Call this soon, I guess.

Scientists find some water on Mars.

I’m not dead, just preoccupied with other things. The gallant return to blogging shall happen soon!

Here’s a lolcat:

more cat pictures

There’s been some interesting debate on the internet over the last couple of days about whether or not feminism is dead, whether it’s not inclusive enough, whether it’s too inclusive, etc. Let’s examine:

Rebecca Walker argues that Alice Walker (her mother) and therefore feminists have ruined motherhood. It’s kind of a shame to see the younger Walker forsaking feminism given her activism to this point, although I’ve also read her autobiography, which does not paint a rosy picture of Alice as a mother, so I guess I know where she’s coming from. Still, conflating the views of one woman with the whole movement isn’t useful.

Then there’s this this editorial in the Washington Post by Linda Hirshman, arguing that the movement has lost its focus. Hirshman argues that the focus on the way that racism and classism intersect with sexism has diluted the movement.

I think this is an interesting counterpoint to this Mahablog post, which argues pretty much the exact opposite: that focusing on one -ism is no way to fight for equality for everyone.

I fall on the side of inclusion: it seems to me that focusing on real equality, equality for everyone, is the more effective movement. Otherwise, things are splintered and messy. See also complains about the Second Wave’s exclusion of women of color, for example. You could argue that the Second Wave made great strives… for white women. Which is great, but not enough.

+ The Hamilton Grange, historical house of Alexander Hamilton, is getting moved.

+ Barack Obama makes a best-dressed list.

+ Local activism! Feminist groups in NY.

+ Also local, Let Governor Paterson know you support marriage equality.

+ The Decline of Times Square. No, not forty years ago. Now.

+ Dear Author has an interesting discussion of our odd deference to people with Ivy League educations. For the record, I’m good enough and smart enough, etc, etc, and probably could have gotten into an Ivy but didn’t have the funds. I instead have a BA from a big public university, and I’m doing just fine, thanks. No doubt, an Ivy League education is no small achievement, but it’s not necessarily a safe assessment that all Ivy grads are automatically skilled at whatever. Right?

+ Need another reason to vote against McCain. He’s affiliated with the sorts of pro-lifers who want to take away condoms, too.

+ Bridesmaid culture. Of interest mostly because I’m in the midst of a wedding season myself, and thankfully all the brides I know are smart, level-headed women, but still: the horror stories I’ve heard of women who have gone crazy when their weddings came around. Why does this happen? What the hell is wrong with the bridal industry?

+ People in my home state of NJ are legally prevented from pumping their own gas. Here’s why. Short version: Lawmakers think Jerseyans are stupid.

+ You’ve already heard about the terrorist fist bump.

+ The Rude Pundit makes some campaign predictions.

+ Krugman talks about eBooks. Wave of the future? Sure seems that way. I still prefer paper books, myself.

I haven’t done much science blogging lately. I should get back to that.

Let’s start in Texas, where there’s a new strategy in the works to get BS non-science into science classrooms, mainly teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution “as a theory.” It’s a shame this paragraph is buried so far into the Times story:

volution as a principle is not disputed in the scientific mainstream, where the term “theory” does not mean a hunch, but an explanation backed by abundant observation, and where gaps in knowledge are not seen as grounds for doubt but points for future understanding. Over time, research has strengthened the basic tenets of evolution, especially as advances in molecular genetics have allowed biologists to read the history recorded in the DNA of animals and plants.

You can scream “Intelligent Design is not SCIENCE” until you’re blue in the face, but ignorance will prevail, with Creationists pushing their agenda on school boards and textbook publishers. And, as a former science textbook editor, the creeping of Creationism into science textbooks offends me deeply. It has no place there. We shouldn’t even be talking about it. And the net effect is to make kids dumber. College professors are finding (and I come by this information anecdotally, but the marketing department at any college textbook publisher will tell you the same things) that students are less and less prepared for their college-level science classes, having been spoonfed a lot of nonsense and not even knowing the basics, like the scientific method. The scientific method which states, incidentally, that a theory is based on thorough testing. Which these ignorant school-board members in Texas would know if they kept their nonsense out of science classrooms.

Incidentally, this story comes via Skepchick, a blog by women about science. How awesome is that?

The New York legislature has voted to re-name the Triborough Bridge the RFK Bridge.

There’s some debate about whether it’ll catch on. Sometimes these names stick, sometimes they don’t. For example, no self-respecting New Yorker calls 6th Ave “Avenue of the Americas.”

In honor of the anniversary of Griswold vs. Connecticut and today’s anti-choice demonstration called “The Pill Kills,” I present to you some Actual Facts about birth control and the so-called “pro-life” movement.

