Women and Feminism

Steubenville: Poor Little Rapists

Date: March 19, 2013
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Women and Feminism
Comments: 8 Replies

I have been debating if I should write about this.  So many talented writers and great minds have weighed in so I thought everything that could have been said, has been said.  Then I found out that one of the convicted Steubenville rapists was appealing his sentence based on the grounds that his mind is not yet fully formed.   It could be argued that because the convicted rapist is a juvenile and therefore does not have a fully formed brain, that is exactly why he is getting such a light sentence.  Had his mind been “fully formed” then he might be facing 10-15 years in maximum security prison.  As it stands he might serve a year or more in a juvenile institution.

What would be terrifying is the unlikely scenario of a judge buying this nonsense.  That would set up a precedent that rape is perfectly acceptable as long as the attacker is underage.  The brain of a child is not responsible for committing such a heinous act and the violent predator shouldn’t have to pay for his or her crimes.

Can we please remember the victim in this case is also a child?  What about her brain?  What kind of damage did this one act of violence do to her developing mind?  What did the subsequent harassment, bullying and death threats do to her psyche and self-esteem?  How will she be tormented, humiliated and scorned in her small community for years to come after this trial is over?  Will she have to relocate and change her name thanks to Fox news releasing her identity?  Her brain is also still not completely formed and the damage that has already been done to it is tantamount.

But what really makes me insane with anger is the fact that anyone would feel it necessary to lament the lives destroyed of these two young men and not of this young woman.  These boys not only violated this young woman, but then they bragged about it afterward.  They urinated on her and thought it was hysterical.  She was an object and a plaything – ridiculed and tossed away once finished.  Rape is a crime of violence.  Would another violent crime be treated the same?  What if they had beaten her?  What if they put her into a coma?  What if they had accidentally killed her?  Would the media lament their lost football careers?  How is it any different.

What if the situation were reversed?  What if the boys had been anally raped with found objects, urinated on and then dumped naked in a cold basement only to be photographed and humiliated on the internet afterward?  Would the issue of consent even be brought up?  Why is it that a woman or in this case a girl is somehow always available for sex?   What the hell is going on here?

According to the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network

  • 44% of all rape victims are under the age of 18
  • 80% are under the age of 30
  • Every 2 minutes someone in the US is raped
  • 207,754 are victims of sexual assault every year

I don’t need statistics to know the truth.  I know from my own experiences and from those of my friends – rape happens, attempted rape happens, molestation happens as does sexual intimidation and harassment.  In any group of adult women it is usually more difficult to find someone who doesn’t have a story to tell.  We are not all victims of course, but we have all had to deal with sexual intimidation or violence on some level.  If nothing else, harassment or intimidation is meant to put  us in our rightful place – sexual object and nothing else.

Those boys are responsible for their actions and if they have ruined their football careers they only have themselves to blame.  They may have only been 16, but so was their victim.  My heart goes out to her as this is only the beginning.  She will likely face more grief, ridicule and hatred in the months and years to come.  All because she had the nerve and strength to stand up to her attackers.

If nothing else this case has at least awoken our consciousness to the rape culture that is still so pervasive in this country.  A sixteen year girl was raped – that is the real tragedy.

Related articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Melissa McCarthy is Obese – So what?

Date: February 8, 2013
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Comedy, Entertainment, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 4 Replies

In his recent movie review for the newly released Identity Theft Rex Reed refers to comedic actress Melissa McCarthy as tractor-sized, humongous, obese and a female hippo.  Rex Reed hated the film, tearing apart the screenplay, the direction and even the very premise.  He has every right to his opinion on the film as a whole; however, he goes too far when he attacks the weight of one of its stars.

According to OutofAfrica.com the average hippo is 15 feet in length and weighs about 3.5 tons, or 7,000 pounds.  Hippos are also incredibly aggressive towards humans making them one of the most dangerous large animals in Africa.  I don’t know Melissa McCarthy’s weight but I would take a wild guess that it is nowhere near 7,000 pounds.  I also doubt that she would be considered dangerous or aggressive.   The average weight of a farm tractor is 18,661 pounds, or roughly 2.5 hippos, so she is not quite as heavy as a tractor either.   His use of the term, humongous is subjective I guess, but it is especially harsh since the origin of the word comes from combining huge with monstrous.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) defines obesity on a person having a Body Mass Index or  (BMI) of 30 or higher. The CDC lists the average weight of an American woman at 166 lb. with a waist circumference of 37.5 inches.  I don’t know McCarthy’s height or weight, but based on photos I would have to make a guess that she would probably be classified as obese.  The CDC estimates that approx. 35.9% of adult Americans would be considered obese.    Since such a significant portion of the population has a BMI of 30 or higher, is it really so extraordinary that an actress of that size appear as a lead character in a film?  Wouldn’t one-third of the country want to occasionally see someone who represents what they look like on the silver screen?

What does her size matter in this or any film?  It is not like she is portraying a personal trainer, runway model or starving refugee.  In this movie, her weight is about as relevant as her eye and hair color.  If the role specifically needed a slim woman that he might have a point, but in this case her weight might have actually helped her get the part.  She is portraying a common thief in Florida, shouldn’t she reflect the weight of a more common American?  Not every story or character calls for the usual 22-year-old Hollywood waif.

I suspect that McCarthy’s gender may have played a role in being ridiculed for being overweight. Eric Stonestreet best known for his performance of Cameron Tucker in the acclaimed hit television show, Modern Family, is hardly svelte.  Stonestreet is heavily featured in the film’s trailer yet Mr. Reed didn’t see the need to call him a beached whale.  He didn’t even mention him in his review.

