Take Action Friday -- on Thursday!

I'm doing the TAF post today instead of tomorrow because I'm spending the weekend in Washington, D.C. with my friend. Don't miss me too much!

Show your support for an abortion clinic in Aurora, Illinois that is being seiged by anti-choice activists.

Hurry up and tell your Senators to repeal the Global Gag Rule. They vote today!

Vote for an organization in the Peace Primary and help them win $100,000 to get their message out there during the '08 campaigns.

Demand justice for the Jena 6.

Women Heart Patients May Need Different Care

According to a new study, women with heart problems may be harmed by certain procedures.

A small study of 184 women conducted by Dr. Eva Swahn of the department of cardiology at University Hospital in Linkoping, Sweden, found that women who had major heart operations like a coronary bypass were more likely than men to die.

Last month, the American College of Cardiology revised its treatment guidelines to recommend that doctors should think twice before subjecting women at low risk of heart disease to invasive procedures.

Doctors are not sure what accounts for the discrepancy. But women tend to have smaller hearts and vessels, which could complicate any surgical procedure. For example, when catheters need to be inserted into the artery to take photos of what is happening inside the body, having smaller arteries does not help.

Women also tend to have more side effects from medicines. Hormonal factors could also play a role, though doctors are not exactly sure how female-specific hormones affect the cardiovascular system.

Compounding the problem is the fact that women are usually about a decade older than men by the time they develop heart problems, so other health problems associated with old age could also worsen their chances of surviving heart surgery.

See what happens when "Women should be treated equally" turns into "Women and men are exactly the same in every way"? See what happens when males are considered the norm and what's good for the gander is good for the goose? The geese die. So hopefully some pro-woman cardiologists out there are trying to come up with a way to help women heart patients with effective and safe treatments.

Watch "Made in L.A."

Made in L.A. is a documentary about three immigrant women's struggles as garment workers in Los Angeles. I think the rights of garment workers is a feminist issue in several ways. Obviously, the majority of garment workers all around the world are women. They often work in sweatshops in deplorable conditions all day for little or no pay. Then, the clothing is sold in a variety of stores, from Banana Republic to Wal-Mart. Women and girls are pressured to wear the latest trends, so we rush to the mall to spend $100 on a pair of ultra low-rise jeans that was made by a young woman who can't even read because her parents didn't let her go to school. If we're poor and/or have to by clothes for the whole family, we go to Wal-Mart where the clothes are cheap and the labor is cheaper. Furthermore, women make up the majority of the minimum-wage workforce, and many of these women work as sales associates for trendy clothing stores owned by millionaires. It's hard for women not to endorse sweatshop labor across the world in one way or another.

Made in L.A. premieres on Tuesday, September 4 at 10 p.m. on PBS.

Take Action Friday

Urge your Senators to pass the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 and bring Katrina survivors home.

Appear at a Dream for Darfur Olympic Torch Relay to show China that they must divest from Sudan.

Call your local pharmacy and ask if they supply Plan B.

Remind Bush that the genocide in Darfur is still "on his watch." That can be a birthday present to me: Save Darfur.Org is hoping for 100,000 signatures by September 18.

Support the Broadband Data Improvement Act. Quicker Internet connections means quicker access to your favorite activist websites and blogs.

What's Up with Women's Healthcare in Japan?

A pregnant woman on her way to a hospital miscarried after the ambulance crashed outside of Osaka. That might not be a reflection on access to prenatal care in Japan, but the fact that she was en route to a 10th hospital is. The previous 9 hospitals turned her down, saying they were full and couldn't care for her.

Since I've Been Gone

I've been gone for a while so I haven't been able to update. So here I am catching up on anything you and I have missed this week.

Yesterday, August 26, marked the 87th anniversary of women getting the right to vote. Some assholes think women should have been satisfied for the past 87 years because, according to them, voting equals equality. Oh, really? Here are some things we still need to remember while we continue to fight for equality.

August 24 marked the first full year of over (or behind) -the-counter access of Emergency Contraception for adult women. But there is plenty that needs to be done, as seen in this new report by NOW.

And speaking of anniversaries, I missed my anniversary of joining Megan here at Feminists to the Rescue. My first post here was on August 13, 2006. Memories . . . :)

And now to what I really wanted to talk about.

Every barista at a Washington coffee shop, Lola Bean Espresso, have quit because their boss imposed a new "skimpier" dress code. "Military Monday, Cowgirl Tuesday, Bikini Wednesday, Schoolgirl Thursday and Fantasy Friday" says it all. There are so many things wrong with this setup. Military Monday sexualizes dropping bombs on civilians, enslaving children, raping women, and all the other sad realities of war that are not at all sexy. Schoolgirl Thursday isn't a far cry from pedophilia. Cowgirl Tuesday shows us that anything can be perceived as sexy as long as a woman does it, even if it's shoveling manure. Leave the cowhands alone, damn it. They're just doing their job! And I don't even want to know what Fantasy Friday means. *shudders* But the saddest part of it all is that one barista says she will be unable to pay her mortgage now that she has had to quit her job. The boss of Lola Bean Espresso says he was surprised that every one of his workers quit, but he is hiring new ones who are willing to conform to the new dress code.

Some may say that if the women who quit were more like the women who will take their places, then they wouldn't have to worry about not paying the bills. I say it's the fault of miogynistic bosses who are out to make an extra buck on the backs (or busts) of their workers.

Awesomeness.

More On Why I Hate Catchy Little Lists. . .

This is why I hate catchy little lists.

Here we go again.

Mistake #10: Thinking That Your Great Date Actually Meant Something

Have you ever had a man say how much he likes you, how sexy you are, and how he's serious about finding a long-term relationship? Ever have an amazing date where the chemistry was great, the conversation flowed, and you hooked up with him afterwards?

Have you ever had a man do all of these things and then NOT call?

No, you're not crazy or delusional. Your mistake is thinking that what a man says on a date actually means something. It doesn't. It means he's being in the moment. So don't put too much weight on a great date. The only way you can tell how a man REALLY feels about you is by how quickly he follows up for another date.

In short, ladies, your mistake in is expecting men to follow up on their word. Your mistake is to expect more out of men than what they normally give you as a second-class citizen. That's your mistake, not theirs.

Mistake #9: Ignoring Your Own Intuition

How many times have you been across a table from some guy, wishing that you'd rather be anywhere else on earth? How many times have you felt deceived, angered, manipulated, or just plain turned off by the man in front of you?

Now, how many times have you considered that it was actually your fault that he was sitting there?

I'm not blaming you. I've been there myself. But the common denominator in all your bad dates is not the awful men themselves, but YOU. If you find yourself losing hope that there are any great guys out there, do yourself a favor and only go out with men who truly interest you. Instead of meeting total strangers, filter out men by email and phone. This strategy will prevent most bad dates before they happen.

I'm not blaming you, I'm just telling you that the fact that the men you find yourself on dates with are all douchebags is entirely your fault.

Mistake #8: Waiting for Men to Write You First

Have you ever sat in front of your computer, reading emails from losers, and asked yourself why the winners never write to you? You look at your favorites list and wish you could say hi to them, but you know better. It's tradition: men approach women. And you wouldn't want to come across as desperate. After all, what guy wants a woman who's so needy that she has to write to him first?

Actually, all men do. We love it. If you have a good photo, an original profile and you write a confident email, most guys will drop everything they're doing to talk to you.

If you don't have a good photo, however, you're out of luck. Okay, so I have to say that this one isn't that bad.

