Feminists = Fun…

Feminists Have More Fun

Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer
Thu Oct 18, 8:30 AM ET

Feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, a new study suggests.

Busting stereotypes that peg feminists as ugly lesbians, a new study shows that having a feminist partner is linked with healthier, more romantic heterosexual relationships.

The study, published online this week in the journal Sex Roles, relied on surveys of both college students and older adults, finding that women with egalitarian attitudes do find mates and men do find them attractive. In fact, results reveal they are having a good time, maybe a better time than the non-feminists.

Both men and women are prone to holding negative views of feminists, the authors say. Along with the sexually unattractive stereotype, some women also view feminism as a movement for victims, or for women who aren’t competent enough to achieve success on their own merit, according to the Rutgers University researchers.

Psychologists Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan carried out a laboratory survey of 242 Rutgers undergraduates and conducted an online survey of 289 older adults who had an average age of 26 and typically had been in their current relationship about four years.

Older adults have more life experience “and thus may be more likely to show an incompatibility between feminism and romantic relationships,” Rudman and Phelan write. While younger females likely grew up with the attitude that “women can have it all,” the researchers note older women may have come of age in the era following U.S. women’s suffrage (1919) or during the women’s movement that emerged in the 1960s.

The researchers looked at people’s perception of their own feminism, their partner’s feminism and whether they had positive views of feminists and career women. Other survey measures included overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.

For example, relationship quality was measured with questions such as: How often do you and your partner laugh together? And how often do you and your partner quarrel? For stability measures, participants answered how often they considered terminating the relationship, as well as how often they thought their romantic relationship had a good future.

Among the findings:

College-age women who reported having feminist male partners also reported higher quality relationships that were more stable than couples involving non-feminist male partners. College guys who were themselves feminists and had feminist partners reported more equality in their relationships. Older women who perceived their male partners as feminists reported greater relationship health and sexual satisfaction. Older men with feminist partners said they had more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.Overall, feminism and romance do go hand in hand, the scientists say.

While they aren’t sure how feminism works to enhance relationship health, the researchers have some ideas. Feminist men might be more supportive of their female partner’s ambitions than are traditionalists. Men with feminist partners may enjoy the extra breadwinner to share the economic burden of maintaining a household.

Posted in Just Because | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What was also lost on 9/11

This article from The Huffington Post is fascinating.



Thank you Dan Rather. It’s balls to the wall time, and as a fellow Texan, you sure came through.

As an investigative journalist who worked as both a reporter and anchor for the San Francisco Bay Area’s highest rated newscast for 22 years, I can only say what happened to you nationally was also happening locally. You were told to conform to a Republican agenda or shut up. When you refused to march in step, you got Bush-whacked.

I read your brief and I know the drill. The erosion was slow and many of us barely noticed the small chiseling away of who and what we once were. Anchors and reporters depend on high ratings. If ratings fall in television, people get fired. In the months following 9/11, the President’s approval rating was 86 percent, and that’s when many in commercial journalism lost their way. To disagree or even ask a disagreeable question regarding the President and his decisions was interpreted as disloyal by many media corporations.

But now we have learned. Get the trashcan ready to catch the chips, because the chisel is swinging back the other way and we as journalists are about to regain our voices and America’s trust. Dan – the Man – as we call him in Texas is reminding the media conglomerates how it is supposed to work. News and those who report it are not supposed to be for sale. Dan remembers, and he’s about to explain it to us on a national scale, but first some explanations from my field of vision as to how we got here.

On January 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union address. Osama bin Laden turned into Saddam Hussein, and Afghanistan turned into Iraq. The press knew this was a bait and switch, but fearing reporters and anchors might appear unpatriotic, the corporate media made it clear that even if George W. Bush played twister in the nude while a few sheets to the wind instead of going to constitutional law classes at Yale, we were not allowed to talk about it.

Viacom and CBS, according to Dan, wanted to curry favor with the White House. There are very few media conglomerates that didn’t. Cox Broadcasting banned the Dixie Chicks from radio stations because their lead singer made a remark under her breath criticizing the president! Not wanting to appear unpatriotic, the town criers did not cry out. Many corporate media reporters became stenographers, not reporters on that State of the Union day. Those in television journalism, particularly those working for a Fox affiliate, were not allowed to ask questions that could be perceived as unpatriotic, and every question was seen as unpatriotic. Monarchs and dictators don’t allow questions. They also destroy those who speak ill of them. “Scooter – Valerie.” “Rove – Anyone.” Blackwater was running around in the name of the United States shooting first and asking questions later like third world rebels, and back at home, Fox became the fastest growing network with fearless leaders who believed in not only reporting the news but spinning it as well.

