The MBTA is where you’ll usually find ads for Jamba juice and Jansport backpacks, local research studies, and public health campaigns. Currently, though, much of this highly-coveted space is occupied by ads for Daybreakinc.org, an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center. The ads don’t tell you that Daybreak has an anti-abortion agenda; they claim to offer “compassion,” “empowerment,” “hope,” and most inaccurately, “options.” This is in fact the major criticism of crisis pregnancy centers—that they misrepresent themselves as neutral parties. They are not, and they should not be allowed to advertise their heavily-biased and manipulative services on the MBTA.

The point of a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) is to keep pregnant women from having abortions, often by delaying them with offers of pregnancy tests and ultrasounds until it’s too late. What is truly sinister about CPCs is their use of untrue or misleading information to scare women away from choosing abortion, with false claims such as: abortion causes breast cancer, abortion is psychologically damaging, abortion can lead to sterility, and birth-control pills cause abortion. A 2006 Congressional investigation found that 87 percent of the centers surveyed provided false or misleading medical information.

Daybreak is guilty of this type of misinformation, although they are careful not to appear so on their website. It’s no wonder they are covering their behinds—legal action has been taken against CPCs in a number of states regarding their deceptive advertising in New York, California, Ohio, Missouri, and North Dakota.

According to their website, Daybreak claims to provide “accurate information about pregnancy, fetal development, lifestyle issues, and related concerns” as well as offer “accurate information about abortion procedures and risks.” They say “our advertising and communications are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer.” But when you dig in deeper, you will find a sample if misleading and just plain untrue “facts” on their website:

• Daybreak claims: “[Plan B] It may alter the uterine lining which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, resulting in an early abortion.” (This is wrong—the dissolution of a fertilized egg is NOT “early abortion.”)
• Daybreak claims: “Complications may happen in as many as 1 out of every 100 early abortions,” when according to the Guttmacher Institute, “the risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.”
• Daybreak claims: “Women who have experienced abortion may develop the following symptoms: guilt, grief, anger, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, difficulty bonding with partner or children, eating disorder,” when the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion reported that “the best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.”
• On the particularly appalling “For Men” section of the Daybreak website, they write: “Many women who have had abortions report that they were waiting for their boyfriends/husbands to stop them. Some even say that they sat on the table hoping the father of their baby would ‘rush through the door to rescue me and take me away somewhere safe.’” (Um, citation needed?)

I’m not trying to make the argument that free pregnancy counseling is a bad thing or that the people at Daybreak are “bad” people, but pregnancy counseling, or any counseling for that matter, should be unbiased and informative. No where on the Daybreak MBTA ads are women informed that the the “free pregnancy counseling” is actually anti-abortion counseling, and that is dishonest, manipulative, and ultimately wrong. Women facing unplanned pregnancies need to know all their options, without the implication that one is better than another, and they need real medical information, not the “facts” listed above.

The MBTA is currently under fire for proposed fare increases and service cuts. They may be desperate for funds, but that does not excuse this moral misstep. CPCs are a growing threat to women’s health and the MBTA is the last place Bostonians should be exposed to anti-abortion propaganda.

Ron Paul used “honest rape” as code for rapes that fit the prescribed, social narrative of rape: When an innocent, attractive, young woman is attacked by a criminal stranger in a dark alley. Of all the rape narratives that actually exist (incest, partner violence, date rape, acquaintance rape, etc.), this is the only one in which predators “look like” predators and victims “look like” victims. When our predators look like choir boys or world leaders or women, the Ron Pauls of the world are less likely to believe the rape was “honest.” When our victims are not pure and chaste, or young and beautiful, or women, they are less likely to believe the rape was “honest.”

Of course, this is bullshit.

All rape is “honest rape,” no matter who perpetrated it, no matter the victim is (or what she was wearing or drinking), no matter where or how it occurred. The idea that some rape is more valid than other rape is a device used to preserve the false notion that some victims are “asking for it.”

Ron Paul seems to believe that “honest rapes” are rapes that are reported right away. But anyone who knows anything about the reality of rape and sexual assault knows that the majority of rapes go unreported. Why? Because the very idea of “honest rape,” the very same that Ron Paul is propagating, deters victims from coming forward.

Victims worry that their rape might not be taken seriously because they knew their attacker or because they don’t have physical injuries. Sixteen percent of victims say that they fear reprisal, while about six percent don’t report because they believe that the police are “biased.” Biased by what?  The idea that only some rapes are “honest,” and therefore only some victims are credible.

One more thing.

Just as there is no such thing as an “honest rape,” there is no such thing as an “honest abortion.”  You don’t need to be raped–”honestly” or otherwise–in order to deserve the right to terminate a pregnancy. (#justsayin’)

For good looking guys, lets say, you approach someone in a club (CONSIDER YOU DONT GET HER REALLY DRUNK). it will take you atleast 1 week to get laid! or lets say 3x of meeting with her  )))))))),

It is a different story tho if you keep her drinking lotsa alchohol….if she is totally drunk (With tequila, and she pass out in the club, you could get her easy = this is one tactics those players are using!).