Mistake #7: Expecting Him to Tell the Truth in His Profile

You don't like to be lied to. Nobody does. And once you've gone out with a man who claimed to be 5'9" but is really 5'5", it's hard to keep dating. But haven't you ever done the same thing? The typical woman exaggerates her height by one inch and lowers her weight by 20 pounds. And it's not just a coincidence that the most popular ages for women on dating sites are 29, 39, 44 and 49.

You want to be given a chance. You don't want to be judged before you meet. And you're insecure that telling the truth won't get you in the door against younger, thinner women. So if there are good reasons why an honest woman might be tempted to misrepresent herself, wouldn't it make sense that an honest man might be tempted to do the same thing?

Expecting men to tell the truth is. . .a. . .mistake. So, when the next guy tells me he's NOT a serial rapist, it's okay if I kick him in the balls and call the cops because I'm supposed to assume he's lying, right?

Mistake #6: Thinking You're Now Dating the Man You've Met Online

Have you ever gone on an amazing date and saw that he was online right afterwards? Have you ever emailed a man who seemed interested then suddenly disappeared? Have you ever gotten intimate with a man who never called again?

You're not alone. All of these things are common in the world of online dating. So instead of taking it as a personal rejection each time a man comes and goes, take a step back. Think of all the guys who have written to you that you weren't interested in. Imagine all of them taking it personally. It's ridiculous.

It's easy to forget how many choices men have. It's easy to forget how many other women they're contacting. And if you think that you're exclusive with every new guy that gets you excited, you're in for a lot of disappointment.

So don't be upset when he hits it and quits it. Because, you know, writing to someone and fucking them are the exact same thing and require the same amount of effort and interest. That's why my marginalization of your pain is okay, lolz!

Mistake #5: Meeting for a Coffee Date to Save Time

Have you ever spent a month getting to know someone online and discovered on the date that they were a real-life dud? I have. I remember vowing not to waste that kind of time on a stranger ever again. You probably did, too. You probably started meeting guys right away to make sure that you had that "in-person chemistry." And at some point, on your tenth (or twentieth) bad date, you probably asked yourself, "Why do I even bother?"Online dating is NOT about meeting men as quickly as possible. Moving quickly means there is no screening. There is no getting-to-know-you process. You might as well have cute men at a bar pick a number to meet you. The ONLY way to enjoy online dating is by going out with fewer men. It's far better to go on one comfortable date on a Friday night than five blind coffee dates during the week.

That way you'll only be lied to, manipulated, and fucked around by one guy, not five.

Mistake #4: Expecting That You'll Succeed Online Because You're a Catch

You're sweet. You're fun. You're attractive. You have no trouble meeting men in real life. You figure that with all your good qualities, online dating should be a piece of cake. Except that's not how it's worked out. The only guys contacting you look like they've been let out of jail or a retirement home. There have to be better men out there. Then how come they aren't writing?

Simple. Any man who you think is a great catch has hundreds of options. And when a guy has that many choices, he's often going to search for younger women. Why? Because he can. So forget these guys and their unrealistic Playboy fantasies. Mr. Right is the man who wants YOU. Focus your attentions on the men who are searching for you, instead of the ones who aren't, and you'll have far greater success.

"Great catches" treat women like shit. So go out and get the guy who's been let out of jail. I'm sure he won't treat you like shit! Oh. . .wait. . .

Mistake #3: Trying to Stop the "Wrong" Men From Writing to You

Have you ever had a profile that just seemed to attract all the wrong men? You want a man who is attractive, successful and honest, and all you get are ugly unemployed guys who lie about their height. So, to stop them from wasting your time, you decide to spell it out in your profile: "If you're over the age of 50, live in another state, or have a substance abuse problem, don't even bother writing". And yet they STILL keep on contacting you! What can you possibly do to stop these annoying men who can't read?

Nothing. Ignore them. But don't try to stop them. After all, if you have any standards, most of your emails are going to be from the "wrong" guys. That's okay. They're allowed to write to you. And you're allowed to delete their email. As a quality woman, you're going to get all sorts of men who are interested in you. Your job isn't to scare away the bad guys, it's to attract the good ones. And profiles with negative warnings to the "wrong" men only make YOU sound bad.

Um, why? Why does not wanting creepy men to contact you make you sound bad? Do men say "Oh my gosh, a woman with self-respect! Oh noes, my cock is falling off"?

Mistake #2: Signing Up for a One-Month Subscription

Even though you know how difficult it is to find a soul mate, you signed up for a one-month subscription on a dating site. One month! You're going to fall in love before you get your next phone bill! Clearly, you've created an unrealistic timetable. So while you may not want to date online forever, you're shortchanging yourself if you act as if you have only 30 days to find a husband.

Remind yourself why you started dating online -- it's hard to meet people in real life.And quitting is not an option.

Oh my goodness, now we have to marry the guy who just got out of jail, too.

Mistake #1: Searching for the Right Dating Site

If a girlfriend told you that her biggest problem in losing weight was that she couldn't find the right gym, you'd probably shake your head. You know that it's not the gym but your friend's dedication to using the gym that makes all the difference. Yet you may think that you can cure your dating blues just by choosing the right website. Newsflash: ANY website with lots of single men can be the right website; your success is ultimately determined by how you use that site.

You can use Yahoo! to search all day long to find a place that is populated with tall, honest, successful men. But at the end of the day, it's not the site that will determine your fate. It's you. The question is how committed you are to turning yourself into a success story.

Exactly. Kiss patriarchy's ass and grovel at the feet of men over the internetz and you'll have yourself a great jailbird husband in no time! Hooray!


Oi. Hate catchy little lists about what's so wrong with women that they can't get a wonderful man to date them. Really hate them.

On the upside, however, I am currently blogging from my laptop. It is a big accomplishment for me. Haha.

Anti-Feminist Women. . .WTF?

I do my best thinking while I'm driving. Today, my (deep, I assure you) thoughts went drifting into the feminist realm, as they so often do, and I pondered this post by Amanda over at Pandagon. This characterization of liberals by conservatives got me to thinking. This is exactly what anti-feminist women do to feminist women.

Anti-feminist women accuse feminist women of being against women making choices because sometimes we disagree with the choices being made, or even express concern about why such decisions were made. Aside from being the cause of global warming and other such world crises, feminists hate stay-at-home-moms, girls who abstain until marriage, women who have lots of children, etc., etc.

However, like in Amanda's post of about liberals, these are all strawfeminists, of course. However, I think anti-feminist women really need a way to justify what would seem like a really stupid decision on their parts. They'll denounce the right to vote, and if a feminist disagrees with that or calls them on their bullshit, it's a chorus of "Well I thought feminists were supposed to support women's choices. I choose not to support woman suffrage". Then you get the real crazies who then take that to Ann Coulter-like proportions and just won't shut up about how feminists are now just like the system of oppression they claim to oppose. Sort of like how since liberals don't want to shoot brown people, they must support terrorists. Very logical stuff.

I consider "Choice Feminism" to be authentic feminism as much as I think "Pro-life Feminism" is authentic feminism. Basically, not at all. A woman's choices aren't free from scrutiny, nor should they be. For example, 70% of women in Uganda choose to believe that a husband is justified in beating his wife in some situations. Feminist should just take that as face value, right? I mean, it's okay as long as a woman believes it, right? Just like liberals should be more tolerant of racism and sexism, feminists should be tolerant of the misogyny that can, amazingly, crop up in the minds of women everywhere, apparently.

The equivocation of fighting for what you believe in, even without the use of legislation or old-fashioned lock-and-load intimidation methods with fascist crazies shooting the person that thinks Neil should have won so You Think You Can Dance in stead of Sabra is ridiculous, and both crazy conservatives and anti-feminist women should be called out on that bullshit.

