
What are some of the top comments when a Redditor who happens to be a man puts up a picture post about quitting heroin?
Congratulations man. Thats no easy feat. Heroin has taken many a life. Good to see somone beat it
I don’t know you, but I love you for staying clean. It gives me hope for my brother.
Nice! What are some of the top comments when a Redditor who happens to be a woman puts up a picture post about quitting heroin?
Reddit just upvoted some girl’s mirror shot to the front page Holy fuck, guys
I don’t get it. This is just a picture of a person. What is interesting about this picture?
9 outta 10 would bang. With protection.
I fucking hate the internet. Rebecca Watson at Skepchick is the blogger that first noticed this, and she does a great job of explaining why it's so maddening.
The men behind Star Trek Into Darkness have thrown us ladies and boner-loving dudes a bone and released a deleted shower scene featuring a sinewy Benedict Cumberbatch in response to the completely justified criticism they've been getting over Alice Eve's gratuitous underwear scene.
Here's a screenshot of Cumberbatch showering (you can find the full clip over here):

Thanks for the pecs, but sexism doesn't work that way. Nakedness doesn't simply cancel out nakedness, and we have no context for the above shot, so we don't know where it fit into the film or why. But what any reasonable viewer who's seen Star Trek Into Darkness does know is that Eve's underwear scene doesn't make sense, even knowing its context. It was gratuitous hot naked lady flesh, pure and simple. As Devin Faraci over at BadassDigest.com explains:
There are a couple of problems with [Eve's] scene. For one thing, there's absolutely no reason for her to be stripping. The movie doesn't even offer the flimsiest of explanations, like having her get radioactive goo on her clothes after examining the torpedos. I honestly don't know why she has to strip down in this moment during this conversation. It's almost like the actions of someone with a mental deficiency.
What irritates me the most is the JJ Abrams's cognitive dissonance in trying to justify his equal-opportunity topless scenes.
To be clear, Abrams admits that Eve's strip scene didn't work as well as he wanted, but he nonetheless defends it: "To me it was a balance—there's a scene where Kirk is topless earlier," he said in an interview with Conan O'Brien. The difference is, Kirk is shot topless, in bed, after he's presumably finished a coital romp with a pair of actual sex kittens. There's justification for him to appear topless. His nakedness, in that context, is a wordless salute to his virility.
Like all blockbusters, Star Trek is a movie stuffed with dudes—dudes who are funny, dudes who are friends, dudes who talk a lot and fight and who convey complex emotions. Struggling to exist amidst these dudes and all their snappy dialogue are two women—Uhura and Eve's character, Carol Marcus—neither of which are afforded the same amount of character development, dialogue, or screen time. And one of those women's biggest moments is posing in her underwear.
That is not equality, it's just fucked up—the kind of fucked up a whole porn's worth of Cumberbatch's pecs wouldn't fix.
It's amazing how all the GOP outreach to women...
Louie Gohmert just told a woman whose fetus had no brain function that she should have waited and given birth anyway.
— Irin Carmon (@irincarmon) May 23, 2013
...can be undone by one Republican representative at a just-us-boys congressional hearing on abortion.
UPDATE: As I hypothesized below, it turns out the number that Planned Parenthood and other reproductive rights groups were citing encompassed individual plans inside and outside of the Affordable Care Act's federal insurance exchange. (Individuals who earn less than $45,000 can apply for insurance through the exchange and qualify for premium subsidies, while those who earn more will purchase plans outside of the exchange.)
As Planned Parenthood Public Policy Director Jennifer Allen explains, "What we had understood was that the information dealt with plans inside the exchange, but it's really inside and outside the exchange, which frankly is worse news. This makes it even more clear that coverage access is eroding everywhere, and it’s even more imperative that we pass the Reproductive Parity Act."
Why is this worse news? Because the federal exchange is shiny and new, while regular individual insurance plans have obviously existed for years. This basically means that insurance companies are taking advantage of the legislature's failure to pass the RPA these past two years to change a historic status quo in our state: That every insurance carrier covers abortion.
