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!

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.

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."

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.

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.

I'm a Lazy Blogger Too

I find conversations about sexism to be very funny sometimes. As usual, this story comes from the-n.com message boards. Someone was talking about someone who was making some sexist rant in the middle of Times Square, saying that women shouldn't be in politics or fight in wars, etc. Of course, all of the comments I read were along the lines of "That's so sexist!" That's not so surprising. The comments that were surprising came from pro-lifers, because they were outraged about how sexist his comments were. One of the craziest pro-lifers on the boards had this to say:

"We're not all good for just baby producing, we are humans with rights to [sic]."

Gee, I remember saying this to this very pro-lifer many times while defending abortion rights. I think it's amazing how pro-lifers can defend a woman's right to participate in politics but completely deny women the fundamental rights to their bodies, which is the most sexist notion of all. What rights does one have if their body is someone else's property? Pro-lifers make it like sexism is negative comments about men or women, when pro-lifers contribute to institutionalized sexism more than all the crazy people in Times Square put together.

Great News!

It seems we might have hope for getting a real doctor to run Title X, the nation's family planning program!

Read it and weep, fundies:

Anti-birth control advocate Eric Keroack will no longer oversee Title X, the nation’s family planning program! The day he took office, Planned Parenthood launched a massive grassroots campaign against Keroack, rallying a nationwide groundswell of opposition to his appointment.

PPFA President Cecile Richards issued the following statement on the resignation:

“It’s a good day for women’s health. Keroack was unqualified to run the nation’s family planning program. The Bush administration must replace Keroack with a legitimate, mainstream public health expert who supports family planning and access to birth control. More than 17 million women in our country need access to affordable birth control. The nation’s family planning program should be run by a champion for women’s health and safety.”

On Compromise. . .

So many times in a pro-choicer's life, they will be told by pro-lifers that they need to compromise. While the first question that comes up, of course, is "WTF do you think The Prevention Act is?", there's something else that always comes to mind for me as well.

When pro-lifers say "compromise", what they really mean is "give in". There's really no way for pro-choicers to compromise with pro-lifers unless pro-lifers finally buy a clue and realize that prevention is the only way to preserve fetal life and women's rights, and thus is the only compromise that's viable (well, to any pro-lifers who aren't only interested in punishing women for unauthorized sex, how few there are). However, prevention is a pro-choice goal, so that would just mean that compromising would mean that pro-lifers would become pro-choice.

So when pro-lifers say compromise, always know that, like many other things, that's not really what they mean.

I was recently told that I needed to compromise by a quasi-choicer. I was told that I only care about the women, and that I need to consider the fetus.

I don't think I understand this mentality. I consider the fetus. I consider it medical waste if the woman doesn't want it inside her, because what's inside her is hers. Her uterus is hers no matter what's residing in it. If this is true, then the only thing that I'm being asked to compromise is the human rights of women.

That's a compromise that I'm unwilling to make. I'm not sorry for that, either.

Oh, speaking of compromise and double-binds, here's a great post by Amanda over at Pandagon about the ERA and how conservatives may react to it.

It's spring break and I'm being a lazy blogger. Cut me some slack.

America's Next Top Model Takes "Photo Shoot" Way Too Literally

Last night's episode of America's Next Top Model featured a crime scene-inspired photo shoot. Apparently, one of the show's producers is Ameila Badelia, and when she heard that there was going to be a photo shoot, she thought it would be a good idea to take photos of the models sporting bullet wounds. For someone like Tyra Banks (you know, someone whose head is bloated with the delusion that her career actually helps women), I think it's absolutely disgusting that she let this happen. Violence is not sexy. Bloody and bruised women are not fashionable. Not even when they're in lingerie.

Also, Just As An Update. . .

I think I might have to re-think my previous benefit of the doubt that I bestowed upon Mr. David Zinczenko, our resident "relationship expert" at Yahoo. He has written yet another article about men and their wants and needs from women. While some of it isn't as bad as it could be, the last part, well, ruins it.

A Woman with a Good Taste in Ties

Okay, so we don't really care about the ties per se. But what we care about is a woman's ability to give us a little-and this is a key word-gentle guidance. I know Freudian followers will say that it's a man's need to be mothered, but it's more than that. Every relationship is a give and take, and guys will definitely take women who can warn us when our new soul patch looks stupid, who can guide us to the perfect suit and shirt combo for an upcoming job interview, who can help them make decisions without being harsh or judgmental. Guys like to project that they know what they're doing and that they don't need any help. Women who can help steer us, without aggressively grabbing the wheel, are the most treasured copilots.

So men want the help of women, but don't want to actually admit that women should be able to help and express their opinions about them. Women don't get any power in this situation, but men still get the perks.

Hmm.

Male priviliege? One. Women? Zero.

Great.

Hero and Zero of the Week

If I'm ever at a bar, I hope the bartenders there are as awesome as the women in this story.

They, dearies, are heroes.

The bastards who discriminated against a woman because she became pregnant, however, are definitely zeros.

Just to let ya'll know what's up.

Are Women Too Aggressive? Only When They "Nag"

So I log onto Yahoo! and see this news story front and center.

Okay, so the first thing that made me twitch was this little section:

One trend that men have been grappling with: Figuring out their roles in relationships as women have become increasingly financially independent, increasingly sexually liberated, and increasingly determined not to let their biological clocks dictate their relationship status. Before you hurl e-tomatoes in my direction, hear me out: All those things can be good,

(Emphasis mine)

Can? Can be good? In what instances are they not good? In the instance of being a dude who doesn't want women to be liberated? Well yeah, I guess it might suck then, but for the people it's happening for, well, it's ALWAYS good, kthx.

Still, I don't think this article is all bad. It relies on age-old stereotypes from time to time, such as "Women want to label me and trap me into relationships!". Still, the author of this article claims that the generalizations about men and their perceptions of female aggression comes from speaking with dozens of men about the topic, so perhaps they're not his views but theirs. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

However, I had another problem with the author's findings:

Case in point: in the survey for Men, Love & Sex, the number-one thing that men said bothered them about their partners was how much they nagged. When a woman applies a lot of pressure on a guy-whether it's to fix his bad habits or convince him to have babies-it simply feels suffocating.

So when women are aggressive in the bedroom, which gives a guy more pleasure, it's okay with them. However, if they're aggressive in characteristics that they might like to see changed, then they're The Nag. I mean, geeze, don't you just feel the pressure on the backs of the poor men when women ask them to stop biting their nails while they're spending most of their time vacuuming them up?

Sorry dudes, but saying "Hey, I'd like for you to stop leaving the toilet seat up" or "You know, it'd be nice if you washed the dishes once in a while" or even, "Hey, why the hell do I always have to get up in the middle of the night to change little Johnny's diaper?" isn't women being too aggressive just because you don't like it.

Facts About International Family Planning

Fact: More than 500,000 women in poor countries die pregnancy-related deaths.

Fact: In 2006, the United States gave $435.5 million to these countries to provide reproductive healthcare.

Fact: $7 billion could have saved the lives of those 500,000 poor women. That's about how much our government spends on the war in Iraq in one month. Instead of using that $7 billion to save 500,000 poor women around the world in 2006, it was used to kill 150,000 Iraqi civilians.

Fact: President Bush wants to cut international family planning funding by 25% by 2008.

Fact: You can do something about it. Click here and urge your Congresspeople to say no to this reckless proposition and put that money where it belongs.

Blog Against Sexism Day 2007

Today is a big day! First of all, happy Blog Against Sexism Day, and happy International Women's Day!

