Blogging break... but not yet

I'm a few weeks out from finishing my master's degree - yay! In order to concentrate on my final papers, I'm going to duck out from here for awhile. Just a few weeks, until my life stops being crazy and starts being ... less crazy. I'll be back by early May, promise.

But before I go, here's something that pissed me off recently.

Science blogger P.Z. Meyers suggested a new piece of Catholic iconography that he believes would get more people to go to church:


He writes,

Somehow, I was also able to watch the whole movie that young lady was in without once grumbling about the banality of the plot or the ludicrous absurdity of mixing dinosaurs and cavemen, so she has proven powers in generating a willing suspension of disbelief, so I'm sure she'd be a perfect symbol for a religion.

Because that's just what we need - sexxxxy ladies on the cross who will bring people to religion (specifically the Catholic Church, a locus of Meyers' ire before).

Let's objectify women's bodies in a specifically religious (and to some, blasphemous) context at a time when women are bombarded with conflicting messages about their bodies and sexuality. And let's hear it from progressive people who are supposed to have women's backs. Plus, the cross was an instrument of torture and a symbol of a painful, lengthy death.

Also, some people like iconography, like me. I'm not Catholic, but the history and symbolism entrenched in religious iconography is rich and fascinating.

So P.Z. Meyers, your mocking is not helping. In fact, you're making it worse, both for religious people and for women. We have our hands full with the virgin/whore complex, so let's not get a sexy lady Jesus in there and mess us up even more.

Mad Housewife

So maybe it's the feminist in me, aware of the "women belong in the kitchen" jokes told by so many people in this country, but when I came across Mad Housewife wine in a store the other day, I was kind of put off. At first, it was just a feeling of uneasiness. Maybe I just didn't like the name. But when I went to do some investigating online, I realized I had more reason to be unhappy than I had first believed.

The Mad Housewife website is striking first of all in the several pictures of "the Mad Housewife" who smiles, dressed in what appears to me to be a retro wardrobe, perhaps a throw back to the 1950s, a time of "traditional women's roles" such as mother and homemaker. I find it interesting that the website so embraces these images when the very title of the label seems to contradict it: It is, after all, Mad Housewife. Not Happy, Content Housewife.

Next, if you click on the image on the home page that reads "who's hungry? check out our delightful recipe section!" you will be taken to a page that includes recipes and gift ideas. Under the heading "Gift Ideas" is a link to Save the Ta-Tas. Save the Ta-Tas is an organization that sells products to raise awareness of breast cancer in general and raise money for breast cancer research specifically. However idealistic this mission sounds, it does not cover the fact that Save the Ta-Tas are objectifying women (especially women with breast cancer), turning them into their body parts, in order to raise money. A link on the Save the Ta-Tas page even says "Show us your ta-tas!" Objectification is never okay, especially if the organization claims to be doing something good for women. (Save the Ta-Tas also has a men's shirt that says "Save a Life Grope Your Wife" but that bullshit is another post all together...) And Mad Housewife supports this.

Then there is the recipe for Mad Housewife Sangria, "aka a Slutty Mad Housewife." You can find the recipe on the Mad Housewife recipe. The aka name disgusts me. This is a product being sold, I assume, by a woman meant to appeal to female consumers. The use of the word "slutty" on a website that also promotes "Save the Ta-Tas" convinces me that this is not an attempt to reclaim words. It is simply buying into old, sexist ideas of advertising meant to put women down.

I'm upset that my initially unfounded bad feeling about this product proved, afterall, to have a foundation. Contact Mad Housewife cellars if you are sick of seeing products advertised in ways that carry harmful messages about women.

I was going to say more about this, but this actually led me to some other things I want to investigate for possible blog posts. Leave your thoughts in the comments section.

Just a bit of housekeeping...

I went through and rearranged the links on the right hand side. The same blogs that we linked to before are still there, but I deleted the blog list application (it took up a lot of space) and went back to just link lists.

Hope everyone is having a nice day! I will be posting something of more substance later.

