I collect a lot of information about reproductive rights and sexual health for my gig at RH Reality Check, and not all of it makes the cut for reasons that are diverse and have exactly nothing to do with trying to step on anyone’s toes or ignore anyone’s favorite issue. Here’s a couple of items that I’ve been storing up and probably won’t use there, so I’ll use them here before they go stale.
I’m sure you’ve heard about how budget readjustments in D.C. have created a situation where drug companies are no longer offering deeply discounted birth control pills to college health centers. But did you know that the dramatic rise in price from 100%-400% affects 400 community health clinics that primarily serve poor women? The college girls are taking up their lion’s share of the coverage, which is a class issue mainly, and also driven by the fact that people love to read about the sex lives of nubile college women. Which is too bad, because the loss of these discounts to the non-college-but-poor community is even more tragic, because a lot of college women have more access to alternatives. The one good thing I see out of all this is that part of the college focus of the coverage is driven by the fact that college kids are organizing to reinstate the discounts. Anything that gets them out and organizing for sexual health is a good thing in my book.
Now that Roe v. Wade is in danger, the anti-choicers are chomping at the bit to get some abortion bans out there to challenge the ruling. The latest attempt is a ballot initiative in Missouri that seeks to ban abortion. I’m cautiously optimistic. People will certainly talk a big game about how horrible and immoral abortion is, but that doesn’t mean they are prepared to give up access to the service should they need it quite that easily.
Did you know that Medicare covers penis pumps but not abortion? Scott explains why this is further evidence that the Hyde Amendment is most likely unconstitutional.
Not a reproductive rights link, but still a WTF. Apparently, Jennifer Love Hewitt’s size 2 ass is too huge for the eyes and libidos of decent American men. I suspect the gossip media is trying to make the case, picture by picture, that humans possessing female bodies are all completely unfuckable, due to unholy amounts of flesh and skin.
31 Responses to “Reproductive rights link farm and one fat ass”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
You’re optimistic about the Missouri ballot initiative? It’s Missouri. We’re screwed.
Wait, Medicare is primarily for people aged 65 and up…who aren’t typically getting pregnant. So no, abortion wouldn’t be a standard Medicare benefit.
Ah. The link says Medicare pays for penis pumps, while Medicaid pays for abortion only in certain circumstances (e.g., rape, incest).
The JLH thing doesn’t shock me at all. People just love projecting their own insecurity and envy onto others, so they whip out nasty insults at any woman who dares feel confident in her body without feeling it necessary to be walking eye candy for every human alive, according to their own particular fancies. “Outing” starlets like JLH for being (are you f’ing kidding me?) fat, is just the jealous asshole in many people shining through. Any single one of the commenters who made nasty remarks would trade places with JLH in a billionth of a nanosecond - probably even the males - and are sporting a bad case of public junior high behavior. That she’s a starlet doesn’t make this verbal abuse any more palatable to me than were she a teenage girl being made fun of by some asshat jocks.
I don’t think her distancing herself from “fatness” is a bad thing though. Her looks earn her a paycheck. (We know it ain’t the acting.) Any Hollywood or TVLand box office draw needs a bankable body - one a large majority of males and/or females aspire to fuck or be. By trying to distance her actual size two figure from the unflattering bikini shot she’s protecting her income and I can’t fault her for that. How many heavy actresses are there on TV? For every two that you can name I can name fifty super thin ones. I am sure she wouldn’t want there to be a public perception that she’s less than goddess-like, because that could push directors or producers toward looking at other women for roles first, assuming a “fat” butt won’t get as many joe schmoe butts in the seats or in front of the TV so the media barons can profit from their pricey investments.
