Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.

I don't have time to blog extensively about this, but basically, she's withdrawing because she doesn't want to give information about herself or her views. Which makes the whole situation reek of some kind of scary secret that she and BushCo don't want getting out...

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."

Rosa Parks died yesterday.

Her legacy speaks for itself.

From an angry post about how radical feminists are hijacking the cause of domestic violence prevention, I ended up here, at a site called "Hate Male Post," one of those crazy "men's rights" bloggers.
Normally, I just laugh these fuckers off. Because when they use words like man repellant and seriously post beliefs such as this:

1) Men don't have any rights anymore, and

2) Unfortunately, many, even the majority of rape and assault claims ARE made up, irregardless (sic) of what NOW and the gender-feminists tell us.

it makes me want to either vomit or punch a wall.

But the most recent post on this "men's rights" blog about the problems of the VAWA legislation has a teeny bit of merit (when you ignore the majority of the post, which is so anti-feminist that it gives Jerry Falwell a run for his money).
Mainly, this: that there is, in fact, an undercurrent of domestic and sexual violence against men, especially sexual, that goes almost universally unreported. While it remains that the majority of these men's perpetrators are also men, there are women violators of this as well.
I haven't studied the language of VAWA ad nauseum (or at all, really), but it seems to me that the name of the legislation -- Violence Against Women Act -- implies that it may, in fact, not extend these protections to male victims of domestic violence. In that sense, at least, it is perpetuating the underreporting of these incidents.

These men's rights' groups do have at least some relevance, then, in their pleading for VAWA to be a gender-neutral piece of legislation. This seems reasonable enough.

So, my question is this:
Can this be done without minimizing the fact that the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women? Would neutralizing the gendered language in the legislation make it less effective or less of a "feminist issue"?

I have my thoughts, but I'd like to hear others.

(x-posted to where the revolution's gonna begin)

The NY Times just published an "opt-out" revolution piece, saying basically that more women are consciously choosing motherhood over careers.

This article focuses, on women in "elite colleges" (Harvard, Yale, and the like...of course not including any women in single-sex institutions that really are quite comparable to these "elite" institutions..I somehow doubt that the majority of students in single-sex colleges would agree with this getting-an-MRS-degree thing...), and how while they're going to college and intending to get "useful" degrees in things like law and such, they "say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment."
Ugh.
Think outside the box, kiddles.
Please.

One (male) dean at Yale has it right, at least...

"What does concern me," said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, "is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles."

I have sooo much more I could say about this, but no time to do so, so instead, I'm going to pimp out other bloggers.
Jessica at feministing
Echidne
And ms. musings

From Jill at Feministe, I found this article By Antheia at Mad Melancholic Feminista:

"How long did it take you to get over it?"

Really, I'm trying to keep this short so I can get on with my feminist theory reading (because I *heart* Angela Davis), so...I won't comment on it other than to say that it hits the nail on the fucking head.
In the words of my dad back in his hippie days...
Right on, man.*
Right on.

(Psst. Go. Read it. Now.)

*disclaimer: Used in the non-gendered sense of the word "man." I'm very conscious of the problematic use of the word "man" to encompass all humans, and I only use it to keep with the hippie-esque language that I'm going for. Because that's what they did back in the Days of MaryJane.