Sarah Haskins fills the Jesus Shaped Hole in My Heart

I realized today that I haven't shared the wonder and absolute joy that is Sarah Haskins. She has a regular spot CurrentTV online every Thursday called 'Target Women' that usually makes me laugh so hard I shit my pants.

Gotta love those feminists who kill you with humor! Enjoy this week's episode:

Miss America: An Epic Journey into the Unknown

So, I'm quite sure that you all have heard of this Miss California gay marriage thing that has been popping up everywhere as of late. And while I certainly do have a lot to say regarding gay marriage, right now there is only one thing on my mind:

Why the hell do beauty pageants still exist?!

Proponents of such moronic cattle calls really seem to rally under one point: that it gives scholarship money to young girls who would otherwise have no chance! OMG!

Apparently, these women are so spectacular that they can find the time to promote a platform of charity, be a part of a half dozen school organizations, hold down a job, and don't forget workin' the stairmaster for tight buns, keeping your hair nice for the boys, and having a big, fat, laser white smile and fake tan, but not so spectacular that they can't find other ways of paying for their education. More academic and meaninful ways. Right.

Just for shits and giggles, can we take a look at some of the contestants?





Nope! Doesn't look like they're trying to fit an idealized stereotype at all! Well thank goodness for that.

Anyway, being an extra special nerdy-type that I am, I decided to do a little research and see what, exactly, it takes to be Miss America. After all, for a place that advertises itself as being 'one of the nation's leading achievement programs and the world's largest provider of scholarship assistance for young women' you know that they are going to be all inclusive, right? Wrong. Check it out:

A Contestant Must:

1. Be between the ages of 17-24 years of age. Must be a High School senior or graduate and no older than twenty-four (24) years of age on December 31, 2009 (for Miss Missouri 2009 / Miss America 2010.)
2. Must reside in; be enrolled and attending classes on a full-time basis at an accredited college or university in; or be employed on a full-time basis for six months in the state in which the young woman plans to compete.
3. Must be a citizen of the United States of America at the time she enters her first pageant.
4. Additional Requirements:

• Must have never been married.
• Must have never been pregnant.
• Must not be the adoptive parent of any child.
• Must never have been convicted of any criminal offense.
• Must not have criminal charges presently pending.
• Must be in good health and can participate fully and without limitations in any Program activities.
• Must not use or consume any illegal controlled substances or abuse the use of alcohol or other dangerous substances.
  

* See contestant contract for additional requirements.

Apparently you can be Miss America, but only if you fit the bill of a stereotypically 'good' young woman. Forget it if you've ever been preganant or are turning your life around after a substance abuse problem, sucks to be you! And apparently there are more requirements in the contest contract...who knows what they are. And what if you have taken custody of a younger sibling?

Ok, so, maybe the requirements aren't as outrageous or as far fetched as we'd all like to think. I mean, asking young women to conform to these ideals is small potatoes, right? Like, who doesn't, like, have, like, this perfect idealized existence? OMG! So let's say that your springy young non-pregger and non-substance abuse loving body makes it into this pageant. What kinds of things do you have to do to prove that you are fit to represent the "not-for-profit organization (also known as the Miss America Pageant, LOLZ) that has maintained a tradition for many decades of empowering young women to achieve their personal and professional goals, while providing a forum in which to express their opinions, talent and intelligence."

Phases of Competition:

1) Interview a.k.a 'Presentation and Community Achievement'

Alright, I see what they're doing here, they're seeing what these girls are all about. I can agree with there being some sort of interview to see if these girls got what it takes and are the upstanding, active, and intelligent people that they are said to be. Right on.

2) Talent a.k.a 'Artistic Expression'

Ok, so this is where the judges start to lose me a little. A talent portion? What for? Who cares if these girls can sing or tap dance? Isn't it about what's inside that counts? Actions speak louder than words? Plus, any kind of talent competition that only allows 'absolutely functional' props and bans talents 'involving safety hazards, such as fire batons, sword and/or knife twirling, bow and arrow skills' sounds really boring, anyhow.

3) Swim Suit a.k.a 'Lifestyle and Fitness'

Yeah...what? What the hell does my worth and integrity as a woman have to do with how well I look in a damned swimsuit? Does Sean Hannity have to look good in a swim suit to do his job well? How about Obama? Yeah, didn't think so. This is starting to be sexist, sexist shit.

