Gaskins was diagnosed with Infant Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, a high-risk form of leukemia in children, when he was 8 weeks old. He underwent nearly five years of chemotherapy and his family celebrated him being cancer-free in December 2003.

Locks of Love Become Lots of Trouble

Over the holidays, Gaskins was touched by a family friend who was battling cancer and decided he wanted to give back by donating his hair. But when his hair grew over his ears and started getting in his eyes, his school demanded he cut it.

Gaskins refused and was suspended.

Even when the family met with the school board, Gaskins suspension remained unchanged:

After his first three days of suspension, Gaskins and Plante met with the school board to see if they would reconsider. Plante pleaded their case and presented the school with different suggestions for how to keep the situation in control such as saying that they would pull Gaskins’ hair back in a ponytail or coming up with a donation clause so that other boys could not take advantage of a potential loophole in the rules.

“We had so many different ideas, but when we were done, it was a five minute decision,” Plante said. “They said, ‘We appreciate what you’ve been through, but we’re sticking to policy.’”

The school’s rules say that, “Hair must be clean, neat, free of unnatural or distracting colors, off the collar, off the ears and out of the eyes” for boys.

“The girl sitting next to him can grow her hair and donate and yet you’re looking at your boy students and saying, ‘We’re going to kick you out for doing the exact same thing,’” Plante said.

Plante started a petition on Change.org for supporters to send letters to her son’s school and the school board. The petition already has more than 3,000 signatures and dozens of comments supporting Gaskins’ goal.

So, is it a form of discrimination to suspend a boy who won’t cut his hair when girls can grow their hair as long as they want?  Yes, but will a town in Michigan acknowledge that? Not likely.

Related articles

• Teen Wishing to Donate to Locks of Love Is Suspended for Violating School’s Hair Policy for Boys (healthland.time.com)
• JT’s CAUSE – CANCER SURVIVOR & High School Student – SUSPENDED for Growing his hair to long to Donate to “Locks of Love” (alwcustomdesign.wordpress.com)
• Cancer Survivor Suspended for Long Hair (myfoxny.com)

Comment From Guest

way to go, can’t wait to see him go, now Michigan’s governor should be next

This was followed by another commenter stating:

Comment From David Mitchel Stow Amen to getting rid of Michigan’s governor.

According to bloggers, the number of people who signed the recall was staggering:

Ryan Lawler of United Wisconsin called the # of signatures against Walker “so overwhelming that it is beyond legal challenge.”

Huff Post had a link to a running tally of blog comments, and the number of times Michigan came up, with comments regarding removing Rick Snyder, was really quite amazing.  Once again Michigan has made national news, unfortunately because it appears our governor looks like a backward bigot, but I suppose we “made it.”

This comment came after another Michigan comment:

Comment From Guest

Note to GOP. I could balance my budget by not paying my bills and saying that I don’t own them too.

Regarding the number of needed signatures, it appears they may have more than double what they  needed to recall Walker:

Jeff Rumage-Whitefish Bay Patch:

United Wisconsin confirms they have more than a million signatures to recall Gov. Scott Walker. The only needed 540,000.

Wonder what Michigan will come up with…

Here are the details on the Walker recall petition:

Democrats needed to collect 540,208 signatures to trigger a gubernatorial recall election against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R). On Tuesday, they announced they had far exceeded that number, collecting one million signatures.

Tuesday was the deadline for recall organizers, led by the group United Wisconsin, to turn in their petitions. The number collected is 185 percent of the signatures required to force a recall election. Organizers also collected enough to trigger a recalls of the lieutenant governor and four Republican state senators.

The total went far beyond Walker’s expectations.

“From what they say, they’re probably going to turn in 720,000 today,” Walker said in an interview with right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh Tuesday afternoon. “That’s a lot of signatures, but they’ve been planning this since late last spring. They’ve got tons of money from the big government unions in Washington and around the country.”

A Walker recall is the next step in a campaign to oust state Republicans who pushed forward controversial budget legislation stripping state employees of their collective bargaining rights. In August, Democrats successfully recalled two Republican state senators from office, but they fell short of the three needed to take control of the chamber.