"I’d venture to say that the very complexity of this conversation is the very reason we need the RPA," Allen adds. I've posted the lists of all the companies that have filed plans inside or outside of the exchange, and whether or not their plans cover abortions, after the jump.
***Original post below***
The Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner is pushing back against a claim made earlier today by Planned Parenthood and a number of other women's reproductive rights groups that only half of the 10 individual insurance exchange policies currently filed with their office would cover elective abortions.
“I’m not sure where Planned Parenthood got their numbers but of the nine plans filed to be in the exchange, eight are covering abortion and one is a maybe," says Insurance Commissioner spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis. She explains that the one insurance company that's currently not covering abortion—Bridgespan Health Company—is reconsidering their decision.
"We definitely got our numbers from [the commission]," counters Jennifer Allen, Public Policy Director for Planned Parenthood Votes NW. "Perhaps, based on public scrutiny or interest from legislators, those numbers have changed. But we definitely got our numbers from them.”
The confusion could also stem, in part, from insurance companies that are filing new insurance policy bids both within and outside of Washington's exchange. Marquis promised to send over breakdown of all the various policies soon so I can eyeball them for myself.
Regardless, the state legislature should still pass the Reproductive Parity Act to ensure that insurance policies cover abortion, because the number of filed policies (and whether or not they cover elective abortions) could still change: the deadline to submit policy bids is July 31, after which the insurance commission reviews the rates and punts the plans over to the federal insurance exchange program to determine whether they’re qualified to be sold inside the exchange starting on October 1, 2014.
Hey Ladies, you better be prepared, because you know, accidents will happen:
A group backed by Right to Life of Michigan has been approved to circulate petitions seeking a new state law prohibiting health insurance companies from covering elective abortion procedures.
The ballot committee No Taxes for Abortion Insurance wants to require women to purchase optional riders to cover abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.
... Asked by a reporter how women could be expected to purchase abortion insurance in preparation of being raped, [Right to Life Michigan president Barbara] Listing responded: "Nobody plans to have an accident in a car accident, nobody plans to have their homes flooded. You have to buy extra insurance for those two."
Of course, nobody plans to to get cancer either (and most states require auto insurance), but why let logic get in the way of public health policy?
So yeah, if you're a teenage girl who gets pregnant after being raped by her uncle, and you didn't buy that rape and incest rider on your health insurance, well, that's what you get for not planning ahead.
The opening line of a story on the SIFF premiere by the Seattle Times' Nicole Brodeur:
You look at director Lynn Shelton and think, “Why is she behind the camera?” Girl's a stunner.
Brodeur was called out for her comment by Seattle's Reel Grrls, and a short conversation ensued.

Thanks for fighting the good fight, Reel Grrls.
The 300,000 women hoping to purchase affordable insurance coverage through Washington state's insurance exchange when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented next year had better choose wisely: Only half of the 10 insurance exchange plans currently filed with the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner elect to fully cover abortion costs.
Why, you ask? Because our state legislator—lead by that dissembling fink Senator Rodney Tom (Who the fuck knows?, Medina)—has failed to pass the Reproductive Parity Act, which would ensure that all insurance plans covering maternity care are also required to cover abortion costs. (Even though the bill already passed in the House and has the votes to pass in the Senate, on paper at least.)
“The future that we've been warning legislators about is coming true," says Planned Parenthood Votes NW Public Policy Director Jennifer Allen. "It’s our understanding that the number of plans—10—that’s all the plans that will be available on the exchange. That’s it.”
I have a call into the state insurance commission to confirm; I'll update this post when I hear back.
“Because of the barriers to abortion coverage that were put into the Affordable Care Act by anti-women’s health extremists, carriers face business decisions about abortion coverage that will affect their bottom lines,” said Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, in a press release. “This news makes it crystal clear that in order for Washington women to not lose the coverage they have today for all of their legal pregnancy options, the legislature needs step up and pass the Reproductive Parity Act now." Which they could totally do now, during the special session.