Could we just move on from talking about any actresses weight?  The average size of most actresses in American films is alarming slender.  When someone as slim and in shape as the awarding winning actress, Jennifer Lawrence complains about being considered a fat actress by Hollywood standards, clearly the criterion in Hollywood is completely out of whack.  Shouldn’t it be about talent or finding the best actress for any specific role?

Haven’t we had enough already?  Isn’t the success of the film Bridesmaids proof enough that an obese actress can not only be extremely entertaining but help make a movie into a blockbuster.  According to BoxOfficemojo.com the world-wide gross for Bridesmaids was over $288 million dollars.  Somehow I don’t think it would have been as successful without the hysterical McCarthy, no matter what her weight.

Related articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Facebook: Boys and Girls play differently

Date: January 15, 2013
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Politics, Social Media, Women and Feminism
Comments: 4 Replies
Danny & Alex on the See-Saw

Danny & Alex on the See-Saw (Photo credit: leekelleher)

In the title of this piece I use the terms boys and girls; but what I am really talking about is men and women.  Something about Facebook etiquette though makes me think of a school playground, so the title seems appropriate.  What is Facebook etiquette?  I don’t think any of us know yet, as social media is a relatively new forum.  It has been my experience that men and women behave completely differently on social media. As a performer I meet a lot of people and I used to friend just about anyone within reason.   I have learned the hard way that I can’t be so open.  Out of my 2700 friends, and I could have many more if I wasn’t so picky, the vast majority of negative activity has come from men.   I have had to deal with the following:

  • The Semi-Stalker – A male user who will comment on nearly everything, including completely mundane posts.  A true semi-stalker is someone who doesn’t know me well and who I may have met for an instant or is just someone I share multiple mutual friends.  Yet this virtual stranger will become fascinated by everything I post.  Most of the time, these men are in a relationship or married which makes their behavior even more unsettling.  I can’t help but picture them at their computer ready to pounce on my latest update.  Their behavior is unnerving and most Semi-Stalkers end up getting kicked off my page.
  • The Full on Cyber Stalker – A male user who goes beyond the realm of Facebook to harass me.  I have had several men exhibit stalking behavior engaging negatively on this blog, my twitter account and in my regular email.  The worst was someone who did all three and even set up two fake OKCupid profiles to torment me.  I had mutual friends with this person, he lived in New York City and was also a performer.  I thought he would be OK, but he got so crazy he resorted to threats of physical violence.  My crime:  I had kicked him off my page when he made a sexually explicit comment on my wall in a political discussion.  At the time it happened I foolishly told him why I was deleting him in angry email.   Now I simply delete/block without comment.  The less I engage the stalker the better.
  • The I want to tell you Missy –  I’ll post anything political and a man will respond with an extremely long diatribe.  Most posts from unfamiliar men are condescending and include disrespectful language.  They act as if I don’t know what I am talking about, haven’t bothered to do research or am acting purely from emotion.  These men obviously don’t know me well, and I don’t think they have ever been published anywhere.  Everything I have written for the Huffington Post goes through an editorial process.  If I use a stat or fact I have to include a hyperlink in my article to a non-biased a source.  I am not exactly a lightweight and this isn’t my first time at the political discourse rodeo.  I never started a fight with them, and I never posted on their wall.  I don’t see the point in getting into it with someone who is diametrically opposed to me politically.  The discussion is going to go nowhere, and will end up being a huge waste of time.  So to my more Libertarian, Republican or conspiracy theory friends I usually just leave well enough alone.  Everyone can post whatever they want.  I don’t have to engage in a Facebook war with them because I don’t agree with their point of view, instead I just ignore their rants.  Although I have kicked people off for posting racist articles or absolute nonsense.   I get plenty of detractors and would be critics on my Huffington post articles and on this blog.  I don’t need it on my personal facebook page.
  • The Negative Commenter – Again usually a man who I don’t know well, maybe I met them at a comedy show…I don’t know.  They will just post something negative for reasons unknown to me. Recently I was really frustrated with my memoir and I posted something along the lines of “man this is hard”.  Some guy I barely knew felt the need to write “First World Problems” as a comment.  I thought it was inappropriate especially since I didn’t know him well and he knows nothing about my life.  I quietly deleted the comment and he un-friended me.  I was happy he saved me the trouble.
  • The Pervert – I don’t feel like I need to describe this one, but I haven’t had a woman give me a problem like this yet.
  • The Bully – I once posted “Congratulations to SAG-AFTRA on our historic merger“.  This seemingly innocuous post ended in a comedian I knew calling me a cunt.  He then got on my wall with an alter-ego profile to try to keep fighting.  Again, I had no history with this man other than doing a paid show for him once.  We had mutual friends.  He had posted anti-union sentiments on my wall in the past and I had politely told him to stop saying something like “Look I come from two unionized parents and I am in two unions you aren’t going to change my mind please stop” he persisted.
  • The Scolder – No matter what I post, including things as controversial as “Being self-employed is difficult” the Scolder will point out to me that I’m being too negative. They are ALMOST ALWAYS men I barely know.  No one is always chipper and happy all of the time, and some people like to vent.  I would never dream of making some sort of judgment like that to a person I barely know.  It seems to me like just another way to put me in my place.

Are Facebook pages free speech zones?  I don’t think so.  Should people post long drawn out political rants on other people’s pages?  I would say no.  If they start the fight, they should expect to finish it.  But why start it in the first place.  In any given year I kick off dozens of men from my Facebook page, sometimes two or three in a day.  In contrast I have kicked off exactly one woman, and in her case she was doing all of her aggressive behavior via private message.  She was not posting anything on my wall. In my experience when women engage in political discussion they are ironically less likely to get emotional.  They don’t talk to me in a condescending manner and they certainly don’t call me a cunt.  To put it simply.

