According to the comments section of the The Burgh Report, Post-Gazette advice columnist is the daughter of Acting City Solicitor George Specter.  The commenter wonders if there is a connection between that relationship and the PG's coverage of the Solicitor.

I wonder the opposite.  Did it have something to do with Cat Specter landing a column with no experience and no real qualifications?   Is that how she met her champion, Tony Norman? 

Can we blame George Specter for the unleashing of Cattitude all over Pittsburgh? 

So, are they related?  And what does that mean for patronage purposes?  Are there any patronage purposes?  Most importantly, can he spay and/or neuter the Cattitude?

The Beaver County Times has taken a stand on the expansion of the federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as motivations for attacks.  In their estimation, hate crimes laws punish thoughts not deeds.

Please understand that we in no way condone the vitriol that spews out of the mouths of bigots. The anti-homosexual hatred of some people does create a hostile environment that can lead to violence.
However, criminals should be punished and convicted for what they do, not what they think.

That's great.  And what do you do when that vitriol and its underlying bigotry is connected to crime?  When someone is attached because they are gay or appear gay?  How can you neatly separate the word from the act in that case? 

I just don't get why people are so opposed to this legislation. Sigh.

sdf

Beyond feminism, she may need to brush up on grammar.  Today's faux pas features an inquiry about sexually objectifying mothers by "Proud Feminist."

Here's where I want to know why a Proud Feminist would address this question to Cat's Call.  Specter makes Ruth Ann Dailey look like a raging feminist what with her obsessive focus on the most superficial elements of women's lives -- dating, clothes and what she terms "Cattitude."  It was all good.  Cat played at being a journalist.  Jealous other would be journalists bitched and moaned about her good fortune. And feminists did their thing.

Until "Proud Feminist" had to crash through the fourth wall.  She asks for advice over taking umbrage at the sexual objectification of mothers.  Cat doesn't disappoint.  She does, however, answer the wrong question.

[T]here's no inherent problem with women (mothers or not) being viewed as "sexual."

There is an inherent problem with confusing sexual objectification and sexuality.  Viewing a mother as a sexual being is fine.  Objectifying her as a sexual thing is not fine.  There's a big difference.  The difference between a being and an object. 

Cat, you should check out Feministing which might help you better understand the distinction.  If you are going to continue writing advice for women, we need you to really put some effort into understanding feminist issues.  You may not consider yourself a feminist, but you have a responsibility to the women in the region to at least decry sexually objectification of any woman. 

Cattitude doesn't justify ignoring the plight of your sisters.