Sometimes the Batt is hilariously infuriating...

Like this article about a sophomore football player:

At first glance, Ryan Swope is the atypical Aggie - with shaggy blonde hair [you know, gay] and an Austin background [see? totally gay], he fits the College Station stereotype of Longhorns [Batt writers don't know how college works. Living in Austin makes you a Longhorn! Also having a particular kind of hair.].

Does this newspaper just not have an editor?

Privileged college students and "hobos": Exactly alike?

So usually the Battalion is boring. But when it decides to spice up the boring with offensive, it goes all-out. One of this week's issues features an opinion piece comparing college students and "hobos." Yes, you read that right. Because privileged college students and homeless people are exactly alike! And comparing them is hi-larious! And "hobo" is a totally not-offensive, not-dehumanizing term!

I was only thinking about how I could eat my lunch and study at the library, but the lack of a home base made me feel like a vagabond. I gave the subject more thought and realized most college students demonstrate the habits of hobos.

Ahahaha! Get it? College students are just like hobos because they lack a "home base." Never mind that they have homes. That's not what being homeless is about! It's about napping outside!

Many off-campus dwellers find themselves in situations similar to this: a full day of classes while running on two hours of sleep simply will not cut it. What's a college student to do? We nap. Anywhere and everywhere we can: outside, inside, on park benches, on the stairs, in class, on couches in the library, on the grassy knoll, in quiet areas or loud. It is possible to find nappers in the most obscure places on campus.

We could debate about whether this author meant something different by using the word "hobo" instead of "homeless." Hobo implies some choice in lifestyle as well as carrying a slightly romantic air. That we've romanticized the "tramp" or "hobo" is in itself problematic; it allows things like this article to imply that homeless people choose to be homeless, or enjoy being homeless. It elides the systemic inequalities in our country that lead to crippling poverty and homelessness. It elides the fact that the vast majority of homeless people are single women with children, by putting forth the image of the "hobo," a carefree, wandering man. And the comparison of the homeless with college students assumes, incorrectly, that there's no such thing as a homeless college student.

What this article actually says is offensive enough, but what it elides makes it reprehensible.

It isn't easy to live the life of a college student, or a hobo, but it will not last forever. Unless you decide to further your education, a job after graduation will give you a bit more stability. The job you so desire will give you a constant influx of cash that will hopefully allow you to keep your cool in the presence of free food, while wearing clean clothes on a regular basis. Rest assured, this lifestyle is temporary.

This conclusion is horrifying. Let's not talk about actual homeless college students, for whom sleeping in the library is not just a convenient alternative to going to your dorm or apartment, but one of very few undesirable options. For whom getting something to eat, a place to shower, or a place to sleep are a struggle, all on top of keeping up with schoolwork and paying for tuition. This could have been a thoughtful article, one that pointed out that joking about being "homeless" because you're broke (not poor) and nap on campus is incredibly insensitive and offensive. It could have motioned toward the fact that A&M likely has its own homeless students, who have few resources in dealing with their struggle. Instead it emphasizes that your own "hobo" lifestyle in college is temporary (and thus humorous!). By celebrating the financial security of the upwardly mobile (and, for the most part, already middle- or upper-middle-class) students of A&M, this piece has a problematic takeaway: Your privilege means you can make jokes about whatever you want, because serious downers like homelessness and poverty don't touch your life. It's not a problem if it's not your problem.

If you're homeless in the Bryan/College Station area, contact Family Promise or Twin City Mission. (Feel free to list other resources in the comments.)

You can contact the opinion editor for the Batt, Ian McPhail, at opinion@thebatt.com, or the general editor, Matt Woolbright, at editor@thebatt.com.

It's summer. Time for the slut-shaming!

[Trigger warning. This post discusses slut-shaming tactics aimed toward victims of sexual assault and rape.]

