Netflix always recommends me something “with a strong female lead”

it’s like it knows me or something.

cross-posted from http://scrambledmeggs.posterous.com/netflix-always-recommends-me-something-with-a

a book and a movie

I haven’t been writing. I went to the beach and enjoyed two days of radio silence. I’ve been reading “Half the Sky,” and you probably should, too. Yes, my friends and I were the nerdy kids on the beach reading nonfiction.

Last night I saw a screening of “MissRepresentation,” which I also highly recommend. Here’s the trailer:

Not too much of the data and statistics in the documentary were surprising to me, but the film definitely opened the eyes of my friends who didn’t spend a good portion of the summer trying to figure out a way to present those issues to young girls. The teenage girls and the women in the film were inspiring, and I really enjoyed hearing what they had to say.

what i’m reading

via

Amazing piece at Feministe discusses relationship violence, independence and capability: “What would have happened if we’d all had a broader template that showed that vulnerability was just as valid a state for a feminist to inhabit as strength and invincibility?” (I can’t help think I would try to “handle it” very much the same way.)

The Texas Tribune is counting down the days till most of Texas’ new laws take effect by highlighting a different one each day. Day 11: Women seeking an abortion in Texas will be required to hear a description of the results of an ultrasound examination.

Lots of people are upset about the Michele Bachmann Newsweek cover. Is it sexist? Maybe. Is it bad journalism? Definitely. My thoughts in short: Newsweek did not portray other (male) candidates in the same light. But, in the theme of “a woman candidate is not necessarily a woman’s candidate,” it could very well be possible that Newsweek mocked Michele Bachmann so blatantly because she isn’t a good candidate, and that might have nothing to do with her gender. Despite the motive, it was unfair treatment. And, as Jon Stewart so eloquently pointed out: “Be honest, Newsweek, you used that photo in a petty attempt to make Michele Bachmann look crazy — and that’s what her words are for.”

Bitch magazine’s Adventures in Feministory highlights Ann Richards, an awesome Texan whom you might know from saying that former President George H. W. Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth, oh, and she was our governor before George W. Bush.

via

How cool is it that when some Britons were literally burning parts of their cities, others were lining up, brooms in hand, volunteering to help clean? That is inspiring.

Really looking forward to seeing the new documentary about Gloria Steinem. Liked seeing her on The Colbert Report this week. “We know that women can do what men can do, right? But we don’t know that men can do what women can do.”

on pinterest and body image

Pinterest is kind of like a virtual bulletin board, or collection of borads, rather. Users can “pin” an image from any website to a personal board. The images range from DIY tips (how to make a skirt) to recipes to home decor ideas. The site has been embraced by many, some of whom offer some criticism for its somewhat consumerist culture. Medicinal Marzipan writes:

I worry that Pinterest represents another level to keeping up with the joneses, where someone is sitting in their house wishing for someone else’s life.

I love pinterest, personally. But the idea of coveting things bothers me far less than coveting bodies. Pinterest is a collection of its users’ interests, and a lot of users seem to be interested in weight loss. While there are many healthy images around health and bodies, there are a few that disturb me:

Notice anything missing from that last one? Any mention of food. I looked this recipe up on google and found a few message boards that mentioned instructions to eat “a bit of asparagus.”

I found these images on pinboards titled “health” and “motivation.” Now, pinterest, of course, isn’t the problem. The beauty of pinterest is that its content is entirely user-edited. People are choosing these images as reflections of their beliefs on health and body image. And the above images reflect someone who believes happiness (and health) comes in a size 2.

But lately, I’m seeing some more positive pins.

When people talk about the “obesity epidemic,” there are some undertones that perpetuate the message of a “skinny ideal,” which isn’t healthy. The media tend to equate “fat” with “unhealthy.” And it’s no secret that many unhealthy eating habits cause weight gain. But if fat equals unhealthy, then skinny implicitly equals healthy. (Type “somalia famine” into google image search, and try to tell me that skinny equals healthy — or beauty, for that matter.) One more step down the implication stairway, and you might infer that you can’t be both “fat” and healthy.

We owe it to our friends, our sisters, our aunts, our cousins, our daughters and sons to shift the focus from weight and appearance to health and wellness — to perpetuate a healthy message.