Senator Clinton Thanks Women's Lib

She didn't say those exact words or "feminism" or any variation of the word. However, she closed the Democratic debate by recognizing the women's movement as the reason she can run for president today on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. When asked when was the decisive moment in each candidate's life to enter politics or run for President, Senator Clinton said,

Well, when I was growing up I didn't think I would run for president, but I could not be standing here without the women's movement, without generations of women who broke down barriers, the civil rights movement that gave women and people of color the feeling that they were really part of the American dream.
So I owe the opportunity that I have here today to many people; some of whom are known to history and many who aren't.

Take Action Friday

Homophobic judge Leslie Southwick might be given a lifetime job on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Southwick believes homosexuality is a choice and ordered an 8-year-old girl to be taken away from her biological mother because she's a lesbian. But you wouldn't know how big of a dick he is if you just read what the White House thinks of him. Tell your Senators to block the nomination.

Urge the Iranian government and the UN to free feminist scholar Dr. Haleh Esfandiari from Evin prison, a place notorious for the torture of political prisoners.

Demand investigation into the horrific treatment of transgender activists in New York.

Contact Manhattan Mini Storage and tell them how awesome their ad is.

Support the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraception Coverage Act.

Join the Planned Parenthood Pill Patrol!

Write your representatives about the Education For All Act.

Mifespristone as Safe as Surgical Abortion

A new study of nearly 12,000 women in Denmark concluded that mifespristone (RU-486) does not increase a woman's chances of having a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. But check out how the study was done.

In the new study, researchers used a national abortion registry to identify all women in Denmark who had abortions between 1999 and 2004, and then got information on later pregnancies from national patient and birth registries.

Denmark is the only country with an abortion registry . . . .

National abortion registry? So the women didn't give their consent to be part of this study? Hopefully an ethical research team will replicate the study and get similar results.

Crazy Sexy Cancer

Campaign slogan for Camel No. 9 cigarettes for women? Nope. It's the documentary debuting on TLC on August 29 at 9pm.

Crazy Sexy Cancer is more than a film, it's an attitude! It's about rising to the challenge of life, and no matter what, refusing to give up who you are at your core. This story is as funny as it is frightening, as joyous as it is outrageous. Ultimately, Crazy Sexy Cancer is a thought provoking film about, friendship, love and growing up.

Okay. I understand the whole "don't let cancer get you down" concept. And I fully support women with life-threatening diseases giving the medications that make them fat and bald a big "fuck you, I'm still sexy." But must we call a disease that kills millions of people a year "sexy?" Would anyone call Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer sexy? I don't think so.

On Biblical Models of Equality

I guess I should stop having expectations when it comes to fundies. They raise the bar in flimsy explanations every time I talk to them.

This problem really only gets worse when you apply the fundie equation to tweenies over the internetz, so I probably shouldn't be surprised about the state of this thread on The-N. I knew things weren't going to go well when the original poster equated a man not smacking women around to submitting to them.

A direct quote, just in case it's too incredulous to be believed (and you people are too lazy to follow the link):

Likewise a man restricting his self from hitting a woman he is being submissive to her, not because he’s weaker but the fact he knows he’s much stronger than her.

Great. It's so fabulous to know that a man is submitting to me when he decides not to beat the shit out of me. Silly me, I thought he was just, oh I don't know, respecting the fact that I'm a person with rights.

The poor guy also subscribes to the notion that a woman saying she wants more rights is a woman saying that she's better than everyone else and and that she should have rights over men. Of course. It's kind of like reverse psychology, right? Or a classic case of projection? Maybe "I'm rubber you're glue"?

I've just noticed that when people bring up the question of whether or not The Bible is sexist, EVERYBODY starts wringing their hands right and left.

"No. The times were sexist! It means nothing that a hell of a lot of the sexist tripe that went on was created and/or condoned by the Old Testament!"
"No! It was just mens' interpretation of what God said!"
"No! God didn't REALLY mean it when He told women to submit!"
"No! When Paul said 'Women be silent in church' he was actually talking about some group of uppity bitches who thought they could handle the church better, which is why he went for a bit of hyperbole by telling women in general to be silent and acting like a sexist prick!" (One of my favorites, by the way, especially when it can't be backed by scripture by the person arguing it)
"No! If Jesus had had women disciples, well, he wouldn't have been taken seriously! Never mind the fact that he was tortured to death with common thieves!"
"What? God is TOTALLY a dude and it's TOTALLY not sexist because guys can just relate to a fatherly influence better!"
"When God told women to submit and men only to love their wives, well, God actually meant to tell them to submit! Love, submission, same thing, right?" (This is the argument the original poster in the thread on The-N is going for. Oh it's great fun.)

I have been told all of these when talking about this subject. I've gotten a different excuse from every person I've talked to.

Not only that, but now we've gotten into talking about the Biblical (in a fundie's view) model of marriage. Oh. My. Goodness. this is exactly why I never want to get married. These people think GAY PEOPLE ruin marriage for others? Phew.

These girls that are going to these churches and learning that it's great for a man to "lead" them have my pity. It really breaks my heart that girls are being told these things. One girl in this thread told about her lesson on relationships in her bible class. She said that men were supposed to lead in 5 ways, and then she outlined them all. Here's part of her post:

Righteousness - he must set a good example. He must strive for keeping his own purity as well as his wife's. [In the words of my teacher, "DON'T BE AN OCTOPUS!" meaning don't be all grabby and pervy, touching her lady parts all the time.] This one definitely applies before marriage. Another quote from my teacher "To all you gentlemen, imagine it's your wedding day. It's beautiful and pefect. Then, your bride walks into the chapel, wearing a beautiful, flowing, scarlet gown." That's not what you want, is it guys? She should wear white! [White = pure]

A woman wearing red instead of white to show you how her hymen is still intact? BOOOOOO! *throws popcorn* Terrible! Dicks will be limp everywhere! The earth will shake and God himself will smite thee, lustful hussy! Thinkin' you can wear the color you want to on your wedding day, or worse, thinkin' you can do what you want to instead of what Daddy or Hubby wants.

But keep in mind, Male ownership of women's bodies is TOTALLY not sexist. It's great!

Another gem:

Before marriage, a girl should be submissive to her father, not her boyfriend.

Her boyfriend hasn't bought the merchandise yet, so hands off! That pussy belongs to Dad!

Look at it this way... if a husband leads a wife in the 5 ways he should, then wouldn't it be easy for a wife to submit to him?

Not if she has a mind of her own and wants to use it.

She wouldn't be following him into sin at any point if she was submitting to his leadership in righteousness. She would not be acting as a slave to him if he was treating her with selflessness.

First of all, the very fact that all of this fairy tale hinges on very big ifs in the first place is unnerving to me. I love the assumption that men will be perfect leaders. Or if that's not the assumption, it's assumed that women should shut up and handle it. It seems to me that in most cases, the assumption is that women should take their second class treatment with a smile.

Secondly, these people don't seem to realize that those who value gender equality have a problem with the fact that women are told to follow JUST FOR BEING WOMEN. There is no part of that that is conducive to gender equality and/or freedom. There is no part of that which is equal.

At the end of the class, my teacher asked all the girls who would submit to a husband like the one described above to raise their hands. Not one girl had her hand down.

It really upsets me if this is true. These girls are being told fairy tales, and then they promise to stick to the fairy tale even when it's not a fairy tale any more, and they're held to those promises despite any consequences. These girls are sold to the highest bidder while being told lies about how great it is to submit and have no power. It's absolutely shameful.

