Why Am I Pro-choice?

I was asked this question on a forum I visit. Since I haven't posted anything in a while, I figured I'd post my reply here, just in case anyone is searching for any reasons as to why they should be pro-choice instead of anti-choice.

I think it mostly has to do with the fact that I think women are human people capable of being treated like people who can make their own moral decisions rather than children who must be monitored and told what to do "for their own good". I don't think women should have to be forced to donate their bodily resources when no man is ever forced to. I don't think rape victims should be treated worse than their rapists just because they happen to have a uterus. I don't think women should be punished for enjoying or having sex, and yes, that goes for non-procreational sex. I'm not worried about the human race becoming endangered or extinct nor am I worried about poor infertile people not having any spawn, and I'm certainly not willing to subject women to uterine slavery to make sure they can have the white/male/healthy baby they're so desperately searching for while they "ZOMG would love to have any baby!1". I don't think it's fair to compare a woman and a fetus. They're not on the same level. A woman is a sentient human being. She is not potential. She is physically independent. I do not believe in magical invisible sex contracts that make women responsible for carrying any and every pregnancy by virtue of having a uterus and the need to have sex. Because yes, it is a biological drive, even for us women. I've read the stories of death-bed confessions and clandestine abortions not only from this country in the pre-Roe era, but also from other countries where abortion is still illegal. I see no reason why we should subject women to that for other people's fantasies of fetal personhood. I am a feminist and I care about women. I know that they are individuals with individual beliefs, situations, goals, bodies, and wants. I realize that being anti-choice in any situation creates a harmful hierarchy among women and especially between women and their doctors. There is no way to successfully implement exceptions, and I'm not willing to gamble with women's lives to protect the egos and misogynistic, out-dated traditions of patriarchy and those who would seek to uphold it whether consciously or not. Women have a right to make their own reproductive choices. If they want to be childfree, they should not have to be celibate until menopause. It's ridiculous to expect and it's misogynistic to implement. If they want to have 12 children, they should be able to choose to do so. The fact of the matter is, women should be treated like the people they are, and that requires trusting them enough to be able to make their own decisions.

So there you have it folks. Take your pick of the reasons. There certainly are many.

The Amber & Jen Project is Taking It to the Streets

The Amber & Jen Project was started by NARAL Pro-Choice America to get people to the polls to make Congress pro-choice again. We need 6 victories in the Senate and 15 victories in the House to make this happen. Amber & Jen gives us tips on how to spread the word with their new video!

In case you were wondering, the song playing in the background as Amber posts the flier in that record store is "Till It Happens to You" by Corinne Bailey Rae. *thumbs up*

New Jersey Politics Makes My Head Hurt

I read this interesting article about women politicians in New Jersey and how they haven't exactly been successful. Women in politics makes many people from all 50 states recoil in horror, but this article raised some interesting points.

"Women lead three New Jersey universities - Princeton, Montclair State and the College of New Jersey. The Garden State also ranks 11th in the number of women-owned businesses.

"Three of the seven justices on New Jersey's Supreme Court are women, including the chief justice, Deborah Poritz. Women account for a quarter of all judges in the state's courts - 106 of 440.

"New Jersey ranks sixth in the percentage of women with college degrees, placing it close to Colorado, Massachusetts and Maryland.

"In contrast, New Jersey drops to 31st in the nation in electing women to state and federal offices, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Utah and Texas rank higher; Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee lower. South Carolina is at the bottom."

New Jersey and other states are filled with intelligent women who are competent leaders. What is it with some people that they don't trust women to run the government? And what is it with very few women running for office? I don't get it. Let's discuss it together!

ZOMG!

It's our favorite feminist's birthday!

Happy birthday, Emily!

Feminists As The "Crazy-Assed Bitches of Society".

So I've got this ongoing story on this blog. If you're a reader of this blog (how few there are!), then you might remember a guy I mentioned a long time ago named "Bob". Well, this is still ongoing drama, so I shall now give the latest installment, because let me tell you, the saga gets better and so much more misogynistic.

Bob and I happen to have the same lunch. I don't talk to him and try at every moment not to ackonwledge his existence, because if I did acknowledge his existence, Jeebus knows it wouldn't have to be for long, if you know what I mean.

So, this little story doesn't involve Bob directly, thank goodness, however, it still involves something that feminists face every day.