Of course, if Walker falls, then guess the politics change…

“Rick doesn’t hate anyone,” she continued. “He loves them. What he has simply said is marriage shouldn’t happen” between them.

She has also claimed that since this isn’t done out of “hate,” and intimates that makes it okay to be bigoted in a presidential election:

“As Rick’s wife, I have known him and loved him for 22 years,” Karen Santorum said. “It makes me very sad what the gay activists have done out there. They’ve vilified him. And it’s so wrong.”

I am not sure what is so wrong, her defense of an indefensible position, or her claim that because she loves him that it’s okay that he makes bigoted statements. It gets better.  Mrs. Santorum has a gay son, which the article is clear not to associate with Mr. Santorum.  I don’t know if the gay son is her biological child with Rick or not.

Karen Santorum was answering a question from a Greenville woman who said she had backed Santorum since he announced his presidential candidacy, but felt conflicted because her youngest son was gay.

“What he’s been hearing is ‘Oh, Rick Santorum hates gays,” the woman said. “How do I deal with that?” She added that her son didn’t want marriage rights either and had no problem with her support of Santorum, but that she felt guilty nonetheless.

Rick Santorum said his views on marriage are not meant to be hateful or bigoted, as many have perceived them. “This is public policy difference and the problem is some see that public policy difference as a personal assault,” he said.

The problem with the public policy argument, as he stages it is that public policies are not supposed to be bigoted–it’s illegal to enact policy like that, actually.  No worries, because while Mrs. Santorum says she feels “guilt” over her support of the policies that sound suspiciously similar to “gays get no rights,” she also sounds unwilling to change that.

Firedogg Lake has a scathing commentary:

Rick Santorum‘s baby mama Karen jumped into the gay fray today by going all mama grizzly on teh gheys (including the bears). Pointing out that they’re just being haters when they’re hatin’ on Rick’s unhealthy obsession with homosexuals, Karen said that Rick actually loves him some gay (strictly in a non-physical, purely manly, bro-hugs-lasting-longer-than-four-seconds-are-totally-queer way) and only seeks to save them from the horrors of a bleak and loveless marriagekept together for the children’s sake:..[there is a segment of a similar quote I had inserted above]…

Stop being mean to Rick Santorum, you guys!

Just because Rick doesn’t want you to get married doesn’t mean you can’t live together in sin, doing God knows what with your naughty parts to each other, just like Karen Santorum did for six years with a baby-killer in return for nice vacation trips and orthodonture before she gave up on life and settled for Rick and began pooping out babies.

You guys can do that too, although you may want to pass on the settling and baby-pooping part….

I wanted to check up on the “baby killer” commentary, and I found out that when she was younger, Karen Santorum (then Karen Garver)  dated and lived with an OB/abortion provider, Tom Allen, 30 years her senior, whom she apparently went on to live with for 6 years:

She came upstairs “permanently,” or for about 5 years.  The relationship with the abortion provider broke up, she married Rick Santorum at some point, and then the rest is fairy-tale bliss, all except for that  hating part…  Okay, and except for that whole part about how her husband is against gay rights, and since she married him, and her gay son doesn’t want rights, she doesn’t see any problem with her husband’s comments.  Intimating that Rick Santorum comes across as controlling, one of her former friends commented on what she became after marrying Santorum:

Around that time, she met her future husband when he recruited her as a summer intern for his law firm; he too hadn’t been much of a practicing Catholic, but that changed soon after they married in 1990. They immediately started a family; Karen never practiced law. Her husband ran for Congress, and by the mid-1990s he was among the most fervent anti-abortion legislators in the House of Representatives. Her law-school friend the social-justice lawyer ran into Karen Santorum on Capitol Hill around then. “She greeted me warmly,” he recalls, “but I got the idea that she wasn’t allowed to embrace me or anything. By that point she was dressed like Hester Prynne.”