I was going to finish a blog post on the serious topics of "Why I can't fucking stand scientists sometimes" or, "Why manfiction almost made me not become an English major," but slut-shaming in the Battalion is so much more fun! And you can already tell that this article is bad. Look at the picture included! It's fucking infuriating! The implication is that women only dress to be "hot" for men, and that said men are totally fine with sending contradictory messages about what is "hot," via the sexualization of women in advertising, movies, music videos, etc. and simultaneous slut-shaming. Women must be both modest and "hot"! And they must CONSTANTLY care about how men are judging their attire! And men are allowed to judge their bodies and their clothing all the time, because women's bodies are public property, donchta know? You may think that you have the right to wear whatever the fuck you want to (especially when it is 100 fucking degrees outside), but you, Matthew Poarch is here to tell you, are wrong! Women's bodies are not their own! They exist to be policed by fine gentlemen like himself. Fine gentlemen who suggest that raping is the fault of sluttily-dressed ladies, not, you know, rapists.

Summer doesn’t have to mean skimpy. We all know it’s hot, but the clothes - or lack thereof - worn around this time of year leave little to the imagination. It seems like I can’t walk anywhere in town without seeing a half-clothed woman shamelessly flaunting her attributes for the entire world to see. Not only does this have potential for personal safety concerns, but it also leads to poor first impressions.

Oh no! Is my awesome rack distracting Matthew Poarch? Well, then I MUST leave this tube top at home. His imagination and discomfort are so much more important than my own comfort or desires. Also, OBVIOUSLY this tube top will "get me" raped, especially if I am "stupid" enough to drink alcohol.

Those who frequent situations with alcohol should carefully consider how their clothes strike the people around them. Even though women should be safe no matter what, showing too much skin when around men who are more prone to elevated emotions and lowered inhibitions can lead to dangerous situations.

Even those who seem perfectly trustworthy have the capacity to make incredibly stupid decisions under the influence. There is no acceptable reason for men to act like animals, but showing too much skin in these situations can heighten the inherent dangers.

By dressing to attract attention, remember this includes unwanted attention. Sexual assault, stalking and harassment are not issues to be tossed around lightly, but in this context, they are of utmost importance. Nobody wants to be in a situation that could endanger them even slightly; dressing a little more modestly in that environment can be a preventative measure.

Um, fuck you? Rape apologists will never get tired of repeating this old hat, will they? Because that's what this makes you, Michael, a RAPE APOLOGIST. Don't fool yourself that the little line that "there is no acceptable reason for emn to act like animals" somehow balances out your claims that women who dress a particular way are asking for "unwanted attention." You know what prevents rape? MEN NOT RAPING. (That link is hilarious, by the way.) Not women dressing a particular way, or dancing a particular way, or drinking alcohol in a public place.* "Being safe" shouldn't involve abstaining from REGULAR things that young women (particularly in a college town) do, like dressing like they want to have (consensual) sex (clutching! pearls!), or drinking alcohol in a bar. And the onus should never, ever be on women to "be safe," but on men to NOT RAPE.

Immodest dress also does not portray an image of dignity or self-respect. “It looks like they’re just rebelling or trying to be cool,” said Dane Molire, a senior biomedical science major. “It makes them seem like they’re immature.”

Women shouldn’t have to worry about impressing men, especially at the expense of their self-respect and safety. Guys who do think that a women should dress down to show off are not worth the trouble anyway. A man who is impressed by the very thing that revealing clothes accentuate will most likely be shallow and disrespectful.

Disrespectful like a man who thinks that all B/CS** women's clothing choices properly fall under his personal judgment?  Apparently, "women shouldn't have to worry about impressing men," except Matthew. And Dane. THOSE are the men you have to impress, ladies. THEY'RE "worth the trouble," presumably because of their gentlemanliness, as shown by their ability to call you "immature" and suggest that you are asking for rape with your high heels and miniskirt.

The way you dress also sets an example for the younger girls, who can be more impressionable and care more about being cool. Daisy Dukes and a revealing half of a top are creepy and inappropriate on younger girls.

“I wish it wasn’t the style to be immodest,” said Amanda Boudreaux, a senior meteorology major. “When you go to the pool, if you’re covered, you aren’t following the ‘cool’ trend.”

Of course Matthew couldn't write an article about ladies ruining the world (that is, Matt's personal walks about town) with their skimpy clothes without asking WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. It's WOMEN'S fault that young children pick up on the fact that women are sexualized in our culture, natch.