It’s not that all of my male friends on Facebook cause problems for me, but nearly all the problems I have on Facebook involve men.

I can’t twist my reality to conform to a politically correct narrative where men and women act the same.  I enjoy political discourse  and have plenty of close friends who don’t always agree with me.  I don’t mind getting in real debate, but that is rarely what happens.   I have male Facebook friends who constantly post inflammatory things and I don’t see them getting the same types of reactions.  But I will admit, I don’t know what a typical male goes through. Would men also post repeatedly on the wall of a man they barely knew?   I would love to hear men’s opinions on this.  Do men who barely know you pick political fights with you?  Is this a problem?  Do men engage in the same type of abusive behavior such as stalking, harassment and negative posts with other men?  Do women do it to men? I would never dream of engaging someone I didn’t know well in political discussion especially when I can tell they are already extremely passionate about their point of view.  I would never take the fight to someone else on a personal page like that.  Why do they feel the need to take it to mine?  As I have said to many  of my male ranters, ask yourself this question.

“When was the last time Juliet Jeske posted on my wall?”

The answer would be never….so please knock it off.

Related articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Slut-Shaming: To What End?

Date: September 12, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Politics, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 1 Reply
gone wild

gone wild (Photo credit: istolethetv)

Lately I have found myself frustrated with other feminists over the cry of “Slut-shaming“.  Although I agree that women have been unfairly judged for their sexual appetites and behavior for hundreds of years, I also think that some sexual behavior actually hurts the cause of feminism.  We shouldn’t return to the days of corsets, ankle length skirts when the very mention of female sexuality was taboo.  Yet we should also not champion obvious degrading and detrimental sexual behavior in the name of feminism.

For instance, is a drug addicted, physically abused, low paid prostitute dominated by a male pimp anything to celebrate?  Is a young woman with low self-esteem who performs sexual acts in public to gain personal validation off-limits to criticism?  Is a sex-worker who doesn’t hide or shield her children from her occupation really making a bold step forward for female empowerment?  When do the issues of narcissism and self-destructive behavior enter the dialog?  Are all forms of female nudity and sexuality empowering?  When does it become exploitative?

It is not such much specific behavior as it is the context.  Expressions of female sexuality and nudity can be empowering, politically brazen and extremely pro-woman but they can also be degrading and demeaning.   If a woman is playing into the victim complex or treating herself as an object not worthy of respect she is part of the problem, not the solution.  Are we supposed to champion a drunken college student who decides to flash her breasts in a Girls Gone Wild video?  Should the woman who recently decided to have her anus publicly tattooed on camera be held up as some sort of example of female sexual liberty?  Or is she just a woman who has made some extremely poor decisions?  The porn industry has become so saturated with women willing to have sex on camera that wages and celebrity status have plummeted in the industry.  What was once something that only the desperate or the truly sexually liberated would do has become almost mundane.  At the same time there are prostitutes that have complete control over their income, working conditions and clientele who aren’t drug addicts, aren’t being abused and have turned the tables on the power structure in the industry.  No single sexual act or occupation can be singled out as “feminist” or “anti-feminist” if the behavior is coming from a place of pride and self-worth it is entirely different than if the source is self-loathing, fear and need of approval.  Not every sex worker or sexual exhibitionist is a victim, nor are they necessarily being exploited.

Yet during these changing times regarding female sexuality, misogyny is at an all time high.  The anti-feminist forces have gone from empty rhetoric to promoting legislation challenging our reproductive rights and even basic health care.   They want to do away with laws that might protect us from having to pay twice as much for our health insurance based on our gender, make many forms of birth control illegal, and make abortion a criminal act.  Many legislators voted against the Violence Against Women Act and the Lilly Ledbetter act, which were ultimately passed but in June the senate blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act which would have helped woman sue for equal pay.

I am not here to blame the victim, but it does discourage me when I meet so many young women who don’t seem to even know a political struggle is happening and then treat themselves with such low regard.  They are only giving fuel to the critics who would claim that all pre-marital sex is an abomination and that a sexualized female is something to fear.  I can’t help but see parallels in the civil rights movement.  Many in the African American community cry out against crime and violence, gangster rap and the thug culture that actually discourages achievement.  Of course racism is very insidious and still a huge problem, but if no one inside the community calls out the self-defeating behavior…it just makes everything more of a uphill battle.

I thought feminism was about being in control of our lives, having a right to speak our minds, and having the same opportunities as men have in the bedroom, in the workplace and in our government.  I didn’t think it was about declaring all sexual behavior as an empowering statement against patriarchy.  When I see a young woman disrespect herself my heart sinks.  When I see a woman desperately cling to some man doing anything and everything sexually in the hopes that he will stick around it saddens me.  When I see a bright intelligent woman with multiple options for her future resort to sex work it depresses me.  Although I understand its appeal, as sex work is one of the few high paying options available to young women.  The only non-sex based profession where women make considerably more money than men is the modeling industry and the largest scholarship program for women in the world is still the Miss America pageant organization.  I want every young girl to see the entire universe available to them, to know that they are more than their looks or genitalia.   It is a fine line we tread between celebrating our sexuality and allowing others to exploit it.

I do not propose that I have any answers to these ethical quandaries but I am not going to pretend that women treating themselves with disrespect and playing into negative stereotypes is a good thing.  A woman cannot treat herself poorly and then try to defend it by crying “slut-shaming” when she is the one shaming herself.  Some would argue that there is no sexual behavior that is negative or exploitative no matter what the situation.  But when a woman flashes her breasts for a Girls Gone Wild video or a woman engages in prostitution to pay for her drug habit, that is not a step forward but a step back.  To achieve real equality with men we need to respect ourselves in all aspects of our lives including our sexuality.