Over at feministe all this shit got started with a troll who turned a critique on fat shaming into a public service message on morbid obesity. Absurd connection there, but I do want to comment, even though this is (obviously) up at pandagon: if paparazzi/media critics/tabloid reporters/gossip nerds cared about health, they would be outing pictures of celebrities smoking cigarettes with as much panache and glee as they do when they publish shots of cellulite. But they don’t. The focus is on the body and the visual. So when people start saying “health” is the concern, it’s bullshit. Those assholes at TMZ just *wish* JLH had a fat ass, so they could feel better about their own.
Ironic that my health care provider will pay for my husband to take Viagara, but won’t pay a cent for my birth control.
The plot thickens……
Sadly, Amanda I’m going to have to agree with j, I’m from Missouri (born and raised until I moved to L.A.) and while St. Louis and even Columiba (home of the Mizzou Tigers) could be considered “blue” it’s in no way indicative of the state. If memory serves correctly then there’s only about two abortions providors in the entire state (St. Louis being one of them) so they are well on their way.
This is also a state that rejected Claire McCaskill, a perfectly good, female, democrat candidate for *our* (yah absentee ballot!) state to re-elect Matt Blunt. *ethch*
It’s nice that you have more faith in my state than I do, but like the rest of the southern/mid western region, right wing Christians are taking over and it doesn’t look good.
We’re slowly trying to get a Feminist Majority club up and running again on campus; organizing around the price of birth control might be a good issue to draw in the fence sitters. And yes, this is the first thing I’ve read on the issue that hasn’t focused on college students.
Anti-abortion ballot initiatives don’t have a very good success record. Abortion opponents have big mouths, but they only get one vote apiece.
Are people forgetting that people in FRIGGING SOUTH DAKOTA voted to repeal an abortion ban. You’ll have a hard time finding a more anti-choice state than South Dakota.
Yes, Missouri is a culturally conservative state with a Republican Party dominated by the fundies. That doesn’t mean all hope is lost of defeating anti-choice measures. Sure, it’ll take work, but remember, as conservative as Mizzou may be they voted for a dead guy over John Ashcroft.
I actually agree with j. I’m concerned.
I live in Kansas City, volunteer for Planned Parenthood… and, well, Blunt and his followers keep getting their way.
And, one has to love how Planned Parenthood does so much more than give abortions. JEEZ. What about all of those gynecological exams that are done on a sliding scale.
Oh, riiiighht… only sluts need those. I forgot. Generally the same camp opposed to the HPV vaccine, and into believing that all a woman has to do is save it for the man she marries… and more than likely has some strains of HPV.
oh, yeah… totally getting my ass to bed, here (should’ve said “fat ass”, I guess), but:
I, out of my crazy morbid curiosity, had to go looking for those photos. Oh, and read the comments. All I can say is that I’m sure that most of the men calling her fat are generally sub-par in the looks department (I mean, really- if one’s going to criticize another’s appearance, then they should submit a photo of themselves to be judged, right?). And then there are the women… same thing. And, really, I’m guessing most of the shitty comments from the women, are from women that are generally larger than Jennifer. Oh, and if they are her size- well, even with her reduction, we all know that normally those breasts have to be bought for the proportions of the rest of her body.
yes, ok i agree that the jhl thing is annoying and fucked up cuz shes not in any way fat but…
she aint no size 2.
since people disagreed w/ me i did a comparison. were both the same height and im a 4 and have pictures of myself in a bikini and when i looked at the two together…yea id say shes probably an 8 [which i actually used to be so that size isnt foreign]. i know it doesnt matter in the long run, but it bothers me that she feels the need to hide her true size while simultaneously decrying horrendous female beauty standards. the point isnt what size she is, but that whatever size, it is in no way fat, making the fat shaming really ridiculous and out of control.
sorry, this is becoming a pet peeve over the last few days!
” the point isnt what size she is, but that whatever size, it is in no way fat, making the fat shaming really ridiculous and out of control.”
Yeah, but fat-shaming is bad when it happens to fat people, too, right?
I get sick of reading stuff that says “X is being fat-shamed. And she isn’t even fat!” like the last sentence means that the situation is worse for the victim, ‘cuz we fatties — well — we should just expect it.
Yah know, I can forgive a lot — yeah, I’m surprised, too — but I don’t think I shall ever forgive western whites for their standards of beauty, mostly because they enforce it in everything they do. It’s like vomit no matter where you turn.
Let me make a declaration at variance with, it feels like, all white people in the U.S.: a fat-less ass is an ugly deformity in a normal, adult female.
An ass which is consists of nothing more than arteries stuck to the pelvis is what we’d expect of a prepubescent boy.
As far as I’m concerned, the obsession over skinny limbs and asses is nothing more than displaced pedophilia. You heard me. I sometimes feel that I’m the only person who is not enthralled by Hollywood’s leading ladies, for the same reason 13-year-old boys hold no special allure.
No body hair, no body fat, slight physique, unhealthily fast metabolism, and a mediocre intellect geared to the irrelevances of an immature male psyche — am I describing little boys or fashion models?
Variants on the same thing.
I’ve got several milennia of healthy libidos that say a nice ass has a curve; the current standard of beauty is a freakish deviation that will give future anthropologists chills and night terrors.
And as for the more important topic . . .
We couldn’t care less about “the children”; if we did, restrictions on abortion would be linked to frothing demands for children’s health care and adoption streamlining.
elektrodot- yes, you have already voiced your disagreement with JLH’s stated dress size. have you looked at her arms? still scarily thin. my arms looked maybe a wee bit more scary when I was an anorexic teen.
of course, it is obvious that she is more proportional, than she was as a younger actress, and that’s even with the breast reduction.
elek, I quarrel with the idea that women really have definitive “sizes”. According to my clothes that fit me well, I am a size 4, a size 6, and a size 8, so maybe a 6? Most of my jeans are about that. But I believe her when she says she wears a 2; she’s curvy, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t overall pretty tiny. Those curves on someone tell enough to eat at the counter might not be a size 2, but she’s pretty short, you know. In attempting to borrow clothes from shorter women than me who were probably proportionally a bit fatter, I have definitely discovered that going down the height scale means going down the size scale much of the time.
No One, the deep irony in this is that JLH got famous in no small part because guys drooled over her; finally a woman with bodacious curves! I’m usually not one to get pangs if a guy I’m dating mentions star X, Y, or Z is hot, because usually I agree, but comments over JLH in the past made my eye twitch, because there was so much enthusiasm. You’d think she was the only woman with real tits in the world; she might be in Hollywood, though.
And going up the height scale somehow means: no clothing for you!
I’m actually happier at a 6 than I was at a 2 (thanks, baby, for spreading my hips) because I can find pants that aren’t too short.
And really, clothing size is all about how it fits you. I tend to range between 125 and 130. In that range, pre-baby, I was a 2, sometimes 0 in pants/skirts size. (Gap/Ann Taylor size 2, Limit size 0.)
Nowadays I again range between 125 and 130 post-baby (was kind of surprised to jump on the scale last night and notice I was down to 121) and I am a 4, sometimes 6 in pants size. (I’ve actually been buying the 6s and belts, because the 6s fit better length and butt-wise while being too big in the waist.)
Shirt-size, I’m still the “smallest shirt you can find for an adult woman.” Thank you, A cup breasts.
To add to the above: I’m not extraordinarily tall, either. Just 5′7″. But I have a lot of leg, and apparently a lot of weight-storage capacity in my legs because at 125 I’m still mainly skin and bones everywhere else. I have a 32 inch inseam and quite healthy thighs.
Pre-baby, trying to fit a 24 inch waist, a 32 inch inseam, and healthy thighs was an experiment in frustration. 0/2s fit the waist and hips and some stores sometimes had 0/2s long that almost fit the inseam. But they had to be of a more baggy style to fit the thighs.
Oh, god, I’m digging myself in to a hole here.
I call my thighs healthy thighs because they are the only part of me that generally doesn’t look like I’m on the verge of starving. And if I put weight on to try to fix up the other parts of me, my thighs claim it all. I like my thighs: they are not fat, they are normal. They also are not as bony as all get-out, like my arms or shoulders.
“Yeah, but fat-shaming is bad when it happens to fat people, too, right?”
well, yea, but i didnt feel as though i needed to say that too. i figured at least we all got that point. i was just trying to comment on jhl’s situation.
and as i said, me and jhl are pretty much the same height, so im familiar w/ sizes for women in that height range. maybe its the fact that she felt compelled to mention her size at all, while still speaking out against beauty standards, i dont know, theres just something about it that irks me.
p.s-i was going by pant sizes when i said i didnt think she was a 2. i still dont believe her, but thats the last ill say on it, since what her size is isnt the point anyway.
I stumbled across the JLH thing on TMZ a couple days ago after reading JLH’s response to it. The comments were horrendous and an example of how some men feel women’s bodies are disgusting no matter what they look like: too skinny, not skinny enough, cellulite, too musculare, not enough of an ass, too much ass, flat-chested, breasts too big, curvy, not curvy enough. Gah! There is no winning because some asshole will always feel your body is a public object for him to criticize. It’s these pissants’ way of saying to JLH, “I know I’m a loser who would never have a chance with you were we ever face-to-face, but let me knock you down a peg by proving that, no matter how successful or beautiful you think you are, you’re nothing but an ugly cunt to me.”
And don’t even get me started on the women who think an adult woman’s body (and 80% of them have cellulite– it’s a fact of nature) is disgusting.
musculare=muscular
Shit, I need coffee!
*clutches pearls* Such language from the fairer sex!
history_mom, you are TOO right: the comments on JLH are just RICH as you know the men making them would fall all over themselves were they to meet a woman who looks like her in real life and the women who make them: I don’t know, they’re just insanely-self hating, I reckon.
but you know what? in a way, I think the vicious backlash against JLH indicates people really do hate the “fat-shaming” standards or just physical-shaming standards in general. I mean, not that they consciously know they hate them; I think people who write in nasty comments about JLH are probably just confused and unhappy.
but just — until that moment, she was on the team of “enforcers” of those fat-shaming/physical-shamingness. Not intentionally, but just by virtue of being a gorgeous celebrity. The visceral intensity of the meanness toward her seems like it might be misplaced unleashed hatred toward those standards. Seeing her fall is just so, so satisfying if you buy into those standards (as a self-hating woman or guy who feels only a sexxee girlfriend will do and yet you can’t land one) and yet are constantly wounded by them in life as you live it.
it bothers me that she feels the need to hide her true size while simultaneously decrying horrendous female beauty standards
I agree with Amanda that clothing sizes are arbitrary, but I also think you’re onto something. When I was about 12 years old and obsessed with Marilyn Monroe (gah!) I read somewhere that her measurements were 36-24-36. (Why are measurements a big deal/public info anyway?)
At that time, my mom had recently measured me for a holiday outfit she was sewing and I knew that my measurements were the same as Monroe’s purported numbers. Yet I looked like the 98-pound sack of pre-adolescent bones I was and she looked like a grown woman with hips and breasts.
That was a little lightbulb moment for me, that a lot of this stuff about how tiny and perfect celebrity women are is just not true.
I think it was over at Feministe where it was said that these types of situations (the JLH one) are brought up to make regular women feel shitty about themselves and serve as a reminder “Nobody likes a fat woman!” I think it’s less about JLH and more about letting us all know that our bodies are disgusting and unacceptable. It is truly disturbing. A woman just can’t win in our culture.
Thank GOD for Jennifer Love Hewlett’s fat butt, and the dielectic created betwen her butt cheeks and the theme of reproductive justice for all women!
If it wasn’t for that, how many people really would be reading this post and comments about how little press there has been about the impact to poor women off campus who depend on those 400-some-odd “safety net” clinics for health care and clinic-dispensed contraception? (Kudos to Amanda, seriously — this may be one of the few posts even on the feminist blogs that discussed the impact to poor nonstudents. The mainstream press actually though has had some decent wire stories about the impact to “safety net” clinics, maybe because of concern to how it will impact poor women who might really carry their pregnancies to term and give birth to welfare babies.)
Now, if we could just somehow work shaming laddie blogs for their shaming of Jennifer Love Hewlett for having a fat butt in a bathing suit … SOMEHOW work that into appeals for reducing the cost of relatively new, popular forms of hormonal birth control – AND NOTHING ELSE – and actually get the mainstream press to cover both in the same story as giving back to pharmaceutical companies the right to market (at deep discounts) their new, overly expensive products to college students, not to mention all of about 400 community health clinics, to add more column inches which say nothing about Title X, Medicaid waivers for family planning coverage, much less affordable abortion access for minors – yeah, we’d be a lot better off…
…not.
Actually, it would probably do almost as much for the reproductive rights movement as it would for JLH’s butt. It would be better for more low-to-moderate-income women to see more column inches given to Title X and Medicaid waivers, and more plain-looking, average-sized Title X clinics built in the suburbs, and actually fewer Costco-sized superclinics and Starbucks-kiosk sized satellite clinics on campuses, and only on certain campuses. But all we’re reading about — at best — is restoring a discount program meant mostly to help market new contraceptives to college students, and — if we’re lucky, funding increases for clinics that BARELY keep pace with inflation but which don’t significantly expand services.
Hey, if it takes a tie-in to JLH’s butt to raise the awareness of the electorate to the broader, wider, meatier issues, let’s do it!
Can we take this even further … can we build on this theme, and this year’s trend in movies that don’t quite mention and don’t quite advocate abortion rights (Knocked Up, Superbad, Juno, etc) but which still get mainstream news coverage that draws dollars from pro-choice moviegoers? How about “I Know What You Did Last Reproductive Freedom Summer”?
A libertarian grapples with abortion:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan168.html
Summary:
A foetus in a woman’s womb is now equivalent to a shipwrecked man who climbed aboard your boat unbeknownst to you. The woman’s obligation, like yours, is to deliver the wrecked to the nearest safe port in your path, and ends there. Abortion is akin to throwing the man overboard.
I’ve always been a admirer of Jennifer Love Hewitt. I would say though, not that her ass is fat, but rather that she’s making a common clothing mistake. The eye tends to judge size relative to what you’re wearing. With a different bikini bottom, I believe she could look much better than she does in that photograph, without changing an ounce of herself.
Of course, the question arises - why on earth should she do that? why on earth should she care? - and there is no answer to that.
Arun, regarding your libertarian analogy.
Io paraphrase Lloyd Bensen, from his debate with Dan Quayle in 1988:
1) We are on very good terms with the concept of “lifeboat ethics”.
2) The concept of “lifeboat ethics” is very useful to us, at times.
3) A woman’s uterus is not a lifeboat.
Unlike the “laws of the sea”, there’s no absolute obligation to take “on board”, much less keep “on board”, an unwanted pregnancy. Fertilized eggs, even implanted ones, are not autonomous human beings, much less sailors with interesting stories to tell. Many fertilized eggs never implant, and many implanted fertilized eggs never make it beyond a few months without spontanous miscariages, unlike, again, hospitality on the open seas.
And regarding JLH’s butt, we don’t want to spend many more words defending it, but it’s her butt, and it’s beautiful. It’s not the most flattering part of her, I’d have to say her smile is the most flattering. As far as why she chose to wear a certain bathing suit bottom, we’re pro-choice, so we’ll have to just defend her choice, ok? If she loses the ability to act, sing, or perform in moving public service announcements, then we’ll maybe criticize her, but off stage and off work she can dress as she pleases, tabloids be dammed.