Planned Parenthood and other women's reproductive rights groups note that only five exchange plans filed with the state insurance commission will include the voluntary termination of a pregnancy, four plans will completely exclude abortion, and one plan will cover abortion only in instances of rape, incest, or serious endangerment to the health of the mother.
ThinkProgress.org grimly illustrates what happens when state and local municipalities lose revenue and have to slash vital services, like law enforcement, primarily at the expense of vulnerable populations, like women and children.
Last August, a woman in Josephine County called 911 and pleaded with dispatchers to send police—“my ex-boyfriend is trying to break into my house. I’m not letting him in but he’s like, tried to break down the door and he’s tried to break into one of the windows.” The woman had good reason to be afraid of this man, as she told the dispatcher on the other side of the phone, this same abusive ex had put her in the hospital just a few weeks before. But the dispatcher has no one to send. Because the local sheriff’s department recently lost millions in federal funds, it laid off 23 of its 29 deputies and limited their availability to eight hours on Mondays through Fridays. The woman’s call to 911 took place on a Saturday.
With no deputies available, the 911 dispatcher transferred the woman to the state police—but they would not come rescue the woman either. In the words of the state police dispatcher, “I don’t have anybody to send out there. You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away? Do you know if he’s intoxicated or anything?”
The woman's ex-boyfriend later plead guilty to kidnapping, assault, and sex abuse.
Josephine County, the county where this woman lives, is overwhelmingly conservative; its voters have twice rejected property tax levies to fund more law enforcement (the most recent vote was held yesterday). ThinkProgress notes that after the first round of cuts, law enforcement sent out a press release encouraging victims of domestic violence to move, noting that they would no longer be safe in Josephine County. But what's one woman being raped by her ex-boyfriend if it saves homeowners a few bucks every year, right?
Hat tip to Robert for shitting in my morning coffee.
A post on Craigslist says they're looking for "young sexy calendar girls for the new Hempfest calendar" who are "between the ages of 18-21 and want to get paid up to $50 an hour."
I know that Hempfest is a volunteer operation, but that's terrible money for young sexy calendar girls—and where are the young sexy Hempfest calendar boys? Hempfest should do better. Hempfest would do better than this, right? That's why I doubt this is the Hempfest people at all. At least, I hope it's not them. For what it's worth, young sexy calendar models who are 18, 19, and 20 may be young and sexy, but they can't legally smoke pot. E-mails to the advertiser and Hempfest personnel have not yet been returned.
UPDATE at 11:50 PM: Hempfest director of operations Sharon Whitson confirms my suspicions: Hempfest isn't behind this ad. Which means someone is apparently trying to use Hempfest's name to lure young sexy girls.
Lindy West reports on Jezebel of the awesomeness of vaginas, in response to that creepy dude who called "Miss Hillary Clinton" a "C-U-Next-Tuesday" and says he wants to shoot her in the vagina. (Which, wow did that ever break my brain.)
Lindy says:
Nausea aside, though, Santilli's words inspired an unexpected side effect in me: some real fuck-yeah Vagina Monologues girl-power shit. You want to hurt me, bro? ATTACK ME SOMEPLACE WEAK. VAGINAS ARE FUCKING BOSS.Vaginas are strong. Entire people come out of them. You know who came out of a vagina (probably)? Hulk Hogan, Shaq, and pretty much every horse.
Vaginas take poundings and bangings and slammings and crushings AND THEY LOVE IT.
Go ahead, fire your stupid figurative rage-bullet in there. Vaginas are like, "Yawn. Is it in yet?"
Just when you're feeling safe and comfy, vaginas open up and start vomiting blood everywhere like the elevator in the Shining. Vaginas are goth.
And thus commences the most uses of the word "vagina" in one Slog post ever. Vagina vagina. YOU'RE WELCOME.
BECAUSE THAT IS JUST A REGULAR THING THAT HAPPENS NOW. WTF.