So, I leave you with ultimate response to Kate Moss:

 

ETA: For more on social media and body image, check out this fantastic post, which focuses on other forms of social media and which eloquently makes the point: “Inspiration can work in many different ways – and only some of them are healthy.”

on my radar: warren jeffs and sharia bans

The Warren Jeffs trial is a good example of news coverage of fundamentalist religious groups. That is the sentence I wrote before I typed “warren jeffs” into Google on Monday night and saw this:

Seriously. I’m not clever enough to make that up. I feel for the San Angelo Standard Times. I’m sure they, too, are overworked and understaffed. Props to them for being the top result even with a dummy hed (aka placeholder headline), I say. In the third result, I don’t think the word “allegedly” is necessary at all. It would have been easier to write “DNA expert says” or “doctor testifies,” and it wouldn’t carry the undertone of “allegedly.” (As AP says: “This word must be used with great care.”) Interesting that it came from the Salt Lake Tribune. Oh, and the second result? Yes, Jeffs most clearly was turning his trial into a sermon on polygamy. (He also threatened the jurors and the judge with God’s wrath.)

Jeffs’ case reminded me of some lawmakers’ efforts to ban Sharia law from U.S. courts. Legislation has popped up in a few states this year to prohibit state judges from considering foreign laws or rulings that violate constitutional rights.

One argument typically used in favor of a ban on Sharia in U.S. courts, The New York Times writes:

Critics most typically cite a New Jersey case last year in which a Moroccan woman sought a restraining order against her husband after he repeatedly assaulted and raped her. The judge denied the request, finding that the defendant lacked criminal intent because he believed that his wife must comply, under Islamic law, with his demand for sex.

The decision was reversed on appeal.

If the judge and jury in Warren Jeffs’ case were to take his religious beliefs into consideration, could he be pardoned? Jeffs — who is charged with sexually assaulting two girls, 12 and 15 years old — has been defending himself for a little while, and he has more than once quoted “the word of the Lord” in court or in legal documents. Under the New Jersey judge’s logic, Warren Jeffs’ religious beliefs (which are fundamentalist and not in line with the Church of Latter Day Saints) most certainly would mean he lacks criminal intent. He believes that he is the voice of God on Earth, and so do his followers, meaning the girls’ parents would be innocent, too. The most recent issue of Bitch has a fascinating article about Mormonism. It doesn’t seem to be on their website, but here’s a sample:

A primary way you’ll progress is by becoming a god or goddess, and by procreating your own spirit children. … God becomes a literal father of all human souls in the way men on this planet typically become parents of embodied children: He has sex.

…

The belief that a man can be married for eternity to every woman he marries on earth—and that in fact it’s righteous to marry multiple women so he can produce spirit children more efficiently —is a justification for the doctrine of polygamy …

So, if New Jersey court decision stood, you could see where a good attorney could argue that Jeffs lacked criminal intent — whether he committed the crimes or not. (Although DNA evidence shows that Jeffs is the father of the 15-year-old victim’s baby.)

And if religious beliefs could prove a lack of criminal intent, Anders Behring Breivik could be pardoned for the attacks in Norway, because of his fundamentalist Christian beliefs. But he might be going with an insanity defense. Fine line.

So why a call to arms over Sharia? It’s hard to argue that only fundamentalist Muslims commit crimes, even horrific attacks. Furthermore, it’s hard to argue that only fundamentalist Muslims use their religious beliefs to justify said crimes. The legislative campaign against Sharia, to me, is reminiscent of France’s ban on face veils. Leading a campaign against a particular set of beliefs — instead of addressing separation of church and state — perpetuates fear and hate instead of promoting empathy and respect. In fact, that kind of behavior was something the founding fathers clearly sought to prohibit.

Pop quiz: What’s the first protection in the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof …

Texas House takes up gender issues. Yes, you read that right.

