Not just “catfights” as a tag, but also “girl on girl.”

And then of course the obligatory comment from a dude who says feminism has to stop criticizing porn and lighten up, because he votes pro-choice, damnit.

Yeah, Gawker just ruined my hungover Saturday late-afternoon.  Because caring about the way rape is handled by our legal system or being underpaid at work and underrepresented in government is so not hip.  Why does everything always have to be handled with this disaffected irony?  >.<

Wow, I am not even aware it is Sunday.  Gotta lay off the alcohol, I suppose.

I read the comments too and there was one shining example of a woman who bashes other women and then is later rewarded for it with a “You’re one of the good one’s” reply. Oi.

Wow, I am not even aware it is Sunday.

Relax. Today is Virtual Saturday in the US, because (in theory, at least) we don’t have to go to work tomorrow.

Relax. Today is Virtual Saturday in the US, because (in theory, at least) we don’t have to go to work tomorrow.

Ever since I turned in final grades (and then had family and friends visit for commencement), I have lost all track of what day it is.

“But that brings traffic”. This is something that I slowly grasped while smoke was getting out of my ears reading the article about Ms Obama and pantyhose (full disclosure: I hate pantyhose and never wear it).  I have decided I’m never, ever going to click on an doubleX link again.
Also, as someone pointed out on a feminist blog, XX isn’t even a good description for women.

Christ, why even bother with Gawker?  Lots of rapist apologists there, including at least one fool going, ‘But not every accusation is truthful.’

This is good reason to fucking hate people.

I liked the guy they featured who wants to be credited as a feminist even while he stares at your tits.

I do appreciate that the 1st linked article uses a shot of the mankiest bathrooms in Seattle as an illustration. The last time I was in them (bathrooms in Pike Place Market) 10 years ago there was a nice big gout of blood on the wall from a junkie shooting up in there.
Uuch.

And I’m there with the Gawker hate. Jezebel is only slightly better but yeah.

“ME-OW!”?  They actually said that?

I wish they had let T.A.N. enjoy his/her holiday weekend instead of getting him/her to write that bracketing text.  The writing style makes me want to barf.

Also, “feminist hate” in the headline, in big black letters.  Then “okay, just ‘pissed’” in the text.  Classy.

Gawker has plenty of flaws, but I have to give them credit for this:

Slate Rebuttal?: “Why white, male, and boring is no longer white, male, or boring!”)

That seems to get William Saletan to a tee.

I’ll be really interested in seeing how Slate’s XX does in the context of the upcoming Supreme Court fight.  I was just working on a blogpost about the kind of gendered dog whistles we’re going to get from John Kyl and the rest of the asshole Right.  “Empathy” seems to be the big one right now:  a female Justice is going to rule from her FEELINGS instead of her THOUGHTS.  Right.

Every time they mention ‘empathy’ they’re sending the message of “No GIRLS ALLOWED!”

That said, I’m not sure Team Obama’s use of the word isn’t also trying to send the message that they’re going to nominate a woman, so that’s some unimpressive essentialism, but at least, for good.

you have to be revolutionary or a rebel to be interesting?

Marcotte’s saying Slate is written for dull people who want to think they are edgy, like a diner ordering a $25 plate of mac and cheese.

Ginmar, your comment reminds me: I wish SO HARD I could recall the source of a stat I once read that argued that false rape accusations are par with every other false accusation the cops have to deal with (e.g. falsely reporting drug activity on hated neighbours, etc).  The only thing I can remember is that it was a large, credible source (possibly Corrections Canada?). 

I wish, because it would come in handy whenever the rape apologists start babbling about malicious women making false rape accusations being somewhere near the zomg!epidemic! because it’s in our malicious natures.

Ranylt: Here’s a study from the American Prosecutors Research Institute (pdf)
http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf

Or rather, it’s a compilation of rigorous studies conducted in 8 different communities in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Canada.

It calculates that false rape accusations (consistent with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report standards for defining false criminal allegations - meaning that no crime occurred, rather than that an allegation was recanted or some details were misreported or an officer believes that being drunk equals consent) fall within 2-8% of all rape accusations, which is consistent with false reports of all other crimes. It also points out that almost all false rape accusations are of the “stranger in the bushes” variety rather than the “date rape” type that rape apologists claim are like 50-90% of all allegations. Also of interest is that several false allegations have been made by people other than the victim (ie, a relative or a boyfriend).

(A google search for “department of justice” “false rape allegations” is fucking depressing.)

Snobographer, this is wonderful.  Thanks for your googlin’ energy—I will be using this source.

‘the “date rape” type that rape apologists claim are like 50-90% of all false allegations’ that is

YW, Ranylt