Maria Bello came out in a New York Times Op-Ed this weekend. But what did she come out as? It’s not that simple, which is what makes it so awesome.

Some headlines are saying Maria Bello (Prisoners, ER, A History of Violence) has come out as “gay.” Others are saying she’s come out as bi. The essay, titled “Coming Out as a Modern Family,” is shaped around Bello’s decision to tell her son about her romantic relationship with a woman. But what she’s really doing in her op-ed is challenging the definition of family and partnership.

It’s hard for me even to define the term “partner.” For five years I considered my partner to be a friend then in his 70s, John Calley, with whom I talked daily. He was the one who picked me up each time I had a breakdown about another failed romance. Because we were platonic, did that make him any less of a partner?

And I have never understood the distinction of “primary” partner. Does that imply we have secondary and tertiary partners, too? Can my primary partner be my sister or child or best friend, or does it have to be someone I am having sex with? I have two friends who are sisters who have lived together for 15 years and raised a daughter. Are they not partners because they don’t have sex? And many married couples I know haven’t had sex for years. Are they any less partners?

Read the rest here.

13-year-old Duncan McAlpine Sennett used the bible to argue for marriage equality. It’s pretty simple: “The definition of traditional marriage has changed a lot since the days of the Torah, so why can’t it change just a little bit more so everybody can marry who they love?” Fabulous question.

For his Bar Mitzvah, the Jewish coming of age ritual, Duncan decided to look at Genesis to demonstrate how our idea of traditional marriage has, indeed, evolved since the time of the bible. Duncan delivered his speech at the November 9th Bar Mitzvah at Congregation Beth Israel, in Portland, where a coalition is pushing to get marriage equality on the ballot in 2014.

“Shabbot shalom. In my Torah portion… Jacob works for seven years to earn the right to marry Laban’s daughter, his love Rachel. Before marrying Rachel, Jacob is first tricked into marrying her older sister Leah. I find my parsha interesting because it is a window into what was life was like back in the days of the Torah.

Towleroad transcribed the speech:

“Back then, this seemed to have a perfect definition of what traditional marriage meant for their time, when as time passes we have a completely different definition today. So the question is: how has the definition of traditional marriage changed since the days of the Torah? Just looking at my Torah portion as a proof text, I think it has changed a lot.

Leah and Rachel had absolutely no say in marrying Jacob — it was like a business deal between Jacob and Laban. Today in the United States, marriage is very different. No longer do the fathers arrange marriages (NOTE: That’s not entirely true, but we’ll let it slide) and women can marry whomever they want.”

Read the rest here.

Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of World AIDS day. According to WorldAidsDay.org, World AIDS Day, which is held on December 1st, “is an opportunity for people worldwide to unite in the fight against HIV, show their support for people living with HIV and to commemorate people who have died. World AIDS Day was the first ever global health day and the first one was held in 1988.”

This image captures a poster created by Gran Fury, the artistic wing of the radical (in both senses of the word) organization ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power). To highlight their film Dallas Buyers Club, Focus Features put out a great slideshow of Gran Fury artwork, which describes the image:

In 1989, Gran Fury received a commission to create a work for the American Foundation for AIDS Research’s (AmFAR) “Arts against AIDS on the Road” which intended to bring artists’ work to different cities. Taking the idea literally, the collective created a series of bus-side posters entitled “Kissing Doesn’t Kill: Greed and Indifference Do.” The piece, which featured three multi-racial, differently aged couples (one gay, one straight, and one lesbian), included the coda, “Corporate Greed, Government Inaction, and Public Indifference Make AIDS a Political Crisis.” Rather brilliantly, Gran Fury used the techniques of corporate advertising, like bright and shiny Benetton clothing ads of the time, to bring attention to corporate greed. As one Gran Fury member commented, “We are trying to fight for attention as hard as Coca-Cola fights for attention.”

Read the rest of the description and check out the other works of art here.

Originally published December 2, 2013 on Feministing.

A terrible instagram account is taking other people’s selfies, without their consent or knowledge and giving them make-overs, some of which make the victims looks whiter.

Carrie Nelson, of the Frisky, was understandably disturbed when she learned that an instagram account had taken her selfie and given it a make-over without her permission. She,

discovered that photoshop_fantasy had appropriated my photo for its own purposes, which was to give my selfie a complete makeover. In its doctored version, my freckles are gone, my hairy eyebrows are trimmed, my wispy hair is slightly more orderly, my eyes and lips are enhanced by makeup, and the corners of my mouth are slightly upturned to add the tiniest smile.

It’s not a bad look for someone. But that someone doesn’t look like me.

I rarely wear makeup, so the only photos that exist of my beautified face were taken at my Bat Mitzvah, my junior and senior proms, my wedding, and the midnight screenings of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” that I attended as a teenager. Still, I can assure you that, when I wear makeup, I do not look like the person in photoshop_fantasy’s creation.