Women in Afghanistan protest law that legalizes marital rape among other things

Around 300 women in Kabul, Afghanistan took to the streets today to protest a law that severely limits women's rights. The women wanted to protest several parts of the law especially. These include a provision that makes it illegal for women to resist the sexual advances of their husbands, effectively legalizing marital rape, and another that makes it illegal for women to work or go to school outside of the home without the permission of their husband. The law was approved by both houses of Parliament and was signed by President Hamid Karzai, and it applies only to the Shiite minority.

The women who protested Wednesday began their demonstration with what appeared to be a deliberately provocative act. They gathered in front of the School of the Last Prophet, a madrasa run by Ayatollah Asif Mohsini, the country’s most powerful Shiite cleric. He and the scholars around him played an important role in the drafting of the new law.

As the women walked the streets of the capital, they endured shouts of "Whore!" and other insults from a large, angry group consisting mostly of men, who came to counterprotest.

“We are here to campaign for our rights,” one woman said into a loudspeaker. Then the women held their banners aloft and began to chant.

The reaction was immediate. Hundreds of students from the madrasa, most but not all of them men, poured into the streets to confront the demonstrators.

“Death to the enemies of Islam!” the counterdemonstrators cried, encircling the women. “We want Islamic law!”

The women stared ahead and kept walking.

Thanks to Ashley for the link. See Shakesville for pictures from the protest.

Why I don't (normally) miss TV: Part two

EDIT: In the ten minutes that it took to write this blog post, this Nutrisystem commercial featuring Jillian Barberie Reynolds was removed from Youtube. Not really sure what happened. Edit part two: Apparently it's back? Sorry!

When I'm at school, I try to limit the amount of TV I watch. But it really seems as if every time I happen to turn the TV on, there's an annoying sexist advertisement on. I came back to the room for lunch today, and Kate was watching TV. In less than an hour, I've seen at least three Nutrisystem commercials, including the one below. The other one that played twice I couldn't find to show here.



There are several issues with this commercial.

First, it uses a spokesperson whose body type is just not going to be achievable for most people looking into the Nutrisystem option.

Second, she tries to sell herself as being into "manly" things, like playing football and eating pizza and burgers. When she mentions a more stereotypically "feminine" type of food (chocolate) she puts her hands around her mouth and lowers her voice, as if its something to be ashamed of.

Third, in the version of this commercial that I saw on TV, there was a website on the screen that read "www.nutrisystem.com/pretty" which gives the impression that the only way a woman can be "pretty" is by having the disposable income to go on a diet plan in order to lose weight.

This just makes my day. Being bombarded with commercials on several different channels that are trying to convince me that I am not "pretty" enough unless I lose some weight. One reason why I normally don't miss watching TV.

Other parts in this series: One.

Pro-life protest raises 14k for family planning

Here's some funny news out of Minneapolis/St. Paul - every year on Good Friday, a pro-life group protests at a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul. This year, Planned Parenthood did "sponsor a protester" as a fundraising technique. For every protester that showed up, someone donated x dollars.

Weeeeellll, the Archbishop of the archdiocese of St Paul/Minneapolis showed up this year, meaning that there was an even larger crowd of protesters, which means that Planned Parenthood raised way more money than anticipated. Apparently they raised $14,000 and carloads of donated food for food banks.

The money raised at the expense of anti-abortion protesters will go toward family planning services at the clinic. PPMNS said it provided more than 300,000 units of contraception and 20,000 breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings to women in Minnesota and the Dakotas within the past year.

Nice work, Archbishop Neinstedt and your posse of pro-life protesters. I'm glad you could do your part in preventing unplanned pregnancies and working for women's health issues.

Quick Read: President Obama officially recognizes April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month

To read President Obama's full remarks go here.

And to learn more about Sexual Assault Awareness Month, go here.

Thanks to Feministe for the links.

The Powerless White Male: A Confrontation

I want to confront the notion, that some people I consider friends buy into, that in this day and age, white American men "are powerless" and "get fucked over every day"* because they are white. Because they are male. One friend of mine in particular likes to point out that their are no "white guy scholarships," and since everyone else gets all the help, he is not privileged. In fact, he is disadvantaged. I don't want to address the issue of affirmative action in this post. Instead, I want to point out something much more pervasive in American society.

American life has been tailored to convenience white, heterosexual males.

Let us consider for a moment the endless amount of advertising that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Sexual images of women almost seem like something that should be expected in advertisements these days. But if you think more carefully about their content you will notice a few distinct patterns.

This Skyy Vodka image makes some assumptions about the viewer of the ad: 1) The viewer is a heterosexual male who would be enticed by the female in the image, 2) The heterosexual male is white, and could most effectively be enticed by a woman who looks as white as possible. This advert was clearly made with a specific demographic in mind, which is interesting considering vodka is a product that can and is used by people of all genders and sexualities.

Even adverts not directly speaking to white heterosexual males do not remove them from their privileged place in the mind of those creating the images. For example, this image of Beyoncé in a L'Oreal ad has caused some controversy about having been made to appear more like a white person. This image shows that even when an advert is for a "women's product" it is white males that are supposed to be pleased. Even if it is not an overt plot by the advertiser, this image is saying that all women should want to be white (or as white as possible) if they want to appeal to men (assumed to be white and heterosexual).

Another aspect of American life that white males can feel at home with is major national evening news shows. Some basic cable examples include World News, currently anchored by Charles Gibson and NBC Nightly news, currently anchored by Brian Williams. CBS Evening News is currently anchored by Katie Couric, but only after a line of previous anchors that has been dominated by men. It is important to note the impact of hearing about world news from someone similar to oneself. It helps determine to some extent the kinds of topics that are covered and how one thinks about the topics that are brought up.

Yet another example that is less specific, but just as important is street harassment. The fact that white males who more or less fit into the gender role society expects them to fulfill can walk in public without being harassed, without being treated like public property that is open to comments from strangers, that is privilege. Being able to exist in public spaces without having to face verbal and physical harassment, a tactic meant to strip people of the idea that they deserve to exist in such places, that is a privilege.

Of course, not all forms of privilege apply to all men. Sexuality, gender expression, ethnicity, race, income, and other factors can have an effect on what one's privilege looks like, but these factors don't make male privilege disappear completely. And I am absolutely sick of hearing my white, heterosexual male friends complaining about how the world treats them so unfairly because of the very characteristics that elevate them to a level of privilege in American society that is so entrenched in their daily lives that they can't even seem to identify it.

Being able to deny your privilege in such an adamant way and to demand that your own situation deserves to be addressed (as some of my friends have done), is also a luxury of the very privilege you deny.


*Quotes from a conversation with a male friend that touched on this topic.

Gay Marriage Legal in Four States

Given the events of the past six months, I'm surprised that the legalization of gay marriage by both Iowa and Vermont, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut to become the third and fourth states respectively, did not get more press. Maybe it's flown under the radar or been swept under the rug in lieu of the economic crisis, which is more evidence to my belief that Americans care more about their money than anything else.

Maybe it's because I haven't been watching the right channels, but the only coverage I've seen was one brief mention on MSNBC, as well as coverage in my local newspaper in the World & Nation Section. What makes me wonder, is just why this isn't getting more coverage, given how hot an issue it was as recently as recently as late February, and I don't really see it cooling off this quickly.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and make the assumption that this is because gay marriage wasn't legalized in New York or California. It was legalized in Iowa and Vermont. Three of the four states that allow it are in New England. I've lived in New England for all but ten months of my life, I visited Vermont multiple times as a child, and to this day, I still don't think I've ever actually met someone from Vermont. In other words, just like the natural disasters in Fargo, no one really cares about something significant if it doesn't happen in a major city or state.

Bias against small towns and lesser-known states and every bank in the country going bankrupt are really the only explanations I can think of as to why really just don't give a crap about this. Truth be told, even if Iowa and Vermont passed these laws way back on November 4th, the same day California banned it, I don't think anyone would be talking about it. It would all be about how Prop 8 passed in California and how it's a crushing defeat for gay rights.

Either way, at least it has the right people talking.

With all this being said, I'm glad we can add two more states to the list, and I'm glad one of them isn't within driving distance of my house. I take pride in living in the most progressive part of the nation, but seriously. It's time the other states got on board. I don't want to delve too far into the religious reasons for people supporting bans on gay marriage, but when you're picking and choosing certain passages from a book as openly sexist as the Bible and ignoring the stuff that makes you feel uncomfortable (my favorite is Leviticus 15: 19-24; go look it up), it makes me think you're just not cool with boys kissing each other.

