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.

Women's Health Flung To The Side

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

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

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

Good luck to you all.

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

The Act’s failure to allow the banned procedure’s use where ” ‘necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the [mother’s] health,’ ” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 327-328, does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right.

Congratulations, ladies. You don't have a right to protect your health, so sayeth your new gynecologists!

TRAPping the trappers

This is awesome.

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

Apathy Towards Domestic Violence Obvious in VA Tech Massacre

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

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

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

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

So About The Duke Rape Case. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Birthday, Megan!!!!

Sorry I'm late :(

It's Not Partisan when It's Conservative

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

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

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

So about "The 300". . .

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

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

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

Yeah. Nothing worthwhile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a Lazy Blogger Too

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

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

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

Great News!

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

Read it and weep, fundies:

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

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

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

On Compromise. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, Just As An Update. . .

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

A Woman with a Good Taste in Ties

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

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

Hmm.

Male priviliege? One. Women? Zero.

Great.

Hero and Zero of the Week

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

They, dearies, are heroes.

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

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

Are Women Too Aggressive? Only When They "Nag"

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

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

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

(Emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts About International Family Planning

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

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

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

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

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

Blog Against Sexism Day 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________

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

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

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

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

Check this out:

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

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

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

A Post About How I Can't Post

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

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

Wouldn't It Be Great . . .

If this happened to every sexist asshole on the planet?

But honestly, I'd settle for this.

South Dakota State Senate Committee KO's New Abortion Ban

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

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

Of Special Interest To Me

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

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

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

Check out the museum website!

Ponderings Coupled with PostSecret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy V-Day!

Take Action for Women in Mariana Islands

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

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

Female Freedom?

My sister sent me this site.

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

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

Wal-Mart Faces Billion-Dollar Lawsuit for Sex Discrimination

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

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

Check out this guy.

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

Going there would just be beating a dead horse.

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

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

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

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

In response, I received this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I Must Have Been Mistaken

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

SD's New But Not Improved Abortion Ban

As if an abortion ban can ever be improved!

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-life Sentence.

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

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

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

Tell Hillsborough County That Victimizing Victims Isn't Okay

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

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

Blog for Choice Broke the Record This Year!

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

Times When I Really Love My City

This story truly has it all.

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

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

Check out this quote from the victim's mother:

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

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

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

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

So, let's see:

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

Told you it had it all.

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

Those Wimpy Bitches

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


Here is said stereotypical article.

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

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

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

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

Give us presents!

It's Feminists to the Rescue's birthday!

For our birthday, you should sign this petition:

www.licensetochoose.org

Don't Abort Jesus!

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


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

Blogging for Reproductive Justice, Blogging for Choice

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

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

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

Happy Blog for Choice Day, ya'll.

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

Roe v. Wade: My Personal Department of Homeland Security

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

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

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

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

Ha Ha Ha-Ha Ha! *raspberry!*

Few heed Operation Rescue's call for abortion protest

Why Are People Voting For These Guys?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Sexist Part of Your Complete Breakfast

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

Video Game Bitches Ain't Shit

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

Jack The Ripper!

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

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