Nelson found the selfie-makeover upsetting for several reasons: “Naturally, I was angry that I was made to look like something other than myself, and I was angry that my photo was stolen and appropriated without permission.” But the worst part was the way the make over distorted the significance of the photo:

Most of all, though, I was angry because the doctored photo directly contradicted the entire purpose of my selfie. I took my selfie because I knew I didn’t look conventionally gorgeous in that moment. I took my selfie because I wanted the world to see me raw, flaws and all. I took my selfie because I can be beautiful even when I’m tired and depressed. I took my selfie because, beauty standards be damned, I liked my disheveled face on Sunday. That image empowered me far more than an unsolicited airbrushing ever could.

Nelson also discovered other women who had been made-over and made the disturbing observation that some of them had been made over to look more white. One black woman has her face lightened. One Asian woman has her eyes rounded and widened.

As Nelson points out, “There is absolutely space for empowerment in selfies, but only when the pictures remain in the domain of their creators. Once they are appropriated, the true ugliness of conventional beauty standards shines through.”

This instragram account is violating people and projecting their own racist and problematic standards of beauty onto them. They have yet to respond to Nelson.They’re fine twisting and reframing other people’s identities. Let’s see if they get the courage to show themselves.

graphic h/t Senator @PattyMurray

Get thee to a twitteree! Because the #HandsOffMyBC twitter storm, about companies trying to deny contraception coverage to their employees, is on!

As we blogged about earlier, the Supreme Court announced today that it will hear two cases in which companies are asking for the “right” to deny contraception coverage to employees if it violates their religious views. This has inspired the twitter hashtag #HandsOffMyBC (hands off my birth control.) As Rob Robin Marty ‏@robinmarty tweeted, she’s “very shocked to see it’s all men trolling #HandsOffMyBC #waitnoimnotshockedatall.”

I have to admit, most of the trolls, some of whom are women, are making pretty unconvincing arguments which reek of misogyny and general hatred of human kind. But I did see one tweet that was so clever and astute, so nuanced and thought-provoking, so grounded in history and philosophy, that I have no choice but to respond.

Originally posted November 26, 2013 on Feministing.

The world lost an irreplaceable leader, thinker, icon and revolutionary, with the death of Nelson Mandela, who died at the age of 95 on Thursday. We can look to his own words for guidance on his passing:

Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is, therefore, why I will sleep for the eternity.

Here are some images and documents from Mandela’s life.

Nelson Mandela was born on July 18, 1918 into a chief family in Mvezo in Umtatu, then a part of South Africa’s Cape Province. He ran away from home and went to Johannesburg to escape an arranged marriage in 1941.

Continue reading “Images of Nelson Mandela” →

The Supreme Court announced it will rule on two cases asking that companies be allowed to deny workers insurance coverage for contraception if it violates the corporation owners’ beliefs. Let’s hope the court prioritizes not violating reproductive rights.

As ThinkProgress writes,

The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday it will review two challenges by private businesses who claim they are exempt from a federal requirement to include birth control coverage in health insurance. The decision to review two of the challenges, including one by crafts chain Hobby Lobby, means the high court will take on the controversial questions of whether a secular, for-profit corporation can assert a religious objection to a law, and even whether those corporation have religious expression rights under the U.S. Constitution. It also tests the Affordable Care Act’s guarantee to provide gender-specific, preventative services at no charge to individuals.

It’s cool, though. Because Hobby Lobby offers its employees free spiritual counseling. Which works better than any contraceptive!

Originally posted November 26, 2013 on Feministing.

The morning after pill may be less effective on women who weigh 165 pounds or more; it may be totally ineffective on women who weigh 176 pounds or more; in Europe, the morning after pill is not recommended for women who weigh 165 pounds or more. So why doesn’t the average American woman know that her emergency contraception might not work?

HRA Pharma, the French manufacturer of the European drug, Norlevo, is changing its packaging, big time. It will now warn users that the drug is ineffective in women weighing over 176 pounds and less effective in women who weigh more than 165 pounds. It will even recommend that women who weigh 165 pounds not take the pill. But why does that matter to women in the U.S. of A? Because, as Molly Redden points out in Mother Jones,  Norvelo, is chemically identical to Plan B One-Step, Next Choice One Dose, My Way, and several generic emergency contraceptives. Given that the average American woman weighs 166.2 pounds, this is especially significant: “There’s a whole swath of American women for whom (these pills) are not effective,” explains James Trussell, a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and a senior fellow with the Guttmacher Institute. But unlike their sisters overseas, American women won’t be getting any warnings about this risk.

In Europe, it works and worked like this: in 2011 a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Edinborough published research showing that emergency contraceptive pills were less effective on women who weighed more. In 2012, HRA Pharma started reviewing this data and got permission from the European Union to update its warning. In 2014, every single box of Norlevo will say ”Studies suggest that Norlevo is less effective in women weighing [165 pounds] or more and not effective in women weighing [176 pounds] or more” and that Norlevo “is not recommended…if you weigh [165 pounds] or more.”