I just don't understand why people think this is equality. It's OBVIOUSLY not. If someone has power over you, how can you be treated equally to them? These people are not living in reality, and they're handing that fantasy land to their daughters and then throwing them out in to the deep end of real life. It's terrible.

Mostly, that post on The-N just got me to thinking about how distorted some Christian views on equality and sexism really are. It seems like they'll go to any lengths to justify some of the things that are in the Bible and how they interpret those things. They'll even denounce the divinity of the text while I the same breath saying that it's God's word for women to submit! It's all just a cycle of women being oppressed. Welcome to Patriarchy, people. I KNEW there was a reason why I called the Bible the Patriarchy Manual.

Take Action Friday

I had a little idea just now. I subscribe to a few e-newsletters from different organizations like NOW, Save Darfur, and the Human Rights Campaign. Several times a week, I get notified about ways to take action by contacting your Congresspeople and demanding their support and vote for or against certain measures. The organizations send pre-written e-letters, and all you have to do is put in your name and address, and the letter goes straight to your Congresspeople. Pretty nifty. I thought it would be a good idea to post the links of the pre-written e-letters here every Friday so that you can take action on a number of issues in a snap. What a way to start the weekend! So, even though it's now Saturday, here's the first Take Action Friday.

Support The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S. 1800/H.R. 2064), which would require the government to provide Emergency Contraception at all U.S. military health facilities around the world.

Help pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal in all 50 states to fire an employee for being homosexual or transgender.

Encourage China to divest from Sudan.

Thank your Representative for helping to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. Or show your disappointment if they were one of the 199 Reps who voted against this fair pay legislation.

iPLEDGE Program Not Successful

iPLEDGE is a government program that women of child-bearing age have to sign up for before taking the drug isotretinoin, an acne medication more commonly known as Accutane, because the drug can cause horrible birth defects, even in small doses. I just started on isotretinoin 10 days ago, and I hope that, 6 months from now, I'm part of the 80% that doesn't have to deal with the most stubborn of acne ever again. Of course, I had to join iPLEDGE. I had to read a lot of literature about birth control and take a quiz on their website. While registering, I had to tell them the two forms of birth control I'd be using while taking the drug and for one month afterwards. I have to take monthly pregnancy tests at the dermatologist's office. I have to show the pharmacist my special iPLEDGE card as proof that I'm part of the program before getting my prescription, which my doctor has to write up every month (no refills). Not that any of this is too bothersome; even the bathrooms at the doctor's office are surprisingly quiet and, therefore, a good place to pee in a cup.

What bothers me about this is that I have to go through all of this bullshit simply because I menstruate. And, because I don't have sex, I had to choose "abstinence" as my primary form of birth control. (I wanted to choose "my acne-ridden face, assholes," but that wasn't an option). Abstinence is most certainly not my primary form of birth control. I'm not having sex because I don't have a boyfriend, not because I'm trying to prevent pregnancy. iPLEDGE was starting to look a lot like pledges of abstinence made at purity balls and abstinence-only sex-ed classes. Furthermore, it perpetuates this notion that women's sexuality has to be regulated by the government for the good of an embryo that doesn't even exist. Can you say "forever pregnant?"

Part of me once thought that iPLEDGE is simply a way to reduce abortions, miscarriages, stillbirths, and infant mortality. It's a preventative measure, not oppressive. After all, if it works, that's a good thing for all. But it doesn't. According to the FDA, 122 women became pregnant while on isotretinoin this year, which is about the same number of pregnancies that occurred in the years previous to iPLEDGE's inception in 2006. This number is most likely accurate, as part of sticking to the iPLEDGE program means your doctor reporting your pregnancy to the federal government. Apparently, the government monitoring a woman's sexual behavior is about as good as her doctor saying, "Don't get pregnant. This medication causes birth defects." So why not just trust us?

Giving Birth: The Responsible Thing to Do

Megan and I frequent the-n.com message boards. It's a site mainly for teenagers, but I've been there for so long that it's kind of hard to stop going, especially when these boards give so many opportunities to lay the smackdown on people. For the last few years, a lot of abortion topics have been made on the boards, and people give their positions and their opinions. It's a great way to find out what America's youth thinks about reproductive rights. Of course, those on both sides are just starting to get in on the abortion debate, so arguments for both sides, at times, aren't very thought out. This was made quite obvious when I posted a topic asking a (not so) simple question: Which is more irresponsible, having 10 abortions or having 10 children? In asking this question, I didn't set out to prove a point. In fact, I honestly didn't know what people were going to say. I just wanted opinions. I did, however, accurately predict the results of the poll. I had a strong feeling that many more people would believe that having 10 abortions was more irresponsible. Out of 112 casted votes, 73% (82 votes) said that having 10 abortions was more irresponsible, while 26% (30 votes) believed having 10 children was more irresponsible. One thing to know about the poll, one can vote more than once (I think some time has to go by before you can vote again), but I doubt anyone sat there and voted over and over. And now, the replies!

Several people said that it all depends.

"It depends on the woman's situation and how frequent these pregnancies were. A woman in her 60's who [has] had 10 abortions or children in her many years doesn't bother me. A woman in her 20's or 30's would cause me to become concerned for her health and lifestyle and first if I didn't know what her life was like. I would have to know the woman's situation before I can determine if she has been irresponsible."

"It depends on your definition of irresponsible. I happen to think that having 10 children is a little irresponsible and selfish. I mean, who wants to be one of ten? You'd have no identity. What motives would a parent have for having 10 children? Are they running a farm or something? Are they Angelina Jolie? I'm no one to tell someone how many children is right for them, but I can't even imagine a stable household with ten children. But, that's just me, I really don't want kids. Having 10 abortions obviously means something's wrong. I'm pro-choice, but I would hope to never see a woman who is seriously in the situation where 10 abortions become necessary. I wouldn't call it irresponsible, just sad."

"Well it also depends on what the woman's going to do once she has the 10 kids. Like give them up or keep them. Because not many regular people can properly take care of and provide for 10 kids."

"I think it all depends on the situation. Having 10 children and being extremely poor probably isn't responsible, but if you can handle having 10 children, why not? It's not irresponsible if you can provide for all of them. Having 10 abortions also could be seen as responsible if the parent knows that they wouldn't be able to care for their child if they went through with the pregnancy. And if they had 10 abortions because they were continually accidentally getting pregnant, then I wouldn't say that the abortions were irresponsible, but the person's sexual habits were."

"It depends" is a fine answer in my opinion. If anything, it shows that the gears are turning, even if they're somewhat painfully grinding . . . not unlike my teeth after reading the following, completely backwards, responses.

"Having 10 abortions. Having 10 children can mean a lot of things could happen. For example: An extremely wealthy person who can afford having 10 children and has time to give them attention isn't irresponsible. A woman who got pregnant twice, once with triplets and a second time with septuplets isn't irresponsible. A woman who spaces out their pregnancies so that when the older ones are able to take care of themselves, they have more children. A person who has children and adopts older kids, say at 16 years old, so that the children can have someone to help them finacially and emotionally get to college. Then at 18 they leave and they adopt someone new."

"I think so many abortions is the irresponsible thing here. That many abortions says to me, that the woman has never heard of other forms of birth control, and that she can't control herself on any means. 10 children isn't necesarily irresponsible. What if unplanned pregnancies happen, but the woman keeps them? Or what if surprise multiple babies happen. Say a woman really only has sex enough time for 3 or 4 babies, but then get multiple babies each individual time. That stuff happens. So yeah, I think 10 abortions is the real irresponsible thing."