Look, I absolutely believe that Amanda Boudreaux should wear whatever the fuck she wants to at the pool. Or anywhere else. But, it's not every other womans' job to make sure SHE feels comfortable in public. Anymore than it's every womans' job to make Matt feel comfortable, or Dan, or any other misogynistic douche who thinks that women's bodies are under their constant purview. Yes, it's a problem that the "trend," as Amanda puts it, is to publicly sexualize women and make sure that they know constantly that they are subject to objectification. But Matthew? He is still objectifying! He completely disregards the desires of individual women dressing in the way he finds so offensive. He argues that women should still dress to impress men (see: My opinion means everything! Because of my penis! And gentlemanliness!). He thinks he has the right to judge and comment on the clothing choices of women he doesn't even know. He is still treating women like their BODIES ARE PUBLIC.

Matthew's entire article is mansplaining through and through. "Let me mansplain to you ladies," he says, "about what your clothes mean! Also, how they will 'get you' raped! Also, how to attract the good menz, which I will define for you as 'like me.' What? You have your own desires for menz? Your desires are wrong. You want the gentlemenz. I promise."

It ends on a high note:

According to the Bible, Christianity is a religion that emphasizes modest clothing. As the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:9, “women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control.” The direct consequence of immodesty is to arouse illicit desires in men. More importantly, revealing clothes do not reflect the image of one who respects her body. God has called his children to a life of purity and holiness that extends beyond a once a week service. Christianity, however, is not the only religion that supports modesty, and even those with no religious affiliation can benefit from covering up.


Yes, it’s hot, but please dress in a way that shows dignity and class rather than skin. Dressing modestly is not only safer, but it reflects true character and self-respect, along with respect for others.

Why should you dress the way Matthew wants you to? Because another man, Paul (the Bible's resident douchebag), says so. Even if you're not Christian, though, Matthew feels entitled to comment on your clothes! (As an atheist, Matt, thanks for the reassurance that you are authorized to judge my clothing choices!)

Matthew Proacher to should be ashamed of himself. And the Battalion editorial staff should be ashamed of themselves, too.

*Of course, some women do rape, and some men are rape survivors or victims. I'm not trying to diminish that. But Matthew is, of course, talking about the more frequent scenario, in which a male perpetrator rapes a woman.

**That's Bryan/College Station, for the uninitiated.

Fat hate and slut-shaming all in one day! (Part 1)

On Thursday, my respect for the Maroon Weekly and the Battalion took a nosedive. Not that these are particularly professional, tolerant, and journalistic publications. But they do occasionally get it right. And Maroon Weekly does employ my sarcastic partner, whose articles are consistently right on and hysterical. Oh man, that was a narcissistic link-fest. Feel free to ignore it.

Anyway, Thursday. I pick up both newspapers and read the Battalion first. And the FAT SHAMING COMMENCES.

Health care reform has been an issue at the forefront of many Americans’ minds for several months. With the recent passage of the health care reform bill, it seems now every American wants to join in on the conversation of what is best for the future of our health care system.

But the answer to our larger health problems cannot be fixed by a new system. America is land of the free and home of the all-you-can-eat buffet. Obesity, defined as a Body Mass Index above 30, is held responsible as a catalyst for a multitude of health problems ranging from cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancer, arthritis and Type 2 diabetes. In America, we are too fat for our own good.

I think it's really hilarious how articles like this one PRETEND that they want to talk about health care and the horrifying reality of our country, in which millions of Americans are too poor to afford health care, are being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions (which now include being raped, being abused, and even just having been pregnant), or are becoming bankrupt over medical expenses, when what they REALLY want to talk about is OMG FATTIES. (Note, too, how the title of the article, "Swallowing the bill," and the picture included (above) dovetails neatly into the conservative rhetoric about this bill being shoved down their collective throats, making eating into a weird and disturbing rape metaphor.) What this author doesn't seem to understand is that the health care bill IS NOT JUST ABOUT FATTIES. No, really. It's not.

Still, public health is personal responsibility gone awry.

