I hate the Christmas season. It's not the decorations, or the lights (which are lovely), the commercials, the TV specials, the music (although I find the music particularly painful), or the constant correction of people who take it upon themselves to wish me a "Merry Christmas" when I am not in fact Christian-- it's all of the it, the grant total, the immense propaganda around Christmas, the assumption that everyone must be Christian and must buy tons of things to celebrate. And if you're not Christian, well then, you must have a Happy Holiday too! As though every religion has a major holiday conveniently around Christmas. As it happens, I am Jewish and I have to say that Hanukah is NOT a major holiday. It is a very minor holiday in Judaism and the fact that we see it reflected back to us is solely due to the ascendence of Christmas-- if we really wanted to be inclusive, we would actually recognize the major holidays in each religion. But why do we have to bring religion into it? I remember as a child refusing to sing Christmas carols at school and being sent to the library to sit it out-- I didn't want to mouth the words of a faith that was alien to me-- an alienating experience any way you cut it. If we were really more inclusive and not just barely tolerant, I might enjoy the displays and traditions of another religion, but as it is inescapably foisted upon me, I resent it. To me, it really seems like a giant consumerist propaganda machine.

Alito is bully. He's for protecting and maintaining the power of those on top and screwing those on the bottom. Mark my words, he will be horrible on the court.

Even if the filibuster backfires, doing something to try and stop the nomination is the right thing to do. Otherwise, the dems are just rolling over like spineless jellyfish. If the filibuster is truly useless then make the republicans do it, not the dems-- force them and then blame them. Otherwise, the dems are just held in check and responsible for doing nothing.

Race is socially constructed. Jews used to be considered a different race from whites in Europe (and arguably, still are), and during European colonialization, Jews were thought to be a kindred race to Blacks (racism, anti-semitism, colonialization all converging). So to say "caucasian Jews built the pyramids" is inaccurate. Would the Jews or the Egyptians of the time have characterized them as such? No.

I know this is off-topic and I apologize, but I found that statement too ridiculous to ignore.

Because homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with despising nontraditionally gendered people. Please. Not only has gender inversion historically been used to define homosexuality-- a lesbian is a man in a woman's body, a gay man is a woman in a man's body-- but even in these enlightened days to be a man who fails or chooses not to perform traditional masculinity is to be vulnerable to violence. Sissy, girlyboy, nancyboy... these are terms which signal gender nonconformity and homosexuality. The same goes for "mannish" women. To say that gay rights can be separated from challenges to "traditional" gender roles is ridiculous when so much of homophobia is motivated by the need to police gender roles. Yes, two married women or men challenge traditional gender roles-- thank god!-- and create more room for everyone in these institutions. So to say that the desire to ban gay marriage is the same as the desire to protect "traditional" gender roles... is still homophobic and anti-feminist.

Whether or not Harvard women are "the smartest in the world" it is a shame that they (according to this article) hold back and are afraid to speak in class and at college lectures. But if you go to any women's college-- Wellesley, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Spellman, and so on-- you will find smart articulate women speaking out in class, running student government, arranging conferences and lectures and speaking up in every aspect of college life. So I really don't think that we should name the self-doubt that plagues some female college students hormonal, biological or anything but socially trained.

I am NOT pre-pregnant. I'm on the pill, which I've been on for years, and if I were to be hit by the tiny percentage of failure stick, I would get an abortion. I refuse to stop cleaning my cat's litterbox, stop drinking my glass or two of wine a week, or start taking more vitamin because I am in control of my fertility. If and when I decide I want to try to get pregnant, I will take appropriate measures. I am not an incubator or even a potential incubator at the moment. If the government cares so much, why don't they start funding WIC at adequate levels? Why not provide universal health care so women can have access to adequate prenatal care? Why not provide universal day care? Because we are supposed to be completely responsible for such things, even while the government is saying that we are incapable of controlling our own fertility.

Why does making your body an object (a sex-object) for someone else lead you to love it? Isn't this alienating? I think the virtue of pilates or yoga is that it is not about imagining how your body appears to others but actually being in the body, experiencing one's body as active, strong, and powerful. Rather than loving your body for how it looks to your internalized observer, you can love your body for its strength and capability, how it feels. *This argument is drawn from the work of Sandra Bartky in her book Femininity and Domination-- please consult it for an analysis of how women learn to look at ourselves from the perspective of the male observer.