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
The girl had walked to Fritz’ home to meet with him, and when she arrived, Fritz allegedly took the girl down to the basement and sexually assaulted her despite her resistance and demands to stop...
Brown and Applewhite then sexually assaulted the girl while Fritz videotaped the rape, according to court documents. Fritz was identified in the video because at one point he turned the camera towards his face, authorities said...
Two days later, the video of the attack was posted on Brown’s Facebook account, according to court documents. The video was also allegedly later posted on Fritz and Applewhite’s Facebook pages.
Here's the Jezebel post about it, which I'm linking to only because half the comments are just GIFs and pictures of kittens, which you might need, because this shit is unbearably grim.
Following up on Cienna's post on street harassment last week, I'd like to call attention to some awesome projects fighting street harassment, all of which were mentioned in the comments section as a place to turn when you're trying to combat that icky, how did I just lose that interaction so hard? feeling.
• Commenters were quick to give a shout out to Hollaback!, a website that encourages women who are harassed on the street to document the incident and post it on the site, creating a record of it and possibly embarrassing the harasser while offering some community to other women. They now run a nonprofit that trains people to run localized Hollaback! sites. Seattle currently doesn't have a local site. Someone get on this!
• I'm in love with Tatyana Fazlalizadeh's wheatpaste poster project, Stop Telling Women to Smile, also pointed out by Bree McKenna in comments. Fazlalizadeh also runs a blog with photos of the posters; the most telling ones, I think, are here. (She also sells shirts.)
• Don't Harass Me, Bro posted in the comments about their sticker project. Go here to buy their stickers, and they'll post pictures of where you stuck 'em. (Hopefully on a jerk's face, but walls are nice, too.)
• Commenter Tomahawk started the blog I Was Asking For It, where she posts "pictures of the frumpy shit I happen to be wearing when assholes come a'calling." Submissions are apparently welcome. This is a funny middle finger to the but-what-were-you-wearing question.
• Commenter bookworm shared a link to these Stop Street Harassment stickers that showed up in Oakland.
Doing something about it later is a way to get a little control back, if you aren't quite awake/badass enough to lipstick your entire face, or you were too scared to do anything, or you're just going through the rest of your day climbing the l'esprit d'escalier over and over in your head (remember: shouting a loud "SORRY ABOUT YOUR MICROPENIS" is always an okay go-to retort).
I was walking to work this morning up Pike Street, daydreaming about hot coffee and fresh peaches and sun and mole cancer. I see a man coming in the opposite direction, so I automatically scoot over to my side of the sidewalk and then, just as we're passing each other, I hear him whisper:
"Nice tits."
And I froze. For a second I was confused—did one of them fall out or something?—but no, an automatic check confirmed that my breasts were still firmly tucked away under three layers of clothing. That guy just had the urge to harass and demean me, and so he did. I froze, so he won. By the time my anger kicked in and I turned around to shout something at him—anything to regain a sense of control over the situation—he'd crossed the street and was turning a corner.
Of course, all women have stories of being harassed. All of them. This isn't even a particularly heinous example—my friends and coworkers have stories of having their boobs grabbed on the street, having their asses grabbed, even being followed onto buses and then home. This just sucked because it ruined my day. My brain has been derailed from thinking about important things—milkshakes, work—to replaying a second-long interaction on loop and wishing that I had the perfect response for that anonymous fuck.
The worst part is, I feel like I failed myself. I'm a pretty loud, mouthy woman and it was crippling to have my brains and my mouth both quit on me at such a crucial time. And that's the point of harassment, isn't it? To make someone feel helpless and disempowered?
So how do other women prepare themselves for verbal and physical harassment that could come from anyone, anywhere, at any time? I've been asking around! After the jump one of my female coworkers explains a tactic that's worked for her and her mother: Acting batshit.