In short, a woman with 10 children could have been in a variety of different situations. A woman who had 10 abortions can only be one thing: Irresponsible.

"Well, I want to say having 10 abortions. I mean, if you know that you don't want anymore children, you should do everything you can to prevent creating innocent lives and then taking them. But I also have to say that if you aren't rich and can't give all ten kids a good childhood, then I think that you really should reconsider having 10 kids. But between the two, I'd say that taking lives is worse than giving life."

"I picked 10 abortions because if she had 10 kids then at least they would have a chance to live."

Basically, giving 10 children shitty lives is better than not having any children at all.

"I would go with the abortions though, because the repeated procedure is of no good to her body while having the children does not mean she kept them."

"10 abortions. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice. Do you realize how bad for your body 10 abortions would be?"

So, even though abortion at any stage of pregnancy is safer than giving birth, 10 abortions does more damage to the woman's body than giving birth 10 times. Furthermore, raising 10 children to at least age 18 doesn't take a toll on a person's body at all. Interesting.

"I think the abortion is more irresponsible than having the kids because having babies and stuff is like a part of life."

"With having 10 abortions I think that is irresponsible, because the woman puts herself at a high risk to not be able to have children [in] the future due to that many abortions."

"If someone has the means to support ten children, it's her choice whether or not she feels she's up to it, and if she can raise ten children well, there's no problem, and i might personally consider her irresponsible for getting ten abortions."

Translation: You're not living responsibly unless you pop out a few.

Then there were a few that just completely defied all logic. I wasn't too surprised by the following responses, since pro-lifers don't seem to know much about reproduction, whether they're posting on a message board or holding up a sign with a photo of a stillbirth and the caption "ABORTION!"

"Having 10 abortions is more irresponsible, generally. Because that most likely means the woman was being irresponsible and not using any form of protection."

"I think it's more irresponsible to get 10 abortions because if you're really screwing around that much and getting pregnant everytime, I seriously doubt you're even trying to protect yourself in the first place."

"I think 10 abortions because she's probably having unprotected sex"

And a woman who gives birth to 10 kids had her tubes tied???? Apparently, having unprotected sex is only irresponsible if you don't want to give birth. Otherwise, fuck all ya want! Giving birth is the responsible thing to do! Thank goodness for responses like these:

"I think they are both the same. In both situations the woman had unprotected sex. But, if the woman wanted to have ten children, she needed to have unprotected sex."

"Well either way she's probably having unprotected sex. I mean you can't accidently get pregnant 10 times on a form of birth control. (well you can but only if you're dumb about it)."

I just don't get it. Since when is giving birth the unequivocal responsible thing to do? How can Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee get away with saying that he believes in personal responsibility in the same breath as saying he's pro-life? Part of being responsible is making your own decisions. The other part of responsibility is making important decisions for those who are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Since the basic tenet of conservatism of personal resposniblity and the pro-life philosophy don't go hand-in-hand, then conservatives like Mike Huckabee must believe that women are inherently irresponsible and can't make personal decisions for themselves. That's the only way the word responsibility can factor in to any pro-life position, and that's what I want to start hearing from the pro-life movement. I want pro-lifers to cut the "personal responsibility" bullshit and just say how they really feel.

Quick Update

I added a few links recently on the side over there. I added actress Emma Watson's new official website. She plays Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, and I think she deserves to be named a Righteous Babe. I also added the blogs of a couple of friends, The Sweetest Bolshevist by Anna and La Oscuridad Necesaria by Diana.

First Indian Woman President Sworn In

Pratibha Patil was sworn in as India's first woman president today. Women's empowerment and ending female feticide are among her platforms. Patil says, "Empowerment of women is particularly important to me as I believe this leads to the empowerment of the nation."

Right on. Patil, however, does have her critics. Many Indian women believe she is more of a symbol than someone who can promote radical change in Indian society, and she has also been criticised for calling Indian women to stop wearing head scarves. Particularly, Madhu Kishwar, editor of the feminist magazine Manushi, says, "I have always believed that it's not everything to just have sari-wearing creatures in politics. It's more important that politics stands for and enables honest, upright people to survive.

My First* Feminist Memory

*Note: The following story is, chronologically, my second feminist memory. However, the first one isn't as, say, third-wave appropriate as my second feminist memory.

When I heard Barack Obama's comments about age-appropriate sex education for children in Kindergarten, I was reminded of my Kindergarten days. Obama believes that 5-year-olds should be taught what is a good touch and what is a bad touch in order to protect them from pedophiles. At first I thought, How could this still be an issue? I learned about good touch/bad touch in 1989. Are we going backwards? Then I thought back to that day when I learned the difference between good touches and bad touches. I learned that a touch between the legs or the bottom is a bad touch for both boys and girls, and a touch on the chest is a bad touch for girls. My 5-year-old brain started working. I thought, That's unfair. Why are there more bad places to touch on a girl than on a boy? Why do I have to worry more about being badly touched than my boy classmates?

Of course, now I know it's because even 5-year-old girls are sexy to someone, even though they're flat-chested. Pedophiles see a little girl's chest as breasts, even before girls know that breasts are found to be sexy. I don't think it's the same with reproductive organs of both sexes. With the number of times I see toddlers walking around the mall with their hands down their pants, kids find out that their, shall I say, nether regions, are very fun way before they realize that those same body parts are sexy. At 5 years old, I had a hard time believing that any part of my body would turn someone else on, but I couldn't help but think, What's so great about my upper body?

Then I thought of something extremely disturbing. I started thinking more about pornography, particularly the women in pornographic movies. If today's pornography is any indication of what's in the fantasy of the typical heterosexual male, guys like hairless females with gigantic boobs who sound more like they're confused or being hurt during sex than actually enjoying it. Basically, the only thing pubescent about these women are their (surgically?) enlarged breasts. Everything else is reminiscent of a much earlier stage of physical and emotional development. *shudder*

If you were wondering, I have to think back to when I was 4 to recall my first feminist memory. I was graduating from pre-school, and we were all preparing for our graduation ceremony. We all stood in a line and said our names and what we wanted to be when we grew up. I thought this was completely stupid, because I had no idea what I wanted to be. I ended up copying off the girl next to me, who wanted to be a teacher. This plan could have gone much worse if I standed next to this one girl, who incidentally, was a few persons before me. When asked what she wanted to be when she grew up, she proudly declared, "I want to be a mommy!" My eyes were about to roll right out of my head. I thought, "No, stupid. What do you want to do for your job? 'Mommy' isn't a job. Any lady can do that." At the graduation ceremony, I was dubbed "Quietest." I guess it was best that I didn't say most of my thoughts when I was 4.

Hillary. Clinton. Has. BREASTS!

You don't say! Unfortunately, someone did say. Robin Givhan from the Washington Post's Arts & Leisure section thought it was appropriate to make a news story out of Senator Clinton's cleavage.

She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

Well, yes. Cleavage is an undeniable fact of life for many women. Not the woman currently typing this entry, but it is for many women. Later, Givhan goes from being overly dramatic about a little bosom to downright disgusted.

The cleavage, however, is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's being revealed. It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!

Bad, boobies, bad! Don't you go peaking out of Mommy's brasserie! You get back in there right now or I just might have to bind you girls down! And if Givhan can't write a piece about Clinton's breasts and also feel discomfort and have the urge to "just look away." Well, obviously she can, but not without looking stupid.

This Is Why I Hate Catchy Little Lists

Stereotypes and sexist "advice" abound in this article by Yahoo! Personals author Evan Marc Katz.

Here's 11 responses to 11 Things Women Don't Know About Men (Plus one thing they probably do know, but won't admit):

1. Getting angry at us for not reading your mind is like getting angry at yourself for not being able to fly. It's not just futile, it's physically impossible.