To start off my post for Blog Against Sexism Day, I'd like to link to a great article from NOW. I think the stories told in this article are three glaring examples of how sexism still exists in this country. Whenever I hear someone tell me that sexism doesn't exist in this country anymore, that women are seen as equals now, or, my personal favorite, that men are the oppressed ones now, I think of stories like this and I'm just amazed at how deeply a human head can be stuck in the sand.

First you have Exhibit A, which is a legalization of rape in Maryland based on archaic misogynistic laws which state that a man is the real victim of rape because they depend so much on keeping a woman's hymen intact. Here is the law as quoted from the NOW article:

"The concept … rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial 'de-flowering' of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party—the father or the husband. This initial violation of the victim also provided the basis for the criminal proceeding against the offender. But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done."

Lovely, isn't it? Doesn't it make you feel great to live in such an enlightened country when it comes to women's rights? Make sure to note that this occurred in a state that generally has a good record as far as women's rights. If this kind of stuff can happen in a place like Maryland, we still have plenty of work to do.

What's worse is that some people agree with this ruling. As soon as it happened, I made a post about it on a teen forum I visit (The thread is no longer up, or I would link to it, although the comments that were made at Broadsheet after it happened are enough to tickle anyone's upchuck reflex). While it was good to see so much dissent, it was incredibly scary to see that some people agreed with the fact that a woman should not be able to withdraw consent after penetration has occurred. I don't understand how this can be based on anything BUT sexism. It's not protection of men's rights, as if the situation were something different, say, a man consenting to having a woman feeding him grapes. If he said, yeah, you can feed me some grapes, and she fed him and he said stop and she continued to shove them down his throat, well, that would be called assault (if not attempted murder) despite the fact that he consented in the first place. However, when it comes to women it's suddenly a great ruling because now women can't "drag" men to court anymore over false rape charges! Oh happy day! I'm so glad men are finally getting the right to have sex with non-consenting women!

Exhibit B is par for the immigration rights course, it seems. This case is just lined with anti-choice sexism. This is basically how the story goes:

Maybe Massachusetts state attorneys were taking their cues from Maryland's Court of Special Appeals judges when they whipped out an obscure 1840 law to charge a teenage Dominican immigrant with "procuring an illegal miscarriage."

Amber Abreu was unable to afford a legal abortion, so she did something common in her home country — she took Cytotec, an anti-ulcer medicine, to induce a miscarriage. The drug induced labor, and she delivered a 20 oz. fetus that was not viable, even after four days of extraordinary medical intervention. She was immediately sent to a maximum-security prison, and it took her family several days to raise bail money from the community. Now she may face murder charges as well, for doing something herself that an English-speaking 18-year-old with money could have obtained safely and legally.

Do we need any more proof that anti-choicers don't give two shits about women, especially poor, non-white women? But I'm sure there was no sexism involved in this ruling. I mean, what did the government do, use a uniquely female situation to throw a teenager in a maximum security prison? Surely not, and even if they did, it wouldn't be sexist! Right? Right?


Exhibit C, to me, is the most despicable of them all.

A woman we only know as Lucy from Orange County, California, is another example of the archaic attitudes that threaten women even today. Lucy was stalked and sexually assaulted by a police officer, and then was further victimized by that police officer's unabashedly sexist lawyer..

. . .

After Lucy reported what happened and the case went to court, the officer's attorneys argued that she "got what she wanted. She's an overtly sexual person." A jury of 11 men and one woman found the officer not guilty.

I think I'll have to refer to Femily's earlier post for my true, raw feelings on this case. Thanks for that one, Femily.

However, I'm thinking that perhaps the jury (you know, that panel of her almost all-male peers?) ruled the way they did because they couldn't find a male that was responsible for Lucy's hymen.

I am so tired of people thinking that strippers ask for violation just because of the line of work they're in. If someone punches a boxer on a night he's not in the ring, is it not assault? If someone punches him on a night that he IS in the ring, does it not get prosecuted? Hell, even that isn't a good analogy, really, because it's not okay to rape strippers and sex workers while they're on the job, either.

Once again, this is in California, another state that is generally woman-friendly. As the article points out, if this is allowed to go down in states that harbor less misogyny, I shudder to think of what would be allowed to occur in more conservative states.

Like I said before, this article is a prime example of why Blog Against Sexism Day still exists, and why it still needs to exist. I don't care what any richwhiteheterohonkyboy says. Sexism still exists. It's alive and well whenever a representative of the law is allowed to ejaculate on and rape a woman with impunity. It rears it's hideous head whenever a scared pregnant teenager is put in a maximum security prison for exercising her right to bodily autonomy in the only way she could manage*, and it's obvious that it still needs to be stabbed to death when a U.S. state makes rape legal. That is why I'm blogging against sexism tonight. It's why I'm a feminist, and it's why I run this blog. It's also why I hope that people are reading this and saying, "You know what, this shit ain't right", and joining the effort to combat the forces in the American war against women. This is what these stories can tell you. Uncle Sam DOESN'T want YOU to join the army of those who would fight for women's freedoms, but that shouldn't stop you.

This, this, this, and this are all real, and they can all happen. They all occur in this country. Large or small, every battle needs to be fought, and hopefully won. Our president is chipping away at women's reproductive freedoms and is downright chopping up the budget for the department that focuses on women's health. Our law enforcement is not only raping women, they are also throwing rape victims in jail. Objectifying women and holding them to a different standard is still a favorite pastime of nasty internet dudes and domestic violence is still running rampant.

Knowing all of this, you can't tell me sexism is dead, and I'm going to fight it until it is.

________________________________

*I'm not endorsing home abortions, however, I do sympathize with the desperate women who try them when they have no other options either legally or financially.

My City Makes It's Name in the World, Too Bad the Name it Took is "Bible-beating Bully Heaven".

A little while ago, Largo City Manager Steve Stanton announced that he would be seeking a sex-change operation. He is a woman and wants his body to match his gender. He wants to be Susan Stanton, no, scratch that, he is Susan Stanton and simply wants his anatomy to reflect that.

However, some Bible-beating bullies who live in Largo want to tie Jesus up (and gag him to make sure He doesn't contradict) and beat poor Susan over the head with Him. Susan is facing firing because of the members of this homobigot conglomeration.

Check this out:

Until last week, he had served 14 years as the city manager, generally to good reviews.

That is, until he wanted to be who he really is. Now, suddenly, Steve was a wonderful employee, but Susan is "deceitful" and lacks integrity. Perhaps the Christianity-defiling hooligans at Indian Rocks Baptist aren't just showing how they feel about transgendered people, but women as well. But hey, I wouldn't wantto take awat their right to take away the rights and jobs of others because they feel squirmy when people don't fit into gender roles that generate stuff like "Men and boys fishing retreats", which, yes, Indian Rocks has.

I am disgusted that the city of Largo would allow this injustice to occur. Send a letter to the Largo City Commission and let them know that bigotry and bullying from "Christians" who spend more money on a Jesus theme park than what Jesus actually said won't be tolerated.

A Post About How I Can't Post

I cannot blog about this story. I just can't. I know I should, but I can't. Anything I'd write about it would be too ridiculous, dripping in too much privilege, and generally too disgusted and emotionally charged to be at all important. If I were a better blogger, maybe I could. But as of right now, I just can't.

So, I hereby direct you to ilyka's post about it at Pandagon, because something has to be said of this monstrosity.

Wouldn't It Be Great . . .

If this happened to every sexist asshole on the planet?

But honestly, I'd settle for this.

South Dakota State Senate Committee KO's New Abortion Ban

That makes me want to say "Rejected!" like Walt "Clyde" Frazier and Keith Hernandez do in that Just for Men commercial.