Related articles

• Rick and Karen Santorum Questioned by Woman with Gay Son: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
• Anti-gay remarks haunt Rick Santorum online (ctv.ca)
• Karen Santorum Wants the Homos to Quit Beating up Her Husband (tbogg.firedoglake.com)
• Before Karen Met Rick (politicalwire.com)

Image by Fred Dawson via Flickr

Leave it to a male writer to state that pregnant women shouldn’t be given the same protections as those provided for disabled Americans because it could either be, according to Owen Rust, A) offensive to the “truly” disabled Americans, according to Rust, who had “no choice” in the matter, B) because it’s a “preventable condition” and, my personal “this-guy-is-an-uninformed-asshole” epiphany moment C) the “potential for abuse is too high.”  Spoken like a true man who complains in one moment about how women can prevent pregnancy but takes no issue with handing pregnancy prevention to anyone but women and then bleats in the same breath about how men don’t get the same protections.

Poor, whiny-box baby, Rust, don’t you know that women have no choice in the matter of whether or not women are the gender solely responsible for gestating and birthing?  Don’t you think we would hand that off to you men, too, if we had the choice so that you wouldn’t be left our of our potentially disabling condition?

Spoken like a person who is mentally deranged, Rust states that women would get pregnant to keep their jobs, damn them!  Ah yes, perhaps Rust skipped biology class and forgot that 1)it takes 2 to make a baby (so why not, as Rust suggests, just go ahead and blame the woman again) and 2) there are only 2 ways babies are born, and neither would be worth “keeping a job.”  Did Rust forget that babies are either pushed through vaginas that can tear or be cut or literally amputated from a woman’s abdomen?  Perfect solutions to a down economy, right?

If you want some schooling in my personal opinion of idiocy, read an excerpt of Rust’s “opinion” a.k.a. misogyny in most circles, below:

Though I agree that the effects of pregnancy can easily reach the threshold of a genuine disability, it should not be given blanket protection under the ADA.

First of all, given the plethora of modern birth control options and their ease of access, pregnancy is a voluntary condition. Though pregnancy is necessary for continuing the species’ existence, it is not like the current lack of ADA protection for it has diminished America’s population growth. And allowing a voluntary condition to be given the status of ADA protection might seem like a slap in the face to the many workers who are temporarily disabled through traditional, involuntary causes.

The possibility for abuse is high. Women who may fear termination, either due to firing or downsizing, could become pregnant or claim to be pregnant. Which raises another question: How much documentation of a pregnancy is required to merit protection? Does the protection begin at the announcement of the pregnancy, or upon receipt of some sort of paperwork? Does the protection begin at the “fill-in-the-blank” week of pregnancy, or at the beginning of discernible symptoms?

In tough economic times couples may, unwisely, decide to get pregnant to try and guarantee that one spouse retains her job. This may result in families having too many mouths to feed nine months down the road, soon after which the pregnancy and maternity leave employment protections cease. But, like college students opting for a year of graduate school to try to “ride out” a tough economy, could women opt for a baby to try to ride out 9-12 months of a tough economy?

Flushing the toilet with the lid up can spray diarrhea-causing bacteria into the air, according to a new study of hospital toilets.

Researchers from Leeds Teaching Hospitals in the U.K. detected C. difficile – a germ that can cause diarrhea and even life-threatening inflammation of the colon – nearly 10 inches above the toilet seat after flushing lidless hospital toilets. C. difficile is frequently found in hospitals and long-term care facilities were antibiotics are common.

“The highest numbers of C. difficile were recovered from air sampled immediately following flushing, and then declined 8-fold after 60 [minutes] and a further 3-fold after 90 [minutes],” the researchers reported in the January issue of the Journal of Hospital Infection.

C. difficile was spotted on surrounding surfaces 90 minutes after flushing, with an average of 15 to 47 contaminated toilet water droplets landing in the nearby environment, according to the study.

“Lidless conventional toilets increase the risk of C. difficile environmental contamination, and we suggest that their use is discouraged, particularly in settings where [C. difficile infection] is common,” the authors wrote.

SOOO gross!  Hmm, Kasey Kahne, it’s so gross to nurse in a store, but you would rather subject babies to life-threatening illnesses?

Related articles

• Hospital north of Toronto battling C. difficile outbreak (ctv.ca)
• Clostridium difficile Infection Rate Has Risen among Hospitalized Children Since Late 1990s (ahrq.gov)

Well, Ashton Kutcher needed to turn his Twitter account over to a managerial team, and it looks like it’s time for Kahne to do the same.  If you would like to really communicate to people who have influence, you could always write to his professional sponsor: Great Clips.  Tell them that you won’t support a business that gives money to men who call women “dumb bitch,” especially on Twitter.

