There’s a plot for a romantic comedy in here somewhere: a 16-year-old British girl named Lauren Marbe has scored 161 on a MENSA test, ranking her intelligence higher than Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and Albert Einstein. But people are shocked – shocked! – at Lauren Marbe’s genius intelligence because she’s a blonde girl from Essex (which is apparently the Seaside Heights of Britain) who loves fake tanning, getting manis, and reality TV. Keep reading »
New York Times’ writers KJ Dell’Antonia and Bruce Feiler recently went head to head over parenting for the latest “Room For Debate.” Their discussion focused on whether moms or dads more often take the lead when it comes to parenting, and more importantly, why?
This particular debate is an age-old parenting topic. In an era where women are constantly reminded about “having it all” despite stereotypical gender roles being enforced, it’s no wonder that we’re still discussing who takes on what when it comes to parenting. For a long time, parenting actually meant mothering by default. It was traditionally assumed that men were the wage earners while women were the caretakers, no matter how much that “ideal” didn’t match up with families that needed two incomes to stay afloat. Regardless of the advances in equality accrued by feminism, that traditional framework has been a hard one to shake off and families still have trouble when it comes to equal parenting. Keep reading »
A New Jersey Catholic high school is under fire for asking girl students to take a no-swearing pledge for 30 days because it says, “We want ladies to act like ladies.” Keep reading »
The New York Times, ever concerned about the plight of the three people it takes to make a Style Section trend story, has identified a disturbing new tendency among women to … plan their weddings. But wait for it: they’re not just planning their weddings, they’re doing it on the Internet and they’re doing it while single.
The horrors, they are horrifying. Time to muster the judgment and disdain appropriate to the situation: these pathetic cases are wasting their sad-ass time, and their real human relationships are suffering for it, because using the Internet means shunning all human contact, only going outside once a week to get a gallon of milk and a bag of cat food. Keep reading »
This week’s New York magazine cover story, meant to help us get to know front-runner New York City mayoral candidate Christine Quinn, is, unintentionally perhaps, peppered with witty one-liners that would make RuPaul and Michelle Visage jealous. The highlight is Mayor Bloomberg’s little cameo where he gestures toward a woman in a very tight floor-length gown standing nearby and says to Quinn, “Look at the ass on her.” Sure, this can be seen as objectifying skeeviness, but when, in the next paragraph, Quinn talks about how Bloomberg doesn’t like her in flat boots, you get the picture that these two are the catty, shade-throwing queens of City Hall. They should really throw a ball and read politicians all night. I’d attend. Below, some of their best lines. Oh, and if you’re not familiar with Bloomberg, you should check out his parody Twitter account, @ElBloombito. [New York Magazine]
Bottom line: I was a female soldier in the combat zone. So why do I feel so uncomfortable about formalizing women’s placement in combat roles? I did a lot of soul-searching about why this bothered me so much. Ultimately, though, I’ve discovered there’s nothing I should be uncomfortable about.
When I first read that Defense Secretary Panetta had lifted the ban on women in combat roles, I felt queasy. While I left the military for the private sector in late 2011, I spent the first decade of my adult life in the Army, half of it on active duty as a Military Police officer. I have led and served alongside extraordinarily tough and competent leaders, male and female, while deployed in Iraq and in training all over the world. This was personal.
Yet, even as a woman who had been to combat, I couldn’t endorse lifting the ban. The more I examined my prejudices, though, I realize that they were just that — prejudices. Keep reading »
Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted a ban that prohibited women from openly serving in combat roles in the military. This would entail overturning a 1994 rule that bans women from certain ground combat roles, thus opening up more jobs to servicewomen. Women have already been attached to ground units performing these jobs — they just haven’t been properly credited for it.
Yesterday, Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Join Chiefs Of Staff, officially overturned the 1994 rule. “Everyone is entitled to a chance,” Panetta said. According to The New York Times, the Army is now creating gender-neutral standards for all their positions but will not be lowering the physical standards required just so that women can be admitted.
All week there have been reactions to lifting the ban, both for and against. I’ve rounded up some of the responses: Keep reading »
Presented without comment.
The Secretary of Defense has lifted a ban that prohibited women from openly serving in combat roles in the military, NPR is reporting. Secretary Leon Panetta made the decision on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who suggested overturning a 1994 rule that bans women from being assigned into certain ground combat roles. However, women have at times served in those roles anyway, and furthermore, being excluded from those positions have held women back from rising in the ranks through the military. Servicewomen have repeatedly sued the Pentagon to fight the exclusionary policy. Last year, the Pentagon changed policies which opened up 14,000 additional positions to women; the military has until January 2016 to pursue a justification for continuing to exclude women from ground combat.
I know we have many ex-military members who read The Frisky. Let us know what you think in the comments! [NPR] [Photo: Getty]