The "new and improved" South Dakota abortion ban that was supposed to get more supports was rejected by the state Senate committee 8-1. I just hope that it wasn't rejected for the fact that it wasn't strict enough, but that doesn't seem to be the case. State Representative and bill sponsor Gordon "I Just Don't Know When to Give Up" Howie is going to try to bring the bill to the full Senate anyway.

Of Special Interest To Me

I'm an art history geek, so when I got this link from NOW in my e-mail, I was really excited and wanted to share it. It's about the new feminist art museum that just opened in Brooklyn, New York, The Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art.

The above work is The Dinner Party by Judy Chicago. It looks amazing. It's a triangular table with place settings for 39 prominent female figures, and on the tile floor beneath the table, the names of 999 other prominent women, to Margaret Sanger to Sojourner Truth.

I love the way it mimics past art in the title and the subject matter. I think it's very effective in glorifying the women that it mentions. I absolutely love the concept. Wish I could see it. Gotta put it on my list.

Check out the museum website!

Ponderings Coupled with PostSecret

Postsecret has a lot of great images up this week. Many of them have themes consistent with gender/feminist issues. Definitely worth a look.

This one caught my eye:
Not only did the verbal imagery remind me of certain people I know, it is also a very powerful message about the state of rape awareness in this culture.

I've heard too many stories of women who have been raped and don't even know it. It's just more proof of how morphed society's view of sex really is. If sex can be confused with rape, or rape with sex, then something is amiss with our view of sexuality.

All this gray area does is create rape apologists who explain and justify rape (and the subsequent slap on the wrist that most rapists get if they're brought to court at all) with things like "Well, she must have just been teasing him" or "How was he supposed to know she was being serious? Women say 'no' when they mean 'yes' all the time".

This is also why I dislike depictions of sex, be they in books/movies/television, that create a fight-sex mentality. That sex as a struggle is somehow erotic or better than sex that is obviously consensual is not a concept that I'm a fan of.

Now, for risk of being labeled "anti-sex", "frigid", or "prude", allow me to say that whatever one does in their own bedroom is their business (unless its abusive or non-consensual of course).

Still, all the time, trashy romance novels, soap operas, popular F/X television shows, movies, and all different forms of entertainment show sex as some sort of erotic battle. The less consent the better it seems. This attitude also spans every range of taste. And of course, this isn't even mentioning the fact that this is often the main line of defense in rape cases.

Even so, the people who write/direct/create these works don't even seem to buy into what they're presenting (with perhaps the exception of Dennis Leary). Even in these consensual rape fantasies, it's still consensual! So, the only thing that is presented is rape as a violent act of domination, and with that, the line is blurred. What is consent when sex is supposed to be a battle?

It's no wonder people have secrets like the one above. How could anyone ever know if they consented or not when non-consent is often portrayed as consent?

Happy V-Day!

Take Action for Women in Mariana Islands

For those who don't know, Northern Mariana Islands is a US territory located in the Pacific Ocean. You've probably seen "Made in Northern Mariana Islands" on the garment tags of your clothing. Maybe it just said "Made in USA," but it was actually made by indentured servants in the Northern Mariana Islands. Well, Congress is trying to stop the exploitation of these people buy passing labor laws that are equal to those in the US. Here's a disturbing article about the sweatshop conditions women in the Northern Mariana Islands work in and the abuse they have to endure (including forced abortions) just to keep their jobs that was published in Ms. Magazine last year.

Basically, Saipan tricks people, mostly women from China, into working in "America." They pay thousands of dollars to relocate, only to work off their debt in garment factories in Saipan making clothes for Abercrombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, and other major retailers for $3.00 an hour. Here's a very interesting video I just found that exposes sweatshops in Saipan.

Female Freedom?

My sister sent me this site.

It's pretty crazy. I love the idea, considering it is pretty bad to be a woman and have to pee when there is no bathroom (or hygienic bathroom) around. Still, I have a little bit of a problem with equating women's freedom simply with the ability to be like men. Still, overall I think it's a good thing.

Anyway, I just thought it was crazy. Any thoughts?

Wal-Mart Faces Billion-Dollar Lawsuit for Sex Discrimination

And there's why. As many as 1.5 million former and current female employees of Wal-Mart allege they were paid less and denied promotions because they're women. Now the case is going to trial. Here's a very short article announcing this news, and here's some more detailed information about the case.

Another "Men Are More Logical Than Women" Spouter Offers Himself As Proof Of The Opposite

Check out this guy.

First of all, I want you to know that men have Logic-o-rama. Women, well, we just don't. Estrogen just doesn't come with little logic capsules. Penis = logic. Uterus = emotional and illogical.

Going there would just be beating a dead horse.

It just goes downhill from there. Women get into science classes in college because men are discriminated against. Feminism is a hate movement. There are like a bajillion laws in place that discriminate against men. Feminism like totally wasn't and isn't needed because women would have gotten their rights without it. Science like totally is teh roxzorz.

That, my dears, is the basic gist of it.

My response was as follows (It is only so short because og character restrictions):

But then if we get into your science programs, it would only be because you were discriminated against!! Or are we only to look from the sidelines in skimpy cheerleading outfits? In any case, the invention of the pill came before a court case which made it legal. It's invention would have been meaningless had women not been able to legally use it, and I don't think you change laws in a laboratory. I don't think science gave women the right to vote, either.

In response, I received this:

The first part of your post is irratinal don't want to be a cheerleader? Then don't. You can do what you want to do, didn't anyone tell you that? (btw, I did study science in uni and there was anti-male discrimination).

The second parts are good points, yes there are good changes that feminists have made, but feminism takes credit for all the advances that women have made.. Advances that would not have happened if the science wasn't ready. That was my point.

So by now I'm just laughing. However, while laughing, I constructed what I believe to be quite a clever response to Mr. ArgusEyes.

My comment was just a tad on the long side for YouTube regulations, so I figured I'd just send you a message. I hope such a thing is not too bold. In any case, here is what I had wanted to say before I was denied by ridiculous character restrictions:

The point was not irrational because you didn't get it. The cheerleader comment was a snide remark in reference to first the "men have more logical minds" (yeah right) comment, and secondly, the "man-discrimination". The point was that you say look to science, yet when we do and we beat out the men who also look to science, we're told it's because men are just discriminated against. Therefore, you must not want women to actively participate in science, just watch and ooh and ahh over your manly logicalness (yes, I know that's not a word). If you believe men were being discriminated against, then you must believe that the women who took their places were not as qualified as the men. I saw no explanation for such a belief. Having a special interest in including women isn't discriminating against men. You say that there were 8 women in your class, right? Do you believe they were all inferior to the male candidates they beat out? I mean, if I did try to go into science, wouldn't I just be stepping on all of the men who are better at it than I am? Wouldn't you consider me a black mark on the boy's club of logical thinking? You say all these things in your comment ("You can do whatever you like"), yet it completely contradicts your apparent attitude in your video (If you're in a science class and have excess amounts of estrogen, it's because men are discriminated against and you suck at logic and science). Someone's wringing their hands.

In any case, without feminism, the advances of science would have been meaningless. When epidurals first came out, many people were against them because of the Bible and the whole "pain in childbirth" thing. Therefore, feminism had to step in. Didn't see science doing anything for women that it wasn't doing for anyone else. Science improves the lives of everyone, but it doesn't work in awarding people human rights. That requires social efforts. What you're suggesting is that because science helps everyone, it's been better for women than feminism. I mean, I'm sure scientific breakthroughs in diagnosing and handling Sickle Cell Anemia helped the black community because Sickle Cell Anemia disproportionately affects black people, but it didn't do more for their human rights than the civil rights movement. It just improved their quality of life just like it would have for anyone. Big whoop!