Here is the Great Clips link to send them feedback.

Supposedly Kasey Kahne “apologized” for his remarks, but all he said was that he didn’t argue with women choosing to breastfeed–no apology for calling a woman a dumb bitch or calling breastfeeding disgusting.  You can see it for yourself though:

“My comments were not directed at the mother’s right to breastfeed. They were just a reaction to the location of that choice, and the fashion in which it was executed on that occasion. I respect the mother’s right to feed her child whenever and wherever she pleases.”

No apology in that supposed apology.  He never apologizes for anything, just tries to defend his misogynist posts.

Related articles

• NASCAR’s Kasey Kahne apologizes for calling mom of three a ‘dumb bitch’ [Kasey Kahne] (jalopnik.com)
• NASCAR’s Kasey Kahne apologizes for calling breastfeeding mom a ‘dumb bitch’ [Kasey Kahne] (jalopnik.com)
• NASCAR Driver Kasey Kahne Apologizes For ‘Offensive’ Breastfeeding Tweets (mediaite.com)
• NASCAR Driver Kasey Kahne Apologizes for ‘Nasty’ Breastfeeding Tweets (buzz103.radio.com)
• NASCAR Driver Kasey Kahne Apologizes for ‘Nasty’ Breastfeeding Tweets (wirk.radio.com)

1. Women are allowed to breastfeed in public in Michigan. (Michigan, while not having a law specifically protecting the rights of those wishing to breastfeed in public, does state that a nursing mom is exempt from public nudity or indecent exposure citations when feeding her child.)
2. Women are allowed to breastfeed in public in Somerset Collection (but for some reason the security guard didn’t see it that way).
3. Somerset Collection doesn’t allow flash mobs, but it does allow security to approach  nursing mothers…

There is another article about the nursing mothers at Somerset in which the nursing mom talks about Somerset’s reaction:

“Clearly, feeding your child a meal is offensive to do in the rest of this part of the mall, even though according to the state of Michigan, it’s permissible and encouraged,” Napoli said.

Edward Nakfoor, spokesperson for The Somerset Collection, said in a statement issued Sunday evening that the mall does allow breastfeeding, though it does not allow “demonstrating or protesting of any kind, as we are private property.”

(Note that this is at odds with what security told the would-be nursing moms, that they don’t allow breastfeeding “in public”…)

“I am extremely disappointed in the sheer ignorance of Somerset Collection,” said lactation consultant Brandy Walters, who was present when the flash mob was dispelled. “I know the breastfeeding community will be supporting Mary.”

It’s a bit like the Occupy Wallstreet movement, with strength in numbers and following the letter of the law only to be pushed by the interpretation of it. You can watch video of the encounter below…

Of course, I did find this video for a flash mob done at Somerset Collection, but it has nothing to do with nursing, so apparently Somerset believes only in disallowing flash mobs for nursing mothers:

Actually, if you look at the above video, it’s shot in the exact same spot the nursing moms attempted to use.

Here is another flash mob video shot at Somerset Mall, still including kids, but not nursing kids.  Nursing kids are not allowed at Somerset Mall:

Seems Somerset Mall spokespeople and security guards are liars, as proven by YouTube.  Somerset Mall:  you win the asshole of the week award!

Related articles

• WATCH: Mall Security Forces Mom ‘Flash Mob’ To Stop Breastfeeding (huffingtonpost.com)
• Breastfeeding Flash Mob: “You may not do that here” (atyourcervix.blogspot.com)
• Target Nurse-In Coming To A Store Near You (huffingtonpost.com)
• Mums stage a breastfeeding flash-mob to defend their right to feed babies in public (dailymail.co.uk)
• Michigan Judge Humiliates Nursing Mom: “My court, my law… (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)

Natalie hadn’t planned on bringing her son Landon with her when she went to court this past Tuesday, but had to pull him out of daycare after he came down with an ear infection. So when he became hungry after a 2-hour wait, she did what most moms would do – she fed him.

