More’s piece “What the New Feminists Look Like” is (finally) online. You can check out my interview and all the other New Feminists’ interviews there. I’m a bit sad that our video interviews didn’t make it online – or at least, haven’t yet. I basically geeked out about how more feminists should embrace science and skepticism. Of course, that’s what I talked about during my phone interview, and the article is still predominantly about boobquake… Sigh, journalism.

On a related note, More is holding a panel on Young Leaders in Feminism in New York tomorrow based on this piece, and there’s already been a bit of controversy. Jessica Valenti, author and founder of, dropped out of the panel when she realized one of the other “New Feminists” falls into the category of “conservative women who have long fought against feminist ideals and goals are now identifying as feminists in an attempt to woo women’s votes for the GOP.”

Her reason for not participating will make sense to my readers:

“But I do think their participation is a strategic mistake. It’s like debating someone who insists that the sky is red – what does it accomplish besides lending credibility and valuable activist energy to a laughably false assertion?”

Creationists, anyone?

As someone who has had her “Feminist Card” revoked too many times to count for being too sexual or too critical of religion, I generally hate hearing that someone is “not a true feminist.” But it ceases to be a No True Scotsman Fallacy when you’re the antithesis of what that feminism actually is about: equality for the sexes. That includes allowing women to make choices that don’t necessarily agree with your personal morals or opinions, like being in porn, waiting until marriage to have sex, getting an abortion, or being a stay at home mom.

Seriously, the next time I hear Sarah Palin being called a feminist, I will puke. And in case you say it to purposefully get a rise out of me, I will aim my puking at you.