Just seven years ago, I looked up from my desk and saw my image on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour as our staff of independent journalists was described as the best local news in the country. But war broke out and the Internet took off and all over the country local news ratings dropped as viewers turned to the national networks for news from the war fronts. Contrary to all logical thinking, local reporters looked at their retirement plans and their kids in college and promptly puckered their lips on the behinds of corporate media and smooched. If my kids were still in college I would not have the courage to write this now. In response to fewer viewers, local television panicked into a downward spiral and many a trusting viewer decided to go elsewhere. Corporate media was demanding reporters adapt to the point of our own extinction.

Morphed into propaganda machines – cheerleaders with pompoms – it was heartbreaking to watch the demise and media corporations always bass-akwards responses. With two wars on two fronts they decided to go “Local.” Only local news. The war and the profound implications of it were relegated to 30 second stories buried deep into the newscast. (they don’t need to know about that.–but there’s a grass fire up the road!) If that’s not manipulation, I don’t know what is.

Here are some other sad results of this corporate bullying toward some of the best journalist in the country:

Anchors and reporters stopped asking why. The corporate media demanded nationalism without skepticism, believing ratings would fall further if reporters did their jobs.

Anchors and reporters starting taking their stories from satellite feeds coming directly to their desks and then standing in front of a chroma key delivering a story they did not collect and sometimes did not write. If viewers think every newscast looks the same that’s why. It is.

Anchors and reporters allowed chroma key pictures of conflict areas to appear behind them giving viewers the false impression they were on the scene of the conflict instead of demanding to be sent there. Some could not even point out on the map behind them where the conflict was.

Anchors and reporters allowed management to hire entertainment reporters and producers. It’s cheaper to entertain than to inform because an informed public makes wakes from slumber and makes noise.

Anchors and reporters began allowing precious hours meant for journalism to be filled with helicopter shots of the latest grassfire, traffic jam, or car chase, ala O.J.

Anchors and reporters allowed news directors and sales people to dictate their “look.” Good journalism does not have a “look.”

Anchors and reporters did not fight back when their investigative pieces were dropped. Managers feared losing advertising dollars and reporters acquiesced.

Anchors and reporters and producers agreed to story counts. Tell the story no matter how complicated in thirty seconds – throwing random and massive amounts of information at viewers without context.

Anchors and reporters started wearing American flags on their lapels. Some of whom never voted in any election.

Anchors and reporters began using genetically altered language: “War on Terrorism,” without explaining that many people in the world think Americans are the terrorists.

Anchors and reporters started referring to the United States government as “We.”

Anchors and reporters were handed press releases regarding corporate “mishaps” and began reading them verbatim. Like so: “Blank Oil Company had an explosion today; shelter in place, close the doors and windows, and don’t go outside. However, the ‘You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me Oil Company’ says everything is fine.”

Anchors and reporters agreed to report news that was already reported in newspapers and radio. Doing their own stories or advancing others creates controversy and potential lawsuits, betraying the sacred oath of corporate cronyism.

Anchors and reporters agreed to be physically altered in photographs, and airbrushed with make-up like playboy bunnies, as the media corporations ignored the news and invested in High Definition – hoping a grassfire on HD might look like news.

Anchors and reporters started advertising. “If you liked that story there will be more at six.” “If you want to get more information go to www. you’re_an_idiot.com. Makes you just want to scream: I’m here now; tell me now!

Anchors and reporters allowed producers to lead with Annie Nicole Smith instead of the “Scooter” Libby trial – making it clear that all sense of proportion and good judgment had been lost.

Corporations in this country are always a reflection of those in the White House. This White House is the Wild West, and corporations, even those who are charged with helping the public gain knowledge, are mining for gold. But today, when we had almost given up, Dan put his holster on.

Posted in Just Because | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

I like hyphens.

Thousands of hyphens perish as English marches on

By Simon Rabinovitch2 hours, 33 minutes ago

About 16,000 words have succumbed to pressures of the Internet age and lost their hyphens in a new edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

Bumble-bee is now bumblebee, ice-cream is ice cream and pot-belly is pot belly.