Related articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Dating in NYC: The Pepe Le Pew Syndrome

Date: September 4, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Dating - NYC, New York City, Relationships, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 9 Replies

Pepe Le Pew, the classic Looney Toones character is a love struck skunk and hopeless romantic.   In every episode he is featured, Le Pew incorrectly believes that a female black and white cat is actually another skunk and pursues her with vigor.  No obstacle is too great for Le Pew as he confidentially skips along after his chosen mate espousing his affection as he does so.  In some episodes the pursued cat might drink a love potion and a turnaround occurs.  The cat becomes enamored with Le Pew and now the skunk is running away as if his life depended on it.  The dreaded turnaround, just when the skunk gets his prey he decides he doesn’t want it anymore.

I have lived this very experience and heard countless stories from female friends who have gone through the exact same thing.  I have never encountered a love-sick skunk, nor am I a cat mistaken for a skunk, but I have dealt with many men who have played out this exact scenario.

A guy will become mildly infatuated with a woman and do anything to get her to go out with him.  Countless text messages, emails, instant messages and phone calls all to win her heart.   Although as soon as the man has the woman literally in his grasp he becomes disillusioned.  She is not the fantasy he had is his head, she is not fulfilling his every emotional and physical need and on top of it this same woman has emotional needs of her own and multiple flaws.  Soon after he has his conquest the turnaround begins.  The same man who was never too busy to send countless emails all day long, and text messages is suddenly busy.  He won’t return calls, he won’t answer emails and he would never think to text.  By now the woman may have become attached and just wonders what the hell happened.

Women call it the classic male “freak out”.   Countless dating advice books tell women to manipulate men to prevent this from happening.  Personally I hate manipulation, partly because I am downright terrible at it, and it just seems like one big constant lie.  And do I really want to “trick” someone into sticking around with me, by constantly making him feel that I have one foot out the door at all times?

I have sat down with my straight male friends to try to figure this out and I get answers like:

“Well sometimes you don’t really know until you know”

“I just get excited by the chase but once I have a girl, I don’t know something happens”

“I don’t know why I do it, I just know that I have done it before”

Talking to men about this might seem like a good idea, but it just leaves me more confused.  So now instead of trying to figure out why some men do this, I do everything I can to prevent it from happening in the first place.  There is a fine line between the genuine real excitement of a brand new budding relationship and a false hyped up hysterics of a Pepe Le Pew type.   The red flags to look out for:

  • He says things like “I have never had a blonde girlfriend before” and he hasn’t even met you yet
  • He talks about things way into the future and you barely know him
  • He speaks in blanket statements – you are somehow supposed to make his life complete
  • He says things like – You will keep me sober – Indicating that you will somehow save him from himself.
  • He is so insecure about your first date so he will call, then email and then send you a text to make sure you are coming
  • He speaks about you as if you are an object – talks more about your physical attributes, hair color, height, weight, etc. than your personality or who you are as a person
  • In general if he is acting head over heels and you haven’t yet met, that is a huge warning sign that he has already idealized you in his head.

Sometimes I feel more like a trophy than an actual human being, as if the man is more excited about showing me off to his friends than he is actually spending time with me.  I have written on this blog so many times before, when something seems too good to be true, or you gut instinct is telling you to bolt, trust that instinct.  Proceed with caution,  don’t get too involved with a man like this until you feel that his feelings are coming from a real place and not some fantasy in his head.  But if this does happen to you, don’t beat yourself up about it.  It seems to happen to all women.  I don’t know why women appear more enticing to men when they can’t have us, but there are things about the male psyche that I will never understand.  Don’t let his temporary excitement sweep you off your feet just so you can later get slammed to the ground when he drops you.   Sure it might feel romantic to have some man move heaven and earth to win us over, but it feels even worse when our love struck skunk turns out to be one scared little mammal who has left us with little more than his lingering scent.

Related articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

The Anti-choice movement – Pro-Birth and the Fear of the Single Woman

Date: August 31, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 2 Replies
Pro-abortion march

Pro-abortion march (Photo credit: American Life League)

I honestly don’t know if it is possible to debate this subject in a logical way.  For every argument the pro-choice side throws up the pro-life side throws up a photo of a mangled fetus or an ultrasound, then the pro-choice side points to images of dead women and butchered reproductive organs.  Obviously it is a highly emotional subject for many, but there was a time when no one would even think to politicize a woman’s choice in the matter.  Abortion has existed for thousands of years, and if made illegal will simply return to the back alleys in the form of dangerous sometimes lethal procedures.

I use the term pro-birth in the title of this piece instead of pro-life for a very specific reason.  Most proponents of the pro-life argument are in fact pro-birth and not exactly pro-life.   As some pro-birth types who fight to save every pregnancy are the same folks who would love to see an end to food stamps, welfare, the WiC food program, Medicaid, state child health insurance programs and even Head Start, the pre-school program for low-income children. If they are so pro-child and pro-family why leave low-income households with little to no government support.    They cavalierly say these families and mothers can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” when they don’t even have a pair of boots, much less any straps to pull them up with.  Some of these more extreme right wingers would not only put an end to all government assistance, they would also end access to most forms of birth control and abortion in nearly all cases.  Yet according to a report by the Guttmacher Institute 6 in 10 women who have an abortion already have a child, sometimes several children and the primary reason they give for having the procedure is the need to care for their existing children.  According to the same report, 4 in 10 of women who have abortions have income below the federal poverty line.   So many who seek abortions are already mothers desperately trying to support and take care of their families.

