What are you gonna get a fucking restraining order for? For me being drunk and disorderly? For me hitting you? For what?

You know what Mel, I most certainly hope she has gotten a restraining order for all of the above!   The second tape of Mel Gibson's conversations with Oksana was released, but media still aren't covering his hateful speech with much indignation.  In fact, many commenters on the few articles that are talking about it very much blame Oksana for her gold-digging ways, which supposedly mean she had Mel's behavior coming to her.

Thanks to Mel's idiocy, Oksana has recorded proof of at least some of his threats, which will empower any other claims she makes about his words and actions, and really harm him in front of the jury.  So, hopefully her spousal abuse claim is successful, and he's put away for the maximum 6 years if convicted of the felony count.

Felony Spousal abuse (CA Penal Code 273.5) occurs when

Any person willfully inflicts upon ... a cohabitant or ... parent of [their] child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony ... [punishable] by imprisonment ... for two, three, or four years, or by a fine of $6,000, or by both.

The statute defines "traumatic condition" as a wound, "whether minor or serious" - and if she has proof of the two teeth being knocked out, that wound would definitely qualify as a serious wound to meet that condition.  Having inflicted a serious wound upon Oksana, and admitted to it in that conversation - Mel should be guilty of a felony count of spousal abuse, with at minimum 2 years in jail, if not four.

But, the court could be lenient and simply fine him the $6,000 and essentially not punish him at all.  If we as a society showed a bit more outrage, maybe the judge would too.

The lesser included offense of terroristic threats could potentially add another 6 months of jail time, if the judge chose to make the penalties run consecutive to one another.

CA Article 3.6, Title 11.5 "Terroristic Threats" law provides in part:

Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement...is to be taken as a threat, ... which...is so specific as to convey to the person threatened a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat...

Penalty under this section is up to one year in jail.  And, not only did Mel make exactly the sort of threat described under this section of the statute, but Oksana has recorded, indisputable proof of the tone and circumstances of the conversation.

CA Penal Code 242: Battery is defined as

any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.

According to this tape, Mel admits to at least one instance of hitting Oksana in the face hard enough to knock out two of her teeth.  He takes his admission one step further and shouts "You deserved it!"

CA Penal Code 241:

Assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person.

In this tape, Mel references the last time he had hit Oksana, and continues to threaten her throughout the conversation.  Towards the end of the tape, he tells her he's coming over, and when she threatens to call the police, he tells her

"I'll put you in a fucking rose garden, you cunt. You understand that? Cuz I'm capable. You understand that?"

Judging by his past actions, and total willingness to hit her with force enough to knock out teeth (while she's holding a baby!), Mel is capable and willing to follow through on his threats.  Judging by Oksana's tense emotion in describing her fear for her and her daughter's life - it's also abundantly clear that Oksana appreciate the gravity in Mel's threats as serious and possible.

"When i see propoganda that I know is destroying girl's brains, it's my duty as an angry feminist to destroy it."  Willamina

Last week, ABC Family aired the pilot episode of its new summer show "Huge", and has gotten some pretty positive reviews as well as some lackluster ones.  Fatshionista has been doing some pretty thorough coverage of the show from a size-positive perspective, as well.  The show is on Monday nights at 9pm on ABC Family.

Most characters who've gotten air time on the show thus far have been women: Blonsky's cabin of girls seems to be the focus of the show; the camp leader is a woman, the counselor is a woman (an overly chipper one a la Dr. Sydney Heron from Grey's Anatomy) and one of the trainers is a woman (a seeming parody, and subtle criticism, of Jillian Michaels of "The Biggest Loser").  The kids at "fat camp" are by no means all girls, but the emphasis is simply on the female characters.  Additionally, something I appreciate is that the show hasn't given everything away in the first two episodes (like the failed ABC Show "The Deep End"), but it has definitely begun weaving threads of the plot we can expect to see in the later episodes of this season.

The "clique" lines are drawn early on in the first episode, and the prettiest (read: thinnest, blondest, fairest) girl, Amber, is at the top of the food chain, with other girls fawning over her. Will and Amber are bunkmates, and Will takes objection to Amber from the get go. Will isn't happy about being at camp, and is making a mockery of it at every opportunity.  She gets in trouble for selling junk food to fellow camp members, and immediately assumes Amber told the camp director.  While Amber seems to embrace her position at the top to some extent, the second episode elaborates upon a strained home life that humanizes Amber beyond the looks everyone seems to evaluate her for.

There's also the usual teenage romance and "obsession" with members of the opposite sex - Amber is instantly the alluring object for the male trainer.  While this is predictable, and poses a potential issue down the line since these characters are all under 18 (something I'm assuming by the parental updates from the director, the letters kids wrote home, and the parents "checking" their kids in to the camp), and presumably this trainer is over 18. Almost guaranteed to cross the line of appropriate in future episodes based on their interactions in the second episode.

