Oh Eureka, how you confuse me.

One episode, you have a woman taking back her ex-husband and accepting his son as her own – even though, seven years earlier, he divorced AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLONED HER when she refused to relocate to Eureka for his job and further told him that she didn’t want to have children. (What remains unsaid is that he probably had to create several clones before he found one sufficiently amenable to his desires. What became of the others, I wonder?*)

The next, we meet a genius scientist who habitually subverts her desires to those of her (supposedly) slightly-more-genius husband, all for the greater good – only to discover that she’s the true intellectual superior in the relationship; he’s merely been stealing her ideas all along! (And their marriage is most likely an ongoing kidnapping/rape situation, built on his theft of her short-term memories…using a device he stole from someone else, to boot.)

So which is it – are you feminist-friendly, or not?

* You can call it “over-analyzing”; I consider it “taking a story line to its logical conclusion.”

@TheDailyShow‘s @kristenschaaled on rape-rape and money-rape: bit.ly/hwWTQG Trenchant as fuck. #dearjohn #prochoice #rape #taxes

Pass this one along the the libertarians and “small government” conservatives in your circle who equate money with bodily autonomy – and taxes with rape – mkay?

Direct link: Wednesday February 2, 2011 | Daily Show: Schaal – Rape Victim Abortion Funding | Kristen Schaal doesn’t think hard-earned tax dollars should go to women who have only been rape-ished.

Yes, there are debates to be had about Hit Girl and Kick-Ass. There are always debates to be had about violence and vigilantes, and what they say about us. But I’d prefer the conversation also turn to why preteen girls don’t have a movie like Kick-Ass that they could see. Let’s ask why Kick-Ass was the only script option Ms. Moretz had if she wanted to play, in her own words, “an Angelina Jolie-type character. You know, like an action hero, woman empowerment, awesome, take-charge leading role.” By now, she should have had a lot more superhero and fantasy options to pick from. There are young adult genre books that center on something other than vampires. There are comic characters who are teenage girls. It’s ridiculous that they languish on the shelf while Spider-Man goes back to high school. Again. You might even ask why Millar thought no one could relate to a teenage girl, and insisted on centering the story around Dave and his girlfriend problems.

- Elisabeth Rappe, The Geek Beat: Hit-Girl Hysteria

and raise you several millennia of gender-based oppression.

I wish I could offer some further commentary on this pop-up message I received when visiting www.stopfamilyviolence.org in order to take action on an alert, but…no. “So, so sad” about sums it up.

The message reads,

Attention

If you are currently being stalked or abused, it may not be safe for you to view this site.

Why? Because your abuser can track your online actions.

We suggest going to the library to use a public computer, or calling the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799 SAFE.

It’s followed by three buttons: ENTER, LEARN MORE and LEAVE.

I can’t help but wonder if it took a death or two before the webpeoples thought to post a warning.

Sigh.

(More below the fold…)

This is extent of interaction allowed between piglets and their mothers “living” on modern factory farms:

(More below the fold…)

After January’s “fur hag” post, I’d like follow up with several examples of anti-fur ads that I like – albeit, with a few caveats.*

While I’m rather ambivalent when it comes to PETA’s nude “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” “Turn Your Back on Fur,” (and similar) campaigns, I quite like anti-fur ads which depict fur as the bloody, murderous mess that it is. (In theory, anyway…hence the forthcoming caveats.)

For example, this recent series from IndyAct:

Each ad features a thin, white, conventionally attractive, stylishly dressed woman, decked out in a fur coat which once belonged to various animals. The knife-wielding women are covered in blood spatters – bright red blood, everywhere. The woman in the first ad is, inexplicably, rubbing the knife along her chin, as if in contemplation of fellatio (?). Needless to say, I prefer the other two ads in the series.

(More below the fold…)

ZOMFG! Bill O’Reilly believes in a Constitutional right to privacy!

No, it’s true. Well, kinda sorta:
 

 
Apparently the Constitution only protects the rights of the rich, the white, the heterosexual, the cisgendered, the faithful and the non-pregnant – and only when they’re in complete agreement with all opinions O’Reilly, natch.

Well done, Jon, well done.

(More below the fold…)

Yesterday, when reporting on the LAPD’s leaking of photos of a battered Rihanna to paparazzi site TMZ, CNN acted honorably and chose not to run the photo(s) in question.

KYRA PHILLIPS: It’s a chilling photo involving a story that’s getting tons of buzz and reflecting a growing crisis. But we’re not going to show it to you. And I’ll tell you why in just a moment. LA police are trying to find out who leaked a picture that apparently shows singer Rihanna bruised and battered after an alleged attack by her boyfriend, the singer Chris Brown. It showed up on a celebrity website and you can choose to see the photo at any time. We’re just choosing not to show it to you. And here’s why.

The face on that photo is one of millions of battered faces. Men and women, all races, all classes, all victims. We can’t show you all their faces, but we can push this story forward and try to help you heal the scars. Let’s get past the headlines and straight to the heart of domestic abuse. At the bottom of the screen we’re showing numbers for the National Domestic Violence Hotline where you can report abuse or get help. Also here to help, our guest, Sheryl Cates, CEO of the National Domestic Violence Hotline which has taken millions of calls. Good to see you, Cheryl.*

Oh, what a difference a day makes! Today, during the 1 o’clock hour,** CNN backtracked and aired the photo – while explaining that law enforcement policy usually precludes releasing the identities of (alleged) victims of domestic violence, let alone releasing photos of their injuries. They go on to speculate that the paparazzi must have bribed someone in the department in order to illegally obtain the photo(s)…as a photo of an obviously bruised Rihanna occupies the top 1/6th of their video screen!

No fucking shame.***

(More below the fold…)