Not only that, but you've changed your story. Is feminism a horrible hate movement or has it had positive changes? Are you saying positive changes can come from hating men and erecting horrible man-hate laws that just keep men down? Come on now. Not only that, but you specifically said that feminism was not needed. Women would have gotten those rights anyway. I see absolutely no evidence of that, and in fact, see evidence in direct OPPOSITION to that. That was also contradicted by your saying that feminism has had positive effects.

So, in conclusion, I think you yourself are proof that perhaps men aren't more logical than women. It was a good attempt at defaming feminism, though. I give you points for creativity at least.

Also, feel free to watch his other videos. Did you know? Women are more sexist than men! Oh the horror!

Well, I Must Have Been Mistaken

I've always thought that calling a prominent woman by her first name was condescending, or that introducing yourself to an important social figure or otherwise superior individual by anything other than your first and last name was disrespectful. I talked about this a few weeks ago here when it came to pundits on the airwaves referring to Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as simply "Hillary." Well, apparently she doesn't mind it. Her URL is "votehillary.org" And then there's her campaign store. I guess that makes me a bit ol' fashioned.

SD's New But Not Improved Abortion Ban

As if an abortion ban can ever be improved!

Exceptions are going to be made to the abortion ban that South Dakotans voted down last November. Rape and incest will join "life of the mother" as acceptable exceptions to terminating pregnancy. I heard on the radio this afternoon that there are even exceptions to the words "rape" and "incest."

"This year's bill would allow rape victims to get abortions if they report the rapes to police within 50 days. Doctors would have to confirm the report with police and would have to take blood from aborted fetuses and give that information to police for DNA testing. "

I hope young girls who have just begun having their period or older women approaching menopause never get raped, as they're the most likely to not take two missed periods as a sign of pregnancy. "

"In the case of incest, a doctor would have to get the woman's consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed. Blood samples from fetuses would have to be provided to police in incest cases, too."

Quite disgusting. How far will these pro-lifers go in not only their pursuit of ownership of every woman, but their general distrust of women? Which (at the risk of sounding like Stephen Colbert) brings us to tonight's word:

Pro-life Sentence.

Pro-lifers strive for a world without safe abortion. They want every woman to be forced into pregnancy and like it. They don't care about the tens of thousands of women who die in the world every year from botched abortions. What pro-lifers really want is for all females to have life sentence once they come out of the womb. They want a world where being born female is a life sentence as a sex slave for right-wing politicians, religious zealots, and narcissistic and anti-social personalities everywhere.

And then there's the penalty for illegal abortions: 10 years in prison, which is how much one would get for vehicular manslaughter. Why not life imprisonment? I thought personhood began at zygotehood! This is obvious proof that even pro-life legislators know that a pregnancy is not a person. Anti-choice legislation never protects "the child" or women. It only protects their pathological need to control people.

Since South Dakotans got well more than enough signatures to bring the first abortion ban to voters (you know, the people that this law would actually affect, and not the impotent/post-menopausal state lawmakers), I'm confident that pro-choicers will vote on this law to and win.

Tell Hillsborough County That Victimizing Victims Isn't Okay

Planned Parenthood is having a Take Action! campaign to get justice for the woman who was raped, arrested, denied bond, and then refused her emergency contraception due to a "conscience clause".

Go here to send a letter to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department and tell them that arresting the victims of crimes while letting the perpetrators of said crimes go free is not okay, and make sure that they know that employees are supposed to do their jobs and not endanger the health/well-being of female inmates just because they can't keep their theology to themselves.

Blog for Choice Broke the Record This Year!

I just received an e-mail saying that over 500 people Blogged for Choice last Monday for the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. How exciting! You can see all of the blogs that particpated, including Feminists to the Rescue, here.

Times When I Really Love My City

This story truly has it all.

For a little background, Gasparilla is a local pirate festival that happens annually. It usually looks like great fun (besides the night party of "Zomg show me ur boobz!1"), but now I'm not too sure I'll ever be going now that I know that I might get arrested should I get raped while there.

So the story is that a young Tampa student was walking to her car from Gasparilla when a man grabbed her and dragged her away to rape her. When she got away to call the police, they helped her at first but then arrested her because of an outstanding warrant from when she was a juvenile. She was then denied bail and had to spend the night in jail. I am so happy that another woman could spend the night in jail for being a rape victim while her rapist runs free.

Check out this quote from the victim's mother:

"They were more interested in prosecuting her for something that's a paperwork snafu from four years ago, that was juvenile. They were more interested in working on that than finding an experienced rapist," stated the victim's mother.

Absolutely true, from what I've been able to find out about this horrendous case. Not only that, but we have a fundie medical supervisor at the jailhouse who refused to give the victim the emergency contraception that had been prescribed to her. Apparently, she used the religion excuse to try to finish the job of the woman's rapist. The woman's attorney isn't taking many prisoners in his interviews, however, so at least he's on the ball. Check out these pretty powerful words:

"The medical supervisor would not allow her to take the pill because she said it was against her, the supervisor's, religion. So, here we have a medical supervisor imposing her beliefs on a rape victim," claimed the victim's attorney Virlyn Moore. "As a human being, how someone could be so violated by this monster and then the system comes along and rapes her again psychologically and emotionally - it's outrageous and unconscionable."

Preach it, dude. I hope you get this girl a very good settlement. Sew the city for everything they've got and then get the medical supervisor who should have picked "preacher" out of the hat instead of "medical professional" when blindly choosing a career path.

So, let's see:

Woman raped in broad daylight? Check.
Police generally treating her like crap? Check.
Victim punished for being a victim? Check.
Victim denied emergency contraception by Bible beating moron? Check.
Rapist not brought to justice? Check.

Told you it had it all.

Truly I am disgusted by the area in which I live.

Those Wimpy Bitches

In another stereotypical article about women being but maybe not as vain as men (*gasp*, men and women can be multi-faceted AND similar at the same time? BLASPHEMYYY!!!1), I am happy to report that women were once again reminded of how wimpy they are.


Here is said stereotypical article.

The problem that I have with this article is that I'm not quite sure of where to place the blame. Is it the author or is he just the messenger that I really feel like shooting? Take this sentence:

Now ladies, you may be tempted to decry this as further evidence of the wimpification of the American male. Or say that men are the new women.

Now, is this him applying this to women, as if we hate our own supposed inherent characteristics enough to hate men for having them, or is this an actuality? That women will think that men are wimps because they care a little bit about what they look like? I didn't decry a thing in this article other than an overall feeling that femininity was being equated with vanity, wimpiness, and weakness.

Still, I'm not sure who's making this equation. Is it the article's author, or U.S. society in general? Hell, maybe it's both.

Give us presents!

It's Feminists to the Rescue's birthday!

For our birthday, you should sign this petition:

www.licensetochoose.org

Don't Abort Jesus!

I think this photo shows pro-lifer's notion that every fetus (or, judging by the illustration on this poster, 6-month-old infant) is the next Jesus. Here are more photos from a cracked-out pro-lifer fundy, some with ironic captions. Is anyone else disturbed by the number of young children that were there? Pulling your kid out of school to brainwash them is completely irresponsible and a sign of bad parenting.* These kids don't even have to worry about this issue now, since they're not physically mature enough to procreate. Abortion is a heavy issue. Let kids enjoy their quick childhood. These are the same parents that protest Garadsil being given to 9-year-olds because they're not old enough to have sex yet. Oh, the contradictions!