Tonight at work, a tweet from the Texas Tribune caught my attention:

http://twitter.com/#!/TexasTribune/status/79044165924700160

Um… huh?! Oh, and when I say “tonight at work,” I mean “tonight, when I was working at the newspaper in the state capital.” Yes, I knew the House was slated to debate a bunch of amendments to Senate Bill 1, which is the reason we’re in a special session. You see, while I was all distracted by other actions in the lege, I missed this one. Before I even got a chance to look up the amendment, I saw this:

http://twitter.com/#!/TexasTribune/status/79047054936121344

I’ll admit, I don’t usually watch the stream of the lege, so I don’t know if this is common behavior. I sincerely hope the Trib posts video of this. Anyway, I looked up the amendment to SB 1, which all the papers just call “the fiscal matters bill.” Amendment 150 — spoiler alert — would have restricted any public college or university from using state money or property to support “a gender and sexuality center or other center focused on gay, lesbian, transgender, gender questioning, or other gender identity issues.” Rep. McClendon‘s right. That is sickening. (And yes, the Trib had a little typo in her name. Two Cs.)

Two bits of background here. Rep. Wayne Christian, who wrote the amendment was on my radar earlier in the day, when he said “I just believe is it wrong…for state dollars to be used for abortions” as the House was taking away my county’s public health care district from contracting with any facility (read: hospital) that provides abortions. Ours is was the only county in the state to do so. He is from WHERE? and he wrote the amendment to Senate Bill 7, a health care bill, which is described as “Relating to the administration, quality, and efficiency of health care, health and human services, and health benefits programs in this state” on the state website. Oh yeah, he’s from Center, Texas. Center is about a five-hour drive from Austin. (Props to Austin’s Rep. Donna Howard, who, when the House adopted the measure, the Statesman reports said in clear exasperation: “You guys just don’t give up, do you?” Howard also managed to pass an amendment to another bill that might get public schools a bit more funding.)

So back to the post-midnight debate. This is the next tweet I see:

http://twitter.com/#!/TexasTribune/status/79047489398906880

It seems a few amendments are being posed to Christian’s amendment, including one from Rep. Marc Veasey, who said Christian’s amendment was blatantly putting discrimination in the law.” The amendment to the amendment (don’t ya just love how simple politics is?) says that a public college or university “may not consider creed, race, color, sex, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin of the students proposed to be served” when allotting state money or property to support a “student center or similar facility.” At some point during debate on various amendments, Christian revealed just how sexually repressed he is:

http://twitter.com/#!/TexasTribune/status/79050109618368512

Eventually, a point of order is raised. Hilariously abbreviated on Twitter as “POO,” it was apparently called on calendar items. Points of order are usually technicalities, and they can completely derail a bill. The House Democrats told Christian that if he withdrew his amendment, they would raise the point of order. He eventually conceded:

http://twitter.com/#!/TexasTribune/status/79068564027486208

The House debates other amendments for another hour or so, and then, to applause, finally passes the bill. Rep. Rob Eissler (the House public education chair) had this to say:

http://twitter.com/#!/TexasTribune/status/79081115654160385

Heartwarming. Really, what’s heartwarming is that they finally took a stand. Senator Wendy Davis did it last week, and tonight, House Democrats did it, too. The House (and the Legislature in general) has let a lot of crap slip through — like Christian’s other measure that passed earlier in the day. Christian, actually, when withdrawing his amendment said he was “dumbfounded” that after approving measures such as giving publics schools $4 billion less than they’re owed under current law to cover the sharp growth in the number of students, among others things, that his fellow representatives would put their feet down over “alternative lifestyles.” I had to say, I was a bit surprised, too. Pleasantly, but surprised nonetheless. I just wish Texas Democrats would stop all this waiting until the last minute to rally and do something. The “final straw” should have come months ago.

Senate Bill 1 needs one more House vote before it goes back to the Senate, which will consider the House’s amendments. In the meantime, check out tonight’s Houston Chronicle and Statesman stories.

Updated to add: The Texas Tribune has posted their video of the debate on Christian’s amendment.

Here’s to Texas’ female lawmakers

This post has been brewing for a few days now. Since I on started scribbling notes for this post on a yellow pad last week, a lot has happened. As such, the scope and direction of the post took many incarnations. This is what I’ve come up with: I’d like to take a look at two of Texas’ female legislators who spoke up this week, and their different receptions.