Sometimes—not every time, mind you, but sometimes—the best way to demonstrate how a piece of art is sexist is by employing an equal amount of sexism in the other direction. The story of Bro-sie the Riveter is an example of a time when that tactic worked perfectly.
You know those gruesome old stories about back-alley abortions, from way back before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal and safe? They looked somewhat like this:
A Philadelphia jury on Monday convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of three babies and one adult patient at his inner-city clinic. The case, which revealed horrific conditions at Gosnell’s practice as well as gruesome details about the illegal operations he performed there, became a flashpoint in the national debate about abortion.
So-called "pro-lifers" are attempting to use the Gosnell case as an argument for tightening restrictions on abortion, but experience tells us that would only create more Gosnells. In addition to the murder charges, Gosnell was convicted of dozens of counts of performing medically unjustified late-term abortions beyond Pennsylvania's 24-week limit. Gosnell's practice wasn't just alleged to be unsanitary, unsafe, and unqualified—much of it was determined to be illegal. As this case shows, criminalizing abortion—even late-term abortion—does nothing to reduce demand; instead, it just drives desperate women to seek ever more desperate options.
That was America's experience before Roe v. Wade, and that is the experience repeated in countries throughout the world. Indeed, a recent study in the Lancet reports that the abortion rate is actually lower in the jurisdictions with the most liberal abortion laws: "Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates," the study finds, a conclusion entirely consistent with past research. In the US, legal abortions remain remarkably safe, with only a handful of maternal deaths out the approximately one million abortions performed each year. But worldwide, 47,000 women still die each year from unsafe abortions, accounting for 13 percent of all maternal deaths. That is the reality that US pro-lifers would return us to.
Clinics like Gosnell's are rare. If they weren't, this case wouldn't have been so sensational. But if pro-lifers have their way, it will once again become the norm.
Holy shit, this is great news, via Reuters:
A federal judge in New York on Friday declined to temporarily halt a court order directing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make emergency contraception available over the counter to girls of all ages.
... [U.S. District Judge Edward] Korman ordered the FDA on April 5 to lift age and point-of-access restrictions on all levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after" pill or "Plan B," to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The FDA has appealed that ruling.
"In my view, the defendants' appeal is frivolous and taken for the purposes of delay," Korman wrote in Friday's decision.
In less great news, Judge Korman gave the FDA until May 13 to ask a federal appeals court to stay the order, which prolongs this fight into next week.
But! In terms of satisfying public humiliation, Judge Korman declared in his Memorandum and Order that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius decision to block young women's access to the time-sensitive drug was "politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent" and "so unpersuasive as to call into question her good faith."
The Order also calls the Obama administration's argument "largely an insult to the intelligence of women."
Man oh man, I'm going to be basking in the glow of Judge Korman's scathing words all day.
Slog tipper MacCrocodile points us to this bit of horror, courtesy of Wired.com:
An Air Force brochure on sexual assault advises potential victims not to fight off their attackers.
“It may be advisable to submit [rather] than resist,” reads the brochure (.pdf), issued to airmen at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where nearly 10,000 military and civilian personnel are assigned. “You have to make this decision based on circumstances. Be especially careful if the attacker has a weapon.”
The brochure, acquired by Danger Room, issues a series of guidances on “risk reduction” for sexual assault. Among others, it advises people under sexual attack in parking lots to “consider rolling underneath a nearby auto and scream loud. It is difficult to force anyone out from under a car.” A public affairs officer at Shaw, Sgt. Alexandria Mosness, says she believes the brochure is current.
While the brochure also explains that sexual assault is not always committed by people who “don’t look like a rapist”—attackers “tend to have hyper-masculine attitudes,” it advises—it does not offer instruction to servicemembers on not committing sexual assault. Prevention is treated as the responsibility of potential victims.
“Rapists look for vulnerability and then exploit it in those who: are young (naive); are new to the base, deployment, area, etc.; are emotionally unstable,” the brochure (.pdf) continues.