Apparently, this is only a female problem. I'm sure no domestic abuse victims have ever been the victim of their partner's rage just because they didn't know they were "supposed" to do something said partner never told them about.

2. Yes, we do think Jessica Alba is hot. Sometimes we're even dumb enough to admit it.

Do I really even need to touch this one? My boyfriend doesn't think Jessica Alba's hot. Guess he's not a man.

3. Don't ask us to understand your shoe fetish. Asking us to respect it is even sort of pushing it.

But definitely respect my right to ogle hawt gurls in magazines!!!

4. You do look good without makeup, just not as good as you look with it.

This one is one of my favorites on the list. You're pretty without make-up, but you'd look more like Jessica Alba with it on, so put it on or you won't be quite as fuckable.

5. Ever notice how we don't fight with our male friends? That's why we get so frustrated when we fight with you.

This one I just don't get. So would he rather date one of his male friends that he doesn't fight with? Or does he not think that relationships involve fighting? And why does he think that men don't ever fight amongst each other?

6. You care what you're wearing infinitely more than we do. In fact, if you're naked when you open the front door, you won't hear an argument from us.

Aside from the "Heheh, boobs" portrayal of men here, we also have the lovely "Women put beauty standards on themselves with absolutely no help from men whatsoever" argument. Great.

7. You don't like to get hit on in public, you don't want to date online and you don't want to be set up on blind dates. Tell us if sending messenger pigeons is an appropriate way of courting. Because if it is, we're all over it.

This is by far my favorite. Don't like being hit on? Well how in the hell am I supposed to get a date? It's like harassing women is the only way this guy knows how to talk to women. Awesome.

8. There should a statute of limitations on stupid things that we said that can come back to haunt us. I propose 24 hours.

So if I said you have Dumbo flaps yesterday, forget about it and fuck me today.

9. Cooking dinner for a man is like buying flowers for a woman, except it takes a lot more time, effort and thought for you to do it. Thanks. We appreciate it.

This is a close second for my favorite sexist remark on this list. "We'll do nice things for you sometimes, you know, buying you a pretty flower or something, but when you do nice things for us, it should be unpaid domestic work that we admit is harder than what we did for you. Thanks in advance". Why not just say "I'm an entitled bastard now fix me a turkey pot pie"?

10. We actually like your girly pet-names for us, but please, not in front of the guys!

Anything but GIRLYNESS!

11. Just because we like looking at the women in Maxim doesn't mean we want to actually converse with the women in Maxim. Not for long, anyway.

Conversing with them might give them a little personhood, and that's a no-no for consumable objects.

12. Your nice guy friends are the most reliable source for telling you if your new boyfriend's a jerk. And he probably is. (By the way, you might want to consider marrying that nice guy who's giving you advice about the jerk.)

Give the Nice Guy(tm) that you're friends with the pussy he deserves because your boyfriend is an out-of-the-closet asshole. Women just can't win on this list.

So there you have it ladies. That's what you get for dating advice. Lesbianism keeps lookin' better and better.

Talk About Missing the Point

On last night's Colbert Report, there was a story about Johnna Mink, a pole dancing instructor. Now, I don't believe that pole dancing is anti-feminist. I think pole dancing can be a great form of exercise and a way to be more in tune to how our beautiful bodies work and move. It's a way to be sensual for our own good and not for the pleasure of someone else (anyone who pole dances for fun want to contribute to Then I Guess I'm Selfish?). What's anti-feminist about pole dancing is the response it gets from our patriarchal society, that women who pole dance are poor, dirty, slutty, and troubled. Labelling pole dancing as the ulitmate feminist expression before our adolescent society matures makes people say this kind of crap:

"When I think of feminism, I think of hairy, butch, nasty lesbians . . . . I think it's great that people think that pole dancing is feminist, because it doesn't make us look like pigs for watching."

In other words, he's glad that pole dancing can be seen as feminist, because then he can still watch naked ladies while labelling the women who fight for gender equity as hairy, butch, nasty lesbians. Point: Missed.

But this is what made me die a little inside:

"I think some of the things that classic feminists fought for would be like women's right to vote, equal pay rights . . . . Pole dancing is better than classical feminism in every way possible."

So, if this woman had to choose between having the right to vote and having the right to pole dance, she'd choose pole dancing. Great.

Chatty Cathy, We Hardly Knew Yee

A new study published in Science shows that men and women say about the same amount of words a day. Now how about that?

And So Ends the Stupidest News Story Ever

Miss New Jersey Amy Polumbo keeps her crown despite photos that are supposed to be too sexy. Well, they weren't too sexy for the Today Show. In response to being blackmailed, she released the photos to show that they were not so bad. Here's the video of her explaining the, I guess, more embarrassing photos to Matt Lauer. (The video is on that page.)

Now, on to what pisses me off about this whole thing. Some of those photos are completely innocuous. They show her kissing a boy and dressed in little costumes, like a ballerina and Cinderella with a pouty expression. Goodness! I mean, did she ever just for one second think about the children? Someone tell me how skipping around on Halloween in a pretty costume is more demeaning or less lady-like than, oh, I don't know, prancing on stage in a bikini and high heels on television in front of a live audience? If there's anything that can be learned from the adorable film Little Miss Sunshine, it's that the pageant crowd believes there's a proper way to turn women and girls into little sex objects (and it's not by shaking your groove thing to Rick James, believe it or not).

Oh, and another thing. If her friend didn't make fun of the size of her breasts, maybe she wouldn't have had to emphasize them with those little pumpkins. Just sayin'.

Which Stock To Invest in: Microsoft or Planned Parenthood?

Well, new TRAP laws have surfaced in Missouri and were just signed into law by Governor Matt Blunt.

Apparently, Matt Blunt thinks that providing abortions and sex-education is a million-dollar business, which would explain why so many people choose to provide abortions, and that Planned Parenthood is a multi-million dollar corporation just waiting to prey on newly broken hymens.

Missouri Right to Life, which backed the measure, argued that groups like Planned Parenthood have a conflict of interest in supplying sex education materials because they could make money if female students go to their clinics. Blunt echoed that concern, saying sales of material to public schools were a "significant source of revenue" for the group.

Here that? Planned Parenthood is so happy to rake in the dough by putting themselves out of business.

The Republican governor said he has no qualms if the stricter state oversight causes hardships for abortion clinics.

Well that's a surprise. Why doesn't he just come out and say "The plan here is to make sure abortion clinics can't maintain themselves, that way women won't be able to escape their due punishment when they think they can fuck freely". I mean, he's not even really trying to put a "It's for the good of the aborting sluts, er, ladies" spin on it. Check this out:

Blunt proclaimed the law "one of the strongest pieces of pro-life legislation in Missouri history" as he spoke from a cross-shaped lectern during a signing ceremony in the sanctuary of Concord Baptist Church.

Holy shit. Why doesn't he just go out there and throw ketchup-covered dolls at women just like the rest of them?

So great. Separation of church and state remains unseen and poor women now have more roadblocks to not being government mandated incubators. Hooray.

In other news, here's a pretty retro article title: Schools grapple with how to integrate. What year is it, again?

Uhhhhhh . . . .

No, that's not the sound of my irritable bowels. It's the sound of me contemplating this ad for Metamucil that can only be described as . . . sexy, I guess? Now, I'm not saying this commercial is sexist, although there's no doubt in my mind that men wouldn't be caught dead parading around in cute outfits telling their macho bretheren to "gussy up their insides", neither in private nor on television. But the whole thing strikes me as very odd. I mean, the group home where I work keeps a fresh stock of this kind of stuff to counteract the loose stool side effect common in many psychotropic drugs. I'd like to see a few of them in a Metamucil ad!

