Saturday, April 21, 2007

SCOTUS, You Know Me Better Than I Know Myself

Here's to the 5 old guys who voted yay!
Jen from Feministing read an interesting section of the Opinion of the Court regarding the recent ruling upholding the partial birth abortion ban.

"While we have no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptional that to conclude some women come to regret to abort the infant life they once created and sustained . . . . The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed her doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-growing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."

Let's, for now, ignore the errors; the use of the words "infant" and "unborn child" in the place of the medically accurate term of "fetus;" the assumption that doctors who perform abortions are so untrustworthy that they do not tell their patients the procedures, risks, and outcomes of the operations they're about to perform; the implication that women get pregnant by themselves; and the contradiction that while a fetus is a "child," it is only "assuming the human form."

I want to speak about the pervasive notion that women cannot handle their own decisions. That women are too "emotional" (you know, every emotion except anger, because anger is manly, and men don't show emotion, remember?) to deal with regret. That women have to be protected from, and made ignorant by, anything that will make us (rightfully) resentful..

The Opinion of the Court reminded me of something that former Democratic Senator of Missouri George G. Vest once said about women in politics:

"I pity the man who can consider any question affecting the influence of woman with the cold, dry logic of business. What man can, without aversion, turn from the blessed memory of that dear old grandmother, or the gentle words and caressing hand of that dear blessed mother gone to the unknown world, to face in its stead the idea of a female justice of the peace or township constable? For my part I want when I go to my home -- when I turn from the arena where man contends with man for what we call the prizes of this paltry world -- I want to go back, not to be received in the masculine embrace of some female ward politician, but to the earnest, loving look and touch of a true woman. I want to go back to the jurisdiction of the wife, the mother; and instead of a lecture upon finance or the tariff, or upon the construction of the Constitution, I want those blessed, loving details of domestic life and domestic love.

. . . I speak now respecting women as a sex. I believe that they are better than men, but I do not believe they are adapted to the political work of this world. I do not believe that the Great Intelligence ever intended them to invade the sphere of work given to men, tearing down and destroying all the best influences for which God has intended them.

. . . Women are essentially emotional. It is no disparagement to them they are so. It is no more insulting to say that women are emotional than to say that they are delicately constructed physically and unfitted to become soldiers or workmen under the sterner, harder pursuits of life.

What we want in this country is to avoid emotional suffrage, and what we need is to put more logic into public affairs and less feeling. There are spheres in which feeling should be paramount. There are kingdoms in which the heart should reign supreme. That kingdom belongs to woman. The realm of sentiment, the realm of love, the realm of the gentler and the holier and kindlier attributes that make the name of wife, mother, and sister next to that of God himself.

I would not, and I say it deliberately, degrade woman by giving her the right of suffrage. I mean the word in its full signification, because I believe that woman as she is to-day, the queen of the home and of hearts, is above the political collisions of this world, and should always be kept above them . . . . It would take her down from that pedestal where she is to-day, influencing as a mother the minds of her offspring, influencing her gentle and kindly caress the action of her husband toward the good and pure."

Oh, Senator Vest. It seems like only January 25, 1887 that you said that.

Both the Opinion of the Court and the Vest speech are full of false sensitivity. While Vest claimed that emotion and passion have no place in politics, he delivered a rather lengthy speech to Congress to protect women from being thrown off of their moral pedestal. How sweet, right? Now, SCOTUS, in an attempt to protect emotional women from the emotional consequences of their emotional decisions, are chipping away at our reproductive rights. While our federal government chooses to preserve our right to get pregnant by mistake by making accurate sex education and contraception harder and harder to come by, now they are taking away our right to a procedure that is a matter of life or death to thousands of women a year. Thanks for looking out for us, 5 old guys who voted yay.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Women's Health Flung To The Side

Well, ladies, it seems we have an announcement to make.

Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are now your gynecologists.

They are also gynecologists that don't give two craps about the health of women.

Good luck to you all.

Also, here's a really fuckin' scary quote from Kennedy's opinion:

The Act’s failure to allow the banned procedure’s use where ” ‘necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the [mother’s] health,’ ” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 327-328, does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right.
Congratulations, ladies. You don't have a right to protect your health, so sayeth your new gynecologists!

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

TRAPping the trappers

This is awesome.

And really, if CPC-lovers and conservatives who support tax money going to these places really believe what they say about it being about women and women's safety, they'll love this plan. Nothing like a little regulation to keep things safe, right? At least, that's what I hear whenever I mention abortion-providing clinics.

Apathy Towards Domestic Violence Obvious in VA Tech Massacre

Everyone must have heard about the shooting at Virginia Tech that happened yesterday morning, where 33 people, including the gunman, were killed. What the mainstream media isn't talking much about is how apathetic the campus police were at the first shooting, which happened around 7:15am, in which the gunman's ex-girlfriend and a resident assistant were shot and killed. The second shooting by the same gunman started at 9:45am, and 30 people and the gunman were killed. Why was nothing done in the 2 and a half hours between the shootings? The university's president Charles W. Steger had this to say:

"We had one shooting early in the morning that initially, and we don’t know the answer to this, appeared to be a domestic fight, perhaps a murder-suicide,” Mr. Steger said. “It was characterized by our security people as being contained to that dorm room.”

