the old stereotypes of women as dumb, silly and helpless. New ones have sprung up to accomodate the cultural shift–the barren career-bitch is purely a 20th century invention—but despite this, women’s achievements are accelerating, not stalling. Looking at women’s actions, rather than society’s conventions, might prove instructive for those tempted to trot out Bridget Jones as a scare tactic–and as proof that women can’t win.

The same weekend, the Guardian ran an op-ed by Rupert Myers—obnoxiously titled “Take Me, Take My Name”—in which a twentysomething English barrister Mansplains to us the whys and hows of women and name-changing. While I found his twentysomething lawyer tone predictably pompous, many of his observations aren’t far off the mark. Problem is, for a lawyer, Rupert’s surprisingly obtuse about why women are still changing their names (hint: it’s still spelled P-A-T-R-I-A-R-C-H-Y), and doesn’t want to do any real analysis of what he’s mansplaining (shocking, right?)

There’s nothing wrong with a man saying that his wife should adopt his surname when they get married. While this is quite standard practice in Britain, the history of surnames is one of paternalism, discrimination, and the handling of women in a manner akin to property. Perhaps because of this, indignant feminist friends have recently forced me to defend my expressed preference for patrilinealism.

Ooh, those feminists! Always getting indignant over something! Honestly, Rupert, if the long ugly history of women being treated like chattel doesn’t make you indignant, there’s not much hope for you. But now that you’re forced–forced!–to defend your viewpoint, let’s have at it!

While it’s irrefutable that two people in a marriage are equal, they are still, typically, predisposed to have different priorities. As Germaine Greer wrote last week, “every new generation of women struggles to define itself … There is no need for today’s women to march to a 40-year-old feminist drum.”

If, as Greer writes, change is a feminist issue, then it is also a masculist one. Men have typically displayed a preference for women taking their surname. While in theory the choice between the male and female surname is an equal one, the distribution of preferences is uneven. This may be based on characteristics that are intrinsically masculine flaws – pride, territorialism, a desire for family, even jealousy or possessiveness – but these traits are widespread, and to a great extent they may always be with us.

Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to like, encourage or unquestioningly submit to those traits.

There lies the justification for the practice: all other things being equal, and the alternative considered, masculists want this more than feminists don’t.

Uh, no. I know you think that’s a good soundbite, Rupert, and I applaud your deft shifting of the blame onto women–we just don’t have the willpower!--but it’s not quuuuuiiiitttteee that simple. Here’s why: even when feminists want something–and want it really, really badly–overturning the status quo requires a hell of a lot more effort on the part of women than complacently maintaining the status quo requires from men. This has been true for every single “women’s issue” from suffrage to equal pay to reproductive rights. It’s not a question of women’s not wanting it; it’s a question of wanting it AND overcoming all the cultural and bureaucratic hurdles, and doing that in addition to tackling the many, many other pressing issues facing women–like reproductive rights and pay equity–which might seem like a more important investment of our time and effort.

Even among women, I think it’s easy to oversimplify the name-change decision and see it as a”feminist vs. anti-feminist” dichotomy. In pratice, it’s not; some feminists take their husband’s names, some anti-feminists keep their maiden names. For some women, taking their husband’s name is not a huge deal–after all, we all make bargains with the Patriarchy and this one can seem relatively harmless. Plus, many married women like having one common family name, and want to have the same last name as their children (like my own feminist mother). Others might be happy to discard the name of their birth fathers or families, for a variety of reasons. Myers notes that:

The choice is whether to identify with our family of origin, or the family we are beginning. That choice should equally be faced by men. (ed: it’s unclear if by “equally faced” he means he thinks men should also change their names, or if they should merely participate in a conversation about it). Straightforwardly, my bias is for the new family, the identification between adults and the children they raise being perhaps the most crucial element to this, as well as the collection of these people within the label of the family name.

Of course, while Patriarchy is everywhere, not all cultures require women to completely give up their name and not pass it on to their children. In Hispanic culture, for instance, children have both their parent’s surnames (e.g. Juana Garcia Sanchez is the daughter of Mr. Garcia and Ms. Sanchez) and a woman only adds her husband’s name to her own, linked by an unfortunately possessive “de” (e.g. Ms. Sanchez would be known after her marriage as Ms. Sanchez de Garcia). And there are governments that require women to keep their birth name regardless of marital status, as in Quebec (thanks to PSoul for explaining that phenomenon). I’m not aware of any societies where husbands traditionally take their wives’ names, though.

Personally, my name will be exactly the same on my death certificate as it is on my birth certificate, no matter how many times I might marry or how many children I might have. I come from a blended family where my immediate relatives have a variety of names, so I don’t buy into “we all need to share a name!” school of thought. Nor do I feel that women need to change anything in their public personas simply because they are married–it’s really no one’s business whether I have a husband or not; my marital status shouldn’t change how people relate to me. I also just find the custom too ickily chauvinist for my comfort. I don’t judge women who want to do it, though. I just think they should be aware of the tradition’s patriarchal origins and respectful of why other women choose to reject it. And needless to say, men should be equally aware and respectful. Rupert’s not quite there, yet.

The days of asking a father for his daughter’s hand in marriage are over – thanks to modern women (ed: You’re welcome)

…eight in ten [English] people said asking a girl’s father for her hand in marriage was no longer necessary these days. Scotland is the only part of Britain where the formal request is still seen as sacred with ten per cent more people north of the border backing it. (ed: Doing the math, that would mean it’s “sacred” in Scotland even though 70% of people are not in favor of it. Statistical analysis FAIL).

And there even seems to be a glimmer of hope regarding the death of traditional gender roles:

With ‘mengagement’ rings rising in popularity and the pay difference between men and women officially getting smaller over last year, it’s not surprising that even the traditionally male role of marriage proposal has changed. Over two thirds of those questioned think women popping the question is a great idea – especially men, who are happy to concede their previous domain.

A spokesman for H Samuel said: ‘It seems that some romantic traditions are being ditched in 21st century Briton because of equality between men and women, but new  trends are being created. We’re now more likely to see ladies on bended knee than men. We see that most couples are judging their own perfect style of engagement, without following age-old traditions and managing not to offend their partner or their in-laws to be.’

Works for me. What about the rest of y’all? (And please feel free to include your thoughts on “mengagement rings.”)

I'm glad I saved this image from the last time I posted about Audrey Irvine.

When last I wrote about Audrey Irvine, author of the erstwhile CNN column “Relationship Rants”, she was blaming everyone from Beyonce to the US Census for the fact that no one respects unmarried relationships anymore (her outrage started when a random skeevy guy hit on her and didn’t seem to care when she told him “I have a boyfriend”). For its sheer lack of logic, crappy writing and the negative messages it sent to women, I dubbed her essay, “A Boyfriend is No Defense from Being Hit On“, the most Ridonkulous Op-Ed of 2009. It’s still early in the year, but I think Audrey’s already written a real contender for 2010. This time she’s outraged that no one respects married relationships either! And she’s got something completely fucking ridonkulous to say about it! The essay’s entitled “Dear Married Men: Keep Your Distance” and…well…let’s strap on the barf bag and take a look:

Audrey tees up her rant by telling how one of her friends posted a Facebook status saying: “Maybe it’s just me, but I am extremely uncomfortable with any married man calling me “just to say hi.” Not good! Respect your wife!” This, and subsequent musings on married men socializing with single women led Audrey to conclude:

Drama is exactly what you get when a married man tries to befriend a single woman without mentioning his wife, much less an introduction. With that said, I’m declaring it is almost impossible for a married man to be friends with a single women if she doesn’t know the wife.

Well, if Audrey declares it, it must be so! Never mind that most women have plenty of platonic or business relationships with married men without a speck of drama (even if they don’t know their wives!). Yes, we sometimes cross paths with skeevy married men men who hit on single women (and married women, too). Thing is, when you meet these skeevsters, their motives are usually pretty transparent. It’s easy to simply avoid them, or give them the brush-off. But not Audrey. Just like last time, Audrey can’t encourage women to simply say “go away” to the skeevy guys. Instead, because there are skeevy guys out there, Audrey thinks every man and woman everywhere must change their behavior! To wit:

…my advice to married men is simple: You are married and cannot enjoy some of the same luxuries as single people. That includes befriending single women under the guise of business ventures without introducing your wife.

Does this mean a man’s wife has to accompany him to every business or social event? Audrey seems to think married women should expect to be dragged everywhere on some kind of cockblocking duty. Not only is this completely ridiculous–do you think they might have something more useful to do with their time?–but it’s also completely unnecessary: the vast majority of married men are perfectly capable of engaging in conversation or business relationships without being unfaithful.

There’s a whiff of real anti-male sexism at work here: OMG, all men are hound dogs!  If his wife isn’t there, he’s going to try to fuck you! as well as the usual anti-female “woman as temptress” sexism: Don’t talk to my man, bitch! Cuz he’s gonna want to fuck you and that’s YOUR fault!

What I found almost as amusing as Audrey’s muddled brain-droppings is that most of the commenters on CNN–not usually a thoughtful crowd–think Audrey’s as full of shit as I do, and called her on it. A quick sampling:

Did CNN pay for this article? Frankly it looks like something written at the last minute by an author desparate for something before a deadline. Utter trash.

Frankly, this is how all of Audrey’s articles read to me. Her writing is as bad–or worse–than her message. One reader managed to cut through the shitty writing to get the only decent take-away message in this mess:

I agree with the message of this article, but I disagree with how it’s been cleverly hidden behind the subtle “don’t sleep with my man” message. Yes… single ladies…if it feels icky, than it probably is – so walk away. But I am personally insulted by the insinuation that my married men friends are out to sleep with me and further more that because I am friends with married men – I am putting your marriage at risk. Ladies (married ones) if you don’t trust your man to hang out with a female friend – then you’ve got bigger problems in the marriage that need addressing.

Well, yes. And given this article and her previous one about the importance of everyone respecting the territorial rights of boyfriends, I do wonder why Audrey seems to want everyone to walk around with “I BELONG TO [INSERT NAME HERE]” badges on their chests. Bad past experiences, maybe?

Unfortunately–as further painful proof of how ridonkulous Audrey’s writing is–I even found myself mostly agreeing with the “men’s rights” dude who wrote:

What a moronic article. Just another self-righteous woman getting off on bashing men. I am a happily married man and a darned good husband and father. I talk to single women all the time because they are PEOPLE. Most men DO keep it in their pants and don’t necessarily want to hop in bed with every woman they meet. It’s time men started standing up for themselves and started dealing with the sexism and prejudice that is being dumped on them these days. (ed: Oh noes! Think of the menz!!) Audrey Irivne, you are nothing but another angry sexist intolerant bandwagon jumper looking to satisfy your own ego.

That’s Audrey Irvine for you…so deeply wrong-headed about male-female relationships that she makes a feminist find common cause with a male chauvinist. Now if only she’d just rest on those laurels and spare us any further “insights.”

grandma.of.a.lesser.god and her granddaughter.of.a.lesser.god

Then she paused and said softly, “Listen, Grandpa died.”

My Grandpa Buddy was eighty-seven years old and the kind of guy who seemed to have the proverbial nine lives, surviving World War II, an aneurysm, bladder cancer, fifty years of smoking, and two open heart surgeries before being felled by a sudden bout of pneumonia. He was the son of Russian Jews who fled the pogroms; he was fond of telling frighteningly raunchy jokes, and took the time to communicate with my father (his former son-in-law) even though my parents divorced more than two decades ago. Six days before his death he gave me a compendium of New York Times coverage of the Yankees, dating back to 1901. He had been with my grandmother since 1941, and married since 1943. They had four children, fourteen grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren together.