Making sure that “nothing was showing,” Natalie says that she discretely nursed Landon as she continued to wait in the courtroom. When her name was finally called, she asked the Honorable Robert T. Hentchel for a moment as she collected herself and her son. According to Natalie, the judge then asked her if she thought the courtroom was an appropriate place to breastfeed her baby.

Showing considerable calm, Natalie says that she pointed out that her son was hungry and that nursing in public is not against the law so she didn’t feel it was inappopriate to feed him there. She claims that the judge disagreed, citing, “My court, my law and I feel it is.” Apparently it was then that the mortified mom noticed a note that a court employee had passed to the bench that warned, “There is a woman breastfeeding in court.”

“Needless to say I left in tears, I have never felt so humiliated,” Natalie wrote as she later related the experience in a post in the BabyCenter Community. She was so outraged that she’s contacted lawyers and plans on filing a formal complaint.

As disappointing as Natalie’s story is, what makes it all the more frustrating is the fact that it’s not exactly a one-off incident. She is just one of many moms who have felt judged and criticized for simply feeding their children. Despite the fact that just about everybody encourages moms to breastfeed these days, we still hear stories of women being kicked off of buses, removed from airplanes and asked to leave restaurants for daring to nurse their babies in public.

While there is no law against breastfeeding in public, there certainly seems  to be an outpouring of harassment.  I just fielded a comment from a woman who wrote about my post from 2009 when Target store employees threatened a nursing mom in Michigan and the vitriol from people regarding nursing is awful.  The commenter suggested that women nurse in bathrooms, because all people eat where other people shit, don’t they?  Oh, wait, they don’t?  Or all women should refrain from feeding their babies because a judge determines that he owns the law, right?  Both happened here in Michigan.

Related articles

• Michigan Makes National News When Judge Robert T. Hentchel Humiliates Breastfeeding Mom (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
• Judge Tells Breastfeeding Mother That Laws ‘Don’t Apply’ in Court (abovethelaw.com)
• NINJA NIPs to Stage a Courthouse ‘Nurse-In’ Protest in Michigan (abovethelaw.com)
• Breastfeeding Protest In Michigan (lezgetreal.com)
• Judge ‘Humiliates’ Breastfeeding Mom (newser.com)

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

Never mind that there are laws against involving the church in the state, and never mind that they have been upheld time and again.  Rick Perry, the latest GOP candidate to sound like an ass (after Herman Cain’s spectacular fall), with is “no gays in military if we can’t have prayer in school” bit, has vowed to somehow bring religion back into the White House.  Truth be told, it’s never left it enough to suit me, but then again, apparently not being allowed to celebrate Christmas in schools is just what ticks Rick Perry off.  Bah Humbug!

If you want to celebrate Christmas in schools–just run for the U.S. Presidency.

Apparently there is a backlash to this type of ad.  Some people state that Rick Perry has his own sex scandal allegations, including “escorts.”

Related articles

• Rick Perry Pledges To End Obama’s ‘War On Religion,’ Dings ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ In New Ad (mediaite.com)
• Rick Perry Attacks Obama For Wanting To Protect Lesbians, Gays From Death (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Joe Scarborough: Rick Perry Is ‘Finished’ (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Yes, those video games that people believe are “just games,” even though every effort is made in game construction to simulate “real-life” experiences, does alter brain function:

“We found that functioning has been changed in the brain by violent video games,” said Dr. Yang Wang, an assistant research professor in the department of radiology and imaging sciences at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. “We found that activation [of an area of the brain that controls emotion] is decreased after playing violent video games.”…

“Clinically, we don’t know what these changes mean, but it does affect your brain somehow,” Wang said. “The pattern we found is similar to what we’ve seen in past research, and in adolescents is similar to what is seen in disruptive behavior disorders.”…

The men who played violent video games showed less activation in the left inferior frontal lobe during the emotional task, and less activation in the anterior cingulated cortex during the counting task, compared to their own baseline test and to the control group after one week.

Wang said those areas of the brain are important for controlling emotions and aggressive behavior.

After the second week, when there was no video game play, the changes in the brain activation were reduced. Wang said the study wasn’t designed to assess whether or not if someone continually plays violent video games, the changes to the brain become permanent at some point.

“That may be a question for future research,” Wang noted.