Instead of taking care of ourselves through nutritious diets and exercise like medical experts have recommended since the beginning of time, Americans are increasingly relying on the miracles of medicine to prolong our lifespan, Apparently that is a costly back-up plan.

Illnesses do happen to healthy people who eat correctly and exercise, and I’m positive enough goodwill exists in the world that many Americans would be willing to ensure these people have accessible health care. However, those who neglect to take care of themselves are becoming a burden on the rest of society, and many people are upset by this. Don’t blame the president or Congress, blame sedentary individuals who thrive on a McDonald’s diet.

WHAT. Did he just suggest that fat people don't deserve healthcare? You know when I said Toni Listi failed at humanity? Stephen Humeniuk also fails, friends. Let's do a little fat feminism 101:

1. BMI is literally the dumbest, most fucked-up way to measure health that has ever existed. And I'm considering phrenology and the humours when I say that. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Not only does it not measure shit except your appearance, but it changes, and that change has literally created the so-called Obesity Crisis ^TM. From Feministe:

First, obesity is defined by an arbitrary measure. It changes. One reason for obesity’s increase is those changes: sometime in 1998, almost 30 million U.S. residents went to sleep chubby and woke up obese. Second, obesity itself is considered a medical condition, so it’s no surprise that fat people, whose physical being is seen as cause for treatment, incur more medical costs. But that’s not a problem with weight so much as a problem with logic.

2. Obesity is not an individual problem, it's a systemic one, but the rhetoric surrounding it is almost entirely focused on "personal responsibility." People like Hemeniuk don't want to talk about why so many Americans lead sedentary lifestyles* or eat processed crap food,** because fixing those things (making cities more walkable, reducing food advertisements to children, encouraging work places to allow their employees access to and time to use gym facilities, changing agricultural policies and helping get rid of "food deserts," etc.) is so much harder than just blaming lazy fatties.

3. The connection between mortality, disease, and obesity is tenuous at best. The lowest mortality rate is actually for folks in the "overweight" BMI range (Hey, that's mine!). Studies linking the health risks Humeniuk outlines, like heart disease and diabetes, with weight have been questioned by the most recent medical research. So the claim that fat people are a medical burden on society is bullshit.

Then Hemeniuk reaches a dangerous conclusion:

Drinking is legally deemed detrimental to the rest of society through laws penalizing drunk driving and public intoxication, so bars reserve the right not to serve those who have had too much to drink. If the same standard is applied, and unhealthy people are considered similarly detrimental to society, fast food restaurants would be cutting people off after they’ve had one cheeseburger too many. If health care is at the forefront of the American conversation, it is now an individual responsibility for each of us to take care of ourselves.

NO. This train of thought has nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or burdens on society, but with punishing fat people for the moral crime of being fat. And punishment doesn't work. From Amanda:

The notion that people are fat because we aren’t hard enough on them doesn’t gel with reality. In the real world, fat people are subject to so much social disapproval and punishment that it’s traumatizing for some. The high levels of punishment for fatness now haven’t done a damn thing to reverse the trend of growing waistlines for Americans.

Shaking your finger at people doesn't work, partly because losing weight isn't easy and simple (like Humeniuk suggests at the end of this article) and partly because shaking your finger at people has never really worked in changing their behavior, as Amanda points out:

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but the morality/disgust approach to public health issues has, so far, never worked, and so introducing it to discussions about diet, weight, and related health issues is likely to follow the pattern of history and fail miserably. Most thinking people finally figured this out with sex. Shaking a finger at people, calling their sexual desires disgusting, and telling them “just say no” hasn’t worked at all. People do much better when their desires are validated and brought out of the closet, where we can then have a non-shaming discussion about how to have both what you want sexually and be safe. It turns out that if you present it in this way, people are much more likely to feel positively about individual responsibility. We also needed to address systemic inequalities that make being safe harder to do. People who live in poverty, who have poor access to contraception and education---they subsequently have poorer health outcomes. Only be addressing the pressures on them will we get better results. This model strikes me as the only appropriate one to take when it comes to the issues of food, exercise, and related health issues.