The quoted brochure is from SC's Shaw Air Force Base, one of the largest Air Force bases in the US, a base that includes its own self-contained town supporting around 16,500 military personnel and their families. (By contrast, the closest town, Sumter, has a population of roughly 40,500.)
So it's important to remember that in the scenarios outlined in this rape-prevention brochure, the rapists that are attacking servicewomen are likely servicemen. Yet these servicemen aren't given helpful tips or training on how to avoid physically and sexually assaulting their peers.
This brochure suggests that the Air Force—these servicewomen's bosses—still don't see rape as a man's issue. It's a woman's issue, one as natural and inevitable as your monthly menses, one women should just accept unless they're dykes or drama queens or some other troublesome kind of women who rolls under cars to avoid being raped by their peers.

From the LA Times account of that night:
The group was taken to Francis' gated home, where a physical altercation ensued between Francis and two of the women as he allegedly attempted to pull one of them away from the others, authorities said.Francis grabbed one of the women by the throat and hair and pushed and slammed her head into the tile floor four times, according to authorities.
The women were escorted out of the house and allegedly told a taxi would not be called and paid for if they called the police.
Francis faces serious jail time—up to five years. He'll be sentenced tomorrow in LA County superior court. Good riddance.
Zombie Industries is a company that produces zombie-themed "life-sized tactical mannequin" targets that really "bleed" when shot. The company sells 15 male zombies, many of which were on display at last weekend's NRA convention in Houston—including one that was pulled for resembling President Obama. The company also sells five animal zombies, two alien zombies, and one lady zombie: "The Ex GF."
As Zombie Industries explains on its website, "to discriminate against Women by not having them represented in our product selection would be just plain sexist." Ha ha! Because there's nothing sexist or dangerous about creating a grown-up version of a Betsy Wetsy doll for bloodthirsty adults with domestic violence fantasies and ready access to firearms, and naming her "The Ex." Ha ha ha!
So what if domestic violence already hurts more women than car accidents, rapes, and muggings combined.
So what if firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005, or that abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm, as the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence claims.
Shooting guns is fun. It's an American freedom! And apparently in America, the only thing more freeing than shooting guns is practicing on the Whore Who Broke Your Heart™.
See video of trigger-happy men shooting up their ex after the jump.
Posted by news intern Ansel Herz
Slog tipper Emily Steed called State Representative Elizabeth Scott (R-Monroe) to ask why she was the lone "nay" vote in the House's 96-1 passage of a bill that finally criminalized marital rape in the third degree.
"She kind of hangs herself with her own words, if you ask me," Emily says. "It's pretty gross." Emily forwarded the representative's email response:
Please be assured that as a survivor of domestic violence from my first marriage I thought long and hard about my decision to vote against House Bill 1108 which revises the definitions of indecent liberties and rape in the third degree. This bill requires absolutely no proof that rape occurred—because there couldn't be any—and is specifically NOT about forcible rape.
My concern was that someone could accuse her spouse of 'rape in the 3rd degree' which is not what most people think of when they hear the word 'rape'. This bill is not about physically forced sex. If for example, a husband verbally threatens his wife pressuring her to have sex against her will, that will be a crime. The problem is, how do you prove it? There's no way to prove that. I am concerned that a divorcing spouse could lie about it just to make more trouble on the way out the door.
A woman says she was assaulted at knife point while walking through Capitol Hill's Cal Anderson park around 4:00 a.m. this morning. Details come from the SPD blotter:
The woman stated that she was walking through the park at that hour when she heard a man yelling for assistance. The woman told officers the man was stating he had been stabbed, so she went over to help. When she reached him, he stood up and produced a knife. According to the victim, the man then put the knife in his pocket and put his arm through hers, in an “escort” fashion, and the two of them walked through the park.At one point the suspect pushed the woman against a tree and held her there with his arm while he attempted to masturbate. According to the victim, the suspect got frustrated and pushed her to the ground. At about that time, two men walking their dog came through the park. The dog ran over to the suspect and victim. The victim told officers that the suspect told the dog to leave, and the dog walkers came over to apologize and retrieve their dog. At that point the woman got up off the ground and walked away with the dog walkers. She then walked to the precinct where she reported the incident to officers.