The myth perpetuated by some in the anti-abortion movement is that of a cold-hearted selfish single woman who gleefully terminates pregnancies at will.  They have sex without marriage, and a life lived for themselves and not for the benefit of a child.  To some conservatives these women are not following the rules of nature by being sexually active and not reproducing.  Although modern humans especially in wealthy industrial nations are not even close to living in our natural state.  Thanks to advances in medical technology we are living into our eighties, with marvels such as: antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants, chemotherapy, blood transfusions, pace makers, and artificial joints.   We also are hardly living according to nature when we ship food all over the world.   We use fossil fuels, chemical pesticides and fertilizers and have boosted food production to levels that were unheard up just a few generations ago.   These medical and technological advances are taken for granted yet any woman who wants to control their reproductive system is asking for something entirely unreasonable.  If we can cheat death with antibiotics then why not plan our families with hormonal birth control?  The single childless woman who lives her life without a man would be a far rarer occurrence if she did not have control of her reproductive rights.

Making their case even more confusing are the same conservatives who rail against the childless single mother are the same who condemn a woman who purposefully has a child out-of-wedlock.  In 1992 vice president Dan Quayle lamented against a fictional character on the show “Murphy Brown” for setting a bad example by actively choosing to raise a child as a single-mother.   Twenty years later the debate still rages, but what these conservatives forget is that we have always had single mothers.  The tragedies of premature death, warfare and abandonment have always supplied plenty of single mothers. The real fear is women living without men, defying the male power structure and living as they see fit.  The single unmarried woman becomes the ultimate she-devil, the woman who can live without a man and things like abortion and birth control make this lifestyle that much easier.

To some conservatives any woman who lives without the traditional nuclear family structure is somehow going against “the rules”.  The teenager who gets pregnant and terminates her pregnancy somehow got away with negative behavior.  She did not pay the consequences for her actions.  The brutalized rape or incest victim must also pay penance for the sins of another and endure nine months of a pregnancy only then to raise her attackers baby or give the child away.  The religious person might think that since they are “playing by the rules” that everyone around them must adhere to the same morality.  Even though many religious types don’t even adhere to this strict code of moral conduct themselves.  According the the Guttmacher Institute 3 out of 4 women who have abortions would call themselves religiously affiliated and Catholic woman have abortions at almost the same rate as the general population. A recent study cited in the New Scientist showed that pornography sales are actually slightly higher in Republican leaning states than in Democratic ones, one of the highest being the ultra conservative state of Mississippi.    And how many examples of religious leaders do we need that have committed transgressions against their own sermons of morality.  Here is a handy list of just 12 that doesn’t even include the child sex scandals in the Catholic church.

But most important the same groups that claim that every fertilized egg is a sacred human life aren’t even consistent in their message.  Medical procedures such as IVF use countless embryos many of which do not result in a life birth.  Most couples make dozens of eggs and try to implant a few at a time.  In most cases several eggs are naturally rejected by a woman’s body and fail to attach to the uterine wall, many more remain in frozen storage.  The majority of these frozen embryos are ultimately destroyed when the freezing process has degraded them or when a couple is finished with the process.   The real fear here isn’t the plight of frozen embryos because after all these women are actively choosing to become mothers, at great cost and with some medical risk. The real fear is women actively choosing to not become mothers.  If the pro-lifers really cared about every embryo we would see pickets and protests outside of fertility clinics.

The world is overflowing with children who are already born and living on the edge of survival.  If the energy and money spent trying to save every pregnancy in the US went instead to ensuring the safety and well-being for children in the third world or even here in the US, millions of lives could be saved.  Of course some on the pro-life side of the debate are active in children’s charities and even adopt or foster unwanted children, but most would rather spend their time and energy condemning total strangers whom they know little about.

I just have to go back to a bumper sticker slogan that I saw many years ago that for me puts this issue to rest perfectly.

If you are against abortion, don’t have one.

If a pro-life advocate wants to raise their children and teach them that abortion is a vile crime against humanity, no one is stopping them.  However when they try to limit the rights of a total stranger and what she can or cannot do with her body they go too far.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

The Pro-Life Fringe: Where Todd Akin gets his insane ideas.

Date: August 22, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Catholic - Former, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 3 Replies
, member of the United States House of Represe...

, member of the United States House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have had several requests from my regulars to blog about Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin‘s remarks about rape.

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,”  “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

As soon as he uttered those words, the firestorm of backlash was overwhelming.  People were shocked that anyone would believe such things about pregnancy and rape, sadly it was not the first time I have heard such theories.   My devoutly Catholic parents dragged myself and my three siblings to multiple pro-life marches and protests throughout our childhood.  I was often singled out at these protests because I was born in 1973, the same year that the Roe vs. Wade case made abortion legal in all 50 states.   So when I heard Akin’s uniformed rants I knew where I could find the source of this misinformation.  One of the loudest voices in the anti-abortion movement is Dr. Jack C. Willke, a one time surrogate to presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the former president of the US National Right to Life Committee.   Willke and his wife are authors of  “Why Can’t We Love Them Both: Questions and Answers About Abortion.” first published in 1971.

The following is a direct quote from an article in the LA Times

It’s  ”just downright unusual” for a woman to get pregnant from a rape, Willke said in an interview Monday. He said studies have shown this to be true, but produced little evidence beyond a few footnotes that cite a handful of decades-old papers. “This goes back 30 and 40 years. When a woman is assaulted and raped, there’s a tremendous amount of emotional upset within her body,” Willke said, adding that this trauma  “can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.” “No one really knows” how often those emotional effects prevent pregnancy, Willke said, but he estimated that there are just one or two pregnancies for every 1,000 rapes. That contradicts research published in the 1990s in the Journal of American Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that the occurrence of rape-related pregnancies is 5%. More than 32,000 women experience rape-related pregnancy every year, the research found.  Scientists at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y., concluded in 2001 that the rate of rape-related pregnancy is even higher — 6.4%, twice the rate of pregnancy from consensual sex.