Instead of just laying the blame uncomplicatedly on the door of fat people and demanding that they STOP BEING FAT (in a similar fashion to the "just say no" approach to sex), initiatives that actually expect to increase the health of American citizens need to address the complicated and systemic causes of obesity. Further, we need to address the fact that wanting to eat a hamburger does not make you disgusting. Eating is a morally neutral act. The sooner we become okay with that fact, the less toxic the entire conversation about health and obesity will become.

Humeniuk again:

Don’t get fit just because you want to look good in a swimsuit now. Do it so you can see your grandkids at Christmas 50 years down the road. Do it for me, do it for your neighbor and most importantly do it for America.

Again, WHAT. Does Humeniuk honestly think he has some sort of point with his high-flown rhetoric, and does he literally see no problem with arguing that dieting is a patriotic duty? For fuck's sake, it's none of your business what I do and don't eat, Stephen Humeniuk. It's also none of my neighbor's business. Or my government's. My body is not public property, and neither is anyone else's.

I was going to write about the bullshit slut-shaming I read in the Maroon Weekly on Thursday too, but this post is already long enough. I'm going to be slow about posting for the next few weeks, because I'm dangerously behind on research, but don't worry! I have all sorts of posts lined up, including slut-shaming, sexism and geekdom, and why I swear like a sailor.

*Most jobs held by Americans are necessarily sedentary, most American cities are not walkable, and thus people drive to their sedentary jobs. And after working all day, they're supposed to exercise, too? It's not impossible, of course, but we really shouldn't be blaming people who work all day for not wanting to come home and work more.

**In a discussion about Jamie Oliver's new fat-shaming show, Food Revolution, Melissa at Shakesville has this to say:

The premiere episode has absolutely zero structural critique, not even a passing comment about the reason that millions of mothers feed their kids processed foods is because it's cheap and fast, which is a pretty good solution for people who are short on money and time.

Oliver places the responsibility for unhealthful eating exclusively at the feet of the individual, seemingly without concern for the cultural dynamics that inform individual choices. The extent of the explanation provided for why someone might choose to stock their freezer with frozen pizzas is that they're lazy and/or don't know any better.

Remember those jobs I was talking about? Not only do we expect folks to go to work all day and then also go exercise, but cook real food, too. Because apparently not being fat is more important than ever fucking relaxing or having a fucking life.

UPDATE: Read part 2 here.

Aw.

As if to apologize for their terrible job at not sucking, the Battalion actually has a decent issue today. One article about repealing DADT, one about how denying gay marriage is an affront to human rights, and a mail call calling them out on running a pro-life article outside of the opinion/editorial section. Yay!

Where would I be without the Battalion?

So I joined this Doctor Who forum recently, and every time I talk about sexism or women on it, the room gets quiet. Or changes the subject. Why would an SF forum NOT want to talk about sexism? That is a good question. Here is what I wrote recently:
The OP:

Much has been written about the huge volumes of romance { mostly here lol } in the show since its return under RTD, and now seems likely to continue under the mighty Moff.

One simple question, when the classic show was on air, what was the percentage of regular female viewers compared to male ??

the answer is surprisingly low { well maybe not that surprising really } it was a sci fi show after all, and girls just dont get sci fi { i'm gonna get slaughtered for that lol }

RTD booted in the door and made the show accessible to every viewer be they male, female or something else. and that can only be viewed as a good thing, huge viewing figures gives the show a fighting chance of survival in these uncertain times of ever changing tv scheduals, lets be honest the show has been given a new lease of life, and added a new dimension to a show we clearly care a great deal about.

How many ladies do we really have on this board who wouldn't be here if the romantic element of Nu Who hadn't been introduced ?? and how many have gone on to become serious hardcore fans of the longest running sci fi show in the UK.

Romance in Who, its a good thing in my book.

And my response:

Originally Posted by Stealth Womble
the answer is surprisingly low { well maybe not that surprising really } it was a sci fi show after all, and girls just dont get sci fi { i'm gonna get slaughtered for that lol }

That's because it's a rather stupid thing to say. Sci fi is also historically dominated by a white audience. Is that because POC don't get sci fi? Maybe women aren't attracted to sci fi in large numbers for the same reason that women are not a large (visible) portion of gamers: when the culture is clearly not aimed at you, and in fact has a tendency to show an ugly amount of misogyny, it's unsurprising that women either opt out or opt in and stay out of the fan culture. For example, I was on this Doctor Who forum board and some dude suggested that ladies don't get sci fi! 'Cause it doesn't have enough kissing or something. Everyone knows women are obsessed with romance and marriage, amiright?