“These changes don’t necessarily mean the brain region isn’t doing its job. There was decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex. Does that mean these men can’t use that area as well, or could it mean it’s become more efficient? You just don’t know. You just know that they had a change in their brain,” Dennis said.

Related articles

• Violent video games may lead to brain changes (ctv.ca)
• PROVEN: Violent video games mess with your head (go.theregister.com)
• Violent video games alter young men’s brains: Study (thestar.com)
• Violent video games alter brain function in young men (scienceblog.com)
• Violent video games “rewire” parts of the brain that control aggression, study claims (mirror.co.uk)

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Or, wait, maybe that was his cohort, Republican Senator Rand Paul. (Stellar, in office already…) Let’s just start out this discussion by saying that reps for  Herman Cain have paid settlements to two women for his sexual harassment tactics.  Let’s just say that these were not disputed as “just joking,” or as women not “getting jokes” (at their own expense, no doubt).  But then we can talk about how Herman Cain has brushed aside the settlements by stating that his problem with sexual harassment is really a woman’s problem, namely that they don’t “get his jokes”:

Sexual harassment is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is unwelcome sexual advances, requests for favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is used either to create terms of employment (“quid pro quo” sexual harassment) or intimidate (“hostile work environment” sexual harassment).

A joke misunderstood, a come-on not reciprocated — this is not the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s definition of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is an abuse of power, a means of defining women and girls (or, less often, men and boys) as outsiders, subordinate objects for the sexual pleasure of those in power, typically men.

Departing from defined provisions within law, Mr. Cain has suggested that sexual harassment originates in the eye of the beholder. He would have us believe that sexual harassment is not defined by the actions of the perpetrator, but rather by women who are particularly sensitive or sexually unavailable. In so doing, he has led a chorus of right-wing politicians and commentators in suggesting that sexual harassment is a myth that has made it impossible to tell jokes in a co-ed environment (Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY.), could be solved by having women wear burqas to work (Rush Limbaugh) or, perhaps most confusing, as a concept disrespects the strength, power and creativity women bring to the workplace (Katie Roiphe).

In short, we have been hearing that sexual availability defines women, and it’s up to women to manage their sexuality on behalf of everyone around them (sounds like an extra job, compounding the injustice of longstanding wage gaps). There are two words for this: sex discrimination.

Sex discrimination in the workplace is often dismissed as part of the natural order. Men are paid more because they work hard. Women are passed over for promotions because they’re too busy trying to juggle their careers with their personal lives. That’s why men wield the lion’s share of control over the means of production — at work, within the payroll, in public life. Or so the story goes.

Which brings us back to Mr. Cain and the sexual harassment allegations. We don’t know if they are true, but we do know Mr. Cain’s campaign has handled them by issuing a full-on assault on women in public life. Mr. Cain’s lawyer issued a threat for women to “think twice” before coming forward with more allegations. The two women with names made public have been openly smeared with allegations they are unstable, unable to hold a steady job, incompetent in the management of their finances, subject to paternity disputes. Even as Mr. Cain was protesting that he didn’t know Sharon Bialek, his campaign was emailing a smear with her name on it around the country.

We also know that Mr. Cain refers to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as “Princess Nancy.” In the last week, he has taken the time to crack a joke about Anita Hill, who knows a thing or two about the chorus that surrounds a man in power accused of abusing that power in private, and how harshly a woman can be excoriated for telling her story to the public.

What this country does not need is another case of a man in a supreme power position denigrating women as “princesses,” or as “unable to take jokes,” when men make unwelcome sexual advances and then threatening them for telling people when it happens. Guess according to Cain, only “husbandless women” are vulnerable to forms of sexual harassment.  With a track record like that, Ms. Cain may be the next in line–watch out Herman Cain because not even wives like abuse…

Related articles

• Herman Cain Launches ‘Women For Cain’ With Brutal Attacks On His Accusers (alan.com)
• Herman Cain: A man or a louse? (dailykos.com)
• Herman Cain website calls accusers ‘pathetic husbandless women’ (examiner.com)
• Herman Cain launches ‘Women for Herman Cain’ Website – New York Daily News (nydailynews.com)
• New Herman Cain ‘Women For Cain’ Site Headlined By Stock Photo Of Female Fans (mediaite.com)