There's Not Even Anyone To Say "Told Ya So" To.

Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, of course. Is anyone shocked?

You know, because 30 months in jail was "just too harsh" for outing a CIA agent. She WAS female, you know.

But never fear!

Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Yes, pocket change and a good wag of the finger with one hand and a pat on the ass with another is definitely harsh, Mr Bush.

Quick Question

How come sexually active teen girls who appear on Maury are punished with bootcamp and solitary confinement for three days, while husbands and boyfriends who admit to beating and raping their wives and girlfriends go to a funeral home to see their wives pretending to be dead in a coffin?

Don't Tell The Rentals!

That this blog is rated NC-17 for saying words like "abortion", "sex", "fuck", and "shoot".

Mingle² - Online Dating

Here's Something to Ask Jeeves: Shut Up.

The new Ask Jeeves ad assures you that you can find half naked women licking swords, if you must. Thank goodness!

Breastfeeding Debate in the Philippines

This article made me laugh so hard.

The breast-feeding debate in the Western world seems to be more over where it's done. The Philippine Health Department went as far as to ban baby formula commercials that advertise products for babies under 1 year old, and they want to extend the law to include formulas for babies up to age 2.

"Labels already include messages that breast milk is best for babies, but health officials want additional statements saying there is no substitute for breast milk and that formula should only be used under advice from a health worker . . .

"The World Health Organization recommends mothers breast-feed exclusively for the first six months and continue providing breast milk along with complementary foods until age 2. Research has shown that babies given breast milk develop fewer respiratory and intestinal diseases, and those given formula have a greater chance of developing asthma or allergies, along with obesity. WHO estimates up to 1.45 million children die annually in poor countries because of low breast-feeding rates.

"Exclusive breast-feeding rates during the first four to five months have dipped from 20 percent in 1998 to 16 percent in 2003 in the Philippines, where more women are working full time and juggling busy lifestyles like many women in the West."

Two words, Philippines: Breast. Pump.

The thing I have a problem with is that this issue has gone to the legislature. Is breastfeeding healthier? Yes. Must there be laws that will keep women from making the choice? No. That's not going to help anything. If women are too busy to breastfeed, let them bottle feed. It's better than not feeding the kid at all, correct?

FOX and CBS love unwanted pregnancies and erections

CBS and FOX have recently decided not to show a certain condom commercial. The reason given by FOX is that "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I guess since unwanted pregnancy, and pregnancy in general, doesn't effect women's health at all (Right? Right?!), the message of preventing pregnancies through condom use isn't a health-related one. CBS simply said that the commercial was not appropriate for it's network.

This is a troubling proclamation from CBS, considering that during the Superbowl, which was carried by CBS, commercials for both Levitra and Cialis (both erectile dysfunction medications) were shown.

Not only that, but other sexual commercials were shown at this year's Superbowl. One was a GoDaddy.com ad that featured a woman having beer poured on her tight white tanktop while men looked on. CBS showed this ad, and FOX has also shown commercials for GoDaddy.com in the past.

However, when it comes to something that can be helpful to society but might make people a little uncomfortable (which is, in itself, stupid) suddenly it's inappropriate. Using women and sex to sell something is worse than selling something used to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies and keep sex safe.

Right. Thanks, FOX and CBS, for keeping all of us moral.

There's more over at Feministing, and go here to contact the networks to tell them that unwanted pregnancy IS a health issue and that safe sex doesn't gross you out.

"Responsibility does not end at conception"

There's something that has been absent in the abortion debate! While Barack Obama wasn't talking about reproductive freedom in this case, he knows that it's important for daddies to be a part of their kids' lives. Who knew!

"Let's admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child."

I don't know all of what was in Obama's speech, but it doesn't look like "partriarchy," "the feminization of poverty," or "pay inequity" made it in.

Minority Voters and the Simple-Minded Stigma

Warning: Long bitch fest.

The 2008 campaign for president is pretty exciting for us minorities, especially if you're a liberal. Watching the Republican presidential debates (which I believe happen every other week simply to give Romney and Giuliani a chance to get their positions on abortion straight) bores the shit out of me. All you need is a black and white television, and you can admire all the White old male candidates and their neatly pressed black suits (although it might be more difficult to find Tommy Thompson's neck this way). However, when you watch the Democratic debates, you see a more varied lot. You got Hillary Clinton to empower women, you got Barack Obama to empower African Americans, you got Bill Richardson to empower Latinos, and you got Dennis Kucinich to empower the Lollipop Guild (a surprisingly firey base, mind you). Obviously, not everyone belongs to only one of these minority groups. I can say that three of the four aforementioned candidates represent parts of my identity that I hold dear. The pundits, however, don't seem to think minority voters are all that complex.

Hardball's Chris Matthews talked about the polls stating that Hillary Clinton is more favored by women with needs (low-income and less formerly educated) and Barack Obama is a favorite of women with college educations.

Chris Matthews: ... Apparently, according to the national polling we just got today, her advantage in the polls over Barack Obama and the other Democratic wannabes is women. And this shouldn‘t surprise us. Women are so proud to have a first woman candidate who has a real shot at winning that they‘re overwhelming supporting Hillary over the other candidates, especially women who have needs. It‘s called “women with needs,” is the category, women who haven‘t gotten a college degree, are working hard there to provide for families or living alone, and they really like Hillary. Could this be the decisive factor in this campaign, women with needs voting for Hillary?

Ron Reagan: ... I‘m not sure that it‘s going to hold or do her so much good in the general election, should she win the primaries. There are other polls out that show that Republican women, 40-some-odd percent of Republican women, would refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. So she still remains a terribly divisive candidate, when you talk about the general population, and still remains the candidate that most Republicans say they would like to run against.

This exchange tells us a lot. First, Chris Matthews seems to think that women will vote for Hillary Clinton for the same reason I preferred Midge over Barbie when I was little: She looks like me, sort of! But Ron Reagan comes to the rescue and assures us that there's still enough sexism in this world that makes Republicans comfortable about running against a woman, because the obviously not sexist Republican women are voting based on policy and not gender. Right? Right?!

Chris Matthews: ... But isn‘t [this] so eventful for women to have to vote for a woman, just so they can say to their daughters, Hey, look, you got a chance to be president, as well as your brother?

*explodes* In my perfect world, Dennis Kucinich would be the nominee, a man who represents my opinions and is (more importantly?) vertically challenged -- like me! I'll only vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee, because I don't trust any of those Republicans! Okay. I must regain my composure. The conversation continues with Todd Harris, former campaign guy for John McCain. This outta be good.

Todd Harris: Well, Chris, I first have to say you talked about changing the terminology with immigration—I love this “woman of needs” term. We used to call them, you know, lower-income, lower-educated, uneducated, but now it‘s “women of needs.” But let me tell you...

Todd, in the words of Kelly, "Oh, by the way, betch . . . FUCK YOU!!!!" Admittedly, every woman has social needs. Some of them are, unfortunately, uniquely women for the most part, like being a single working parent whose partner doesn't pay child support. Or getting payed less than men for more than 180 days.

Thankfully, Chris Matthews redeems himself, as every man with the face of a 12-year-old boy eventually does.

Chris Matthews: [A]re you talking down to women? Let me tell you... I wouldn‘t do that. First of all, it‘s not fair. Secondly, you‘re going to get in trouble by nightfall. ...

