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.

“What you should say to outsiders is that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it." Susan B Anthony, A Biography, by Kathleen Barry

While today the issue of religion is much less overt in the defining of feminism as it was in Susan B. Anthony's time, apparently political beliefs are the new form of narrowing feminism to the movement's own detriment.  There have been quite a few "Sarah Palin is NOT a feminist" posts recently, many of which go on to define rigid exceptions to and requirements of feminism.  While I don't agree with plenty of what Sarah Palin has had to say, I think this general form of attack is pretty divisive and contributes to why Feminism is still struggling to take hold en masse.  Rigid definitions push away women who don't necessarily prioritize the same things as left-leaning feminists, and those constructions simply narrow the pool of people fighting for women's rights in the feminist collective.


Many women are pro-life, in fact, the most recent Gallup poll on abortion (released May 25, 2010) shows that there are more pro-life than pro-choice women in our country.  There was a 5% increase in pro-life women last year, revealing that 49% of women polled were pro-life, while only 45% were pro-choice.  The change was even more drastic in men, with a 10% decrease to 39% who remain pro-choice, and 54% who identify as pro-life.  And, since feminism is seeking to reach both men and women, the percentage of our total population is relevant: 51% of Americans are calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% pro-choice - the first time since 1995 a majority was pro-life.  

I know, polls aren't 100% accurate - but these results are from a respectable organization and at the very least should cause us to take pause and ask ourselves, is abortion really going to be the "be all end all" of what we will "allow" to define feminism?  Especially if doing so excludes potentially the majority of our population from joining us?

This post isn't about whether or not Sarah Palin is a "feminist" - it's about the evolution of a more exclusive feminism and why that's a hindrance to the movement.

This blog post's attack of Palin focuses largely on her conservative views (namely funding social welfare as the "government needs to keep its hands out of her pocket") - an attack that applies to many women who vote conservative.

When Palin was first announced as McCain's VP choice, Feministing noted that it was great the GOP had chosen a woman, but went on to say "gender isn't everything", and looked to Palin's politics.  Well, she wasn't chosen as a democratic representative, she was chosen as a Republican candidate, she was never going to have liberal views.  Palin's ascension in the GOP and political world may not be something left-leaning feminists can relate to on a political level, but on a feminist level Palin has provided a role-model for right-leaning women with similar beliefs, and potentially opened the door to a more inclusive feminism than left-leaning women would have been able to achieve through exclusive definitions of what empowered women are allowed to believe and advocate in order to be feminist.  

A few days ago Jessica at Feministing asked, "So, simply declaring oneself a feminist is all that it takes to be a feminist? Methinks not."  My question in relation to Palin is, why not?  Because she has different priorities than left-leaning feminists?  

In response to a comment, Jessica clarifies: 

"I didn't say that conservatives can't be feminists - I said people who fight against women's rights can't be feminists. And like I said, you can't just declare yourself a feminist - or any other party to a social justice movement - while fighting directly against said movement."  

I understand how pro-life beliefs are very much in conflict with the pro-choice movement, which is part of feminism, but how is pro-life fighting against the entirety of feminism?  Abortion isn't the only feminist issue, and to define feminism so severely along such a divisive line is to diminish the movement's accessibility, and, in the end, its efficacy.  People may not all believe as strongly in every element of feminism as others, but that shouldn't diminish their willingness to contribute to the movement in ways they do believe.

Annabelle for The New Agenda responds to the feminist coverage of Palin succinctly and eloquently: 

"My biggest issue over the outbreak of this argument...is the short-sightedness of women ... who purport to support progress for women, and yet attack one of the biggest symbols of that progress simply because their belief in left-feminism allows them to dictate who can and cannot be a feminist."

Palin surely stands up in opposition to many of the political issues dearest to my heart, my advocacy and my life, but I hardly think that she should be lambasted for it.  She's standing up, speaking her mind and defending her beliefs in a largely male-dominated political world, exposed to sexist media and judgment.  Part of the feminist fight for equal rights and opportunities for all women is to provide those opportunities to all women, regardless of political or religious beliefs, race, sexual orientation, class, ability, etc.  Instead of attacking her, we "left-feminists" would be better served appreciating the vigor and vitality she has provided the feminist movement amongst conservative women, and do our best to incorporate and engage conservative feminists into aspects of feminism where we both intersect.  

I'll admit, I don't understand nor can I relate to people who are anti-choice - but the fact is, those beliefs are held by a sizable portion of our population.  If they are not allowed to be feminists as a result - if "feminism" has to be liberal, left-leaning, democrat - it erases and marginalizes a large percentage of women (and men) in our country who could bolster feminism, and instead serves the purpose of dividing women so patriarchy can continue to conquer. That exclusive definition of feminism is short-sighted and can only hurt the progression of our nation into a more inclusive, feminist state.