Allow me to first tell the story:

I am sitting at lunch with a few of my friends. My friend that we called "Pam" in the first couple of posts about Bob was there, and as you all know she hates Bob just as much as I do. So, we're sitting there laughing it up with my boyfriend, another girlfriend of ours, and two other guys that I don't know quite as well but they're acquaintances of mine. So, somehow the conversation turns to Bob and how much Pam and I hate him. The question of "OMG Why?" comes up of course, so we explain. Now the good part starts. After our explanation, we are told that Bob is "still a really cool kid" and we really shouldn't hate him. I mean, after all, it's cool to sexually humiliate chicks, right? Or, if a guy does that, well, it's doesn't really matter, does it? Not only is Bob a cool guy, however, but he's also funny! He is so hilarious that these two boys just couldn't imagine why I didn't like Bob.

So I called them on that shit. I told them that, sorry, but sexually humiliating women was definitely NOT funny nor was it cool, and anyone who could do something like that is not someone who deserves any human interaction, let alone any sort of praise. It's like saying that a rapist is still a really cool guy. If I had been in the mood to Godwin, I probably would have asked them if they thought Hitler was still a pretty cool guy (You know, vegetarian, neat mustache, etc.) even though he murdered 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

So, once that was established, it came down to the age-old "I don't believe you" defense. Suddenly, the story that these two guys had swallowed moments before was no longer plausible. I was a lying crazy bitch who hated this poor innocent funny-man for no good reason. Damn me to Hell.

So, there are two issues here that I want to discuss. I would hope that everyone could pinpoint them, but if not, here they are: First, it was just fine and dandy that this guy had sexually humiliated his girlfriend (he was still part of the good ol' boys club) and once again there is no male opposition to outright misogyny. Second, when all else fails, invoke the ideology of inherent female dishonesty. OF COURSE the womenz are just embellishing/don't know what they're talking about/outright making up stories.

I was quite bewildered by this. I've spoken about this at length with my other friends who are guys. I had a huge blow-up with my boyfriend about it because of his own passive attitude toward this guy, despite the fact that he was the one that was in a position to actually make a dent in Bob's idiocy. I talked to a frequent commenter and reader of this blog who happens to be my friend, and he has nothing but disdain for this kid. He believed me. My boyfriend was there! (As mentioned before, he was also at the lunch table today, so that was certainly brought up in major pwnage of the two guys that were in disbelief that Bob could have possible been the douchebag he was). Pam believed me when I told her about it. All of the girls I told believed me. It was only the two guys that were shocked, shocked to find out that perhaps their buddy wasn't as wonderful and funny as they thought he was (although they still maintain that the hilarity continues, apparently misogyny only makes the humor grow stronger).

So, once again, I present to you "Feminists as the Crazy-assed Bitches of Society". We're lying when we say sexism exists. Just thought I'd let you know.

P.S.-This post is probably entirely incoherent. I've been laid out with a virus for the past two days. Cut me some slack.

Misogynistic Boy Causes Ruckus on Facebook

A young man called Brody Ruckus created a group on Facebook called "If this group reaches 100,000 my girlfriend will have a threesome. In the group's description, Brody claims that he has been asking his girlfriend to have a threesome with him several times, and she has always refused. The couple supposedly made a bet that if his group becomes the largest group on Facebook, they will have a threesome. I joined this group instead.

I can't wait for this group to become the largest on Facebook and for his girlfriend to surprise him with another dude as the third person.

Who the Shit is This Bible-Thumper?

NARAL Pro-Choice America must think I live in New Jersey's 5th District, because they just sent me this video of Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) expressing his anti-choice views and urged me to donate to Paul Aronshon's campaign. Check out the (I assume) lady with the "I Regret My Abortion" sign. I regret not taking Lactaid before eating pizza. Overturn Dairy v. Wade!

UPDATE 9/21/06: As if this isn't bad enough, Stephen Colbert just profiled New Jersey's 5th on the segment called "Better Know a District" on The Colbert Report. Guess who didn't agree to the interview? Scott Garrett. What a robot.

Potential Rape Law Reform in Pakistan Causes a Stir

Here's a heart-warming story of blind nationalism and religious fanatacism *barfs*

Currently, Pakastani law requires testimony from four witnesses to prove a rape case. How often are there four witnesses to a rape (four people raping the same woman doesn't count)? Women who can't prove they were raped are considered guilty of adultery, which is punishable by death. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's party introduced a bill to change this law by doing away with the 4-witness requirement. Members of Pakistan's National Assembly threaten to walk out if the law is changed. "We will render every sacrifice for the protection of the Shariah (traditional Islamic) laws," Islamic coalition leader Maulana Fazalur Rahman said Tuesday.