First up: Rep. Senfronia Thompson

Rep. Thompson, a Houston Democrat, has been a member of the Texas Legislature longer than any other female or black legislator — ever in the state. You may have heard Rep. Thompson’s name last week, as a speech she gave garnered (a little) national attention. A flier (at right) circulated by an anti-tort reform group, The Texas Civil Justice League, featured the image of a child nursing a woman’s breast. The flier, by the way, was in protest of Rep. Thompson’s House Bill 2093, which had to do with insurance. (The bill went on to pass Monday.)

But this was Thursday — a day the bill wasn’t seeing too much action. The flier was too much for Rep. Thompson, and she took the podium in what I believe the House calls “a matter of personal privilege.” (You can watch the video here.) She begins by acknowledging that “during this legislative session, we have spent about 30 or 40 percent of our time kicking the reproductive organs of women down the road. And i thought that that was an issue that we had finished and we had completed.”

Now, at times I must admit, Rep. Thompson reminded me a bit of Queen Latifah’s character on 30 Rock. It may be that sometimes she starts a sentence in one direction and ends in a complete different place grammatically, or her mispronouncing “despicable.” But unlike Queen Latifah’s character, Rep. Thompson actually has something worthy to make a grandiose speech about:

“I find these fliers despicable. I find them distasteful, I find them hateful and I find that they foster disrespect and violence toward women. And I am appalled today that this Texas civil justice league would go so low that they would put out this kind of hate — resentful, bitter, despicable, violent fliers — toward women just to get at a piece of legislation.”

As she spoke, women lined up in the aisles to add comments, pose questions, or just show support. Rep. Carol Alvarado, another Houston Democrat, said, “This piece of propaganda is a below-the-belt political tactic. We have had almost 50-plus amendments and/or bills that have come across the floor this session that I think have demeaned women—but this one takes us to an all-time low.” (I have to admit, I like Rep. Alvarado’s comment almost more than Rep. Thompson’s whole speech. But that’s a whole other post.)

After a couple more comments, including one explosive allegation that Rep. Debbie Riddle later sort of played down, Rep. Thompson ends with a strong kicker — “And men, if you don’t stand up for us today, don’t you walk in this chamber tomorrow” — followed by a standing ovation.

This story made most of the big state newspapers, or at least their websites. And it garnered mentions on Ms Magazine and Feministing. If I had the time, I would love to analyze the media coverage of Rep. Thompson’s speech. But for now, I’ll just point you to one story that transitions well into our next topic. The Texas Tribune took up the issue of sexism in the Texas Legislature on Saturday, and Sen. Wendy Davis had a lot to say.

Sine Die: Sen. Wendy Davis

Actually, Sen. Davis, a Democrat from Fort Worth, started speaking up (or being heard) in the hours just before Sine Die, the last day of the regular legislative session. On Sunday night, the 138-day battle between the Texas Legislature’s Democratic minority and Republican majority came to a head, or at least a strict deadline. Gov. Rick Perry had told the chambers that they had better pass Senate Bill 1811 — kind of a crucial point to the state budget bill they passed only days earlier because it would alter state law, allowing Texas to give $4 billion less to school districts over the next two-year budget and defer $2 million in education dollars to the following budget — or else. The Texas Legislature traditionally doesn’t tackle big bills in its last day, using it instead for loose ends on other legislation, so Sunday was pretty much it for this bill. Filibuster rumors began circling as the bill came back to the Senate from the House about 9 p.m., and about 10:45 Sunday night, Sen. Davis took a point of order. She easily made it to midnight by talking about how much money each school district stood to lose from the passage the bill. As others have put it before me: She literally talked the bill to death.

Now this ain’t Sen. Davis’ first rodeo — but it could be her last. She’s a freshman legislator who won her seat from a Republican incumbent in 2008, and the way the redistricting maps are looking now, she probably won’t be back in 2013. Basically, she had nothing to lose.

The next afternoon, during a press conference the Democrats held, Sen. Davis had this to say: “Our Legislature has failed to be leaders.” She says that the bill she filibustered will force school districts to raise property taxes: “We’re going to ask every family in Texas to pay higher property taxes so that their children can be properly educated, because we were too afraid to use money that the governor has in the enterprise fund, in the emerging technology fund, because we were too afraid to ask some of our large corporations that are currently benefitting from loopholes not to benefit from those anymore, we were too afraid, as a Legislature, to ask that everyone in the state of Texas share in the economic downturn.” She continues: “We are ready to work today on this failed budget. Whether it’s today, whether it’s a special session that gets called tomorrow, we are ready to do the work to put a budget together that adequately funds public education.”