I went hunting for more anti-choice propaganda on the internet and what I found mostly was website after website blatantly plagiarizing each other using the exact same language and data most of it misleading and inaccurate.   Here is a quote from one Abortionfacts.com

In a healthy, peaceful marriage, the miscarriage rate ranges up to about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate is higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If she loses 20% of 600, there are 450 left. Finally, we must factor in one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant and stay pregnant, a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one really knows, but this factor certainly cuts the last figure by at least 50%, and probably more, leaving a final figure of 225 women pregnant each year, a number that closely matches the 200 found in clinical studies.

So the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that there are about 32,000 rape-related pregnancies and AbortionFacts.com claims there are around 200.  The numbers aren’t even close, one is an advocacy group intent on ending legal abortion in this country and the other is a peer-reviewed medical journal.   The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology is not a political organization so why would they fabricate the numbers on rape-related pregnancies.  While the pro-life site uses heated language such as “assault” rape and not just rape, as if there is a difference.  Most women are raped by men they know, not strangers on the street or intruders to their home.  According to Rape Abuse Incest National Network (RAINN) approx. 2/3 of victims knew their attackers before the rape, 80% of rapes occur to women under the age of 30 and 44% are victims under age 18.  Simply put most of the victims of rape are in the prime of their reproductive years.  Human beings are designed to get pregnant, even though a woman is fertile for only about three days a month, sperm can stay alive inside a woman’s body for up to five days there by increasing the likelihood of pregnancy.  The anti-choice groups also like to point out that in some rapes the male attacker does not ejaculate inside of his victim.  Pregnancy can still occur from the amount of sperm found in per-ejaculate fluid.   It is also widely known that rape is a highly under-reported crime due to added stigma and shame towards the victim.  So no one really knows how many pregnancies are the result of rape, and we probably never will.  Then there is the issue of a rapist demanding custody and visitation of his victim’s baby.  In 31 states, a rapist  can sue for custody and visitation just like any other father.

In a way though Todd Akin did the pro-choice movement a favor, by pointing out how extreme the pro-life movement really is towards women.  From their perspective even a teenager who is raped and impregnated by her stepfather should go ahead and have that child and maybe even raise it.  So what if her life is ruined and she may have to stay under the same roof as her abuser who might go on to abuse her child as well.  Who cares if she is a minor and has few legal rights to rectify her situation, she should just accept her fate and become even more powerless and dependent towards her rapist.  Ethical dilemmas like these are exactly what caused me to go from the pro-life position of my youth to the staunch pro-choice position I hold today.  I just can’t help but think of worst case scenarios, such as rape victims, incest survivors, abused women, and women with extreme medical complications.  It is not for the government to make these decisions but should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

One ethical question I always love asking a staunch pro-life supporter is the following.

If you passed by a burning building and heard a baby crying, you run in to find a baby sitting right next to a container holding 50,000 frozen embryos and you can’t carry both out to safety.  Which one do you pick up and run out of the building the crying infant or the heavy container?  Most rational human beings would choose the baby although I guess there are some that might let the living baby burn to death to save the frozen embryos.

I can’t help but see this analogy played out on a daily basis while so many babies and children starve and suffer throughout the world, where are the pro-life advocates crying out for their well-being?  Where are the pro-life advocates rushing to adopt unwanted children?  If every child could find a home why are there so many in our foster care system?  Why are there millions of children who die every year of hunger, disease and poverty?  There are some in the pro-life movement that might adopt a child from foster care, or become active in children’s charities but you don’t see much of this sentiment on their websites.

And even my mother the same devoutly Catholic woman who raised and took me to those pro-life rallies found Todd Akin’s comments repulsive.  I guess since my mother had four children in the span of five years she knows how easy it is to get pregnant so she wasn’t buying his theory that a woman’s body has a way of “shutting things down”.  Even though my mother is staunchly pro-life, she does believe in an exception for rape and incest, and for any case where the life of the mother is in danger.   Unfortunately for Mr. Akin my mother lives in the state of Missouri and he definitely won’t get her vote.  Abortion is a hot button issue for many Americans, but if the pro-life side wants to be taken seriously they should stop spreading misinformation and lies.  If you have to lie to get your point across there is something seriously wrong with your message.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Adam Carolla – So women aren’t funny?

Date: June 18, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Comedy, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 39 Replies

According to Adam Carolla, he wouldn’t place a bet on women being funny.  I am going to quote from the following interview from the NYPost.

The lesson you learned from a sexual harassment seminar was “Don’t hire chicks.” Do you hate working with women?

No. But they make you hire a certain number of chicks, and they’re always the least funny on the writing staff. The reason why you know more funny dudes than funny chicks is that dudes are funnier than chicks. If my daughter has a mediocre sense of humor, I’m just gonna tell her, “Be a staff writer for a sitcom. Because they’ll have to hire you, they can’t really fire you, and you don’t have to produce that much. It’ll be awesome.”

The “are women funny” debate has grown very contentious. You’re not worried about reactions to this?

I don’t care. When you’re picking a basketball team, you’ll take the brother over the guy with the yarmulke. Why? Because you’re playing the odds. When it comes to comedy, of course there’s Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, Kathy Griffin — super-funny chicks. But if you’re playing the odds? No.

If Joy Behar or Sherri Shepherd was a dude, they’d be off TV. They’re not funny enough for dudes. What if Roseanne Barr was a dude? Think we’d know who she was? Honestly.