And if you’ve got a problem, don’t be such a crybaby (formerly cry-baby).

The hyphen has been squeezed as informal ways of communicating, honed in text messages and emails, spread on Web sites and seep into newspapers and books.

“People are not confident about using hyphens anymore, they’re not really sure what they are for,” said Angus Stevenson, editor of the Shorter OED, the sixth edition of which was published this week.

Another factor in the hyphen’s demise is designers’ distaste for its ungainly horizontal bulk between words.

“Printed writing is very much design-led these days in adverts and Web sites, and people feel that hyphens mess up the look of a nice bit of typography,” he said. “The hyphen is seen as messy looking and old-fashioned.”

The team that compiled the Shorter OED, a two-volume tome despite its name, only committed the grammatical amputations after exhaustive research.

“The whole process of changing the spelling of words in the dictionary is all based on our analysis of evidence of language, it’s not just what we think looks better,” Stevenson said.

Researchers examined a corpus of more than 2 billion words, consisting of full sentences that appeared in newspapers, books, Web sites and blogs from 2000 onwards.

For the most part, the dictionary dropped hyphens from compound nouns, which were unified in a single word (e.g. pigeonhole) or split into two (e.g. test tube).

But hyphens have not lost their place altogether. The Shorter OED editor commended their first-rate service rendered to English in the form of compound adjectives, much like the one in the middle of this sentence.

“There are places where a hyphen is necessary,” Stevenson said. “Because you can certainly start to get real ambiguity.”

Twenty-odd people came to the party, he said. Or was it twenty odd people?

Some of the 16,000 hyphenation changes in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, sixth edition:

Formerly hyphenated words split in two:

fig leaf

hobby horse

ice cream

pin money

pot belly

test tube

water bed

Formerly hyphenated words unified in one:










Posted in Just Because | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


I really don’t know what I think of this story from Reuters, out of Germany.  Perplexed certainly, but other than that… I’m just speechless.

Glamorous politician wants law to allow 7-year itch

By Madeline ChambersFri Sep 21, 4:00 AM ET

Bavaria’s most glamorous politician — a flame-haired motorcyclist who helped bring down state premier Edmund Stoiber — has shocked the Catholic state in Germany by suggesting marriage should last just 7 years.

Gabriele Pauli, who poses on her web site in motorcycle leathers, is standing for the leadership of Bavaria’s Christian Social Union (CSU) — sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) — in a vote next week.

She told reporters at the launch of her campaign manifesto on Wednesday she wanted marriage to expire after seven years and accused the CSU, which promotes traditional family values, of nurturing ideals of marriage which are wide of the mark.

“The basic approach is wrong … many marriages last just because people believe they are safe,” she told reporters. “My suggestion is that marriages expire after seven years.”

After that time, couples should either agree to extend their marriage or it should be automatically dissolved, she said.

Fifty-year-old Pauli, twice divorced, is a maverick intent on shaking up her male-dominated and mainly Catholic party which has dominated Bavarian politics since World War Two.

“This is about bringing ideas into the CSU and starting a discussion,” she told German television on Thursday after she had unleashed a wave of criticism from other politicians.

Former foe Stoiber said she did not belong in the CSU and European lawmaker Ingo Freidrich dismissed her views.

“She is diametrically contradicting our Christian, ethical values,” Freidrich said.

Peter Ramsauer, head of the CSU in Germany’s parliament, compared Pauli’s ideas to “the dirt under your fingernails”.

Pauli, who attracted attention earlier this year when she posed for a magazine wearing long black latex gloves, was at the centre of a snooping scandal which eventually led to Stoiber, Bavarian premier for 14 years, saying he would stand down early.

She said his office tried to obtain details about lovers and alcohol consumption to use against her.

The CSU will elect Stoiber’s successor as party head at a conference next week. He will be replaced as state premier in early October.

Viewed as a party rebel, Pauli stands almost no chance of winning next week’s vote. The contest has been fought mainly between Bavarian state economy minister Erwin Huber and German Consumer Minister Horst Seehofer.

The popularity of Seehofer, a 58-year-old married father of three, has suffered from the disclosure that he had been having an affair with a younger woman who recently had his baby.

Posted in In General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment