The XX Factor
What Women Really Think

April 29 2015 2:15 PM

Bud Light Dreams Up the Worst Possible Slogan for a Beer Company

This week’s installment of “no, really, what was that marketing team thinking?” is brought to you by Bud Light, which is getting shredded on the Internet for a new slogan on bottles. The tag line: “The perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night. #UpForWhatever.” Reformulated slightly, the slogan basically translates to “no means up for whatever,” and it didn’t take long for others to begin pointing out that such a statement can be interpreted as an endorsement of rape culture. In the hallowed tradition of Not an Onion Headline, the Bud Light campaign scanned as Not an Amy Schumer Sketch.

There are, of course, plenty of other terrible readings that can be teased from a slogan like that: “No means I’m up for drunk driving!” “No means I'm up for binging all of Daredevil tonight even though I have an early meeting tomorrow!” But the rape-culture overtones seem particularly glaring when “yes means yes” is so commonly tossed around in affirmative consent discussions, and a “no means yes” chant on Yale’s campus previously incited national outrage. As Christopher Ingraham points out at Wonkblog, there’s also the unavoidable fact that at least half of sexual assaults are associated with alcohol consumption.* To quote Ingraham: “That makes alcohol, by far, the most common date-rape drug.”

This slogan isn’t just your run-of-the-mill dumb marketing idea (see: SeaWorld). It’s an epically, mind-bogglingly bad marketing idea, especially as Bud Light already knows it needs to tread carefully with the #UpForWhatever campaign. Last month, the brand was widely criticized for a St. Patrick’s Day tweet it sent out that encouraged imbibers to “pinch people who aren’t #UpForWhatever” and included a photo of women partying. That tweet was later deleted. Of this latest party foul, Bud Light brand vice president Alexander Lambrecht says in a statement, “It’s clear that this particular message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior. As a result, we have immediately ceased production of this message on all bottles.”

You still can’t help but wonder how the slogan ever got approved in the first place. It seems like pretty much any sentient being could have determined that it wasn't in Bud Light's best interest to run it. Or maybe Bud Light’s marketing team is just really, truly #UpForWhatever.

*Correction, April 29, 2015: This post originally misspelled the last name of Christopher Ingraham.

Video Advertisement

April 28 2015 5:54 PM

The Sherri Shepherd Surrogacy Case Is a Mess. Prepare for More Like It.

Last week, a Pennsylvania judge issued a ruling in a surrogacy case involving the actress Sherri Shepherd. It’s a sad and complicated scenario: Shepherd and her ex-husband, Lamar Sally, conceived a baby using Sally’s sperm, a donor’s egg, and a surrogate’s womb. Shepherd and Sally split in the middle of the pregnancy, and Shepherd subsequently claimed that she was tricked into signing the surrogacy documents so that Sally might get more money from her in the form of child support. Shepherd disavowed the child, who was born in August. The Pennsylvania judge ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate as the child’s legal mother. Before the ruling, the surrogate’s name was on the certificate, and she, not Shepherd, was held responsible for child support in California.

To complicate matters further, this decision is just from one of three court cases pending in Shepherd and Sally’s split, all of which are in different states. In addition to the Pennsylvania parentage case, which has been decided, there’s a divorce action pending in New Jersey and a child support case pending in California. The surrogate resides in Pennsylvania, where the baby was born; Shepherd filed for divorce in New Jersey, and Sally filed in California.

This type of dispute is rare, says Raegen N. Rasnic, an attorney at the Seattle law firm Skellenger Bender who focuses on assisted reproduction. Andrew W. Vorzimer, a surrogacy lawyer, told the New York Times in 2014 that there have been 81 cases where intended parents changed their minds about a surrogacy agreement, and 35 in which the surrogate wanted to keep the baby (24 of those involved surrogates whose eggs were also used).

But what leaves the door open for these sorts of disputes is that surrogacy resides in a bit of a legal vacuum. In the United States, “There are not hard and fast rules,” governing surrogacy, Rasnic writes in an email. “Each state sets its own laws governing parentage and assisted reproduction. Most states have no laws at all applicable to surrogacy.” Increasingly, surrogates are residing in different states than intended parents. Ideally, Rasnic says, a written surrogacy contract should include “a choice of law provision specifying which state’s laws will apply to the determination of parentage and to interpretation of the agreement in the event of a dispute.”

Though Shepherd is not a biological parent of this child, Rasnic says the Pennsylvania court made the right decision “from a policy standpoint and from a legal standpoint, because it enforced Shepherd and Lamar’s intent.” A somewhat similar case in the 1990s may have set a precedent for the Pennsylvania court’s decision. A California couple, Luanne and John Buzzanca, commissioned a baby with a donor egg and a surrogate but divorced before the child was born; John did not want to pay child support. At first, the court decided that the child had no legal parents, and John was not responsible—but that decision was overturned because, as the California appeals court decision put it, the baby “never would have been born had not Luanne and John both agreed to have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate.”

Despite the fact that Shepherd now claims she was tricked into the surrogacy agreement, her past statements to the press tell a different story. In June 2013, she spoke frankly and jokingly about finding a surrogate to Essence.com. “We’re starting the process of making sure the uterus that we picked is not crazy,” she said back then. And she did sign the papers, even if she now says it was under duress.

So what does it mean that Shepherd has been declared the parent of this baby? It means she’s responsible for child support until the child is 18—or longer, if college support comes into play, says Rasnic. Shepherd can also seek custody or visitation, and the child could be entitled to certain benefits, like Social Security, upon Shepherd’s death. The Pennsylvania ruling does not cover these specifics, though; the specifics will be determined by the other cases pending in Shepherd and Sally’s divorce proceedings.

Though these sorts of complicated messes are rare, they are going to continue to come up. As Joan Heifetz Hollinger, an affiliate of Berkeley Law School’s Center for Reproductive Rights and Justice told me in regard to a different surrogacy mess, “One of the reasons we have so little consensus in this country or in the world, in terms of legality and the most appropriate ways to regulate [surrogacy], is there’s no consensus in the moral and ethical dimensions.” Until such a philosophical consensus is reached, there will unfortunately be real, live children caught in the middle.

April 28 2015 11:50 AM

Latest Sexting Scandal Shows Many Adults Have Some Growing Up to Do

Anna Merlan at Jezebel has uncovered a rash of old-school victim-blaming that's cropped up around a nude photo scandal at Liberty High School in Liberty, Missouri. Eight high school boys have received suspensions of two to 10 days for distributing nude photos of their female classmates around school and online. The girls received a lecture about keeping their pants on. All in all, it's about the best outcome you can expect from a conservative small-town school, in that the school's response was focused on the issue of consent.

But no good deed goes unpunished, and people in the town, stoked by provocative news coverage from the local Fox affiliate, are furious that the girls aren't getting punished alongside the boys.

Fox 4 fired up the controversy by posting a poll asking, among other things, if the decision was correct or if the girls should have been suspended, too. Eighty percent of the thousands who responded said that the girls should have been suspended. Fox 4 then doubled down, with a choice quote from Liberty-based lawyer Eric Vernon: “I think if a young woman was to take a picture of herself, and then send it, that arguably, that’s a worse crime than what the young man did in just receiving it, because she’s the one that produced it, and she’s the one that distributed it, and those things are fairly serious felonies.”

This is missing the point entirely, since the pictures only came to light because the boys shared them. The problem with sexting isn't that women and teen girls are sexual and want use modern technology to share their sexuality (privately). The issue here is, once more with feeling, consent, and why you shouldn't share pictures like this without it. 

It's time for a nationwide reckoning on sexting. It's clearly not a temporary fad but, like oral sex and Rule 34, a permanent part of modern American sexuality. We need to move onto the second phase, which should involve educating people—especially young people—on how to sext responsibly. While some risk reduction should be taught (only sext with people you trust, consider keeping your face out of pictures), the bulk of this education should be focused on respect and consent. While so many adults who should know better are ranting and raving about these girls and their phone pictures, at least Liberty High School is, however imperfectly, modeling the way that adults should address the issue with young people.

April 27 2015 4:36 PM

Girls Who Play Minecraft Can Now Play Minecraft as Girls

Fans of Minecraft—especially girls—have long felt frustrated that the only default character available in the popular building game is a man. Now, the game's programmers have announced that players will get a lady option. The Washington Post describes this new character, Alex, as "a seemingly female character with thinner arms, pinker lips, and a swoop of hair around her neck," in contrast to default character Steve, "a bulky man with short, dark hair and a 5 o'clock shadow." Owen Hill of Mojang, the game studio that created Minecraft, explains that this move will better "represent the diversity of our playerbase."

This announcement contrasts dramatically with a blog post written in 2012 by Markus Persson, the founder of Mojang and original lead developer of Minecraft: "The human model is intended to represent a Human Being," Persson wrote. "Not a male Human Being or a female Human Being, but simply a Human Being." The name "Steve" was just a joke, Persson said; it was just an accident that the "blocky shape gives it a bit of a traditional masculine look"; his intention with Minecraft was to create a world where "gender doesn’t even exist."

The problem with that logic is that the supposedly genderless character looks very male, right down to his stubble. In a sense, it's worse to call that character genderless, because that just reinforces the sexist notion that "male" is the default status of human beings and that women are the deviation. That's not the lesson you want to be imparting to girls who look to this game to empower them and provide a creative outlet. 

Minecraft isn't unique when it comes to the gender-default problem, which has been around since a little yellow circle named Pac-Man. In one of the videos in her series "Tropes vs Women in Video Games," Anita Sarkeesian laid out how "male" is treated as the default in video games. Even when designers do bother to create female characters, they don't have the kinds of rounded personalities that male characters get—being female is all you need to know about her. The most obvious example is the Super Mario series, where you get a variety of male characters and ... the Princess.

Earlier this year, 12-year-old Madeline Messer wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post demonstrating that the default character on most phone games was male, and that you had to pay money to access female characters in most of the apps. The op-ed sufficiently embarrassed the makers of one game, Temple Run, that they promised to offer a default female character for free

April 27 2015 2:05 PM

A Woman Alone Is Not Necessarily a Lonely Woman

Jesse Singal at Science of Us highlights a new study about the value of having fun in public all by yourself. Studies in the Journal of Consumer Research showed that people are often afraid to partake in leisure activities solo, mostly because they fear others' assumptions “that they could not find friends to accompany them.” However, when authors Rebecca Ratner and Rebecca Hamilton encouraged college students—over protests—to visit an art museum alone, they found that the solo museum-goers had just as much fun as the people who brought friends.* 

It's a small study but an intriguing one, and it hopefully will compel more of its kind. This particular research isn't about gender, but anecdotal evidence suggests that women feel this fear of going out by themselves more keenly than men do. Part of this is practical; being a woman alone in public often means men will bother you. But part of it is psychological, a fear that women are more likely to be judged as lonely if they're seen out by themselves. This fear that people will pity you if you are eating or otherwise doing fun things in public by yourself is so serious that Cressida Howard of Gloucestershire, England, created the Invite for a Bite website in 2012, so that strange women who otherwise might dine alone can find each other and instead sit together. 

Doing stuff by yourself really isn't as scary or off-putting as you might think. I haven't been single in nearly a decade, but I've maintained my tendency to take off and do all sorts of things by myself without drafting my partner to join me. It helps if you have interests that your friends don't share—not having to worry if your companion is bored with your activity of choice more than makes up for the occasional pitying look you get from someone who assumes a woman alone must be a lonely woman. 

One of the most important lessons you learn as a woman who likes to go about solo is that far fewer people are looking at you than you think. Women are socialized to feel as if we're on constant display, but I've learned over the years that most people are too busy with their own lives and concerns to pause quizzically over the woman who asks for a table for one. Plus, now that everyone has a smartphone, there's no reason to be bored because you have no one to talk to. Just stay off Facebook—you're cheating yourself out of your precious time alone. 