With nonsense like that being posted almost without apology (granted, this forum doesn't appear to be nearly as bad as other sci fi or *shudder* gaming forums), is it any wonder women don't feel welcome? Is it any wonder they think sci fi is for men?

All the women are there are also quick to point out that they're not like MOST women, women who care about their hair and shopping and shoes. Those silly, shallow women who don't like sci fi. And I want to call them out on it, but it's like I'm invisible there when I say things like that. Maybe I'm not made for forums. Much better to blog. It's more me-centered. And I like me-centered.

Speaking of naval gazing, what would I do without the Battalion? Seriously, I'd be reduced to ranting about things in the NYT or something. What a disaster. The Battalion just got around to writing about Abby Johnson. Oh, Abby Johnson. If you don't know who Abby Johnson is, she's a woman who worked for a Planned Parenthood in Bryan, TX (where I live). She claimed to have seen an abortion so bad it converted her from pro-choice to anti-choice, quitting her job as a director at the Bryan PP in November. She worked at Planned Parenthood for EIGHT YEARS. She and her family were regularly harassed and threatened. Despite this, she was apparently unclear about how she felt about abortion, having never seen a picture of a fetus. Or something. She claims that seeing a fetus move away from the probe during an ultrasound-guided abortion made her realize that fetuses feel pain. Which, by the way, isn't true. Movement is a reflex that fetuses have, not the experience of pain, and certainly not a concerted effort to avoid feeling pain by a conscious being. Which, of course, a woman working for PP for eight years would know.

And if that wasn't unbelievable enough, Abby also claims that Planned Parenthood was pressuring their clinic to perform more abortions to line their pockets. A standard smear from the right that makes no goddamn sense. It goes against their purpose (pregnancy prevention) and something like 80-90% of PP's services are preventative. If they wanted to just perform abortions all over the place, they'd stop offering preventative services, since PP is one of the only places (particularly in smaller towns, like Bryan) that poor women can access reliable and cheap birth control methods. If all the PPs in the country started offering only abortions, then unplanned pregnancies would skyrocket! They'd be raking in the cash, right?

There was also the issue of whether the abortion even happened. From the Texas Monthly article about Johnson:

Johnson’s account is so plausible and rich in detail that even Planned Parenthood seems not to have investigated whether this event ever took place. At my request, the staff at the Bryan clinic examined patient records from September 26, the day Johnson claims to have had her conversion experience, and spoke with the physician who performed abortions on that date. According to Planned Parenthood, there is no record of an ultrasound-guided abortion performed on September 26. The physician on duty told the organization that he did not use an ultrasound that day, nor did Johnson assist on any abortion procedure. “Planned Parenthood can assure you that no abortion patients underwent an ultrasound-guided abortion on September 26,” said a spokesperson. It’s difficult to imagine that Johnson simply got the date wrong; September 12 was the only other day that month that the clinic performed surgical abortions.

Could clinic staff and the physician be mistaken? The Texas Department of State Health Services requires abortion providers to fill out a form documenting basic information about each procedure performed at a clinic. This document is known as the Induced Abortion Report Form. The Bryan clinic reported performing fifteen surgical abortions on September 26. Johnson has consistently said that the patient in question was thirteen weeks pregnant, which is plausible, since thirteen weeks is right at the cusp of when physicians will consider using an ultrasound to assist with the procedure. Yet none of the patients listed on the report for that day were thirteen weeks pregnant; in fact, none were beyond ten weeks.

Basically, it's fairly clear that Abby Johnson is full of shit. Most likely, she was a disgruntled employee (she had a poor performance review before her "conversion") who thought (correctly) that if she made herself a right-wing angel, she could at least make up for losing her job with speaking fees from right-wing organizations. And she lives in Bryan, for chrissake. Even if she spoke for free, everyone she knows would think she was a moral hero.