*I would say the same if this were the March for Women's Lives. Honestly, I don't agree with parents bringing their children to any type of rally like this, because it's too complicated for children to really understand. I saw a lot of kids at the rally against genocide in Central Park back in September, and I don't think kids should be exposed to the ugliness of the world at such a young age. When kids are exposed to images of murdered children and dismembered stillborn fetuses (which pro-lifers display on posters as if this is what abortion is, even though most abortions occur when the embryo is between 1/2 and 1 inch in length), they don't see it as a symbol of anything. It's only frightening to them.

Blogging for Reproductive Justice, Blogging for Choice

I like this new term that has popped up within the blogosphere as of late. While i thinnk that "choice" is certainly a perfect term for what I support, I think "reproductive justice" is also accurate, and certainly more powerful. "Reproductive justice" encompasses a lot more than abortion rights. It requires thinking about and fighting for the rights of pregnant women no matter what. It seems as though once a woman becomes pregnant, she loses her personhood status (assuming she had it in the first place) and becomes a broodmare. This fact is one of the reasons why I never want to become pregnant in my lifetime. Being pregnant in this society is humiliating and degrading. People feel as though they can tell you what to eat, what to wear, when to do what, how to give birth, when they can touch you and where, etc. etc. etc. and the list goes on. That's not even the most disturbing part. There are also forced c-sections with no consent given by the pregnant woman. Patronizing attitudes from doctors who think they know so much more and thus have a right to override a woman's right to consenting to a medical procedure. There is so much more than just the choice for an abortion out there, and I think that on this day that commemorates such an occasion for women's rights, a victory day for reproductive justice, that these things need to be discussed.

As for me? I'm still happy that we held on another year. We had some victories and some tough battles this year, but women's freedoms are still here. We are stillholding on to our right to bodily autonomy and integrity, and I am thankful every day that I don't have to worry that one day I might be forced to carry a rapist's baby, or any pregnancy that I don't want to carry. It makes me happy to know that my right to privacy is still legally equal to my boyfriend's, that neither of us will be forced to donate bodily resources at this time. I am happy ot know that I still have sexual freedom, despite the fact that some people would love to punish me for it.

Roe v Wade is a great monument for women's rights. Here's to having it stick around for many generations of women to come.

Happy Blog for Choice Day, ya'll.

P.S. - Fundies have too much money. They're televising the March for (Fetal) Life on two channels.

Roe v. Wade: My Personal Department of Homeland Security

Today is the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade, and even these moronic comments by Dubya can't get me down. So I guess this is my blog for choice.

I see Roe v. Wade as a second birthday for all women. January 22nd is a day that I recognize as not only just another day that I'm alive, but it's a day that I know I can live my life without the idea of pregnancy and motherhood plaguing me. Before Roe v. Wade, women were bound by their reproductive systems. A woman's life spanned the distance between her ovaries and vaginal openning. She was judged based on what she did with her reproductive system, what went in it, and what came out (even what doesn't go in and come out). Roe v. Wade has removed this physical burden from women. The mental burden still remains by guilt-trip -- oh, I mean "pro-life" organizations and legislators -- that try to make women feel bad for not wanting children, even before they become pregnant. Post-abortion syndrome was not invented to help women. It's a way to confuse and trick women into keeping their pregnancies, not for their own benefit, but for the wishes of people who don't care about her or her family.

The reason I am pro-choice is quite simple: Women are people. People have lives. People have minds. People have desires. People have other people. People have responsibilities. People are not simply their bodies. People are not the oppressive roles that have been assigned to their gender. Pro-lifers do not believe women are people; they believe they are baby factories. They don't believe that women have minds of their own; they believe that we can be brainwashed by Bible verses and pictures of still-born fetuses that they tell us are abortions. They don't believe that women have desires outside of having babies and raising families. If women don't have this desire, they are abnormal. If they have other desires, they don't matter. Pro-lifers don't consider the lives of a woman's existing children. 61% of women who have abortions are already mothers. They don't believe that these women have responsibilities to these children, or job responsibilities, or responsibilities to their education. Yet, they tell these women that they have to "take responsibility for their actions" and be forced into parenthood, which only inhibits these woman's abilities to take care of their other more important responsibilities that she's actually chosen for the benefit of her life. Pro-lifers believe that a woman's body and sexist gender roles are her destiny from menarche to menopause. Those are the beliefs of the so-called pro-life movement. Doesn't sound like they care about anyone's life, does it?

Women need legal abortion. Whether one would ever get one or not isn't an issue. I feel comfortable and secure knowing that if I ever become pregnant, my pregnancy will be solely my business. It will truly be my pregnancy, not the pregnancy of the government, Care-Net, or of any man who believes if they poke me they own me.

Ha Ha Ha-Ha Ha! *raspberry!*

Few heed Operation Rescue's call for abortion protest

Why Are People Voting For These Guys?!

I'm absolutely tickled when pro-life politicians are open about their backward pro-life views. Then I become horrified when I realize that people actually voted them into office. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has been going on various shows promoting his new book From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 STOPS to Restoring America's Greatness. A couple of nights ago, he was on The Daily Show and said, "I'm pro-life, but I think life begins at conception, but I don't think it ends at birth. We have to be concerned about a child's education, healthcare, safe neighborhoods, clean water, the access to a college education. That is pro-life, to care about a child's entire life."* Except if that child is born a girl and grows up to be a fertile woman. While Mike Huckabee is a rare pro-lifer in that he actually cares about children, he's your typical misogynistic pro-lifer who believes a woman's life begins at her ovaries and ends at the vaginal openning. You know, there's a political party that believes all people should live in a clean and safe environment and have an exceptional educational experience without limiting the human rights of women. I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "Democrat."

Last night, Mike Huckabee was on Hardball with Chris Matthews and had this to say about why he became a Republican.

"I became a Republican as a teenager. And I did it because I believed that we needed a sense of personal responsibility. I believed in lower taxes, smaller government. I believed in the things that I was hearing from people like Ronald Reagan. And as a result of that, I became a Republican out of conviction.
I‘m pro-life. I believe that there are a lot of things that we ought to really preserve."

Personal responsibility? He doesn't want women taking personal responsibility if he's going to force pregnancy on all of them. Smaller government? I wouldn't call a government that inserts their backwards ideology in the lives of every woman small. Preservation? Of what? Your pathological need to control people, to increase the population? Certainly not human rights! When it comes to unwanted pregnancy, the pro-lifer is the only person who actually wants the child. Why doesn't Huckabee have his own kids? Why doesn't he get his wife or whoever pregnant every time a woman has an abortion? He can make thousands of them and pay for every one of them.

Hopefully his book will do horribly and he'll decide against running in '08.

*Click the "Daily Show" link and search for Mike Huckabee to watch the video. His pro-life bull is mentioned in Part 2.

A Sexist Part of Your Complete Breakfast

A commercial for new Strawberry Delight Frosted Mini Wheats begins in a classroom with an original Frosted Mini Wheat on a boy's shoulder and a pink strawberry Frosted Mini Wheat on a girl's shoulder. The orignial mini wheat says to the strawberry one, "What's a cute girl like you doing in a classroom like this?" A classroom like what, I wonder? A gifted math class? The strawberry Mini Wheat happens to be male and isn't exactly thrilled about wearing pink. Strike two! What next? A fat check to Fathers for Life?

Video Game Bitches Ain't Shit

When I'm bored, I often go to AddictingGames.com to play a neat little flash or shockwave game or two. I hadn't been there in a while, and when I went this time, I found a great and wonderful game!

Jack The Ripper!

Because what's cooler than being able to re-enact the awful murders of women? Will there be a serial rapist game next?

Here's the creator's website. Send him an e-mail if you don't think beheading women is very fun.