Officers were unable to locate the suspect, whom the victim described as a tall, thin, white man with bad acne and teeth.
On the left, we have Kim "Even My Armpits Are Fat!" Kardashian. (Let me pause for a moment and say: Like most women, I feel acutely aware of all the ways my body can fail to please others at any given moment, but dear lord, it has never occurred to me that you can have FAT ARMPITS.)
On the right, we have Gwyneth "World's Most Beautiful Woman" Paltrow.
There's no in between, really. It's either Ol' Fat Armpits McGee or Mrs. Goop. You choose.
Until yesterday, "But we're married!" was a perfectly adequate defense in our state to the charge of rape in the third degree, as well as the euphemistically named crime "indecent liberties." Fortunately, Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill on Wednesday closing that awful loophole in Washington State law.
Use of force isn't a prerequisite of being convicted of rape in the third degree, which simply requires that the victim "did not consent... to sexual intercourse with the perpetrator and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct," or that a suspect exhibited a "threat of substantial unlawful harm to property rights of the victim." But until yesterday, it also required that the victim be "not married to the perpetrator." Marital rape is a form of partner abuse, and I can only imagine the horror of reporting what would otherwise be a third-degree rape by your spouse only to discover that it was not, in fact, a crime.
Like many states, we eliminated marriage as a defense against first- and second-degree rape in the '80s. This new law will eliminate jury instructions like number two, here:
Thank god, Washington. Never have I been so happy to see a good old-fashioned strikethrough.
Responding to a federal court order to make emergency contraceptives available over the counter without age restrictions by May 5, the Federal Drug Administration instead countered yesterday with a proposal to make Plan B and other emergency contraceptives available in retail aisles and sold to women age 15 and up, with ID.
In some ways, this is a victory for women's reproductive freedom (remember not so long ago, when Health secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that 17-year-olds need a prescription for Plan B?). It also brings up at least one troubling question—how does a teen legally buy it if, like most 15-year-olds, she doesn't have her driver's license yet?
And psychologist and reproductive health blogger Valerie Tarico points out why and how the compromise falls short:
What’s wrong with a little compromise?Two things.
First, the job of the FDA is to make rules based on uncorrupted science. Not politics. Not convenience or comfort. Science. Period. Drug companies may advocate on behalf of their profit margins. Politicians may advocate on behalf of political ideology or campaign donors or favorite lobbyists. But the job of the FDA is to make clean recommendations based on how foods and drugs actually affect people. In this case those people are women and teens, and the science is clear. Having the drug freely available results in better public health outcomes than does restricting it. Political compromise casts doubt on the whole regulatory enterprise, and the agency, and it should.
Second, the real effect of the compromise isn’t on 11-year-olds, who don’t actually have sex and then show up at drug stores with 50 dollars worth of allowance in their pockets asking for Plan B. The real effect is on females of all ages who are forced to produce ID to get emergency contraception. When a women or teen needs emergency contraception she typically is in a situation she would rather not publicize. A condom has broken. Or she screwed up her birth control. Or she had impulsive sex. Or she got raped.
Tarico then patiently explains how this compromise benefits religious conservatives and their sex-shaming agenda. Go read the whole thing.
Unlike Goldy, I didn't attend the first mayoral panel of the season on Monday, but I've been slowly making my way through the Seattle Channel video archive of the event by piece and parcel, with my own bucket of stale popcorn.
And there's one question—or rather, one response—that I don't think has gotten nearly enough attention. It comes at about the 52:30 mark, when moderator C.R. Douglas asks Charlie Staadecker, Tim Burgess, and Bruce Harrell to respond to this question:
Why do you think Seattle has the worst gender pay gap in the US and how do you plan to address it?