In the U.S., however, as Redden explains,

the Food and Drug Administration prohibits generic drug manufacturers from changing product information unless the brand name manufacturer makes a change, companies that manufacture generic versions of Plan B One-Step cannot update their packaging information unless Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the exclusive manufacturer of Plan B One-Step, acts first.

You mean, the FDA and pharmaceutical companies aren’t doing everything they possible can to ensure the health and safety of women? I can’t believe it! (If you can’t believe it, check out Dallas Buyers’ Club)

And, of course, as the comments posted in response to the Mother Jones article demonstrate, this news is being met with a beautiful combination of fat-shaming and slut-shaming.

Originally posted on Feministing.

On Tuesday R. Kelly shared the tracklist and artwork for his subtly titled Black Panties album, which comes out December 10. The album cover, which Kelly released Tuesday, features the artist literally playing a topless woman as if she were a cello, bow and all. This, of course, is hardly shocking, given Kelly’s recent performance with Lady Gaga on Saturday Night Live, in which the two simulated having sex. Though the video went viral and set the internets abuzz with articles and blog posts, an important element was shockingly absent from the discussion: rape culture. Jenn M. Jackson, who called Gaga a rape apologist, was a notable exception.

For me, it wasn’t the simulated sex that  I found disturbing as much as hearing R. Kelly sing the lyrics, “I do what I want with your body.” Kelly has been accused of statutory rape by several women and has settled out of court on multiple occasions. He married Aaliyah when she was 15 and he was 27. True he wasn’t convicted, but the video tape of him urinating in, allegedly, a 14-year-old’s mouth, as are photos police found of him having sex with an underage woman. On top of that, his now ex-wife took out a restraining order against him and accused him of physical abuse, harassment, stalking and interfering with her personal liberty. Why is all that being largely ignored? I spoke with Salamishah Tillet, renowned scholar, writer and feminist, about R. Kelly, Lady Gaga, and redemption narratives. [Interview after the jump.]

KATIE HALPER:  The internet has been abuzz with talk of Lady Gaga and R Kelly’s SNL performance of “Do What You Want.” Everyone is talking about the fact and the way that the two stars simulated sex. But almost nothing about R Kelly’s sexual and violent history with women and girls.

SALAMISHAH TILLET: People brought it up but in a comical way. I thought it was interesting that if there was a feminist critique of R Kelly it was only about how absurd the performance was. It wasn’t about why it was problematic that Gaga was performing with him given her own politics. Gaga, for a contemporary pop artist, is one of the more politicized artists we have. She has identified as a feminist. She’s used her platform to consistently advocate for marriage equality and the end of DOMA. She’s a pro animal rights activist. So in a variety of ways Gaga has progressive politics and her art is usually in line with that. It’s odd, then, that she has this song with R Kelly at this moment that she is trying to push against certain restrictions placed on women pop artists. ARTPOP is a very liberatory album for her so I think it’s fascinating and kind of sad that she chose to make this stand with someone like R Kelly.

KH: The lyrics are about media exploitation and violation, and in the SNL performance R Kelly, to some extent plays the violator, who will “do what [he] want[s] with [her] body.” What do you think about this choice?

ST: I think she’s suggesting that she and R Kelly are these iconic figures whose status has been exploited and abused by the media. The song is obviously complaining. To me what’s dangerous is that the song is contingent on remembering but ultimately forgiving R Kelly for his sexual violence towards girls and young women.

What does it mean that nobody’s talking about it?

Because this was violence against girls and young women and an African American teenager–people who are really invisible in our culture. So, we can technically move on because he was found not guilty even if we do think he actually did commit these crimes. Nobody is talking about it because there’s really no impetus to talk about those issues because we don’t really care about the population this happened to.

Is it also about people not considering statutory rape or child pornography as criminal acts?

Or just not caring.

R Kelly was obviously never convicted. He was indicted and he settled out of course several times and there was a charge of child pornography, though the evidence had been seized but unlawfully. But I still think he committed statutory rape and violated young women. Something I struggle with is how to reconcile my response to these realities. I mean, on the one hand there’s someone I think truly has perpetuated violence against women, and the other hand there’s a racist criminal justice system that I can’t support.

I agree with you, the criminal justice system is biased against African Americans and it’s not always a good way of holding people accountable. And people get locked up all the time for crimes they didn’t commit. But with R Kelly in this situation it’s more about the kind of feminism that Gaga is practicing. And are young black girls included in that feminism? And, if so, how can she explain her R Kelly duet? He’s been accused of rape, so the performance reminds us of the way black women become invisible even as a self proclaimed feminist is trying to invoke R and B.

Would she have done this with a famously known racist? With a famously known homophobe who may have committed violence against a certain group because they are different. Whether or not you and I think R Kelly is guilty, it’s interesting that Gaga chose to do that performance with him with that history. Part this is how do we redeem certain people.  Why are they redeemable? And what can we gain from doing with this? She’s part of his redemption narrative right now.

We’ve been blogging quite a bit about the Military Justice Improvement Act, which will help decrease sexual assault in the military. Well, watch senators debate the bill now! I (@kthalps) will be live tweeting it later.