Because How Many Hillarys Could There Be?

I've noticed that pundits on cable news networks are referring to Democratice presidential candidate and Senator of New York Hillary Rodham Clinton as simply "Hillary." "Do you think Hillary will run?" "Do you think Hillary has a chance of winning the nomination?" Blah, blah, blah. Doesn't she have a last name? Do they have to call her by her first name because everyone would get confused if we called her Clinton? Are people going to hear about "Clinton" running for president in 2008 and think, "I didn't know the Constitution has been changed so that Bill Clinton could be elected to a third term! I must have been too busy digging up dirt on TomKat to pay attention!"? What other candidates are being regularly referred to by only their first names? I'm going to have to start counting.

OH NOES! Man Assault!!!

So I was watching this ABC News Special Thing called "What Would You Do?" or something. Sadly, Mark Summers was not present nor was there any sliming, but it was still pretty interesting.

They did a segment on what a person would do if they saw a person abusing their significant other in the park. They did it with men and women, and, gasp, no ne really cared when it was a woman abusing a man. Well, duh, why would they in our patriarchal society? Women don't have the power to abuse in our society, so no one took it seriously. It just shows how patriarchy hurts men, too.

However, I had a major problem with the segment right from the very beginning. The segway into it was a showing of clips from various movies, making the point of "Violence against men is shown often in movies and laughed off" or something, as if violence against women isn't used as small story-movers. One was a woman slapping a man, the other was a shot of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" wenches (I guess because they slap Jack Sparrow all the time, but they didn't show them slapping him). But there was another that really caught my eye. I'm not sure what movie it was from, I think it may have been "Shakespeare in Love" but I haven't seen that movie so I'm not sure. Anyway, the clip was of a man kissing a woman, and her shoving him off her her.

So, I'm like "Wtf? How is that violence against men for a woman to shove him off of her if he's kissing her?". Can anyone explain that to me? Or has anyone possibly seen Shakespeare in Love, if that's what this clip is from, and tell me if there's some context that I'm missing? Since when is "Hey, get the hell off me I don't want you to kiss me" domestic violence or abuse?

Why Condi Won't Run, According to Laura Bush

"Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."

So it has nothing to do with that proverbial Post-It she neglected in January 2001, which went something like "Attn: National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Re: Terrorist Attack by Osama bin Laden."

Here's the segment on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann of his interview with Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News. It shows just how much Laura Bush knows about marriage . . . .

Margaret Carlson: "It may be what's inside Mrs. Bush, that to be single would be a terrible thing. She married 3 months after meeting George Bush and obviously wanted to be married." [emphasis mine]

And what makes a supportive family . . . .

Margaret Carlson: "Condi Rice is the daughter that Bush doesn't have. The twins don't go to Camp David and barely come home for holidays."

And how big of a hypocrite she is.

Margaret Carlson: "I think maybe Laura Bush is an only child."
Keith Olbermann: "Yup. I think you're right."

Without Dependency, Anarchy Ensues

Okay, so I hate my fourth period class. It's Mystery, Myth, and Horror, and while I love the teacher and some of the curriculum is marginally interesting, I hate my classmates. My boyfriend is in there, an old friend of mine, and a friend of a friend who is actually a very nice guy is in that class. All the rest are basically asinine globs of teengoo. What does this have to do with dependency, you ask? Well, by itself, not much, however, it's merely an intro to another personal situation in which I tried to feminist.

All of the globs of teengoo hate the teacher of this class. I think she's the bee's knees, personally, but then again, I an carry on a conversation with an adult that doesn't involve "You don't understaaaaand meeee!!1", so perhaps I'm just not able to see things from their warped perspective. Anyway, we had a substitute today, so everyone was cheering and thanking God. I sighed and settled in for an hour and a half of stupid.

So anyway, the substitute was no push over. She was a pretty feisty old lady. I imagine that if I knew her outside of school, she'd be a pretty good poster child for "outrageous older woman". In any case, she was simply trying to do her job and everyone was giving her a hard time.

Anyway, I was trying to combat as much dumb as possible with wit and dissent, however, things still steadily went downhill.

First of all, there were two head dumbasses in the class. Dumbass 1 felt the need to sexually harass a female classmate as she walked into the class late. Dumbass 1 is really who we'll be dealing with most in this little story. Dumbass 2 just felt the need to scream obscenities across the room and announce genitalia at random intervals.

I told Dumbass 1 to please stop sexually harrassing the poor girl, as she seemed a little confused as to what was going on. I was not taken seriously and the lewd comments continued, of course.

Finally, toward the end of the class when I got my stuff done I was talking to the aforementioned nice guy and his friend who is also pretty okay. We were prettymuch minding our own business, actually discussing how patriarchy affects definitions of words and how such definitions can create oppression of both men AND women (we looked up "rape" and it singled out females as the only possible victims, it was an interesting discussion). Anyway, Dumbass 1 then felt the need to throw paper balls at us. I happened to feel a wad of paper hit me square in the ass and so I turned around got up, and walked toward Dumbass 1. He ran away yelling that I "looked like Satan" because I was obviously not happy that somehow a body part of mine became a target for him. I told him that if he did it again, there would be consequences. Lo and behold, a feel a paper ball hit my ass again. So anyway, I got up again, he once again screamed for help, and I walked up to the substitute and asked her to write him a referral to the office which she gladly did.

What does this story of asshattery and sexual harassment have to do with dependency?

It sparked a conversation between my boyfriend and I. As I mentioned before, he is in that class. He didn't say anything throughout the entire ordeal, so I asked him why he didn't later.

He said that he knew I didn't need it, that I could hold my own. He said that he didn't want to step on my argument and independence toes. I appreciate that, but that brings me to the crux of this post: Needing versus wanting.

It's a common anti-feminist tactic to draw on men's fears of not feeling "needed" and the awfulhorriblezomgness that those fears cause in men and boys. It seems as though to an anti-feminist, if a woman isn't in dire need of being rescued at all times, men and boys have massive mental breakdowns in record numbers. The sanity of male humans depends solely upon female humans being dependent upon them for, well, everything, it seems.

However, I think this is ridiculous. Not only does it create the idea that women's "power" lies in driving men insane simply for wanting to be treated like real people, and thus no women would really want to be treated like people while being moral in the process, it also creates the idea that being needed is somehow better than being wanted.

This is interesting, to me, because in Patriarchy land, women are not needed, simply wanted for the pleasures of the men that own them. Sure, they "need" them to be broodmares, however, that need is not as pressing as, say, the need to eat or be able to defend yourself against attacks, etc.

So to me, it seems like said anti-feminists are once again saying that sub-human "not being needed" status that drives men insane is okay for women. Women don't need to be needed, they can be "wanted" like all other second-rate things.

I just think that it's amazing how many layers of sexism anti-feminist arguments really do build up and love up on. It's disgusting.

Anyway, you wrap up, I promptly told my boyfriend that he was right. I didn't and don't need him to take over and handle situations like that for me. However, I would WANT him to stand up for me at least a little, like back-up. He had no problem with that. He likes being wanted rather than wishing I needed him. The awesomeness of that in a society that tells him he's less of a man if he's not NEEDED by a lesser woman is astounding.

"So-Called Problem Pregnancies"

Hear that, ladies? All that time you thought you actually didn't want to be pregnant and that that was a problem, well, now Mister Asshat has corrected you.

As we all know, today is Free Emergency Contraception Day at Planned Parenthood. This is a great thing for women today. Thanks, Planned Parenthood.

However, whenever something good for women happens, some prick has to go and try to ruin it.