The difference?

Well, Rep. Thompson and Sen. Davis certainly took stands on different issues. Rep. Thompson preached about the sexism inherent in a flier — circulated by a private group — that objectified women. Sen. Davis stood up for Democratic Texans and for school funding.  (Not to digress too much, but she was also the author of the so-called rape kit bill, which passed and will push police departments to process new evidence and get through backlogs faster.)

But the key difference here wasn’t in their messages but in their reception. After Rep. Thompson’s speech, the Texas Civil Justice League, as well as leaders in the Legislature, apologized. Some legislators, in fact, met afterward to discuss her comments. The Texas Civil Justice League suspended their president/general counsel and their communications director.

But on Monday morning, hours after Sen. Davis’ filibuster, Gov. Rick Perry had this to say: “Well, we still got time to get the work done today. She just, she raised a hurdle. That’s her call, and I’m sure the members of the Legislature that will be back here in special session will have appropriate things to say to her for that.” But he doesn’t end there, no. For this next line, I must quote directly from Jason Embry at the Austin American-Statesman: “We don’t come here to be show horses,” Perry said at his fourth bill-signing press conference in the last week.

So, Sen. Davis is essentially admonished by the governor, who not only blames her for the need for a special legislative session — omitting the fact that both chambers dawdled with clearly less important legislation, such as the “noodling bill” — but stops just short of instructing her peers to take their frustrations out on her. And on the other hand, Rep. Thompson is lauded for standing up for women, and demanding that men do, too. And those who offended her are held accountable — to some extent, at least. The story is tied up with a nice little bow.

More people are talking about Wendy Davis than Senfronia Thompson. Could be the timing (Perry said the day after Thompson’s speech that he was “thinking about” running for president), or it could be that Davis’ story isn’t wrapped up with a neat bow. You can’t simply make apologies and get the Legislature to agree on school funding. The special session is on at 8 a.m., and as Sen. Steve Ogden put it: “It could get really interesting and contentious around here.”

The “Dirty Dancing” precedent and a lose-lose situation

On Thursday, the Texas House passed a bill to overhaul Medicaid spending, but not before an array of amendments were added. One amendment states:

Any money received by health and human services agencies for family planning services, including grant money, may only be awarded or otherwise provided to a person or facility that does not perform abortions or provide abortion-related services.

The Associated Press reports (as published in the Austin American-Statesman):

Plainview Republican Rep. Jim Landtroop sponsored the amendment freezing state funding for facilities that perform abortions. He amended his own amendment to exclude abortion-related services in the cases of medical emergencies, but only after strenuous objections from Democratic opponents.

“It’s not my intent to punish hospitals,” Landtroop said. “It’s to protect the lives of unborn children.”

I would argue that this measure puts unborn children — and their mothers — at risk.

The fact is that the state (and the feds) already refuse to pay for abortions. What this amendment — and other Medicaid-related legislation at the Capitol — seeks is to strip funding from hospitals and clinics that perform abortions or “related services,” whatever those may be. But these hospitals and clinics are not one-stop abortion shops (as parodied in The Onion this week). These facilities provide pap smears, contraception, mammograms. They provide pre-natal and obstetric care. They operate in part because of Medicaid funding, and many of them primarily serve low-income Texans. In some rural areas, there is not another medical facility for miles. In those areas, these facilities provide pretty much the only care.

And, as evident by Thursday’s House vote, the state would take away that funding because abortion is so evil and wrong that not only are we refusing to pay for it, we’re refusing to fund any health care provider that performs this completely legal procedure — or any service “related” to it.

Now, this doesn’t protect unborn children. Making something illegal, or even hard to find, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. What this bill would mean is that clinics and hospitals would have to take a stand: stop performing abortions or find new income.