A nice aspect of the character is that he's attractive, and also says he is deaf in one ear - but it didn't seem to be something he struggled with, and I haven't noticed any sort of hearing devices in these first two episodes.  Nice that he's not "perfect" and airtime is given to a disability as acceptable/normal, but it may have been nicer had ABC chosen a bolder imperfection.

The first episode also touches on issues of female camaraderie and what it means to be a "friend". Will's best customer of contraband junk food, Caitlin [also Amber's friend] getting kicked out of camp for throwing up her meals.  Instead of focusing on disordered eating, the conversation in the girls' cabin revolved around what it means to be and support a friend.  Will runs away from camp, and her best friend, Becca, tells Amber about her regrets of not being supportive enough of her friend. Amber admits she was the one who told the director about Caitlin throwing up, not thinking it would be serious enough to get kicked out, but recognizing it was serious enough to notify the director.  They bond over their transgressions in friendship.

Family, as well as "fat camp alumni", issues are developed through the director of the camp, Dorothy Rand.  She is humanized as a former member of the camp, with difficult relationships with her parents, and an allusion to a residual struggle with food. The second episode shows more of the director's strained relationship with her father.  We learn that she hasn't known her father, and that they anticipate her mother is not happy about the renewed relationship. Rand is played by a Cuban actress, and her father is played by a white actor - so their might be some race issues discussed in the development of this story line.

Another touch at family issues is the sibling relationship between Chloe and Alistair, during an awkward meeting in the woods at night where Chloe is exceedingly harsh toward her brother as he attempts to hold a conversation about her day.  She throws at him the mail their mother had sent and leaves him in tears.  This one was quite sad - she seems to completely ignore him in social interactions, and now won't even talk to him at a clandestine meeting in the woods?  It's definitely touching on the degree of power her insecurities has that it can overcome any urge for basic kindness toward her own brother.

I'm not sure the show deals with issues perfectly, but it definitely makes good faith attempts.  The only character, Will, who doesn't buy into the whole "fat camp" establishment also seems to, overall, be a kid who has problems with authority and discipline.  So her rebellion against normative weight assumptions is painted as teenage rebellion, and potentially loses some of its power.  Additionally, many of these characters are  'normal' Americans, and instead of depicting them as normal, they're being shown at fat camp. While the writer claims to have read "fat blogs" to frame the characters more realistically, and the cast is more diverse than most (beyond its predominantly "plus sized" cast), these "steps in the right direction" may not be enough for some who still feel unrepresented by the show's cast.

Some have mentioned that the characters aren't fat enough to be at fat camp, and reinforce the idea that average sized Americans are "fat", and there are still mostly white characters. Also, in response to rumors Will might be gay, Becca has an outburst "Will's not gay!" near the end of episode two - highlighting that it's a big deal to be gay, and she should "defend her friend's honor" by correcting assumptions.  At least, earlier, Will asks if she looks gay, but insists "it's not a big deal". I'm still ambivalent on that one.

"I'm down with my fat.  Me and my fat are like BFF." - Will

Imperfect as it may be - this show definitely has its gems!  Amber uses pictures of extremely thin models for her "thinspiration", and Will counters those images with images of curvier women and calls it her "fatspiration".  What did you all think?  Was it too full of cliches? Did the writers not do enough to counteract stereotypes?

On June 23, Forbes released a list of the "Top 100 Websites for Women".  Of the 100 websites, only one is authored by a woman of color. The list is overwhelmingly white and privileged, disregarding a number of helpful sites for a diverse array of women.

As Renee and the commenters to her post point out - only 1 site by a woman of color - Bizzie Mommy (and only two more if you count sites with multiple authors, some of which are diverse) was included in Forbes' list of 100.

1. vivrlatino.com
2. pamshouseblend.com
3. inciteblog.wordpress.com
4. http://www.racialicious.com/
5. http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/
6. http://transgriot.blogspot.com/
7. http://kateharding.net/
8. http://www.blacktating.com/
9. http://loveisntenough.com/
10. http://elleabd.blogspot.com/
11. http://gaysifamily.com/
12. http://pennyred.blogspot.com/
13. http://sunithakrishnan.blogspot.com/
14. http://indianhomemaker.wordpress.com/
15. http://colorlines.com/
16. http://latinopoliticsblog.com/
17. http://tranarchist.blogspot.com/
18. http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/
19. http://blacksnob.com/
20. http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/
21. http://muslimahmediawatch.org/
22. http://ojibwaymigisibineshii.blogspot.com/
23. http://flipfloppingjoy.com/
24. http://www.whataboutourdaughters.com/
25. http://mongoosechronicles.blogspot.com/
26. http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/
27. http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/
28. http://snarkysmachine.wordpress.com/
29. http://destrantalk.blogspot.com/
30. http://www.cookingwithmiami.com/
31. http://savvybrown.com/
32. http://wagingnonviolence.org/
33. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/
34. http://trustcurrency.blogspot.com/
35. http://blog.themerchgirl.net/
36. http://resistancebehindbars.org/node/218
37. http://ourlatinamerica.blogspot.com/
38. http://keepittrill.blogspot.com/
39. http://blackgirlinmaine.wordpress.com/
40. http://the-f-word.org/blog/
41. http://www.bigfatblog.com/