Some dude was on the news because he was protesting free emergency contraception day. In his little interview thing, he had the audacity to say, and I quote "so-called problem pregnancy". What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That pregnancy could never possibly be a problem for a woman? Seriously, this is one dude that I think should be on the list for the watermelon up the ass.

I seriously don't know what would possess someone to do something like that (well, except I do, but you know), especially if they claim to be "pro-life". Just more proof that being pro-life is less about "saving babies" and more about controlling women.

Stop "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act"

This Wednesday (December 6), the House will vote on the misleading "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," which would make doctors give women seeking abortions after the 20th week of gestation literature suggesting that they be given expensive fetal anesthesia. According to NOW, "[T]he text of this brochure tells each woman that her 'unborn child' will experience pain while 'being killed in an abortion' The doctor would then be required to offer the woman anesthesia or another "pain reducing drug" to be administered directly to the fetus." Sounds like anti-choice scare tactics to me. Being that there's no brain function in human fetuses until the 27th week, it's impossible to feel any pain before then. Isn't it great when right wingers pen medical laws instead of doctors (No, I don't consider Bill Frist a doctor). It looks like they copied and pasted this law from the National Right to Life's official website.

"Partial-birth abortion is an abortion in which the abortion practitioner delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing the delivery of the dead infant, and as further defined in 18 U.S.C. 1531.

"Child's brains?" I guess we all lose our extra brains until we are left with only one sometime after we're born. The best is how they define "unborn child."

"UNBORN CHILD- The term `unborn child' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development."

So according to the US Government, anyone who is reading this (and everyone who isn't) is an unborn child.

EDIT: Phew.

Good News!

New Hampshire becomes the first state to provide girls the HPV vaccine for free.

Thank God that Bill Frist won't run for President in 2008. Aw. Hims looks so sad!

Wallowing in Dudeslop

Put away your dictionaries, for I have made up this word. Dudeslop, my friends, is my new term. I may or may not use it often, for one cannot tell the future. However, in contemplating my night it was the only description that came to mind.

I'm sure you all know what Hooters is. You may not be familiar with Ker's Winghouse, however. They are basically synonymous. They sell chicken wings, fries, and women's bodies for a living.

Tonight I swallowed up my principles and stepped into one, and all for a Mahi Mahi sandwich for my mother to get indigestion from.

First of all, you have to love the billboards that tower high above the city's roads. Four or five girls in low-cut tank-tops and tiny black shorts gathered around a huge plate of chicken wings with the slogan "Need We Say More?". No, you needn't say more. We get that you sell the opportunity to ogle women while getting plastered and filled to the brim with macho foods. Got that covered.

Now, I may line in Florida, but it's been cold lately. It was about 57 degrees tonight. Not freezing, but not summer either. What do you thik the uniform was? Why, tank tops and tiny shorts, of course! We wouldn't want to sacrifice the ass-crack ogling experience of our patriarchal patrons so that unsightly icicles don't hang off the rumps of our products. They have fifteen minute breaks (if that, I'm being generous here) and hairdryers for that type of miscellaneous bullshit. Besides, they were nice enough to let them cover their legs with some stockings. I'm sure it was a big help when I was walking around saying "Brr" in my jacket and scarf.

And if having freezing women in hardly any clothes wait on you isn't enough to satisfy your dudely cravings for chicken and female human flesh, there's always a nice bikini-ridden calendar to take home! Complete with (probably the nice unsafe) silicone gazongas to wish you could ever take a gander at in real life.

Next were the lovely clothing items for sale. My favorite had to be the one that was warning men not to consume too much alcohol lest a "2 looks like a 10". I wouldn't want any of the hunks that get blasted at Winghouse to be seen with such an unsightly number as the second in the series. Surely every patriarch is at least entitled to an "8" or "9".

So, we all agree that this is pretty objectifying, no?

Sure, they're being ogled, but that's what they chose to do for a living, right? No harm, no foul, why can't they be ogled? That's what they're there for! They chose to do it. If they don't like it, they needn't be there! The dudes have no responsibility not to ogle, and the company has no responsibility not to sell women for a living! They offerred themselves up as a commodity, no?

You're absolutely right if this is what you're thinking. They offerred themselves up to be ogled. However, I want you to think back to some of the jobs you had. Let's say you were a bagger at your local grocery store. You did your job, bagging and occassionally getting carts, when one day it gets to closing time. The janitor was sick that day, so your manager tells you to go clean the toilets. Hey, you signed up for the job, right? You chose to take the position! You knew you'd be at your manager's beck and call. It sucks, but it's your job and you chose it.

The difference is: You are not being OBJECTIFIED in the process. You're simply doing a job, you're not being turned into a COMMODITY to be SOLD.

So please, don't give me that "Men have a right to ogle because those women chose blah blah blah". They may have chosen to work there, but that doesn't give men or companies the right to objectify them. The end. I shall never step into such dudely slop ever again as long as I live.

P.S.- Dude-ly Slop-(n) Phrase used to describe the goo of patriarchy that slips into the cracks of normal every day things such as restaurants, bars, concerts, grocery stores, etc. etc. etc. Basically, icky white rich hetero male privilege nastiness that we feminists often find ourselves being the Waste Management folks of. It has nothing to do with men, though may be confused with basic inherent male behavior. It does, however, have everything to do with patriarchal entitlement.

And their food sucked, too. My salad tasted like pickles.

More Pro-Life (il)Logic

My favorite Crisis Pregnancy Center chain Care-Net has changed their Morning-After Pill information. I, and hopefully many others, contacted them last summer to tell them that EC, a pill that prevents pregnancy, cannot terminate a pregnancy and that they should remove EC information from their webpage discussing abortion services. I suppose that since Plan B has been granted OTC status, Care-Net has to change their stance, and they came up with a new worry to brainwash vulnerable women with:

"[Y]ou may not even need [Plan B]. You can only get pregnant on certain days of the month – around the time that you ovulate. Typically, there are only about three to five days a month in which a woman can get pregnant. Unfortunately, most women looking for the morning-after pill are panicked because they think (or perceive) the clock is ticking, and as a result they don’t take the time to evaluate their situation. If you weren’t fertile when you had sex because you were nowhere near ovulation, it is senseless to take the drug. It will only subject you to the possible side effects of nausea and vomiting and put a bunch of unnecessary hormones in your body.

Women who are considering Plan B® do not always know where they are in their cycle or if they are fertile, so they rush and spend money on a drug that they don’t need and that may harm their bodies."

But we won't tell you when ovulation happens, or what it might feel like, or the fact that some women can't feel it at all, or that not every woman's cycle is 28 days! The funniest part about all of this is that while telling everyone how ineffective condoms and other forms of contraception are, they basically just gave the more naive of their readers permission to have unprotected sex nearly every time and not worry about pregnancy. So any couple who has unprotected sex outside of any given 3-5 day time span and then gets pregnant can blame it on Care-Net. I guess that means more business for them. And wackos talk about Planned Parenthood turning a profit from abortion!

What horrible side effects, nausea and vomiting! Not to mention the tiredness, menstrual cycle changes, and breast tenderness that Care-Net cites as other potential side effects of Plan B. Hey, Care-Net, what are the symptoms of pregnancy? Missed period, nausea, breast tenderness, tiredness . . . . Care-Net wants every woman to remain pregnant so badly, and since the side effects of Plan B mimic the signs of early pregnancy (and that's the point), they shouldn't be using the same reasoning to discourage use of Emergency Contraception and encourage women to go to term.

Oh, the irony. It must be Thanksgiving.