Here's to hoping the other forty-six states get on board, so we can have equal rights for everyone.

One quick plug. My friend Jon recently started a blog called The Liberal Maniac, a catchy title if I've ever heard one. And really, it speaks for itself. It's a look at progressive politics from someone who knows what he's talking about. Anyway, he's invited me to contribute to the blog, so starting tomorrow, I'll also be a weekly contributor over at his fine site. So keep your eyes open. And likewise, he'll be linking back here to Female Impersonator. I encourage you to take a look and feel free to leave a comment. He loves comments.

Safe sex - it's not just the kids doing it these days

Teenagers aren't the only people who directly benefit from comprehensive sex education - as divorce becomes more and more prevalent in American culture, older single people are dating and having sex. Since some people view pregnancy as the main reason to use condoms, women in menopause or who may have had their tubes tied may not see the need for protection during sex.

However as this article states, menopausal and premenopausal women need to be aware of the risk of sexually transmitted infections, even if they don't view pregnancy as a risk. Additionally, women with vaginal atrophy may be at a higher risk of STIs because of the increased potential for small cuts and tears.

Another place that demonstrates the need for sex education and dispensing of condoms is nursing homes. For a lot of the reasons above, women and men in nursing homes need to be aware of safe sex, especially since aging bodies are often weaker than younger bodies.

I never thought about the need for sex education in these communities before, but lately, my divorced mother is starting to go on dates. In talking with her, I found out that she's only used oral hormone contraceptives in her life - STIs weren't as big of a concern when she was younger. Doing my daughterly duty, I told her about the importance of communication between partners, talking about sexual histories and getting tested, and using barrier protection. Then we decided that I'll give her "the talk" on her wedding night (preferably at the bar) and she's never giving me "the talk" because I'm never getting married.

Here's what the North American Menopause Society suggests all sexually active people do (good for anyone in sexual relationships, in my opinion):

• Choose partners selectively.
• Discuss sexual history with a partner; don’t let embarrassment compromise health.
• Always insist that a male partner use a latex condom for genital, oral, and anal sex, unless you are in a long-standing, mutually monogamous relationship. Never use petroleum-based products (Vaseline, baby oil) to lubricate condoms because they can damage the condom, potentially causing a leak).
• Keep medically fit and have a regular physical exam, including a Pap test and other tests to identify sexually transmitted infections if you are at risk. If exposed to an STI, or after a confirmed diagnosis, urge partner(s) to be examined and treated. Do not resume sexual activity until you and your partner are cleared of infection or, in the case of STIs that cannot be cured (such as herpes), until proper methods for optimal protection are understood and used.

Here's the moral of the story:

Comprehensive sex education must be taught to youth because this is lifelong knowledge - it's not going to stop being important and useful once you get out of high school or college or if you get married. Safe sex isn't just for teenagers - it's for everyone.

David Horowitz, mentions "political pluralism," speaks sexism/racism

Political pluralism in the curriculum at America's institutions of higher learning. An Academic Bill of Rights that made professors responsible for not indoctrinating their students. Doesn't sound so bad, right? Well, it was behind this mask of decent ideas that David Horowitz paraded his racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes at Knox College tonight, April 6, 2009.

When I heard about Horowitz being brought to Knox by the Knox College Republicans, the Intellectual Diversity Foundation and the Young America's Foundation, I knew I had to attend his talk, even though it might very well be difficult to hear.

Horowitz is most recently the author of a book called One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy. The title says it all, really.

Throughout his talk, Horowitz did not do a good job at trying to foster respect for his ideas on a campus that has, not infrequently, been noted for strong liberalism among its student and its faculty populations. He made numerous disparaging remarks about past events on the Knox campus. Toward the beginning of his talk he said, "I think it's disgraceful when speakers are protested at University campuses," in regard to the widespread student protests that Kate and I blogged about when John Ashcroft spoke here last year. By beginning his talk with insults about our campus, and offering no concrete ideas about addressing the issues he brought up, how exactly did he expect to make an impact here? Immediately it was as if we had to be on the defensive, when something as easy as trying a bit of constructive criticism could have helped create a more productive and less inflammatory atmosphere that would have been much more conducive to change.

Next, to address to other major themes in his talk.