4) Evening Wear a.k.a. 'Presence and Poise'

Once, again, what the HELL does looking good in evening wear have to do with empowering women?! How about asking them about public affairs? Relevant and controversial issues?

5) On Stage Question a.k.a. 'Knowledge and Understanding'

Well, ok, looks like the pageant people are attempting to be less superficial with this part. The questions are usually about a social issue-like binge drinking, so at least we're getting somewhere, here, but here's the thing: contestants are answering not for themselves but pandering to the judges to win. Straightforward and honest opintions will be hard to come by.

Well, there you have it. The Miss America Pageant in a nutshell. I can understand that these people are trying to give opportunities to young women...but there are much better ways to do so. What good can come from a place where one's personal worth is mostly based upon their outward appearance?

In a less eloquent way-fuck pageants.

Sometimes you are just left speechless...

I don't even know what to say about this one...

The One Million Signatures Campaign is a project by the Iranian Women's Movement in an attempt to gain equality.

Esha Momeni is a graduate student from California who is doing her Master's thesis on the project.

She was recently arrested, and is currently detained in the Iranian intelligence prison.

People tell me that religion does no harm.

Tell me that her arrest has nothing to do with religion. Tell me that this has nothing to do with the blind faith of the Iranian leaders.

My heart goes out to her, and her friends and family.

Photo, and initial heads up, from Feministing.com

More and more this is becoming a political blog... only two more weeks, kids...

WTF.

A counter balance to the liberal feminist agenda?

Can someone please explain to me

a. What the liberal feminist agenda is?

b. Why it is hurting America?

**goes to bang head against the wall**

No matter how we define rape...

This isn't along the lines of a normal Teh Juggernauts post, but I figured it was worth spreading the word about.

A new study shows that 18 percent of young women report that they have been forced to have sex. My first thought, of course, was to wonder how they defined "forced".

The answer?

Verbal or physical pressure or being physically held down.

Half of those women (so 9%) say they have been forced to have sex by being held down. A quarter (4.5%) say that they have suffered physical injuries while being forced to have sex.

Think about that.

When you are sitting in a classroom with twenty women, (on average) four of them have been forced to have sex. Two of them have been held down. And one has suffered physical injuries when being forced to have sex.

Is this really a culture we are proud of?

(Thanks, Feministing!)

I Heart Ani Difranco

I just found a list of artists and bands who are known atheists.

Names that appear include Chumbawamba, Danny Elfman, The FooFighters, and Mozart.

Here is the exciting part... ANI DIFRANCO is on the list.

**swoon** She is amazing, and now she can be on my top five!!

“I'm an atheist. . . . how unfortunate it is to assign responsibility to the higher up for justice amongst people.”

-- Ani DiFranco, interview by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive, May 2000

Women? Scientists? Really?

I might be a tad bit touchy, seeing as I have been doing mind-melting data entry for the last three hours, but doesn't this seem to completely ignore the intervening variable of CULTURE to anyone else?

Feministing just posted a blog on The Boston Globe's recent article on women in the sciences. (Feministing also linked one of my other favoritiest-blogs... Sciencewomen... in the article. You should check them out.)


The article summarizes recent research by J. L. Rosenbloom showing that women choose careers in non-science related fields.

The problem that I have with this article, a problem which seems to arise any time the media touches research, is that it goes for the for the sensationalized headline...

"Why aren't there more women in science and engineering? Controversial new
research suggests: They just aren't interested."

...while ignoring the caveat that this doesn't necessarily show any innate differences, but instead may reflect the sexism of the culture that women are being raised and educated in.

Later in the article, the role of sexism and biases in early education are discussed, but the article still leaves you with the line...

"If the hard-fought battle for gender equality has indeed brought America to a
point where women have the freedom to choose their career paths, then the end
result may be surprising - and an equal-opportunity workforce may look a lot less equal than some had imagined."

What the hell? Wouldn't' we need an equal-opportunity workforce to even begin making such statements??

Didn't we just mention that woman still often receive unequal
treatment by educators and employers? The initial article even mentions an upcoming
publication which found that "women often leave technical jobs because of
rampant sexism in the workplace". The research found half of the women who took
technical science positions dropped out by the time they were in their mid
thirties, and that two-thirds of those women reported that they had been
subjected to sexual harassment in their workplace.

How does this show that women are "choosing" careers besides those in the sciences?

Ughs. At least The Boston Globe is receiving some backlash over this.