Legislators seem to hope that they choose the former. This would make abortions hard to come by, especially for the lower-income set served by these clinics. Those that don’t accept Medicaid funding aren’t affected. But the problem is: These women will continue to seek abortions. Back-alley, illegal procedures. We’ve all seen “Dirty Dancing,” right? Well at least one Houston congresswoman has. The San Antonio Express-News writes:

“We have made abortion so difficult in this state. I predict that women very soon will be going underground,” House Democratic Caucus leader Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, said.

There will be botched abortions and women ending up in hospital emergency rooms.

“Is that abortion related?” she asked.

But, then what if health care providers choose the right to perform abortions and related services rather than accept Medicaid funding, what happens to their clients? Where can those people go and see a doctor who takes Medicaid? The list is dwindling already. And, remember, women already aren’t getting abortions with Medicaid dollars. So, women (and men and children) would no longer have access to the basic medical care Medicaid is supposed to cover.

The Texas Tribune reports:

Many Democrats … said the wording of the amendment could potentially cut off state funding for any hospital that has given a woman a sonogram, prescribed the morning-after pill or helped a woman after a botched “back alley” abortion, which could technically be abortion-related services, they said. 

“You may not intend it that way, but when you read your amendment, [it] includes those types of services,” said veteran Democrat and lawyer Sylvester Turner.

Either way, the health care providers lose. Either way, the women of Texas lose.

“I rarely get on the (microphone),” Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, said. “But I’m concerned that it continues to be men that are considering bills about women’s health. I’m getting tired of it.”
(as quoted in the Texas Observer) 

This bill will now go back to the Senate for a vote on this and other amendments.

questions of life or death

I’ve been following this trial in the local paper (where I work) since it started two weeks ago. To get you up to speed: Last week, a jury found Areli Carbajal Escobar guilty of capital murder in the 2009 sexual assault and fatal stabbing of his 17-year-old neighbor, who was home with her nearly 1-year-old son. When I’ve been reading about the trial thus far, my thoughts always hovered on his guilt or innocence. It was like the second half of a Law & Order episode. But today, I got a glimpse into what happens after the episode ends, because I got completely sucked into the reporter’s tweets during the sentencing phase, which is in its fourth day.

Basically, since the guilty verdict, Escobar faces two options: life in prison or the death penalty. This week, lawyers have been arguing over whether this guy lives or dies. And 12 people have been sitting in that room, knowing that at the end of it, they have to decide his fate. The testimony so far seems to have focused on the danger Escobar poses to others, as well as his mental status. Testimony today also highlighted the difference between general prison population and death row, which was fascinating:

@StevenKreytak

Escobar’s lawyers are literally fighting for his life. And the prosecutors are trying to convince 12 people that this man doesn’t deserve to live, that the world will be a safer place without him. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the jury deliberation room. In what process does a group of people make a life and death decision like this?

Yes, this man did a terrible thing. He raped and killed a teenage girl, while her son watched. It was barbaric.  But isn’t it also barbaric to sit in a room and vote on whether someone lives or dies? Is the practice a necessary evil to keep people safe? Or to further deter people from heinous crimes? I wish I had more answers than questions. I go back and forth on this issue, and I’m glad I’m not the one to have to make the decision. I don’t think I could bring myself to.

Abortion really isn’t the issue here

Planned Parenthood funding battles have been in the news so much lately, it’s hard to keep track of which bill threatens which services. Texas Senate Bill 1854 would renew a program that provides low-income women with contraception and disease screening — but only if Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide that care. That stipulation may keep the bill from even being debated, and the program may lapse.

The Texas Medicaid Women’s Health Program, according to a state website, “provides low-income women with family planning exams, related health screenings and birth control through Texas Medicaid.”

Now, the bill itself doesn’t single out Planned Parenthood, but rather all abortion providers. The bill states: “The department shall ensure the money spent under the program, regardless of the funding source, is not used to perform or promote elective abortions. The department, for the purpose of the program, may not contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”

The bill not only bans Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from participating in the program, but — as the Austin American-Statesman has reported — it would also kill the program entirely if Planned Parenthood successfully sued to participate.

If this isn’t throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I don’t know what is. The program doesn’t cover abortion services (nor does any other state or federally funded program I’m aware of). So what does it matter if a woman chooses to obtain birth control and have preventative exams and screenings at a clinic that happens to also provide abortion services?