Theme One: Women's Studies - Where students are presented "with controversial opinions as if they were scientific facts."

Horowitz actually dedicated a whole section of his talk specifically to women's studies, claiming it was "not an academic study." He went on to explain. "Women's Studies professors are part of a political movement within universities [meant to] recruit people to [believe that we live in] a racist, sexist, homophobic society that deserves to be attacked," he said, expounding upon his apparently unmoving belief that Women's Studies programs were meant only to indoctrinate students into feminist ideals.

When Horowitz asked a rhetorical question about who in the room had been taught that gender was a social construction, numerous hands went up (including mine). From there he went on to demonstrate that he did not quite know the difference between sex and gender when he said that empirical studies show that men and women are different and that "gender is hardwired, it's in the genome." Well, Mr. Horowitz, I'll leave out the idea that gender is displayed and acted out differently around the world because, I'm sure there's a genetic explanation, right?

Theme Two: Ism's (mainly sexism and racism) - "This is the most tolerant nation...on the face of the Earth."

During the question and answer section of his talk, Horowitz's true colors seemed to shine at their brightest. The following are questions [mostly paraphrased] submitted by the audience via note cards that were read aloud, followed by the most interesting parts of Horowitz's not-always-coherent responses:

Q: How can colleges deal with racism?

A: "...anti-white racism...is epidemic on university campuses." After talking about how bad it is for whites these days, he went on to say that the only way to deal with racism on college campuses was to make one standard of consequences for all people, regardless of skin color. But instead of ending it there, he went on to challenge that notion that groups such as blacks and women are marginalized in our society because we have a black president and a female Secretary of State. That, of course, means perfect equality and access to resources/power for these groups. Clearly.

Q: If we're surrounded by people like you [white, male]...you run the government...
A: [cuts off question] "BARACK OBAMA! BARACK OBAMA! BARACK OBAMA!" As if that was all he needed to prove his controversial point that white males do not still run the government and most of American life. He then said the question was stupid, although it had not been completely asked.

Q: How can you, as a white male, say race and gender are not issues?
A: "...nobody is oppressed in America...except children [with abusive parents]." Why is that so? Because "white people don't come around thinking of ways to oppress blacks." And of course, "Sixty three million people voted for a black man...IT [racism] IS OVER."

Q: What do you think about the bias in the media?
A: He started with the familiar talking point about how the media is ruled by the Left. Then he described a "neocommunist" as someone who thinks that the USA is racist, sexist, and homophobic and that corporations are evil. Not quite sure how he related this to the media, but there you have it.

I think most of this post can speak for itself. Although his talk was masked with good ideas, Horowitz spent most of his time at the podium spewing hatred, even when he had to revert to unrelated tangents to try to drive his points home. All I have to say is that for someone who claims to want to promote intellectual diversity on campuses in America, he doesn't seem to have the best grasp of ideas that oppose his own, and he seems to be mistaken in the belief that attacking people will somehow make them want to listen to him.

EDIT 4/7/09: Here's a link to Knox's school newspaper website that contains video of the talk. You'll probably need to turn up the volume.

*All direct quotes were collected by Amelia at the time of Horowitz's talk, approx. 7:00-8:30pm on Monday, April 6, 2009.

Sports Night and the ladies

I am a huge Aaron Sorkin fan, and especially a huge fan of Sports Night. My rule of thumb is that anyone who owns the Sports Night DVDs is a good person (with some exceptions - but few).

Jennifer over at The Hathor Legacy has done a really nice critique of women characters in Sports Night. I didn't realize it until she mentioned it, but every single episode passes the Bechdel/Wallace test. Dana and Natalie, the two producers for the show-within-the-show, surprise surprise, talk about something else besides men constantly. What an amazing concept, huh?

She nails it with this:

On TV, women in these situations usually catfight, and men usually hit each other, then bond over beer and become best buddies. Dana and Sally do neither: they put professional accumen and the one thing they have in common - being women in a male-dominated field - ahead of more petty, personal concerns. Forget passing the Bechdel/Wallace test - this is a depiction of women with little in common but the men in their lives choosing not to let that theme rule their interactions.