I really wish all candidates had responded to this question. Amidst fluffy questions about what people had stored on their iphones, professional regrets, or what their fantasy legacy as mayor might be, this was one of the most concrete questions of the night—the rare question that gave candidates a chance to talk policy while addressing an issue of injustice affecting half their voter base.
As it was, two out of three candidates flubbed their responses, hard.* Staadecker admitted that he didn't know the issue existed: "First of all, I will confess, I was not aware as a city that we were the worst in the United States. Therefore, if women aren’t being paid, if there’s a glass ceiling, that has to be through education and skills."
Worse, Burgess said this: "Well, if everybody had daughters like I did the problem would self correct, eventually." In other words, most women must not be as smart as Burgess's daughters? Or work as hard as them? Or something?
To be clear, I'm all for tasteless jokes—I make them, I love them. But if you're going to lead with a tasteless joke, you'd better have a solid answer to back it up. Burgess doesn't. Instead he throws some rambling praise for early learning programs, which are great but have nothing to do with addressing the gender/wage gap. At all. At least Staadecker had the grace to admit he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. Burgess's answer was more than embarrassing; it was insulting, dismissive, and off point.
Only Harrell managed an articulate answer, for which he was rewarded with the biggest applause of the night: "The answer is simple—institutional practices. We haven’t paid attention to the institutional practices. Here’s the difference between the mayor and myself—when I read the report, I immediately went into action. I’ve asked the Seattle Women’s commission to develop a work plan with me to look at the policy changes we have to do."
I have no doubt this question will come up again and when it does, Burgess and Staadecker will be ready for it. Everyone will. The seven candidates fighting for McGinn's seat have months to groom themselves and polish their answers to suit our ears, which is why questions like this, which catch candidates completely, embarrassingly unaware (you want us to talk about women troubles? wha?), matter so much.
*Read their full, unedited responses after the jump.
Hey, look, Mom: It's institutions, clubs, positions, and honors of all kinds that just happen to entirely exclude women, and a hell of a lot of them, like:
• All incarnations of the Dalai Lama, ever.
• Every annual award given by the National Sportscaster and Sportswriters Association, ever, along with the entire board.
• Everyone to ever hold “the most famous academic chair in the world.”
• Every person on U.S. banknotes ever.
• All of the Master Chefs of France and the board of the American Culinary Federation...
We just got an e-mail from Slog tipper idaho, asking us to fact-check a tweet that Jason Collins isn't the first major sports star to come out of the closet. Here's what idaho writes:
Hey, I saw a tweet that the WNBA has openly gay players. That is a professional sports league. It just happens to be made up of second-class citizens known as women, so of course if this is true, then they wouldn't really count in the "first professional athlete to be openly gay" category.
It's totally true. From the P-I in 2005:
Three-time Olympic gold medalist. Three-time Most Valuable Player in the WNBA. And, as of Wednesday, the only openly gay athlete to currently play a major professional team sport.
Many people said Sheryl Swoopes' announcement that she is gay was a non-story—either because her sexuality shouldn't matter or because she is far from a household name. But the Houston Comets star, perhaps the best woman to ever work the hardwoods, is in a public club of one. And that has made her revelation a landmark.
Eight years ago, Sheryl Swoopes essentially said, "I'm a 34-year-old WNBA forward. I'm black. And I'm gay." There are other openly gay players in the WNBA, too.
I totally understand that cultural expectations around men's sports and sexuality are different from those around women's, and I don't want to step on history's big basketball-shaped happy face. But I do feel like this should be acknowledged.
Religious conservatives are coming for your contraceptives. Really. They are. (Via Jessica Valenti.)
...CHASTITY BELT!!!
My favorite band photographer Sarah Creighton tooled together a steak chastity belt and took a series of these Virgin Suicides-with-a-twist photos after a conversation where the band was joking about making it a habit of throwing raw meat at apathetic crowds. It makes for some striking feminist imagery, and I gotta give props to Chastity Belt for having the guts to not take the same stupid "band lined up in front of a brick wall" press photo...