*Correction, April 27, 2015: This post originally misspelled Rebecca Hamilton’s last name.

April 24 2015 10:40 AM

Clinton’s First Campaign Speech Is All About Feminism

The first speech of a presidential campaign is loaded with meaning, an opportunity to set the campaign's entire tone and outline its major themes. Barack Obama kicked off his 2008 campaign in Springfield, Illinois, to invoke the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and a larger theme of calling on a "divided house to stand together." In contrast, Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, near the site where three civil rights workers had been murdered 16 years before, to make a speech about "states' rights" and secure the Republican stronghold over the Southern white vote that persists to this day. 

Hillary Clinton announced her campaign online, but her first meatspace speech was held Thursday at the Women in the World Summit in New York City, an annual feminist shindig that's all about improving women's fortunes around the world. The choice of the location in itself sends a strong signal, and if there was any doubt that Clinton intends to run a woman-centric campaign, her speech erased it. "When women are held back, our country is held back. When women get ahead, everyone gets ahead," she declared. 

The idea that uplifting women uplifts the nation has become standard fare in Democratic speech-making. For instance, in Obama's 2014 speech on equal pay, he said, "And part of that is fighting for fair pay for women—because when women succeed, America succeeds." When women make less money, he said, that's "less money for gas, less money for groceries, less money for child care, less money for college tuition, less money is going into retirement savings."

Clinton took this rhetoric to a bolder level. For one thing, she actually used the word feminist. "It is hard to believe that in 2015 so many women still pay a price for being mothers. It is also hard to believe that so many women are also paid less than many for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color," she said. "And if you don’t believe what I say, look to the World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of feminist thought. Their rankings show that the United States is 65th out of 142 nations and other territories on equal pay."

She tied together other explicitly feminist issues, such as reproductive rights and the fight against sexual assault to the family-friendly equal-pay agenda. "There are those who offer themselves as leaders who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay," she argued in a shot against Republicans. "There are those who offer themselves as leaders who would defund the country’s leading provider of family planning and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender." Clinton invoked the recent fight over the appointment of Loretta Lynch as attorney general: Republicans weren't explicitly sexist to Lynch, but her appointment was held up over an ugly fight over Republicans trying to attach anti-abortion provisions to every bill they possibly can. 

The political chatter is centered around how Clinton isn't downplaying her gender, as she did in 2008, but holding it up as an asset. This speech suggests she is running an aggressively feminist campaign. It's a smart move. Her opposition is going to try to paint her as a ball-busting "feminazi" no matter what she does, so she might as well get ahead of them, openly embracing feminism, sharing a vision of feminism that is optimistic and pro-family. Luckily, she has a more accurate vision of what feminism is really about than her detractors do. 

April 23 2015 1:13 PM

Which State Was the Worst for Women This Week?

This week, DoubleX is proud to inaugurate the Worst State of the Week award, for the member of the union that has shown the most creativity, originality, brio, and thought leadership in expressing its hostility to women's rights. Before we get to our first-ever winner, though, let's look at the runners-up.

Third prize goes to Coloradowhose legislature is exploiting a violent crime against a pregnant woman—one that resulted in her baby's death—to justify a bill defining fertilized eggs as persons, even though voters rejected the notion at the polls in November. Despite claiming that the bill would protect pregnant women, the long history of these "feticide" laws indicates that they are actually used as a pretext to arrest women for stillbirths or even on suspicion of drug use while pregnant—even if they give birth to healthy babies. To add insult to injury, Colorado Republicans are on the verge of destroying a family planning program credited with reducing the teen birthrate in the state by 40 percent over a five-year period. 

In second place is Tennessee, where the legislature passed two bills restricting abortion access this week that are expected to be signed by the governor. When Democrats tried to amend the bill to create exceptions for women with mental health emergencies or who were victims of rape or incest, state Rep. Sheila Butt shot them down, insinuating that patients and providers would fake these situations in order to gain abortion access. 