Even though I've never been a fan of sports, I remember watching Sports Night when it was airing on Comedy Central (probably right after it was cancelled*). It never stood out to me as a show with better than average depictions of women, simply because I expected that television would show women characters with nuance and depth. I wasn't at the point where I cognatively realized that tv shows suck with showing women - I hadn't realized that women aren't the target audience for television.

Aaron Sorkin isn't always the greatest with his female characters; just yesterday I saw the West Wing episode introducing Ansely Hayes, an attractive Republican woman who comes to work in the Democratic White House (but she can get away with it because, you know, she looks like she does). But usually he's better than average, as Jennifer's post describes.

Jennifer also did a spot on analysis of the show's depiction of Dan Rydell, one of the sports anchors, which I think is a really good critique. So go watch the show, and if you pick up the DVDs (which recently had a 10 year anniversary re-release), I'll think you're a good person.



*Speaking of canceled TV shows I love, watch Kings on NBC so it doesn't have the same fate as Sports Night or Studio 60. More on Kings soon, I promise.

Website launch - anditwaswrong.com

I am extremely pleased to announce the launch of a new project, called And It Was Wrong, that seeks to give voice to women's experiences of sexual assault.

And It Was Wrong is a grassroots compilation of women's experiences of sexual assault. It is a project made up of women giving voice to a problem society silences: that of sexual assault as it occurs in our everyday lives.

The project is a collection of stories, in the words of the women who lived them, that deal with sexual assault. Stories can be submitted anonymously on the website and all must end with the line "...and it was wrong."

Rachael, the woman behind And It Was Wrong, is a dedicated feminist activist who attends Knox College with Kate and I. She has been a role model for me since I began to identify as a feminist, and I hope all of our readers can support her project.

Congratulations, Rachael, on this new development in this project that you have dedicated so many hours to.

Fifteen percent

Between 2004 and 2007, there were an estimated 44,084 new diagnoses of HIV infection, a 15% increase (CDC).

A 15% increase. What are you doing about it?

Sexist, Homophobic MPAA Rates Bruno NC-17

Hm. So, I guess it's been a while. Some of you might remember me, but for those who don't, let me briefly re-introduce myself before jumping back into the thick of things. I'm Ryan and I was invited by Katie last year to participate in the discussion on this blog from the male perspective. Well, at least from the bitter liberal male perspective. Anyway, I'm from Providence, Rhode Island, I'm turning 23 in a few weeks, and I tell bartenders and people on airplanes that I'm a screenwriter, but I've never actually sold a script (though I did act in a friend's short film, but we won't speak of that again). Fingers crossed that that fact changes this year. Anyway, on to the topic at hand.

In the year 2006, British comedian Sascha Baron Cohen brought the character Borat from the HBO series Da Ali G Show to movie theaters. The film was subsequently ruined by overzealous frat boys walking around drunkenly quoting the film, but it was a fearless (and quite hilarious) look at how ass-backwards this country is when it comes to many topics, with racism taking the forefront.

Now Cohen has turned to the last of his characters to make it to the big screen (though no one really remembers Ali G In Da House). Bruno (a film in the same mockumentary style, but from the perspective of a gay Austrian fashion icon) is set for release on July 10th of this year and it has already caused a controversy. As first reported on the news and blog site The Daily Beast, Bruno has received a rating of NC-17 from the Motion Picture Association of America, the same people who told my parents not to let me see the South Park movie when I was thirteen.

Briefly, for those who are unfamiliar with the MPAA, they're a volunteer group of people who sit in a room, watch movies a couple of months before its release, then decide whether it should be rated G, PG, PG-13, or R. However, every once in a while, a film surpasses those ratings and winds up with an NC-17, meaning no children under seventeen are allowed into the theater. Period. Even if their college-aged cousin is with them. The big deal here is that when a film receives that rating, it becomes an uphill battle for the film to actually make money. A quick comparison: the highest grossing film with an NC-17 rating is campfest Showgirls, which made $20.3 million. The highest grossing R-rated film of all time is Biblical snuff film The Passion of the Christ, which made $370.8 million.