UPDATE 9/13/06

"Pakistan rape reform fails after Musharraf caves in"

*&%$^&*$$#&(&%$# VICTIM BLAMERS!!!!!

Okay, so this isn't actually news, but it just pisses me off to no end when people blame rape on the victim for stupid crap like what she was wearing. Megan and I often troll around the-n.com message boards. Sorting out misogynists is our raison d'être, and we're kind of notorious for being those feminists who wouldn't be so uptight if we just experienced the beauty of forced pregnancy between 16 seconds of fucking through a hole in the sheet and that walk in the park that is childbirth. Here's what some girl said after another girl informed her that rape isn't a choice:

"Well sorry to break it to you, but most rape victims draw attention to themsel[ve]s by the clothes they [wear], I've seen the news reports, 13 year old girls dressing, and acting like they're 18, I'm not saying all rape victims are the same, but most of them draw attention to themsel[ve]s."

After Megan and I both figuratively karate-chopped her head off, I reported the post, and it's been taken down. Feminists to the Rescue indeed!

And thanks to Drew for sending me the cartoon a million years ago.

Billie Jean King Honored by Having a U.S. Tennis Center Bear Her Name

For those who are not tennis buffs like I am, Billie Jean King is awesome. She has been an advocate for recognition and respect for women's tennis for her entire career, and has also been an activist against sexism and for women's rights off the court. Her greatest claim to fame is whipping Bobby Riggs' ass after he made a number of sexist comments and claimed that he could beat most of the top women even though he was a 55-year-old man.

She now has a tennis center named after her. A ceremony was held tonight, with tennis greats like Venus Williams, John McEnroe, Chris Evert, and Jimmy Connors. It was pretty neat. I'm very glad that she has gotten this recognition, as she has contributed greatly to women's tennis and tennis in general. I hope this will lead to even more recognition for women in the sport, and in sports in general. As we all know, Wimbledon has still yet to pay men and women equally.

Plan B Over the Counter But Still Limited

The FDA finally approved OTC-status of Emergency Contraception, also known as Plan B and the archaic "morning-after pill." As we all know, the sluts only come out at night. Unfortunately, over-the-counter Emergency Contraception is only available to women 18 and over, even though the greater medical community accepts that this drug can be taken by any female of reproductive age. Girls 17 and under will need a doctor's note to take advantage of Plan B.

Although this seems like a victory, it is a very minor one. With doctors still denying patients prescriptions for Emergency Contraception and other prescription birth control methods and pharmacists refusing to fill the prescriptions, there are still huge barriers that need to be broken for complete and fair access to reproductive services. Several acts have been introduced to increase access to and coverage of birth control, prevent unintended pregnancies, protect abortion rights, and support healthy families. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) recently sent me a list of all of the legislation he supports regarding reproductive rights.

Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Responsibility, and Opportunity Act: "This bill would increase funding for comprehensive and medically-accurate sex education programs and develop classroom and after-school initiatives to help young people build positive life skills."

Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraception Coverage Act: This act "would prohibit health plans from restricting" prescription birth control.

Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act: This "would guarantee a patient's prescription is filled without delay or harassment. This bill strikes a careful balance by allowing a pharmacist to refuse to dispense contraception, but requires the pharmacy to ensure that there is someone present who will fill the prescription."

Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emeregencies Act: This act would "require hosptials that receive federal funds to provide information on and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape."

Freedom of Choice Act: "This bill would forbid government interference in a woman's right to make dceisions about family planning and her reproductive health."

MOTHERS Act: This act would "ensure that new moms and their families are educated about postpartum depression and that mothers are screened for symptoms and receive necessary services.

Contact your Congresspeople and tell them that you support these acts and reproductive freedom. Science before politics!

Career Girls Ruin Marriages, Homes, and Lives Apparently!

The original source for this article no longer exists, so I posted it at my other, quieter blog Womb of Doom. I know it hurts, but I suggest you read the whole thing.

The author of this diatribe, Michael Noer, makes many outrageous claims:

Men who marry women with careers "run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage."

"[P]rofessional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it."

"[W]omen--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner."

"[T]he more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you."

"[M]arrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research)."