Despite such fierce competition, this week's winner is Alabama, where state legislators finally allowed the subtext to become text with a bill that equates abortion providers and their patients with sex offenders. Republicans in the state House, eager to shut down the state's one remaining abortion clinic in Huntsville, have concocted a bill banning abortion clinics from operating within 2,000 feet of a school. Local anti-choice fanatic James Henderson takes credit for the idea, saying, "We were advised ... that a good approach was to use the same standard of keeping sex offenders from public schools, which is 2,000 feet."

Henderson also denounced "the spectacle of an abortion clinic" being within the view of children. What he didn't explain, however, is that the Huntsville clinic itself is not a spectacle—James Henderson is. Henderson and his wife, Carol, are obsessive, belligerent protesters. There's video of James hurling racially loaded harassment at a black clinic escort, of him telling a police officer he doesn't have to obey state laws that "God" (read: Henderson) doesn't like, and generally ranting at the top of his voice at passersby. So not only does this bill equate women seeking abortion with sex offenders, it victim-blames the targets of fundamentalist bullies. 

Congratulations, Alabama! Let's see if you can hang onto the title next week.

April 22 2015 4:31 PM

The UVA Dean Who Was Smeared by Rolling Stone Has Broken Her Silence

Nicole Eramo is the associate dean of students who heads the sexual misconduct board at the University of Virginia. She was also the villain of the now-infamous and recently retracted Rolling Stone story about the gang rape of a freshman named Jackie that never happened at a UVA fraternity.

In Rolling Stone's piece, Eramo was painted as the frontline responder who never really responded. She was the one who, when she heard Jackie’s story, tried to steer her away from reporting it, supposedly to protect the university’s reputation. Reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely never spoke to Eramo, but she did put words in her mouth, presumably told to her by Jackie. 

“If Dean Eramo was surprised at Jackie's story of gang rape, it didn't show,” Rubin Erdely wrote, and then topped it off with an all-too-perfect quote. When Jackie asked the dean why UVA doesn’t publish statistics on sexual violence, “she says Eramo answered wryly, ‘Because nobody wants to send their daughter to the rape school.’ ”

Eramo has been silent since the story came out. Today, she issued “An Open Letter to Rolling Stone,” in which Eramo condemns “the article's false and grossly misleading portrayal of the counseling and support that I provided to Jackie, including encouraging her to report” and arranging for Jackie to meet with detectives. She also accuses Erdely of having “purposefully omitting information that she received during interviews” with UVA's president and students that did not fit “her preconceived narrative” about the university's callous response to a horrific crime.

Most viscerally, Eramo details how the debacle impacted her personally:

Using me as the personification of a heartless administration, the Rolling Stone article attacked my life's work. I saw my name dragged through the mud in the national press ... protestors showed up at my office, demanding I be fired. Perhaps most egregious and shocking were the emails I received expressing hope that I be killed or raped, and commenting that they hoped I had a daughter so that she could be raped. Equally distressing ... is the fact that while the false allegations in the magazine were being investigated, the University had no choice but to remove me from working with the students with whom I had spent so much time building a relationship, forcing them to “start over” with someone else.

Whatever Eramo decides to do in the future, her name will likely be “forever linked” to the article, as she writes. Even now, if you do a Google Image search of her name, you will see the Rolling Stone caricature of her smiling in her office as protests rage outside.

April 22 2015 1:21 PM

Medical Marijuana Activist Threatened With Losing Custody of Her Son

In many states, marijuana is being legalized or gradually decriminalized in response to the growing body of evidence showing that the drug is relatively harmless compared to popular drugs like alcohol. But in Kansas, a medical marijuana activist is facing the possibility of losing custody of her son just because he admitted in school that his mother is a pot user.

Shona Banda doesn't hide her enthusiasm for the drug. She's an activist for medical marijuana, using her experience using cannabis oil to treat her Crohn's disease as an inspirational story. "Banda's legal problems began March 24 when police were called to her son's school for a child welfare check following a drug and alcohol presentation," CBS News reports. "Investigators allege the boy told school officials that his mother and other adults in his home were avid drug users and that there was a lot of drug use occurring at the home."