Just to make you warm and fuzzy…Here is the newest campaign slap to Newt Gingrich…

Being definitely older than a 20-something, I take issue with the fact that the researchers, for one, defined “sexy” as wearing less clothing.  Then, the idea of female aggression was determined by the number of mean comments women made about the clothing (or lack thereof), and the rude remarks.  Oh, and let’s not forget to include the all-time favorite, being asked if they were afraid to have their boyfriends around these women. After all, what would a scientific study be like without the male fantasy of female jealousy and women fighting over them?  All here in this quasi “study” of some indeterminate “female aggression” as measured by snarky comments.  Gotta love it, don’t you?  The real scientific inquiry at work.

The women were happy to report that the less clothing a woman wore, the less other women were nice to her. There is so much to be aggravated with, pitting women against one another, measuring reactions as “bitchy,” asking about boyfriends, and all the rest.  You can barf any time, but I suggest doing so after reading the so-called study’s author’s comments as well as the news commentators refrains of inappropriate comments described as “sassy,” and less clothing equating to “sexy”:

The harsh reactions of 43 women to a provocatively dressed peer, caught on tape by Canadian researchers, reveal just how sassy women get when they think someone else is sexier.

“I was convinced, having lived a life as a woman, that we’re not as pleasant as some people make us out to be,” said Tracy Vaillancourt, professor of psychology at the University of Ottawa and lead author of the study published in Aggressive Behavior.

Vaillancourt invited 86 women to participate in a study on conflict resolution. But she was really interested in how the women would respond to a young female student entering the room wearing either a T-shirt and khakis or a low-cut top and mini skirt.

When dressed conservatively, the student was barely noticed. But when she dressed sexy, she drew snarky stares and mocking chuckles as she left the room.

“This is not something that sort of happened,” said Vaillancourt, describing the consistently “bitchy” responses. “Ninety-seven percent of the women were inappropriate.”

The inappropriate reactions were scored by 13 blinded raters on a “bitchy behavior” scale from zero to 10. The raters could only see the study subjects – not the female student.

Most of the women were passive-aggressive, making their disapproval known without actually stating it.

“We’re not good at direct confrontation,” said Vaillancourt, describing the silent treatment women are famous for. “By laughing as she gets to door, they’re giving her feedback that they don’t approve.”

The two women who refrained from making judgmental jabs, Vaillancourt said, were “probably checking their BlackBerrys.”

In a second study aimed at uncovering the basis for the “bitchiness,” the researchers showed photographs of the same student dressed conservatively or sexy to 66 different women and asked whether they would let their boyfriends spend time with her. A third photo of the “sexy” student was altered to make her look overweight.

“When she was sexy and thin, they didn’t want their boyfriends anywhere near her,” said Vaillancourt.

Vaillancourt said while most women are guilty of giving attitude to sexy peers, few think about why. One theory for the brazen behavior suggests women ”stifle each other’s sexuality” to level the playing field.

Ah yes, because I am always out to “stifle sexuality” as evidenced by my interest in other women’s attire, much less that around my partner.  Notice the news commentary never questions the concept of “sexy” or sexier by amount of clothing, personality or anything else. (Anyone who only defines sexy as scantily clothed should question why Jack Black is routinely seen as sexy.  Hint:  it has to do with how much he likes women and seems like he would be interested in giving a good time, not his overall lack of clothing.)  I quoted the ABCNEWS.go.com article listed first below for the big quote above, but also check out how CBSNEWS.com categorized it: “new lows in female cattiness.”  Gotta love those editorials don’t you?  Because we women are all catty bitches right?  Never mind the allusion to animal species in both national news reports:  bitches (dogs) and cattiness (felines), because it’s okay to categorize women as animals.  Never mind that if there was a title of a news article labeling men pigs or snakes, that it would be similar (except that doesn’t happen with male editors).

The new low in this study isn’t evidenced by the women commenting about a tank top, it’s evidenced by the commentary over hhe article and really must more proof that men want women to fight over them.  Well, guys, I think I’ll leave that to the dogs.