"The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you."

"Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat. And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease."

"So why not just stay single? . . . . "[A] good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids."

I was waiting for him to conclude with a statement of men's oppression by these wicked career women. I mean, if he marries a career woman, he totally suffers from various illnesses, incompetent offspring, and a dirty house. Yet if he doesn't get married, he'll contract herpes and commit suicide by mixing anti-depressants and alcohol. Poor men! However, this article provides a solution for these oppressed men: Marry June Cleaver. Done and done!

To the astute feminist reader, this article further proves women's oppression. Women who want to have fulfilling, well-paying jobs sacrifice their happiness because they have to juggle being a woman, being a wife, and being a mother. Oh, did I just repeat myself? Women have to take on both traditional masculine and feminine roles to ensure the well-being of themselves, their children, and their seemingly incompetent yet somehow socially superior husband. The possible solution of allocating domestic duties equally between husband and wife in order to alleviate the stress that comes with being a full-time participant in both the private and public spheres never occurred to Michael Noer or the other penises that control this country, probably because he's too busy worrying about how oppressed he is. On the other hand, women who choose to stay home, or are told to by their paranoid husbands who read Forbes, play the invisible mom role, and are both taken for granted and openly told that their work means nothing because they don't get paid day after day after day.

But hey, at least she'll live to be 100 in her happy, healthy, traditional marriage.

Teacher of 54 Years Fired for Being a Woman

A minister of a Baptist church fired a female Sunday school teacher, Mary Lambert, in Watertown, NY after realizing that the Bible should be taken literally as a guide on how to oppress women. Rev. Timothy LaBouf sites 1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." Even worse, this man is a member of the Watertown's "non-partisan" City Council. He says this one sexist belief won't interfere with his decisions made as a councilman, since he believes that women can do any job she wants, as long as it's outside the Church. I don't buy it.

You can contact LaBouf by callling (315) 788-7363 or by e-mailing him at TLaBouf@watertown-ny.gov

Ghost-like apparitions who have no wrinkles and smell like laundry detergent, er, women. Patriarchy's wet dream!

I watch a lot of TV. If I'm being honest, I watch too much TV. But in my television watching, I often notice certain paradigms portrayed in advertising. I know, I know, we've already had posts on advertising and how big of a shaft it gives to women and gender equality. And good posts at that. :)

But certain commercials bother me, and this is my place to rant about them. So, rant I will.

Commercial That Bothers Me #1: Suave.

This commercial bothers me for two main reasons. It buys into the less woman-friendly patriarchal gender roles and it further demeans the women within said gender roles, whether they're there by choice or not.

Now for the description:

An invisible person is doing a variety of things. They are pushing a grocery cart, feeding a baby, carrying laundry upstairs, pulling a child away from a television screen, picking out a man's socks, and cooking dinner. Then you see that the invisible person is the, I guess, ghost of a woman who would be doing those things, but she has somehow escaped long enough to wash her hair with Suave products and become beautiful again.

Honestly, I don't even think this commercial NEEDS feminist analysis to seem really bad. But, I've been dying to do it because I "argh" at the screen every time it comes on.

I'm just wondering, why is it that said man in this commercial cannot pick out his own socks? Is it too hard to open a drawer and pick them up? Does the ghost woman put them on his feet, too? Once again, why is it that women have to make up for "male weakness" by being domestic slaves? Why is the ghost woman the only one to feed the baby? Why is she the only one doing laundry?

And now to my last question: What makes women who do these things not beautiful? Why do they have to spend their money on beauty products to be "beautiful"? I don't see anyone telling the man who's socks she picked out that he's not beautiful because he works for a living.

/rant #1.

Commercial That Bothers Me #2: Tide

This commercial bothers me for one reason, but it's a big bother.

Description: A woman is shown feeding her baby, with a voiceover of "smelling like a mom" or some variant. Then, after she uses Tide on her clothing, she is shown in a romantic scene with a man and the voiceover changes to "smelling like a woman".

This bothers me. I'm wondering why a woman can't "smell like a mom" and "smell like a woman" at the same time. It's a classic example of the trap set for women by patriarchy. If you don't procreate on cue, you're just a floozy slutbag. If you do, you're no longer sexually desirable and you stink, apparently. Again, this is turning women into simple roles rather than people who have numerous facets to their personality, not to mention people who can display all of those facets at the same time. Motherhood isn't shameful, and it isn't the antithesis to womanhood. I see no reason why it should have to be hidden from men like it's "unsexy".

