Sunday, July 23, 2006

More Reasons To Love Japan.

So, in watching Miss Universe tonight because I'm a crazy Project Runway freak and Miss USA wore Kane's dress from it, I was actually very impressed. Not by the pageant, of course, because it was all about fake boobs and two seconds of talking. Not exactly a feminist's wet dream.

Anyway, what I was impressed with was Miss Japan.

Her final question was: "If you could take back anything in history, what would it be?"

Her answer was basically a women's rights rant, talking about how she would like to see "Men stop exploiting their physical power" and "let them give that up" and good stuff like that.

And, even though she was on a fast-track to the crown, she didn't win it. What a coincidence. It went to Puerto Rico, the actress.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Allow me to conduct a lovely chorus of "What the Hell?!".

From Feministing:

Women drinkers told to wear nice pants
By Anil Dawar
(Filed: 13/07/2006)

A police magazine is advising women planning a drunken night out to ensure they had waxed and were "wearing nice pants" in case they collapsed.

Suffolk Police's Safe! magazine carries a reminder for readers "intent on getting ratted", alongside a picture of a scantily-clad woman on the floor with the caption "if you've got it don't flaunt it".

It reads: "If you fall over or pass out, remember your skirt or dress may ride up. You could show off more than you intended - for all our sakes, please make sure you're wearing nice pants and that you've recently had a wax. Better still, eat before you go out, think about how much you're drinking, pace yourself and drink plenty of water in between bevvies or better still, don't get in this sorry state - it's not nice."

Suffolk police defended its "gossipy, tongue-in-cheek style" saying officers hoped it would encourage young women to pick up the magazine and take notice.

"There have been a number of attacks on women who have been drinking and there is a serious safety message to get across," said a police spokesman.
This is just beyond anything I could ever possibly say. However, I think I'll try to put my complete and utter feminazi rage into eloquent script. :)

Where the hell do they get off with such victim-blaming? Better yet, where the hell do they get off joking about the rape while blaming the victims of it?

Please, somebody tell me what is so "tongue-in-cheek" about men not being able to respect women enough to allow them to have the liberty they enjoy without the fear of being sexually assaulted? This is a classic example of how patriarchal societies put the burden of rape prevention on the potential victims. We all know this is an impossible feat, so why do we expect it out of women? Shouldn't we be putting more of an emphasis on, oh shucks I dunno, making sure men STOP raping women? I'm sorry, but women have a right to be safe from sexual assault. They will not have that freedom until sexual assault is a rare occurrence, and blaming the victim of said assault is not the way to accomplish that goal.

An awesome point was brought up in the comment section of the Feministing post as well. What if this were an article telling men to make sure they waxed their hairy asses before they went out drinking, just in case they passed out and one of their buddies got a little too fresh? I doubt that would go over very well, and I don't think it would be laughed off as "gossipy and tongue-in-cheek". Why? Maybe because rape ISN'T FUCKING FUNNY.

That is all.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Speaking of arrogant mofos. . .

So, while I'm on a rampage to flatten every sick fuck who's ever thought they have a right to control over a woman's reproductive system for any reason whatsoever (be it having the same reproductive organs, different ones, a misogynistic religion, sick rape fantasies a la Bill Napoli, a combination of any of those, or an all new novel reason), I figured I'd take on the people who, while still thinking they can own women, fancy themselves nice and caring enough to allow their brood mares to abort if it will kill them.

My question them is, who decides? If a woman has preeclampsia, can she abort? Her life is not in danger at the time, but the preeclampsia could very well turn into eclampsia which is responsible for 12% of all maternal deaths. So, is her life in "enough" danger for her to get permission from antis to "allow" her to save her own health? How much does it take? Does she have to actually be seizuring in the maternity ward hallway with the actual eclampsia to be "eligible" for her right to bodily autonomy?

What these people don't realize is that the brunt of maternal deaths happen AFTER abortion is widely available. Many are unforseen. According to the WHO, 70% of maternal deaths are due to hemmorhaging. Raise your hand if you think that hemmorhaging happens in the first trimester.

Apparently, a lot of pro-life hands are going to go up.

Either that, or they're full of shit on "partial birth abortion" bans. I mean, in normal debates, they think the way to win is to describe graphically a supposed "partial birth abortion" like it's a first trimester vacuum aspiration, but when it comes to saving the woman's life (which is what late term abortions are used for, i.s. pbas), they say they're for it.

Well, get your head out of your ass (or Bible, but can anyone really see a difference?) and make up your mind.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Non-Hospitals and Non-Pharmacists, a match made in Hell.

I have a problem with people who take the wrong jobs on purpose. I also have a problem with people who think they have the right to throw out part of their job description just because they don't like it. Catholic non-hospitals (I refuse to call them hospitals, hospitals help their patients) and religious non-pharmacists (I do not call them pharmacists, because they do not do the job of a pharmacist) are exactly these people.

A recent survey showed that a majority of Catholic hospitals do not give women emergency contraception, even in the case of a rape.

They say, well, what about my religion? You want to know what I say? Fuck your religion. You knew the job description, you saw that it conflicted with your religious convictions. So why did you take the job in the first place? That's your problem, not the patients'. If Catholics feel like they can't fulfill part of what being a hospital entails, perhaps they shouldn't run hospitals.

I have a favorite example to illusutrate how stupid this really is. Let's say I apply for a job at the local strip club. I get the job. On my first day, I go into the club and realize, oh my goodness, these women are taking their clothes off! I don't feel comfortable doing that because of my own personal convictions. So, should I just tell my employer that they have to keep me around and on the payroll anyway, even though I'm not going to do the job I got hired for? No. If I don't do what's in the job description, I don't get to keep the job.

Here's another example. Let's say I'm a devout Catholic and I'm a cashier at Publix. They sell condoms at Publix, and a man comes in and wants to purchase a pack of them. Now, because I'm a devout Catholic, I am strictly against contrception. So, because of my religious convictions, can I tell the man that I won't sell him the condoms? Should I just tell him to go to another store?

This is what Catholic non-hospitals do. This is what non-pharmacists do. It's wrong, it's presumptuous, it's arrogant, and it's a misuse of "rights".