Consider tweeting them (@ForbesWoman) a link to this blog and asking why they labeled a list "Top Websites for Women" but ignored websites relevant to non-white, cisgendered, able-bodied women, effectively erasing these women as irrelevant. Moments after reading Renee's post, Forbes re-tweeted their list of "Top 100 Websites for Women" -



and I was sure to respond, questioning its exclusivity. We'll see if they respond!



I will most certainly be tweeting this blog to them next!

In taking a practice multiple choice test for the bar exam, I came across yet another entirely frustrating question about rape law that I yet again got wrong because I'm obviously biased.

Trigger warning is for the following hypo - mild, but still recounts an attempted rape.

Question:
A defendant was charged with attempted rape of a victim. The crime allegedly occurred at a party at the defendant's home. During the party, the defendant invited the victim into his bedroom to show her his tattoos. When she entered his bedroom, the defendant ripped off her blouse and threw her onto his bed. He then jumped on the victim and tried to pull off her skirt. When the victim began to scream, some of the guests rushed into the bedroom and pulled the defendant off the victim. At trial, the defendant testified that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with the victim but he believed that she was consenting. The defendant further testified that he had consumed a pint of whiskey earlier in the evening and was intoxicated at the time the incident occurred.

If the jury believes that the victim did not consent but also believes that the defendant, in his intoxicated state, honestly believes that she was consenting, the defendant should be found:

1. guilty, because consent is determined by the objective manifestations of the victim and not the subjective beliefs of the defendant.
2. guilty, because voluntary intoxication is no defense.
3. not guilty, because he honestly believed that she was consenting.
4. not guilty because his belief that she was consenting was reasonable.

The correct answer is (3), not guilty because he honestly believed that she was consenting. The part that really grates on me is the fact that his honest belief need not be reasonable in order to serve as a full and complete defense for his actions. I understand that the penalty for an attempted and failed action should be lesser (albeit by varying degrees to fit the crime) than the successful attempt - but this still really irritates me. His "honest" belief was 100% unreasonable, and yet, since it was honest, he's not guilty of attempted rape (but probably still guilty of a battery or assault charge).

The justification for the answer:
"Voluntary intoxication may be a valid defense for a specific intent crime if it negates the requisite mental state. Attempt is a specific intent crime. Choice (3) is correct because if the jury believes that the defendant thought the victim consented, then they cannot find that he had the requisite mens rea. Choice (2) is wrong because it is a true statement of law for general intent crimes, but not specific intent. If the defendant were charged with the crime of rape, then choice (2) would be correct because intoxication is not a valid defense for the "general-intent" crime of rape. Choice (1) is wrong because defendant's guilt of the attempt crime does turn on his subjective belief. Choice (4) is incorrect because reasonableness is irrelevant here."

After Game 7 of the NBA finals ended in a Lakers win last night, a woman approached Kobe Bryant with a microphone, and I was pleasantly surprised to see her.  It also got me to thinking, how many women are actually sportscasters? Are women ever sports commentators?  The answer is that less than a handful of women have been play by play commentators for big ticket male sporting events (which are the marker here, since women's sports got a whopping 1.6% of televised sports airtime last year according to a USC study of News and Highlights shows from 1989-2009).

1. In 2000, Pam Ward announced three college games for ESPN and now announces Big Ten games.
2. Doris Burke has announced men's and women's basketball games for ESPN.
3. Beth Mowins has announced women's basketball games for ESPN.
4. Gayle Sierens called a Chiefs-Seahawks game for NBC at the end of the 1987 season, but declined NBC's offers to announce others.  No other women have been made such offers since.

Upsetting enough, these women sportscasters, while opening doors for women in the field, have been largely relegated to sideline reporting, leaving the play by play reporting for the men.  The box for commentators is largely reserved for men - because men know more about sports, women are annoying, women's vocal inflection make them inadequate ...  These all sound like they apply to a number of male commentators as well, besides the "women's voices are annoying" argument, which doesn't even warrant a response.