Commercials That Bother Me #3: Wrinkle Cream

There isn't one specific commercial for this rant. It's all of them. I don't care how they're displayed, constructed, introduced, any of it. I don't care about that.

I'm worried about the concept of wrinkle cream more so than the commercials themselves, although the commercials are misleading and dishonest, considering they seem to make anti-wrinkle attitudes out to be the ideas of women as opposed to the ideas of the men they're sleeping with or the culture around them. Every time I see a wrinkle commercial I ask my mom a question and I'm sure she's tired of hearing it.

Why the hell don't MEN have to make sure they never have wrinkles? Women make less on the dollar, and they have to spend much more on grooming and making sure they never age, which is another impossible feat. Women always have to be given impossible feats to accomplish, and it boggles my mind.

And now my huge rant is over. It probably didn't make much sense, but in all actuality, neither do any of these commercials or concepts. That's all I have to say about THAT before my head explodes.

Poor Women's BETTER Access to Contraception Could Save US $1.5 Billion

The Alan Guttmacher Institute recently conducted a study* estimating the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, and unplanned births that can be prevented if there was equal access to contraception provided by Medicaid. As of now, Medicaid can cover prenatal and limited postpartum care for poor families that are otherwise uneligible for Medicaid benefits, which are families who earn less than 133% of the poverty level. Some states have expanded their benefits to include family planning services to families who make up to 200% of the federal poverty threshold with favorable results, since pregnancy-related care is much more expensive than pregnancy-reducing measures (surprise!). The study also estimates how much federal money can be saved if Medicaid benefits expanded to include the same population's access to contraception. According to the results, the following could happen three years after the implimentation of the program:

• "secure women’s access to contraception and allow some women who were using less effective contraceptive methods to switch to more effective methods;
• "prevent between 375,000–720,000 unplanned pregnancies, 180,000–345,000 unplanned births and 150,000–290,000 abortions;
• "generate significant cost savings ranging from $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion for federal and state governments."

*Yes, the article is 84 pages long. The Executive Summary is an overview of everything, and the first four chapters go more in depth. Everything else is tables and junk.

New Survey Shows Majority of Voters Support Candidates Who Respect Privacy

Whooda thunk?!

A study designed and conducted by Lake Research Partners for NARAL Pro-Choice America surveyed 1,000 registered voters age 18 and over on their views of the politicization of abortion and other reproductive services. Here's a summary of the results:

77% agree overal and 56% strongly agree that "government and politicians should stay out of a woman's personal and private decison of whether or not to have an abortion."

64% of voters would favor a pro-choice candidate who believes that the government and politicians "should not interfere in a decision best made by a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God." 65% would favor a pro-life candidate with the same stance.

8 in 10 voters are tired of the politicization of abortion.

65% are unfavorable towards candidates who support the refusal of emergency contraception by pharmacists. 61% are unfavorable towards candidates who do not support emergency contraception being given to rape and incest victims in hospitals. 61% don't favor candidates who don't support public funding for birth control and family planning services.

65% disapprove of Louisiana's and South Dakota's extremely restrictive abortion laws.

6 out of 10 voters disapprove of the fact that "Congress has voted 145 times in the past 10 years to restrict reproductive health services, including abortion, birth control, and other forms of contraception."

For full results, method of obtaining results, and some of the questions that were asked to the participants, check this out.

So baybees are entitled to use women's bodies, but only if men are done with them?

A new study has just come out. It states that, surprise surprise, less than 4 years into marriage, less than half of 30-year-old women wanted regular sex. Now, the bovious reason for this, for anyone who is normal and NOT stupid, would be "Oh, women are probably tired because they work harder than men, on average". Well, knowing that this is the logical, most correct response, let's take a dive into Wingnutland!

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach knows the secret to making married couples have more sex: Give breasts back to their rightful owners, men. He says that women who breastfeed their children make their breasts into something useful, and that turns men off. The minute a baby touches a woman's boob, it's no longer appealing as a sex object, and thus, men no longer find their wives appealing.

This is a wonderful example of male entitlement, not to mention the very strong existence of mixed messages being sent to women. From one angle, they're bad mommies if they don't breastfeed, and from another, they're bad sex-slaves if they do. So now Boteach has created a world where women must choose between their children and their spouses. It's ridiculous, it's misogyny, and it's completely incorrect. There is absolutely no truth to the notion that women's breasts are no longer appealing if they breastfeed with them. Not only that, but that shouldn't matter anyway! Men do not have breasts. They cannot get them through marriage. Sorry, Rabbi.