Related articles

• Women Aggressive Toward ‘Sexy’ Peers (abcnews.go.com)
• Almost all women aggress against a sexy peer (scienceblog.com)
• Study plumbs new lows in female cattiness (cbsnews.com)
• Science Proves That Women Are Mean (Again). Thanks Science! (forbes.com)

Michigan is currently the only state in the U.S. that puts Constitutional rights up for sale to the highest bidder, leaving those with limited finances without rights.  Currently the poor in Michigan are under a tremendous onslaught from Republican influences to hand citizens’ rights to big business in the pathetic hope that somehow jobs will materialize.  Governor Rick Snyder, who appointed the latest Michigan Supreme Court “Judge,” Zahra, has already enraged Michiganders by pushing through the Emergency Financial Managers, hand-picked by him from a pool of company executives who contributed to his campaign, who have already removed the rights of poor communities to elect their own officials.  Of course there are no tax breaks in the communities in which the elected officials were removed, enacting the age-old argument regarding taxation without representation, reminiscent of the British rule of peasants.  Now, the Michigan Supreme Court, largely ruled by judges whom big business has bought  into office through under-the-radar campaign donations in the form of multi-million dollar campaign television ads that go un-declared, has decided to remove lower judges’ judicial discretion to determine which cases are heard based on the Supreme Court’s own illegal re-writing of Michigan laws.  (In an infamous case now known as, “Scarsella,” the Michigan Supreme Court allowed for a re-write of a law that couldn’t be passed in the legislature, which denied judicial discretion to all lower courts, in a naked power play to control all the courts in Michigan.)

While Governor Rick Snyder is now being sued for his removal of rights from the poor, the Michigan Supreme Court has yet to be challenged.  Perhaps the Justice Department would take an interest in this.

Related articles

• MIchigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young: Sluts and Niggers (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
• Michigan Supreme Court Justice Mary Beth Kelly “Feels Really Bad” After Man She Let Go Murders (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
• Michigan Supreme Court Judge Retires After Tiring of Robert Young Calling Other Judges Sluts (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
• Michigan Is One Step Closer To Denying Benefits To Domestic Partners Of Public Employees (thinkprogress.org)
• Michigan High Court Says Yes To Foreclosures (huffingtonpost.com)

 

“I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in,” she says. “I was screaming, ‘I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.’” At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. “Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut,” she says.

Fox asked for medical attention—the now-famous photo by Josh Trujillo of her being carried to the ambulance is here (click to the second photo)—and was rushed to Harborview Medical Center, she says, where doctors performed an ultrasound and said that they “didn’t see anything wrong with the baby at the time.” Fox says she had also seen a physician at Harborview for prenatal care about five week before.

“Everything was going okay until yesterday, when I started getting sick, cramps started, and I felt like I was going to pass out,” Fox says.

A friend called for an ambulance near the community college campus. (Fox says she has been camping with Occupy Seattle since it first began in Westlake Park. She is homeless and says, “I don’t have a place. This is the place I call home.”) When she arrived at Harborview at 11:00 a.m., she says, a doctor told her that “there was no heartbeat” from the baby. “They diagnosed that I was having a miscarriage. They said the damage was from the kick and that the pepper spray got to it [the fetus], too.”

As for joining the protests, she says, “I was worried about it, but I didn’t know it would be this bad. I didn’t know that a cop would murder a baby that’s not born yet… I am trying to get lawyers.”

While it find it irritating that the reporters would ask for medical records to “verify” her story, I think it’s illustrative to point out that she stated she was pregnant and was beaten specifically in the stomach. She states she was pregnant and then that reporters wanted her medical records in order to believe her.

Here is a short video of her shortly after being kicked in the stomach by “police officers.”

Related articles

• Pregnant Seattle protester miscarries after being kicked, pepper sprayed (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
• Pregnant Seattle Protester Says She Miscarried After Being Kicked And Pepper Sprayed By Police (businessinsider.com)
• Jennifer Fox: Pregnant Protester Miscarries after Being Pepper-Sprayed and Kicked (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
• Pregnant #OccupySeattle Protester Miscarries After Being Kicked, Pepper Sprayed (crooksandliars.com)
• Pregnant Woman Miscarries After Being Sprayed With Pepper Spray (buzzfeed.com)