So, anyway, the Battalion article. The author of this article clearly thinks that Abby Johnson is a sainted person, someone who would never lie. You know why? Because she's broke now!

Her newfound conviction took a toll on her finances, she said.

"It was scary to leave that second income," Johnson said. "We certainly didn't leave for financial gain."

Shawn Carney, outgoing executive director of the Coalition for Life, said Johnson is only a volunteer for the Coalition and has not received any money from the organization.

"If she's doing this for money, it's a very bad financial decision," Carney said. "She had a change of heart on abortion, and so many people refuse to accept that. That's the only thing that explains this situation."

Seriously? We're supposed to believe that PP falsified state mandated paperwork to disprove her? And we're supposed to believe this because she, a middle class white woman with a husband (who is still employed), quit her job? People quit their jobs. Like, all the time. It's not proof of wrong doing on Planned Parenthood's part. But according to the author of this article, it's good enough. As a bonus, it makes PP look so desperate for money and good publicity that it would lie to the state, while Abby Johnson is an upstanding, honest woman just trying to stand up to the man, even if it makes her broke. It's a ridiculous framing of the whole story, but I didn't expect much better from the Battalion.

School starts!

Yesterday was the first day of my second semester. I had my science fiction class, which promises to be fun, but was surprised by how reticent I felt in there. It's an undergraduate course that I'm taking while doing extra reading and work with the professor, and so the students in there were predictably quiet. So Amy (the professor) asked us for examples of invasion (one of the themse of the class) in history, and I thought I'd pipe up. The first example I thought of was the Iraq War and the occupation of Afghanistan. And then I reconsidered, eyeing the two men dressed in Corps uniforms in the front row.

It was the first time in over a year that I have felt like I couldn't say something in a course because I'd receive a negative reaction from other students. I was talking with Sarah (my friend at A&M who also went to Southwestern) and she told me that, best case scenario, I would have gotten a mixed reaction. And we lamented a little, because at Southwestern, I would have been in a strange class indeed to have had ONE person react negatively. Frankly, I would have been surprised if the same question in a Southwestern classroom had generated ANY responses that weren't the U.S. invading other countries. Both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, Vietnam, U.S. political coups, all of these things would have been given, but the example given by the students in my sci fi class--the Cold War (by which they meant the threat of communism), the only conflict in which the U.S. has ever felt even the threat of invasion (frankly, I'm surprised no one said "immigrants")--would have been the last thing for an SU student to shout out. The U.S. does the invading in real life, not the other way around, and it shows a rather skewed view of reality to call out only the Cold War as an example of invasion. Which is not to say that it isn't a valid answer--it is, and the threat of the Cold War inspired plenty of SF--but it was the only answer given by a class of twenty or thirty students.

Let's just say that I think this class is going to give me more insight into A&M than I really ever wanted.

However, the first day also brought me a little happy. And from the Battalion, no less. A senior English major, James Cavin, wrote an article called "Showing a little less leg," which I clicked on thinking that it would be some screed about how women should stop dressing so slutty on campus or something. But no! It was about how he thinks that forcing women to shave and wax their legs (and other places) is crazy and barbaric, ending with this:

Ladies, we need to stop putting up with this macho bull crap. If we all just womanned up and told society to screw it's sexist objectifying hairless concepts of beauty, we would have a world without waxing kits and Nair. A world without razors.

Isn't that great? And it's from a man. At A&M. There is hope for this place after all.

This caught my eye because it's from Freakonomics, a book that A&M forced its TAs to teach to ENGL 104 classes: Apparently the author of Freakonomics is completely unable to account for why women are more likely to sit in the passenger seat of a vehicle and men are more likely to drive. It's a goddamn mystery. Maybe it's because women are weak weaklings whose arms could break at the very sight of a steering wheel.

And the Economist is debating whether women in the industrial world have "never had it so good." Yes, seriously. And right now, 67% of their voters agree that yes, Western women should shut up because their husbands aren't allowed to beat them anymore. Or something. I'm being hyperbolic, but as Jill over at Feministe points out, pointing out how far we've come is often shorthand for "so be grateful and shut the hell up."