I can say that at least one of the commentators for Game 7 of the NBA finals last night fit into some of those categories.  I can't tell who was talking (only commentator I would recognize is the late Chick Hearn), but the commentators were Mike Breen, Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy.  And the commentary was of about this general quality:

"That wasn't a foul . . . was that a foul?"  

The other two commentators continue to talk, we see the replay, the referee calls the foul, and the guy is back to say "It was a foul..." in a confused tone of voice.

It was not very deep commentary, beyond announcing and confirming his own confusion on what it is to play basketball.  Also, early in the game he discussed how this was shaping up to be one of the most poorly played games, then later said this was the "best we'd ever see the Lakers play".  While the Lakers defense may have been up to par, Bryant, Gasol and Artest had some pretty low shooting percentages (somewhere around 25%) - hardly "the best" any of us have ever seen the team play.  

If the content of the comments are potentially awful regardless of the commentator's gender - I'd love to watch more of these games with a woman's voice commenting in the background!  

While women are invisible on the commentating stage, women make up a large number of sports fans and viewers, a large enough number that corporations are targeting at least some of their advertisements directly at women.  Last years numbers from She-conomy:

• 47.2 % of major league soccer fans are women, 
• 46.5% of MLB fans are women
• 43.2% of NFL fans are women
• 40.8% of fans at NHL games are women
• 37% of NBA fans are women
• Women comprise about one-third (34%) of the adult audience for ESPN sport event programs

As such a large portion of the audience, we should hear about the sports from a woman's mouth and perspective, and as such a large percentage of viewers we should be able to exert pressure on the networks to make it happen!  If you hear a female commentator you like, write your network and thank them!  Better yet, even if you don't, write the networks and request more female commentators!

• CBS Sports Public Relations: pr@cbssports.com 
• ABC/ESPN: https://r.espn.go.com/members/contact/index
• NBC Sports: nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com
• to reach producers and correspondents

1. Gayle Gardner - ESPN 
2. Andrea Kremer - ESPN
3. Robin Roberts - ESPN, ABC
4. Leslie Visser - CBS, ESPN, ABC
5. Hannah Storm - NBC, CNN
6. Linda Cohn - ESPN
7. Helene Elliot
8. Nancy Lieberman, ESPN
9. Lisa Salters, ESPN, ABC
10. Pam Oliver, ESPN, Fox, TNT
11. Suzy Kolber, ESPN, Fox Sports
12. Lisa Leslie, ESPN, ABC7
13. Michele Tafoya, CBS, ESPN, ABC
14. Lindsay Czarniak, NBC, TNT
15. Amy Taylor, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
16. Jacki Oatley, BBC Sport
17. Clare Balding, BBC Sport
18. Sue Barker, BBC Sport
19. Gabby Logan, Sky Sports, BBC Sport, BBC Radio
20. Tracy Austin, USA Network, BBC
21. Mary Carillo, USA Network, ESPN, PBS, CBS, HBO, NBC, Bravo 

Transgender judicial candidate Victoria Kolakowski came in first in her historic bid for a seat on the Alameda County Superior Court in Tuesday's primary. She now advances to a fall runoff election and is one step closer to being the first out transgender person elected as a trial court judge in the country's history.

In similar news, other women, openly LGBT and pro-LGBT candidates won their elections.

• Out lesbian Linda Colfax won her bid for her seat on San Francisco County's Superior Court.
• Openly gay Michael Nava forced Judge Richard Ulmer into a runoff race this fall for his seat. 
• Senator Blanche Lincoln won a runoff against Lietuenant Governor Bill hall for the Arkansas Democratic Senate nomination.  
• eBay CEO Meg Whitman beat Steve Poisner for the California Republican Nomination for Governor candidate to campaign against CA Attorney Jerry Brown for the spot during November elections.
• Carly Fiorina, ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard, won the Republican Nomination to campaign against incumbent Barbara Boxer for the US Senate seat.  
• Nikki Haley fell just short of 50 percent in the race for South Carolina Governor, against three more experienced (male) politicians.  She faces a June 22 Runoff against Rep. Gresham Barrett.
• Assemblywoman Sharron Angle bested Sue Lowden for the GOP Senate race to face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada in November.
• California Rep. Jane Harman (Democrat) maintained her early lead and beat out peace activist Marcy Winograd.
• Betsy Butler (Equality California Institute Board Member) won the Democratic bid for CA State Assembly
• Mike Gatto overcame an ad attacking his support for same sex marriage to also win a bid for California State Assembly.
• Karen Bass (Former Assembly Speaker in CA) won over 85% of the votes in her bid to succeed Rep. Diane Watson in the 33rd Congressional District.
• Holly Mitchell won over 43% of the vote to fill Bass' CA State Assembly seat vacated in the 47th District.  She'll be on the ballot in November with Republican Lady Cage and Libertarian Sean P. McGrary.