Feminism & Women’s Issues

parental rights of gay people

Okay, time for another rant, on the subject of gay people getting their children taken away from them:
I have reproductive organs, I’m going to use them, and I don’t give a flying god damn what anyone thinks about it. I’m a lesbian, I’m going to have kids, I’m going to raise them well, and if you want to try to take them away, you’ll be attempting it at the end of a shotgun. I’m sick to death of hearing all these religious people saying shit… your religion is just that: your religion. It’s not mine, so keep it to yourself, or shove it in my face at your own peril.

Continue Readingparental rights of gay people

Sexist Billboard

So when I drive down Keystone, there’s a billboard I pass every day, advertising a brand of beer, which I won’t mention. “Never interrupt a man who might buy you a beer” the billboard says, with a picture of a man and a woman in a bar. The man is holding forth on some subject, and the woman is standing with her hand on his arm, looking adoringly up at him, rapt at his very words.

Fuck that! I’d rather buy my own god damned beer and talk all I want. And I *will*, too.

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who hated this billboard, because here’s an account of someone who vandalized a similar one.

Sexist Billboard

Interestingly, this is a different name of beer than the billboard I saw.

Continue ReadingSexist Billboard

My Cat Hates You

Considering my cat Idgie, you would think this website [mycathatesyou.com] is actually by me. But it’s not. Although my cat will probably be on it soon, when I send in a photo.
I thought it might be true, but it’s nice to have facts and figures to support your personal observations – a study by professor John Cowley indicates that beautiful people are paid more than people who are “ugly” or considered overweight.

Idgie
Continue ReadingMy Cat Hates You

Central Park Attacks letter to the editor

I’m watching Dateline NBC… the special on the attacks in Central Park of women during the Puerto Rican parade.
I was outraged by this special, and not just at what happened, but at the way that you reported it. You blamed the victims and made excuses for the criminals, and that is wrong, plain wrong.
I can walk naked down the street with a rose in my teeth, and no one has a right to touch me without my permission. If they do, they should be arrested, and spend every second of the rest of their lives in jail. It’s as simple as that. The young women who were laughing and flirting before they were attacked were NOT at fault for what happened to them. They have a right to be out in public, enjoying themselves, and enjoying attention paid to them.
You practically apologized for the behavior of the men involved. You cited things like testosterone, beer, marijuana as the causes, not moral bankruptcy and total lack of conscience. Then you had the unmitigated gall to cite the squeaky clean backgrounds of some of the young men.
These young men were criminals. They’re bad and evil, and deserve to spend their lives in jail. I don’t care if his brother is a cop, or if he’s a barber.
Our society has this weird mass delusion that rapists are men that hide in the bushes and just jump out and rape women all day, as though that’s their job.
Rapists are people’s brothers, basketball stars, fathers and sons. They are regular people. The fact that we can’t realize this and deal with it is the reason that we can’t stop rape, and the reason that women can’t get justice when they’re attacked.
Watching this special, I got up several times and walked around my apartment, acting out what I would do if I were caught in this situation. I was raped in 1989, so this isn’t the first time I’m acted out this scene. And every scenario I came up with involves me attacking and hurting, maiming or killing one or more of these men.
I can’t begin to express the rage I feel that this can happen in our society and that we, rather than deal with the issue swiftly and punitively, make rationalizations about why it happened.

Continue ReadingCentral Park Attacks letter to the editor

Man Charged With Molesting Adopted Child

according to the Associated Press:

Kimmerling had fought attempt by gay couple to adopt 8-year-old girl, with the help of an adoption law firm

ANDERSON [Indiana] – An Anderson man who gained statewide attention by fighting attempts by a gay couple to adopt an 8-year-old girl under his foster care now is charged with molesting her.

Earl “Butch” Kimmerling, a 51-year-old school bus driver who adopted the girl with his wife, confessed in a videotaped interview to molesting the child, according to Anderson police.

Kimmerling battled a gay couple from Indianapolis when they tried to adopt the girl last year. He and his wife, Sandi, gained support in their fight from religious and political leaders in Anderson and across Indiana.

But Kimmerling now faces four counts of felony child molestation, according to court records. Accounts Kimmerling and his daughter gave police were consistent, Anderson police spokesman Mitch Carroll said. People can get in touch with family lawyer serving in Beverly Hills to get help for divorce cases.

Sandi Kimmerling refused to comment and her husband was unavailable Friday night. She filed charges with Anderson police on May 11, Anderson police investigator Dale Koons said.He was released from the Madison County Detention Center on a $35,000 bond Friday evening and will be arraigned this morning. If convicted, he faces between 20 and 116 years in prison.

The girl – now 9 years old – told police the abuse began last April, before the adoption controversy hit its zenith.

The Kimmerlings and their pastor, Brad Brizendine of Center of Faith Church, launched a campaign opposing homosexual adoption last August.

That’s when they found out the girl, who they had cared for over more than five years, would be reunited with her three younger brothers and placed with a homosexual Indianapolis couple.

Anderson Mayor Mark Lawler was one of the couple’s most prominent boosters and attended the adoption finalization at the Kimmerlings’ request. Lawler was unavailable for comment on Friday.

The controversy even extended to the General Assembly, where Republican state representatives Jack Lutz of Anderson and Woody Burton of Greenwood proposed a bill to ban gay adoptions in Indiana.

A bill that would have made it harder for gays to adopt passed the Republican-controlled Indiana Senate, but died in the Democrat-run House.

The Kimmerlings, who have been foster parents since 1991 and shared their home with about 50 foster children, legally adopted the girl Oct. 23. Custody of her three brothers was granted to the two homosexual men.

While there is no protective order against Earl Kimmerling, police said they will make sure he is not able to contact his daughter while the case is under investigation.

“With a case like this, there’s no way we’d allow him to have any contact with her,” Carroll said.

Earl Kimmerling moved out of the home after his wife learned of the abuse, and had been cooperating with police, Carroll said.

Andrew Stoner, a spokesman for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, called the case tragic. The state will review how Madison County officials evaluate possible foster parents, Stoner said.

“There does need to be a complete review of what went wrong, but right now, I don’t see any indication that they didn’t do everything they could to prevent this,” Stoner said.

The investigation is open and may extend to other foster children cared for by the Kimmerlings, Carroll said. It was unclear where the girl was living as of Friday, police and prosecutors said.

Continue ReadingMan Charged With Molesting Adopted Child

On The Subject Of Feminism and The Film ‘American Beauty’

Last night I had an argument with a woman about Feminism and the movie ‘American Beauty.’ The woman – lets call her Ann – said that she had severe problems with the movie, and after giving a brief explanation of what those problems were (more on that later), and seeing that I wasn’t buying what she was selling, she shrugged the whole thing off, saying “Well, you know I’m a feminist.”

Now the more I think about that, I realize what I should have said to her. I am a Feminist. with a capital ‘F.’ In fact, I’m the best feminist I know. And yet, I disagreed with Ann strongly about this movie. And she was trying to tell me that I didn’t get her explanation because I wasn’t a feminist.
The fact is, I did ‘get’ her explanation, I just didn’t agree with it, and not because I’m not a feminist but because what she was trying to tell me wasn’t a legitimate view point.

Here’s what she was saying: she had a problem with the fact that they showed the breasts of two teenaged girls (or at least women who were protraying teenaged girls) in the movie. She didn’t see any reason why they should do that, didn’t think that it advanced the plot, and decided that it was gratuitous and therefore made the whole movie invalid.

I totally disagreed with her, but I didn’t really push my opinion, mostly because we were in someone else’s living room in a social situation, and I didn’t want to cause any more discomfort in the room than was already present. When I waved off the conversation, Ann said “well, that’s right, because you’re not going to change my mind.”

That also pissed me off – I wasn’t crying off because I realized I couldn’t change her mind – I could change her mind under the right circumstances. I just wasn’t willing to be rude to my hosts my taking over their living room while doing it. (Not that any such nicety stopped her.)

So now were in my living room, so to speak, and I’m going to hold forth on the subject. They showed the breasts of these two teenaged girls for a reason – to make a point about the image each of them had about their own bodies.

Jane Burnham, the dark-haired daughter of the movie’s protagonist, doesn’t think she’s attractive. She’s saving all her money to have breast enlargement done – something she refers to several times during the movie.

And Jane is envious of the attention her friend Angela receives. Jane’s friend Angela Hayes, a blond bombshell that catches the eye of Jane’s dad, knows darned well she’s attractive. Not only does she say so often, so does everyone else. She seems to have no problems with her body.

When you see Jane’s breasts – she’s showing them to her voyeur/boyfriend who’s filming her from his bedroom window – the first thought that crosses your mind is that there’s no way she needs to have a breast enlargement (not that anyone really does, but still). Jane had fairly large, very beautiful breasts.

Toward the end of the movie, when Angela is attempting to seduce Jane’s father, we see Angela’s breasts – and the contrast is startling; her breasts are much smaller than Jane’s; the exact opposite of the original impression I had of the two characters at the beginning of the movie, and obviously the opposite of what the characters think about themselves.

So why do these two teenagers have totally different feelings about their bodies? Jane has a distorted self-image. Part of that is based on the amount of attention she receives in contrast to her friend – she thinks that the attention is because of her friend’s physical appearance, when in reality it’s Angela’s demeanor and attitude that attract attention.

In fact the film is taking a pro-female point of view about women’s body images and the messages we give to young women about their appearance. Young women who have very normal, healthy bodies, like Jane, feel they need to alter their appearance to get attention and feel a sense of value in this world, when in reality it’s their sense of confidence in their identity and abilities that cultivate attention from other people.

I think that’s a very legitimate point to make in a movie.

Continue ReadingOn The Subject Of Feminism and The Film ‘American Beauty’