Amanda at Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister have more on this topic. I just couldn't help but touch on it myself it made me so sick to my stomach.

Support Dr. Shirin Ebadi & the Center for the Defense of Human Rights

Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Shirin Ebadi is the founder of Iran's Center for the Defense of Human Rights. This program is in danger of being ended by the Iranian government, claiming the organization is illegal because it supposedly does not have the proper permit. According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, it is not against the law for social organizations in Iran to operate without a permit. Even so, the CDHR has requested a permit several times but received no response from the Iranian government.

To support Dr. Ebadi's noble humanitarian work, contact the United Nations and the Iranian government to let the CDHR continue to exist. For more information, you can check out Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Nobel Women's Initiative.

Support the REAL Act . . . Please.

Moving in with your boyfriend is like . . . .

• test-driving marriage.
• totally awesome!
• flushing your life down the toilet?

Well, that's what Pro-Knowledge.org, a part of the rampant crisis pregnancy center provider Care-Net, wants you to think. This website provides abstinence-only propaganda in place of truthful information about sex, sexuality, contraception, and STDs. Their campaign is directed at teenage girls, because everybody knows no amount of sex-ed can possibly benefit guys, even if it is false. Or maybe they just think girls are naive enough to believe it.

The possibility that this garbage is taught to our middle and high school students and the certainty that abstinence-only education causes more harm than good makes me very anxious about the future of our society. I should be thankful that this sort of thing doesn't literally scare the pants off me; that might be mistaken as an open invitation to my vagina.

To support accurate information about sex being taught in American public schools, urge your Representatives to pass the Responsible Education About Life (REAL Act). I'm proud to say that one of my state's Senators, Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), is a co-sponser of this act. Protect our youth from unintended pregnancy, STDs, and right-wing politics!

Gender Equality According to Hummer

How nice it is that Megan warned you all, although I was looking forward to barging in. I guess I'll introduce myself. I'm Emily posting as FEMily! I'm 21, and I'll be starting graduate school in the fall, which means I'll be a student by night and hopefull a feminazi all day!

I was going to write about these Hummer commercials that I've been seeing lately in my other blog, but they made a slight change to one of them. Despite the change, I can still bitch about it. Huzzah! In case you're confused about which Hummer commercials I'm talking about, here's a description.

One commercial stars a mother playing with her young son at the park. A heart-warming scene indeed! Then she realizes that motherhood in public is unbecoming, so she races to the nearest GM dealer, trades in her mini van that just screams "Mom Mobile," and buys a shiny new Hummer. The commercial ends with Hummer me to "get my girl on." I guess that means buy something that'll expel more carcinogens into the air my hypothetical children breathe.

The other feautures a young man buying a supply of vegetables and tofu at the grocer's check-out counter. He looks behind him to see another man buying more manly groceries of red meat and beer. Of course, the vegetarian feels his masculinity has been threatened. I'm sure in the micro cosm of "Patriarchy at the Grocery Store" such a manly man would be gossipping to all of his friends about "that vegetarian with a penis" in between tearing through a bloody steak and chugging a Bud Light. Naturally, our bean curd-loving protaganist trades in his small, fuel-efficient auto for a Hummer behind the slogan "Reclaim your manhood." This last bit was eventually changed to "Restore the balance," probably after they donated a large sum to The National Right to Life.

Even with the change of the commercial aimed towards men who like tofu, both commercials are still sexist for the simple fact that they exist. For the first commercial, a conflicting message that is sent to every female in this country is reinforced: While motherhood is something to be desired by every woman and girl, it is also a life path that is suppressive; a woman can't be a mom and the person she was before she was a mom (unless she buys a Hummer, that is). As for the second commercial, taking out the word "manhood" does not fix anything if they replace it with a phrase that is equally patriarchal and the overall themes of the commercial remain. The belief that men who don't eat meat are somehow lesser men is still a motivating factor in buying a Hummer. Driving the Hummer "restores the balance" by doing a "manly" activity to cancel out eating his chick food. I mean, if he can't get cancer on his lean protein and high antioxidant diet, he might as well get it from breathing in smog!

Don't take my word for it, buddies. You can see the commercials on their official website!