And for all sixty-six years of their marriage, Grandpa handled the finances. While Grandma Lennor minded the house, tended to the next generation(s), cooked dinner, and walked their succession of dearly beloved dogs, Grandpa brought home the income, took care of the checkbook, the rent, the Social Security and Veterans benefits, the gas and electric bills, the health insurance, and countless other pecuniary matters. I didn’t know about this division of labor until Monday, when my Grandma said, “I’m angry because he left and there are things I don’t know how to do.” She looked at my mother and added in a plaintive voice, “I don’t know how to deal with money.”

The question I was left with was, will my grandmother be able (or willing) to learn independence at the age of 84? She married my grandfather at eighteen, going straight from her mother’s household where she was similarly unconcerned with financial issues. It was something she — and my grandfather — never felt she had to learn. And for six and a half decades, that seemed to work. This didn’t represent some fundamental power dynamic within their marriage as much as it did the assumption that money was a man’s business, just as children were a women’s.

I now wonder if my mother had her mother in mind when she repeatedly drilled the phrase “never depend on a man for money” into the heads of her daughters, and whether she also was thinking, “never depend on a man to handle the money.” I grew up in a different situation than my mother. Unlike Grandma, she was a full-time working mother who taught herself to manage the ins and outs of financial matters. And my stepmother was the same way, as were my two aunts. My hope is that mother.of.a.lesser.god, and aunts.of.a.lesser.god can help my grandmother navigate her finances, although I can’t begin to conceive of how overwhelming that concept seems to my Grandma, especially right after losing her husband. And I wish so many women weren’t conditioned by society to think that it won’t do any harm to always leave money matters to men. Even without the loss of the partner who handles finances, it’s a relationship component that can only erode a woman’s independence.

No, not this Betty. But speaking of her... Via cliff1066 @ Flickr.

I think some folks don’t want to know the truth – about their moms or grandmothers or even their wives. The truth is that stifling and silencing women can make them downright unlikeable. A lifetime of infantilization can make a woman childish. Motherhood is not every woman’s “calling.” Putting women in a prefab box can make them small. People want to think their maternal figures were honored and excited to wipe their asses and make dinner for daddy day in and day out, not that they might have been unfulfilled, frustrated and wanting more.

Or are people – the people watching Mad Men, at least – beyond that now? Is Betty-hatred just a simple case of a double-standard?

Via don2g @ Flickr.

Via Muslimah Media Watch, NOW Lebanon interviews Arab feminists Dr. Omaira Abou-Bakr and Hoda al-Saadi, after a conference for Arab women in Beirut. Both women are members of an Egyptian NGO called Women and Memory.

An Amish woman has been charged with failing to report her husband’s sexual abuse of two girls. She allegedly reported the abuse to church elders, but they are not being charged with any crime. If convicted, she could serve several years in prison.

RMJ writes about a Toyota “viral marketing campaign” of stalking and harassment. There are no words.

It’s Fat Talk Free Week, Tri Delta’s 5-day body activism campaign that draws attention to body image issues and the damaging impact of the thin ideal on women in society. I like the slogan: “Friends don’t let friends fat talk.”

Dispatches from Rape Culture: A judge in B.C., Canada decided not to send convicted rapist Fernando Manuel Alves to jail, because the crime was “not something that shows some pathological danger to the community.” Women, as you know, are not members of the community. Judge G. Rideout called the rape an opportunistic “event.” In his decision, he refers to the brutally violent rape as “rough play” at least three times.

Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell has a swell essay on marriage in The Nation. She says, “Typically advocates of marriage equality try to reassure the voting public the same-sex marriage will not change the institution itself. … I hope it is not true.”
Thanks to Jos for highlighting it!

I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way. … I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.

He lets his black “friends” use his toilet! He also once spit on a black man who was on fire. That’s all the proof I need. You see, it’s other people’s racism that poses a problem. Bardwell said:

There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.

And everyone knows reproduction is not possible outside of marriage. Tell it to President Obama.

You can’t protect people from racism by perpetuating racism. I heard my grandmother use that excuse once, when talking about my aunt’s brother’s biracial son. “He’s gonna have a hard time. People should stick with their own.” He’s going to have a hard time because of people like you!

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana has filed a complaint with the Louisiana Judiciary Committee. I wish the couple all the happiness in the world. And their future kids too.