While that sounds dire, when officials raided her home, what they found was equipment to turn marijuana into cannabis oil, as well as some marijuana. Authorities emphasized that it was within reach of a child, but it is worth noting that her child is 11 years old, not exactly a toddler who stuffs random things into his mouth. 

Banda's legal defense page explains her side of the story: Her son was annoyed by the anti-drug presentation at the school, which isn't hard to believe for anyone who had to sit through the histrionics of D.A.R.E. or any similar programs. When he spoke up and said his mom used cannabis and it's fine, the school officials flipped and called the police. 

Banda's son is currently being held by child welfare while it's determined if charges will be filed or her custody challenged. "The most important thing here is the child's well-being," Wichita Police Capt. Randy Ralston told the press. "That is why it is a priority for us, just because of the danger to the child."

It's possible that Ralston believes what he's saying—but it requires thinking it's somehow better to subject a child to hours of intensive questioning, raid his home, and take him from his parents than to let him see people use marijuana, a drug that half of Americans admit using to little ill effect. Sorry, but being man-handled by the state is a lot more traumatic for a kid than seeing Mom puff up periodically. 

April 22 2015 12:58 PM

Tennessee Anti-Choice Politician Can’t Decide if Women Are Stupid or Cunning

Back in November, voters in Tennessee passed a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution, making abortion the only medical procedure not protected under the state's stringent privacy protections. Proponents of the amendment ran a campaign downplaying the severity of the bill, claiming it wasn't about restricting abortion access but about making the constitution "neutral" on the subject. In a completely unshocking turn, those reassurances that this is no big deal were immediately forgotten, and the Tennessee legislature got right to passing invasive, punitive bills meant to make abortion as miserable and expensive an experience as possible. 

One of the two bills the legislature passed this week requires a 48-hour waiting period to get an abortion, during which time you will be subjected to a government-mandated guilt trip under the guise of "informed consent." Standard stuff, but the floor debate over this bill, posted at Raw Story, was a master class in the doublespeak and contradictory arguments forwarded by anti-choicers these days. 

It all started when Democratic state Rep. Craig Fitzhugh offered an amendment allowing a mental-health exception to the rule. "We know mental health issues are just as, even more serious sometimes, than physical health issues," he explained.

Republican state Rep. Sheila Butt was not having it. Butt positioned herself as a good-hearted soul simply trying to protect women from evil abortionists. "Putting this psychological harm bypass into the bill is really a loophole for the abortion industry,” she argued. “It allows someone who is going to profit from abortion to get the waiting period waived.” 

Fitzhugh then tried again, offering an amendment that allowed exceptions for rape and incest victims. Butt, who just moments before was portraying women as hapless and in need of protection from greedy abortionists, immediately switched gears to another favorite anti-choice stereotype: the crafty villainess who cries rape. “This amendment appears political, because we understand in most instances, this”—by which she means rape—“is not verifiable.”

She then pivoted seamlessly right back to the women-are-dummies line: “Let’s make sure that these women have the information and the understanding to act.”

Women: They're soft-hearted fools who are too dumb to know what "abortion" is without a condescending lecture and they're cunning liars who cry rape to conceal their wanton ways. Whichever you need to believe right this second in order to keep them from getting abortions.

This isn't the first time that Butt has grabbed headlines for talking from both sides of her mouth. Back in February, Muslim rights group CAIR denounced Butt for a post on her Facebook page that read, "It is time for a Council on Christian Relations and an NAAWP in this Country." CAIR noted that NAAWP is a common acronym on white supremacist sites for National Association for the Advancement of White People. Butt protested, saying it actually stands for National Association of Advancement for Western Peoples and complained, “It saddens me that we have come to a place in our society where every comment by a conservative is automatically scrutinized as being racist.”

The bill passed, without any of Fitzhugh's proposed amendments, and is expected to be signed by Gov. Bill Haslam.

READ MORE STORIES