Afghan Minister Fighting for Women's Rights

Afghan Minister of Women's Affairs (hey, we can use one of those) Hussn Banu Ghazanfar talked a bit about sexism in "post"-Taliban Afghanistan and what needs to be done about it. In a country where only 15% of women are literate, Ghanzanfar is putting a special emphasis on educating women and girls. There are schools for girls and women teachers in Afghanistan, but they are often under the threat of terrorists who have picked up where the Taliban left off. Ghanzanfar also stressed the importance in anti-violence legislation, stating, "The elimination of violence against women does not work if we just conduct seminars and workshops. If we create specific laws to protect women from violence, women will have more confidence." The article ends with an inspiring quote from Ghanzanfar, "It's not important which position I have, but it's more important that I'm working for women - the most needy women of the world."

Help Reject the Appointment of Eric Keroack

Last week, George W. Bush appointed Eric Keroack as the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, giving him the power to allocate money for family planning and gynocological services. Keroack, however, doesn't support contraception and went as far as to call it "demaning" to women. Only Dubya would choose someone against family planning to control family planning funding! Here's some more dirt on Keroack:

• Keroack promotes abstinence-only education and recommends that contraceptives should only be mentioned to emphasize their failure rates. (Feminist Majority Foundation)
• According to Keroack's presentations, promiscuous women will not be able to form long-lasting relationships because they've used up all of their "bonding" hormone on casual sex. Additionally, Keroack wrote in a 2003 PowerPoint presentation that "PRE-MARITAL SEX is really MODERN GERM WARFARE." (Feminist Majority Foundation)
• Keroack has researched the effects of showing a pregnant woman ultrasound images in order to convince her not to have an abortion. (Feminist Majority Foundation)
• He is a medical director of A Woman's Concern. Part of A Woman's Concern's "faith" statement is to "help women escape the temptation and violence of abortion." Their website also states that "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness." (National Organization for Women)

Sign this petition demanding U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt to reject the appointment of the sexist and irresponsible Eric Keroack.

UPDATE: This article states that Keroack has prescribed birth control in his private practice and that he is not currently a certified OB/GYN. But he still has his license in hypocrisy, which makes him more than qualified to be part of the Bush Administration.

I am shocked, SHOCKED that there is patriarchal bullshit going on in this establishment!

Except not.

Check out this banner for some sort of ad on YouTube:



Aren't you shocked by that image? I mean, where else will you ever see a creepy looking dude grabbing and molesting a naked woman? What? On television, you say? In movies?

Surely not. I am truly shocked by this image. I've never seen something like this in the good ol' patriarchy before, so I'm glad it can be eroticized by these folks.

I mean, hell, I've never seen violence against women being applauded and considered normal behavior before, and it certainly was never on FOX News. Never ever.

*shock and awe*

Gardasil is Being Marketed to the Right Audience

Gardasil is a vaccine that protects against common types of HPV, a virus that often causes cervical cancer. I saw the commercial for it a couple of times, once on MTV and just now on the-N (yes, I was flipping back and forth from Deal or No Deal to South of Nowhere. Don't judge me!). Anyway, I'm glad that the vaccine is being marketed to a younger female audience, since it is approved for girls and women ages 9 to 26. There are some people out there who believe that the HPV vaccine will make girls have unprotected sex, forgetting that Gardasil offers protection against the most common sexually transmitted disease. Thank goodness television networks are putting the health of women before conservative politics.

"THIN" Explores Eating Disorders

HBO will be premiering a documentary about eating disorders called THIN tonight at 9pm EST. Photographer Lauren Greenfield went to The Renfrew Center, an eating disorder treatment center in Florida, to learn more. The THIN homepage has a lot of interesting deleted scenes from the documentary, including an art therapy session. They also have resources for people dealing with eating disorders and a guide on how to recognize eating disorders.

Using Misogyny to Market Music

I know, this is nothing new. But this message I got from the "Brody Ruckus is a Misogynist and his girlfriend should break up with him" group was interesting:

Subject: Ruckus Music Scam
Message: This group is being deleted because the whole Brody Ruckus thing was a scam by Ruckus music to exploit people's misogyny to make money. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruckus_Netw
ork. And please never give any of your business to Ruckus Music.Thank you for being a part, for supporting women, and for helping fight misogyny and patriarchy.

I made a post about this a couple of months ago. Thankfully, the Brody Ruckus group has been deleted. I wish I could say that Ruckus Music's cheap sexist stunt would cost them enough subscribers to bankrupt them, but I'm sure those hundreds of thousands of jerks who joined the group to begin with will be the first to hand over fistfuls of cash to them.

But You Gotta Have Faith. Faith. Faith. . .

. . .in order to forget about a complete lack of female recognition at the CMAs. (Explanation: There's a big hoop-la about her reaction to Carrie Underwood winning Best Female Vocalist, but she was joking. See the video here).

Now, I know it's no big surprise that country music is not exactly on the cutting edge of progressive attitudes or anything. Still, you'd think they could do better
than the little show they put on this past Monday night.

I'm not an avid country fan or anything, but my sister listens to it and I'll occasionally turn on a country station once in a while. It's not nails on a chalkboard to me like it is to some people. However, I'm finding it harder and harder to find any value in it, especially when, apparently, last year, if I was on a lookout for a good album by a female artist, I would be shit out of luck.

Here were the nominees for "Album of the Year":

(Award goes to artist and producer)

Brooks & Dunn

Rascal Flatts

Alan Jackson

Kenny Chesney

Brad Paisley

I think you can all tell me what's wrong with that picture.

It gets better, though! Not only would I be hard pressed to find a good album by penis-lackers, I also wouldn't be able to be entertained by any of them!

Nominees for "Entertainer of the Year" are as follows:

Brooks and Dunn

Kenny Chesney

Brad Paisley

Rascal Flatts

Keith Urban

Not only that, but to top it all off, Carrie Underwood was the ONLY woman to touch an award. There were still plenty of womenz lookin' pretty and sittin' 'round, though, so don't ya'll worry yer pretty lil' heads.

Not a surprise, I know, but it still irked me enough to prompt a post about it.

Shhhh . . . Can You Hear That?

It's the sound of South Dakota governor Mike Rounds crying! Hee hee!

That's right, kids. South Dakotan voters rejected the abortion ban, 56% to 44%. So much for oppressing women for one's own political agenda, huh?

Election Day Info

I got this e-mail from the Feminist Majority Foundation the other day, and it had some information about voting that I never knew.

• If you are in line at the official closing of the polls, you are legally entitled to vote, and the polling location must allow you to vote.
• If your registration is in question or you've forgotten to bring a picture ID, you have the right to request and complete a provisional ballot, which will be verified and counted in the event of a close election.
• If you make a mistake on your ballot before it's submitted, you have the right to receive a replacement ballot.

Imagine if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House? Then someone will just have to assassinate Bush and Cheney has to drop dead (he's almost there). It's probably the best shot at having a woman president.

Remember to check out NARAL Pro-Choice America's Pro-Choice Voting Guide before heading out to the polls!

Best Pro-Life Commercial Ever?

VH1 is advertising their Big in '06 Awards show with this commercial featuring a fetus with some attitude. Tomorrow, The National Right to Life will use this ad as evidence that fetuses are indeed as developed as any ghetto fabulous, foul-mouthed, 30-year-old man.

Equality is Soooo Complicated!

The other day I saw this television commercial for Hudson City Savings Bank. A little girl is talking about how both men and women can be doctors or nurses. After her rather long and roundabout explanation, the words "Life is complicated" (or something like that) appear on the screen. How many people are lying awake at night trying to put their minds around the fact that women can be doctors and men can be nurses? Honestly, if a 5-year-old can figure it out, it can't be that confusing.