A feminist by any other name is a misogynist

Am I less of a woman if I don't wear pantyhose? My momma says a woman ain't what she wears, but what she knows.-India Arie

Sunday, February 04, 2007

I called it!


The 2008 presidential election promises to be an interesting one. In the 2004 election I knew that putting Kerry as the frontrunner was a baaaaaad idea. My personal favorite in that election was Senator John Edwards. He has the charisma, smarts, and cleverness (not to mention he's very visually appealing ;] ) necessary to run this country -- but alas! He was not chosen in the primary.

He has recently announced that he will be running again in 2008 for president, this time, however, I have a feeling he will win. Why? Today I saw him on Meet the Press and by golly he reminds me SO much of Clinton. The way he spoke, the way he knew what he was talking about *cough* Dubya *cough*.

I called it! He's going to be the winner in 08 unless a better candidate announces that she or he will be running. Biden is too busy attacking everyone to run a good campaign and people are really intimidated by Clinton and Obama. I'm pretty sure that the American people are sick of what the Republicans have done to this country and the world, so my bet is that it will be a Democrat in '08. Unless MAGICALLY Osama is caught or something to that effect...

But hey! If Edwards wins everyone owes me a nickel, because I've been saying Edwards for a few years now. :]

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Flaws in Affirmative Action.

Affirmative action is aimed at highering minorities and helping bring about equality. Programs are created such as minority scholarships and most schools have to accept a certain amount of minorities. There is increasing controversy over whether or not through the usage of affirmative action programs, equality is being achieved through racism towards "white" people.

My personal opinion on this is: it's necessary. I believe that racism does still exist in this country and therefore, affirmative action is necessary. HOWEVER, I do have a problem with these programs.

I am a Persian-American teenage girl living in the United States. After September 11th, my family was harrassed because of our Iranian roots. My dad almost lost his job and my mom was constantly teased, as was I. People like us need affirmative action because people do hold grudges against us. Why is it then that Middle Easterners are not considered minorities under affirmative action? My sister recently took her LSAT and on the part where you identify your race/ethnicity, she had to bubble in White in accordance to the key they provided her claiming that Middle Eastern and Europeans are considered White. People of Indian descent are considered minorities under Affirmative action, however, Persian and other Middle Eastern people are not? Does this make any sense?

I don't understand how members of nearly every other culture are considered minorities, but we are not. If we are judging minorities by their skin color, we certainly are darker than "white" people. So what do they judge us by? We certainly are stereotyped more than most cultures. A lot of people from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed Iran wear headscarves... this sets them apart from other people. So what is being achieved here?

The most common races/ethnicities put on standardized tests are as follows:

African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, Alaskan/Eskimo Native, Native American, Pacific Islander, White, and other.

Why couldn't they add an extra bubble for Middle Eastern-American? Am I the only one confused here? I usually bubble in other, but when there is no other... I'm very confused at what to do. I normally just bubble in Asian-American, though I know it does not directly apply to me; it is the closest thing to my culture that I can find.

I believe a letter needs to be written and a petition needs to be signed because this is not fair.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Sack Keroack.

An anti-contraception doctor in charge of birth control funding? Excuse me?

Woah, woah. Rewind! What year is this? Keroack is obviously confused. Women haven't been baby-machines for years now [not officially, at least]. Only a crazy person would agree with Keroack's "contraception is demeaning to women" stance. Does this make any logical sense to anyone? Protecting women against STDs and pregnancy is demeaning? Cool.

This is a crucial turning point in the feminist movement. Roe is under attack, but a ray of hope has shined upon women. The Democrats have control of the Senate and [hopefully!] a Democrat will be voted into office in '08. The last thing we need is someone like Keroack taking us back three steps.

Now you might be thinking: EH! Big deal. What can this guy do? Contraception will never be limited or taken away!

Well, isn't that the same thing we said when the idea of an abortion ban in South Dakota came into play? We thought, "NO WAY! No one will let that happen. Pshh." What happened ladies and indeed gentlemen? Abortion ban.