Todd Harris: This early in the cycle ... voters—voters tend to look for commonalities. Is the candidate Republican, Democrat, white, black? Very superficial indicators ... and superficial levers—levels. So, it is not surprising to me that she is doing well ... among women. ... But as the campaign develops, that could really change.

*explodes again* When was the last time any voter had to ask themselves "Are they Black/female/whatever?" in a presidential election. Oh, that's right. Never, because this is the first time that two frontrunners aren't White guys! Chris, zing 'im.

Chris Matthews: Todd, you won‘t know. You will never know, Todd, because women don‘t have to tell us who they are going to vote for. It‘s a secret ballot.

*sigh of relief*

Back to my original point that might be somewhere in this long post. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made this presidential race pretty exciting, because one of them will most likely become the Democratic nominee. But it also gets pundits in this useless discussion that pigeon-holes us and insults our intelligence. I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman and so am I? What the fuck? This is never considered with men voters or even conservative voters. Men have been voting for men for centuries, and women having been voting for men for 87 years. Do people think that women vote for men, not because they want to, but because that's all who's available? Have women been wandering to the polls for 8 and a half decades to find that there aren't any women on the ballot, just to say "Aw, shucks, I guess I'll vote Democrat. Better luck next time"? Ron Reagan implies that Republican women aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton because Republican women care about issues, not gender.

So my question is, why the fuck do political pundits have to ruin an imminent historic event of either a woman or an African American having a strong chance of becoming president by reducing minority voters to easily distracted simpletons? Not every voter may be formerly educated, but we do know what we want, even us ladies.

Not-So-Secret

This week's Sunday Secrets showcases a secret from a woman who subscribes to the "Abortion for me, but not for thee" ideal. It's not a secret that many women subscribe to this notion.

You know, I have no problem with women who regret their abortions. I have no problems with women who never want to abort. I have no problem with women who get abortions and don't regret them.

What I do have a problem with is the blatant hypocrisy that's displayed in a viewpoint like this one, and it's common with pro-life women. That's why there's so much slut-shaming that goes on in that camp. Pro-life women have to Other the women who do abort, so that even when they themselves need to access abortion, they can pretend that they're not like those Other Women. They don't take this lightly, they used protection, they're married, they already have 3 kids, they can't afford another baby. All the other women in the waiting room are just there because abortions tickle, I guess.

Seriously, women that have that kind of mentality (and this kind, complete with "Men Hurt Too!") piss me off almost as much as pro-life men.

"Rags to Riches" Wins Belmont Stakes

"Rags to Riches" won the Belmont Stakes, becoming the first filly to do so since 1905. Part of me wants to say, "Why are people saying this is a battle of the sexes? They're horses, for crying out loud." But the feminist in me knows that so many people point to the less evolved of the animal kingdom to make some sort of, usually misogynistic or heterosexist, point about human nature ("What if Rag to Rich's mother had an abortion?" "What if Rag to Rich's father was gay?"), so I'm quite happy about this.

No More Periods? Ever?

Every 26-30 days or so, I wish never to have my period again. I mean, I don't like cramps, I don't like irratibility, I don't like sadness, and I don't like babies. And I wonder, why do I even need a period? I don't use it, and my dog sniffs my crotch more often than usual when I'm on it. TMI, I know. But now the FDA is to approve a new birth control pill that stops a woman's period indefinitely, called Lybrel. That sounds like a good idea, but I'm not convinced. I'm not going to say that not having a period is unnatural, because I think that argument is just plain silly. Women are always told what is natural for us, like periods and childbearing and rearing, as if thinking for ourselves and for our own sake is the most unnatural thing of all. But I don't think it's the most healthy thing. I watched something about eating disorders when I was a sophmore in college, and a 30-something year-old woman who hadn't menstruated in 15 years had the brittle bones of an 80-year-old. Of course, I'm not going to knock any woman who tries it, but I hope that the FDA isn't rushing this.

Yeah, yeah. . .

I've been gone for a while, I know. I've had "Hey, you're graduating from high school!" type stuff, so cut me a break. I should have a pretty long post up soon. A good friend of mine recently snagged me some anti-choice literature, so it should be a fun bloodbath.

In any case, until then, everyone needs to read this post by guest-blogger Flea on Feministe. Amazing stuff.

11-Year-Old Girl Kicks Ass

Not sure if most people would say this is feminist news, but I think it is.

Xochil Garcia, an 11-year-old girl who purposely grows out her nails to defend herself against attackers, fought off a potential kidnapper in her Brooklyn apartment building yesterday. "He grabbed my mouth and told me to not scream,'' Xochil said. "I thought he was going to take me up to the roof and rape me or something.'' She wrestled with the would-be kidnapper and screamed to catch the attention of other tenants. During the television news report, which unfortunately didn't make it to the article in the above link, Xochil said that her mother taught her to defend herself by "kicking them in the balls" (and they bleeped out "balls"). The girl's attacker was arrested and charged with unlawful imprisonment, endangering the welfare of a child, and burglary. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

Okay. So Maybe Rabbi Schmuley Deserves a Couple of Points for This

Megan and I aren't huge fans of Rabbi Schmuley (and I let Megan write about it). But he was pretty cool on Tucker this afternoon.

"Dr." Laura Disses Military Wives

The radio show host with a PhD in Asshatery had a lot to say about women and the military but not so much to say about women in the military. On wives who are concerned about their husbands serving in Iraq,

"'He could come back without arms, legs or eyeballs, and you're bitching?'" Schlessinger asked before taking the stage at the base theater to host her daily program on ethics, morals and values. "'You're not dodging bullets, so I don't want to hear any whining - that's my message to them.'"

"Schlessinger boasted that she once talked a young woman out of marrying a soldier, noting that 'warriors need warrior wives' and that she felt the girl was unprepared."

"'When you're in the military, that comes first,'" Schlessinger said. "'You don't want to not have gone and find out your wife has to wear a burka.'"

Is that why we're there? I had no idea that I was in danger of being forced to wear a burka. But there's more! When asked about women who leave their families to serve in the military, she replied, "I'm going to leave that alone." And suddenly, the woman who can't keep her mouth shut shuts her mouth!

Laura Schlessinger, D.A. (that's Doctor of Asshatery) claims that these comments were taken out of context. Instead of putting them in context, she goes on about her son who's in the military and how much money she has raised to support military families, in the same way people against gay marriage say they don't have a problem with gay people -- just ask all their gay friends.

Urge Your Senators to Ratify CEDAW

CEDAW is the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Countries that have ratified CEDAW commit themselves to ending discrimination against women in several ways including

Incorporating the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;

Establishing tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and

Ensuring elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.

And the United States hasn't ratified it. Isn't that just crazy? Well, looking at the list of countries who have, you are bound to wonder if heads of States simply ratify it and then do nothing to uphold it. And you're probably thinking that our president would do the same thing. But he's leaving soon, so urge your Senators to ratify CEDAW. It'd be nice.

Jerry Falwell Died Today

Can't say I'm celebrating. Can't say I'm sad.

There IS a Time When Politics Should Come First

In a presidential campaign!

NOW sent me a petition to sign to stop sexist campaign coverage.

So . . . just sign it.

As If We Needed More Evidence of Heterosexism = Misogyny

House Passes Expanded Hate Crime Bill, but White House Opposes Hate Crime Bill. And I just loved the White House reaction.

"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government." (emphasis mine)

The job's just too big to be done! Sorry, ladies! Sorry, homosexuals! Because people hate you so much, we can't protect you. Oh, and extremist Christians wouldn't be allowed to practice their faith, because the foundation of Christianity is apparently gay-bashing.

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.