BUT KEEP IN MIND, It wont also work if you see this beautiful girls with their guy friends (you might end up in a fight with the GUYS….. LOOOL)

IN CONCLUSION, girls want it, but sometimes they are too shy, and guys need sweet talks if they want the sex 

[sic]

…

From Slacktory:

There’s this running joke on the internet about an acne-scarred C.H.U.D. (or Butthurt Dweller) finding fault with any and all images of women in order to alleviate the self-hatred and loneliness that goes along with being a neckbearded netizen — “I can’t find a decent woman, not because I’m just awful in every way, but because all the women in my town have such big foreheads and stubby toes. Disgusting!”

This mindset has borne a new meme, “2/10 Would Not Bang,” in which 4chan users post images of flawless women and compete against each other to find fault in increasingly creative ways, and then dismiss them with the Comic Book Guy-channeling verdict: 2/10, Would Not Bang.

According to Slacktory and the 4chan-ers themselves, this is not men judging women harshly — it’s satire of men judging women harshly. GET IT? Good.

I can see hints of that satire in some of these images. For example, criticism’s like “half of face too bright,” “forehead cut off,” and “being outside on a cloudy day,” are kindof funny because they mock  the judging by judging things that are actually more about the photo composition or staging of the image than the woman herself. Unfortunately, the majority of the criticisms miss the satire mark by a longshot.

These are all real things that women (and others) actually fret about. These are things that women are judged by in the harshest and most misogynistic of circles. “Would Not Bang” is the meme version of real-life sorority hazing where female pledges strip to their underwear and let frat boys highlight their flaws in red Sharpie.

I just don’t see any humor in that at all.

***Oh, and did I mention this meme is an excuse for racial bigotry?

(h/t to Tali for the link)

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) sponsored two new billboards in Albany, NY, warning residents that cheese makes you fat in what is possibly most irresponsible way ever. The first features an obese man’s disembodied torso and the words, “Your abs on cheese.” The second features an obese woman’s butt and thighs and the words, “Your thighs on cheese.” The images make a very clear statement: fat people are disgusting. Read more.

Shame and Blame: Facing the Unintended Consequences of Health Messaging

A solemn black and white poster shows a picture of an obese girl with copy that reads: “Warning: It’s hard to be a little girl if you’re not.” Another poster displays a woman’s naked legs with her panties around her ankles and the word: “She didn’t want to do it, but she couldn’t say no.” The first is part of the Georgia “Strong 4 Life” campaign to prevent childhood obesity; the other is part of the Pennsylvania “Control Tonight” campaign to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. Though the campaigns are unrelated, they have one thing in common: disregard for the effects of shame and blame — the frequent unintended consequences of health campaigns.

The promotion of health and social welfare is one of those noble causes that attracts people who want to “do good.” Physicians are taught to “First, do no harm,” but health communication professionals take for granted that their work is “doing good” without considering that it might cause unintentional harm. For example, stigmatizing sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention messages may make people with STIs too embarrassed to seek treatment or too ashamed to tell their sexual partners. Not only can health promotion messages lead to such negative health outcomes, they can also promote destructive social values, like fat stigma and rape culture.

Read the rest at the Huffington Post.

Now, I know as much as the next person how important it is not to feed the trolls. And these Nazi commenters are trolls of the worst order — the angry, threatening kind. I tried to ignore the whole thing. But everyday, new anti-semitic threats and slurs kept showing up in my inbox.

Two of my grandparents are Holocaust survivors. They lived in the Lodz ghetto in Poland and were both sent to Auschwitz, although they didn’t meet each other until after the war. I always felt that they, and my dad (their son), were paranoid about anti-semitism. I mean, the paranoia was pretty damn rational for them, but it never felt like a real threat to me. Then again, I had never received emails from people saying they’d like to put me in an oven before.

I’ve taken a few days to think about it — whether I should respond, and if so, what I should say. I figured out what I wanted to say long before I decided whether I should say anything at all. I made a video. And then I agonized about whether or not to share it.

“You’re just going to bait them and get worse hatemail,” said a friend. “Why are you taunting them?” It’s true. I probably will get more hatemail. But is this just feeding the trolls, or is this a chance to say something important? To call attention to the reality that old-school anti-semitism still lives (even if it is in a small and pathetic sort of way).

In the end I thought about my grandparents. How would they feel if they knew their granddaughter was getting this sort of hatemail? They loved to say things like “I didn’t survive the Holocaust so you could drop out of high school and become a janitor.” Or maybe it was my dad who loved to say that… (“Your grandparents didn’t survive the Holocaust so you could get a tattoo!)

Well here’s what I have to say: My grandparents didn’t survive the Holocaust so that I should stand silently and be bullied by racist idiots.