Well he managed to not only be misogynistic but racist in just a few statements.  He also implies that it is easier for a woman to get a job writing for a sitcom, or that women somehow have it easier in comedy based on their gender.  My head spins on that particular premise.   What Carolla misses is that we don’t all share the same sense of humor.  Comedy is subjective, and for many female comedians their audience is not guys like Adam Carolla.

Carolla is just expressing his opinion and he has every right to do so, but he made a huge mistake in singling out Roseanne Barr.  Love her or hate her comedy, Rosanne Barr had a hit TV show  Roseanne that ran for nine seasons on network television and attracted millions of viewers. At its peak it was the #1 show on American television.  She has been one of the most successful comedians in American history, not just one of the most successful female comedians.  The only other equally successful sitcoms created by and featuring a comedian would be Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond both also ran for nine seasons on network television and were widely popular.

Other successful women in television include.

Lucille Ball –  She revolutionized the television.  Her show “I Love Lucy” is so popular that it is still in syndication all over the world and is considered a cultural icon by many.

Carol Burnett – Creator of The Carol Burnett Show originally ran on CBS for 11 seasons a total of 278 episodes.

Tracey Ullman –  She has had several popular and award-winning shows both in the US and the UK.

Jennifer Saunders – Creator of the highly successful British series Absolutely Fabulous another female based comedy.   Absolutely Fabulous is still broadcast all over the world.

Ellen DeGeneres – Creator and host of a hit syndicated talk show since 2008.  Also had a popular sitcom “Ellen” that ran for four seasons on network television.

Women also go to movies, the most recent phenomena being “Bridesmaids” a film made up of mostly female comedians and comic actresses grossed $288 million.  Some other female based comedies(I made a mistake earlier and only included domestic grosses for these fims, the new numbers reflect total worldwide grosses) My source was boxofficemojo.com

  • My Big Fat Greek Wedding – $368 million
  • Sex in the City – $368 million
  • Runaway Bride – $309 million
  • My Best Friend’s Wedding – $299 million
  • Miss Congeniality – $212 million
  • Nine to Five – $103 million (1980)
  • Mean Girls – $129 million

Adam Carolla has had a very successful career and according to the Guinness Book of World records the most downloaded podcast in history.  Carolla’s best known work would be “The Man Show” a popular television show on basic cable.  I would agree that it might not make much sense to have a female writer for a show like “The Man Show” designed and made for a primarily male audience. “The Man Show” although popular on Comedy Central would never survive on network television its content too controversial and its audience too specific.

And as far as Carolla’s claims that women have it easier in comedy, the LA Times blog reports on a recent study done by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, in which they took a look at the top 100 grossing films last year and found that women only accounted for 33% of all characters on-screen, while women currently make up 51% of the world’s population.  Another study shows that although minorities buy plenty of movie tickets, they are also underrepresented on screen.

Yet despite this, Mr. Carolla somehow thinks women have it easier in the entertainment industry and are given jobs out of some sort of “politically correct” atmosphere, when the opposite is actually true.  But when women can find and connect with their core audience, they can surpass their male counterparts.   We all find different things funny, I didn’t laugh once when watching “The Man Show” but then again I wasn’t its intended audience.  Some of the most successful comedians have been women, yet this stereotype is perpetuated.  I don’t know how many more Lucille Ball types will have to exceed their male contemporaries until this debate finally ends.  Had Carolla bet against someone like Carol Burnett, Lucille Ball or Tracey Ullman he surely would have regretted his pick.  All I know is that I would rather watch “I Love Lucy” over “The Man Show” any day.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Oh John Mayer…The Douche Bag doth protest too much

Date: June 7, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Relationships, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 1 Reply
English: John Mayer at the Mile High Music Fes...

English: John Mayer at the Mile High Music Festival (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone John Mayer revealed he was upset that his former flame Taylor Swift, wrote a song “Dear John” that is most likely about him.  He confessed he was “really humiliated” and “I’m pretty good at taking accountability now, and I never did anything to deserve that. It was a really lousy thing for her to do.”

1. Why now John, why now? – Their affair was at least three years ago, the song debuted in 2010.  Could it be that Taylor Swift has sort of eclipsed you?  She went from being a bit of a child prodigy to a superstar, winning multiple awards and having legions of fans.  When was the last John Mayer hit?  I don’t even know.  John just released an album, which is at the #1 spot, perhaps that has something to do with suddenly expressing his feelings TWO YEARS after the fact. Gotta push that product! What better way than to diss an old girlfriend!  A true class act.

2. John, this is what happens when you date a 19-year-old – Three years ago, John was 31 and Taylor was 19.   I am sure that Ms. Swift overwhelmed by his looks, charm and celebrity plunged into a relationship without realizing what she was getting into.  Even a 19-year-old with a successful recording career is not going to successfully navigate the manipulations of a 31-year-old man.   Teenagers are emotional, vulnerable, insecure creatures who need much more attention than more sedate women in their early thirties.  Teenagers do best with other teenagers.   If you want drama, date a teenager!

3. John, this is what happens when you date another artist –  John, are you shocked that a singer/songwriter might have actually written a song based on their life?  Are you seriously surprised by this?  You can’t expect every former lover to pen love ballads in your honor.  This comes with the territory.

4. John, this is what happens when you date other celebrities. – I know it is a habit for most celebrities to date other celebrities, but not all of them do it.  Hollywood has plenty of examples of an A-list star with a non-famous spouse, or a maybe a significant other who is less high-profile.  If you want to date someone like Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Love Hewitt…you will have those who speculate about your very public romances.  Get over it.