So basically the campus security heard it was a domestic dispute and figured that the gunman got all the anger out of him by brutally murdering his ex-girlfriend. "Don't worry about the guy with the gun! He just wanted to shoot his ex-girlfriend! Back to class, people! Don't you have exams to prepare for?!"

And security judged that the incident was contained to that dorm room? How? Campus security didn't contain the incident to that dorm room. Did they think the incident contained itself? While gun nuts blame legislation that doesn't allow all students to carry concealed weapons on campus for the deaths of the 30 people killed after the gunman killed his ex-girlfriend and the RA, I blame the VA Tech campus security, who dismissed this act of domestic violence at its worst.

So About The Duke Rape Case. . .

I'm late on this one because I'm a lazy blogger who's been stressed out. Plus, well, the whole deal has just disgusted me so much that I haven't really wanted to touch it.

However, I've recently been having a conversation with a *ahem* young man (trying to be nice here) who is hell bent on making everyone demonize this woman because "She lied" and "ruined the Lacrosse players lives", etc. etc. etc.

My problem right now is that what this guy is saying is par for the course now that the men have been released. OF COURSE she's a lying slut who tried to ruin the lives of three poor upper-middle class white jocks.

I also love how the story has changed. Now there absolutely is not a shred of evidence in the case and never was. She didn't get a rape kit done, there was no testimony from hospital officials stating that it seemed like a rape occurred, no torn fingernails in the bathroom, etc. etc. She's a lying whore because there was no DNA evidence!

However, what this rape apologist that I've been speaking with doesn't seem to realize is that this Duke rape case is basically every rape case except without the media attention. A rape victim USUALLY doesn't have DNA evidence. She might even change her story sometimes because she was probably fucked up after being raped. Her case might be handled badly by a DA. It may not be handled at all!

Does any of that mean that she's a liar? Does taking a shower after being raped mean that it never happened? In misogynist land, apparently so.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Happy Birthday, Megan!!!!

Sorry I'm late :(

It's Not Partisan when It's Conservative

Senator John Kerry was supposed to speak at Seton Hall University just before the mid-term elections, but the speach was cancelled because there was no right-wing speaker to counter him.

Tomorrow, Seton Hall University is sponsoring Pro-Life Day, "a day to learn and remember; to learn about life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and bioethical issues and to remember all those who have suffered because of violence and injustice against life."

Sounds like a real learning experience. And by "learning" I mean "brainwashing."

Monday, April 09, 2007

So about "The 300". . .

I'm of the mind that it's a patriarchy enthusiast's wet dream after hearing about it from a friend. Anyone seen it? I haven't yet and really have no desire to.

Just asking, because my boyfriend saw it a while back and said he really liked it. I didn't know much about it then so I didn't think much of it. Then today my good friend told me that she saw it with her boyfriend and told me all about the naked women who's faces you couldn't see and the implication of violent rape.

So, since I'm a lazy blogger and thus haven't posted in a while (it WAS my birthday, give me a break), I just figured I'd post about my concerns about this movie today.

Yeah. Nothing worthwhile.

Oh, and just for good measure, Don Imus is a racist/sexist asshat.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman . . . .

I hate that song. You know what else I hate? The fact that there's no proper word to refer to women in their late teens and 20s. Males are "boys" until they're about 15, and then they become "guys." They can remain "guys" forever, or they can be called men after age 18. Girls are "girls" from the time they're born until they're, what, 50? Maybe not even 50. Maybe not until we're 60 and become "old ladies." But even Bob Barker called a woman celebrating her 60th birthday the "birthday girl" the other day on The Price is Right. What I have learned from watching National Political Reporter for the Washington Post Ann Kornblut on Countdown with Keith Olbermann two nights ago is that 25-year-old women aren't even close to being women yet.

OLBERMANN: There‘s a number inside the number, Anne, as the sportscasters say, when you look at just the online fundraising. John Edwards was a lot more competitive. He had $3.3 million online, Senator Clinton has $4.2. What does that say about who in the party is supporting each of these candidates?

KORNBLUT: Well, it‘s interesting, all these advisers are saying that the Internet is the great democratizer. We thought in 2004, we‘re certainly seeing it again here. Today, when we were traveling with John Edwards, we went to the Stonyfield Farm yogurt plant here in New Hampshire. And a young girl, a 25-year-old woman who worked there came up and handed the Edwardses a $100 check. (emphasis mine)

A young girl gave the Edwards campaign a $100 check! Can you believe it? She could have spent it on clothes from Limited Too! If Edwards' base is young girls who have checking accounts and disposable income, I don't think he has a chance.