The Week calls non-consensual sex "boorishness"

I'll let you read the whole article on your own, but basically The Week thinks: 

a) consent doesn't matter--in fact, they didn't even bring up the issue of ability to give consent at all

b) if you're "staggeringly drunk" and have sex, it's sad but your fault if you "regret it"

c) misogyny, purposely intoxicating women in order to have sex with them and other forms of rape culture are simply "boorishness" 

d) a victim has to call it rape in order for it to be rape.  So that's true when battered women deny they've been beaten by their husbands right? That's not abuse, right?

e) it's all the "feminists" fault for bringing the issue of date rape to prominence on college campuses

Their "arguments" were quite juvenile, several steps behind most rape apology arguments I've seen. Fuck you, The Week. 

This is what bugs the shit of out me

Why is it that MSNBC is all up in Clinton's face about a funny, sarcastic remark said at a rally, when Obama can do the same thing and nobody cares? From The Guardian:

"In what bordered on a comedy routine, Mr Obama chuckled and the crowd of 300 roared with laughter as he mocked his opponents in Monday’s debate, John Edwards and Mrs Clinton, for their responses to a question about the candidates’ biggest weaknesses.
He recounted how he had answered honestly "because I’m an ordinary person" that "I don’t handle paper that well, my desk is a mess" after being given the question first.
"The other two, they say, 'I’m just too passionate about helping poor people' [Mr Edwards], 'I am just too impatient to bring about change in America' [Mrs Clinton]. If I’d gone last, I’d have known what the game was.
"And then I could have said, 'Well, you know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don’t want to be helped. It’s terrible'."

After Clinton's valid complaint about unfair treatment by the press, the media when on the defensive and consistenly said she was "whining" (P.S. also a word used by Obama in the last debate) about a non-existent issue.

Not that I love Chris Mathews, but...

This is exactly why I question the validity of the support of many of Obama's constituents. Though this is one example, it is indicative of what I've heard (or not heard for that matter) out of most Obama supporters. And this guy is Obama's colleague in the Senate!

And then Watson makes it all about Hillary, which is how the debates (and the commentary after) have been going as well. Good or bad, all the pundits seems to focus on her and her performance, without much to say about Obama.

And I've noticed that most of the questions in last night's debate in Texas were posed to Hillary first. So she would explain the issue, and then Obama would agree with what she said, and in some cases evening using the same phrasing. Now, I'm not calling plagiarism here (I think that was a lame move by the Clinton camp) but what I am pointing out is that when it comes to specifics on issues, I have not heard enough of Obama's own voice.

Salem 1692 or Saudi Arabia 2008?

Some snippets...

In Falih's case, the judges relied on a coerced confession and on the statements of witnesses who said she had "bewitched" them to convict her in April 2006, according to the group.

Falih later retracted her confession in court, claiming it was extracted under duress, and said that as an illiterate woman, she did not understand the document she was forced to fingerprint.

The Saudi court cited an instance in which a man allegedly became impotent after being bewitched by Falih, the rights group said.

An appeals court ruled in September 2006 that Falih could not be sentenced to death for witchcraft because she had retracted her confession. But a lower court subsequently reissued the death sentence for the benefit of "public interest" and to "protect the creed, souls and property of this country," the group's statement said.

I see, since it's of great public interest, the Saudi's will throw aside their own laws and put this poor woman to death because some guy couldn't get a boner anymore because she "bewitched" him.

I really wish our country would stop doing business with these asshats.

A Flawed Feminist Test?

Maureen Dowd argued in yesterday's NY Times Op/Ed that Hillary cannot be a gender Rorschach test because it's impossible to separate Hillary the Candidate from Bill, her history, and the prior PR beatings dished out by the media.

I agree with this to an extent (there is a long and storied Clinton history), but no woman exists in a vacuum--especially no woman who is a presidental contender. Every man and woman who runs for president has a past political history, so it seems like the kind of female candidate Dowd thinks would be a good test doesn't exist. But seeing a woman as human being with all of the same flaws and attributes as a man is what feminism is all about? Is Dowd calling for a test tube female candidate?

And isn't this "image problem" Hillary has mainly due to a sexist media and misogynist culture? That sounds like some circular reasoning to me: "Hillary's bad image is problem in the media because the media gives her a bad image." (So if she weighs the same as a duck...then she's a witch!)

If that's the case, Hillary is the perfect "feminist" test!

Besides the premise of her argument, there are a few sentences that really made me cringe:

"While Obama aims to transcend race, Hillary often aims to use gender to her advantage, or to excuse mistakes. "

"As a senator, she was not a leading voice on important issues, and her Iraq vote was about her political viability. "

Well, Obama can aim to "transcend race" because the media plays that card for him. Dowd's tone suggests that Hillary's use her gender (to her advantage? really?) is somehow dirty. Does Obama NOT want to use his race to his advantage? No--for both candidates the attributes that set them apart from the usual suspects (white, male) are going to work to their advantage when voters share that same attribute (or cause conflict, like for some black women).

And I have NEVER heard Hillary use her gender to "excuse mistakes." That would be political assasination right there.

And I do take exception to Dowd's claim that "she was not a leading voice on important issues." Is she kidding? Immigration, health care anyone? anyone? Bueller? And the Iraq vote--yes, in retrospect the wrong way to go. But why is that vote any m0re about her political viability than any of other 25 democrats (including Senators Edwards and Kerry) who also voted "Yea"?

Thoughts?