5. John, Pot Kettle Black – I think this is the part that is what really gets under my skin about this dude.  And yes, I am calling him a dude.  Let’s just quote him here shall we?  And I found it all in one amazing source which I will gladly give credit to right here at CoEdMagazine John Mayer’s 16 Douchiest Quotes So Far   And I like how the author titled it “so far” as we know unless he loses the ability to speak…he will say more douche bag quotes in the future.  Oh joy!  And this other nifty slide show, of 9 of his Douchiest Quotes right here on the Huffington Post.

On Jessica Simpson – “That girl, for me, is a drug. And drugs aren’t good for you if you do lots of them. Yeah, that girl is like crack cocaine to me.” – I guess he meant this as a compliment, but what woman likes being compared to a potent drug that destroys people’s lives?  Plus, crack is cheap.  If you are going to use the analogy of a drug, at least compare her to cocaine or heroin something a bit less gutter trash.  Everyone knows crack is whack.

Or this quote about Jennifer Anniston “I met a girl one time in Vegas. Her name was Dimples, and the ’s’ in Dimples was a dollar sign… I have this weird feeling, a pride thing, for the people I’ve had relationships with. I still feel like I’m with them, in the sense that if I f—ed Dimples, what does that say about someone like Jen? I feel like it’s all connected. How could I ever cosmically relate these two people?” – What the heck is that about?  So you only have relationships with Famous people and not with people with stupid names, NO MATTER HOW HOT THEY ARE!  You have standards John and we love you for it.

And then of course we have racist John…“My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock. I’m going to start dating separately from my dick.” – Wow what do you even say to that? David Duke Dick?  I mean really.

John Mayer reminds me of the guy we all knew in college who had pretty much slept with nearly everyone.  At first his conquests thought they were the lucky ones, he was good-looking, charming, seemed to have it together…until later…they didn’t even want to admit they knew him.  Sell your albums John, and shut up! Although I think all of this buzz may have helped to sell some for Ms. Swift. I didn’t even know this song existed until John Mayer started whining about it.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

The Birth Control Debate and Religious Freedom – Faulty Logic

Date: May 22, 2012
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Catholic - Former, Politics, Uncategorized, Women and Feminism
Comments: 9 Replies
Birth control pill

Birth control pill (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Catholic church has already spent upwards of $2 billion on child sex abuse scandals so I guess spending money on lawyers for this is nothing new for them.  I read an article yesterday about how some Catholic institutions are suing the Obama administration over the proposed birth control mandate.  As it stands, religious organizations will get exemption that requires health insurances companies to pay for birth control so religious organizations do not have to pay for it directly.  Health insurance companies are not against this, as birth control is more cost-effective than pregnancies.  Birth control is also cheaper than a ruptured ovarian cyst or other complicated medical problem that hormonal birth control is sometimes used to treat.

The thought of my grandmother and other relatives giving money every Sunday to their local Catholic parishes to pay for lawsuits like these, when there are poor and needy people in their local communities is baffling to me.  Not to mention that although there were primitive forms of nearly every type of birth control except hormonal during the time of Christ, it is never mentioned in the bible.  Even though the bible includes restrictions on diet, clothing, worship, and nearly every aspect of life including restrictions on masturbation and sterilization yet female birth control and abortion are not even addressed.

Religious organizations, such as the Catholic church cry foul claiming that this mandate will force them to endorse lifestyle choices that they believe are morally wrong.   The current position of the Catholic church is that all forms of artificial birth control are sinful as are many fertility treatments including IVF.  And of course they are staunchly against abortion the only exception being if a pregnancy puts the life of the mother in jeopardy.

That being said, what are they getting so worked up about?  I fail to see their logic.  The vast majority of American women are already using some form of artificial birth control.  A recent report by the Guttmacher Institute found that up to 98% of American women have used artificial means of birth control including nearly 98% of Catholic women.  Currently a woman can purchase birth control with nothing more but a prescription from her doctor.  She can do this if she works for a Catholic employer, institution or hospital.  She simply has to pay for the medication out-of-pocket.   Many other forms of birth control are available over the counter at a drugstore, without insurance, the cost being burdened by the individual with no health insurance, or employers involved.

So again what is their point?  If the Catholic church doesn’t have to pay for birth control directly, and the women in question are already using birth control, are they just upset that someone other than the woman using the birth control is paying for it.  Because that is the only real difference here.  No one is forcing anyone to use birth control.  And the Catholic church is not paying for it directly.   Women will still use birth control whether the Catholic church likes it or not.  I guess the church just doesn’t want a health insurance company to pay for it.   If birth control was currently only used by a fraction of women, and this new mandate would cause an explosion in its use I might see their point.  But now nearly every American woman uses birth control of some kind, so the mandate only shifts the costs to either an employer or in the case of religious organizations the insurer.  98% of women is nearly all women, so there will be absolutely no change in behavior.

Any woman who is a devout Catholic can still reject any form of artificial birth control and try her luck with natural family planning.  Natural family planning has a much higher failure rate than hormonal birth control and it limits the days a couple can every sex every month.  But it is every woman’s decision to make that choice, this mandate does not change that basic truth.

The only thing that changes with the proposed mandate is who pays for the birth control, not who is using birth control.  An employer does not have the right to force its employees to not use certain medical devices, treatments or prescriptions because the employer doesn’t morally agree with the moral ramifications of those choices.  Religious institutions should not trump the basic rights of anyone including their employees.  Would this even be an issue if the Catholic church was declaring that any medical treatments that might help a woman become pregnant should also not be covered.  After all, most fertility treatments, at least any that fertilize an egg outside of a woman’s uterus are strictly forbidden by the Catholic church.   For the past three decades fifteen states have enacted laws that require at least some insurance coverage for infertility treatments.    Interesting how the Catholic church wasn’t making a fuss over state mandated fertility treatments, but they act as if birth control is a matter of religious freedom.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page