It may not be the most mature way to handle internet trolls, but at least I live in a world where I’m free to express myself, free to be Jewish, and free to delete emails without reading them.

So, without further ado, this is what I have to say:

1. So, when the Shit Girls Say video first came out, I liked it but I wasn’t exactly sure why. Then I read Elissa Straus’s piece on it and now it all makes sense.

2. I was blown away by the Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls video. It’s truly brilliant. So is this article by Tami Winfrey Harris about why it’s not “reverse racist.”

3. Then I saw Shit Christian Say to Jews.

This one was particularly striking because it was all. too. familiar.

My family was one of the only Jewish families in my small, rural town. Here’s some shit that’s actually been said to me and/or my brother:

• What do you mean you don’t celebrate Christmas?
• You don’t believe in Jesus? You’re going to hell.
• Do you have … birthdays?
• Do you guys celebrate Thanksgiving?
• Your nose isn’t that big.
• Do you go to church?
• Did you, like, get circumcised at your bar mitzvah?
• If I lived during the Holocaust, I would have saved you and your family.
• Do Jews eat rotten fish heads?
• What’s Jewish church called again?
• I think Jews are really holy. They’re God’s chosen people.
• The other day some Jews came to church to teach us about Passover. You know, Jews for Jesus?
• [In Spain] I’ve never met a Jewess before. So exotic!
• I was going  to give you a Christmas card, but I thought it might be rude.

I think I find this video particularly striking because people assume that everybody knows about Jews, or even that American culture (pop culture?) is overtly Jewish. Not enough, apparently.

You know the type I’m talking about. The Drunk Creeper™ is a dude who is very drunk and very handsy. His patented move is to come up behind a girl and slide his arm around her waist, so that he can — before she even knows what’s happening — touch her hips and whisper in her ear in that oh-so-intimate of sexual positions. I find it hard to ignore Drunk Creepers™; they set off my internal alarm bells, even from across a dark bar. After watching a Drunk Creeper™ approach-and-grope seven or more women in quick succession, you know it’s only a matter of time before he stumbles onto you.

There’s a standard way to deal with a Drunk Creeper™ that fits with the learned, ladylike rule to always be pleasing, even in refusal. When a Drunk Creeper™ slimes his way onto your body, you start by giving the forced smile/eye roll combo that lets your friends know you are fully aware that this dude is a skeeze, but still appears pleasing to his drunkenly impaired senses. Then you sortof pretend to listen to his inebriated acknowledgment of your hotness and politely decline his advances, slowly disengaging yourself from his grip and moving to a new spot. Then, afterwards, you discuss what a creeper he was with your friends. It’s girl tested, girl approved.

Youtube celeb Jenna Mourey, aka Jenna Marbles, has a different approach: the face.

If that doesn’t work, she has more goofy techniques like acting like a velociraptor, singing, or planking until the guy leaves you alone. These are hilarious in theory, and they may even work in practice, but they still bother me. Basically, the Jenna Marbles’ techniques give you a humorous way to end an interaction without having to be the angry bitch girl who raised her voice and caused a scene on the dance floor. Because, according to the rules of being a lady, you must never, ever, be the angry bitch girl.

Saturday night, I was an angry bitch girl.

The Drunk Creeper™ was dancing in front of me and dropped his jacket on my feet. I kicked it back towards him, which unfortunately caught his attention. He spun around and before he even had time to look at me, grabbed my face with both hands and started to come in for a drunken, slobbery kiss. I reacted with a kung fu parry (all girls should take martial arts) and yelled “Don’t fucking touch me!” He backed off, but everyone around me gave me startled looks.

A little while later, I noticed him dancing behind a friend of mine. I leaned in to tell her to watch out for him because he was a Drunk Creeper™. Just as I finished warning her, he came up behind her and slid his arm across her waist and stuck his face in the crook of her neck. Before she had a chance to react, I grabbed him by the shoulder and pulled him off her. I screamed at him to get the fuck out of here and pointed forcefully with my finger. He looked terrified. But then again, so did everyone in a five-foot radius.

It’s never cool to be the angry girl, which is why Jenna Marbles came up with a creative way to take control without having to get angry. But sometimes I think it’s important to be the angry girl. Like, for example, when you’re really angry at a Drunk Creeper™ who is treating women’s bodies like his own property, touching without asking, and who will undoubtedly wake up the next morning with a hangover, but absolutely no qualms about his sexist, predatory behavior. Even though I admire the humor of the approach, I think it’s demeaning to use the “face” to deal with Drunk Creepers™. Why must we be so cautious about expressing genuine anger or disgust in situations like this when it’s so clearly warranted?

Maybe I’m just the angry feminist who can’t laugh it off as “boys will be boys.” But maybe, just maybe, I’m acting the way a person should act when their personal space and potential safety is violated by a drunk asshole.

The predatory behavior of Drunk Creepers™ doesn’t deserve a free pass, and I refuse to be ashamed of being the angry bitch who won’t give it to them.