Bruno has received this rating in regards to its supposed graphic sexual content. From the original post on The Daily Beast (beware mild spoilers):

Among the objectionable scenes is one in which two naked men attempt oral sex in a hot tub, while one of them holds a baby. In another, Bruno—a gay Austrian fashionista played by Baron Cohen—appears to have anal sex with a man on camera. In another, the actor goes on a hunting trip and sneaks naked into the tent of one of the fellow hunters, an unsuspecting non-actor.

Knowing Cohen's style of comedy, I can't imagine any of those scenes go on for more than a few moments for fear of being exploitative, but this isn't the first time the MPAA has forced a film to cut some of its content to receive an R-rating. But that's been well documented already, so I won't get into that.

What I will get into, however, is the MPAA's willingness to automatically comdemn anything more graphic than a gay kiss in a film. The 2005 film Bad Education by Spanish auteur Pedro Almadóvar, in which male actor Gael García Bernal plays multiple roles, one of whom is a woman who performs oral sex on a man. The scene lasts a whole two seconds and yet the film was rated NC-17 for "a scene of explicit sexual content."

But heterosexual oral sex? A-okay, evidently.

As for the anal sex scene, clearly when a man does it to a woman--or even when a woman does it to a man--for some reason, it's not a problem. Keep in mind the latter example did not have to cut a single scene to get down from NC-17 to R. They simply appealed the rating.

So we've gotten over the fact that Milk notwithstanding, gay sex is largely taboo to the MPAA, the members of which to this day remains a secret (to be fair, Milk wasn't exactly graphic either). So you would figure a group as staunch and as moral as that would certainly disapprove of a horror film with a prolonged rape and torture sequence that was a remake of a film infamous for the same thing, right? Guess not.

Can someone tell me in what world is it okay for three degenerates to brutalize and rape two teenage girls for ten minutes straight (and eventually kill one of them), but two men having sex on camera for a fraction of that time just goes too darn far? A friend of mine tried to argue that the scene was done in such a way as to make the villains more villainous. Sorry, but it's just exploitative and mean-spirited. Plain and simple.

The MPAA has a longstanding issue with letting countless horror, action, and just about every other genre of films that depict brutal violence against women get away without a scratch, while simultaneously condemning films based on homosexual content, or even excessive female nudity.

Knee-jerk reaction on my part? No. As someone who follows the film industry like my life depended on it (if I had a life, that is), this is just another infuriating entry on the long list of things the MPAA has done that causes me more stress than it should. Eventually, homosexuality will become such a common thing (let's give it twenty years) that these kinds of things probably won't matter much in the future. But in a world where violence against women is so commonplace in itself, I get the feeling we're going to be seeing plenty of films like The Last House on the Left in that same future come out highly recommended by the people I work with and the idiot at the movie theater who tried to convince me to see that instead of Sunshine Cleaning.

So until the MPAA pulls its collective head out of its ass, expect more of these entries from me as more situations like this arise, as well as me pointing out hipocrisy on how women are treated in film and the industry itself in general. And I encourage you to check out the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated for more examples along the same lines. An interesting note, the film was ironically rated NC-17 because it featured scenes from other films with the same rating. Go figure.

It's good to be back posting here. I hope to contribute on a weekly basis, and I'll be focusing mainly on the entertainment industry and other medias, but I'll veer off into other territories if I discover something appropriate for this blog. Either way, thanks to Amelia and Katie and the other bloggers for having me back and you'll be hearing from me very soon!

Growing up with sisters may lead to people being "happy and balanced"

From BBC, a study conducted by lead researcher Professor Tony Cassidy at the University of Ulster (UK) suggests that families with daughters are more "open and willing to discuss feelings," which can be especially important after stressful family events. The findings are to be presented at the British Psychological Society in Brighton.

Researchers quizzed 571 people aged 17 to 25 about their lives and found those who grew up with sisters were more likely to be happy and balanced.

During the study, participants filled in psychological questionnaires which researchers used to assess a range of issues, including whether they had a positive outlook and any mental health problems.

What do you think of this?

The article doesn't explain how the researchers controlled for other factors that may have contributed to the results, or why exactly having daughters in ones' family might contribute to someone ending up being "happy and balanced" compared to people growing up in families with brothers (brother were said to have the opposite effect).

The main reason I read the article was its tagline that read:

Sisters spread happiness while brothers breed distress, experts believe.

I'm not convinced at all yet. Will wait for more details.