First, hearken back to my previous post about why this Pill Kills movement is full of nonsense and lies. There’s also a link to the recent Times article about women going to extraordinary measures pre-Roe to end pregnancies, in some cases with fatal results.

Feministing calls out for people to help defend clinics in the wake of the protest.

More lies about the pill killing embryos, which it doesn’t, and comparing of those 9-day-old embryos with 9-day-old children. The writer of the article about such calls us Neanderthals, but she can’t even bother to get her facts or terminology straight.

This is pretty simple science here. The Pill prevents ovulation via tricking your body with hormones. Thus there is nothing to be fertilized. Thus no babies are conceived. Women have been known to conceive children while taking the Pill because it’s not fool-proof. The Pill is not an abortofacient; it does not cause abortions nor does it harm embryos implanted in the uterus. The Pill does not, in fact, kill. This whole campaign is built on misinformation and lies, and the purpose of it is not to save babies but to control women, plain and simple. This anti-choice group wants to control women’s bodies. They aren’t even doing a good job of pretending it’s about babies anymore. For example:

Lest you think it’s all about babies, more evidence that anti-choicers don’t actually give a crap about “life” after it’s born: an anti-abortion group (I believe the same one sponsoring the Pill Kills BS) has basically halted the building of houses by Habitat for Humanity that would benefit low-income families. Why? Because the houses are being built on land that was recently owned by Planned Parenthood. (PP “sold” the land to Habitat for Humanity for $10.) That’s right; association with Planned Parenthood is so nefarious that this “pro-life” group would deprive low-income families of housing to stomp it out.

Tangentially related, a doctor in California refused to treat a lesbian woman who wanted to go through IVF treatment. Why? Because she’s a lesbian. So what was that about babies? Click the link and read all of Jill’s most excellent rant.

I have a hard time believing this movement will gain a lot of momentum. Many, many people rely on their birth control, and I’d be willing to bet there are a lot of women who oppose abortion but still take a Pill every day so, you know, they are never in the position of having to decide whether or not to have an abortion. Taking the Pill away would mean more unintended pregnancies, which means more abortion, and taking away the right to abortion means more women will go to terrifying measures to end pregnancies, which means a lot of them could end up killing themselves. So, by anti-choice logic, I’d say anti-choicers kill.

more graph humor and song chart memes

Some other quick things:

+ Monday’s Rilo Kiley concert (I was there!) seems to have rendered a New York Magazine blogger incapable of forming complete sentences.

+ Some more stupid, regarding the time of the Inca.

+ Unrelated: Something I’ve been arguing for years: Violence against women is a men’s issue.

A follow up to yesterday’s post:

Some people think Anthony Lane’s review of the SATC movie in the New Yorker is sexist. Some don’t. All I know is that the caricature drawing that accompanies the review is heinous.

I saw the Sex and the City movie on Friday with a group of girlfriends, as is de rigueur. I had read a bunch of spoilers before I knew for sure I’d be seeing the movie, so there weren’t a lot of surprises.

I’ll say it. I’m a 20-something in New York. I’m supposed to gripe about how unrealistic and shallow the show is. I’ve also seen every episode and even written about the show before. I figure they live in a fantasy version of New York. I suspend my disbelief and focus on the characters.

So the movie. It was better than I had expected, although it’s way too long and thin on plot. It’s basically 2.5 hours of fashion porn, with some angst thrown in for good measure. I could complain about specific things I didn’t like, but I won’t spoil you. It’s materialistic and gratuitous and totally focused on men, but still, below everything, it’s a show about four women friends. (The conflict between Miranda and Carrie that develops is the most poignant and heartbreaking, as far as I’m concerned. The stuff involving Steve and Mr. Big? We’ve seen it before.)

Anyway, that’s not really the point of posting. I want to talk about the many millions of dollars the movie made. Suddenly Hollywood, which has been pretty phallocentric recently, is all What what what? Women like movies?!

That there’s an audience for movies with female characters should not be a hard thing to fathom. I don’t know that I’d go as far as the above-linked New York article goes; I saw Iron Man and Indiana Jones in theaters, too, because I like an action flick starring a good-looking man as much as the next girl, and I don’t think Carrie Bradshaw is a superhero.

It occurs to me that what we saw with the huge box office for the SATC movie is several things: 1) Women friends went together, testifying to the strength of female friendships. (The theater where I saw the movie was pretty much all groups of female friends or couples.) 2) There have been so few movies starring women lately, and finally there is one so women are going to see it in droves. 3) It speaks to the power of women as consumers, and it’s interesting that they’ve been ignored for so long.

I suppose only time will tell if this will herald in a new era of female-centric movies. Would Hollywood dare discriminate against a demographic that is eager to give them money?