We can't let that happen again. Sign the "Sack Keroack" petition.

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Might sound crazy, but it ain't no lie!


Lance Bass of the popular pop band, N*Sync (whom I absolutley adore!) is now openly gay. I think it's quite cute, don't you? :]

Lance says he was afraid of what the news would do to the band, but honestly, what bugs me most is his nose job! I mean sure, his nose wasn't beautiful before, but he was still an okay looking guy! He looks much worse now, IMO.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Just when you thought I was gone...I came back!

Hello dears! It has been far too long. This summer has been hectic. But- ehm- I am back! With a vengeance. Muha.

My returning rant is, once again, about women being looked down upon. This particular rant is something I've kept bottled up inside of me for far too long. Now it's time to let loose. You've been warned...

In light of the recent Middle East crisis, there have been numerous reports on casualties and injuries as a result of rocket attacks from Hezbollah or bombings from Israel. My main issue is this:

"Innocent women and children have been killed"

Does anyone else see something wrong with that statement? Now I understand that I do overreact a lot and this could very well be one of those times. But isn't a blog about expressing your feelings?

That statement is used to describe the plight of innocent people all over the world. I understand that this is supposed to draw some sort of sympathy from the viewers of the newscast, radio show, etc. HOWEVER, why is it that women are grouped with CHILDREN in the innocent category, while men are not grouped in the "innocent" category, as well? Is it because men are so incredibly strong and buff and scary and strong that when they get hurt it's noble? But when a woman or a child gets hurt that's so sad. Why? Because they are obviously "weak and little and defenseless". That's BS.

To group women, someone with a vagina, into a category, title it INNOCENT, and then stick children in there with them? Are we not good enough to not be innocent? Are we so weak that we are compared with children? Does having an extra piece of flesh in between a man's legs REALLY make them that much anatomically stronger than us? So strong that we can never be as good as them? Did it ever occur to people that maybe, just maybe, we aren't so innocent? I know it's good to be seen as innocent, however, I think we have the strength and the integrity to be grouped with men, one with a penis, as well!

Indeed. This was overreacting, but the next time I see someone write "innocent women and children" I will either:

A) Scream and pull my hair out.
B) Throw my computer against the wall.
C) Correct them.
D) All of the above.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

Save Nazanin!


Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi is being sentenced to death by hanging in Iran for killing a man while defending herself and her niece from rape. Read more about it here.

This isn't a political issue, this is a human rights issue and we have to do something about it. I suggest writing to your local news station, radio, and/or newspaper. We can't let them kill her.

Where is our world going?




P.S. This is not a good enough reason to attack Iran, just wanted to add that tid-bit in there so that Bushy and his cronies don't get any ideas.

Monday, May 15, 2006

ZOMG. b0rshun iz oK 0nLy if dA gRl was rapED1!!!1!

That's the philosophy most marginally pro-choice people follow. As much as I LOVE to hear choice being granted to women, it kills me that only some women are worthy of receiving their rights.

What most people do not grasp is that abortion is not about the 'child', but about the woman. To force a woman to remain pregnant, is to force a woman to develop gangrene in the vagina from using bleach to abort her pregnancy. So it does not matter HOW and WHY a woman got pregnant, it matters only WHAT she wants and needs to do with that pregnancy.

A rape victim should not have more rights over her body than a 15 year-old high school student, who made a 'mistake.'

Another aspect of this issue that marginally pro-choice folks do not take into consideration is how hard it is to differentiate between a rape victim and a non-rape victim. There is no 100% effective way of determining a rape, especially because most rape victims do not report being raped for a few days, as a result of the emotional damage inflicted upon the victims. Thus far, not one person with the abortion-is-wrong-except-in-cases-of-rape philosophy has proposed a fool-proof way of determining whether or not a woman was raped.

It ticks me off. At least be consistent in your views. You either support abortion in every situation, or you don't. But don't give prefferential treatment. Okay, that sounded a tad heartless, but I'm just so blown on this whole issue. I can't even begin to describe how angry I am currently.